8000 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 0:01pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Cybele, I actually do not disagree with your view that in *part* the violent wishes of other nations arise from American foreign policy and actions. However, with that said, I have a few points 1/ This one is personal, but I hope you won't take it the wrong way. Whatever, your political and kammic beliefs, it would have been more sensitive of you to first express sympathy for those who were killed and the families that were suffering. You did not make clear in any of your posts that you cared about these people. Don't you think that was an omission on your part? 2/ Once you had expressed some sympathy towards the people involved, it would be appropriate for you to point out all the other people who have suffered, partly because of U.S. policies, but certainly from a lot of other national politics that the U.S. is not responsible for. The U.S. has some policies that have caused pain, but why would you not condemn the Taliban, which causes horrific suffering to its people every day, Saddam Hussein, who has a hobby of burning people alive and who has tried to obliterate the Kurds and others who fight for freedom in his land? Don't you think it is an expression of prejudice to focus on the U.S. as the international oppressor and pay no attention to the horrific dictators throughout the world who are oppressing their own people? It seems prejudiced and unbalanced to me. 3/ You say that the suffering of others is not reported in the news, but U.S. suffering creates a big media event. What about Bosnia and Kosovo? When the European powers failed to stop the genocide in their back yard, the U.S. stepped in and is still there today, keeping the peace. In that case, they defended Muslims against Serbs who tried to desimate them through genocide. What? No appreciation for the U.S. role here? Only criticism is allowed for the 'evil superpower'? 4/ Osama bin Laden and his associates are not freedom fighters. They are fundamentalist murderers. Why do you not hold *them* responsible for their own actions, instead of putting all the focus on the U.S.? I have to conclude that you are more sympathetic to terrorists than you are to ordinary citizens throughout the world. Perhaps you have developed the mistaken notion, given your affiliation with the philosophy of Che Guevara, that anyone who hates the U.S. must be 'okay', because the U.S. is the one and only enemy of freedom. If that is the case, it is a form of delusion. The situation is far more complicated than that. It is true that the U.S. destroyed the one shining example of working socialism in Latin America, the government of Allende in Chile. That is horrible. But the other examples, particularly that of Castro's oppressive regime, who betrayed Che and had him murdered. don't exactly shine with purity. With that said, feel free to respond, but if you wish to continue on this subject, I think at this point we should take it off list and handle it privately for the benefit of all. Best, Robert E. ===================================== --- Cybele Chiodi wrote: > > Dear Dan > Dear group > > I understand that for an American citizen the > emotional contents of this terroristic episode are > particularly shocking and intense; certainly much more > that for somebody who is not 'directly' involved even > being sympathetic. > Nevertheless this is not a justification to > misinterpret what I commented, whether you agree or > disagree with it. > I wish to clarify and be listened without prejudice > but I suppose is not feasible, too early, too 'raw the > wounds' as Howard expressed. > I never intended any 'personal' insinuation that > anybody in this tragedy 'deserved' such pain. > Neither I attempted to penetrate the misteries of > kamma making assertions I could not be clear-sighted > about. > I only expressed my point of view observing the > situation and whether you like or dislike it I am not > going to 'lie' to recover 'popularity'. > > Response in the context: > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > America' when this tragedy is a result of > > American > > > > imperialism all over the world > > > > No. It is the result of an intense hatred and > > ignorance. I can't > > imagine the cetasikas arising and passing away in > > the planning and > > execution of the attacks. > > Dan this hatred and ignorance were in the deeds of > american politics all the same not only in the mind of > who planned and executed this attack. > What doesn't means I have no compassion for the people > involved. > However it seems that anything regarding America > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't get > all that publicity yet endure devastating suffering > all the same are neglected. > This certainly doesn't diminish the sorrow and grief > of Americans but is a fact to consider in my opinion. > And I have the right to express freely my opinion even > if is not 'politically correct' for you. > Too easy blame others, too hard and painful consider > the political mistakes (equally fruit of hatred, > greedy and ignorance) that conduce to such clamorous > extremes. > > > > And my friends who work in Manhattan really didn't > > "deserve" to be > > attacked. Vipaka isn't necessarily proportional. > > Dan, who 'deserves' ever being hurt, suffering > injustice or whatever pain one may have to face? > But there are seeds of violence who bears fruits of > violence and I believe that this tragedy is one of the > consequences of all this 'ignorance and hatred' in > international politics. > I was not exactly considering the results of kamma of > your friends and I know very well that vipaka is not > necessarily proportional. > But a nation as an individual has kammic > responsabilities in my view. > And if a nation commit violence cannot expect > indulgence from another nation particularly if > actually we are speaking of fundamentalists, radical > and exalted. > I don't 'hate' americans but as I told Robert E. I > have no sympathy for American internationl policy of > continuous interference like in Vietnam who leads to > much more suffering. > I am sorry if this add more burden to your pain but > many of us from the Third World, in South America, in > Africa, in Asia had to suffer a lot as a result of > American interference. > This is a real fact and I am not going to deny > reality. > As I am not insensible or denying your or other people > sufferings in this tragedy. > I am not expecting you to accept my view but I thought > would be fair to clarify my position. > I know this is not going to bring me popularity but I > am not a hypocritical. > > Metta > Cybele > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8001 From: Sarah Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 2:49pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics, But with a Buddhist Focus (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui) Dear Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > > I noticed, while watching the images on TV and on my > computer screen, that interspersed between the moments > of dosa and patigha and moments of karunaa for those > suffering pain and fear, were moments of lobha--for > the beautiful photography of the blue sky and the > billowing clouds of flame and smoke; for the awareness > of my relative personal safety; for the unfolding of > the story; and even moments of none-of-the-above when > hearing a sound or touching something tangible was > predominant for a moment--in those moments, no dosa or > patigha or karunaa at all with regards to these events > (or rather my concepts of them)--just liking or > disliking or indifference to those sense-impingements. Mike, these comments and 'observations'/awareness show (in my opinion, of course) a real development of understanding of the Teachings in daily life. These are the paramatha dhammas that make up our life that should be known. Even when we have the idea of turning on the TV or checking the newspaper, it's lobha already, wanting to follow the news, wanting to see the pictures, hear the stories, watch the 'movie' unfold. I had to leave home very early this morning, but after checking messages here, still couldn't resist quickly checking CNN for the latest, even though I knew it would be a condition for more dosa......it's so very natural and so useful to begin to 'see' the cittas at these times. We can begin to see how the world, the horrors, all that we hold dear, just exist in this one moment of seeing or visible object or lobha or dosa and then gone. As you suggested recently, no matter whether we like sitting in a lotus/cross-legged position or are jumping up and down in dismay, awareness can only ever be at the present moment. > Politics are so beside the point. What causes this > kind of conduct, has always caused it? Just > ignorance, aversion and desire--the very causes of > politics themselves and of injustice. The only thing > that even begins to address these root causes is, I > think, The Buddhadhamma. > > The Buddha's last exhortation was, "Vayadhamma > sankhara appamadena sampadetha." "Subject to loss are > conditioned things--try to achieve heedfulness." (my > poor translation). Thank you Mike. yes we're very fortunate to have this opportunity. > > Please excuse my rambling, Pls ramble on...;-))) Sarah 8002 From: Sarah Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 3:20pm Subject: ... But with a Buddhist Focus -Christine Dear Christine, --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > What an oasis of Dhamma sanity this list is. Sometimes it is at 'traumatic' times that our understanding of dhamma is really tested.... > Below is a sample of .......(someone else) > There are many precepts I cannot keep, and in this situation I am > weak when the idea of a non-violent response is proposed. As we've been discussing here, we may have no difficulty following the precepts when everything is going our way, but what about when we're really tested? > Your post below Sarah would have been met with virulent hostility > and verbal violence directed personally at you because you were > not 'compassionate enough.' Any mention of vipaka would have been > termed 'sick'. As Rob E wrote, we need to learn to speak wisely. Sometimes silence is the most helpful response too. Most people on dsg have studied quite a lot of dhamma and so for many it may be appropriate to be reminded that that seeing, hearing, contact through the body sense too are all vipaka. There's nothing that can prevent vipaka arising now. When I talk to other non-buddhist friends in New York or the gym, then mostly I just show sympathy and listen to see if I can help in other ways. > Some of us only had > enough courage to try to stop the demonizing of Dhamma brothers and > sisters, and are now left despising ourselves because we could not > stand more publicly for what the Buddha taught. It's not always the right time...maybe later you can add something helpful. Now, Christine, 'despising ourselves' sounds like accumulating more dosa to me...;-)) > > I cry for the physical, and emotional hurt and damage to individual > people and their lives, to a psychologically and emotionally damaged > nation and its shaken view of itself and the world, but mostly I cry > for the shattering of my understanding of Practice and the feeling I > once had of refuge in a world wide group of Dhamma followers. Christine, these are very natural reactions, but we can begin to see the difference between moments of true compassion and metta which are so few and far between (and don't shed any tears or unpleasant feelings at all) and the many, many moments of dosa, no matter what has conditioned it. May I suggest that it is the former rather than the latter that will help you help the others? Like Rob E also suggested, we don't need to feel shocked by reactions of ignorance. Aren't we all beginners with so very little understanding most of the time? Just because we may call ourselves 'Dhamma followers' doesn't mean that we don't cry, get angry or experience shock. So this is why the refuge in Dhamma always comes back to 'our own' understanding now. Metta and many thanks for your comments, Christine. I'm sure you help many, many people in your own way. Sarah 8003 From: KennethOng Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 5:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike the book title "A Treasury of Mahayana Sutras" Selections from the Maharatnakuta Sutra. This are translated from the Chinese by the Buddhist Association of the United States regards Kenneth Ong "m. nease" wrote: Hi Kenneth, Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, still don't know quite what to make of this. Could you possible give the location in the tipitaka of the original, or the Pali title? Thanks in advance, mike --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Maybe this would help, the sutra, "Elucidation of > Consiousness" translated by Buddhist Association of > the United States" > "Wise Protector, the consciousness in its > self-nature, pervades everywhere [in the body] not > it is not tainted by any part. Although it dwells > in the six sense organs, the six sense objects and > the five aggregates which are defiled, it is not > stained by any of them, it only function though > them. > Wise Protector, a wooden puppet strung up somewhere > can give a variety of perfomances, such as walking, > prancing, jumping, throwing, playing and dancing. > What do you think? By whose power can the wooden > puppet do so? > Wise Protector said to the Buddha "I am not > intelligent enough to know the answer" > The Buddha told Wise Protector "You should know that > it is by the power of the puppeteer. The puppeteer > is out of sight; only the operation of his > intelligence can be seen. Similarly, the body does > everything by the power of consciousness. All > beings in the various planes of existences all > depend on the power of consciousness to act. The > body is exactly like the wooden puppet. > Consiousness is devoid of form and substance but it > upholds all in the dharmahatu; it is fully endowed > with the power of wisdom and can even know events of > past lives" > "Sunlight impartially illuminates the evildoers and > such filthy things as stinking corpses without being > tainted by their foulness. Similarly consciousness > may reside in a pig, a dog or a being of another > miserable planes who eats dirty food, but is stained > by none of them." > "Wise Protector, after leaving the body, the > consciousness [takes birth again] with its good and > evil karmas to undergo other karmic results. The > wind becomes fragrant if it enters a grove of > fragant campaka flowers after coming out of a deep > valley. However if the wind passes through > stinking, dirty place where there are excrement and > corpses, it catches an offensive smell. If the wind > passes through a place which is permeated with both > a fragrant odor and an offensive one, it carries > good and bad odors at the same time, but the > stronger of the two predominates. The wind is > deviod of form or substance. Fragrance and stench > too, have no shape, however the wind can carry both > fragrance and stench far away. The consciousness > takes good and evil karma with it from one body to > another to undergo different karmic results." > Kind regards > Kenneth 8004 From: KennethOng Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 5:58pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics, But with a Buddhist Focus (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui) very well written letter :) Kenneth Ong <> wrote: Dear American members, very glad to hear from Robert E. and Howard - both in cities hit by this tragedy. Hope your friends and family are ok too. This is a letter Amara wrote today about it: > Dear , > > A big warm hug for you and all of us who are victims of this great > tragedy, and you are right, we are still here to have a chance to > practice the brahma vihara and help those whom we are able to, if only > with friendship and understanding, over such great distance. We all > know things happen from causes and only the Buddha could pinpoint the > kamma involved, and that those who performed this bad kamma are and > will be expiating this just as victims and perpetrators of akusala > each day would do. This is the great danger of samsara, I was talking > to Erik who used to work in the area that has been destroyed, (whose > wife is safe, by the way) who was telling me that when he said he > would be coming to Thailand people said he was coming to an unsafe > country. But statistics aside, all that keeps us safe or unsafe are > our individual kamma (kammasakata). Such situations remind us of the > dangers of samsara where no one is really 'safe' despite the illusions > of well being. > > Distance doesn't mean there are less emotional victims, my own mother > who has a heart condition was relatively traumatized from watching the > news (and she is still following the reports closely), even though she > has studied the dhamma for a long time. These news come to us through > the eyes and ears, yet we can't help taking them for people suffering, > most of the time. An opportunity for us to try to practice the brahma > vihara as best we can and accumulate panna wherever possible, again, > we are lucky to have the chance to accumulate kusala in all > situations, even though we might not be able to stand being eaten > alive by a lion. These kinds of things could happen to us any minute > of the day, even when you cross the street, but it doesn't make it > less horrific to the victims and their relatives, and help them as > best we can at least through moral support, as fellow humans > throughout the world. > > May we practice the brahma vihara to the best of our abilities and > reach the end of the dangers of samsara as the Buddha intended in > teaching the dhamma, > > Amara 8005 From: <> Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 6:44pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Dear Cybele, I wonder if we can look at the situation from more of a Buddhist point of view (I am responsible for my own actions) rather than a materialist point of view (someone else is responsible for my actions). > Dan this hatred and ignorance were in the deeds of > american politics all the same not only in the mind of > who planned and executed this attack. Have you considered that when the name of "America" or "United States" comes up, you react with hatred? I don't know that you do, but there is that tone in some of your writings. "'He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me' -- for those who brood on this, hostility isn't stilled." Dhp 3 > However it seems that anything regarding America > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't get > all that publicity yet endure devastating suffering > all the same are neglected. Neglected by whom? Is it the media you hate then? > Too easy blame others, too hard and painful consider > the political mistakes (equally fruit of hatred, > greedy and ignorance) that conduce to such clamorous > extremes. To me it looks like the arising of hatred in every other case: Because of ignorance, hatred arises. It might look like the hatred was caused by some object, that the unpleasant mind states are caused by the great Satan that I and my fellow countrymen are, but really hatred arises through ignorance. > But a nation as an individual has kammic > responsabilities in my view. A nation is an individual what? I don't understand what you mean. > I don't 'hate' americans but as I told Robert E. I > have no sympathy for American internationl policy of > continuous interference like in Vietnam who leads to > much more suffering. What does killing many thousands of innocent people in NYC and Washington D.C. have to do with international policy? Nothing whatsoever. > I am sorry if this add more burden to your pain but > many of us from the Third World, in South America, in > Africa, in Asia had to suffer a lot as a result of > American interference. Now, just what is it that is the cause of your suffering? 8006 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 7:58am Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics, But with a Buddhist Focus (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui) --- cybele chiodi wrote: > > Insightful discourse Robert which I respect but while I don't believe or > encourage violence it happens that I have 'zero sympathy' for American > politics. How about American citizens who are brutally killed? Does that equal 'American politics' to you? Or do you consider Americans human beings? > If you were born on the 'wrong side of America' you could be much more > sympathetic with my opinion. > Sorry to disappoint you. > Hopefully we can agree to disagree on this issue. :-) With all due respect, Cybele, and I certainly respect your right to your opinion and everything else, how do you know where I grew up? I'm not wealthy, I grew up with working people of all backgrounds and races. I know the real people of the U.S., most of them came from Europe and other places around the world, and they're just like anyone you know in your world. They are not the holders of power in the U.S., any more than the Iraqi people support Saddam Hussein. I have protested American imperialism and racism at home and abroad all of my life. I was part of the Civil Rights movement, the movement against the war in Vietnam, I protested American actions in Guatemala and El Salvador. I am not in favor of the way the U.S. does business in a lot of areas. I am aware of what we did in Chile, Iran, Afganistan and in a lot of other places, but if you think it's okay to kill thousands of people who are showing up to their jobs or to kill innocent people who are taking a trip on an airplane, then you are way beyond fighting American politics and you are knee-deep in terrorism. I do not believe that causing more suffering can ever effect positive change. At that point, we do part company, and I believe you also part company with Buddhism, if you believe in violent means to effect political ends. Ahimsa doesn't have political exceptions. Robert 8007 From: Moderators Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 8:16pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Rob E (and all) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > With that said, feel free to respond, but if you wish to continue on this subject, > I think at this point we should take it off list and handle it privately for the > benefit of all. Thanks for cutting things at this point and taking your discussion off-list. May we ask all members to keep any discussion on this topic to dhamma aspects, and to avoid political aspects as far as possible. Thanks for your cooperation. Jon & Sarah 8008 From: Anders Honore Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 10:10pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > > dear anders, > > > > But is it anywhere stated specifically that Nibbana is anatta in the > > Sutta Pitaka? > > > > I found the 'sabbe dhamma anatta' and in Mulapariyaya where buddha said > Nibbana is not to be conceived as 'mine' as saying Nibbana is anatta. The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can hardly refer to Nibbana! It's not easy to draw a conclusion from that. > And in another instance buddha says 'Vimutti saraa sabbe dhamma' which means > 'release is the essence of all dhammas'. > This vimutti is another word for nibbana, so I thought when buddha says > 'sabbe dhamma' he includes nibbana in it. Hmm, could you clarify that. I'm not sure I understand what oyou mean. > But now I understand that (after reading the sanskrit mahaparinirvana sutra) > the word 'self' points to a somewhat different context in Mahayana. > Many thanks for you for giving me the opportunity to take a look at Mahayana > texts, which I had not done earlier. > So if I had a mahayanic background and had read that mahaparinirvana sutra > and other texts, those would have driven a different understanding of the > 'bodhi','true self' for this end. Yes. > > I think that certainly has something to do with it. Words meaning > > different things to different people. > > > > Yep, buddha did a great job explaining this fine , 'not-easy-to- comprehend' > dhamma using the worldly language with its inherent shortcomings. True. There's no real understanding to be derived from words. 8009 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 10:50pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS > The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about > everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can > hardly refer to Nibbana! There are? I've seen "sabbe sankhara anicca" and "sabbe sankhara dukkha", but there's a distinction when it comes to "dhamma", because not all dhammas are anicca and dukkha, Nibbana in particular. Hence, "sabbe dhamma anatta". [Dhp. 277-279: http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/s0502m/s0502m-frm.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/20.html] It would be interesting indeed to find "sabbe dhamma anicca"---I wonder how the commentators would explain away something like that! 8010 From: rikpa21 Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:05pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > > The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about > > everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can > > hardly refer to Nibbana! > > There are? I've seen "sabbe sankhara anicca" and "sabbe sankhara > dukkha", but there's a distinction when it comes to "dhamma", because > not all dhammas are anicca and dukkha, Nibbana in particular. Hence, > "sabbe dhamma anatta". [Dhp. 277-279: This lumping of Nibbana in as a dhamma is highly suspect, because it appears to suggests that Nibbana is a "thing"--which is definitely off the mark. Nibbana is merely the absence of greed, hatred, and delusion. To call it a "dhamma" is to almost suggest it's something other than a mere label for an absence, and as such would just be another view to be discarded. So I find this classification of Nibbana as a dhamma one can even talk about in terms of "anatta" to be a highly questionable one. 8011 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear anders and dan, > The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about > everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can > hardly refer to Nibbana! It's not easy to draw a conclusion from that. > well the thing is ,( as we discussed in an early discussion, and as Dan pointed out ) in tipitaka at all instances where the triplet(anicca,dukkha,anatta) appears it comes like sabbe samkhara anicca sabbe samkhara dukkha sabbe dhamma anatta., > > And in another instance buddha says 'Vimutti saraa sabbe dhamma' > which means > > 'release is the essence of all dhammas'. > > This vimutti is another word for nibbana, so I thought when buddha > says > > 'sabbe dhamma' he includes nibbana in it. > > Hmm, could you clarify that. I'm not sure I understand what oyou mean. another phrase in tipitaka is 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' this means 'Release is the essense of all phenomena' vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another word for nibbana. so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to 'sabbe dhamma'( all phenomena ) if I remember the story correctly this is what happened.. Buddha was instructing his disciples. "Monks, the students of the teachers who preach non-dhamma will ask you these question, you should answer like this.." the question is something like this " Your teacher teaches that all things are hollow, have no worth, then what is the meaning of these phenomena? what is the essense of these phenomena?" Buddha says " Those students will try to get you with this question, they will be trying to get your word for a "self", as the essence of phenomena, Then you shoud answer like this, 'Our teacher teaches that vimutti is the 'saara' (essence, worth) of 'sabbe dhamma' '" thats how u should answer if u were asked such a question. rgds, gayan 8012 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:23pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear erik, > This lumping of Nibbana in as a dhamma is highly suspect, because it > appears to suggests that Nibbana is a "thing"--which is definitely > off the mark. well , "thing"s are samkharas, whereas "realities" are dhammas. rgds, gayan 8013 From: rikpa21 Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:42pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > dear erik, > > > > This lumping of Nibbana in as a dhamma is highly suspect, because it > > appears to suggests that Nibbana is a "thing"--which is definitely > > off the mark. > > well , "thing"s are samkharas, > whereas "realities" are dhammas. All "things" are also dhammas. So what exactly does "reality" mean in this case, and how is "reality" different from "thing" in your understanding? The word "reality" has the word "real" in it, after all. I think only of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. Yet there is no such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) 8014 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:56pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS > This lumping of Nibbana in as a dhamma is highly suspect, because it > appears to suggests that Nibbana is a "thing"--which is definitely > off the mark. I would agree that it is off the mark to call Nibbana a thing! I would go even further and say it is off the mark to call citta and cetasikas "things". But I would call citta, cetasika, and Nibbana "dhammas", and this breakdown is well supported in Tipitaka, which I'm sure you are quite well aware of. 8015 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:59pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. Yet there is no > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a > mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence > doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never thought of it like that. Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to work. 8016 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 0:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS > All "things" are also dhammas. So what exactly does "reality" mean in > this case, and how is "reality" different from "thing" in your > understanding? > yep, samkharas belong to the 'set' of dhammas. in my undertanding I equate english word 'thing' with conditioned realities. > The word "reality" has the word "real" in it, after all. I think only > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. >Yet there is no > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a > mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence > doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) > another word for nibbana is 'nirodha', meaning 'No-Rodha', ( as coming in Nirodha sacca) for an example we gan take 'Niroga' which means 'no-desease'. Niroga amounts to 'Healthyness', 'absense of ailments,deseases'. the Niroga , the absence of ailments can have a nature of its own, but its not a thing as 'an ailment'. rgds, gayan 8017 From: Cybele Chiodi Date: Thu Sep 13, 2001 11:33pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Dear Dan Dear group For clarification I am sending this mail to the list but as I don't know if will get 'moderated' and rejected because of the 'political contents' I took the liberty to send it to you privately Dan and also to Robert Epstein as this discussion started with our interaction. Further discussions should remain private, off list to don't subvert the theme of this mailing list. First place I am using a budhist focus called - detachment. I am not cold hearted neither embittered right now. Second thing to consider I am not 'an american hater', my political opinions have nothing to do with my personal relationships and interaction with people. I don't let myself being dragged by resentments and who knows me can observe I am the first one to take initiatives to reconcile if ever there is any conflict. Human beings are human beings whether americans or brazilians or indians for me and I respect their inherent dignity and share their dukkha and struggles. Personally despite my 'teasing' of anglosaxons my best friends are americans and english people. It is not at all to exclude that I had myself friends who perished in the attack. Third I never thought that 'someone else' is responsible for troubles instead of taking my responsabilities whether this regards myself personally or social and political events. I don't deny reality or try to transfer the burden on someone's else shoulders to 'facilitate' things for me. If you believe I am 'tough' above all this toughness regards myself, I don't indulge in self deceit generally speaking. Obviously I am deluded like everybody else. > > Dan this hatred and ignorance were in the deeds of > > american politics all the same not only in the > mind of > > who planned and executed this attack. Dan: > Have you considered that when the name of "America" > or "United > States" comes up, you react with hatred? I don't > know that you do, > but there is that tone in some of your writings. Cybele: Have you considered that perhaps YOU are oversensitive being an american after the shock of the terroristic attack? Mine is not hatred, is a political position, it's a chioce like being a buddhist. Being a buddhist doesn't means hating Christians or Jewish for me or rejecting and despising other religions. Therefore allow me to don't be 'lighthearted' about American economical imperialism all over the world. This said I am grieving for the people sacrificed and I am not agreeing or supporting the terrorists action. I don't believe in violence but in awareness. Yet I am considering the 'big picture' not only details. > > "'He insulted me, hit me, > beat me, robbed me' > -- for those who brood on this, > hostility isn't stilled." Dhp 3 Dear Dan tell this to the victims in Vietnam, to the people crushed down to the 'embargo' in Cuba, to all the South Americans governements subjected to CIA manipulations and so on, to the exploited by american unwholesome economical and political policy in the Third World. Perhaps they will reconsider and take 'their' responsabilities and recover sovranity refusing the influence of America. > > > However it seems that anything regarding America > > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't > >get all that publicity yet endure devastating > >suffering all the same are neglected. > > Neglected by whom? Is it the media you hate then? I don't hate anybody Dan. The hatred argument is yours not mine, don't twist my intentions or assume what I don't feel. Perhaps you react aggressively to my remarks because you are in pain. > > > Too easy blame others, too hard and painful > consider > > the political mistakes (equally fruit of hatred, > > greedy and ignorance) that conduce to such > clamorous extremes. > > To me it looks like the arising of hatred in every > other case: > Because of ignorance, hatred arises. It might look > like the hatred > was caused by some object, that the unpleasant mind > states are caused > by the great Satan that I and my fellow countrymen > are, but really > hatred arises through ignorance. You are taking it personally Dan, 'non self' remember? This is attachment to self view. I accuse american government, the political institution not you or your fellow countrymen. Don't be absurd Dan, you are worked up because of your dislike of my opinions but I have the right to sustain them and also to express freely my viewpoint. All this pathetic image of the Great Satan is yours not mine. I am not that childish to think America is responsble for the evil in the world. I think that greedy, aversion and ignorance are the responsible. That's why I practice awareness. I can understand you feel sore and reactive to my observations, it's too early, too burning the pain. > > > But a nation as an individual has kammic > > responsabilities in my view. > > A nation is an individual what? I don't understand > what you mean. A nation AS an individual has responsabilities Dan, is very clearly written but you are perhaps a bit upset to pay attention. I am sorry if my English is not correct but not everybody was born English mother tongue. Are you listening to me or to your anger which I provoked not deliberately? Did I provoke it or you were angry becuase you cannot accept all this violence? I am not nationalistic Dan and you? > > > I don't 'hate' americans but as I told Robert E. I > > have no sympathy for American internationl policy > of continuous interference like in Vietnam who leads > to much more suffering. > > What does killing many thousands of innocent people > in NYC and > Washington D.C. have to do with international > policy? Nothing > whatsoever. Why people in Vietnam were not innocent as well? Wow Dan please don't deny reality. Do you think that this act of terrorism came out of the blue? There are sure political reasons for it. Reality is political. Sure the people who commited the attack are unbalanced and extremists but their motivations were 'political' and due to American international policy. I can see you are not willing to consider this aspects but only focussing on dukkha in this moment. Fair enough but don' 'be angry' with me. I never commited organized violence against anybody. I am not a terrorist perhaps I am a bit 'anarchist' but not a terrorist. > > > I am sorry if this add more burden to your pain > but many of us from the Third World, in South >> America, in Africa, in Asia had to suffer a lot as >>a result of American interference. > > Now, just what is it that is the cause of your > suffering? INJUSTICE Dan. Injustice that pervade reality for everybody. Tragedies do not belong to America or to India but to the world and all HUMAN BEINGS ARE MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN. Frontiers are only in our mind. And what is the cause of your suffering? Metta Cybele 8018 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 3:15am Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Cybele: > And what is the cause of your suffering? Craving. If bandits were to viciously saw off my arms with a two-handed saw, I would suffer greatly. When confronted with pain, I react with aversion. When attacked viciously, I react with anger. At a deep level, though, the pain itself is not the cause of my suffering, it is my craving for health and peace when health and peace are absent. Does this mean that the bandits are not wrong in their actions? Not at all. They are wrong as can be. Their violence and hatred is not only akusala, it is morally wrong. In USA Tuesday, what caused the bandits to use the two handed saw? What else but hatred? Surely not U.S. imperialism. 8019 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:36am Subject: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Group, As Dan and Gayan have explained Nibbana is classified as a dhamma and is anatta. It is also Sunnata - devoid of the existence of a self., When Nibbana is attained with the khandas remaining , it is called Sopadisesa-nibbandhadu. When the arahant dies it is called Anupadisesa-nibbanadhatu. When Arahats attain parinibbana it does not mean 'entering into Nibbana' as if it was a place but it means fully passed away or fully extinct (Parinibbuto). . _____ Here is a readable summary by a Burmese monk. NIBBANA Venerable Kaba-Aye Sayadaw U Pannadipa The Bodhisatta, in his birth as the ascetic, Sumedha contemplated thus: "Even as, although Misery is, Yet Happiness Is also found, So, though indeed Existence is, Non-Existence should be sought." "When I am subject to Birth, Old Age, Disease, So then I will search for the Supreme Peace Free from Old Age and Death." NIBBANA the Nibbanic state is totally devoid of any and every thing of the four elements, personal existence, static entity, rebirth, death, consciousness or mind and matter etc. It is only the state of element (Dhatu) which means "Nisatta nijjiva" non-being, non-soul, i.e. there is not even a purified soul in Nibbana. It is the happiest state or the ultimate peaceful bliss of emancipation which utterly eliminates all passions that cause prolong unrest in Samsaric existence. Actually, Nibbana in its true nature is single (Ekameva Nibbanam), but it can be treated in a two-fold way, namely, (Kilesa parinibbana) the extinction of all impure passions and it is also called (Saupadisesa Nibbana), i.e., attainment of Nibbana still with life. When the Arahat dies his Nibbana is Khandha parinibbana i.e. attaining Nibbana with the dissolution of the aggregate of mind-matter, or Anupadisesa, i.e. Nibbana without life-substratum. Thus Nibbana is only one as Asankhatadhatu, Unformed Element: it is twofold as Saupadisesa and Anupadisesa: threefold according to the three entrances, Vimokkha mukha) that is one of the three contemplation, impermanence, suffering, and insubstantiality (Anicca), (Dukkha) and (Anatta). It is four-fold in accordance with the four Paths, and is five-fold with reference to the elimination of the five-fold attachment to the five senses, and is six-fold as it is attained by extinction of the six-fold craving pertaining to the six sense objects. It is the question of what happens to the Arahat at death that has given rise to much discussion. At the death of an Arahat all his physical and mental aggregate cease together with all attributes relating to phenomenal existence. Hence the Arahat's death is called Khandhaparinibbana the extinction of aggregates in the Asankhata-dhatu, unborn, unformed purified Element, and it is the release from Sankhata, that which is born and formed. Referring to this the Buddha said: "Monks, there is an unborn, unmade, unoriginated, and unformed. Were there not such a state there would be no escape from that which is born, made, originated and formed. Since, Monks, there is this state of the unborn . . . there is an escape from the born, made, originated and formed." (Udana 80). It is to find out and to proclaim this unborn state that the Bodhisatta endeavored to attain enlightenment. "It is for the sake of attaining the unconditioned state of Nibbana that the religious life in the Buddha is lived," and this was the reply of that great Arahat Punna to the question of the Great Arahat Sariputta, the Captain of the Faith, who questioned about the purpose of living holy life in the Buddha. The argument depends upon such expressions as "extinction" or "blown out as a lamp," which are frequent in the scriptures as is seen in the following: "The old craving exhausted, the fresh craving rises, Freed from thought of future becoming They like seeds barren do not spring again, But are blown out just as a lamp. (Sn. ver. 235). Some may venture to ask: "Whether the Arahat exists after death, or does not exist, or whether he is both existence and non-existence". The Buddha has answered this kind of topsy-turvy arguments by noble silence, knowing that they may not tend to any profit, but to more confusion. There is neither an existent, nor non-existent object, called Nibbana, which we have to enter for the attainment of Immortality. If there were a phenomenal object called Nibbana then it must have been subject to destruction and none could have attained the eternal and immutable state called Nibbana or Immortality. On the other hand, Nibbana cannot be explained as being the annihilation of' the individual and the world, for if we judge by the standard of the absolute truth (Paramattha) , we find that the self and the world are mere illusions in so far as they get no existence apart from our consciousness. Nibbana is not existence, hardly can it be non-existence. It lies totally beyond both existence and non-existence. Existence and non-existence are both conditional and relative to each other. Nibbana which is "Absolute" cannot be designated as being either existence or non-existence: Nibbana which is incomprehensible and profound can only be realized by those who have attained it and have thus passed beyond both limitations, existence and non-existence. "But where does this Nibbana exist?" was the question raised by King Milinda. The Venerable Nagasena replied: "There is no place looking in the East, the West, the South, the North, above, below or beyond, where Nibbana is situated. Yet, there is Nibbana, for he who is pure in virtue and possesses right Insight, realizes it, whether he is in Greece, Alexandria, Kosala or in China:" (M11. pp. 323-26). Just as the fire is not stored up in a particular place but rises when the necessary conditions are present, so Nibbana is not said to exist in a particular place, but it is attained when and wherever the necessary qualities are fulfilled. Nibbana, therefore, is not a heavenly place like the Hebrew Paradise, or the Christian Heaven, or the Hindu Brahma." Let us turn to our friends of the Mahayana School to see what they think about this Asankhatadhatu. Nagarjuna who was supposed to be a saint and the founder of the Madhyamika School explained Nibbana as "Sunyata" Voidness, condemning all the degrees of "Realism of the Sarvasti-vadins and asserting the mayavic nature of existence. He denied the existence of the self and the world, and proclaimed the essential oneness of Samsara and Nibbana. According to his view Nibbana is to be attained by the grace of Amitabha, and cannot be attained by self effort, for there is no "Self" to effort. In the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa Thera says: The Third truth, the Cessation of Suffering, i.e. Nibbana is void of Atta, Self or Soul, but is full of the essence of durability, goodness, and blissfulness, and its essential characteristic is "Santi " peace. This shows how he has opposed the idea of Sunyata of Nagarjuna. Regarding one's existence in Samsara and the deliverance from it, the Buddha said the following salient facts:? "Inconceivable is the beginning of this Samsara, not to be discovered a first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by ignorance and ensnared by craving, are hurrying and hastening through this round of rebirths." "And thus have you long time undergone suffering, undergone torment, undergone misfortune and filled the graveyards full, verily, long enough to be dissatisfied with all forms of existence, long enough to turn away and free yourself from them all." "Be it in the past, present or future: whosoever of the monks or priests regards the delightful and pleasurable things in the world as impermanent (anicca), miserable (dukkha), without an ego (anatta), as a disease and sorrow, it is he who overcomes craving. "And released from Sensual Craving, released from the Craving for Existence, and released from the Craving for Non-Existence, he does not return, does not enter again into existence." "For through the total fading away and extinction of "Craving"(tanha), "Clinging to Existence" (upadana) is extinguished: through the extinction of the clinging to existence, the "Process of Becoming" (bhava) is extinguished: through the extinction of the "Process of Becoming," (Action) Rebirth (jati) is extinguished, through the extinction of rebirth, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are extinguished. Thus comes about the extinction of this whole mass of suffering." "Hence the annihilation, cessation and overcoming of bodily form, feeling, perception, karma-formations and consciousness: this is the extinction of suffering, the end of disease, the overcoming of old age or death." ""Verily, there is a realm where there is neither the solid, nor the liquid; neither heat, nor motion; neither this world, nor any other world; neither sun, or moon. "This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering." ""However, through the fading away of delusion, through the arising of wisdom, through the extinction of craving, no future rebirth takes place again." "In this respect one may say of me, that I teach annihilation, that I propound my doctrine for the purpose of annihilation, and that I herein train my disciples. For certainly, I teach annihilation, the annihilation of greed, anger, and delusion, as well as of the manifold evil and demeritorious things." If someone puts the question. "Who, made the Five Khandhas, or five groups of existence," he seldom gets a right answer. Now let it be said that the five groups of bodily and mental phenomena, correctly speaking, have been put together by the Buddha in order to show the "Anatta doctrine" the central and unique teaching of Buddhism. All those bodily forms, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and states of consciousness which the Buddha has classified and grouped into the five groups are only of momentary duration, existing no longer than a flash of lightning. One never gets a right understanding of the five groups of existence, if one thinks of them as something compact, whereas in reality they are only fleeting phenomena changing as quickly as lightning. The five groups are merely a classification made by the Buddha hut have, as such, i.e. as groups, no real existence. If there arises, e.g. a joyful feeling,0there cannot arise at the very same moment a sorrowful feeling; thus at any given moment only a single representative of those groups may be present, never any group as a whole. Hence it is impossible that a group of feelings, or perceptions, or states of consciousness may arise at one and the same time. The four mental groups are never existing separately. "And it is Impossible that anyone can explain the passing out of one existence and then entering into a new existence or the growth, increase and development of consciousness, independently of bodily form, feeling, perception and mental formations. Each state of consciousness is always connected with some of the fifty mental formations as explained in the "Abhidhamma Pitaka." Through not understanding the nature of the five groups of existence, one gets possessed of manifold wrong views, and it becomes one's conviction and firm belief, "I have an Ego," or "I have no Ego;" or "With the Ego I perceive the Ego," or "With that which is no Ego I perceive the Ego," or "with the Ego I perceive that which is no Ego." Or one falls into the following view: "This my Ego, which can think and feel, and which, now here, now there,. experiences the fruit of good and evil deeds - this my Ego is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change and will thus eternally remain the same. But, the noble disciple who understands the five Khandhas as impermanent, subject to change and suffering, as not remaining in two successive moments the same, he will penetrate that liberating truth of "Anatta," the very root of all unselfishness, leading to Nibbana. "Sabbe dhamma anattati "Nowhere can there be found a Self: Yada pannaya passati, Who wisely perceives this truth, Atha nibbindati dukkhe, He turns away from misery, Esa maggo visuddhiya." This is the path to purity." In the Abhidhanapadipika, Nibbana is described in various terms: Accanta The Everlasting Akata The Unmade Ananta The Endless Apalokita The Undestructible Panita The Sublime Sarana The Refuge Khema The Safety Tana The Shelter Lena The Retreat Parayana The Goal Siva The Bliss Nipuna The Profound Sacca The Truth Dukkahakkhaya The Cessation of misery Annasa The Freedom from longing Sududdasa That which is difficult to grasp Asankhara The Uncreated Para The Further Shore Para The Beyond Mokkha The Deliverance Nirodha The Extinction Anidassana The Unperceptible Nibbana The Extinction of Craving Dhuva The Permanent Avyapajja The Unoppressedness Vivatta The Standstill of the cycle of existence Kevala The Absolute Anitika The Undistressed Analaya The Detached Pada The Law Accuta The Deathless Akkhara The Lasting Vimutta The Release Vimutti The Liberation Apavagga The Total Completion Viraga The Dispassionate Yogakkhema The Peace from Bondage Santi The Stillness Visuddhi The Purity Asankhata The Uncaused Suddhi The Pure Nibbuta The Allayment These are the names given to Nibbana by the Buddha in various discourses. By this it becomes evident that Nibbana cannot be compared to anything which comes within the reach of our senses. Nibbana is visible to the mind of those who enter the Path of the Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami and Arahat, at the moment of deep insight into the Egolessness, Emptiness and Misery of all Existence. And this moment is reached by the Noble Eight-fold Path. Just as a blind man does not understand what light is, or as the sun cannot be seen when there are clouds, just so the mind clouded by greed, anger and delusion will not be able to perceive the reality of Nibbana. To say that there is no Nibbana simply because those filled with greed, anger and delusion, do not perceive it, is just as illogical as to say that there is no light because the blind man does not see it or because we cannot see the sun when clouds are hindering our sight. Not by reasoning and abstract thinking can Nibbana ever be attained, but only by right understanding, by inward purification, inward conquest and by fulfilling the "Noble Eight-fold Path" founded on Anattasanna, i.e. the perception that all things are without an Ego, or Self and that also behind all these phenomena of existence there is no "I," no eternal, immutable, unchanging entity, a "thing in itself." There is only a five-khandha process of existence which comes to a stand still at the death of the Arahat or Holy One. One never knows a thing as it really is without seeing it, and this, more than anywhere else, is true with regard to Nibbana. Although Nibbana is hidden to the eyes of the worldling, the Path, however, leading there is attained by the noble disciple and is explained by the Buddha with all necessary details and every one can follow it. . We have seen that in reality there does not exist any Ego-entity or Soul, and that therefore also no transmigration of the same into a new mother's womb is in no way a continuation of the former bodily process but merely a result or effect caused by the selfish craving and clinging to life, of the so-called individual who has died. In Nid. Samy. No. 59, it is said: "Once all Ignorance and clinging are extinguished neither karmically meritorious nor demeritorious, nor imperturbable karma-formations are produced, and thus no consciousness will spring up again in a new mother's womb." "Here I feel the necessity of once more expressly emphasizing the fact that without a clear perception of the phenomenality, or Egolessness of all existence, a real understanding of the Buddha's teaching, especially that of rebirth and Nibbana, is impossible." "This doctrine of Anatta is in fact the only specific teaching of Buddhism with which the entire teaching stands or falls." One cannot say that the Arahat is reborn, because all craving and clinging to existence are completely abandoned, rooted out, like a palm tree torn out of the soil, destroyed and not liable to spring up again in the future. "Neither can one say that the Arahat is annihilated at death as there is nothing to be annihilated. What we call "Arahat" is, as we have seen, only a convenient term of speech and has no real existence. There is only a process of bodily and mental phenomena which have come to a standstill and is not continued after death." Whether Perfect Ones (Buddhas) appear In the world or whether Perfect Ones do not appear in the world, it still remains a firm condition, an Immutable fact and fixed law that all formations are "impermanent," that all formations are "subject to suffering," that everything is "without an Ego." "Therefore, Disciples, the doctrines which I advised you to penetrate, you should well preserve, well guard, so that this Holy Life may take its course and continue for ages, for the wheel and welfare of heavenly beings and men." Thus, the problem of Nibbana is an ethical rather than a philosophical one, and its solution is dependent not upon dialectical skill but upon right understanding and upon inward purification, Inward conquest and fulfilling the "Noble Eightfold Path' founded on Anatta-sanna, the perception that, all things created as well as uncreated are without an Ego, and that also behind all these phenomena of existence there is no "I", "no eternal, immutable unchangeable entity, or a thing in itself." Dukkham-eva hi na koci dukkhito, Karako na, kiriya va vijjati, Atthi nibuti, na nibbuto puma, Maggam-atthi, gamako na vijjati. "Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds: Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it, The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen." Kammassa Karako natthi, Vipakassa ca vedako, Suddhadhamma pavattanti, Ev 'etam sammadassanam. 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. Na hettha devo brahma va, Samsarass-atthi karako, Suddhadhamma pavattanti, Hetusambharapaccaya ti. No god, no Brahma, may be called, The maker of this wheel of life, Empty phenomena roll on, Dependent on conditions all." V.M. XIX. 8020 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 11:18am Subject: Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > As Dan and Gayan have explained Nibbana is classified as a > dhamma and is anatta. So Robert, in your understanding what part of the "is" of Nibbana is anatta? (This could get rather Clintonian, as it depends on what your definition of "is" is! :). > It is also Sunnata - devoid of the > existence of a self., In what way is Nibbana void of self and shunya in your understanding? 8021 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 11:11am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never thought of it like that. > Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to work. Not surprising, since any conceptualizations about Nibbana directly hinders realization thereof. 8022 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 11:12am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > for an example we gan take 'Niroga' which means 'no-desease'. > Niroga amounts to 'Healthyness', 'absense of ailments,deseases'. > > the Niroga , the absence of ailments can have a nature of its own, but its > not a thing as 'an ailment'. Hi Gayan. This sounds as though you're implying Nibbana has "entity" or "self". 8023 From: Craig Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:07am Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Dear Dan and cybelle and all of us, Well I am shure that nobody thinks that the people or organisation behind these killings have performed right action it is plain to see. At this point we must stand strong with love and compassion, it is all we can do. The rest is going to be acted out in accordance with each person,group,state & countries level of understanding. I am not shure but I believe I once read that the Buddha in a past incarnation took or killed somebody for the sake of saving a lot of lives. Injustice is hard to deal with and we can only live and learn. I could give so many examples of injustice, but lets try and become just and fair,and begin to balance this world of ours. Lets learn to love and be peacefull even in this forum, it is a start, it would show that we are learning. Stand firm in what we have so fortunately been tought by the Buddha. Happyness and peace to you all Craig 8024 From: gayan Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 0:31pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear erik, > > Hi Gayan. This sounds as though you're implying Nibbana has "entity" > or "self". Nope, it does not imply that 'absence of ailments' is an entity. it is not an entity like 'an ailment'. but it can have a nature of its own. rgds, gayan 8025 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 1:53pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- gayan wrote: > Nope, it does not imply that 'absence of ailments' is an entity. > it is not an entity like 'an ailment'. > but it can have a nature of its own. Interesting, Gayan. How would you describe this "nature"? The reason I ask is that I still hear you saying or implying that Nibbana has "own-being", since I am still hearing "svabhava" (nature) being implied here. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it sounds that way. As an aside, that way of putting things is strongly rejected in the Madhyamika-Prasangika system, for example, because it is seen as a convenient way to sneak "independent existence" in the back door in the form of suggesting shunyata implies one or more positive characteristics. If nothing else it easily lends itself to the very sort of subtle reification of emptiness fatal to direct understanding. For example, the Abhidhamma school's (Vaibhasika) presentation is the first one rejected by the Madhyamikas, for the fault of reifying "paramattha dhammas"--which many mistakenly interpret as entities having "true reality" or their "own nature". Things like citta, cetasika, rupa, and even Nibbana are intepreted by some Abhidhaamikas to have "true existence" or svabhava in the sense of "own-being", which entails the extreme of eternalism. A subtler flavor of this can be found in the "gzhan stong" (other emptiness) schools in Tibet, where the "gzhan stong pas" advocated a view based on the Yogacara that emptiness is the emptiness of "other being" (paratantra) and "mental imputation" (parikalpita), resulting in a consummate nature (parinispanna) that implies that emptiness is a permanent entity with true nature (svabhava). This is thoroughly rejected by the "rang-tong-pas" (self-emptiness) schools like the Madhyamika-Prasangika, which reject the idea that there is any "independent existence" of any kind regarding emptiness. This point is considered one of such pivotal importance in debates on emptiness that most of the effort in establishing Right View within the Madhyamika-Prasangika system goes toward refuting this view. So my question is again, how does your interpretation of emptiness/Nibbana above not imply svabhava (and by implication independent existence) of some sort? 8026 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 9:15am Subject: A Personal note Hi, all - About a half a year ago my wife and I attended a Bar Mitzvah service and party. The Bar Mitzvah boy was the Grandson of a very close friend of my mother-in-law's by the name of Sid Cohen. The boy's father, Sid's son-in-law, the person who hosted the event, is no more. He was trapped above the 90th floor on one of the twin towers. He called his family on his cell phone. He said "This may be the last time we speak". It was. 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) 8027 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 2:06pm Subject: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as > > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. Yet there is no > > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a > > mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence > > doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) > > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never thought of it like that. > Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to work. I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, but I would say that you can look at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, or you can look at it as the positive state of being in which those properties are absent. This may seem like semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is there a positive state left when delusory mental factors have been released from awareness? I would say that awareness, which is not a thing either but is indeed a reality, is left unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and defiling tendencies. So if we only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't emphasize that awareness [sentience] is still present, just without the false creation of separate objects, beings and delusions [I know I'm not being precise], we may lose the flavor of a state in which awareness is free to take in the exact truth of all things it encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has in some way been depleted. I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a mere absence, rather than a positive state, tends to verge towards annihilationism in which one sees the self and other structures obliterated, with nothing left over. My own view is that if we have raw perceptions being delivered directly to consciousness without mental factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical vision of Nibbana. If we emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, however, in positive sense, we have the promise of sentience come to its complete fruition, without the suffering it had endured previously. This difference in emphasis may in some ways characterize the Mahayana approach. I think it is important not to stray too far in either direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which is to say: If one emphasizes the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards nihilism, seeing emptiness as absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as a positive state, one may tend towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, and re-create the vision of the immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, the middle ground is to say that awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but that awareness has no definition as a thing and does not partake of any notion of self or entity. I will be curious to see what others think of these distinctions. Best, Robert E. 8028 From: Anders Honore Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 5:40pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > > The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about > > everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can > > hardly refer to Nibbana! > > There are? I've seen "sabbe sankhara anicca" and "sabbe sankhara > dukkha", but there's a distinction when it comes to "dhamma", because > not all dhammas are anicca and dukkha, Nibbana in particular. Hence, > "sabbe dhamma anatta". [Dhp. 277-279: > http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/s0502m/s0502m-frm.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/20.html] > > It would be interesting indeed to find "sabbe dhamma anicca"---I > wonder how the commentators would explain away something like that! SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." 8030 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 3:03pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] A Personal note Dear Howard, Thank you for sharing this. I'm very sure that all the friends like yourselves who attended the service and party will be offering emotional and spiritual help and support as appropriate and I very much hope that Sid, his daughter, her son and other family members are able with time to accept the tragedy and grow in wisdom. I teach some students from the American school here and one who came yesterday was quite disturbed as he told me his best friend's father was in tears all night because he had several friends lost in the Pentagon.....So many people are affected and there are many opportunities for us to practise the brahma viharas as others have said. Howard, our best wishes to your wife as well from us all here. Sarah --- Howard wrote: > Hi, all - > > About a half a year ago my wife and I attended a Bar Mitzvah service > and party. The Bar Mitzvah boy was the Grandson of a very close friend of my > mother-in-law's by the name of Sid Cohen. The boy's father, Sid's son-in-law, > > the person who hosted the event, is no more. He was trapped above the 90th > floor on one of the twin towers. He called his family on his cell phone. He > said "This may be the last time we speak". It was. > > 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) > 8031 From: dalthorp Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 5:50pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Dear Cybele, I am not very interested in discussing politics, but I would like to work through a couple of the "Buddhist" points that have been a part of our conversation. > Third I never thought that 'someone else' is > responsible for troubles instead of taking my > responsabilities whether this regards myself > personally or social and political events. I think there must be a misunderstanding here because when I made my comment that I simply preferred to not think about this from a materialist point of view, not that you were trying to blame someone else for *your* actions. I had in mind your comment that "America" *caused* the attack because of its policies, which places responsibility for the attack on the shoulders of those who were attacked. That's a radically materialistic perspective (i.e. the cause of a behavior is the material conditions, the behavior is rooted in the object [in this case the concept of America as "individual"] itself rather than sankhara), and one that is quite at odds with the bedrock Buddhist principle of kamma/vipaka. > Cybele: > Have you considered that perhaps YOU are oversensitive > being an american after the shock of the terroristic > attack? Clearly you are right that I am being overly sensitive. I fell into the view of America as an individual--an individual that I was a part of. My arms were savagely severed by bandits with a two-handed saw. My reaction was mostly sadness (i.e. "pain"--domanassa), but when I heard that I and the other parts of my big me (USA) CAUSED the attack, I reacted with anger. Why? Because of my own delusion. In my ignorance I constructed concepts of America as an individual and myself as an individual. Then, I imagined that these "entities" were being attacked unfairly by you, and anger rose to defend these phantoms. Another phantom I created was the view that people (the terrorists) are solely responsible for their own actions, not someone else (the victims). This is still something I believe, but anger arises when I cling to that idea as a view. Ignorance. > > > However it seems that anything regarding America > > > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > > > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't > > >get all that publicity yet endure devastating > > >suffering all the same are neglected. > > > > Neglected by whom? Is it the media you hate then? > > I don't hate anybody Dan. > The hatred argument is yours not mine, don't twist my > intentions or assume what I don't feel. You are right that I have no business assuming that you are filled with hatred for America and the media. I was unfairly making the leap that since dosa is strong in me when I go on rants like yours that it was also strong in you in your rants against America and the media. Thanks for pointing out the unfair, crude, rude, ignorant, mean, and hasty remarks I made. I apologize. > I accuse american government, the political > institution not you or your fellow countrymen. My deluded and ignorant views don't feel threatened when you accuse the american government and political institution of some specific act that they have done. But my deluded views DO indeed occasion hostility when you accuse USA of extradinarily atrocious things that they clearly have not done, like saying they caused the attacks on Tuesday. > All this pathetic image of the Great Satan is yours > not mine. Actually, the pathetic image of the great Satan is from contemporary stripes of radical Islam. I believe the term was coined by Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran in the late 1970's and is still a popular notion among Muslim extremists. Creation of views of a nation as an individual and then arguing that individual to be capable of moral efficacy and then judging that individual to be evil has been summarized eloquently and efficiently as the concept of the great Satan--assigning a personality to America, the individual. Once such an outlandish concept is born, it becomes a powerful vehicle for instilling the intense hatred and profound courage that make such atricities possible. The outlandish concept is born of delusion, nourished by craving, and in turn it incubates hatred. > A nation AS an individual Do mean an individual like a person? A very common view of "individual" is as consciousness or the entity that has consciousness (or some other of the five aggregates). I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean by a nation as an individual because it seems so far removed from other, much more common personality views. > Reality is political. That is one view. It's one that I don't subscribe to at all. Even so, sometimes I do find myself prey to the view's powerful, groping tentacles and all of a sudden I'm thinking, speaking, and acting like I believe it! Actually, the "reality is political" view is just a version of sakayaditthi with a little gloss added to disguise it. When it see it rise and fall it reminds me of just how difficult it is for samma-ditthi to become established. 8032 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 1:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > another phrase in tipitaka is > 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' > this means 'Release is the essense of all phenomena' > vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another word for nibbana. > > so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to 'sabbe dhamma'( all > phenomena ) Well this is extremely intriguing. If this is an accurate way of looking at this statement, it seems to me that the root of Mahayana doctrines, and perhaps Anders' doctrine of Nibbana as the 'true self' have their root in Theravadin doctrine. This would be very important, as it would provide a link between all of the teachings proposed to emanate from the Buddha. There is a Mahayana doctrine -- I am not sure exactly where it occurs in the sutras, or how widespread it is -- that Samsara and Nirvana are two sides of the same coin, and that Samsara is the deluded face of Nirvana [Nibbana]. When buddha says above that all phenomena have Nibbana as their essence, he is hinting at the advanced idea that an enlightened being would not see the arising phenomena as flawed in some way, but would see it as the momentary reflection of Nibbana itself. We can imagine that the Buddha would not only see the illusory nature of the arisings of phenomena, but would also see the essence from which they spring. Without awareness, phenomena would not even appear to arise, and so awareness is the essence of the arising of all phenomena. As awareness becomes more unimpeded, the true nature of phenomena is revealed: it is not only impermanent, unsatisfying and lacking in self-nature, but is also nothing other than a seeming modification of the awareness in which it appears to occur. I am extrapolating this from the above quote, knowing that it may be confusing, controversial, or, from a Theravadin view, perhaps just wrong, but I would like to take the opportunity to see what others' views are of the Buddha's statement above, and of the ideas I have put forth based on them. They will either suggest a bridge between the Theravadin and Mahayana schools, or perhaps obscure it further. I would also like to hear from Anders, who can say if he thinks my way of putting this is off the mark from a Mahayana point of view. Best, Robert E. ===== 8033 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 2:28pm Subject: Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics, But with a Buddhist Focus (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui) Cybele, I am mainly responding to you off-list on this topic, because we have agreed to remove it from dsg as it seems to go off-topic. But since you have had a strong reaction to what I said, and felt a need to post it to the list, I will answer once more on list. I apologize to Sarah and Jon. After this, I will continue to communicate off the list. Your accusations of aggression and aversion towards you are untrue, and I don't believe they are in my words. I have challenged what seemed to me to be the assumptions and beliefs contained in your message. I am happy to have you clarify what you actually think and believe, but I don't think there is an expression of anger or rage against you in anything I have said. I have attempted to challenge your statements, that is all. When you use a term like 'zero sympathy' in a situation where many people have been killed, you have to expect that someone may think this means that you are not sympathetic to the people killed. It just makes sense. Even though you are talking about 'American politics', you did say that America has reaped its kammic reward for its actions causing suffering overseas. So I am only going by what you yourself said. I am sorry you see rage in my words. I don't feel rage. I do feel that you were blaming the U.S. for what happened in New York and Washington. You are entitled to your view, I was merely stating what I believe to be the case about it. I apologize that you felt personally attacked, and I withdraw any implication that you read as being against you personally. I really did feel that there were issues here worth addressing, but I am happy to let them go and reestablish peace between us. I hope that is possible. Best Regards, Robert E. ========================= --- cybele chiodi wrote: > > Dear Robert > > > >--- cybele chiodi wrote: > > > > > > Insightful discourse Robert which I respect but while I don't believe or > > > encourage violence it happens that I have 'zero sympathy' for American > > > politics. > > > >How about American citizens who are brutally killed? Does that equal > >'American > >politics' to you? Or do you consider Americans human beings? > > I consider HUMAN BEINGS and don't care if they are americans or africans for > that matter. > And you should consider DOSA because you are very much affected right now. > I am not a terrorist Robert, don't use me as a container for your ANGER. > > > > > > > If you were born on the 'wrong side of America' you could be much more > > > sympathetic with my opinion. > > > Sorry to disappoint you. > > > Hopefully we can agree to disagree on this issue. :-) > > > >With all due respect, Cybele, and I certainly respect your right to your > >opinion > >and everything else, how do you know where I grew up? I'm not wealthy, I > >grew up > >with working people of all backgrounds and races. I know the real people > >of the > >U.S., most of them came from Europe and other places around the world, and > >they're > >just like anyone you know in your world. They are not the holders of power > >in the > >U.S., any more than the Iraqi people support Saddam Hussein. > > You completely misunderstood my intentions Robert. > When I said so I meant having the chance to observe discrimination and > oppression as a direct witness and not anything personal. > Here everybody has a great talk about NON SELF and at the first opportunity > to demonstrate the affiliation to such teachings you just show total > attachment like everybody else. > I was not intending any personal observation and you are holding a political > meeting in the wrong place. > A simple remark and the hell is unchained Robert and I am the passionate > one. Good grief! > You are in pain Robert, can't you see? > I am not a escape goat for your suffering, sorry. > Let's use a bit of sense and restrain ourselves. > > > > I >okay to kill thousands of people who are showing up to their jobs or to > kill > >innocent people who are taking a trip on an airplane, then you are way > >beyond > >fighting American politics and you are knee-deep in terrorism. I do not > >believe > >that causing more suffering can ever effect positive change. > > > >At that point, we do part company, and I believe you also part company with > >Buddhism, if you believe in violent means to effect political ends. > > Robert you are totally dominated by your emotions and this enraged, > sorrowful response is the proof. > Who ever declared or hinted that I am 'pro-terrorism' or believe in > violence; this all a product of your upset mind. > This is delusional mind state Robert. > You are aggressive and unrestrained against somebody you barely know. > Do you realize it? > Can you get any insight from your pain? > > > > >Ahimsa doesn't have political exceptions. > > > > But it seems you believe your distress justify this personal aversion > against me? > > Metta > Cybele 8034 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 2:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS "Nibbana is merely the absence of greed, hatred, and delusion" Since Nibbana is the absence of greed, hatred and delusion, therefore it would implied that Nibbana presence is dependent on greed, hatred and delusion. Hence without these three factors, how would you described Nibbana. When someones says all things are dharma, the person is not wrong. Because all things are the illusions of our own consciousness which is attached to a self ego. Whether Nibbana is a thing or not a thing or is a dharma or not a dharma. is does not really matters, what it matters is that it is something Buddha has exhort us to attain. I believe Nibbana is not explained fully because it can only be experience and not illustrated. Similarly, when we program a computer that sugar taste sweet. the computer could only understands by 1s and 0s but not experience the taste of sweet. Kind regards Kenneth Ong rikpa21 wrote: --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > > The problem with the word Dhamma is that it can mean just about > > everything. Other passages say sabbe dhamma anicca and that can > > hardly refer to Nibbana! > > There are? I've seen "sabbe sankhara anicca" and "sabbe sankhara > dukkha", but there's a distinction when it comes to "dhamma", because > not all dhammas are anicca and dukkha, Nibbana in particular. Hence, > "sabbe dhamma anatta". [Dhp. 277-279: This lumping of Nibbana in as a dhamma is highly suspect, because it appears to suggests that Nibbana is a "thing"--which is definitely off the mark. Nibbana is merely the absence of greed, hatred, and delusion. To call it a "dhamma" is to almost suggest it's something other than a mere label for an absence, and as such would just be another view to be discarded. So I find this classification of Nibbana as a dhamma one can even talk about in terms of "anatta" to be a highly questionable one. 8035 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:40pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] It is indeed sad that such a tragedy has happened. But we got to let go of it and carry on our life. Do not forget that Buddha whole Sakya clan was completely wipe out/killed. How does he feels?. He knows that this is all karma and there is nothing he could do about it. Believe in Karma, what has happened has happened and what will happened will happen. What can we do them, we strive to be enlighten. Only through enlightenment then we are able in our future lives or in the present one to teach pple the Dharma. When others able to achieve enlightenment due to our teachings of the Dharma, this person is truly save. this person is truly out of the cycle of sufferings. there will be no more bombings or terrorism or counter actions for this truly liberated person. When we have thoughts of right or wrong or what should be done or calling for justice, are not these our own prejudice or bias thoughts. This means that we are affected by external conditions. In order to help beings, we got to be heedful so that we could try to strive to be enlighten and in turns help others. Heedful of our internal feelings, consciousness..... Let me say again that let us not blame or say who is right or wrong because it has happened and it is all karmic actions. What we ought to do now is to realise that life is so impermanent and in a matter of few seconds, we are out of our existence us human beings. Let us strive to be enlighted and thereafter save as much beings as possible. As I said earlier, when others able to achieve enlightment, these beings are truly save/liberated. For the present let us be compassionate to those around us. Let us not build any more negative/ill will feelings in our daily lives. Let us not pursue any calling of justice. Why? Because when we are calling for justice, this will hardened our self ego or in another sense a self fulling goal that something must be done to satisfy our "sense of justice". Always remember Karma will do their work, let us not be judges of beings. Let karma be their judge. When I saw pple shouting for retaliatory actions in this Sangha groups or pinpointing/blaming at the terrorists or the US govt, it sadden me because Buddha is an embodiment of compassion and wisdom. When we condemned others, are not we ourselves have give up on others. Aren't we not having ill will towards others. Actually my sympathy is not just on the innocent lives being lost and the US govt and citizens, it also encompasses the terrorists that do it because they will suffer more greatly in later lives. I only wrong myself for not realising the way and departing these good dharma to them. No one is to blame, I only blame myself for not being enlighten and not teaching these innocent lives and terrorists the dharma. Once again, lets us believe in karma and be compassionate to those around us. Let us refrain from incorrect actions or words. With kindest regards Kenneth Ong dalthorp wrote: Dear Cybele, I am not very interested in discussing politics, but I would like to work through a couple of the "Buddhist" points that have been a part of our conversation. > Third I never thought that 'someone else' is > responsible for troubles instead of taking my > responsabilities whether this regards myself > personally or social and political events. I think there must be a misunderstanding here because when I made my comment that I preferred to not think about this from a materialist point of view, I had in mind your comment that "America" *caused* the attack because of its policies, which places responsibility for the attack on the shoulders of those who were attacked. That's a radically materialistic perspective (i.e. the cause of a behavior is the material conditions, the behavior is rooted in the object [in this case the concept of America as "individual"] itself rather than sankhara), and one that is quite at odds with the bedrock Buddhist principle of kamma/vipaka. > Cybele: > Have you considered that perhaps YOU are oversensitive > being an american after the shock of the terroristic > attack? Clearly you are right that I am being overly sensitive. I fell into the view of America as an individual--an individual that I was a part of. My arms were savagely severed by bandits with a two-handed saw. My reaction was mostly sadness (i.e. "pain"--domanassa), but when I heard that I and the other parts of my big me (USA) CAUSED the attack, I reacted with anger. Why? Because of my own delusion. In my ignorance I constructed concepts of America as an individual and myself as an individual. Then, I imagined that these "entities" were being attacked, and anger rose to defend these phantoms. Another phantom I created was the view that people (the terrorists) are solely responsible for their own actions, not someone else (the victims). This is still something I believe, but anger arises when I cling to that idea as a view. Ignorance. > > > However it seems that anything regarding America > > > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > > > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't > > >get all that publicity yet endure devastating > > >suffering all the same are neglected. > > > > Neglected by whom? Is it the media you hate then? > > I don't hate anybody Dan. > The hatred argument is yours not mine, don't twist my > intentions or assume what I don't feel. You are right that I have no business assuming that you are filled with hatred for America and the media. I was unfairly making the leap that since dosa is strong in me when I go on rants like yours that it was also strong in you in your rants against America and the media. Thanks for pointing out the unfair, crude, rude, ignorant, mean, and hasty remarks I made. I apologize. > I accuse american government, the political > institution not you or your fellow countrymen. My deluded and ignorant views don't feel threatened when you accuse the american government and political institution of some specific act that they may have done. But my deluded views DO indeed react with hostility when you accuse them of extradinarily atrocious things that they clearly have not done, like saying they caused the attacks on Tuesday. > All this pathetic image of the Great Satan is yours > not mine. Actually, the pathetic image of the great Satan is from contemporary stripes of radical Islam. I believe the term was coined by Ayatollah Khomeni in Iran in the late 1970's and is still a popular notion among Muslim extremists. Creation of views of a nation as an individual and then arguing that individual to be capable of moral efficacy and then judging that individual to be evil has been summarized eloquently and efficiently as the concept of the great Satan. Once such an outlandish concept is born, it becomes a powerful vehicle for instilling the intense hatred and profound courage that make such atricities possible. The outlandish concept is born of delusion, nourished by craving, and in turn it incubates hatred. > A nation AS an individual Do mean an individual like a person? A very common view of "individual" is as consciousness or the entity that has consciousness (or some other of the five aggregates). I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean by a nation as an individual because it seems so far removed from other, much more common personality views. > Reality is political. That is one view. It's one that I don't subscribe to at all. Even so, sometimes I do find myself prey to the view's powerful, groping tentacles and all of a sudden I'm thinking, speaking, and acting like I believe it! Actually, the "reality is political" view is just a version of sakayaditthi with a little gloss added to disguise it. When it see it rise and fall it reminds me of just how difficult it is for samma-ditthi to become established. 8036 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:39pm Subject: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, I don't think it matters much what's most accurate scripturally. What I think matters most is if a certain presentation helps one overcome one's clinging to views. > but I would say that you can look > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, or you can look at it as the > positive state of being in which those properties are absent. In the Prasangika system (the most highly developed of all extant systems dealing with the topic of emptiness/anatta), for example, emptiness prevents the "eternalism" extreme while dependent origination prevents the "annihilation" extreme. When the two no longer alternate, come together, then at least conventionl Right View is said to be established. That is the actual Middle Way between the extremes conventionally. > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a mere absence, rather than a > positive state, tends to verge towards annihilationism in which one sees the self > and other structures obliterated, with nothing left over. The reason emptiness is so often presented as a negation is because few people have the problem of believing that nothing exists. Every experience serves to demonstrate the contrary--that at minimum there is *experience*, which is "real enough". The most common error is instead is holding to objects of experience as "real" such that one sees them as possessing "true entity" or "self" (and not just self in the sense of the puggala, but more generally "self" in the sense of self-nature, or "core" or "entity"). That is the view the antidote of emptiness is designed to counter. Even the subtlest reification of how we hold to objects is enough to block the direct perception of emptiness. This is why so much effort is expended in deconstructing how objects are held to--as a means of terminating this clinging to objects as having "independent existence" or self-nature, which implies the view of eternalism. Objects do not "exist from their own side" (by way of their own truly- established nature) for example. Nor do they exist independent of causes and conditions. Nor do they exist independent of the mind labeling them. Objects cannot exist "from their own side" because any object of investigation, on analysis, can be demonstrated to be totally unfindable. It does not exist among its parts, apart from its conditions, apart from the mind cognizing it. In this sense it is totally "unfindable", yet it appears and performs a function. To be able to hold these two apparently contradictory positions in a state of non-contradiction is considered mundane Right View. > My own view is that if > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly to consciousness without mental > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical vision of Nibbana. That is specfically one view rejected in the analysis of emptiness: this idea that "raw sensation" unmediated by concepts has anything to do with Nibbana, because such is still very definitely in the domain of the mundane (still dealing with subject/object dichotomies as it is), whereas Nibbana is supramundane and one can't possibly apply such limiting categories to emptiness in terms of ultimate truth. So "raw sense data" is not what emptiness/anatta refers to, not even as an approximation, because "raw sensation" happens at the level of conventional truth (asmutti sacca), not ultimate truth (paramattha sacca), the domain of emptiness. In the Perfection of Wisdom (emptiness), there is no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; no suffering, no end of suffering, no sentient beings, no Buddhas, no form, feeling, perception, sankharas, consciousness, nor object of consciousness! :) > To me, the middle ground is to say that > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but that awareness has no definition > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of self or entity. This sounds suspiciously like you're reifying awareness Robert. You say it's not a "thing", and yet awareness implies a subject, and by implication, an object. This demonstrates that awareness is a changing thing, i.e. composed, because it is dependent on an object-- a changing thing, and changes in dependence on an object. Therefore it is mundane by definition. This means that awareness cannot possibly be Nibbana, since Nibbana is uncomposed, the asankhara dhatu. This view that nothing exists except for awareness--which exists absolutely in some way (even if it is asserted it is not a "thing"--and how can this be, incidentally, since awareness too is a dependent arising?)--is specifically the view rejected in the Madhyamika critique of Cittamatra (Mind Only). This view of awareness as a "true existent" is extremely subtle, and it's very easy to get caught on this one, because the mind so readily seizes on the idea that if Nibbana is not "consciouness" it means Nibbana implies annihilation! And yet no definition of Nibbana asserts it is either consciousness (or a state of mind--in fact, this is explicitly rejected by the Buddha), or a composed entity of any sort. Again, this is because consciousness is sankhara (composed) by definition, whereas Nibbana is asankhara (uncomposed). So to say that Nibbana is "thing" with any positive characteristics is to fall into the view that Nibbana is composed. That is why I think it can be so dangerous to classify about Nibbana as a "dhamma", because it plants the idea in the mind that it can be conceived, that it is some "thing", rather than a mere absence of independent existence--which is the ultimate mode of all phenomena, even Nibbana. For example, the view that Nibbana is "awareness" of some sort is explicitly rejected by the Buddha in the Bharmajala Sutta: "Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he argues: `Whatever is called eye or ear or nose or tongue or body, that is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, liable to change. But what is called thought, or mind or consciousness, that is a self that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same for ever and ever! 8037 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 2:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Robert, In all that is said below, I find it most interesting that Nibbana is said to partake of: "Asankhata-dhatu, unborn, unformed purified Element". Is that a convention of speech, or what is the unborn, unformed purified Element that Nibbana involves. It certainly seems that a positive state or substance is here invoked, rather than mere cessation. Best, Robert E. ============================= --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Group, > As Dan and Gayan have explained Nibbana is classified as a > dhamma and is anatta. It is also Sunnata - devoid of the > existence of a self., When Nibbana is attained with the khandas > remaining , it is called Sopadisesa-nibbandhadu. When the > arahant dies it is called Anupadisesa-nibbanadhatu. When > Arahats attain parinibbana it does not mean 'entering into > Nibbana' as if it was a place but it means fully passed away or > fully extinct (Parinibbuto). . > > _____ > Here is a readable summary by a Burmese monk. > > NIBBANA > Venerable Kaba-Aye Sayadaw U Pannadipa > > The Bodhisatta, in his birth as the ascetic, Sumedha > contemplated thus: > > "Even as, although Misery is, > > Yet Happiness Is also found, > > So, though indeed Existence is, > > Non-Existence should be sought." > > "When I am subject to > > Birth, Old Age, Disease, > > So then I will search for the Supreme Peace > > Free from Old Age and Death." > > > NIBBANA > the Nibbanic state is totally devoid of any and every thing of > the four elements, personal existence, static entity, rebirth, > death, consciousness or mind and matter etc. It is only the > state of element (Dhatu) which means "Nisatta nijjiva" > non-being, non-soul, i.e. there is not even a purified soul in > Nibbana. It is the happiest state or the ultimate peaceful bliss > of emancipation which utterly eliminates all passions that cause > prolong unrest in Samsaric existence. > Actually, Nibbana in its true nature is single (Ekameva > Nibbanam), but it can be treated in a two-fold way, namely, > (Kilesa parinibbana) the extinction of all impure passions and > it is also called (Saupadisesa Nibbana), i.e., attainment of > Nibbana still with life. When the Arahat dies his Nibbana is > Khandha parinibbana i.e. attaining Nibbana with the dissolution > of the aggregate of mind-matter, or Anupadisesa, i.e. Nibbana > without life-substratum. > > Thus Nibbana is only one as Asankhatadhatu, Unformed > Element: it is twofold as Saupadisesa and Anupadisesa: threefold > according to the three entrances, > > Vimokkha mukha) that is one of the three contemplation, > impermanence, suffering, and insubstantiality (Anicca), (Dukkha) > and (Anatta). It is four-fold in accordance with the four Paths, > and is five-fold with reference to the elimination of the > five-fold attachment to the five senses, and is six-fold as it > is attained by extinction of the six-fold craving pertaining to > the six sense objects. > > It is the question of what happens to the Arahat at death > that has given rise to much discussion. At the death of an > Arahat all his physical and mental aggregate cease together with > all attributes relating to phenomenal existence. Hence the > Arahat's death is called Khandhaparinibbana the extinction of > aggregates in the Asankhata-dhatu, unborn, unformed purified > Element, and it is the release from Sankhata, that which is born > and formed. Referring to this the Buddha said: > > "Monks, there is an unborn, unmade, unoriginated, and > unformed. Were there not such a state there would be no escape > from that which is born, made, originated and formed. Since, > Monks, there is this state of the unborn . . . there is an > escape from the born, made, originated and formed." (Udana 80). > > It is to find out and to proclaim this unborn state that > the Bodhisatta endeavored to attain enlightenment. "It is for > the sake of attaining the unconditioned state of Nibbana that > the religious life in the Buddha is lived," and this was the > reply of that great Arahat Punna to the question of the Great > Arahat Sariputta, the Captain of the Faith, who questioned about > the purpose of living holy life in the Buddha. > > The argument depends upon such expressions as "extinction" > or "blown out as a lamp," which are frequent in the scriptures > as is seen in the following: > > "The old craving exhausted, the fresh craving rises, > > Freed from thought of future becoming > > They like seeds barren do not spring again, > > But are blown out just as a lamp. (Sn. ver. 235). > > Some may venture to ask: "Whether the Arahat exists after > death, or does not exist, or whether he is both existence and > non-existence". The Buddha has answered this kind of topsy-turvy > arguments by noble silence, knowing that they may not tend to > any profit, but to more confusion. > > There is neither an existent, nor non-existent object, > called Nibbana, which we have to enter for the attainment of > Immortality. If there were a phenomenal object called Nibbana > then it must have been subject to destruction and none could > have attained the eternal and immutable state called Nibbana or > Immortality. On the other hand, Nibbana cannot be explained as > being the annihilation of' the individual and the world, for if > we judge by the standard of the absolute truth (Paramattha) , we > find that the self and the world are mere illusions in so far as > they get no existence apart from our consciousness. > > Nibbana is not existence, hardly can it be non-existence. > It lies totally beyond both existence and non-existence. > Existence and non-existence are both conditional and relative to > each other. Nibbana which is "Absolute" cannot be designated as > being either existence or non-existence: Nibbana which is > incomprehensible and profound can only be realized by those who > have attained it and have thus passed beyond both limitations, > existence and non-existence. > > "But where does this Nibbana exist?" was the question > raised by King Milinda. The Venerable Nagasena replied: "There > is no place looking in the East, the West, the South, the North, > above, below or beyond, where Nibbana is situated. Yet, there is > Nibbana, for he who is pure in virtue and possesses right > Insight, realizes it, whether he is in Greece, Alexandria, > Kosala or in China:" (M11. pp. 323-26). > > Just as the fire is not stored up in a particular place > but rises when the necessary conditions are present, so Nibbana > is not said to exist in a particular place, but it is attained > when and wherever the necessary qualities are fulfilled. > Nibbana, therefore, is not a heavenly place like the Hebrew > Paradise, or the Christian Heaven, or the Hindu Brahma." > > Let us turn to our friends of the Mahayana School to see what > they think about this Asankhatadhatu. Nagarjuna who was supposed > to be a saint and the founder of the Madhyamika School explained > Nibbana as "Sunyata" Voidness, condemning all the degrees of > "Realism of the Sarvasti-vadins and asserting the mayavic nature > of existence. He denied the existence of the self and the world, > and proclaimed the essential oneness of Samsara and Nibbana. > According to his view Nibbana is to be attained by the grace of > Amitabha, and cannot be attained by self effort, for there is no > "Self" to effort. In the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa Thera says: > The Third truth, the Cessation of Suffering, i.e. Nibbana is > void of Atta, Self or Soul, but is full of the essence of > durability, goodness, and blissfulness, and its essential > characteristic is "Santi " peace. This shows how he has opposed > the idea of Sunyata of Nagarjuna. > > Regarding one's existence in Samsara and the deliverance > from it, the Buddha said the following salient facts:? > "Inconceivable is the beginning of this Samsara, not to be > discovered a first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by > ignorance and ensnared by craving, are hurrying and hastening > through this round of rebirths." > > "And thus have you long time undergone suffering, > undergone torment, undergone misfortune and filled the > graveyards full, verily, long enough to be dissatisfied with all > forms of existence, long enough to turn away and free yourself > from them all." > > "Be it in the past, present or future: whosoever of the > monks or priests regards the delightful and pleasurable things > in the world as impermanent (anicca), miserable (dukkha), > without an ego (anatta), as a disease and sorrow, it is he who > overcomes craving. > > "And released from Sensual Craving, released from the > Craving for Existence, and released from the Craving for > Non-Existence, he does not return, does not enter again into > existence." > > "For through the total fading away and extinction of > "Craving"(tanha), "Clinging to Existence" (upadana) is > extinguished: through the extinction of the clinging to > existence, the "Process of Becoming" (bhava) is extinguished: > through the extinction of the "Process of Becoming," (Action) > Rebirth (jati) is extinguished, through the extinction of > rebirth, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and > despair are extinguished. Thus comes about the extinction of > this whole mass of suffering." > > "Hence the annihilation, cessation and overcoming of > bodily form, feeling, perception, karma-formations and > consciousness: this is the extinction of suffering, the end of > disease, the overcoming of old age or death." > > ""Verily, there is a realm where there is neither the > solid, nor the liquid; neither heat, nor motion; neither this > world, nor any other world; neither sun, or moon. > > "This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither > standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither > foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of > suffering." > > ""However, through the fading away of delusion, through > the arising of wisdom, through the extinction of craving, no > future rebirth takes place again." > > "In this respect one may say of me, that I teach annihilation, > that I propound my doctrine for the purpose of annihilation, and > that I herein train my disciples. For certainly, I teach > annihilation, the annihilation of greed, anger, and delusion, as > well as of the manifold evil and demeritorious things." > If someone puts the question. "Who, made the Five Khandhas, or > five groups of existence," he seldom gets a right answer. Now > let it be said that the five groups of bodily and mental > phenomena, correctly speaking, have been put together by the > Buddha in order to show the "Anatta doctrine" the central and > unique teaching of Buddhism. > > All those bodily forms, feelings, perceptions, mental > formations and states of consciousness which the Buddha has > classified and grouped into the five groups are only of > momentary duration, existing no longer than a flash of > lightning. > > One never gets a right understanding of the five groups of > existence, if one thinks of them as something compact, whereas > in reality they are only fleeting phenomena changing as quickly > as lightning. > > The five groups are merely a classification made by the > Buddha hut have, as such, i.e. as groups, no real existence. If > there arises, e.g. a joyful feeling, there cannot arise at the > very same moment a sorrowful feeling; thus at any given moment > only a single representative of those groups may be present, > never any group as a whole. Hence it is impossible that a group > of feelings, or perceptions, or states of consciousness may > arise at one and the same time. > > The four mental groups are never existing separately. "And > it is Impossible that anyone can explain the passing out of one > existence and then entering into a new existence or the growth, > increase and development of consciousness, independently of > bodily form, feeling, perception and mental formations. Each > state of consciousness is always connected with some of the > fifty mental formations as explained in the "Abhidhamma Pitaka." > > > Through not understanding the nature of the five groups of > existence, one gets possessed of manifold wrong views, and it > becomes one's conviction and firm belief, "I have an Ego," or "I > have no Ego;" or "With the Ego I perceive the Ego," or "With > that which is no Ego I perceive the Ego," or "with the Ego I > perceive that which is no Ego." Or one falls into the following > view: "This my Ego, which can think and feel, and which, now > here, now there,. experiences the fruit of good and evil deeds - > this my Ego is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change > and will thus eternally remain the same. > > But, the noble disciple who understands the five Khandhas > as impermanent, subject to change and suffering, as not > remaining in two successive moments the same, he will penetrate > that liberating truth of "Anatta," the very root of all > unselfishness, leading to Nibbana. > > "Sabbe dhamma anattati "Nowhere can there be found a Self: > Yada pannaya passati, Who wisely perceives this truth, > Atha nibbindati dukkhe, He turns away from misery, > Esa maggo visuddhiya." This is the path to purity." > > In the Abhidhanapadipika, Nibbana is described in various > terms: > > Accanta The Everlasting > Akata The Unmade > Ananta The Endless > Apalokita The Undestructible > Panita The Sublime > Sarana The Refuge > Khema The Safety > Tana The Shelter > Lena The Retreat > Parayana The Goal > Siva The Bliss > Nipuna The Profound > Sacca The Truth > Dukkahakkhaya The Cessation of misery > Annasa The Freedom from longing > Sududdasa That which is difficult to grasp > Asankhara The Uncreated > Para The Further Shore > Para The Beyond > Mokkha The Deliverance > Nirodha The Extinction > Anidassana The Unperceptible > Nibbana The Extinction of Craving > Dhuva The Permanent > Avyapajja The Unoppressedness > Vivatta The Standstill of the cycle of existence > Kevala The Absolute > Anitika The Undistressed > Analaya The Detached > Pada The Law > Accuta The Deathless > Akkhara The Lasting > Vimutta The Release > Vimutti The Liberation > Apavagga The Total Completion > Viraga The Dispassionate > Yogakkhema The Peace from Bondage > Santi The Stillness > Visuddhi The Purity > Asankhata The Uncaused > Suddhi The Pure > Nibbuta The Allayment > > These are the names given to Nibbana by the Buddha in > various discourses. By this it becomes evident that Nibbana > cannot be compared to anything which comes within the reach of > our senses. > > Nibbana is visible to the mind of those who enter the Path > of the Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami and Arahat, at the moment > of deep insight into the Egolessness, Emptiness and Misery of > all Existence. > > And this moment is reached by the Noble Eight-fold Path. > > Just as a blind man does not understand what light > is, or as the sun cannot be seen when there are clouds, just so > the mind clouded by greed, anger and delusion will not be able > to perceive the reality of Nibbana. > To say that there is no Nibbana simply because those filled with > greed, anger and delusion, do not perceive it, is just as > illogical as to say that there is no light because the blind man > does not see it or because we cannot see the sun when clouds are > hindering our sight. > > Not by reasoning and abstract thinking can Nibbana ever be > attained, but only by right understanding, by inward > purification, inward conquest and by fulfilling the "Noble > Eight-fold Path" founded on Anattasanna, i.e. the perception > that all things are without an Ego, or Self and that also behind > all these phenomena of existence there is no "I," no eternal, > immutable, unchanging entity, a "thing in itself." > > There is only a five-khandha process of existence which > comes to a stand still at the death of the Arahat or Holy One. > > One never knows a thing as it really is without seeing it, > and this, more than anywhere else, is true with regard to > Nibbana. > > Although Nibbana is hidden to the eyes of the worldling, > the Path, however, leading there is attained by the noble > disciple and is explained by the Buddha with all necessary > details and every one can follow it. > . We have seen that in reality there does not exist any > Ego-entity or Soul, and that therefore also no transmigration of > the same into a new mother's womb is in no way a continuation of > the former bodily process but merely a result or effect caused > by the selfish craving and clinging to life, of the so-called > individual who has died. In Nid. Samy. No. 59, it is said: "Once > all Ignorance and clinging are extinguished neither karmically > meritorious nor demeritorious, nor imperturbable > karma-formations are produced, and thus no consciousness will > spring up again in a new mother's womb." > > "Here I feel the necessity of once more expressly emphasizing > the fact that without a clear perception of the phenomenality, > or Egolessness of all existence, a real understanding of the > Buddha's teaching, especially that of rebirth and Nibbana, is > impossible." > > "This doctrine of Anatta is in fact the only specific > teaching of Buddhism with which the entire teaching stands or > falls." > > One cannot say that the Arahat is reborn, because all > craving and clinging to existence are completely abandoned, > rooted out, like a palm tree torn out of the soil, destroyed and > not liable to spring up again in the future. > > "Neither can one say that the Arahat is annihilated at > death as there is nothing to be annihilated. What we call > "Arahat" is, as we have seen, only a convenient term of speech > and has no real existence. There is only a process of bodily and > mental phenomena which have come to a standstill and is not > continued after death." > > Whether Perfect Ones (Buddhas) appear In the world > or whether Perfect Ones do not appear in the world, it still > remains a firm condition, an Immutable fact and fixed law that > all formations are "impermanent," that all formations are > "subject to suffering," that everything is "without an Ego." > > "Therefore, Disciples, the doctrines which I advised you > to penetrate, you should well preserve, well guard, so that this > Holy Life may take its course and continue for ages, for the > wheel and welfare of heavenly beings and men." > > Thus, the problem of Nibbana is an ethical rather than a > philosophical one, and its solution is dependent not upon > dialectical skill but upon right understanding and upon inward > purification, Inward conquest and fulfilling the "Noble > Eightfold Path' founded on Anatta-sanna, the perception that, > all things created as well as uncreated are without an Ego, and > that also behind all these phenomena of existence there is no > "I", "no eternal, immutable unchangeable entity, or a thing in > itself." > > Dukkham-eva hi na koci dukkhito, > > Karako na, kiriya va vijjati, > > Atthi nibuti, na nibbuto puma, > > Maggam-atthi, gamako na vijjati. > > "Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found > > The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds: > > Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it, > > The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen." > > Kammassa Karako natthi, > > Vipakassa ca vedako, > > Suddhadhamma pavattanti, > > Ev 'etam sammadassanam. > > 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. > > Na hettha devo brahma va, > > Samsarass-atthi karako, > > Suddhadhamma pavattanti, > > Hetusambharapaccaya ti. > > No god, no Brahma, may be called, > > The maker of this wheel of life, > > Empty phenomena roll on, > > Dependent on conditions all." V.M. XIX. > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8038 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 7:02pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Robert Epstein wrote: > There is a Mahayana doctrine -- I am not sure exactly where it occurs in the > sutras, or how widespread it is -- that Samsara and Nirvana are two sides of the > same coin, and that Samsara is the deluded face of Nirvana [Nibbana]. Hi Robert, You can see this in the Yogacara, that Nirvana is nothing other than defiled mental imputations removed from dependent arisings, leaving their consummate nature. The analogy of gold, gold ore, and mud is used. When you remove the mud from the gold ore you get gold. When you remove defiled concepts from the dependent arisings, the very same dependently-arise phenomena exist, yet they appear as undefiled (peace), and reveal their true nature to the undefiled mind, which is Nibbana. In technical terms this is parinispanna (consummate nature) = paratantra (other dependent) - parikalipta (defiled mental imputations). > When buddha > says above that all phenomena have Nibbana as their essence, he is hinting at the > advanced idea that an enlightened being would not see the arising phenomena as > flawed in some way, but would see it as the momentary reflection of Nibbana > itself. The ultimate mode of all phenomena is their emptiness. So in this sense a Buddha, who has removed all "obstructions to omniscience", simultaneously sees the dependent nature of all phenomena and their emptiness. Arahats lacking the faculty of a Buddha's omniscience cannot see this, however. > Without awareness, phenomena would not even appear to arise, and so awareness is > the essence of the arising of all phenomena. As awareness becomes more unimpeded, > the true nature of phenomena is revealed: it is not only impermanent, > unsatisfying and lacking in self-nature, but is also nothing other than a seeming > modification of the awareness in which it appears to occur. Right, however, this ultimate mode is only perceived for short instants by those in the actual perception of emptiness (and by Buddhas at all times). That means only during path-moments where Nibbana is being perceived directly can beings other than Buddhas percieve this ultimate nature of phenomena, but this also cancels out the perception of their dependent nature for non-Buddhas. > I am extrapolating this from the above quote, knowing that it may be confusing, > controversial, or, from a Theravadin view, perhaps just wrong, The Pali Canon doesn't explicitly cover all of this material, which is why we are fortunate in having the so-called Mahayana teachings from the Buddha to fill in the details the Pali Canon glosses over (and there are many). > but I would like to > take the opportunity to see what others' views are of the Buddha's statement > above, and of the ideas I have put forth based on them. They will either suggest > a bridge between the Theravadin and Mahayana schools, or perhaps obscure it > further. The one thing I can say is that the more I study the more tha Pali Canon, the more it simply confirms everything I've learned in the Mahayana, and it's given me an even deeper respect for the depth and breadth of the so-called Mahayana. There is precedent for everything in the Pali Canon, though. It's just that there's not enough detail there on certain points (particularly Buddhahood and the Bodhsattva path), and without reference to the Mahayana Sutras which detail these aspect specifically, it is difficult to draw the appropriate interpretations of those points. Then again, since few who study the Pali Canon are explicitly practicing the Bodhisattva path and aiming at Buddhahood, it is not so important these details be present there. 8039 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi Robert, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I am extrapolating this from the above quote, > knowing that it may be confusing, > controversial, or, from a Theravadin view, perhaps > just wrong, but I would like to > take the opportunity to see what others' views are > of the Buddha's statement > above, and of the ideas I have put forth based on > them. They will either suggest > a bridge between the Theravadin and Mahayana > schools, or perhaps obscure it > further. I do think you're closing in on one of the major differences between the Mahayana and the Theravada. It was my dream, years ago, to find a synthesis of the two--my conclusion (possibly mistaken, of course) was that this is not possible, in large part because of the differences you're addressing here (which I believe are fundamental). This conclusion (and others) are based on some somewhat vague ideas about Mahayana doctrine, extracted by me mostly from my readings of a large volume of Ch'an material (and my own experiences and readings from and about the Tipitaka). Though I'm fairly confident of my conclusions, I'm not able to support them sufficiently to publish my opinions. I do wish you the very best in your own investigations, which continue to impress me with their sincerity and focus. mike --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > > > another phrase in tipitaka is > > 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' > > this means 'Release is the essense of all > phenomena' > > vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another > word for nibbana. > > > > so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to > 'sabbe dhamma'( all > > phenomena ) > > Well this is extremely intriguing. If this is an > accurate way of looking at this > statement, it seems to me that the root of Mahayana > doctrines, and perhaps Anders' > doctrine of Nibbana as the 'true self' have their > root in Theravadin doctrine. > This would be very important, as it would provide a > link between all of the > teachings proposed to emanate from the Buddha. > > There is a Mahayana doctrine -- I am not sure > exactly where it occurs in the > sutras, or how widespread it is -- that Samsara and > Nirvana are two sides of the > same coin, and that Samsara is the deluded face of > Nirvana [Nibbana]. When buddha > says above that all phenomena have Nibbana as their > essence, he is hinting at the > advanced idea that an enlightened being would not > see the arising phenomena as > flawed in some way, but would see it as the > momentary reflection of Nibbana > itself. > > We can imagine that the Buddha would not only see > the illusory nature of the > arisings of phenomena, but would also see the > essence from which they spring. > Without awareness, phenomena would not even appear > to arise, and so awareness is > the essence of the arising of all phenomena. As > awareness becomes more unimpeded, > the true nature of phenomena is revealed: it is not > only impermanent, > unsatisfying and lacking in self-nature, but is also > nothing other than a seeming > modification of the awareness in which it appears to > occur. > > I am extrapolating this from the above quote, > knowing that it may be confusing, > controversial, or, from a Theravadin view, perhaps > just wrong, but I would like to > take the opportunity to see what others' views are > of the Buddha's statement > above, and of the ideas I have put forth based on > them. They will either suggest > a bridge between the Theravadin and Mahayana > schools, or perhaps obscure it > further. > > I would also like to hear from Anders, who can say > if he thinks my way of putting > this is off the mark from a Mahayana point of view. > > Best, > Robert E. > 8040 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:41pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: O/T: A Momentary Descent into Politics [Cybele] Dear Kenneth, Thanks for the good words. --- KennethOng wrote: > When I saw pple shouting for retaliatory actions in > this Sangha > groups or pinpointing/blaming at the terrorists or > the US govt, it > sadden me because Buddha is an embodiment of > compassion and wisdom. > When we condemned others, are not we ourselves have > give up on > others. Aren't we not having ill will towards > others. > No one is to blame, I only blame > myself for not > being enlighten and not teaching these innocent > lives and terrorists > the dharma. I think that 'self' is to blame only in the sense that it's an aspect of ignorance. > Once again, lets us believe in karma and be > compassionate to those > around us. Let us refrain from incorrect actions or > words. Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. Sutta Nipata I, 8 Thanks again, Kenneth. mike 8041 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 9:06pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear erik, > > > Nope, it does not imply that 'absence of ailments' is an entity. > > it is not an entity like 'an ailment'. > > but it can have a nature of its own. > > Interesting, Gayan. How would you describe this "nature"? The reason > I ask is that I still hear you saying or implying that Nibbana > has "own-being", since I am still hearing "svabhava" (nature) being > implied here. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it sounds that way. > this is like a word play erik, i think this happens simply because you are well versed in several schools of buddhism than most of us. :o) What 'you' hear as 'I' say can possibly be what 'you' have in your mind. 'nature' not nessesarily has to be or have 'own-being'. Nature can be a presence or an absence. Most of the time Buddha explains nibbana as absence of lobha , dosa, moha.. thats the nature. Its something like the 'extinction' of a flame.(Nibbana) This extinction of fire has a nature. > So my question is again, how does your interpretation of > emptiness/Nibbana above not imply svabhava (and by implication > independent existence) of some sort? This does not imply an independent existance of a non-flame. rgds, gayan 8042 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 9:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Good Grief! Dear Mike, (Nina and Kom) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Still catching up. Me too! (what’s new?) > --- Sarah wrote: > > > As I mentioned, Khun Sujin stressed that it should > > not be understood that tanha > > was ever kusala in anyway. However tanha for > > following the noble path is or > > developing kusala is not as bad as other kinds of > > tanha (connected to the 5 > > sensualities) as it can be upanissaya paccaya for > > kusala and this is what > > should be understood. This is how I read the Thai > > comm notes you provided, but > > it may not sound convincing to others;-) > > The responses to this thread are mostly over my head, > hope you don't mind if I drag it back down a little. Mostly over mine as well...but I did follow up with Khun Sujin. Still some question marks, but I’ll add a few comments according to my understanding of what she said, before I look at your question. As I recollect, she mentioned that after coming out of a jhana state, there is bound to be domanassa (unpleasant feeling). There are 2 kinds of domanassa: that which doesn’t hurt or cause any harm to others such as the one for spiritual attainments (see Kom's note below from the com.) and the 2nd one for sense objects. The first one can be a condition (upanissaya paccaya) for wholesome states (jhana or vipassana) and so, although domanassa can never accompany a wholesome citta, this is the one that is referred to as the ‘one to be pursued’. This is exactly how she had (by telephone earlier) explained about tanha above and also ‘fits’ with the Thai commentary notes which Kom gave us and I’ve added at the end.* Kom & Nina, I also raised the question of jhana paccaya and domanassa in this regard, but she stressed that this was quite another matter....jhana states and jhana paccaya are quite separate and it was only the former that is being referred to here . You may like to pursue it further in India if this isn’t clear.. (Nina, Jon or I or both will come back to the other discussion topics when we’re not so very hectic. His boss is away and he’s doing 2 jobs this week and all my school year classes have just started....many thanks for raising them...) > The above is pretty much the way I've been thinking of > it, with the addition of samvega (sometimes translated > as anxiety, agitation or dismay). Sorry if I've > overlooked the answer to this in the preceding notes, > but do you think samvega could be the 'grief to be > pursued'? Nina or Rob or Kom may have more idea about this. I only know very little about samvega vatthu or the 8 kinds of urgency - birth, old age, disease, death. lower planes suffering, future misery in cycles of rebirth, present misery in the search for food. Anyone can read more about these in the Vism, (ch 3?) and i will review when i have time, but I’m not sure if these are what you are referring to. The only connection I see is that perhaps we could say that again any domanassa asociated with moments of seeing the urgency of development, conditioned by clinging for sure, are again not harmful to others like most domanassa and dosa. Not sure I’ve helped, Sarah .................................................... * Kom wrote: The commentary mentioned that domanassa that should not be pursued includes domanassa that is connected to the 5 sensualities. The domanassa that should be pursued includes domanassa resulting from wanting to attain the lokutarra phala but doesn't attain adaquate amount of vipassana in a certain period of time, the wanting of the same kind of ayatana as the ariyans. As a result of the want, the domanassa arises. "To be pursued" domannassaa includes: domanassa resulting from leaving the 5 sensualities, from vipassana, from being mindful - being aware, from the 1st Jhana, etc. It was then explained in detail how a Bikhu can have domanassa resulted from wanting to have the result but has not attained. end quote .................................................> > Still catching up. > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > As I mentioned, Khun Sujin stressed that it should > > not be understood that tanha > > was ever kusala in anyway. However tanha for > > following the noble path is or > > developing kusala is not as bad as other kinds of > > tanha (connected to the 5 > > sensualities) as it can be upanissaya paccaya for > > kusala and this is what > > should be understood. This is how I read the Thai > > comm notes you provided, but > > it may not sound convincing to others;-) > > The responses to this thread are mostly over my head, > hope you don't mind if I drag it back down a little. > The above is pretty much the way I've been thinking of > it, with the addition of samvega (sometimes translated > as anxiety, agitation or dismay). Sorry if I've > overlooked the answer to this in the preceding notes, > but do you think samvega could be the 'grief to be > pursued'? > > mike 8043 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 9:40pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear anders, >SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." in the context of SN4 this is the interpretation buddha intended. " Sabbaµ vo bhikkhave desissŒmi-1 taµ suöŒtha. Ki–ca bhikkhave sabbaµ: cakkhu–ceva rèpŒ ca sota–ca saddŒ ca ghŒna–ca gandhŒ ca jivhŒ ca rasŒ ca kŒyo ca pho­­habbŒ ca mano ca dhammŒ ca idaµ vuccati bhikkhave sabbaµ. " when buddha says 'sabba' here , he intends chakkhu and rupa, sota and sadda, ghana and gandha, jivha and rasa, kaya and pottabbha, mano and dhamma. the word dhamma here has a restricted meaning here. its to be understood as 'dhamma' to mano indriya is similar as rupa to chakkhu indriya. furthur more " DhammŒ niccŒ vŒ aniccŒ vŒti? AniccŒ bhante. Yaµ panŒniccaµ dukkhaµ vŒ taµ sukhaµ vŒti? Dukkhaµ bhante yaµ panŒniccaµ dukkhaµ viparinŒmadhammaµ kallannu taµ samanupassituµ "etaµ mama esohamasmi eso me attŒ" ti? Nohetaµ bhante. " so in the SN4's context 'dhamma' has a specific meaning. rgds, gayan 8044 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 9:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear robert e., > > another phrase in tipitaka is > > 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' > > this means 'Release is the essense of all phenomena' > > vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another word for nibbana. > > > > so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to 'sabbe dhamma'( all > > phenomena ) > > Well this is extremely intriguing. If this is an accurate way of looking at this > statement, it seems to me that the root of Mahayana doctrines, and perhaps Anders' > doctrine of Nibbana as the 'true self' have their root in Theravadin doctrine. > This would be very important, as it would provide a link between all of the > teachings proposed to emanate from the Buddha. > Yes it is intrguing. Buddha simply said this phrase to drive the point away from a 'self'. I wrote the story(As much as I can remember) in a mail to anders in an earlier post. A 'self' is not the essence. The 'release' is the essence. It may be the case that in Mahayana, what is intended by word 'true self' of 'bodhi' is the 'release' or nibbana. But in theravada context 'self' has nothing to do with 'nibbana'. rgds, gayan 8045 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 10:02pm Subject: Sabhava or 'essence' Dear Friends, I'm glad to see all the interesting discussion, even though I'm rather behind;-) Sabhava or ‘essence’ has been a pretty popular topic on dsg, especially amongst those who’ve come from a Mahayana background. Anyone can go to: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ (password- metta) and key in ‘sabhava’ under ‘search’. I’ve just done this and extracted a few quotations from a few of my past posts (the comments in between were mine): *********** 1) > > 'Nibbana is a single undifferentiated ultimate reality. It is > exclusively supramundane, and has > > one intrinsic nature (sabhava), which is that of being the > unconditioned deathless element totally > > transcendant to the conditioned world.' (AS.V1,31) > > ********** > > In other words, even though it is unconditioned, it has its nature > that can be realized. I'm not > > sure that I would call the realizing 'marking', but either way, it > remains the citta that realizes > > or marks and is conditioned. Being realized does not make the > unconditioned reality conditioned. ................................................................................> 2)Nibbana, even though it's unconditioned, is a reality with its own 'sabhava' even if it lacks many/most the characteristics of other realities. Because we often use negative terms to describe it (the un-this and un-that) it's very easy to be left with the idea that there is nothing to be realized. Although I'm not an expert on nibbana (!!), this isn't true according to my studies. Also, of course, all realities are not self and yet phassa 'contacts' them..this doesn't make them non-existent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3) The only way that seeing can be known as anatta is by being aware of the essence of seeing when it appears at this moment. Whether sati arises at the exact moment of seeing or immediately following it in the mind-door process is not very important. What is important is to understand its nature when it appears. I can hear Erik ready to object! So how can seeing be both anatta and yet with essence? Simply, if seeing had no characteristic or nature it would not arise and would not perform its function. There was some discussion awhile back (between Jon and Howard I believe) about the individual essence or sabhava. Howard, you may wish to refer back to this, but now rather than hunting back, let me quote from the Visuddhimagga which has many notes about sabhava (individual essence). I'm looking at ChX1V, (the start of the section on vipassana),3-7, which discusses panna (understanding) and also sanna (perception): '....It is understanding (panna) in the sense of act of understanding (pajanana). What is this act of understanding? It is knowing (janana) in a particular mode separate from the modes of perceiving (sanjanana) and cognizing (vijanana). For though the state of knowing (janana-bhava) is equally present in perception (sanna), in consciousness (vinnana) and in understanding (panna), nevertheless perception is only the mere perceiving of an object as, say, 'blue' or 'yellow'; it cannot bring about the penetration of its characteristics as impermanent, painful, and not-self. Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, and it brings about the penetration of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the (supramundane) path. Understanding knows the object in the way already stated, it brings about the penetration of the characteristics, and it brings about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the path.................Understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essences of states*. Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of states. It is manifested as non-delusion. Because of the words "One who is concentrated knows and sees correctly (A.v.3), its proximate cause is concentration...' *' 'A phenomenon's own essence (sako bhavo) or existing essence (samano va bhava) is its individual essence (sabhava). Cf Ch V111, note 68 where Pm gives the definition from saha-bhava (with essence). At the last reference we find the definition of sabhava is narrower than dhamma and is similar to dhatu (element)...'dhamma without individual essence (asabhava-dhamma) include the attainment of cessation and some concepts such as space and time.....Of nibbana..which has its own individual essence, the Mula Tia says: 'Nibbana is not like othe dhammas; because of its extreme profundity it cannot be made an object of consciousness (alambitum) by one who has not realized it. That is why it has to be realized by change-of-lineage. It has profundity surpassing any individual essence belonging to the three periods of time.'.. There is a lot more detail on sabhava in the Vism. As I have mentioned, there has to be awareness of the characteristic of 'essence' or nature of seeing over and over and over again. Direct understanding has to know its nature as being not-self and quite different from visible object, sanna and thinking. When there is so little understanding now, I wonder rather what is the use of thinking much about nibbana when really there can be so little comprehension of what its profundity means. When we consider different realities, sometimes we may consider them in terms of dependent origination, sometimes as khandhas, sometimes as nama and rupa, sometimes in tems of kamma and vipaka. Whatever classification or terminology is being used, the purpose is to help remind us about different realities appearing right now which can be known as anatta. ................................................ 4)Let me add a little more from that Vism ref I gave sabhava...'..it is narrower than dhamma. It often roughly corresponds to dhatu (element) and lakkhana(characteristic), but less nearly to the vaguer and (in Pali) untechnical pakati (nature), or to rasa(function). The Athasalani observes: 'it is the individual essence, or the generality, of such and such dhammas that is called their characteristic' (DhsA.63); on which the Mula Tika comments: 'The individual essence consisting in, say, hardness as that of earth, or touching as that of contact, is not common to all dhammas....' Actually there's a lot of detail here and following and if I had time I'd follow the cross refs too. There is a note at the end that says the Sanskrit equivalent, sabhava, had a 'great vogue and chequered history in philosophical discusions on the Indian mainland'. To my understanding, they couldn't possibly have the same meaning because Pali sabhava, essence is inherently reflecting the anatta characteristic of the reality whereas the Sanskrit one would be reflecting a thing, a self, atta.... .......................................... If anyone is still reading, you may like to look at useful posts saved under nibbana and sabhava at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Best wishes, Sarah 8046 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 10:35pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "m. nease" wrote: Hi Mike, > I do think you're closing in on one of the major > differences between the Mahayana and the Theravada. > It was my dream, years ago, to find a synthesis of the > two--my conclusion (possibly mistaken, of course) was > that this is not possible, in large part because of > the differences you're addressing here (which I > believe are fundamental). I have not detected any fundamental difference between the two (not as much as a hair of contradiction, actually). Can you point to specifics that have led you to adopt this particular view? > This conclusion (and others) are based on some > somewhat vague ideas about Mahayana doctrine, > extracted by me mostly from my readings of a large > volume of Ch'an material (and my own experiences and > readings from and about the Tipitaka). Perhaps rather than drawing any conclusions from your own cursory readings of Ch'an material (which can hardly be said to represent the vast breadth of systems categorized under the heading "Mahayana"), it may be prudent to in addition request isntruction from those trained in one of these wonderful traditions, and then to take that instruction and put it into practice and test out for yourself if it works for you or not. Taking my own advice, before I attempted to draw any conclusions about Theravada, for example, I was careful to request teachings from qualified instructors in this excellent tradition. And I have been very nicely surprised--particularly by all my instructors over at Wat Mahatat, where I found nothing but perfect harmony and concord between what I've been taught in the Mahayana by my teachers, such that I feel as though I'm just as at home there as in my own gompa. But that's just the opinion of someone who's studied under qualified teachers in both traditions, put their teachings into practice (from both sides), and studied the Pali Suttas side-by-side with the Mahayana Sutras since the beginning of his studies (even though favoring the Mahayana since it accords best with his accumulations). Regardless, in the final analysis, the only way to put this question to bed once and for all is to awaken to the Deathless. Then all doubt is terminated and one knows for certain what is and is not the Dharma. Since what is being pointed ceases to be a matter of doubt, then it is possible to know whether or not a given presentation squares with the essence of the Dharma or not--which is what actually matters (substance vs. style, in other words). But not until. Without such definitive knowledge, any conclusion would be nothing but the purest speculation; and if one is entirely honest, this is just as true regarding the teachings in Pali Canon as for the teachings of the so-called Mahayana. Hopefully this underscores why attempting to draw any conclusions before such direct knowledge is thoroughly established isn't a particularly helpful approach. In fact, it is not even acting in accordance with what the Buddha suggested in the Pali Canon in terms of acting as a "guardian of the truth," nor even the Abhidhamma for that matter, where the notion that "this alone is true, all other views are false" is listed as one of the "Four Bonds." Not only that, but for those of a particularly dogmatic bent, it could even lead to the very serious error of denigrating what is in fact the ariyan Dharma, out of ignorance (not suggesting this in your case, mind you), simply because an unfamiliar presentation of the Dharma may not accord with one's present prejudices and speculations. 8047 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 10:59pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > this is like a word play erik, > i think this happens simply because you are well versed in several schools > of buddhism than most of us. > :o) Hi Gayan, This is a "word play" because there's no alternative but to play with words in a forum like this! :) On that note, I have found enormous advantage in studying several schools' presentations of emptiness. There are more flavors of this out there than can be imagined, many of them questionable. Having a basis of comparison can really help uncover the points of contention, where they're hiding--which is one reason there is such a heavy emphasis on comparative analysis and debate in the Tibetan Geluk-pa tradition, for example. I am very grateful for having been exposed to this ruthless analytical method. > What 'you' hear as 'I' say can possibly be what 'you' have in your mind. I am responding to words that in my tradition would get you hammered for suggesting "true existence"! What can I say? Old habits are hard to break! :) > Most of the time Buddha explains nibbana as absence of lobha , dosa, moha.. > thats the nature. > Its something like the 'extinction' of a flame.(Nibbana) > This extinction of fire has a nature. This is of course a very stock answer. Since you suggest the extinction of the fire has a nature, what nature would that be? > > So my question is again, how does your interpretation of > > emptiness/Nibbana above not imply svabhava (and by implication > > independent existence) of some sort? > > This does not imply an independent existance of a non-flame. Okay, so we agree Nibbana lacks independent existence. Since we're using analogies, the way I read that is that there is the cessation of that flame because it ran out of fuel. This cessation is a mere absence of nutriment conditions, i.e., there are no further conditions for the flame's arising, i.e. when this ceases, that ceases. But the cessation of the flame implies nothing positive whatsoever; it is a non-affirming negative (unlike an affirming negative like "The fat Devadatta never eats during the daytime", which carries with it the affirmation that he has to be stuffing his face at night). 8048 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 11:12pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Good Grief! Dear Sarah, --- Sarah wrote: > As I recollect, she mentioned that after coming out > of a jhana state, there is > bound to be domanassa (unpleasant feeling). There > are 2 kinds of domanassa: > that which doesn’t hurt or cause any harm to others > such as the one for > spiritual attainments (see Kom's note below from the > com.) and the 2nd one for > sense objects. The first one can be a condition > (upanissaya paccaya) for > wholesome states (jhana or vipassana) and so, > although domanassa can never > accompany a wholesome citta, this is the one that is > referred to as the ‘one to > be pursued’. Yes--this still points to samvega, by my (very limited!) understanding. > This is exactly how she had (by telephone earlier) > explained about tanha above > and also ‘fits’ with the Thai commentary notes which > Kom gave us and I’ve added > at the end.* > > Kom & Nina, I also raised the question of jhana > paccaya and domanassa in this > regard, but she stressed that this was quite another > matter....jhana states and > jhana paccaya are quite separate and it was only the > former that is being > referred to here. Thanks, Sarah. Your recap of your and Kom's and Nina's comments somehow helped to clarify this. I'm pretty comfortable now with 'samvega', especially in light of the 'eight urgencies'. As in the case of ottapa(sp?), I think this is a case of paññaa 'seeing danger' rather than aversion to the danger. mike 8049 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 11:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS If you say nibbana is the "release", what is the release then, release from a self to a "true self", what is the true self. If Nibbana is a true self, then there is hold to a conception, means dwelling on a notion which lead to dualism as there must be a false self in order to be a true self. Nibbana is emptiness hence it cannot be described. it is notionless, labelless and signless. All Buddhism are of one root, one vehicle, different type of school/sects or vehicle differentiation is designed to suit the different likings and aspirations of different beings. To see all different, is to attached in dualism. All branches in Buddhism advocate impermanence and mindfulness and their foundamental evolve from the four noble truth. They are the same in essence. Kind regards Kenneth Ong Gayan Karunaratne wrote: dear robert e., > > another phrase in tipitaka is > > 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' > > this means 'Release is the essense of all phenomena' > > vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another word for nibbana. > > > > so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to 'sabbe dhamma'( all > > phenomena ) > > Well this is extremely intriguing. If this is an accurate way of looking at this > statement, it seems to me that the root of Mahayana doctrines, and perhaps Anders' > doctrine of Nibbana as the 'true self' have their root in Theravadin doctrine. > This would be very important, as it would provide a link between all of the > teachings proposed to emanate from the Buddha. > Yes it is intrguing. Buddha simply said this phrase to drive the point away from a 'self'. I wrote the story(As much as I can remember) in a mail to anders in an earlier post. A 'self' is not the essence. The 'release' is the essence. It may be the case that in Mahayana, what is intended by word 'true self' of 'bodhi' is the 'release' or nibbana. But in theravada context 'self' has nothing to do with 'nibbana'. rgds, gayan 8050 From: rikpa21 Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 0:28am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence' --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah, > 2)Nibbana, > even though it's unconditioned, is a reality with its own 'sabhava' even if it > lacks many/most the > characteristics of other realities. Because we often use negative terms to > describe it (the > un-this and un-that) it's very easy to be left with the idea that there is > nothing to be realized. What about the non-affirming negation represented by the label Nibbana can be positively known? > Also, of > course, all realities are not self and yet phassa 'contacts' them..this doesn't > make them > non-existent. Phassa contacts mundane realities, which may have anatta as a ultimate characteristic, but phassa isn't contacting that aspect of them. That is the function of lokuttara panna. > 3) The only way that seeing can be known as anatta is by > being aware of the essence of seeing when it appears > at this moment. Whether sati arises at the exact > moment of seeing or immediately following it in the > mind-door process is not very important. What is > important is to understand its nature when it appears. > I can hear Erik ready to object! I am curious where in the Satipatthana Sutta this is mentioned, because I've combed through it and haven't found this referenced there. What I have found is this: "There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.)" This says to be mindful of the *fetters* arising dependent on *forms* arising in dependence on the eye-sense. Nowhere does it say to be mindful of the "essence of seeing". I have no idea how one would even go about being mindful of such a thing. Is it possible to explain how one is supposed to be mindful of the "essence of seeing"? What in particular is one supposed to pay attention to, such that sati finds a firm foundation for arising? Of all the meditations in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, such as on the five hindrances, the body, the Four Noble Truths, pleasant feeling, unleasant feeling, I can't find any reference to this at all. Surely if it's so helpful, I would imagine the Buddha would have expounded it there among all the other objects of mindfulness, as he did in great detail regarding things like finding seclusion and sitting cross-legged, spine erect (oh, I forgot, that explicit instruction from the Satipatthana Sutta is deemed unnecessary around here and the "essence of seeing", which I can't find anyplace in the Satipatthana Sutta, is considered the essential intepretation! :) > Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, > and it brings about the penetration of its > characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by > endeavouring, the manifestation of the (supramundane) > path. Understanding knows the object in the way > already stated, it brings about the penetration of the > characteristics, and it brings about, by endeavouring, > the manifestation of the > path.................Understanding has the > characteristic of penetrating the individual essences > of states*. Its function is to abolish the darkness > of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of > states. It is manifested as non-delusion. Because of > the words "One who is concentrated knows and sees > correctly (A.v.3), its proximate cause is > concentration...' > > *' 'A phenomenon's own essence (sako bhavo) or > existing essence (samano va bhava) is its individual > essence (sabhava). Cf Ch V111, note 68 where Pm gives > the definition from saha-bhava (with essence). This sounds like it's actually contradicting you Sarah! There is not mention of penetrating the essence of "seeing" but rather the essence of *what* (phenomenon) is being seen: as painful, impermanent, and not-self. But consciousness is also mentioned as a factor for understanding here, meaning consciousness of *what* is being perceived, not the "essence of seeing". To me this very clearly appears to be referring to the nature of what is *being* seen--again, the forms arisen in dependence on the eye-sense. That is a pretty big difference. In fact, if read as the the essence of *what is being seen*, it accords with the Satipatthana Sutta, because here it says that understanding, using consciousness, investigates the characteristics of its object, and comes to see them as impermanent, painful, and not-self. This makes even more sense to me if I just consider my own experience. For example, I can discern the fetter of unarisen sensual desire arising in me when I'm around my girlfriend. In this way I can easily note the arising of this unarisen fetter, and likewise, some time after taking a cold shower, if I'm lucky, the passing away of this fetter. What I am still unable to do, however, is figure out how I'm supposed to note any of the three characteristics of the "essence of seeing" going on at the same time. Can you understasnd where I might have a hard time discerning how one is supposed to recognize this mysterious "essence of seeing", when it's so very simple to instead observe the characteristics of all these obvious fetters like kamachanda arising and passing away? > As I have mentioned, there has to be awareness of the > characteristic of 'essence' or nature of seeing over > and over and over again. Direct understanding has to > know its nature as being not-self and quite different > from visible object, sanna and thinking. Again, to help with my obtuseness, how do do this? What about "seeing" gives me enough of a hook to sink my sati into that I can work with right now? How do I get "clear comprehension" of this essence--because after all clear comprehension and mindfulness work together, and I can't even get a clear comprehension of what this "essence of seeing" refers to, let alone how I'd begin to recognize this in any way even if I did had an idea what this is supposed to mean! :) > When there is > so little understanding now, I wonder rather what is > the use of thinking much about nibbana when really > there can be so little comprehension of what its > profundity means. I dunno, in the Mahayana systems emptiness is heavily emphasized as a teaching. This approach actually seems to work quite well for many people. 8051 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:37pm Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi, Robert - I share your perspective on this. As I see it, nibbana is the absence of all conditions, but it is not a dark absence; there is the light of awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on no objects, with discernment unmanifestive - rikpa. (I also accept the notion of a "nibbana beyond nibbana", the union of opposites which subsumes the mutually dependent nibbana/unconditioned and the realm of conditions, which is what I understand as one sense of the term 'suchness'.) If there were any "absolute" at all, it would have to subsume both conditions and the unconditioned. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/14/01 5:01:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as > > > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. Yet there is no > > > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a > > > mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence > > > doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) > > > > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never thought of it like that. > > Actually< I've tried to, but it didn't seem to work. > > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, but I would say that you > can look > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, or you can look at it as > the > positive state of being in which those properties are absent. This may > seem like > semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is there a positive state > left when > delusory mental factors have been released from awareness? I would say that > awareness, which is not a thing either but is indeed a reality, is left > unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and defiling tendencies. So > if we > only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't emphasize that awareness > [sentience] is still present, just without the false creation of separate > objects, > beings and delusions [I know I'm not being precise], we may lose the flavor > of a > state in which awareness is free to take in the exact truth of all things it > encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has in some way been > depleted. > > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a mere absence, rather than a > positive state, tends to verge towards annihilationism in which one sees > the self > and other structures obliterated, with nothing left over. My own view is > that if > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly to consciousness without > mental > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical vision of Nibbana. If we > emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, however, in positive sense, we > have > the promise of sentience come to its complete fruition, without the > suffering it > had endured previously. This difference in emphasis may in some ways > characterize > the Mahayana approach. I think it is important not to stray too far in > either > direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which is to say: If one > emphasizes > the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards nihilism, seeing emptiness > as > absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as a positive state, one > may tend > towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, and re-create the vision > of the > immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, the middle ground is to > say that > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but that awareness has no > definition > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of self or entity. > > I will be curious to see what others think of these distinctions. > > Best, > Robert E. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8052 From: Anders Honore Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 0:46am Subject: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, but I would say that you can look > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, or you can look at it as the > positive state of being in which those properties are absent. This may seem like > semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is there a positive state left when > delusory mental factors have been released from awareness? I would say that > awareness, which is not a thing either but is indeed a reality, is left > unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and defiling tendencies. So if we > only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't emphasize that awareness > [sentience] is still present, just without the false creation of separate objects, > beings and delusions [I know I'm not being precise], we may lose the flavor of a > state in which awareness is free to take in the exact truth of all things it > encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has in some way been depleted. > > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a mere absence, rather than a > positive state, tends to verge towards annihilationism in which one sees the self > and other structures obliterated, with nothing left over. My own view is that if > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly to consciousness without mental > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical vision of Nibbana. If we > emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, however, in positive sense, we have > the promise of sentience come to its complete fruition, without the suffering it > had endured previously. This difference in emphasis may in some ways characterize > the Mahayana approach. I think it is important not to stray too far in either > direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which is to say: If one emphasizes > the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards nihilism, seeing emptiness as > absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as a positive state, one may tend > towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, and re-create the vision of the > immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, the middle ground is to say that > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but that awareness has no definition > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of self or entity. > > I will be curious to see what others think of these distinctions. Some people say Nibbana is positive, others negative. Such people don't really know. 8053 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Anders - In a message dated 9/14/01 6:01:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Anders writes: > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > ========================= Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I have no idea of where to look. I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read the Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta Nipata, the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come across this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is unacceptable. 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) 8054 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:54pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] A Personal note Thank you, Sarah. You are very kind. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/14/01 6:14:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sarah writes: > Dear Howard, > > Thank you for sharing this. > > I'm very sure that all the friends like yourselves who attended the service > and > party will be offering emotional and spiritual help and support as > appropriate > and I very much hope that Sid, his daughter, her son and other family > members > are able with time to accept the tragedy and grow in wisdom. > > I teach some students from the American school here and one who came > yesterday > was quite disturbed as he told me his best friend's father was in tears all > night because he had several friends lost in the Pentagon.....So many people > are affected and there are many opportunities for us to practise the brahma > viharas as others have said. > > Howard, our best wishes to your wife as well from us all here. > > Sarah > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8055 From: Anders Honore Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 0:57am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: > dear anders, > > >SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > in the context of SN4 this is the interpretation buddha intended. > > " > Sabbaµ vo bhikkhave desissŒmi-1 taµ suöŒtha. Ki–ca bhikkhave sabbaµ: > cakkhu–ceva rèpŒ ca sota–ca saddŒ ca ghŒna–ca gandhŒ ca jivhŒ ca rasŒ ca > kŒyo ca pho­­habbŒ ca mano ca dhammŒ ca idaµ vuccati bhikkhave sabbaµ. > > " > > when buddha says 'sabba' here , he intends chakkhu and rupa, sota and sadda, > ghana and gandha, jivha and rasa, kaya and pottabbha, mano and dhamma. > the word dhamma here has a restricted meaning here. > its to be understood as 'dhamma' to mano indriya is similar as rupa to > chakkhu indriya. > > furthur more > > " > DhammŒ niccŒ vŒ aniccŒ vŒti? AniccŒ bhante. Yaµ panŒniccaµ dukkhaµ vŒ taµ > sukhaµ vŒti? Dukkhaµ bhante yaµ panŒniccaµ dukkhaµ viparinŒmadhammaµ > kallannu taµ samanupassituµ "etaµ mama esohamasmi eso me attŒ" ti? Nohetaµ > bhante. > > " > > so in the SN4's context 'dhamma' has a specific meaning. My point was, which is something Derek has pointed out in the past more skillfully, is that dhamma has so incredibly many meanings in Pali that it is virtually impossible to categorically say whether or not Nibbana is included in the classic "sabbe dhamma" statement. 8056 From: Anders Honore Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 0:54am Subject: Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Group, >snip< Dear Robert K. Your post wa a long an extensive one, and dealing with many facets of what we call*nibbana*. I have no intention of getting into that discussion again, as I feel it leaves out the most important aspect: getting there. However, in your post, when you dealt with issues raised by by others which are contradictory to your own understanding, I see you making a vital mistake, which is something Sarah and I have been discussing recently. Once again, I quote my favourite sutta (Sutta Nipata IV.5 Paramatthaka Sutta): When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so he's not free from disputes. When he sees his advantage in what's seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he sees all else as inferior. That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or precepts & practices; ....... Abandoning what he had embraced,....... he doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge; doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever. By whom, with what, should he be pigeonholed here in the world? -- this brahmin who hasn't adopted views. They don't conjure, don't yearn, don't adhere even to doctrines. _____________________________ I think this sutta is one of great importance, because it is a message that is often overlooked and not properly understood. I hope you can see what I am getting at. 8057 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:05am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear erik, > > This is a "word play" because there's no alternative but to play with > words in a forum like this! :) indeed! ;) >On that note, I have found enormous > advantage in studying several schools' presentations of emptiness. > There are more flavors of this out there than can be imagined, many > of them questionable. Having a basis of comparison can really help > uncover the points of contention, where they're hiding--which is one > reason there is such a heavy emphasis on comparative analysis and > debate in the Tibetan Geluk-pa tradition, for example. I am very > grateful for having been exposed to this ruthless analytical method. > yep, this is truely a blessing. On second thoughts , as with all blessings , there are some disadvantages also. I remember when ajahn chah said ' you got bigger houses to clean up'. > > What 'you' hear as 'I' say can possibly be what 'you' have in your > mind. > > I am responding to words that in my tradition would get you hammered > for suggesting "true existence"! What can I say? Old habits are hard > to break! :) > :o) 'my tradition' , thats nice.Hardest to break. > > Most of the time Buddha explains nibbana as absence of lobha , > dosa, moha.. > > thats the nature. > > Its something like the 'extinction' of a flame.(Nibbana) > > This extinction of fire has a nature. > > This is of course a very stock answer. Since you suggest the > extinction of the fire has a nature, what nature would that be? > the nature is not having fire anymore. > > > So my question is again, how does your interpretation of > > > emptiness/Nibbana above not imply svabhava (and by implication > > > independent existence) of some sort? > > > > This does not imply an independent existance of a non-flame. > > Okay, so we agree Nibbana lacks independent existence. Since we're > using analogies, the way I read that is that there is the cessation > of that flame because it ran out of fuel. >This cessation is a mere > absence of nutriment conditions, i.e., there are no further > conditions for the flame's arising, i.e. when this ceases, that > ceases. But the cessation of the flame implies nothing positive > whatsoever; The cessation of the flame can be positive, if the 'aim' is for the cessation of the flame. > it is a non-affirming negative (unlike an affirming > negative like "The fat Devadatta never eats during the daytime", > which carries with it the affirmation that he has to be stuffing his > face at night). This is not affirming. This can depend on the time the quote was made. Like after getting fat(the fatness also depends), the (now) fat devadatta stopped eating ( in daytime And night ). Can depend on devadatta's eating habits, he may be drinking(not eating) lot of food drinks without having to stuff his face at night. rgds, gayan 8058 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear kenneth, > > If you say nibbana is the "release", what is the release then, release from a self to a "true self", what is the true self. In theravada context , the realease is from the suffering. A self does not get annihiliated, since there is no self to be found. Suffering is annihiliated. So , in theravada context , there's no true self or a false self. > If Nibbana is a true self, then there is hold to a conception, means dwelling on a notion which lead to dualism as there must be a false self in order to be a true self. > Nibbana is emptiness hence it cannot be described. it is notionless, labelless and signless. yep, this is what the scriptures say, nibbana is signless. > All Buddhism are of one root, one vehicle, different type of school/sects or vehicle differentiation is designed to suit the different likings and aspirations of different beings. yes, different 'beings', but absolute realities having their own characteritics. >To see all different, is to attached in dualism. All branches in Buddhism advocate impermanence and mindfulness and their foundamental evolve from the four >noble truth. They are the same in essence. Agreed, and the 'essence' IS the 'release'. rgds, gayan 8059 From: m. nease Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:36am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Dear Howard and Robert E., This is where we part company, I'm reluctant to say--I enjoy your company immensely. I also respect your views and am far from certain of my own. Thanks to you both for defining this point so carefully--I think it's an extremely important one and a fundamental distinction between the Mahayana and the Theravada, as I understand them. I look forward to hearing more from you both. mike --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > I share your perspective on this. As I see > it, nibbana is the absence > of all conditions, but it is not a dark absence; > there is the light of > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on > no objects, with > discernment unmanifestive - rikpa. (I also accept > the notion of a "nibbana > beyond nibbana", the union of opposites which > subsumes the mutually dependent > nibbana/unconditioned and the realm of conditions, > which is what I understand > as one sense of the term 'suchness'.) If there were > any "absolute" at all, it > would have to subsume both conditions and the > unconditioned. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 9/14/01 5:01:09 AM Eastern > Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana > is classified as > > > > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and > rupa. Yet there is no > > > > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't > meaningfully talk about a > > > > mere absence as having any nature of its own > (since an absence > > > > doesn't denote anything that exists in the > first place!). :) > > > > > > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never > thought of it like that. > > > Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to > work. > > > > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, > but I would say that you > > can look > > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, > or you can look at it as > > the > > positive state of being in which those properties > are absent. This may > > seem like > > semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is > there a positive state > > left when > > delusory mental factors have been released from > awareness? I would say that > > awareness, which is not a thing either but is > indeed a reality, is left > > unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and > defiling tendencies. So > > if we > > only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't > emphasize that awareness > > [sentience] is still present, just without the > false creation of separate > > objects, > > beings and delusions [I know I'm not being > precise], we may lose the flavor > > of a > > state in which awareness is free to take in the > exact truth of all things it > > encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has > in some way been > > depleted. > > > > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a > mere absence, rather than a > > positive state, tends to verge towards > annihilationism in which one sees > > the self > > and other structures obliterated, with nothing > left over. My own view is > > that if > > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly > to consciousness without > > mental > > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical > vision of Nibbana. If we > > emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, > however, in positive sense, we > > have > > the promise of sentience come to its complete > fruition, without the > > suffering it > > had endured previously. This difference in > emphasis may in some ways > > characterize > > the Mahayana approach. I think it is important > not to stray too far in > > either > > direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which > is to say: If one > > emphasizes > > the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards > nihilism, seeing emptiness > > as > > absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as > a positive state, one > > may tend > > towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, > and re-create the vision > > of the > > immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, > the middle ground is to > > say that > > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but > that awareness has no > > definition > > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of > self or entity. > > > > I will be curious to see what others think of > these distinctions. > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > 8060 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:57am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear anders, >My point was, which is something Derek has pointed out in the past >more skillfully, is that dhamma has so incredibly many meanings in >Pali that it is virtually impossible to categorically say whether or >not Nibbana is included in the classic "sabbe dhamma" statement. if I put the points from this side in a nutshell. in SN 4 when buddha says about the anicca-ness of dhamma, its very clear that 'dhamma' used there has specific meaning. In the classic 'sabbe dhamma' statement , its clear that even whats not belonging to 'sabbe samkhara', is anatta.Because a distinction has been made. In 'vimutti sara sabbe dhamma', its clear that vimutti(release from suffering) is included in the set of 'sabbe dhamma'. rgds, gayan 8061 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:31am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) --- rikpa21 wrote: >>This sounds suspiciously like you're reifying awareness Robert. You say it's not a "thing", and yet awareness implies a subject, and by implication, an object. This demonstrates that awareness is a changing thing, i.e. composed, because it is dependent on an object-- a changing thing, and changes in dependence on an object. Therefore it is mundane by definition. >> I have to disagree, Erik, that awareness implies an object. I am speaking of pure awareness, which I would consider an equivalent of Nibbana. If Nibbana is not an aware state, and it implies the negation of all other conditions, there is no way for it not to be a state in which all experiences and conditions have been annihilated. If it as an unformed pre-condition which is *discovered* rather than attained, then does it remove the sentience of sentient beings? Only sentient beings are eligible for enlightenment. There is a reason for that, and that is that their *sentience* is what is capable of being enlightened. Sentience = Awareness. It si the illusion of 'self' that is removed in enlightenment, but the awareness or core awakeness of sentience that characterizes all living beings, is not itself removed. Otherwise nibbana would be the equivalent of turning a living being into an inanimate object. Obviously this is not the case. >>This means that awareness cannot possibly be Nibbana, since Nibbana is uncomposed, the asankhara dhatu. This view that nothing exists except for awareness--which exists absolutely in some way (even if it is asserted it is not a "thing"--and how can this be, incidentally, since awareness too is a dependent arising?)--is specifically the view rejected in the Madhyamika critique of Cittamatra (Mind Only).>> I would say that Nibbana would indeed have to be the unformed awareness at the heart of all experience. If Nibbana is not awareness one would be left with the absurd idea that Nibbana is a state of unawareness, that it is a form of unconsciousness. Whatever you say about the attributes of Nibbana, unformed, unmodified, undifferentiated, and unborn, can be said about this primary awareness, which is not a rising or falling consciousness, but is the backdrop or field in which all living experience arises. > For example, the view that Nibbana is "awareness" of some sort is > explicitly rejected by the Buddha in the Bharmajala Sutta: > > "Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. > Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he > argues: `Whatever is called eye or ear or nose or tongue or > body, that is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, liable to change. > But what is called thought, or mind or consciousness, that is a self > that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same > for ever and ever! Thought, mind or consciousness as a self would be a false reification of some aspect of sentience which is given a definition, which then recreates it as a kind of soul. I understand that you can also view my assertion of Awareness as such an object as well. But I mean it as an impersonal property rather than as a self or a possession, in just the same way that Nibbana is meant. If Nibbana does equal a kind of primal awareness that is undifferentiated and unborn, it would partake of all the same properties that allow Nibbana to avoid being an object or self. And if Nibbana is not a form of primal Awareness, then I have to ask you: what allows Nibbana to be a state into which a sentient being can enter, and only a sentient being? What happens to human awareness when it enters Nibbana? Is awareness obliterated, or does it in fact lose all definitions of self and become just pure experience of what is? Can a rock become enlightened? If sentience is not the one property that is refined and uplifted into its true form in Nibbana, then what aspect of being human allows for Nibbana to be attained? Best, Robert E. 8062 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- rikpa21 wrote: > The one thing I can say is that the more I study the more tha Pali > Canon, the more it simply confirms everything I've learned in the > Mahayana, and it's given me an even deeper respect for the depth and > breadth of the so-called Mahayana. There is precedent for everything > in the Pali Canon, though. It's just that there's not enough detail > there on certain points (particularly Buddhahood and the Bodhsattva > path), and without reference to the Mahayana Sutras which detail > these aspect specifically, it is difficult to draw the appropriate > interpretations of those points. > > Then again, since few who study the Pali Canon are explicitly > practicing the Bodhisattva path and aiming at Buddhahood, it is not > so important these details be present there. Thank you, Erik. I appreciate your confirmations and other comments. A good description I think of the distinction between the canons. For those of us arrogant enough to dream of Buddhahood, even if not in this lifetime, it is good to have both canons, and some eventual shot at the whole picture, however long it may take. Best, Robert E. 8063 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:36am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Robert, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > I am extrapolating this from the above quote, > > knowing that it may be confusing, > > controversial, or, from a Theravadin view, perhaps > > just wrong, but I would like to > > take the opportunity to see what others' views are > > of the Buddha's statement > > above, and of the ideas I have put forth based on > > them. They will either suggest > > a bridge between the Theravadin and Mahayana > > schools, or perhaps obscure it > > further. > > I do think you're closing in on one of the major > differences between the Mahayana and the Theravada. > It was my dream, years ago, to find a synthesis of the > two--my conclusion (possibly mistaken, of course) was > that this is not possible, in large part because of > the differences you're addressing here (which I > believe are fundamental). > > This conclusion (and others) are based on some > somewhat vague ideas about Mahayana doctrine, > extracted by me mostly from my readings of a large > volume of Ch'an material (and my own experiences and > readings from and about the Tipitaka). Though I'm > fairly confident of my conclusions, I'm not able to > support them sufficiently to publish my opinions. I > do wish you the very best in your own investigations, > which continue to impress me with their sincerity and > focus. > > mike Thanks, Mike. I always appreciate your messages. Robert E. 8064 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:40am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > > So my question is again, how does your interpretation of > > emptiness/Nibbana above not imply svabhava (and by implication > > independent existence) of some sort? > > This does not imply an independent existance of a non-flame. Just to push it a bit, Gayan, I like your analogy and I would like to hear how you would describe the nature of a 'non-flame' or of a flame that has been extinguished. I think we are all grappling with the idea that Nibbana is not an 'is' and yet it is not extinguishment. I am stuck on the idea that Nibbana should not extinguish the 'sentience' of sentient beings, but remove all the impediments to that sentience realizing its true aspect and nature. So if the flame is extinguished, what is the nature that this reality then expresses? Robert 8065 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 3:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > dear robert e., > > > > > > another phrase in tipitaka is > > > 'vimutti saaraa sabbe dhamma' > > > this means 'Release is the essense of all phenomena' > > > vimutti - sanskrit vimukti means relese , another word for nibbana. > > > > > > so here buddha treats nibbana as belonging to 'sabbe dhamma'( all > > > phenomena ) > > > > Well this is extremely intriguing. If this is an accurate way of looking > at this > > statement, it seems to me that the root of Mahayana doctrines, and perhaps > Anders' > > doctrine of Nibbana as the 'true self' have their root in Theravadin > doctrine. > > This would be very important, as it would provide a link between all of > the > > teachings proposed to emanate from the Buddha. > > > > Yes it is intrguing. > Buddha simply said this phrase to drive the point away from a 'self'. > I wrote the story(As much as I can remember) in a mail to anders in an > earlier post. > A 'self' is not the essence. The 'release' is the essence. > > It may be the case that in Mahayana, what is intended by word 'true self' of > 'bodhi' is the 'release' or nibbana. > But in theravada context 'self' has nothing to do with 'nibbana'. Dear Gayan, I'm not as intrigued by the 'self' aspect in this quote, as the 'all phenomena' aspect. If release [liberation] is the nature of all phenomena, it seems to be saying that all phenomena are inherently liberated but are not realized as such because of delusion. That would seem a very Mahayanist doctrine to me, in a Theravadan sutra. What do you think? Robert E. 8066 From: Victor Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 4:15am Subject: Name-and-form Name is impermanent, is dukkha, is not mine, not I, not my self. Form is impermanent, is dukkha, is not mine, not I, not my self. Metta, Victor 8067 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 4:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence' --- Sarah wrote: > To my understanding, they couldn't possibly have the > same meaning because Pali sabhava, essence is > inherently reflecting the anatta characteristic of the > reality whereas the Sanskrit one would be reflecting a > thing, a self, atta.... Dear Sarah, Thanks for all your quotes on the nature of Nibbana. I think this last statement kind of puts the conceptual conflict in a nutshell. I'm trying to understand how an essence can reflect the anatta characteristic. It seems to me that this is torturing the concept of 'essence'. Why say that something has an essence, only to say by definition that this essence is not an essence, but a not-essence? An essence means that something has a central property of some kind, it must mean that there is something that can be characterized about it. We are able to distinguish between a ocnditioned and a non-conditioned reality, and I could accept the idea that Nibbana had a non-conditioned or primal essence. But if the essence is merely to reflect its characteristic of 'anatta' of not being a self or entity, it seems to me that this is a redundancy. [I am being redundant here too to try to tackle it from an angle or two]. Why not just say that it has no entity and thus has no essence? Why say it has an essence which is that it doesn't have an essence? What I am implying is that if the Buddha used the term sabhava, and that means the essence of something, in this case Nibbana, then there must be a positive reason why he used it. In other words, Nibbana does partake of anatta, meaning that it cannot be defined as an entity or a self, but that it does have an essence. I wonder if there are any other descriptions, or a good way to search for, more descriptions of how the sabhava of Nibbana is meant or what it implies. This is the central question that we have been struggling with since Anders' and your thread on Nibbana as self or non-self, and this seems like a positive place to try to look at it. Aren't you glad you brought up that idea? Best, Robert E. 8068 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 4:50am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > I share your perspective on this. As I see it, nibbana is the absence > of all conditions, but it is not a dark absence; there is the light of > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on no objects, with > discernment unmanifestive - rikpa. (I also accept the notion of a "nibbana > beyond nibbana", the union of opposites which subsumes the mutually dependent > nibbana/unconditioned and the realm of conditions, which is what I understand > as one sense of the term 'suchness'.) If there were any "absolute" at all, it > would have to subsume both conditions and the unconditioned. > > With metta, > Howard Dear Howard, Yes, this sounds correct to me. I appreciate the clear way you've put it. Best, Robert E. ================= > In a message dated 9/14/01 5:01:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana is classified as > > > > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and rupa. Yet there is no > > > > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't meaningfully talk about a > > > > mere absence as having any nature of its own (since an absence > > > > doesn't denote anything that exists in the first place!). :) > > > > > > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never thought of it like that. > > > Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to work. > > > > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, but I would say that you > > can look > > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, or you can look at it as > > the > > positive state of being in which those properties are absent. This may > > seem like > > semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is there a positive state > > left when > > delusory mental factors have been released from awareness? I would say that > > awareness, which is not a thing either but is indeed a reality, is left > > unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and defiling tendencies. So > > if we > > only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't emphasize that awareness > > [sentience] is still present, just without the false creation of separate > > objects, > > beings and delusions [I know I'm not being precise], we may lose the flavor > > of a > > state in which awareness is free to take in the exact truth of all things it > > encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has in some way been > > depleted. > > > > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a mere absence, rather than a > > positive state, tends to verge towards annihilationism in which one sees > > the self > > and other structures obliterated, with nothing left over. My own view is > > that if > > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly to consciousness without > > mental > > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical vision of Nibbana. If we > > emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, however, in positive sense, we > > have > > the promise of sentience come to its complete fruition, without the > > suffering it > > had endured previously. This difference in emphasis may in some ways > > characterize > > the Mahayana approach. I think it is important not to stray too far in > > either > > direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which is to say: If one > > emphasizes > > the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards nihilism, seeing emptiness > > as > > absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as a positive state, one > > may tend > > towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, and re-create the vision > > of the > > immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, the middle ground is to > > say that > > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but that awareness has no > > definition > > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of self or entity. > > > > I will be curious to see what others think of these distinctions. > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8069 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 5:59am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Howard and Robert E., > > This is where we part company, I'm reluctant to say--I > enjoy your company immensely. I also respect your > views and am far from certain of my own. > > Thanks to you both for defining this point so > carefully--I think it's an extremely important one and > a fundamental distinction between the Mahayana and the > Theravada, as I understand them. > > I look forward to hearing more from you both. > > mike Thanks, Mike. Here is my question to you, perhaps one which is very difficult to answer or even shouldn't be answered. If there is not some sort of positive presence in Nibbana, albeit not a 'self' or a 'condition', what is then denoted by saying that one has attained it? When I say 'positive' I don't mean 'good' or 'worthy' or anything like that. I just mean positive as in the positive numbers: something that can be asserted. You have a number of things in Theravada that can be denied about Nibbana, things that have been eliminated in order to reach it. You have a number of positive states that have been entered into in order to reach it: Right View, Right Thinking, Right Concentration, insights and jhanas. The essence of all of these positive states that are entered into is that they are increasingly refined forms of apprehensions or awareness. There is no 'self' discovered that is receiving these insights or understandings, but the refinement of understanding and attention themselves are certainly there. So, when all the defilements and delusions are eliminated in order to create the Nirvanic state, is the refined awareness and insight and awareness that has been so meticulously developed to create the ladder to Nibbana also eliminated, or are they merely surpassed in a state that contains the same essence as this development but is totally beyond them? It would make logical sense that the essence of the path would be exemplified in its most refined form in its final attainment, Nibbana. To think that all is eliminated and that there is merely negation of negatives just doesn't make sense. It is not because of Mahayana doctrines that it doesn't make sense, but because of the path outlined by the Buddha and all of his statements about the pleasantness and uplifted quality of each progressive stage on the path. Where is that quality of refined joy and total discernment that characterize the Buddha's own statements and presumably his own state? They are contained in and are the natural emanation of the state of Nibbana, of Arahatship, of Buddhahood. So it doesn't make sense to me that one cannot assert that there is a positive state, experience, or awareness in Nibbana. The Buddha is not 'dead'. He has not been annihilated by attaining Nibbana and Buddhahood. In fact he is completely free and 'awake'. Buddha means 'one who is awake'. Can one be 'awake' without sentience/consciousness/awareness? This also doesn't make sense. If you want to say that the Buddha is 'awake' but has none of those other attributes or qualities, you would have to at least say, based on his most popular title alone, that he at least partakes of 'awakeness'. Awakeness and awareness are synonyms. There is nothing about being 'awake' or 'aware' that necessitates a 'self'. Awareness is not contradictory with anatta, nor does there have to be an object of awareness to 'create' the awareness, if awareness is the very essence of the state itself, nor does there have to be any arising and falling away of awareness if it is not modified by any object of awareness. There is no reason why nibbana cannot be the most refined and totally free [free of object and modification] state of awareness possible, the absolute essence of being sentient, minus the mental modifications, minus the self, minus the kandhic idenfiications and samskaric accumulations. I think it can work with Theravadan doctrine as it stands. But this is just my unschooled intuition so I'm happy to have more learned arguments thrown at me by those who know the Suttas. You see my problem with asserting Nibbana as nothing but negation? I hope some of you can help me with this issue. Best, Robert E. 8070 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 6:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear robert e. > > Dear Gayan, > I'm not as intrigued by the 'self' aspect in this quote, as the 'all phenomena' > aspect. If release [liberation] is the nature of all phenomena, It says that release is the worth,essence(sara) of all phenomena. > it seems to be > saying that all phenomena are inherently liberated but are not realized as such > because of delusion. I thought that ,its saying that of all phenomena , this phenomenon (the release) is the worthy one. Its a phenomenon which belongs to the (all-inclusive)set of 'All phenomena'. And delusion is another phenomenon. And if we go to the 'being' level, I remember somewhere in tipitaka buddha says that all beings have 'nibbana' as the aim. His advice to the 'beings' is to be 'appamada' .( dont get lax in effort in attaining nibbana ) otherwise the suffering will go on for incalculable period of time. > That would seem a very Mahayanist doctrine to me, in a > Theravadan sutra. What do you think? > Actually robert, I dont know very much about mahayana, and only have a limited understanding of theravada texts. So I dont know how to make a relation. But in theravada canon, in lot of instances the delusion is explained as a darkness, which prevents the truth from being seen. I would like to know the mahayanist doctrine which is related to this topic and its similarities and diffrences as you have observed. rgds, gayan 8071 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 6:18am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear robert e., > > Just to push it a bit, Gayan, I like your analogy and I would like to hear how you > would describe the nature of a 'non-flame' or of a flame that has been > extinguished. the nature of a flame that has been extinguished is that there is no flame anymore, a path cannot be traced, it cannot be explained as the flame has gone this way or that way. > I think we are all grappling with the idea that Nibbana is not an > 'is' and yet it is not extinguishment. I am stuck on the idea that Nibbana should > not extinguish the 'sentience' of sentient beings, but remove all the impediments > to that sentience realizing its true aspect and nature. So if the flame is > extinguished, what is the nature that this reality then expresses? > In Bahiya Sutta theres an inspired utterence by buddha. Where neither water nor yet earth Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this For himself through his own wisdom, Then he is freed from form and formless. Freed from pleasure and from pain. again there are lot of 'NO' s here , i thought that this is the nature that this reality expresses. rgds, gayan 8072 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:47am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi, Mike - In a message dated 9/14/01 4:29:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > Dear Howard and Robert E., > > This is where we part company, I'm reluctant to say--I > enjoy your company immensely. I also respect your > views and am far from certain of my own. > > Thanks to you both for defining this point so > carefully--I think it's an extremely important one and > a fundamental distinction between the Mahayana and the > Theravada, as I understand them. > > I look forward to hearing more from you both. > > mike > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I can't think of a nicer guy to be in disagreement with! ;-)) I have simply expressed an opinion, one in which I have not very much invested. I could be quite wrong. When it comes to what nibbana is I doubt that any of us really know what we are talking about! ;-)) As far as the Theravada/Mahayana distinction is concerned on this issue, I would like to point out that the talk of unmanifestive discernment being "infinite, luminous all around, and falling on no objects" is derived from the Pali Sutta Pitaka, not Mahayana sources. My identification of it with rikpa was for Erik's sake! ;-) Robert's post and my reply to it which you quote follow below. ============================== 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) ****************************************************** > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > > > > I share your perspective on this. As I see > > it, nibbana is the absence > > of all conditions, but it is not a dark absence; > > there is the light of > > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on > > no objects, with > > discernment unmanifestive - rikpa. (I also accept > > the notion of a "nibbana > > beyond nibbana", the union of opposites which > > subsumes the mutually dependent > > nibbana/unconditioned and the realm of conditions, > > which is what I understand > > as one sense of the term 'suchness'.) If there were > > any "absolute" at all, it > > would have to subsume both conditions and the > > unconditioned. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > In a message dated 9/14/01 5:01:09 AM Eastern > > Daylight Time, > > Robert E writes: > > > > > > > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > > > of "paramattha dhamma" as an example. Nibbana > > is classified as > > > > > a "paramattha dhamma", just like citta and > > rupa. Yet there is no > > > > > such "thing" as Nibbana, since you can't > > meaningfully talk about a > > > > > mere absence as having any nature of its own > > (since an absence > > > > > doesn't denote anything that exists in the > > first place!). :) > > > > > > > > Nibbana is mere absence? Hmmmm.... I've never > > thought of it like that. > > > > Actually, I've tried to, but it didn't seem to > > work. > > > > > > I don't know what's most accurate scripturally, > > but I would say that you > > > can look > > > at Nibbana as the absence of certain properties, > > or you can look at it as > > > the > > > positive state of being in which those properties > > are absent. This may > > > seem like > > > semantics, but I think it makes a difference. Is > > there a positive state > > > left when > > > delusory mental factors have been released from > > awareness? I would say that > > > awareness, which is not a thing either but is > > indeed a reality, is left > > > unblemished by those obscuring mental factors and > > defiling tendencies. So > > > if we > > > only emphasis the absence of delusion, and don't > > emphasize that awareness > > > [sentience] is still present, just without the > > false creation of separate > > > objects, > > > beings and delusions [I know I'm not being > > precise], we may lose the flavor > > > of a > > > state in which awareness is free to take in the > > exact truth of all things it > > > encounters, rather than a sort of nothing that has > > in some way been > > > depleted. > > > > > > I personally feel that looking at Nibbana as a > > mere absence, rather than a > > > positive state, tends to verge towards > > annihilationism in which one sees > > > the self > > > and other structures obliterated, with nothing > > left over. My own view is > > > that if > > > we have raw perceptions being delivered directly > > to consciousness without > > > mental > > > factors intervening, we have a kind of mechanical > > vision of Nibbana. If we > > > emphasize an unimpeded and freed awareness, > > however, in positive sense, we > > > have > > > the promise of sentience come to its complete > > fruition, without the > > > suffering it > > > had endured previously. This difference in > > emphasis may in some ways > > > characterize > > > the Mahayana approach. I think it is important > > not to stray too far in > > > either > > > direction, but to maintain the 'middle way', which > > is to say: If one > > > emphasizes > > > the obliteration of delusion, one tends towards > > nihilism, seeing emptiness > > > as > > > absence. If one emphasizes liberated awareness as > > a positive state, one > > > may tend > > > towards establishing a spiritual self as a thing, > > and re-create the vision > > > of the > > > immortal soul, which would be eternalism. To me, > > the middle ground is to > > > say that > > > awareness is liberated by entry into Nibbana, but > > that awareness has no > > > definition > > > as a thing and does not partake of any notion of > > self or entity. > > > > > > I will be curious to see what others think of > > these distinctions. > > > > > > Best, > > > Robert E. > > > > 8073 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:51am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi, Robert - Reading your words is like perceiving my own thoughts! With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/14/01 5:14:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- rikpa21 wrote: > > >>This sounds suspiciously like you're reifying awareness Robert. You > say it's not a "thing", and yet awareness implies a subject, and by > implication, an object. This demonstrates that awareness is a > changing thing, i.e. composed, because it is dependent on an object-- > a changing thing, and changes in dependence on an object. Therefore > it is mundane by definition. >> > > I have to disagree, Erik, that awareness implies an object. I am speaking > of pure > awareness, which I would consider an equivalent of Nibbana. If Nibbana is > not an > aware state, and it implies the negation of all other conditions, there is > no way > for it not to be a state in which all experiences and conditions have been > annihilated. If it as an unformed pre-condition which is *discovered* > rather than > attained, then does it remove the sentience of sentient beings? Only > sentient > beings are eligible for enlightenment. There is a reason for that, and > that is > that their *sentience* is what is capable of being enlightened. Sentience = > Awareness. It si the illusion of 'self' that is removed in enlightenment, > but the > awareness or core awakeness of sentience that characterizes all living > beings, is > not itself removed. Otherwise nibbana would be the equivalent of turning a > living > being into an inanimate object. Obviously this is not the case. > > >>This means that awareness cannot possibly be Nibbana, since Nibbana > is uncomposed, the asankhara dhatu. This view that nothing exists > except for awareness--which exists absolutely in some way (even if it > is asserted it is not a "thing"--and how can this be, incidentally, > since awareness too is a dependent arising?)--is specifically the > view rejected in the Madhyamika critique of Cittamatra (Mind Only).>> > > I would say that Nibbana would indeed have to be the unformed awareness at > the > heart of all experience. If Nibbana is not awareness one would be left > with the > absurd idea that Nibbana is a state of unawareness, that it is a form of > unconsciousness. Whatever you say about the attributes of Nibbana, > unformed, > unmodified, undifferentiated, and unborn, can be said about this primary > awareness, which is not a rising or falling consciousness, but is the > backdrop or > field in which all living experience arises. > > > For example, the view that Nibbana is "awareness" of some sort is > > explicitly rejected by the Buddha in the Bharmajala Sutta: > > > > "Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. > > Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he > > argues: `Whatever is called eye or ear or nose or tongue or > > body, that is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, liable to change. > > But what is called thought, or mind or consciousness, that is a self > > that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same > > for ever and ever! > > Thought, mind or consciousness as a self would be a false reification of > some > aspect of sentience which is given a definition, which then recreates it as > a kind > of soul. I understand that you can also view my assertion of Awareness as > such an > object as well. But I mean it as an impersonal property rather than as a > self or > a possession, in just the same way that Nibbana is meant. If Nibbana does > equal a > kind of primal awareness that is undifferentiated and unborn, it would > partake of > all the same properties that allow Nibbana to avoid being an object or > self. And > if Nibbana is not a form of primal Awareness, then I have to ask you: what > allows > Nibbana to be a state into which a sentient being can enter, and only a > sentient > being? What happens to human awareness when it enters Nibbana? Is > awareness > obliterated, or does it in fact lose all definitions of self and become > just pure > experience of what is? Can a rock become enlightened? If sentience is not > the > one property that is refined and uplifted into its true form in Nibbana, > then what > aspect of being human allows for Nibbana to be attained? > > Best, > Robert E. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8074 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 7:59am Subject: Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Robert, > In all that is said below, I find it most interesting that Nibbana is said to > partake of: > > "Asankhata-dhatu, unborn, unformed purified Element". > > Is that a convention of speech, or what is the unborn, unformed purified Element > that Nibbana involves. It certainly seems that a positive state or substance is > here invoked, rather than mere cessation. > > Best, > Robert E. > > ============================= Dear Robert E. Nibbana is classified as paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality)but it is in no way like the other paramattha dhammas of consciousness , mental factors and materiality. It can't be said to exist at all in that way that they do. But it can be an object of the developed citta that arises if the eightfold path is correctly followed. The harbinger of this path is right view. Nibbana is NOT , according to the Ancient theravada tradition, > > > """A the light of > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on no objects, with > discernment unmanifestive - rikpa.""" Do we yet see how utterly oppressive this continual rising and passing away is. One moment there is seeing, then thinking , then hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking, anger, happiness , sadness, again and again - no one can stop these moments arising. It has been going on like this for zillions and trillions of aeons of time. And much of that time has been spent as animals or insects or worms or in freezing hells or boiling hells. Now we happen to be in a happy existence as a human - but that is so brief. There are only namas and rupas arising and passing, never to return but conditioning succesive moments. Only by the eightfold path can this fearful stream be brought to an end. By studying the dhammas, that are arising again and again at the 6 doors in the correct way, I suggest that there will be more appreciation of what nibbana is (even while it cannot be fully understood until it is the object of magga citta and phala citta) I cut some extracts from the article by the Burmese monk yesterday that might be worth reflecting on below: The bodhisatta, in his birth as the ascetic, Sumedha > > contemplated thus: > > > > "Even as, although Misery is, > > > > Yet Happiness Is also found, > > > > So, though indeed Existence is, > > > > Non-Existence should be sought." > > > > "When I am subject to > > > > Birth, Old Age, Disease, > > > > So then I will search for the Supreme Peace > > > > Free from Old Age and Death." > > > > > > NIBBANA > > the Nibbanic state is totally devoid of any and every thing of > > the four elements, personal existence, static entity, rebirth, > > death, consciousness or mind and matter etc. It is only the > > state of element (Dhatu) which means "Nisatta nijjiva" > > non-being, non-soul, i.e. there is not even a purified soul in > > Nibbana. > > Freed from thought of future becoming > > > > They like seeds barren do not spring again, > > > > But are blown out just as a lamp. (Sn. ver. 235). > > > > > Regarding one's existence in Samsara and the deliverance > > from it, the Buddha said the following salient facts:? > > "Inconceivable is the beginning of this Samsara, not to be > > discovered a first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by > > ignorance and ensnared by craving, are hurrying and hastening > > through this round of rebirths." > > > > "And thus have you long time undergone suffering, > > undergone torment, undergone misfortune and filled the > > graveyards full, verily, long enough to be dissatisfied with all > > forms of existence, long enough to turn away and free yourself > > from them all." > > > > "Be it in the past, present or future: whosoever of the > > monks or priests regards the delightful and pleasurable things > > in the world as impermanent (anicca), miserable (dukkha), > > without an ego (anatta), as a disease and sorrow, it is he who > > overcomes craving. > > > > "And released from Sensual Craving, released from the > > Craving for Existence, and released from the Craving for > > Non-Existence, he does not return, does not enter again into > > existence." > > > > > ""Verily, there is a realm where there is neither the > > solid, nor the liquid; neither heat, nor motion; neither this > > world, nor any other world; neither sun, or moon. > > > > "This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither > > standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither > > foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of > > suffering." > > > > ""However, through the fading away of delusion, through > > the arising of wisdom, through the extinction of craving, no > > future rebirth takes place again." > > > > "In this respect one may say of me, that I teach annihilation, > > that I propound my doctrine for the purpose of annihilation, and > > that I herein train my disciples. For certainly, I teach > > annihilation, the annihilation of greed, anger, and delusion, as > > well as of the manifold evil and demeritorious things." > > If someone puts the question. "Who, made the Five Khandhas, or > > five groups of existence," he seldom gets a right answer. Now > > let it be said that the five groups of bodily and mental > > phenomena, correctly speaking, have been put together by the > > Buddha in order to show the "Anatta doctrine" the central and > > unique teaching of Buddhism. > > > > All those bodily forms, feelings, perceptions, mental > > formations and states of consciousness which the Buddha has > > classified and grouped into the five groups are only of > > momentary duration, existing no longer than a flash of > > lightning. > > > > One never gets a right understanding of the five groups of > > existence, if one thinks of them as something compact, whereas > > in reality they are only fleeting phenomena changing as quickly > > as lightning. > > > > > > "Sabbe dhamma anattati "Nowhere can there be found a Self: > > Yada pannaya passati, Who wisely perceives this truth, > > Atha nibbindati dukkhe, He turns away from misery, > > Esa maggo visuddhiya." This is the path to purity." > > > > > Not by reasoning and abstract thinking can Nibbana ever be > > attained, but only by right understanding, by inward > > purification, inward conquest and by fulfilling the "Noble > > Eight-fold Path" founded on Anattasanna, i.e. the perception > > that all things are without an Ego, or Self and that also behind > > all these phenomena of existence there is no "I," no eternal, > > immutable, unchanging entity, a "thing in itself." > > > > There is only a five-khandha process of existence which > > comes to a stand still at the death of the Arahat or Holy One. > > > > One never knows a thing as it really is without seeing it, > > and this, more than anywhere else, is true with regard to > > Nibbana. > > > > > "Here I feel the necessity of once more expressly emphasizing > > the fact that without a clear perception of the phenomenality, > > or Egolessness of all existence, a real understanding of the > > Buddha's teaching, especially that of rebirth and Nibbana, is > > impossible." > > > > "This doctrine of Anatta is in fact the only specific > > teaching of Buddhism with which the entire teaching stands or > > falls." > > > .com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ 8075 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 7:55am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Gayan - In a message dated 9/14/01 7:38:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Gayan writes: > dear robert e., > > > > > > Just to push it a bit, Gayan, I like your analogy and I would like to hear > how you > > would describe the nature of a 'non-flame' or of a flame that has been > > extinguished. > > the nature of a flame that has been extinguished is that there is no flame > anymore, a path cannot be traced, it cannot be ?xplained as the flame has > gone this way or that way. > > > I think we are all grappling with the idea that Nibbana is not an > > 'is' and yet it is not extinguishment. I am stuck on the idea that > Nibbana should > > not extinguish the 'sentience' of sentient beings, but remove all the > impediments > > to that sentience realizing its true aspect and nature. So if the flame > is > > extinguished, what is the nature that this reality then expresses? > > > > In Bahiya Sutta theres an inspired utterence by buddha. > > Where neither water nor yet earth > Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, > There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, > There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. > When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this > For himself through his own wisdom, > Then he is freed from form and formless. > Freed from pleasure and from pain. > > again there are lot of 'NO' s here , i thought that this is the nature > that this reality expresses. > > > > rgds, > > gayan > ============================= You quote from the Bahiya Sutta: **************************************************** "Where neither water nor yet earth Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this For himself through his own wisdom, Then he is freed from form and formless. Freed from pleasure and from pain.", *********************************************************** Please note there the words "yet there no darkness reigns"! No conditions there, no elements of rupa, no mundane light at all, neither form not formlessness, and "yet there no darkness reigns"!! 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) 8076 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:52am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/14/01 8:49:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes: > Dear Robert E. > Nibbana is classified as paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality)but it > is in no way like the other paramattha dhammas of consciousness , > mental factors and materiality. It can't be said to exist at all in > that way that they do. But it can be an object of the developed citta > that arises if the eightfold path is correctly followed. The > harbinger of this path is right view. > Nibbana is NOT , according to the Ancient theravada tradition, > > > > """A the light of > > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on no objects, > with > > discernment unmanifestive - rikpa.""" > ================================== This material you quote shouldn't be blamed on Robert E. I was the one who wrote it. With regard to it, I refer you to the end portion of the Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to Insight: ************************************* "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property -- cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this: > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing? > Where are long & short, > coarse & fine, > fair & foul, > name & form > "'And the answer to that is: > Consciousness without feature, > without end, > luminous all around: > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing. > Here long & short > coarse & fine > fair & foul > name & form > are all brought to an end. > With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the householder delighted in the Blessed One's words. ************************************* What I meant by unmanifestive discernment is exactly what is given above, and which sure sounds like nibbana to me: "Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end." 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) 8077 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 1:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS nothing is annihilated in Buddhism since all dharmas inherently are signless. To my understanding, the words should be "let go" Kind regards Kenneth Ong Gayan Karunaratne wrote: dear kenneth, > > If you say nibbana is the "release", what is the release then, release from a self to a "true self", what is the true self. In theravada context , the realease is from the suffering. A self does not get annihiliated, since there is no self to be found. Suffering is annihiliated. So , in theravada context , there's no true self or a false self. > If Nibbana is a true self, then there is hold to a conception, means dwelling on a notion which lead to dualism as there must be a false self in order to be a true self. > Nibbana is emptiness hence it cannot be described. it is notionless, labelless and signless. yep, this is what the scriptures say, nibbana is signless. > All Buddhism are of one root, one vehicle, different type of school/sects or vehicle differentiation is designed to suit the different likings and aspirations of different beings. yes, different 'beings', but absolute realities having their own characteritics. >To see all different, is to attached in dualism. All branches in Buddhism advocate impermanence and mindfulness and their foundamental evolve from the four >noble truth. They are the same in essence. Agreed, and the 'essence' IS the 'release'. rgds, gayan 8078 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 2:02pm Subject: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Howard wrote: Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to Insight: "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property -- cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this: > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing? > Where are long & short, > coarse & fine, > fair & foul, > name & form > "'And the answer to that is: > Consciousness without feature, > without end, > luminous all around: > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing. > Here long & short > coarse & fine > fair & foul > name & form > are all brought to an end. > With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the householder delighted in the Blessed One's words. ************************************* What I meant by unmanifestive discernment is exactly what is given above, and which sure sounds like nibbana to me: "Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end." With metta, Howard _______________________________________________ Dear Howard, You quoted the above from the translation by Thanissaro. There is another translation at www.metta.lk http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/11-kevaddha-e.htm Where do earth, water, fire, and wind, And long and short, and fine and coarse, Pure and impure, no footing find? Where is it that both name and form[22] Die out, leaving no trace behind?" 'On that the answer is : 'The intellect of Arahatship, the invisible, the endless, accessible from every side[23] 'Where is it that earth, water, fire, and wind, And long and short, and fine and coarse, Pure and impure, no footing find. Where is it that both name and form Die out, leaving, no trace behind. When intellection ceases they all also cease.' Thus spake the Exalted One. And Kevaddha, the young householder, pleased at heart, rejoiced at the spoken word. Actually I had a converstaion with Suan recently about this as I was puzzled by the somewhat confusing translations of this sutta extract. He wrote in his usual helpful way when I asked about this pali phrase in the sutta: The original Pali found in Section 499, Kevatta Suttam, Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo starts with the term "Viññanam". And Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha defines "Viññanam" as follows. "Tattha viññatabbanti "Viññanam" nibbanassetam namam,.." "There, to be known specially, so (it is) "Viññanam". This is the name of nibbana." And Kevatta Sutta Tika further explains the phrase "viññatabbanti" as follows. "Viññatabbanti visitthena ñatabbam, ñanuttamena ariyamaggañanena paccakkhato janitabbanti attho, tenaha "nibbanassetam namam"ti." "(To be known specially) means to be extraordinarily known. The meaning is 'to be known in the sense of realization by ultimate wisdom, by noble path wisdom'". Therefore, (the commentator) stated that 'This is the name of nibbana'" Therefore, the term 'Viññanam' in the line of the original Pali verse "Viññanam anidassanam, anantam sabbatopabham .." does not refer to consciousness, the usual meaning of viññanam. In fact, the same verse includes the following two lines "Ettha namañca rupañca, asesam uparujjhati Viññanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without remainder. By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here." Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one of its Pali names happens to be Viññanam. Suan 8079 From: rikpa21 Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 7:38pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- "Gayan Karunaratne" wrote: Hello Gayan, > >On that note, I have found enormous > > advantage in studying several schools' presentations of emptiness. method. > yep, this is truely a blessing. > > On second thoughts , as with all blessings , there are some disadvantages > also. > I remember when ajahn chah said ' you got bigger houses to clean up'. Indeed. However, I still prefer this approach for a number of reasons. It isn't neccessary for everyone, nevertheless, knowing what other views exist and the critiques of those views has been one of the most beneficial aspects in my studies. On that note, and to digress somewhat (because this is not at all directed at anyone in particular here), it is very easy to study just one presentation and get ensnared in the particular language of that presentation. I take some the discussions on Nibbana here as a case in point. To draw something of an analogy, some of the arguments I have seen remind me of what I might expect to see from those who've never actually tasted a mango, who have heard a particular description of a mango as having a somewhat sweet and fruity flavor, found some liking to such a description in dependence on nothing other than preference, who prefer this description of sweetness so much that when someone describes the texture of a mango as soft and juicy, it is denounced as heresy. I have been given a lot of cause to consider this lately, because I still see an insistence from some quarters that the Pali Canon contains the only accurate representation of the Buddha's Dharma. For example, just recently I have seen quotes from certain Theravada monks on Nibbana that actively denigrate the Mahayana (and if that is their intent, they only make the speaker look like a rather foolish and uncharitable individual, given these quotes make plain the speaker obviously hasn't bothered to study the tradition he's denigrating). I don't take any personal offense at such woeful mischaracterizations (indeed how ciould one take offesne at waht is amost laughably off the mark?), but I almost reflexively head the opposite direction all the same, since I prefer not to spend my precious life of leisure & fortune I could be spending practicing the Dharma with folks who behave this way. Perhaps it's an aversion from having been raised a Mormon, where I was exposed to some rather unyielding and oppressive dogmatism for so many years, and also perhaps because I have found little benefit in attempting to engage those of this mentality once it becomes evident their prejudices take precedence over dispassionate investigation and careful consideration. This indicates to me that any attempts at reasoned discussion or debate are usually futile and as such, a waste of precious time. In all cases I find this sort of mentality so far from any sort of mentality I aspire to, that I find nothing in it worthy of emulation. > :o) 'my tradition' , thats nice.Hardest to break. That's not that habit I was referring to here. Conventionally speaking, this will always be "my tradition" (after all, I see no need to fix what isn't broken or lpay switch-hitter). Therefore I see nothing wrong with designating this. One habit I do believe very troublesome is when "my tradition" dogmatically becomes the "only tradition." My comment referred to the tendency of those in my school (one I still carry around to a limited degree) to challange any characterizations of emptiness that use positivistic descriptions. On that note, drawing from a particularly unfortunate chapter of my own tradition's history, there were some there so dogmatically fixated on the Prasangika presentation of emptiness they felt it necessary to destroy the monasteries of those who had the temerity to suggest another interpretation (though it would be unwise to forget there were also strong political undercurrents at the same time). I mention this only to point out that dogmatism is a great danger to look out for no matter which tradition's pesentation we prefer. Whether or not the gzhan-stong view is "right" or not, one appropriate response would be to challange specific points of contention, rather than denigrate an entire tradition wholesale, or even destroy their monasteries! > > it is a non-affirming negative (unlike an affirming > > negative like "The fat Devadatta never eats during the daytime", > > which carries with it the affirmation that he has to be stuffing his > > face at night). > > This is not affirming. > This can depend on the time the quote was made. Like after getting fat(the > fatness also depends), the (now) fat devadatta stopped eating ( in daytime > And night ). > Can depend on devadatta's eating habits, he may be drinking(not eating) lot > of food drinks without having to stuff his face at night. As an aside, this is one of the classic examples given for an affirming negative in general--meaning, that it implies the "fat Devadatta" isn't starving; he's taking in enough calories to be chubby somehow, even if through an IV drip! :) 8080 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 7:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Robert - It's really hard to know about the proper translation and meaning, especially for a total Pali-neophyte such as me. Bhikkhu ~NAnananda translates this as : "Consciousness which is non-manifestive - endless, lustrous on all sides, Here it is that earth and water-fire and air no footing find; Here, again, are long and short - fine and coarse - pleasant and unpleasant And name-and-form - all cut off without exception. When consciousness comes to cease - all these are held in check herein." He also translates from the Brahmanimantanika Sutta, in MN I as follows: "Consciousness which is non-manifestive, infinite and lustrous all around: it does not partake of the solidity of earth, ..., the allness of the all" Peter Harvey, in his book "The Sefless Mind" uses a similar translation: "Discernment, non-manifestive, accessible from all round (vi~n~nAnam anidassanam, anantam, sabbato paham)." But, in any case, I think that Robert Epstein's point about nibbana certainly being different from the unconsciousness of a stone is a valid one. Another point: Even in Abhidhamma, if I'm not mistaken, nibbana, is *not* considered to be citta (which always has an object), but *is* considered to be nama. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/15/01 2:03:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, <> writes: > Howard wrote: > Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to Insight: > > "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do > these four great > elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire > property, and > the wind property -- cease without remainder? Instead, it should > be phrased > like this: > > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing? > > Where are long & short, > > coarse & fine, > > fair & foul, > > name & form > > > > "'And the answer to that is: > > Consciousness without feature, > > without end, > > luminous all around: > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing. > > Here long & short > > coarse & fine > > fair & foul > > name & form > > are all brought to an end. > > With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness > > > > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the > householder > delighted in the Blessed One's words. > ************************************* > > What I meant by unmanifestive discernment is exactly what > is given > above, and which sure sounds like nibbana to me: > > "Consciousness without feature, > without end, > luminous all around: > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > have no footing. > Here long & short > coarse & fine > fair & foul > name & form > are all brought to an end." > > With metta, > Howard > _______________________________________________ > > Dear Howard, > You quoted the above from the translation by Thanissaro. > There is another translation at www.metta.lk > > > > > > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/11-kevaddha-e.htm > > Where do earth, water, fire, and wind, > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > Pure and impure, no footing find? > > Where is it that both name and form[22] > > Die out, leaving no trace behind?" > > 'On that the answer is : > > 'The intellect of Arahatship, the invisible, the endless, > accessible from every side[23] > > 'Where is it that earth, water, fire, and wind, > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > Pure and impure, no footing find. > > Where is it that both name and form > > Die out, leaving, no trace behind. > > When intellection ceases they all also cease.' > > Thus spake the Exalted One. And Kevaddha, the young householder, > pleased at heart, rejoiced at the spoken word. > > > Actually I had a converstaion with Suan recently about this as I > was puzzled by the somewhat confusing translations of this sutta > extract. > He wrote in his usual helpful way when I asked about this pali > phrase in the sutta: > > The original Pali found in Section 499, Kevatta Suttam, > Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo starts with the term "Viññanam". > > And Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha defines "Viññanam" as follows. > > "Tattha viññatabbanti "Viññanam" nibbanassetam namam,.." > > "There, to be known specially, so (it is) "Viññanam". This is > the > name of nibbana." > > And Kevatta Sutta Tika further explains the phrase > "viññatabbanti" > as follows. > > "Viññatabbanti visitthena ñatabbam, ñanuttamena > ariyamaggañanena paccakkhato janitabbanti attho, tenaha > "nibbanassetam namam"ti." > > "(To be known specially) means to be extraordinarily known. The > meaning is 'to be known in the sense of realization by ultimate > wisdom, by noble path wisdom'". Therefore, (the commentator) > stated > that 'This is the name of nibbana'" > > Therefore, the term 'Viññanam' in the line of the original Pali > verse > > "Viññanam anidassanam, anantam sabbatopabham .." does not refer > to > consciousness, the usual meaning of viññanam. > > In fact, the same verse includes the following two lines > > "Ettha namañca rupañca, asesam uparujjhati > Viññanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". > > "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without > remainder. > By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here." > > Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one > of > its Pali names happens to be Viññanam. > > Suan > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8081 From: gayan Date: Sat Sep 15, 2001 11:09pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear howard, > > > ============================= > You quote from the Bahiya Sutta: > **************************************************** > "Where neither water nor yet earth > Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, > There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, > There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. > When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this > For himself through his own wisdom, > Then he is freed from form and formless. > Freed from pleasure and from pain.", > *********************************************************** > Please note there the words "yet there no darkness reigns"! No > conditions there, no elements of rupa, no mundane light at all, neither form > not formlessness, and "yet there no darkness reigns"!! > > With metta, > Howard That was the whole point of putting the quote. :o) a lot of NOs. Important thing is-> " NO Darkness " too thats something positive. rgds, gayan 8082 From: gayan Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:27am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear erik, > Indeed. However, I still prefer this approach for a number of > reasons. It isn't neccessary for everyone, nevertheless, knowing what > other views exist and the critiques of those views has been one of > the most beneficial aspects in my studies. Yes , I think this is the most important aspect of it. Its always helpful to facilitate different thought-lines. Like, "what if its otherwise.." Having a grasp of everything certainly helps understanding what buddha said., simply because at the end of the day buddha reigns supreme. From my side , I even found the computer engineering technology as helpful to understand what the guy said. You simply can't beat this old chap.(the buddha with all due respects) > > On that note, and to digress somewhat (because this is not at all > directed at anyone in particular here), it is very easy to study just > one presentation and get ensnared in the particular language of that > presentation. I take some the discussions on Nibbana here as a case > in point. This also can have multiple aspects. Like studying all and converging all of them to a single point of view. Or studing one and extrapolating it to others. All have advantages and disadvantages. I think that its just the relative disadvantageous-ness of time we currently live in. > > To draw something of an analogy, some of the arguments I have seen > remind me of what I might expect to see from those who've never > actually tasted a mango, who have heard a particular description of a > mango as having a somewhat sweet and fruity flavor, found some liking > to such a description in dependence on nothing other than preference, > who prefer this description of sweetness so much that when someone > describes the texture of a mango as soft and juicy, it is denounced > as heresy. > Oh, I got the 'mango' thing (what you are trying to say) :o) One cant force the mango to another's mouth. There is a case of wanting others to taste the mango which one has tasted. Personally i think, If the 'taste of the mango' is staying forever tasty, theres no need to care about all those denouncings etc. > I have been given a lot of cause to consider this lately, because I > still see an insistence from some quarters that the Pali Canon > contains the only accurate representation of the Buddha's Dharma. The word 'only' is the scary-point here. Mango sellers, only promote their mangoes. Lot of different versions of mangoes, fruit-salads. Indecision makes a big headache. For > example, just recently I have seen quotes from certain Theravada > monks on Nibbana that actively denigrate the Mahayana (and if that is > their intent, they only make the speaker look like a rather foolish > and uncharitable individual, given these quotes make plain the > speaker obviously hasn't bothered to study the tradition he's > denigrating). I don't take any personal offense at such woeful > mischaracterizations (indeed how ciould one take offesne at waht is > amost laughably off the mark?), but I almost reflexively head the > opposite direction all the same, since I prefer not to spend my > precious life of leisure & fortune I could be spending practicing the > Dharma with folks who behave this way. > Reflecting on these incidents, .. Cant beat the old chap. > Perhaps it's an aversion from having been raised a Mormon, where I > was exposed to some rather unyielding and oppressive dogmatism for > so many years, and also perhaps because I have found little benefit > in attempting to engage those of this mentality once it becomes > evident their prejudices take precedence over dispassionate > investigation and careful consideration. This indicates to me that > any attempts at reasoned discussion or debate are usually futile and > as such, a waste of precious time. In all cases I find this sort of > mentality so far from any sort of mentality I aspire to, that I find > nothing in it worthy of emulation. > yep.. > > :o) 'my tradition' , thats nice.Hardest to break. > > That's not that habit I was referring to here. Conventionally > speaking, this will always be "my tradition" (after all, I see no > need to fix what isn't broken or lpay switch-hitter). Therefore I see > nothing wrong with designating this. > > One habit I do believe very troublesome is when "my tradition" > dogmatically becomes the "only tradition." My comment referred to the > tendency of those in my school (one I still carry around to a limited > degree) to challange any characterizations of emptiness that use > positivistic descriptions. > > On that note, drawing from a particularly unfortunate chapter of my > own tradition's history, there were some there so dogmatically > fixated on the Prasangika presentation of emptiness they felt it > necessary to destroy the monasteries of those who had the temerity to > suggest another interpretation (though it would be unwise to forget > there were also strong political undercurrents at the same time). > > I mention this only to point out that dogmatism is a great danger to > look out for no matter which tradition's pesentation we prefer. > Whether or not the gzhan-stong view is "right" or not, one > appropriate response would be to challange specific points of > contention, rather than denigrate an entire tradition wholesale, or > even destroy their monasteries! > Meaningless(with politics,collective egos and all that) , they are indeed. Jihad-mentality,Saviour-mentality all give perfect examples of what the Old One warned as pitfalls. rgds. gayan 8083 From: gayan Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:16am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear kenneth, > nothing is annihilated in Buddhism since all dharmas inherently are signless. To my understanding, the words should be "let go" well, if I remember correctly,somewhere in tipitaka, buddha says, "Monks, some people will accuse me of teaching annihiliation, to them I say., 'yes, I teach annihiliation, I teach annihiliation of dukkha, thats what I teach.' " rgds, gayan 8084 From: Anders Honore Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:34am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- rikpa21 wrote: > I have not detected any fundamental difference between the two (not > as much as a hair of contradiction, actually). Ditto that. As I see it, Mahayana is not in opposition to Theravada. It is an elaboration of it (I do not mean in any higher evolutionary way, just that it expands on certain topics which later practitioners have misinterpreted). > Perhaps rather than drawing any conclusions from your own cursory > readings of Ch'an material (which can hardly be said to represent the > vast breadth of systems categorized under the heading "Mahayana"), it > may be prudent to in addition request isntruction from those trained > in one of these wonderful traditions, and then to take that > instruction and put it into practice and test out for yourself if it > works for you or not. Yup. I think it was Buddhaghosa who said: "The worst authority I know, is my own." > But that's just the opinion of someone who's studied under qualified > teachers in both traditions, put their teachings into practice (from > both sides), and studied the Pali Suttas side-by-side with the > Mahayana Sutras since the beginning of his studies (even though > favoring the Mahayana since it accords best with his accumulations). What Theravada teachers have you studied under, whom you felt were "qualified"? >s (substance vs. style, in other words). But not until. Without > such definitive knowledge, any conclusion would be nothing but the > purest speculation; and if one is entirely honest, this is just as > true regarding the teachings in Pali Canon as for the teachings of > the so-called Mahayana. I can't remember which, but there is a Mayahana sutra in which all the Bodhisattvas and Sravakas try to figure out the truth, but can't, to which the Buddha responds that the reason they can't, is because they speculate on it. 8085 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 1:02am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Gayan - In a message dated 9/15/01 1:44:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gayan writes: > dear howard, > > > > > > ============================= > > You quote from the Bahiya Sutta: > > **************************************************** > > "Where neither water nor yet earth > > Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, > > There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, > > There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. > > When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this > > For himself through his own wisdom, > > Then he is freed from form and formless. > > Freed from pleasure and from pain.", > > *********************************************************** > > Please note there the words "yet there no darkness reigns"! > No > > conditions there, no elements of rupa, no mundane light at all, > neither form > > not formlessness, and "yet there no darkness reigns"!! > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > That was the whole point of putting the quote. :o) > > a lot of NOs. > Important thing is-> " NO Darkness " too > > thats something positive. > > > rgds, > gayan > ========================== Ahhh! Sorry. I was a bit slow on the uptake! ;-)) 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) 8086 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 1:14am Subject: Passing on Some Possibly Important Information Hi, all - The following was sent to me, and I am passing it along: Lucent Technologies has an instrument which is being utilized at the site of the World Trade Center disaster. This instrument can hone in on a signal from a cell phone, a beeper, or a Palm device and determine the location of the device. The instrument needs the telephone number of the device in order to locate it. Those who are using the instrument to locate these devices can be reached at 877-348-8579. If there is a need to call them, be sure to have the device's telephone number readily available. 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) 8087 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 5:45am Subject: Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Howard wrote: > > > But, in any case, I think that Robert Epstein's point about nibbana > certainly being different from the unconsciousness of a stone is a valid one. > Another point: Even in Abhidhamma, if I'm not mistaken, nibbana, is *not* > considered to be citta (which always has an object), but *is* considered to > be nama. > > With metta, > Howard > > _______ Dear Howard, I think it is clear if widely within the Tipitika that nibbana is not some type of awareness. Nibbana is classified as nama only in the sense that it is not rupa not because it has the characteristics of awreness or knowing. Do you agree that parinibbana is the extinction of the five khandas? robert 8088 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 2:18am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Robert - > Dear Howard, > I think it is clear if widely within the Tipitika that nibbana is > not some type of awareness. Nibbana is classified as nama only in the > sense that it is not rupa not because it has the characteristics of > awreness or knowing. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, then, why not, by the same reasoning, classify it as rupa "only in the sense that it is not vinnana not because it has the characteristic of resistance"? Do you see what I mean? ---------------------------------------------------- > Do you agree that parinibbana is the extinction of the five khandas? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. But I take vinnana khanda to be the function of discerning objects. --------------------------------------------------- > robert > ========================= 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) 8089 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:41am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Gayan Karunaratne wrote: > dear robert e. > > > Dear Gayan, > > I'm not as intrigued by the 'self' aspect in this quote, as the 'all > phenomena' > > aspect. If release [liberation] is the nature of all phenomena, > > It says that release is the worth,essence(sara) of all phenomena. > > > it seems to be > > saying that all phenomena are inherently liberated but are not realized as > such > > because of delusion. > > I thought that ,its saying that of all phenomena , this phenomenon (the > release) is the worthy one. > Its a phenomenon which belongs to the (all-inclusive)set of 'All phenomena'. > And delusion is another phenomenon. > > And if we go to the 'being' level, I remember somewhere in tipitaka buddha > says that all beings have 'nibbana' as the aim. > His advice to the 'beings' is to be 'appamada' .( dont get lax in effort in > attaining nibbana ) otherwise the suffering will go on for incalculable > period of time. > > > That would seem a very Mahayanist doctrine to me, in a > > Theravadan sutra. What do you think? > > > Actually robert, I dont know very much about mahayana, and only have a > limited understanding of theravada texts. > So I dont know how to make a relation. > But in theravada canon, in lot of instances the delusion is explained as a > darkness, which prevents the truth from being seen. > > I would like to know the mahayanist doctrine which is related to this topic > and its similarities and diffrences as you have observed. Dear Gayan, Let me just say that I am not a scholar and sometimes my view is more instinctive than scriptural, but my sense from the Mahayana traditions that I have been interested in is that enlightenment is seen as the true condition of all beings, only delusion keeps it from being realized. Therefore, realization of one's true state is what is required, rather than an actual change in one's condition. In other words, Nibbana in a sense is not to be attained, but to be realized through understanding, or direct awakening. It is on this basis I believe that the Chinese 'Sudden School' [Ch'an/Zen] asserted that understanding can come at any time, rather than as the result of a long progression of linear steps, if the condition of the mind and circumstances was right. [This is what happened to its founder Hui-Neng, upon hearing the recitation of part of the Diamond Sutra. He then went to a teacher to clarify and deepen his understanding. He was put to work pounding rice in the kitchen for six months. I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like he was practicing mindfulness meditation during that time, only he had the cart before the horse]. Most likely, however, the person thus enlightened would have already done a lot of work in past lives, or would be otherwise close to realization, and they would just need this particular push to destroy their basic delusion of separate self and mind. The gradations of that initial awakening into stream-enterer, once-returner, never-to-return, etc., are all still there, but the emphasis is somewhat different. Of course, there are stages of development in Zen as there are in Theravadin meditation, but based on this idea of enlightenment being a pre-existing reality which needs to be discovered, rather than attained, the practice has a different flavor to some extent. It has led to some of the unusual behavior of Zen Masters which they use to awaken monks who are 'ready' to be pushed out of their conventional mindset. One of the characteristics of this, I believe, is that this makes Zen much more dependent on having a skillful teacher, while my sense of the Theravadin path is that while a teacher is sometimes essential, one can take the steps with some clarity even if a teacher is not available. Best, Robert E. 8090 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:46am Subject: no moon/no darkness (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) Where neither water nor yet earth Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this For himself through his own wisdom, Then he is freed from form and formless. Freed from pleasure and from pain. Dear Gayan, Well I love this verse, just love it. Yet there is a clue within all the 'no-s' that you cite: There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. If there is no moon, then why does not darkness reign? There is no other way to interpret this other than an implication that without the moon, there is still a source of light. So my Zen koan for you today is: where shines no moon, why doesn't the darkness reign? Something is not extinguished, and I feel that the Buddha couldn't resist but hint at this, though he doesn't want to state positively some statement that will be turned into an entity or object by the unenlightened mind. Best, Robert ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8091 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:52am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > Reading your words is like perceiving my own thoughts! > > With metta, > Howard Robert E. ============================== > In a message dated 9/14/01 5:14:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > > > > >>This sounds suspiciously like you're reifying awareness Robert. You > > say it's not a "thing", and yet awareness implies a subject, and by > > implication, an object. This demonstrates that awareness is a > > changing thing, i.e. composed, because it is dependent on an object-- > > a changing thing, and changes in dependence on an object. Therefore > > it is mundane by definition. >> > > > > I have to disagree, Erik, that awareness implies an object. I am speaking > > of pure > > awareness, which I would consider an equivalent of Nibbana. If Nibbana is > > not an > > aware state, and it implies the negation of all other conditions, there is > > no way > > for it not to be a state in which all experiences and conditions have been > > annihilated. If it as an unformed pre-condition which is *discovered* > > rather than > > attained, then does it remove the sentience of sentient beings? Only > > sentient > > beings are eligible for enlightenment. There is a reason for that, and > > that is > > that their *sentience* is what is capable of being enlightened. Sentience = > > Awareness. It si the illusion of 'self' that is removed in enlightenment, > > but the > > awareness or core awakeness of sentience that characterizes all living > > beings, is > > not itself removed. Otherwise nibbana would be the equivalent of turning a > > living > > being into an inanimate object. Obviously this is not the case. > > > > >>This means that awareness cannot possibly be Nibbana, since Nibbana > > is uncomposed, the asankhara dhatu. This view that nothing exists > > except for awareness--which exists absolutely in some way (even if it > > is asserted it is not a "thing"--and how can this be, incidentally, > > since awareness too is a dependent arising?)--is specifically the > > view rejected in the Madhyamika critique of Cittamatra (Mind Only).>> > > > > I would say that Nibbana would indeed have to be the unformed awareness at > > the > > heart of all experience. If Nibbana is not awareness one would be left > > with the > > absurd idea that Nibbana is a state of unawareness, that it is a form of > > unconsciousness. Whatever you say about the attributes of Nibbana, > > unformed, > > unmodified, undifferentiated, and unborn, can be said about this primary > > awareness, which is not a rising or falling consciousness, but is the > > backdrop or > > field in which all living experience arises. > > > > > For example, the view that Nibbana is "awareness" of some sort is > > > explicitly rejected by the Buddha in the Bharmajala Sutta: > > > > > > "Here, a certain ascetic or Brahmin is a logician, a reasoner. > > > Hammering it out by reason, following his own line of thought, he > > > argues: `Whatever is called eye or ear or nose or tongue or > > > body, that is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, liable to change. > > > But what is called thought, or mind or consciousness, that is a self > > > that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same > > > for ever and ever! > > > > Thought, mind or consciousness as a self would be a false reification of > > some > > aspect of sentience which is given a definition, which then recreates it as > > a kind > > of soul. I understand that you can also view my assertion of Awareness as > > such an > > object as well. But I mean it as an impersonal property rather than as a > > self or > > a possession, in just the same way that Nibbana is meant. If Nibbana does > > equal a > > kind of primal awareness that is undifferentiated and unborn, it would > > partake of > > all the same properties that allow Nibbana to avoid being an object or > > self. And > > if Nibbana is not a form of primal Awareness, then I have to ask you: what > > allows > > Nibbana to be a state into which a sentient being can enter, and only a > > sentient > > being? What happens to human awareness when it enters Nibbana? Is > > awareness > > obliterated, or does it in fact lose all definitions of self and become > > just pure > > experience of what is? Can a rock become enlightened? If sentience is not > > the > > one property that is refined and uplifted into its true form in Nibbana, > > then what > > aspect of being human allows for Nibbana to be attained? > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > > > > > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8092 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS > > Dear Robert, > > In all that is said below, I find it most interesting that Nibbana > is said to > > partake of: > > > > "Asankhata-dhatu, unborn, unformed purified Element". > > > > Is that a convention of speech, or what is the unborn, unformed > purified Element > > that Nibbana involves. It certainly seems that a positive state or > substance is > > here invoked, rather than mere cessation. > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > > > ============================= > Dear Robert E. > Nibbana is classified as paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality)but it > is in no way like the other paramattha dhammas of consciousness , > mental factors and materiality. It can't be said to exist at all in > that way that they do. I wouldn't think that it would exist in that sense. But I sure would like to know what the "unborn, unformed purified Element" means. It sounds like the essential quality that exists prior to manifest existence as apparent beings. So what is that unborn, original element? What does Element here mean? Whatever it is, that is a positive statement about Nibbana, it is not a statement of mere cessation of defilements and delusions. I am not saying it is a 'self'. Anatta to me means that there is no center to which experience can be attributed. That doesn't mean that any property that Nibbana had would necessarily have to be a 'self'. It would be a transcendent quality, not a mundane one, and all self-nature partakes of the kandhas. So that unborn, primordial Element would not partake of a self, being or entity. So what is it? But it can be an object of the developed citta > that arises if the eightfold path is correctly followed. The > harbinger of this path is right view. > Nibbana is NOT , according to the Ancient theravada tradition, > > > > """A the light of > > awareness, infinite, luminous all around, falling on no objects, > with > > discernment unmanifestive..."" Why is it then stated in the Pali Sutta Pitaka, as Howard reports? Is the Pitaka not part of the ancient Theravada tradition? [I ask this sincerely, not rhetorically]. > Do we yet see how utterly oppressive this continual rising and > passing away is. One moment there is seeing, then thinking , then > hearing, feeling, tasting, thinking, anger, happiness , sadness, > again and again - no one can stop these moments arising. It has been > going on like this for zillions and trillions of aeons of time. And > much of that time has been spent as animals or insects or worms or in > freezing hells or boiling hells. Now we happen to be in a happy > existence as a human - but that is so brief. There are only namas and > rupas arising and passing, never to return but conditioning succesive > moments. Only by the eightfold path can this fearful stream be > brought to an end. By studying the dhammas, that are arising again > and again at the 6 doors in the correct way, I suggest that there > will be more appreciation of what nibbana is (even while it cannot be > fully understood until it is the object of magga citta and phala > citta) I understand and appreciate your passionate statement. The only place we disagree, and it is an important place, is that you think that awareness cannot exist without a rising and falling experience of object. We are both talking about Nibbana here. If Nibbana is a form of awareness, if awareness itself [awake being = Buddha] is the unformed, primal Element that can be attributed to Nibbana, then it would *not* be a rising and falling consciousness that is attached to an object. It would be a still lake in which there is no ripple, an absolute awareness with no object. It would not be prone to attachment or aversion, it would not perceive mundane objects, and it would not escape through the six sense-organs. It would neither become nor extinguish. It would merely be. It would have no personal identity, and it would neither die nor be reborn. If one does not assert that awareness in its pure state can cease from becoming, then one is left with the absurd notion that the careful refinement of mindfulness and insight is only there to then be completely extinguished. Why would a path that is totally built on the refinement of awareness suddenly extinguish as the final accomplishment of its path? It doesn't make any sense. Why not have a path of gradual extinction of awareness, if awareness is not to be the final ingredient of Nibbana? What is extinguished by the Buddha instead is "greed, anger, and delusion, as well as of the manifold evil and demeritorious things," borrowing from your quotes below. Nowhere in any of your quotes does the Buddha say that sentience, or awareness is extinguished. He never says the Arahat is 'no longer awake'. Rather, his name, Buddha, means awakened one. Even if one is only being awakened to the truth of anatta, there is still something there to be awake, or he would not be able to realize this. For those who believe in pure annihilation, this is never, I believe, adequately explained or dealt with. Certainly, anything we are familiar with in this manifest life as individuals is extinguished in Nibbana, but that doesn't mean that the quality he has cultivated in order to attain Nibbana is also extinguished. Is awareness, the ability to discern that is so highly prized on the path, ever listed as one of the defilements to be eradicated? No. No Sutra, I would venture to guess, will ever say: 'Upon reaching Nibbana, his discernment is extinguished and he is no longer awake or aware.' Obviously, the Buddha was awake or aware, even while having no notion of self. The two are not the same. For certainly, I teach > > > annihilation, the annihilation of greed, anger, and delusion, as > > > well as of the manifold evil and demeritorious things." There is nothing about extinguishing the meritorious things, which have been accumulated and refined on the path, is there? Of all the quotes, this is the one that gets closest to saying that Nibbana involves total extinction. It does not say awareness, but it does say 'consciousness' is extinguished. This is, I take it, a commentary and not from a Sutra? In any case, I would need to know what is meant by consciousness. My understanding of consciousness is that it is meant as a consciousness of something, arising and falling away with that object. If that is the case, it is not what I mean by awareness. The commentator says that the primal Element is in fact an elemental 'state' where there is no being or soul. I would like to know whether the Buddha spoke of a state of non-being, as the commentator does. A state of absolute non-being is pure annihilationism in my view, which the Buddha denied as one of the errors of View. I await your clarifications on this most important issue. > > > NIBBANA > > > the Nibbanic state is totally devoid of any and every thing of > > > the four elements, personal existence, static entity, rebirth, > > > death, consciousness or mind and matter etc. It is only the > > > state of element (Dhatu) which means "Nisatta nijjiva" > > > non-being, non-soul, i.e. there is not even a purified soul in > > > Nibbana. > > Best to you, Robert E. 8093 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Howard wrote: > Please note there the words "yet there no darkness reigns"! No > conditions there, no elements of rupa, no mundane light at all, neither form > not formlessness, and "yet there no darkness reigns"!! > > With metta, > Howard Well, Howard, we seem to have simeoltaneously picked up on the same idea again! You're right: we're apparently in telepathic communication. Well, I don't mind the company! Best, Robert E. 8094 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Thanks for getting me off the hook, Howard, but I wish I was the one who found this sutra. It is one of the most beautiful things I've ever read. Well, I hope we will all have a lively discussion re-translating and discussing this Sutra. It seems to make clear that the four elements are not extinguished, but lose their footing, and that consciousness is not extinguished, but loses its properties and activity. And this sounds a lot like Nibbana to me as well. I would like to see if others here would agree with the way it is translated. Best, Robert E. ===================== --- Howard wrote: > > This material you quote shouldn't be blamed on Robert E. I was the one > who wrote it. With regard to it, I refer you to the end portion of the > Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to Insight: > > ************************************* > "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great > elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and > the wind property -- cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased > like this: > > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing? > > Where are long & short, > > coarse & fine, > > fair & foul, > > name & form > > > > "'And the answer to that is: > > Consciousness without feature, > > without end, > > luminous all around: > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing. > > Here long & short > > coarse & fine > > fair & foul > > name & form > > are all brought to an end. > > With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness 8095 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Thanks, Howard. Both translations below are very interesting. Robert E. ========= --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > It's really hard to know about the proper translation and meaning, > especially for a total Pali-neophyte such as me. > > Bhikkhu ~NAnananda translates this as : > > "Consciousness which is non-manifestive - endless, lustrous on all > sides, > Here it is that earth and water-fire and air no footing find; > Here, again, are long and short - fine and coarse - pleasant > and > unpleasant > And name-and-form - all cut off without exception. > When consciousness comes to cease - all these are held in > > check herein." > > He also translates from the Brahmanimantanika Sutta, in MN I as follows: > > "Consciousness which is non-manifestive, infinite and lustrous > all around: it does not partake of the solidity of earth, ..., the > allness > of the all" > > Peter Harvey, in his book "The Sefless Mind" uses a similar > translation: > > "Discernment, non-manifestive, accessible from all round (vi~n~nAnam > anidassanam, anantam, sabbato paham)." > > But, in any case, I think that Robert Epstein's point about nibbana > certainly being different from the unconsciousness of a stone is a valid one. > Another point: Even in Abhidhamma, if I'm not mistaken, nibbana, is *not* > considered to be citta (which always has an object), but *is* considered to > be nama. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 9/15/01 2:03:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > > Howard wrote: > > Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to Insight: > > > > "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do > > these four great > > elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire > > property, and > > the wind property -- cease without remainder? Instead, it should > > be phrased > > like this: > > > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > > > have no footing? > > > Where are long & short, > > > coarse & fine, > > > fair & foul, > > > name & form > > > > > > > "'And the answer to that is: > > > Consciousness without feature, > > > without end, > > > luminous all around: > > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > > have no footing. > > > Here long & short > > > coarse & fine > > > fair & foul > > > name & form > > > are all brought to an end. > > > With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness > > > > > > > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the > > householder > > delighted in the Blessed One's words. > > ************************************* > > > > What I meant by unmanifestive discernment is exactly what > > is given > > above, and which sure sounds like nibbana to me: > > > > "Consciousness without feature, > > without end, > > luminous all around: > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing. > > Here long & short > > coarse & fine > > fair & foul > > name & form > > are all brought to an end." > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Dear Howard, > > You quoted the above from the translation by Thanissaro. > > There is another translation at www.metta.lk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/11-kevaddha-e.htm > > > > Where do earth, water, fire, and wind, > > > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > > > Pure and impure, no footing find? > > > > Where is it that both name and form[22] > > > > Die out, leaving no trace behind?" > > > > 'On that the answer is : > > > > 'The intellect of Arahatship, the invisible, the endless, > > accessible from every side[23] > > > > 'Where is it that earth, water, fire, and wind, > > > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > > > Pure and impure, no footing find. > > > > Where is it that both name and form > > > > Die out, leaving, no trace behind. > > > > When intellection ceases they all also cease.' > > > > Thus spake the Exalted One. And Kevaddha, the young householder, > > pleased at heart, rejoiced at the spoken word. > > > > > > Actually I had a converstaion with Suan recently about this as I > > was puzzled by the somewhat confusing translations of this sutta > > extract. > > He wrote in his usual helpful way when I asked about this pali > > phrase in the sutta: > > > > The original Pali found in Section 499, Kevatta Suttam, > > Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo starts with the term "Viññanam". > > > > And Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha defines "Viññanam" as follows. > > > > "Tattha viññatabbanti "Viññanam" nibbanassetam namam,.." > > > > "There, to be known specially, so (it is) "Viññanam". This is > > the > > name of nibbana." > > > > And Kevatta Sutta Tika further explains the phrase > > "viññatabbanti" > > as follows. > > > > "Viññatabbanti visitthena ñatabbam, ñanuttamena > > ariyamaggañanena paccakkhato janitabbanti attho, tenaha > > "nibbanassetam namam"ti." > > > > "(To be known specially) means to be extraordinarily known. The > > meaning is 'to be known in the sense of realization by ultimate > > wisdom, by noble path wisdom'". Therefore, (the commentator) > > stated > > that 'This is the name of nibbana'" > > > > Therefore, the term 'Viññanam' in the line of the original Pali > > verse > > > > "Viññanam anidassanam, anantam sabbatopabham .." does not refer > > to > > consciousness, the usual meaning of viññanam. > > > > In fact, the same verse includes the following two lines > > > > "Ettha namañca rupañca, asesam uparujjhati > > Viññanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". > > > > "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without > > remainder. > > By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here." > > > > Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one > > of > > its Pali names happens to be Viññanam. > > > > Suan > > ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8096 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 0:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- gayan wrote: > > > dear howard, > > > > > > ============================= > > You quote from the Bahiya Sutta: > > **************************************************** > > "Where neither water nor yet earth > > Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, > > There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, > > There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. > > When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this > > For himself through his own wisdom, > > Then he is freed from form and formless. > > Freed from pleasure and from pain.", > > *********************************************************** > > Please note there the words "yet there no darkness reigns"! > No > > conditions there, no elements of rupa, no mundane light at all, > neither form > > not formlessness, and "yet there no darkness reigns"!! > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > That was the whole point of putting the quote. :o) > > a lot of NOs. > Important thing is-> " NO Darkness " too > > thats something positive. > > > rgds, > gayan yes, but the question is: where there is no darkness, is there not light? Robert ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8097 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 1:23pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- <> wrote: > --- Howard wrote: > > > > > But, in any case, I think that Robert Epstein's point about > nibbana > > certainly being different from the unconsciousness of a stone is a > valid one. > > Another point: Even in Abhidhamma, if I'm not mistaken, nibbana, is > *not* > > considered to be citta (which always has an object), but *is* > considered to > > be nama. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > _______ > Dear Howard, > I think it is clear if widely within the Tipitika that nibbana is > not some type of awareness. Nibbana is classified as nama only in the > sense that it is not rupa not because it has the characteristics of > awreness or knowing. I wonder, Robert, why it would be classified as a nama, only to distinguish it from a rupa? If it were not a nama, why wouldn't it simply be called something else? Correct me if I am wrong, but Nibbana would be an unconditioned nama, as opposed to a conditioned nama, which would include consciousness. But there must be a reason why Nibbana is grouped as a nama, instead of having a wholly removed category of its own. > Do you agree that parinibbana is the extinction of the five khandas? > robert Even if it is, the question is whether primal awareness is the same as consciousness as it is meant in the definition of the kandhas. It still doesn't make sense to me that Nibbana would be described as pure cessation, while the Buddha's name means 'one who is awake'. Someone who is awake need not have a self, but they have not totally ceased in their awareness. They are awake, not unconscious. This suggests a pure wakefulness, a pure awareness, without an object or modification, ie a transcendent nama that Nibbana seems to be classified as. Here is another translation of the verse we've been looking at on this subject, provided by Access to Insight: Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed. -- Ud I.10 Isn't it amazing that in the midst of all these negations of light, that 'darkness is not found'? What can this mean? To me it suggests that the luminosity of pure awareness, which is neither bright nor dark, is the presence there. Where is this view explicitly rejected in the canon, Robert? I will certainly go and read it. Here is another quote from Access to Insight which is interesting: "Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea." -- MN 72 I like that: 'freed from the classification of consciousness'. It sounds like name and form have been abandoned, not basic awareness or awakeness. It doesn't sound like pure cessation to me. It sounds like the conditions of life have ceased, and he says beautifully that there is something 'deep, boundless, hard to fathom' that is well beyond all existence, of which the Tathagata still partakes. Best, Robert E. 8098 From: KennethOng Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 1:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Maybe the problem could be the translation. Others translate it as cessation, when we talk abt cessation, we are about talking stopping and this is not destroying. How do we stop then, it is by letting go dualism, by letting go of attachment. Dharmas cannot be destroyed because there are devoid of nature or empty. We cannot destroy things that are inherently empty. Secondly annihilation is an extreme point of view which does not conform to the Buddhism point of view of middle path. In my humblest opinion, I believe that the translation word "annihilation" is not appropriate. Honestly, it is difficult to translate and definitely there are words that are very difficult to be defined correctly in English. Kind Regards Kenneth Ong gayan wrote: dear kenneth, > nothing is annihilated in Buddhism since all dharmas inherently are signless. To my understanding, the words should be "let go" well, if I remember correctly,somewhere in tipitaka, buddha says, "Monks, some people will accuse me of teaching annihiliation, to them I say., 'yes, I teach annihiliation, I teach annihiliation of dukkha, thats what I teach.' " rgds, gayan 8099 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 3:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on lokuttara, sense-door, mind-door Nina Sorry to take time to get back to you. I have been doing 2 jobs at work for the past month, and hope to have more time when things revert to normal (later this week). --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Hi Jonothan Sarah and all, I heard you had good discussions in Bgk. > Amara > sent some notes, and now I have some questions. > As to the role of the three abstinences when the citta is lokuttara. I > can > understand that all 37 bhodipakkhiya dhammas have reached > accomplishment. > These three abstinence are among the eight path-factors. I understand > that > panna eradicates defilements. But my Q, is, do the three abstinences not > also play their part in eradicating, although panna is the chief. > I have some texts: in the Atth (II, Ch I, 219) it is said of right > speech > that is lokuttara that it cuts off the base of misconduct and fulfils > the > path-factor. See also Dhammasangani: Part I, Ch V, §299: right speech > detroys the cause-way leading to them...What do you think of those > texts? Yes, I commented during the talks how, according to the texts, each of the 3 virati's arising with the supramundane citta abandons its opposite (see Vism XVI, 78-80), and how even at mundane path moments right effort, in performing the functions described as the 4 padhanas, seems to be chipping away at the anusaya. I am not sure how exactly one would characterise the respective roles of these factors and panna at path moment, but I am sure it's the case that all need each other's support to achieve the final eradication of kilesa. This is also explained in the similes given in Vism in the passage dealing with the path factors as 3 aggregates (XVI, 96-102). > Another question: concerning my translation of Camb talks. In Cambodia, > A. > Sujin explains about the mind-door that is hidden by the sense-doors in > our > daily life. I understand. When there is no vipassana ~aa.na, the > mind-door > does not appear, although there is a mind-door process after each > sense-door > process. But also, A Sujin says, while thinking about names and > concepts, > the mind-door is hidden by the sense-doors, and we do not realize at > such > moments realities that arise and fall away. My feeling is: we think of > concepts on account of the sense objects, and in between our thinking > there > are sense impressions time and again, the mind-door process does not > appear. > Is this the reason that even while thinking of concepts the mind-door > process is hidden by the sense-door processes? My only recollection of the translation of the Cambodia talks is of a passage dealing with 'thinking hiding the sense-doors'. Have I got this wrong? Perhaps you could refer us again to the part about mind-door being hidden by sense-doors. Thanks. > Looking forward to your notes, Nina. My notes were purely scribbles of things to come back to later in the discussion, rather than a record of useful things said. If I find anything further, I'll post separately. Jon 8100 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 3:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Gayan, > Let me just say that I am not a scholar and sometimes my view is more > instinctive > than scriptural, but my sense from the Mahayana traditions that I have > been > interested in is that enlightenment is seen as the true condition of all > beings, > only delusion keeps it from being realized. Therefore, realization of > one's true > state is what is required, rather than an actual change in one's > condition. Rob, I would not wish to discourage erudite thinking, but speculation is, after all, only speculation no matter how erudite the mind of the thinker! Discussion based on instinct can only go so far and is of limited benefit anyway, or so it seems to me. After all, even if we ended up with an 'agreed' view on the question, what use would that be if it was not in accord with the word of the teacher? So why not start with the scriptural position from the outset! If you have any Theravada textual reference to support the proposition that 'enlightenment is the true condition of all beings', I would be interested to see it--unless you are accepting (below) that there is none. > Of course, there are stages of development in Zen as there are in > Theravadin > meditation, but based on this idea of enlightenment being a pre-existing > reality > which needs to be discovered, rather than attained, the practice has a > different > flavor to some extent. It has led to some of the unusual behavior of > Zen Masters > which they use to awaken monks who are 'ready' to be pushed out of their > conventional mindset. > > One of the characteristics of this, I believe, is that this makes Zen > much more > dependent on having a skillful teacher, while my sense of the Theravadin > path is > that while a teacher is sometimes essential, one can take the steps with > some > clarity even if a teacher is not available. There are any number of passages indicating the dependence of every learner on hearing the true dhamma over and over again. The Buddha explained that the dhamma is one's true teacher, and that we all need the assistance of a kalayana mitta to understand it. I think references on this have been given recently, but I could re-post if you would like further elaboration. Jon 8101 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 4:02pm Subject: nibbana . ROBERT E.: He never says the Arahat is 'no longer awake'. Rather, his name, Buddha, means awakened one. Even if one is only being awakened to the truth of anatta, there is still something there to be awake, or he would not be able to realize this. For those who believe in pure annihilation, this is never, I believe, adequately explained or dealt with. Certainly, anything we are familiar with in this manifest life as individuals is extinguished in Nibbana, but that doesn't mean that the quality he has cultivated in order to attain Nibbana is also extinguished. Is awareness, the ability to discern that is so highly prized on the path, ever listed as one of the defilements to be eradicated? No. No Sutra, I would venture to guess, will ever say: 'Upon reaching Nibbana, his discernment is extinguished and he is no longer awake or aware.' Obviously, the Buddha was awake or aware, even while having no notion of self. The two are not the same. ____________ Dear Robert E. I think I said recently that there are two types of nibbana. The first saupaadisesa-nibbaana,(`Nibbaana with the khandas still remaining')which pertains while an arahant is still alive. In this case there is absolute eradication of all kilesa (defilements) upon attainment of arahantship (kilesa -parinibbana). Thus the round of kilesa and the round of kamma is brought to an end. There is, however ,still the round of vipaka (vipaka-vatthu) which doesn't cease until khandha-parinibbaana which takes place at the death of the Arahat, called in the Suttas: `an-upaadisesa-nibbaana' i.e. `(Nibbaana without the khandas remaining) Perhaps the simile of the fire will help. The fuel is craving and ignorance. The fire is nama and rupa (ie the khandas). Once that fuel is no longer being added (upon attainment of arahant) the fire will soon die out(parinibbana Arahant is a term useful to designate a stream of nama and rupa (past, present or future) that no longer has avijja (and hence no other defilements). Before cuti citta(death moment) arises this stream is like a fire where no more fuel is added; at cuti citta the fire is finally extinguished. It is different for a non-arahant. The term non-arahant helps to designate a stream of nama and rupa where avijja and other defilements keep arising. These are the fuel and it is continually being added to (moments of insight excepted). When cuti citta arise for this stream the fire is simply passed to another place and the process continues. robert 8102 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 4:08pm Subject: nibbana 2 Robert E.:the question is whether primal awareness is the same as consciousness as it is meant in the definition of the kandhas. It still doesn't make sense to me that Nibbana would be described as pure cessation, while the Buddha's name means 'one who is awake'. Someone who is awake need not have a self, but they have not totally ceased in their awareness. They are awake, not unconscious. This suggests a pure wakefulness, a pure awareness, without an object or modification, ie a transcendent nama that Nibbana seems to be classified as. ....To me it suggests that the luminosity of pure awareness, which is neither bright nor dark, is the presence there. Where is this view explicitly rejected in the canon, Robert? I will certainly go and read it. _____ Dear Robert E., I don't know if these are helpful. it took me a while to look them up. I think others could find more. A. III. 32 This, truly, is Peace, this is the Highest, namely the end of all Karma formations, the forsaking of every substratum of rebirth, the fading away of craving. detachment, extinction, Nibbaana. A. I. 15 And it is impossible that a being possessed of right understanding should regard anything as the Self. Ud. VIII. 1 Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any other world, neither sun nor moon. This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering. S. XXII. 30 Hence the annihilation, cessation and overcoming of corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness: this is the extinction of suffering, the end of disease, the overcoming of old age and death. (endsutta) robert 8103 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 4:15pm Subject: nibbana 3 Robert E.: The only place we disagree, and it is an important place, is that you think that awareness cannot exist without a rising and falling experience of object. We are both talking about Nibbana here. If Nibbana is a form of awareness, if awareness itself [awake being = Buddha] is the unformed, primal Element that can be attributed to Nibbana, then it would *not* be a rising and falling consciousness that is attached to an object. It would be a still lake in which there is no ripple, an absolute awareness with no object. It would not be prone to attachment or aversion, it would not perceive mundane objects, and it would not escape through the six sense-organs. It would neither become nor extinguish. It would merely be. It would have no personal identity, and it would neither die nor be reborn. __________ Dear Robert E. perhaps this sutta helps: S. XXII. 94 A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no such thing.{endquote] robert 8104 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 5:01pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Rob E, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > To my understanding, they couldn't possibly have the > > same meaning because Pali sabhava, essence is > > inherently reflecting the anatta characteristic of the > > reality whereas the Sanskrit one would be reflecting a > > thing, a self, atta.... > > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for all your quotes on the nature of Nibbana. I think this last > statement > kind of puts the conceptual conflict in a nutshell. I'm trying to understand > how > an essence can reflect the anatta characteristic. It seems to me that this > is > torturing the concept of 'essence'. Why say that something has an essence, > only > to say by definition that this essence is not an essence, but a not-essence? I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana point of view where I understand sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at least). In the pali Tipitaka, sabhava most certainly does not suggest this. So we talk (the Buddha talks) about understanding realities through the 6 doorways, the 6 worlds. All these realities have a characteristic, a ‘nature’ which is different from that of another reality. Seeing only sees. It doesn’t experience sound. It isn’t attached or averse to what is seen and so on. We can say a lot more about its nature: it’s a nama, it’s anatta, impermanent and unsatisfactory. The more understanding develops the more it penetrates or knows the nature or characteristics of a reality. > An > essence means that something has a central property of some kind, it must > mean > that there is something that can be characterized about it. We are able to > distinguish between a ocnditioned and a non-conditioned reality, and I could > accept the idea that Nibbana had a non-conditioned or primal essence. But if > the > essence is merely to reflect its characteristic of 'anatta' of not being a > self or > entity, it seems to me that this is a redundancy. [I am being redundant here > too > to try to tackle it from an angle or two]. Why not just say that it has no > entity > and thus has no essence? Why say it has an essence which is that it doesn't > have > an essence? I hope I’ve clarified this. All realities are anatta and (almost) all realities have a sabhava, a nature, characteristics which are not self in any way. When I discussed this topic with Howard ages ago, I think we both agreed that ‘essence’ can be easily misunderstood as a translation....maybe just think of it as characteristic: (Vism):sabhava...'..it is narrower than dhamma. It often roughly corresponds to dhatu (element) and lakkhana(characteristic), but less nearly to the vaguer and (in Pali) untechnical pakati (nature), or to rasa(function). The Athasalani observes: 'it is the individual essence, or the generality, of such and such dhammas that is called their characteristic' (DhsA.63); on which the Mula Tika comments: 'The individual essence consisting in, say, hardness as that of earth, or touching as that of contact, is not common to all dhammas....' What I am implying is that if the Buddha used the term sabhava, > and > that means the essence of something, in this case Nibbana, then there must be > a > positive reason why he used it. In other words, Nibbana does partake of > anatta, > meaning that it cannot be defined as an entity or a self, but that it does > have an > essence. I wonder if there are any other descriptions, or a good way to > search > for, more descriptions of how the sabhava of Nibbana is meant or what it > implies. > This is the central question that we have been struggling with since Anders' > and > your thread on Nibbana as self or non-self, and this seems like a positive > place > to try to look at it. Rob E, I know you and Anders have a different understanding from a few of us on some fundamental issues, but according to the Pali Tipitaka (according to my understanding, of course), there is no nibbana being experienced now. All that can ever be known are the realities appearing now, which means understanding their characteristics or natures (in theory and directly) very well indeed. Without beginning to understand the difference clearly between namas and rupas there is no way to even reach the first vipassana nana, let alone higher levels. A moment of satipatthana (awareness) of one of these realities has nothing to do with nibbana (except very indirectly) and right now, unless there is the understanding of one of these same realities, there is no panna (wisdom) either. In other words there is no all-encompassing awareness or panna to be seen now if only the clouds of ignorance could be removed. Nor, as I read the Teachings, is there a Bodhi citta or Bodhisattva ideal to be realized by us (or followed) if only we could read between the lines in the Tipitaka. Just to finish, may I add a quote and note that Rob K gave earlier in a post to Howard: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the majjhimanikaya tika (mulapariyaya sutta) has the following to say. I use bhikkhu bodhi's translation p39. It comments on the atthakatha which says "they bear their own characteristics, thus they are dhammas." The tika(subcommentary ) notes. "although there are no dhammas devoid of their own characteristics this is said for the purpose of showing that mere dhammas endowed with their specific natures devoid of such attributes as being etc... whereas such entities as self, permanence or nature, soul, body etc are mere misconstructions due to craving and views...and cannot be discovered as ultinately real actualities, these dhammas (ie.those endowed with a specific sabhava) can. these dhammas are discovered as actually real actualties. And although there IS NO REAL DISTINCTION between these dhammas and their characteristics, still, in order to facilitate understanding, the exposition makes a distinction as a mere metaphorical device. Also they are borne, or they are discerned, known , acccording to their specific nature, thus they are dhammas" It should be noted that when it says they are real, essence etc. this doesn't imply existence in the usual sense of an independent lasting thing. All dhammas are conditioned in complex ways by other dhammas It is just a flux happening so fast that time itself can only be understood by reference to the change of dhammas. robert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Aren't you glad you brought up that idea? Yes, rather, but let me say I see sabhava as an aspect of reality rather than an idea! I hope I’ve clarified rather than confused the issue further. I also realize some of my comments may sound too direct or rigid. I apologise sincerely if this is so. . I appreciate your careful consideration of my earlier quotes and indeed all that is written on dsg. Sarah 8105 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 5:17pm Subject: Trying to understand Anatta Dear List Members, The events of the last week have given extra impetus to me to try to understand several teachings in Buddhism that I have been unable to grasp completely. The first was Kamma - but I have decided to let that sit awhile after getting a headache and more confused by all the permutations and combinations I found while pondering on it. Looking into Kamma made me realise that I needed to study and understand Dependant Origination as well. Looking into Dependent Origination just a little, made me realise that the major key to it all might be to try and understand Anatta. So, I wonder if anyone would care to give me the right perspective on Anatta. For instance, what views are common mistakes to hold, which would be better avoided. I put Anatta into Google,which is the way I usually learn, and found a number of Suttas and articles, but the one that has had most impact so far is the book by Sayadaw U Silananda, with an excerpt below. Hope this is not too boring for everyone, but I feel if I get this right and understand it, I will be a bit further down the Path. metta, Christine In "Inner Core - Anatta" Chapter 5 'Understanding Anatta' Sayadaw U Silananda http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/5787/anatta1.html "Another scholar John Blofeld, also claims that Buddha was really teaching a doctrine of two selves, one true Self or Soul, and one false personal self or ego. Notice in the following quote how he must clarify that the Zen doctrine of Self or One Mind is not in the reality the Atman of the Hindu Brahmins:- The doctrine of Atman has always been the centre of Buddhist controversy. There is no doubt that Gautama Buddha made it one of the central points of his teaching, but the interpretations of it are various. The Theravadins interpret it not only as "no self," but also as "no Self," thereby denying man both an ego and all participation in something of the nature of Universal Spirit or the One Mind. The Mahayanists accept the interpretation of "egolessness," holding that the real "Self" is none other than that indescribable "non-entity," the One Mind; something far less of an "entity" than the Ãtman of the Brahmins. The "Universal Spirit," "One Mind," and "Self" which Blofeld finds within the anatta doctrine are really an Atman, an atta, of a finer substance, "less of an entity " as he says, but nevertheless an Atman. These ideas of atta are therefore in conflict with the anatta doctrine of the Buddha. As mentioned before, most Mahayanists accept the doctrine of anatta, but later schools of Mahayana, such as the Chinese Zen of which Blofeld writes, may have drifted into a soul-like theory. The controversy over the anatta doctrine seems to be based on a deep fear of the denial of the existence of a soul. People are often very attached to their lives, so they like to believe that there exists something everlasting, eternal, and permanent inside them. When someone comes along and tells them that there is nothing permanent in them, nothing by which they will continue eternally such as a soul, they may become frightened. They wonder what will become of them in the future - they have the fear of extinction. Buddha understood this, as we can see in the story of Vacchagotta, who, like many other people, was frightened and confused by the anatta doctrine. Vacchagotta was an ascetic who once went to the Buddha to discuss some important matters. He asked the Buddha, "Is there atta?" Buddha remained silent. Vacchagotta then asked, "Is there no atta" But Buddha again remained silent. After Vacchagotta went away Buddha explained to Ananda why he had remained silent. Buddha explained that He knew that Vacchagotta was very confused in his thinking about atta, and that if He were to respond that there does exist atta, then He would be expounding the eternalist view the eternal soul theory with which He did not agree. But if He were to say that atta did not exist, then Vacchagotta might think that He was expounding the annihilationist view, the view that a person is nothing but a psychophysical organism which will be completely annihilated at death. Since this latter view denies kamma, rebirth, and dependent origination, Buddha did not agree with this. Buddha teaches, in fact, that people are reborn with patisandhi, "relinking consciousness," a rebirth consciousness which does not transmigrate from the previous existence, but which comes into existence by means of conditions included in the previous existences, conditions such as kamma. Thus a reborn person is not the same as the one who has died, nor is the reborn person entirely different from the one who has died. Most importantly no metaphysical entity no soul, and no kind of spiritual self continues from one existence to another in Buddha's teaching. But this teaching was too difficult for Vacchagotta, and Buddha wanted to wait for a time when Vacchagotta would mature in intellect. Buddha was not a computer who gave automatic answers to every Question. He taught according to the circumstances and temperaments of the people, for their benefit. As it happened, Vacchagotta advanced spiritually through Vipassana meditation, which allowed him to realize the suffering, impermanent, and no-soul nature of all things, and he later became an Arahant. " 8106 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 8:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Rob, Suan, Rob E, Howard & all, --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > > Dear Howard, http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/11-kevaddha-e.htm > 'The intellect of Arahatship, the invisible, the endless, > accessible from every side[23] > 'Where is it that earth, water, fire, and wind,...’ > > Recently I discussed this passage in MN with Anders (Aug 18th) and you'll see the conclusion in the conversation here is similar to Suan's far more detailed translation notes below I think: ************************************************ S: With regard to the MN 49 (24-26) passage you quoted: Sarah: >> B.Bodhi translates the passage as: > > 'the consciousness that makes no showing, > > And in becoming about to disbecome, > > Not claiming being with respect to all: > > that is not partaken of by the earthness of earth etc Maj NIk, 49, The Invitation of a Brahma,24-26 -------------------------------- S: The word 'consciousness' is translated from 'vi~n~naa.na.m' to be understood as 'cognizable' (vijaanitabba.m) and not consciousness according to the Pali com. as explained to me. As I mentioned, BB also added in his notes (513). , Sarah: >>"MA takes > >the subject of the sentence to be Nibbana, called 'consciousness' in the > >sense that "it can be cognized" '. ----------------------------------- S: Perhaps another translation of the first line could be: 'Cognizable (vi~n~naa.na.m), invisible (anidassana.m), shininig in all directions (ananta.m sabbatopabha)' Anders: > Hmm, well, we enter the realm of speculation as regards to the definition of > "consciousness" in this case. -------------------------------------- S:I think we all agree it refers to Nibbana. Sarah > >, but I fail to see why this description of nibbana has anything to > do > > with the idea of Nivana being present in us..... --------------------------------------- S:I hope that clarifies and thanks for raising these tricky lines! ******************************************************** --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Actually I had a converstaion with Suan recently about this as I > was puzzled by the somewhat confusing translations of this sutta > extract. > He wrote in his usual helpful way when I asked about this pali > phrase in the sutta: > > The original Pali found in Section 499, Kevatta Suttam, > Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo starts with the term "Viññanam". > > And Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha defines "Viññanam" as follows. > > "Tattha viññatabbanti "Viññanam" nibbanassetam namam,.." > > "There, to be known specially, so (it is) "Viññanam". This is > the > name of nibbana." > > And Kevatta Sutta Tika further explains the phrase > "viññatabbanti" > as follows. > > "Viññatabbanti visitthena ñatabbam, ñanuttamena > ariyamaggañanena paccakkhato janitabbanti attho, tenaha > "nibbanassetam namam"ti." > > "(To be known specially) means to be extraordinarily known. The > meaning is 'to be known in the sense of realization by ultimate > wisdom, by noble path wisdom'". Therefore, (the commentator) > stated > that 'This is the name of nibbana'" > > Therefore, the term 'Viññanam' in the line of the original Pali > verse > > "Viññanam anidassanam, anantam sabbatopabham .." does not refer > to > consciousness, the usual meaning of viññanam. > > In fact, the same verse includes the following two lines > > "Ettha namañca rupañca, asesam uparujjhati > Viññanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". > > "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases without > remainder. > By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here." > > Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one > of > its Pali names happens to be Viññanam. > > Suan 8107 From: KennethOng Date: Sun Sep 16, 2001 8:33pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Contradictory statements are written so that there is no dwelling on any point of views as any point of views is attachement to a notion. The first four sentence is the illustration emptiness while the last two says about enlightment Kind rgds Kenneth Ong > > ============================= > > You quote from the Bahiya Sutta: > > **************************************************** > > "Where neither water nor yet earth > > Nor fire nor air gain a foothold, > > There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light, > > There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns. > > When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this > > For himself through his own wisdom, > > Then he is freed from form and formless. > > Freed from pleasure and from pain.", > > *********************************************************** 8108 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 6:07am Subject: Re: Trying to understand Anatta Dear Christine , Thanks for posting this article which I like very much. As the venerable notes, anatta is resisted by many. The difficulty of understanding anatta should not be underestimated. Someone may even think "there is no-self" and still be clinging to self idea while thinking this. If anatta is correctly understood this is sacca-nana and is the harbinger of the eighfold path - and that will dismantle the wheel of paticasamupada (dependent origination). And that means the end of this long, long round of birth and death. Anatta is the great fear of mara and he will use any means to resist, avoid, slip around, and distort in order not to see it. It is literally a fight for SELF existence. You asked about what to do to understand more. I think you are doing well. As a hint the Abhidhamma is said to have only one taste: the taste of anatta. best wishes robert --- "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > Dear List Members, > > The events of the last week have given extra impetus to me to try to > understand several teachings in Buddhism that I have been unable to > grasp completely. The first was Kamma - but I have decided to let > that sit awhile after getting a headache and more confused by all the > permutations and combinations I found while pondering on it. > > Looking into Kamma made me realise that I needed to study and > understand Dependant Origination as well. > Looking into Dependent Origination just a little, made me realise > that the major key to it all might be to try and understand Anatta. > So, I wonder if anyone would care to give me the right perspective on > Anatta. For instance, what views are common mistakes to hold, which 8109 From: rikpa21 Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 0:01pm Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah, > I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana point of view where I understand > sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at least). Svabhava in the Mahayana is the equivalent of "independent essence"-- which is thoroughly rejected as inhering in anything in all schools of the Mahayana. > Rob E, I know you and Anders have a different understanding from a few of us on > some fundamental issues, I've seen nothing in Anders' presentation of anatta I would consider remotely at odds with Right Understanding. To the contrary, in fact. I have observed some interpret what he's saying in ways that don't accord with my interpretation of what he's saying, perhaps due to their being unaware of the fact there is an entire tradition of realized masters who use such terms as "Nature of Mind"--which does not mean what many conditioned by the Tripitaka's presentation of the Dharma may automatically assume it does. Hui Neng comes to mind on this point in the "Platform Sutra," for example. Yet, mysteriously, Hui Neng goes on to note in the same sutra that "when you get rid of the idea of a self and that of a being, Mount Meru will topple." I imagine such apparent contradictions might be a bit maddening to anyone who's latched on to the idea of anatta by itself as the be-all and end-all! Anyway, regarding folks like Hui Neng and in specific the Platform Sutra (where Hui Neng mentions this), Ajahn Chah noted: "Hui Neng's wisdom is very keen. It is very profound teaching, not easy for beginners to understand. But if you practice with our discipline and with patience, if you practice not- clinging, you will eventually understand." On that point, I can only concur heartily with both Ajahn Chah's and Anders' mention of letting go of clinging to views. And I find it very encouraging (and rather amusing) to see a teenager with a fraction of the textual training of the Abhidhamma scholars here able to cause such a ruckus, whose words carry more impact and clarity and insight by far, in my opinion, than the words of those questioning him. No offense intended, but I've observed what I consider more wisdom and behavior worthy of emulation coming from a mere teenager than I have from all the Abhidhamma scholars combined. Then again, I have been seeing an extraordinary degree of wisdom coming from teenagers lately. Perhaps that is because some of them are less fettered by preconceptions, views, and prejudices. When Ajahn Chah was asked "What is the biggest problem of your new disciples?" he replied: "Opinions. views and ideas about all things. About themselves, about practice, about the teachings of the Buddha. Many of those who come here have a high rank in the community. There are wealthy merchants or college graduates, teachers and government officials. Their minds are filled with opinions about things. They are too clever to listen to others. It is like water in a cup. If a cup is filled with dirty, stale water, it is useless. Only after the old water is thrown out can the cup become useful. You must empty your minds of opinions, then you will see. Our practice goes beyond cleverness and beyond stupidity. If you think;"I am clever, I am wealthy, I am important, I understand all about Buddhism."; You cover up the truth of anatta or no-self. All you will see is self, I, mine. But Buddhism is letting go of self. Voidness, Emptiness, Nibbana." And I can also imagine that if one were attached to one's own views about the Pali Canon as sole authority and simultaneously subject to the affliction of issa, the idea that anyone who accepts Mahayana scriptures (let alone a teenager) might be possessed of Right Understanding could be a rather disquieting prospect, given how many carefully guarded preconceptions that would be likely to upset. Merely entertaining this possibility could erode the foundations from beneath years of carefully constructed elaborations and (not to diminish the tragedy this last week) send the entire carefully constructed edifice of fabrications toppling. I can only hope that this is the case. > Nor, as I read the > Teachings, is there a Bodhi citta or Bodhisattva ideal to be realized by us (or > followed) if only we could read between the lines in the Tipitaka. I find this a rather interesting interpretation, given this was the very path that Shakyamuni Buddha took, as noted in the Pali Canon. I would think that if you reject the Bodhisattva path, then it would appear that by implication you also reject Shakyamuni Buddha, since that is how he became the Shakyamuni Buddha in the first place--at least according to the Suttas of the Pali Canon. Also, in rejecting Bodhicitta (Mind of Enlightenment) you reject lokuttara panna, because that is the precise definition of "Bodhicitta" in the systems that teach it. But I suppose first understanding those systems in the way they are intended to be understood may demand too much effort, and it's easier to reflexivly suggest an entire tradition that fails to accord with one's prejudices and speculations has somehow missed the mark. From this I can only assume that to some, the thought that the Mahayana could actually be the ariyan Dharma, is a threatening idea. Fortunately not all Theravadins are troubled by this possibility, and there are many--like Ajahn Chah and other apparently realized masters- -who do not appear to have any doubt that this is so. If this is true, then this would appear to present something of a problem for those who hold the view that the Pali Canon is the sole authority on the Buddha's teaching. Because if the Mahayana indeed teaches the ariyan Dharma--for example, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Three Marks of Existence, has a correct interpretation of anatta (all dharmas are devoid of independent essence and self-nature), Nirvana is the absence of the defilements of greed hatred, and delusion--then as I see it to reject the Mahayana would be to reject Dharma that actually does lead to relinquishment, cessation, Nibbana. Further, when one examines the implications of this, in so rejecting any aspect of the ariyan Dharma, one rejects not only the Dharma, but also the Sangha, and by implication the Buddha--all Three Jewels simultaneously, because by this one is actually implying that the Buddha is a liar, that the ariyan Dharma is not in fact the ariyan Dharma, and does not lead to the cessation of dukkha. To me rejecting the Three Jewels like this would seem to be a pretty serious problem for anyone who professes to be a follower of the Buddha. So suggesting that anyone with the "Mahayana" label must be mistaken merely by virtue of their having a "Mahayana" label, and in sole dependence on that label cannot possibly have rightly understood the way leading to the cessation of suffering, seems a rather risky position to take. I would imagine that the implications of this view should give anyone serious about the entire point of the Buddha's Dharma--the cessation of suffering (and not something else, like the accumulation of praise or fame or book-knowledge)--pause for careful consideration. Particularly when that view must, by definition, be based entirely on speculation, as it is for anyone who has not yet actualized the fruits of the Noble Path. In fact, I would go even further and suggest that this very view could directly obstruct realizing the fruits of the Noble Path, because the presence of such views are certainly at odds with everything the Buddha actually taught--even in the Pali Canon--about the importance of relinquishing views as a necessary expedient to awakening to the Deathless. It could furthermore even serve as a condition for some quite akusala vipaka should one get carried away with this view and go so far as to actively denigrate the entire Mahayana tradition by suggesting it is not the ariyan Dharma. I know I'd prefer to avoid the vipaka of denigrating any tradition of the ariyan Dharma out of ignorance. Regardless, I can say that even if those who maintain this view might theoretically possess Right View (and I see no evidence of this in the slightest), that I consider this sort of rigidity so unworthy of emulation that I would instantly dismiss them with the thought that "this is not the Dhamma; this is not the Vinaya; this is not the teacher's instruction." I can certainly draw no correlation between such views and the Buddha's actual teachings, as they seem so at odds with the spaciousness and spirit of everything I've come to associate with what the Buddha taught in the Pali Canon and the Mahayana Sutras, which to me has only one taste: the taste of freedom. Constricted views and a fixation of sectarian dogmas reflect anything but freedom to me. The represent to me only a wilderness, a thicket, a contortion, a writhing, a fetter, of views. But that's just these khandas. To borrow again from one of my favorite Theravada teachers, Ajahn Chah: "There is one essential point that all good practice must eventually come to--not clinging. In the end, all meditation systems must be let go of. Neither can one cling to the teacher. If a system leads to relinquishment, to not clinging, then it is correct practice." Again, perhaps others would beg to differ with Ajahn Chah. The unstated implication is, of course, that any teaching which does not lead to relinquishment, to non-clinging, is not correct practice. I wonder if Ajahn Chah is somehow mistaken on this point. What do you think? I would just like to add that what Ajahn Chah says here accords perfectly with everything I've been taught by my Mahayana teachers and all my Theravada teachers at Wat Mahatat. And if Ajahn Chah's wrong on this point, then at least he has some excellent company-- company I feel far more comfortable associating with than those who do not appear to share this understanding. But that's just my conditioning--perhaps from being raised in a dogmatic environment, where I was confronted with rigidity and constricted thinking that I came to see was associated with great dukkha for the bearers of such views. From the Vajjiya Sutta: "Criticizing what should be criticized, praising what should be praised, the Blessed One is one who speaks making distinctions, not one who speaks categorically on this matter." > Yes, rather, but let me say I see sabhava as an aspect of reality rather than > an idea! I hope I've clarified rather than confused the issue further. I also > realize some of my comments may sound too direct or rigid. I apologise > sincerely if this is so. . I appreciate your careful consideration of my > earlier quotes and indeed all that is written on dsg. Speaking for these khandas, I prefer directness to beating around the bush. Particularly on matters like this. Please, feel free to share your opinions without fear of offending the likes of me. After all, it was seeing the the implication that the Dalai Lama is teaching corrupt Dharma that spurred me to join DSG in the first place, since I thought it might be interesting to examine that view in greater detail. I think that even if you disagree, I hope you do at least find find such dialogues entertaining, if not enlightening. :) 8110 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 2:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Dear Gayan, > > Let me just say that I am not a scholar and sometimes my view is more > > instinctive > > than scriptural, but my sense from the Mahayana traditions that I have > > been > > interested in is that enlightenment is seen as the true condition of all > > beings, > > only delusion keeps it from being realized. Therefore, realization of > > one's true > > state is what is required, rather than an actual change in one's > > condition. > > Rob, I would not wish to discourage erudite thinking, but speculation is, > after all, only speculation no matter how erudite the mind of the thinker! > > Discussion based on instinct can only go so far and is of limited benefit > anyway, or so it seems to me. When I speak of instinct, I actually give it strong weight. It is more of a Mahayana idea, I am sure, that enlightenment is the nature of all beings, to be discovered through realization. There are plenty of Mahayana scriptures on the subject, but I'm not sure about Theravadin scriptures. Perhaps not. Chogyam Trungpa, a Tibetan Rinpoche in the Kagyu/Nyingma lineages, said something to the affect that when the deluded mind takes over, enlightenment takes on the characteristic of an underlying instinct. Although you may not agree with the premise, I think you would agree that the delusory mind is deluded, however, those of us trying to reach an more enlightened state have some sort of 'instinct' that such a thing exists. Otherwise, I don't think the scriptures and sutras would particularly excite us. We sense that what is spoken of is a reality. Personally, I feel that if one does not consult that reality in whatever way one has present access to it, then the sutras alone will not carry one. Each stage of the path must be experienced, must it not, to take root in the understanding, not just read about? My sense that enlightenment is one's true nature comes from glimpses and experiences I've had in meditation as well. If I had no experiential sense of this, I probably wouldn't even have a concept of it. I would think there is also a guiding set of experiences that you have cultivated through understanding or practice that makes the sutras 'real' to you. Is that not so? After all, even if we ended up with an > 'agreed' view on the question, what use would that be if it was not in > accord with the word of the teacher? So why not start with the scriptural > position from the outset! Certainly the scriptures are a guide to what is to be understood, practiced and experienced. But I feel that without cultivating the experiences, the scriptures cannot really be understood, except as general indications. As specific as the words may be, they indicate something that is to be understood, if not practiced, something to be realized. I understand that there has been quite a bit of discussion about not taking the Buddha's words as calls to 'actions'. But I would think that practice, whether in meditation or contemplation of reality, would be a focus on understanding, rather than an attempt to change behavior or perception through some sort of gross activity. > If you have any Theravada textual reference to support the proposition > that 'enlightenment is the true condition of all beings', I would be > interested to see it--unless you are accepting (below) that there is none. It is probably more of a Mahayana doctrine. I realize that this is a Theravadin study group, so perhaps other Buddhist sutras are not admissible. > > Of course, there are stages of development in Zen as there are in > > Theravadin > > meditation, but based on this idea of enlightenment being a pre-existing > > reality > > which needs to be discovered, rather than attained, the practice has a > > different > > flavor to some extent. It has led to some of the unusual behavior of > > Zen Masters > > which they use to awaken monks who are 'ready' to be pushed out of their > > conventional mindset. > > > > One of the characteristics of this, I believe, is that this makes Zen > > much more > > dependent on having a skillful teacher, while my sense of the Theravadin > > path is > > that while a teacher is sometimes essential, one can take the steps with > > some > > clarity even if a teacher is not available. > > There are any number of passages indicating the dependence of every > learner on hearing the true dhamma over and over again. The Buddha > explained that the dhamma is one's true teacher, and that we all need the > assistance of a kalayana mitta to understand it. I think references on > this have been given recently, but I could re-post if you would like > further elaboration. I would be interested in the role of the teacher, and I am sure that it is always helpful and important to have a teacher whenever possible. However, my point was that the Theravadin path is a bit more clear and step-wise than in Zen, and that if a teacher is not available it will be possible to at least follow it without straying totally off. Perhaps you disagree with that. I will be interested in your references on this. Best, Robert E. 8111 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > I think I said recently that there are two types of nibbana. The > first saupaadisesa-nibbaana,(`Nibbaana with the khandas still > remaining')which pertains while an arahant is still alive. In > this case there is absolute eradication of all kilesa > (defilements) upon attainment of arahantship (kilesa > -parinibbana). Thus the round of kilesa and the round of kamma > is brought to an end. There is, however ,still the round of > vipaka (vipaka-vatthu) which doesn't cease until > khandha-parinibbaana which takes place at the death of the > Arahat, called in the Suttas: `an-upaadisesa-nibbaana' i.e. > `(Nibbaana without the khandas remaining) > Perhaps the simile of the fire will help. > The fuel is craving > and ignorance. The fire is nama and rupa (ie the khandas). Once > that fuel is no longer being added (upon attainment of arahant) > the fire will soon die out(parinibbana > Arahant is a term useful to designate a stream of nama and rupa > (past, present or future) that no longer has avijja (and hence > no other defilements). > Before cuti citta(death moment) arises this stream is like a > fire where no > more fuel is added; at cuti citta the fire is finally > extinguished. > > It is different for a non-arahant. The term non-arahant helps > to designate a stream of nama and rupa where avijja and other > defilements keep arising. These are the fuel and it is > continually being added to (moments of insight excepted). When > cuti citta arise for this stream the fire is simply passed to > another place and the process continues. > robert So Parinibbana is in fact a final cessation of all experience, a complete extinction of all living qualities, including awareness? And there is no Buddhic life beyond the extinction of the body, once the fire is out? I assume that if the fire were still blazing, one's karmic tendencies might continue their activity in another realm, such as a ghost or god realm, so there is an acknowledgement of supernatural dimensions, but you are saying that once the fire is out there is no realm in which any residue of the Buddha's existence continues. It is just wiped out. So the final perfect peace of the Buddha is to cease to exist in Parinibbana? And are there Theravadin references to quote on this, that the Buddha specifically ceases to be completely? I understand the idea that since the Buddha never actually existed as an entity, that nothing is extinguished, but I am just saying the consciousness of the Buddha just ceases and there is no afterlife for one for whom there is no more karma, no more fire. Is that correct? So he that is called Buddha is no longer a Buddha -- he is no longer 'awake', any activity associated with him has been 'extinguished' with the death of the body. Thanks, Robert E. 8112 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Robert E.: > The only place we > disagree, and it is an important place, is that you think that > awareness cannot > exist without a rising and falling experience of object. We are > both talking > about Nibbana here. If Nibbana is a form of awareness, if > awareness itself > [awake > being = Buddha] is the unformed, primal Element that can be > attributed to > Nibbana, > then it would *not* be a rising and falling consciousness that > is attached to an > object. It would be a still lake in which there is no ripple, > an absolute > awareness with no object. > It would not be prone to attachment or aversion, it would not > perceive mundane > objects, and it would not escape through the six sense-organs. > It would neither > become nor extinguish. It would merely be. It would have no > personal identity, > and it would neither die nor be reborn. > __________ > Dear Robert E. > perhaps this sutta helps: > > S. XXII. 94 > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in > this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no > such thing.{endquote] > robert Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position clear. It is quite different from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like to hear from those who say that the two canons do not contradict each other. They do seem to. I would tend to think that the Buddha would not mention an unmoving awareness because one would turn it into a concept that would block the entry into Nibbana. However, I may be grasping at straws, as this sutra states quite unequivocally that no such thing exists. Robert E. 8113 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:08pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 2 --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Robert E.:the question is whether primal awareness is the same > as > consciousness as it is meant in the definition of the kandhas. > It still doesn't > make sense to me that Nibbana would be described as pure > cessation, while the > Buddha's name means 'one who is awake'. Someone who is awake > need not have a > self, but they have not totally ceased in their awareness. They > are awake, not > unconscious. This suggests a pure wakefulness, a pure > awareness, without an > object or modification, ie a transcendent nama that Nibbana > seems to be > classified > as. > > ....To me it suggests that the luminosity of pure awareness, > which is neither bright > nor dark, is the presence there. Where is this view explicitly > rejected in the > canon, Robert? I will certainly go and read it. > _____ > Dear Robert E., > I don't know if these are helpful. it took me a while to look > them up. I think others could find more. > > A. III. 32 > This, truly, is Peace, this is the Highest, namely the end of > all Karma formations, the forsaking of every substratum of > rebirth, the fading away of craving. detachment, extinction, > Nibbaana. > > A. I. 15 > And it is impossible that a being possessed of right > understanding should regard anything as the Self. > > > Ud. VIII. 1 > Truly, there is a realm, where there is neither the solid, nor > the fluid, neither heat, nor motion, neither this world, nor any > other world, neither sun nor moon. > This I call neither arising, nor passing away, neither standing > still, nor being born, nor dying. There is neither foothold, nor > development, nor any basis. This is the end of suffering. > > S. XXII. 30 > Hence the annihilation, cessation and overcoming of > corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations, and > consciousness: this is the extinction of suffering, the end of > disease, the overcoming of old age and death. (endsutta) > Thanks. The last one in particular is where the question arises whether consciousness is the same as unmodified awareness. Otherwise, I would have to agree that this sutra states that consciousness ceases and is annihilated. However, the other verse we have been looking at lately has the Buddha saying that while there is no sun or moon, 'darkness does not reign' and this suggests to me some form of light or awareness still present in the Nibbanic experience. Robert E. 8114 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 3:18pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Sarah, If I understand you, each dharma has a kind of 'flavor' which is all its own, and that is its essence or characteristic. In other words, its a way of saying that one tastes the actuality of that very thing itelf, rather than saying that it has an 'essence' like a 'self-nature' of some kind. I hope that's not put confusingly, and I hope I'm not misinterpreting your point! So the sabhava of Nibbana would merely mean its particular quality, which points to its quality of partaking of the cessation of all defilements, experiences, etc. would that be correct in your view? I'll just answer this briefly to see if I'm on the right track, in terms of grasping your point. And thanks for your hospitality when we bring up our odd views! Thanks, Robert E. =================== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob E, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > > > To my understanding, they couldn't possibly have the > > > same meaning because Pali sabhava, essence is > > > inherently reflecting the anatta characteristic of the > > > reality whereas the Sanskrit one would be reflecting a > > > thing, a self, atta.... > > > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for all your quotes on the nature of Nibbana. I think this last > > statement > > kind of puts the conceptual conflict in a nutshell. I'm trying to understand > > how > > an essence can reflect the anatta characteristic. It seems to me that this > > is > > torturing the concept of 'essence'. Why say that something has an essence, > > only > > to say by definition that this essence is not an essence, but a not-essence? > > I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana point of view where I understand > sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at least). In the pali > Tipitaka, sabhava most certainly does not suggest this. So we talk (the Buddha > talks) about understanding realities through the 6 doorways, the 6 worlds. All > these realities have a characteristic, a ‘nature’ which is different from that > of another reality. Seeing only sees. It doesn’t experience sound. It isn’t > attached or averse to what is seen and so on. We can say a lot more about its > nature: it’s a nama, it’s anatta, impermanent and unsatisfactory. The more > understanding develops the more it penetrates or knows the nature or > characteristics of a reality. > > > An > > essence means that something has a central property of some kind, it must > > mean > > that there is something that can be characterized about it. We are able to > > distinguish between a ocnditioned and a non-conditioned reality, and I could > > accept the idea that Nibbana had a non-conditioned or primal essence. But if > > the > > essence is merely to reflect its characteristic of 'anatta' of not being a > > self or > > entity, it seems to me that this is a redundancy. [I am being redundant here > > too > > to try to tackle it from an angle or two]. Why not just say that it has no > > entity > > and thus has no essence? Why say it has an essence which is that it doesn't > > have > > an essence? > > I hope I’ve clarified this. All realities are anatta and (almost) all realities > have a sabhava, a nature, characteristics which are not self in any way. When I > discussed this topic with Howard ages ago, I think we both agreed that > ‘essence’ can be easily misunderstood as a translation....maybe just think of > it as characteristic: > > (Vism):sabhava...'..it is narrower than dhamma. It often > roughly corresponds to dhatu (element) and > lakkhana(characteristic), but less nearly to the > vaguer and (in Pali) untechnical pakati (nature), or > to rasa(function). The Athasalani observes: 'it is > the individual essence, or the generality, of such and > such dhammas that is called their characteristic' > (DhsA.63); on which the Mula Tika comments: 'The > individual essence consisting in, say, hardness as > that of earth, or touching as that of contact, is not > common to all dhammas....' > > > What I am implying is that if the Buddha used the term sabhava, > > and > > that means the essence of something, in this case Nibbana, then there must be > > a > > positive reason why he used it. In other words, Nibbana does partake of > > anatta, > > meaning that it cannot be defined as an entity or a self, but that it does > > have an > > essence. I wonder if there are any other descriptions, or a good way to > > search > > for, more descriptions of how the sabhava of Nibbana is meant or what it > > implies. > > This is the central question that we have been struggling with since Anders' > > and > > your thread on Nibbana as self or non-self, and this seems like a positive > > place > > to try to look at it. > > Rob E, I know you and Anders have a different understanding from a few of us on > some fundamental issues, but according to the Pali Tipitaka (according to my > understanding, of course), there is no nibbana being experienced now. All that > can ever be known are the realities appearing now, which means understanding > their characteristics or natures (in theory and directly) very well indeed. > Without beginning to understand the difference clearly between namas and rupas > there is no way to even reach the first vipassana nana, let alone higher > levels. A moment of satipatthana (awareness) of one of these realities has > nothing to do with nibbana (except very indirectly) and right now, unless there > is the understanding of one of these same realities, there is no panna (wisdom) > either. In other words there is no all-encompassing awareness or panna to be > seen now if only the clouds of ignorance could be removed. Nor, as I read the > Teachings, is there a Bodhi citta or Bodhisattva ideal to be realized by us (or > followed) if only we could read between the lines in the Tipitaka. > > Just to finish, may I add a quote and note that Rob K gave earlier in a post to > Howard: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the majjhimanikaya tika (mulapariyaya sutta) has the following > to say. I use bhikkhu bodhi's translation p39. > It comments on the atthakatha which says "they bear their own > characteristics, thus they are dhammas." > The tika(subcommentary ) notes. "although there are no dhammas > devoid of their own characteristics this is said for the purpose > of showing that mere dhammas endowed with their specific natures > devoid of such attributes as being etc... whereas such entities > as self, permanence or nature, soul, body etc are mere > misconstructions due to craving and views...and cannot be > discovered as ultinately real actualities, these dhammas > (ie.those endowed with a specific sabhava) can. these dhammas > are discovered as actually real actualties. And although there > IS NO REAL DISTINCTION between these dhammas and their > characteristics, still, in order to facilitate understanding, > the exposition makes a distinction as a mere metaphorical > device. Also they are borne, or they are discerned, known , > acccording to their specific nature, thus they are dhammas" > > It should be noted that when it says they are real, essence etc. > this doesn't imply existence in the usual sense of an > independent lasting thing. All dhammas are conditioned in > complex ways by other dhammas It is just a flux happening so > fast that time itself can only be understood by reference to the > change of dhammas. > robert > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > Aren't you glad you brought up that idea? > > Yes, rather, but let me say I see sabhava as an aspect of reality rather than > an idea! I hope I’ve clarified rather than confused the issue further. I also > realize some of my comments may sound too direct or rigid. I apologise > sincerely if this is so. . I appreciate your careful consideration of my > earlier quotes and indeed all that is written on dsg. > > Sarah > 8115 From: Howard Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/17/01 6:44:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > So Parinibbana is in fact a final cessation of all experience, a complete > extinction of all living qualities, including awareness? And there is no > Buddhic > life beyond the extinction of the body, once the fire is out? > > I assume that if the fire were still blazing, one's karmic tendencies might > continue their activity in another realm, such as a ghost or god realm, so > there > is an acknowledgement of supernatural dimensions, but you are saying that > once the > fire is out there is no realm in which any residue of the Buddha's existence > continues. It is just wiped out. So the final perfect peace of the Buddha > is to > cease to exist in Parinibbana? And are there Theravadin references to > quote on > this, that the Buddha specifically ceases to be completely? > > I understand the idea that since the Buddha never actually existed as an > entity, > that nothing is extinguished, but I am just saying the consciousness of the > Buddha > just ceases and there is no afterlife for one for whom there is no more > karma, no > more fire. Is that correct? > > So he that is called Buddha is no longer a Buddha -- he is no longer > 'awake', any > activity associated with him has been 'extinguished' with the death of the > body. > > Thanks, > Robert E. > ============================== I understand one Theravadin interpretation of this issue to be the following: Nibbana, whether "entered" by the living arahant or as final nibbana, is essentially the same; "in" it, there is no person/sense of self, and there are no objects discerned; there is, in my words, an impersonal light of awareness going on infinitely, a radiance which falls on no objects, which casts no shadows, which is the ultimate emptiness, purity, and perfection - the cool cave, the refuge, the island. The living arahant, due to the playing out of kammic traces, still perceives objects, but there is no sense of a "self" dualistically perceiving them, nor are the objects reified, but, rather, the objects are seen through as empty of independent existence, and nothing whatsoever is grasped at or pushed away. The main difference that I see between the Theravadin and Mahayanist understandings on this issue pertains to the "ultimate fate" of an arahant who is a Buddha. In Theravada, a Buddha is such by virtue only of having mastered all ten perfections, perfected all skillful means in order to be the perfect teacher of the Dhamma, and who reintroduces the Dhamma at a time and place where it is not known, but in Mahayana, it is understood, in addition, that such a being has the capacity, and is propelled by compassion, to forego final entry to nibbana upon death, to maintain a kind of contact with the realm of conditions in order to continue to teach the Dhamma to sentient beings in various realms. This Mahayanist assumption certainly makes great sense to me, and has great appeal to me, but that is not a particularly significant fact! ;-)) What is true in this regard is true regardless of what might or might not make sense to me or to any of us. Frankly, none of us really knows what is the truth here, and I fail to see how it really matters. The facts are the facts. Meanwhile, as I see it, we should walk the path as well as we can, with metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, helping whomever we can at every step of the way, and constantly striving to grow in wisdom and compassion. 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) 8116 From: Howard Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 5:14pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 Hi, Robert (and Robert K) - In a message dated 9/17/01 6:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > > S. XXII. 94 > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no > > such thing.{endquote] > > robert > > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position clear. It is quite > different > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like to hear from those who > say that > the two canons do not contradict each other. They do seem to. > > ======================= In this quoted material, the items referred to are instances of the five khandas; they are conditioned phenomena, and all conditioned phenomena are anicca. But nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, and it is not impermanent. It is a timeless, ultimate emptiness, perfect in every way, and certainly not a dead state of dark unconsciousness. Nibbana is the cessation of greed, hatred, and ignorance, shining with the brightness of wisdom, and not a dark annihilation! 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) 8117 From: gayan Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 9:44pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS dear robert e., > > yes, but the question is: where there is no darkness, is there not light? > I will state another sutta [ you'll just love this too :o) ] Udapaana Sutta Kim kaira udapaanena aapaac(h)e sabbada siyum,? tanhaaya muulato c(h)etva, kissa pariyesanam c(h)are? What's the need for a well if water is everywhere? Having cut craving by the root,( tanhakkhaya - nibbana ) One would go about searching for what? rgds, gayan 8118 From: KennethOng Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:07pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E After looking at a few points made by Sarah, Robert E and rikpa21(sorry did not get your name), I would like to say that what Sarah and Robert are trying to do is describing emptiness which in the first place impossible to describe. As what Rikpa21 has quoted Hui Neng text "when you get rid of the idea of a self and that of a being, Mount Meru will topple" (in the first place how do you get rid of a self that is inherently empty by nature, hence if you are able to get rid of a self which is empty, thn mount meru will also topple which is impossible) only through contridictary sentence will emptiness could be know. When we try to understand more and more abt emptiness in words, it is impossible to understand. For example in Mahayana, all dharma is deviod of nature, which means the self is empty by nature but if it is empty what is that (the eyes) looking at the email. If it is not you, pinch yourself see whether you feel pain or not. This is emptiness. When Buddha talks about emptiness, it is not completely empty, if it is completely empty then it is on one extreme end of nihilism. if it is something then it attached to a view of eternalism. Emptiness can only be experience and not explain hence no matter how well we describe even using sutras as references, we will never able to explain emptiness in words. Emptiness has no dwelling as any form of reference is attachement, any words describing is wrong. There is a story about a monk when to preach about Buddhism on the stage, he kept quiet and then left. When pple ask him why he did that, he said he has just preached buddhism. My humble opinion is that his action is about emptiness, as any form of describing is wrong, even thoughts of desribing is also wrong that is why he kept quiet. This is the essence of emptiness and words cannot adequately explain. If it can be explain easily Buddha would have used one sutra to do it just like the four noble truth, but in fact Buddha use a large number of sutras trying to explain emptiness idea or concept. Kind regards Kenneth Ong rikpa21 wrote: --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah, > I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana point of view where I understand > sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at least). Svabhava in the Mahayana is the equivalent of "independent essence"-- which is thoroughly rejected as inhering in anything in all schools of the Mahayana. > Rob E, I know you and Anders have a different understanding from a few of us on > some fundamental issues, I've seen nothing in Anders' presentation of anatta I would consider remotely at odds with Right Understanding. To the contrary, in fact. I have observed some interpret what he's saying in ways that don't accord with my interpretation of what he's saying, perhaps due to their being unaware of the fact there is an entire tradition of realized masters who use such terms as "Nature of Mind"--which does not mean what many conditioned by the Tripitaka's presentation of the Dharma may automatically assume it does. Hui Neng comes to mind on this point in the "Platform Sutra," for example. Yet, mysteriously, Hui Neng goes on to note in the same sutra that "when you get rid of the idea of a self and that of a being, Mount Meru will topple." I imagine such apparent contradictions might be a bit maddening to anyone who's latched on to the idea of anatta by itself as the be-all and end-all! Anyway, regarding folks like Hui Neng and in specific the Platform Sutra (where Hui Neng mentions this), Ajahn Chah noted: "Hui Neng's wisdom is very keen. It is very profound teaching, not easy for beginners to understand. But if you practice with our discipline and with patience, if you practice not- clinging, you will eventually understand." On that point, I can only concur heartily with both Ajahn Chah's and Anders' mention of letting go of clinging to views. And I find it very encouraging (and rather amusing) to see a teenager with a fraction of the textual training of the Abhidhamma scholars here able to cause such a ruckus, whose words carry more impact and clarity and insight by far, in my opinion, than the words of those questioning him. No offense intended, but I've observed what I consider more wisdom and behavior worthy of emulation coming from a mere teenager than I have from all the Abhidhamma scholars combined. Then again, I have been seeing an extraordinary degree of wisdom coming from teenagers lately. Perhaps that is because some of them are less fettered by preconceptions, views, and prejudices. When Ajahn Chah was asked "What is the biggest problem of your new disciples?" he replied: "Opinions. views and ideas about all things. About themselves, about practice, about the teachings of the Buddha. Many of those who come here have a high rank in the community. There are wealthy merchants or college graduates, teachers and government officials. Their minds are filled with opinions about things. They are too clever to listen to others. It is like water in a cup. If a cup is filled with dirty, stale water, it is useless. Only after the old water is thrown out can the cup become useful. You must empty your minds of opinions, then you will see. Our practice goes beyond cleverness and beyond stupidity. If you think;"I am clever, I am wealthy, I am important, I understand all about Buddhism."; You cover up the truth of anatta or no-self. All you will see is self, I, mine. But Buddhism is letting go of self. Voidness, Emptiness, Nibbana." And I can also imagine that if one were attached to one's own views about the Pali Canon as sole authority and simultaneously subject to the affliction of issa, the idea that anyone who accepts Mahayana scriptures (let alone a teenager) might be possessed of Right Understanding could be a rather disquieting prospect, given how many carefully guarded preconceptions that would be likely to upset. Merely entertaining this possibility could erode the foundations from beneath years of carefully constructed elaborations and (not to diminish the tragedy this last week) send the entire carefully constructed edifice of fabrications toppling. I can only hope that this is the case. > Nor, as I read the > Teachings, is there a Bodhi citta or Bodhisattva ideal to be realized by us (or > followed) if only we could read between the lines in the Tipitaka. I find this a rather interesting interpretation, given this was the very path that Shakyamuni Buddha took, as noted in the Pali Canon. I would think that if you reject the Bodhisattva path, then it would appear that by implication you also reject Shakyamuni Buddha, since that is how he became the Shakyamuni Buddha in the first place--at least according to the Suttas of the Pali Canon. Also, in rejecting Bodhicitta (Mind of Enlightenment) you reject lokuttara panna, because that is the precise definition of "Bodhicitta" in the systems that teach it. But I suppose first understanding those systems in the way they are intended to be understood may demand too much effort, and it's easier to reflexivly suggest an entire tradition that fails to accord with one's prejudices and speculations has somehow missed the mark. From this I can only assume that to some, the thought that the Mahayana could actually be the ariyan Dharma, is a threatening idea. Fortunately not all Theravadins are troubled by this possibility, and there are many--like Ajahn Chah and other apparently realized masters- -who do not appear to have any doubt that this is so. If this is true, then this would appear to present something of a problem for those who hold the view that the Pali Canon is the sole authority on the Buddha's teaching. Because if the Mahayana indeed teaches the ariyan Dharma--for example, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Three Marks of Existence, has a correct interpretation of anatta (all dharmas are devoid of independent essence and self-nature), Nirvana is the absence of the defilements of greed hatred, and delusion--then as I see it to reject the Mahayana would be to reject Dharma that actually does lead to relinquishment, cessation, Nibbana. Further, when one examines the implications of this, in so rejecting any aspect of the ariyan Dharma, one rejects not only the Dharma, but also the Sangha, and by implication the Buddha--all Three Jewels simultaneously, because by this one is actually implying that the Buddha is a liar, that the ariyan Dharma is not in fact the ariyan Dharma, and does not lead to the cessation of dukkha. To me rejecting the Three Jewels like this would seem to be a pretty serious problem for anyone who professes to be a follower of the Buddha. So suggesting that anyone with the "Mahayana" label must be mistaken merely by virtue of their having a "Mahayana" label, and in sole dependence on that label cannot possibly have rightly understood the way leading to the cessation of suffering, seems a rather risky position to take. I would imagine that the implications of this view should give anyone serious about the entire point of the Buddha's Dharma--the cessation of suffering (and not something else, like the accumulation of praise or fame or book-knowledge)--pause for careful consideration. Particularly when that view must, by definition, be based entirely on speculation, as it is for anyone who has not yet actualized the fruits of the Noble Path. In fact, I would go even further and suggest that this very view could directly obstruct realizing the fruits of the Noble Path, because the presence of such views are certainly at odds with everything the Buddha actually taught--even in the Pali Canon--about the importance of relinquishing views as a necessary expedient to awakening to the Deathless. It could furthermore even serve as a condition for some quite akusala vipaka should one get carried away with this view and go so far as to actively denigrate the entire Mahayana tradition by suggesting it is not the ariyan Dharma. I know I'd prefer to avoid the vipaka of denigrating any tradition of the ariyan Dharma out of ignorance. Regardless, I can say that even if those who maintain this view might theoretically possess Right View (and I see no evidence of this in the slightest), that I consider this sort of rigidity so unworthy of emulation that I would instantly dismiss them with the thought that "this is not the Dhamma; this is not the Vinaya; this is not the teacher's instruction." I can certainly draw no correlation between such views and the Buddha's actual teachings, as they seem so at odds with the spaciousness and spirit of everything I've come to associate with what the Buddha taught in the Pali Canon and the Mahayana Sutras, which to me has only one taste: the taste of freedom. Constricted views and a fixation of sectarian dogmas reflect anything but freedom to me. The represent to me only a wilderness, a thicket, a contortion, a writhing, a fetter, of views. But that's just these khandas. To borrow again from one of my favorite Theravada teachers, Ajahn Chah: "There is one essential point that all good practice must eventually come to--not clinging. In the end, all meditation systems must be let go of. Neither can one cling to the teacher. If a system leads to relinquishment, to not clinging, then it is correct practice." Again, perhaps others would beg to differ with Ajahn Chah. The unstated implication is, of course, that any teaching which does not lead to relinquishment, to non-clinging, is not correct practice. I wonder if Ajahn Chah is somehow mistaken on this point. What do you think? I would just like to add that what Ajahn Chah says here accords perfectly with everything I've been taught by my Mahayana teachers and all my Theravada teachers at Wat Mahatat. And if Ajahn Chah's wrong on this point, then at least he has some excellent company-- company I feel far more comfortable associating with than those who do not appear to share this understanding. But that's just my conditioning--perhaps from being raised in a dogmatic environment, where I was confronted with rigidity and constricted thinking that I came to see was associated with great dukkha for the bearers of such views. From the Vajjiya Sutta: "Criticizing what should be criticized, praising what should be praised, the Blessed One is one who speaks making distinctions, not one who speaks categorically on this matter." > Yes, rather, but let me say I see sabhava as an aspect of reality rather than > an idea! I hope I've clarified rather than confused the issue further. I also > realize some of my comments may sound too direct or rigid. I apologise > sincerely if this is so. . I appreciate your careful consideration of my > earlier quotes and indeed all that is written on dsg. Speaking for these khandas, I prefer directness to beating around the bush. Particularly on matters like this. Please, feel free to share your opinions without fear of offending the likes of me. After all, it was seeing the the implication that the Dalai Lama is teaching corrupt Dharma that spurred me to join DSG in the first place, since I thought it might be interesting to examine that view in greater detail. I think that even if you disagree, I hope you do at least find find such dialogues entertaining, if not enlightening. :) 8119 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > What a great explanation, very thorough and helpful. This makes a lot > of sense. It's kind of you to say so. I'm glad you found it useful. > I have two points or questions that I might ask you to comment on: > > 1. If all realities present an equal opportunity for insight, why are > the kilesas > sometimes emphasized as faults to be corrected? Fro instance, when the > Buddha, in > a recent quote, admonished the monks for lying to promote their > reputations, was > he not admonishing them to change their unwholesome behavior? Rather > than > presenting this as an object for insight, it seemed that he was making a > moral > distinction and pointing out the monks' impurity. If Buddha wished to > make the > point that you make below, that we should focus on the conditions which > lead to > the overall eradication of kilesas, rather than obsessing on individual > problems > one by one, why would the Buddha not make this distinction clear when > discussing > moral and ethical faults? The manner in which it is discussed seems > like it would > lead to individuals inspecting and trying to correct their moral and > ethical > shortcomings, a major distraction on the path, according to your wise > words below. I think the suttas read like this because of the distance, both in time, between then and now, and in level of understanding, between those who were the listeners at the time of the Buddha and us today. Many of the original listeners were on the verge of enlightenment, so it could be assumed that they would understand things in terms of the present moment reality. It was not necessary for the Buddha to be as explicit about these things then as it would be for us today. It is difficult to discuss the suttas in general. I am happy to look at specific passages if you would like to mention any (I have not identified the one that was referred to in the earlier post you mention above). > 2. I assume that while one should not waste their energy trying to > chase after > their problems and shortcomings, in other words to eradicate kilesas, > that > accumulating virtues is somewhat different and that the virtues can be > directly > cultivated through effort? If this is not the case, and attempting to > purposefully cultivate virtue is also a distraction and cannot be > effected by > will, then where would the role of Sila be left in the path? Sila, and all forms of kusala, play a very important role in the path. Wholesomeness of all kinds can and does arise from time to time, naturally, without being 'made' to happen. A such moments the effort is 'right' by nature. If there is some level of awareness of the wholesomeness, this is the development or cultivation of kusala/sila. Awareness and understanding are the kinds of kusala that are of greatest benefit to the development of sila and all other kinds of kusala. We should know more about both the kusala and the akusala that arise in our lives, just as we should also know more about the non-kusala/akusala moments, too. Jon 8120 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon, > > I can certainly see that the development of paññaa (by > pariyatti and satipathaana) must precede that of the > paaramiis (otherwise what would motivate their > development?). Is it not true, though, that the two > are mutually supportive once the paaramiis have begun > to be developed? Or am I mistaken about this? I think Nina has probably explained this, but I will add my two cents' worth. The qualities that are the paramis (generosity, determination, etc.) can be developed by any one at any time, but the level at which the quality is being developed will depend on the level of understanding or otherwise that accompanies the moment of consciousness. So I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of panna being developed first or the paramis being developed first. If we see the importance of developing kusala we will develop all kinds of kusala--including panna and the qualities that are the paramis--as and when the occasion arises. You are, I believe, right to say that the two are mutually supportive-- that is certainly how I would see it. Thanks for your observations. Jon 8121 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Descriptive vs. path of action Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Wrong view is a kind of akusala classified as lobha (attachment). It > > takes realties for what they are not ie. it takes the impermanent as > > permanent, the not-self as self etc. > > > > However, all akusala is rooted ultimately in ignorance. Ignorance is > not > > knowing realties. > > > > If I may anticipate your next question, ignorance of the past is a > > condition for the ignorance that arises now. > > > > Jon > > And how it started in the first place is one of the questions you're not > supposed > to ask because it is impossible to answer? As I recall, it was said that 'the beginning is not discernable' or something like that. Jon 8122 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 17, 2001 10:37pm Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Dear Robert, I composed most of this on Friday, and see that there's been a lot of activity on the list since then. I've been away from my computer, so I apologize if any of my comments here are redundant or fail to take into account subsequent posts. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks, Mike. Here is my question to you, perhaps > one which is very difficult to > answer or even shouldn't be answered. If there is > not some sort of positive > presence in Nibbana, albeit not a 'self' or a > 'condition', what is then denoted by > saying that one has attained it? I think this is one of those (many) cases where one has to sort of jump back and forth between conventional and more technical speech. I know that you know that there is no 'one' who attains, still conventionally it can be said that 'one attains nibbaana'. > When I say > 'positive' I don't mean 'good' or > 'worthy' or anything like that. Yes, I think I understand you. > I just mean > positive as in the positive numbers: > something that can be asserted. You have a number > of things in Theravada that can > be denied about Nibbana, things that have been > eliminated in order to reach it. I find it confusing to think in terms of asserting and denying things about nibbaana--I just think of it as the cessation of dukkha. > You have a number of positive states that have been > entered into in order to reach > it: Right View, Right Thinking, Right > Concentration, insights and jhanas. > The > essence of all of these positive states that are > entered into is that they are > increasingly refined forms of apprehensions or > awareness. Not sure what you mean by 'positive states'. The path factors and so on are mental factors, arising and subsiding instantaneously with moments of consciousness. Certainly no one to 'enter into' them, even conventionally speaking. Also not sure what you mean by 'essence', 'apprehensions' or 'awareness'. If by awareness you mean sati, this is also a cetasika and a path-factor, which arises and subsides instantaneously like the others. > There is no 'self' > discovered that is receiving these insights or > understandings, but the refinement > of understanding and attention themselves are > certainly there. As I understand it, insight (vipassanaa) arises and subsides instantaneously and refines understanding (paññaa), which accumulates and is passed along from citta to citta. If by 'attention' you mean sati, it is sati (again momentary) that leads to vipassanaa (also momentary). Hope you don't mind if I break this question down a little: > So, when all the > defilements and delusions are eliminated in order to > create the Nirvanic state, This is a very odd way of putting it, to my my way of thinking. I'm unaware of the Buddha's having spoken of anything like 'the Nirvanic state'. To speak of 'creating' nibbaana is also, I think, an error. Nibbaana is just the cessation of dukkha, as I understand it. > is > the refined awareness and insight and awareness that > has been so meticulously > developed to create the ladder to Nibbana also > eliminated, By 'awareness', do you mean sati? And by 'insights', vipassanaa? If so, I think you're referring to satipatthaana vipassanaa. If by 'the ladder to Nibbana' you mean the path, I think it's a very odd metaphor. The path is not a structure, but a collection of mental factors arising and subsiding simultaneously and instantaneously, as I understand it. > or are they merely > surpassed in a state that contains the same essence > as this development but is > totally beyond them? What is there to be surpassed, and by whom? The path factors simply arise and then vanish completely. When they've finished their function, dukkha is permanantly eradicated. > It would make logical sense that the essence of the > path would be exemplified in > its most refined form in its final attainment, > Nibbana. Again, I think it's a mistake to think of the path as having an essence--just a very quick confluence of mental factors, with the supreme function of eradicating defilement, then vanishing completely. > To think that all is > eliminated and that there is merely negation of > negatives just doesn't make sense. Only if you think of there being something lasting that can be negated or eliminated or whatever. Like all other cetasikas, the path-factors arise, perform their function and fall away completely. > It is not because of Mahayana doctrines that it > doesn't make sense, Well, my take on this is that it is a difference between the Mayahana and Theravada. My knowledge of Mahayana doctrine is vague though, based on many years as a Zen student but little academic study (aside from having read a number of classics). So I may well be mistaken about this. > but because > of the path outlined by the Buddha and all of his > statements about the > pleasantness and uplifted quality of each > progressive stage on the path. If you're referring to the stages of enlightenment, they are subjectively very pleasant and uplifting, no doubt (at least I imagine so--this is probably addressed more specifically in the abhidhamma). > Where is > that quality of refined joy and total discernment > that characterize the Buddha's > own statements and presumably his own state? The mental factors arising and subsiding with the moments of consciousness of a Buddha are very refined, no doubt--to say the least! I'm sure these are catalogued somewhere in the abhidhamma, too. For sure they fall away completely in an instant. > They > are contained in and are the > natural emanation of the state of Nibbana, of > Arahatship, of Buddhahood. You seem to be equivocating nibbaana with Arahatship and Buddhahood. The second two are very similar (though not identical)--nibbaana is simply the permanent cessation of dukkha, as I understand it. > So it > doesn't make sense to me that one cannot assert that > there is a positive state, > experience, or awareness in Nibbana. The question is, why would one assert such a thing, with no record of the Buddha's every having taught it? At least if there is any such assertion in the tipitaka, I've never run across it. If you're aware of such a teaching in the tipitaka, I'd like to hear about it. Otherwise, to interpolate this into the Buddhadhamma is a very big mistake, I think. > The Buddha is > not 'dead'. He has not been > annihilated by attaining Nibbana and Buddhahood. In which of the aggregates is, or was, there someone to be annihilated (or not)? > In > fact he is completely free > and 'awake'. Certainly the Buddha was one who 'awoke' (achieved the cessation of dukkha), conventionally speaking. If 'he is completely free and 'awake'', in what aggregate or element is 'he' to be found? In fact, I think that to say that the Buddha 'is completely free and 'awake'' is nothing less than bizarre, from the Theravada perspective as I understand it (no offense!) > Buddha means 'one who is awake'. Can > one be 'awake' without > sentience/consciousness/awareness? This also > doesn't make sense. If you want to > say that the Buddha is 'awake' but has none of those > other attributes or > qualities, you would have to at least say, based on > his most popular title alone, > that he at least partakes of 'awakeness'. Awakeness > and awareness are synonyms. The Buddha 'awoke' (speaking conventionally) when he achieved cessation of dukkha. After that, he could be called 'awake' up until parinibbaana. At that point, the conditions for the arising of any further naamas (cittas or cetasikas, consciousnesses and mental factors) were completely exhausted, as I understand it. The rupas which composed his physical form will continue to arise and subside as long as the conditions exist for their continued existence. > There is nothing about being 'awake' or 'aware' that > necessitates a 'self'. > Awareness is not contradictory with anatta, nor does > there have to be an object of > awareness to 'create' the awareness, I'm still not sure what you mean by 'awareness'. If you're referring to a citta, there certainly does have to be an object. If you're referring to a cetasika, it must arise with a citta which itself must have an object. > if awareness is > the very essence of the state > itself, nor does there have to be any arising and > falling away of awareness if it > is not modified by any object of awareness. Again, I'm unaware of any support for this idea in the Pali canon. > There > is no reason why nibbana cannot > be the most refined and totally free [free of object > and modification] state of > awareness possible, the absolute essence of being > sentient, minus the mental > modifications, minus the self, minus the kandhic > idenfiications and samskaric > accumulations. Again, I'm unaware of any support for this idea in the Pali canon. > I think it can work with Theravadan > doctrine as it stands. But > this is just my unschooled intuition so I'm happy to > have more learned arguments > thrown at me by those who know the Suttas. Well, after all, my objections are base on my own opinions of what I've read, heard and experienced too. As I've said before, I'm by no means certain of my own views. I do find your openness on these subjects admirable. > You see my problem with asserting Nibbana as nothing > but negation? I think I do. However, cessation isn't negation of anything--just cessation. > I hope some of > you can help me with this issue. Thanks for challenging my own perspectives, Robert. Always good to hear from you. mike 8123 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 2:04am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Jon: --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I think Nina has probably explained this, but I will > add my two cents' > worth. Yes, I'm sure she has but always benefit from explanations from a slightly different perspective. > The qualities that are the paramis (generosity, > determination, etc.) can > be developed by any one at any time, but the level > at which the quality is > being developed will depend on the level of > understanding or otherwise > that accompanies the moment of consciousness. Yes, this makes perfect sense. From this angle, understanding does condition the degree of kusala of the parami being developed (or rather developing), so paññaa seems to be unique among the paramis in this regard. If so, it seems to be a kind of pre-immminent parami. Is this supported by the abhidhamma? (Apologies if someone has already made this clear). > So I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of > panna being developed > first or the paramis being developed first. If we > see the importance of > developing kusala we will develop all kinds of > kusala--including panna and > the qualities that are the paramis--as and when the > occasion arises. Likewise, if the importance of developing understanding specifically is seen, this knowledge will condition the development of more paññaa specifically, I should think. That is, this seems to me to encourage a particular emphasis on understanding in the development of the paramis. Thanks again, mike 8124 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 3:33am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi Howard, --- Howard wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I can't think of a nicer guy to be in > disagreement with! ;-)) I have > simply expressed an opinion, one in which I have not > very much invested. I > could be quite wrong. When it comes to what nibbana > is I doubt that any of us > really know what we are talking about! ;-)) Thanks, Howard, the sentiment is mutual. When it comes to those things that most of us(!) don't claim to know from experience, I think it's all the more important to understand what the Buddha taught on the subject. I appreciate your efforts to do so, as always. > As far as the Theravada/Mahayana distinction > is concerned on this > issue, I would like to point out that the talk of > unmanifestive discernment > being "infinite, luminous all around, and falling on > no objects" is derived > from the Pali Sutta Pitaka, not Mahayana sources. If I remember this correctly, this referred to bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise after parinibbaana, by my understanding of the canon. Unfortunately, it seems to open a door for the positing of some sort of 'cosmic consciousness', which concept I believe is clearly alien to the Theravada. (By the way, if you have the citation handy, would you mind re-posting it?--thanks). Always a pleasure, Howard, mike 8125 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 3:39am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Thanks, Howard, I see you have re-posted the excerpt from the Kevatta sutta. From this glimpse, it doesn't seem to refer to the bhavanga. I'll give the whole thing a read and get back to you. mike --- Howard wrote: > ================================== > > This material you quote shouldn't be blamed > on Robert E. I was the one > who wrote it. With regard to it, I refer you to the > end portion of the > Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to > Insight: > > ************************************* > "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: > Where do these four great > elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, > the fire property, and > the wind property -- cease without remainder? > Instead, it should be phrased > like this: > > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing? > > Where are long & short, > > coarse & fine, > > fair & foul, > > name & form > > > > "'And the answer to that is: > > Consciousness without feature, > > without end, > > luminous all around: > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing. > > Here long & short > > coarse & fine > > fair & foul > > name & form > > are all brought to an end. > > With the cessation of [the activity of] > consciousness > > > > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, > Kevatta the householder > delighted in the Blessed One's words. 8126 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 4:37am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana (was(Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hello Again, Howard, Well, I asked for citations from the Dhammavinaya and you seem to have come up with two, anyway. Still don't know quite what to make of these, but will get back to you. mike --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > It's really hard to know about the proper > translation and meaning, > especially for a total Pali-neophyte such as me. > > Bhikkhu ~NAnananda translates this as : > > "Consciousness which is non-manifestive - > endless, lustrous on all > sides, > Here it is that earth and water-fire and air > no footing find; > Here, again, are long and short - fine and > coarse - pleasant > > and > unpleasant > And name-and-form - all cut off without > exception. > When consciousness comes to cease - all > these are held in > > > check herein." > > He also translates from the Brahmanimantanika > Sutta, in MN I as follows: > > "Consciousness which is non-manifestive, > infinite and lustrous > all around: it does not partake of the > solidity of earth, ..., the > allness > of the all" > > Peter Harvey, in his book "The Sefless Mind" > uses a similar > translation: > > "Discernment, non-manifestive, accessible > from all round (vi~n~nAnam > anidassanam, anantam, sabbato paham)." > > But, in any case, I think that Robert > Epstein's point about nibbana > certainly being different from the unconsciousness > of a stone is a valid one. > Another point: Even in Abhidhamma, if I'm not > mistaken, nibbana, is *not* > considered to be citta (which always has an object), > but *is* considered to > be nama. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 9/15/01 2:03:06 AM Eastern > Daylight Time, > robertkirkpatrick writes: > > > > Howard wrote: > > Kevatta Sutta, DN 11, to be found on Access to > Insight: > > > > "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: > Where do > > these four great > > elements -- the earth property, the liquid > property, the fire > > property, and > > the wind property -- cease without remainder? > Instead, it should > > be phrased > > like this: > > > Where do water, earth, fire, & wind > > > have no footing? > > > Where are long & short, > > > coarse & fine, > > > fair & foul, > > > name & form > > > > > > > "'And the answer to that is: > > > Consciousness without feature, > > > without end, > > > luminous all around: > > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > > have no footing. > > > Here long & short > > > coarse & fine > > > fair & foul > > > name & form > > > are all brought to an end. > > > With the cessation of [the activity of] > consciousness > > > > > > > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, > Kevatta the > > householder > > delighted in the Blessed One's words. > > ************************************* > > > > What I meant by unmanifestive discernment > is exactly what > > is given > > above, and which sure sounds like nibbana to me: > > > > "Consciousness without feature, > > without end, > > luminous all around: > > Here water, earth, fire, & wind > > have no footing. > > Here long & short > > coarse & fine > > fair & foul > > name & form > > are all brought to an end." > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Dear Howard, > > You quoted the above from the translation by > Thanissaro. > > There is another translation at www.metta.lk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/11-kevaddha-e.htm > > > > Where do earth, water, fire, and wind, > > > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > > > Pure and impure, no footing find? > > > > Where is it that both name and form[22] > > > > Die out, leaving no trace behind?" > > > > 'On that the answer is : > > > > 'The intellect of Arahatship, the invisible, the > endless, > > accessible from every side[23] > > > > 'Where is it that earth, water, fire, and wind, > > > > And long and short, and fine and coarse, > > > > Pure and impure, no footing find. > > > > Where is it that both name and form > > > > Die out, leaving, no trace behind. > > > > When intellection ceases they all also cease.' > > > > Thus spake the Exalted One. And Kevaddha, the > young householder, > > pleased at heart, rejoiced at the spoken word. > > > > > > Actually I had a converstaion with Suan recently > about this as I > > was puzzled by the somewhat confusing translations > of this sutta > > extract. > > He wrote in his usual helpful way when I asked > about this pali > > phrase in the sutta: > > > > The original Pali found in Section 499, Kevatta > Suttam, > > Silakkhandhavagga, Dighanikayo starts with the > term "Viññanam". > > > > And Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha defines "Viññanam" as > follows. > > > > "Tattha viññatabbanti "Viññanam" nibbanassetam > namam,.." > > > > "There, to be known specially, so (it is) > "Viññanam". This is > > the > > name of nibbana." > > > > And Kevatta Sutta Tika further explains the phrase > > "viññatabbanti" > > as follows. > > > > "Viññatabbanti visitthena ñatabbam, > ñanuttamena > > ariyamaggañanena paccakkhato janitabbanti > attho, tenaha > > "nibbanassetam namam"ti." > > > > "(To be known specially) means to be > extraordinarily known. The > > meaning is 'to be known in the sense of > realization by ultimate > > wisdom, by noble path wisdom'". Therefore, (the > commentator) > > stated > > that 'This is the name of nibbana'" > > > > Therefore, the term 'Viññanam' in the line of the > original Pali > > verse > > > > "Viññanam anidassanam, anantam sabbatopabham .." > does not refer > > to > > consciousness, the usual meaning of viññanam. > > > > In fact, the same verse includes the following two > lines > > > > "Ettha namañca rupañca, asesam uparujjhati > > Viññanassa nirodhena, etthetam uparujjhati'ti". > > > > "Here (in nibbana), nama as well as rupa ceases > without > > remainder. > > By ceasing of consciousness, nama as well as rupa > ceases here." > > > > Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness > just because one > > of > > its Pali names happens to be Viññanam. > > > > Suan > > 8127 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 4:56am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana Hi Howard, I always enjoy hearing from you. Of course we share a common vision of the path, so this is natural. I'm reflecting that these differences in the view of Nibbana probably reflects in some way the desire of the practitioner. I do not mean this in a negative way, but we have a vision or an image of what we are attaining to. Even while we try to rid ourselves of images that may obstruct the truth, there is a guiding intention that allows us to follow one path or another. One person may crave the peace of final extinction of all the defilements of life, while another craves the final freedom of an unimpeded state of awareness. Wouldn't this desire cause them to look for evidence of one view of Nibbana or the other? Even in the same verses, we can interpret them to suggest an impersonal lighta t the end of the Dhammic tunnel, or a great undifferentiated Void which is neither light nor dark. When Buddha says the moon and sun do not shine, yet darkness does not reign, you can interpret this either way. To me, who senses the same great impersonal awareness behind all phenomena that you do, I see the statement that darkness does not reign as a clear sign that there is the clear, unsullied light of awareness in the Nibbanic state, free from all fetters. But since it is possible to promote both views, and the Theravadan and Mahayana doctrines seem to interpret these differently, at least in the hands of able practitioners, doesn't it suggest that we really should refrain from clinging to views and interpretations, but follow the Buddha's example as best we can, according to our temperaments? It's not necessary to win the debate, but it is necessary to get views out of our eyes, so that we can see the true composition of life as it unfolds in front of us, and begin to see what the Buddha has suggested, if we want to reach the final goal of the path, whatever it may contain. I guess we would all agree that we want to be free of defilements and fetters, and we want to some day experience what the Buddha did. Of one thing I am sure: no matter what map we use to get there, the map by itself, meaning the Sutras, will not get us there. If we don't apply the instructions in a purposeful way, either practicing meditation, if that is our bent, or discerning in life and observation, if that is our practice, then we can't get real insight, only intellectual understanding. We are all committed, I think, to getting there, and I think it has been demonstrated that both people in the Theravadan and Mahayana traditions have enjoyed full enlightenment. So we should take heart, and realize that we must use views, but without clinging to them, each in our own way. Best, Robert E. ==================== --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 9/17/01 6:44:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > So Parinibbana is in fact a final cessation of all experience, a complete > > extinction of all living qualities, including awareness? And there is no > > Buddhic > > life beyond the extinction of the body, once the fire is out? > > > > I assume that if the fire were still blazing, one's karmic tendencies might > > continue their activity in another realm, such as a ghost or god realm, so > > there > > is an acknowledgement of supernatural dimensions, but you are saying that > > once the > > fire is out there is no realm in which any residue of the Buddha's existence > > continues. It is just wiped out. So the final perfect peace of the Buddha > > is to > > cease to exist in Parinibbana? And are there Theravadin references to > > quote on > > this, that the Buddha specifically ceases to be completely? > > > > I understand the idea that since the Buddha never actually existed as an > > entity, > > that nothing is extinguished, but I am just saying the consciousness of the > > Buddha > > just ceases and there is no afterlife for one for whom there is no more > > karma, no > > more fire. Is that correct? > > > > So he that is called Buddha is no longer a Buddha -- he is no longer > > 'awake', any > > activity associated with him has been 'extinguished' with the death of the > > body. > > > > Thanks, > > Robert E. > > > ============================== > I understand one Theravadin interpretation of this issue to be the > following: > Nibbana, whether "entered" by the living arahant or as final nibbana, > is essentially the same; "in" it, there is no person/sense of self, and there > are no objects discerned; there is, in my words, an impersonal light of > awareness going on infinitely, a radiance which falls on no objects, which > casts no shadows, which is the ultimate emptiness, purity, and perfection - > the cool cave, the refuge, the island. The living arahant, due to the playing > out of kammic traces, still perceives objects, but there is no sense of a > "self" dualistically perceiving them, nor are the objects reified, but, > rather, the objects are seen through as empty of independent existence, and > nothing whatsoever is grasped at or pushed away. The main difference that I > see between the Theravadin and Mahayanist understandings on this issue > pertains to the > "ultimate fate" of an arahant who is a Buddha. In Theravada, a Buddha is such > by virtue only of having mastered all ten perfections, perfected all skillful > means in order to be the perfect teacher of the Dhamma, and who reintroduces > the Dhamma at a time and place where it is not known, but in Mahayana, it is > understood, in addition, that such a being has the capacity, and is propelled > by compassion, to forego final entry to nibbana upon death, to maintain a > kind of contact with the realm of conditions in order to continue to teach > the Dhamma to sentient beings in various realms. This Mahayanist assumption > certainly makes great sense to me, and has great appeal to me, but that is > not a particularly significant fact! ;-)) What is true in this regard is true > regardless of what might or might not make sense to me or to any of us. > Frankly, none of us really knows what is the truth here, and I fail to see > how it really matters. The facts are the facts. Meanwhile, as I see it, we > should walk the path as well as we can, with metta, karuna, mudita, and > upekkha, helping whomever we can at every step of the way, and constantly > striving to grow in wisdom and compassion. > > 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) 8128 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 4:59am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert (and Robert K) - > > In a message dated 9/17/01 6:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > > S. XXII. 94 > > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental > > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, > > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in > > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no > > > such thing.{endquote] > > > robert > > > > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position clear. It is quite > > different > > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like to hear from those who > > say that > > the two canons do not contradict each other. They do seem to. > > > > > ======================= > In this quoted material, the items referred to are instances of the > five khandas; they are conditioned phenomena, and all conditioned phenomena > are anicca. But nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, and it is not > impermanent. It is a timeless, ultimate emptiness, perfect in every way, and > certainly not a dead state of dark unconsciousness. Nibbana is the cessation > of greed, hatred, and ignorance, shining with the brightness of wisdom, and > not a dark annihilation! > > With metta, > Howard I agree with you, Howard. My question is: how can we analyze this sutra so as to make clear that saying the annihilation of the kandhic consciousness leaves room for that shining awareness which the Buddha, at least here, fails to mention. What do you think? Is it implied here, or is it mentioned more positively in another sutra, as it is in the Mahayana doctrines? For the sake of communication, I would like to try to resolve this using some evidence from the Pali canon. But my view is the same as yours on this. I do not believe in absolute annihilation. To me, it contradicts all the elements of the path as I understand them. Robert E. ========================== ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8129 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 5:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- gayan wrote: > dear robert e., > > > > > > yes, but the question is: where there is no darkness, is there not > light? > > > > I will state another sutta [ you'll just love this too :o) ] > > Udapaana Sutta > > Kim kaira udapaanena > aapaac(h)e sabbada siyum,? > tanhaaya muulato c(h)etva, > kissa pariyesanam c(h)are? > > What's the need for a well > if water is everywhere? > Having cut craving > by the root,( tanhakkhaya - nibbana ) > One would go about searching for what? > > > rgds, > gayan you're right, gayan. it's fantastic. I can't help but compare it to a Biblical reference, from the prophet Jeremiah: Woe unto the children of Israel, For you have forsaken me, The fountain of living Waters, And have hewed out cisterns for yourself, Cracked cisterns, which can hold no water. Robert E. 8130 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 7:43am Subject: Re: paramis --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon: > > > Yes, this makes perfect sense. From this angle, > understanding does condition the degree of kusala of > the parami being developed (or rather developing), so > paññaa seems to be unique among the paramis in this > regard. If so, it seems to be a kind of pre-immminent > parami. Is this supported by the abhidhamma? > (Apologies if someone has already made this clear). ++++++++++++++++ Thanks for this useful post Mike. Nina in a post on September 5 wrote >>Khun Sujin stressed many times that not one of these perfections should be neglected. 'Wisdom is the chief cause for the practice of the other paramis', the commentary states. And one should recognize wisdom 'to be the cause for the purification of all the paramis'.>>>>>endquote. robert 8131 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:10am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 Dear Robert & Robert, > > S. XXII. 94 > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a > mental > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and > persistent, > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing > the wise men in > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that > there is no > > such thing.{endquote] > > robert --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position > clear. It is quite different > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like > to hear from those who say that > the two canons do not contradict each other. They > do seem to. > > I would tend to think that the Buddha would not > mention an unmoving awareness > because one would turn it into a concept that would > block the entry into Nibbana. > However, I may be grasping at straws, as this sutra > states quite unequivocally > that no such thing exists. Thanks, both, for helping to further clarify this distinction. Of course, I just like Robert K.'s citation because it seems to confirm my own opinion. I still have great respect for your investigations, Robert E. mike 8132 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:22am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Sila, and all forms of kusala, play a very important role in the path. > Wholesomeness of all kinds can and does arise from time to time, > naturally, without being 'made' to happen. A such moments the effort is > 'right' by nature. If there is some level of awareness of the > wholesomeness, this is the development or cultivation of kusala/sila. > > Awareness and understanding are the kinds of kusala that are of greatest > benefit to the development of sila and all other kinds of kusala. > > We should know more about both the kusala and the akusala that arise in > our lives, just as we should also know more about the non-kusala/akusala > moments, too. > > Jon Thanks, Jon, for your reply to my questions. I take it by your description that you believe that all arisings of kusala and akusala are the result of pre-existing or dependently arising causes and effects, and that there is no volition involved in whether a kusala or akusala moments. However, I take it by your indication that one can become more aware of the kusala and akusala moments, and that this awareness or understanding has an effect on cultivation of kusala, that these factors are more subject to an intent or effort to be more aware or understanding? Or are these factors as well just the outcome of arising conditions and causes? I am just trying to see if you would believe one to be completely passive to this process [since in fact there is no self, but only the shifting conditions of the kandhas] or whether there is a moment of volition there if one notices the arisings. Thanks, Robert E. 8133 From: rikpa21 Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 10:19am Subject: Re: nibbana --- Robert Epstein wrote: Hi Robert, > When Buddha says the moon and sun do not shine, yet darkness does > not reign, you can interpret this either way. To me, who senses the same great > impersonal awareness behind all phenomena that you do, I see the statement that > darkness does not reign as a clear sign that there is the clear, unsullied light > of awareness in the Nibbanic state, free from all fetters. > > But since it is possible to promote both views, and the Theravadan and Mahayana > doctrines seem to interpret these differently, at least in the hands of able > practitioners, doesn't it suggest that we really should refrain from clinging to > views and interpretations, but follow the Buddha's example as best we can, > according to our temperaments? That sounds like mighty sage advice to these ears. :) > if we want to reach the final goal of the path, whatever it may contain. I guess > we would all agree that we want to be free of defilements and fetters, and we want > to some day experience what the Buddha did. Of one thing I am sure: no matter > what map we use to get there, the map by itself, meaning the Sutras, will not get > us there. Indeed the map is not the territory. Not even close. I particularly like this excerpt from the story of Ajahn Mun: "In the long course of his wilderness training, Ajaan Mun learned that -- contrary to Reform and Customary beliefs -- the path to nirvana was not closed. The true Dhamma was to be found not in old customs or texts but in the well-trained heart and mind. The texts were pointers for training, nothing more or less. The rules of the Vinaya, instead of simply being external customs, played an important role in physical and mental survival. As for the Dhamma texts, practice was not just a matter of confirming what they said. Reading and thinking about the texts could not give an adequate understanding of what they meant--and did not count as showing them true respect. True respect for the texts meant taking them as a challenge: putting their teachings seriously to the test to see if, in fact, they are true. In the course of testing the teachings, the mind would come to many unexpected realizations that were not contained in the texts. These in turn had to be put to the test as well, so that one learned gradually by trial and error to the point of an actual noble attainment. Only then, Ajaan Mun would say, did one understand the Dhamma." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/customs.html > If we don't apply the instructions in a purposeful way, either > practicing meditation, if that is our bent, or discerning in life and observation, > if that is our practice, then we can't get real insight, only intellectual > understanding. The true Dhamma has never existed within the pages of any text, or in the words of any teacher, but in the heart. > We are all committed, I think, to getting there, and I think it has been > demonstrated that both people in the Theravadan and Mahayana traditions have > enjoyed full enlightenment. Which is why when we find the vehicle best suited to our accumulations we should take it up and thoroughly put it to the test, so we can, as Ajahn Mun observed, truly come to understand the Dhamma. > So we should take heart, and realize that we must use > views, but without clinging to them, each in our own way. Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! My friend in the Dhamma! :) 8134 From: rikpa21 Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 10:27am Subject: Re: paramis --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: Hi Jonothan, > The qualities that are the paramis (generosity, determination, etc.) can > be developed by any one at any time, but the level at which the quality is > being developed will depend on the level of understanding or otherwise > that accompanies the moment of consciousness. > > So I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of panna being developed > first or the paramis being developed first. If we see the importance of > developing kusala we will develop all kinds of kusala--including panna and > the qualities that are the paramis--as and when the occasion arises. I think I am going into something approaching shock, Jonothan, because I find myself in total agreement with what you've said here! :) 8135 From: azita gill Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 10:32am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E hello dsg, this is my first comment to dsg. in reply to K.Ong about Achan Chah whose statement"there is one essential point that all good practice must come to - not clinging" my understanding of 'not clinging' is a moment in time which arises and falls away so quickly that 'we' hardly notice unless sati arises [and also falls away] to know the difference between clinging and not clinging. If sati and panya are not developed to a degree to know this difference, then who knows? My understanding of 'no self' is that in reality, no self can be found in the rapid arising and falling away of, say, generosity, anger, attachment, wisdom, compassion, conceit, and the rupas or matter which we take for "me" or "mine" e.g. my hair,my car, my friends. I am greatly appreciating the amount of dhamma that is available via this dsg. may all beings be happy, Azita --- KennethOng wrote: > > After looking at a few points made by Sarah, Robert > E and rikpa21(sorry did not get your name), I would > like to say that what Sarah and Robert are trying to > do is describing emptiness which in the first place > impossible to describe. As what Rikpa21 has quoted > Hui Neng text "when you get rid of the idea of a > self and that of a being, Mount Meru will topple" > (in the first place how do you get rid of a self > that is inherently empty by nature, hence if you are > able to get rid of a self which is empty, thn mount > meru will also topple which is impossible) only > through contridictary sentence will emptiness could > be know. When we try to understand more and more > abt emptiness in words, it is impossible to > understand. For example in Mahayana, all dharma is > deviod of nature, which means the self is empty by > nature but if it is empty what is that (the eyes) > looking at the email. If it is not you, pinch > yourself see whether you feel pain or not. This is > emptiness. When Buddha talks about emptiness, it is > not completely empty, if it is completely empty then > it is on one extreme end of nihilism. if it is > something then it attached to a view of eternalism. > Emptiness can only be experience and not explain > hence no matter how well we describe even using > sutras as references, we will never able to explain > emptiness in words. Emptiness has no dwelling as > any form of reference is attachement, any words > describing is wrong. There is a story about a monk > when to preach about Buddhism on the stage, he kept > quiet and then left. When pple ask him why he did > that, he said he has just preached buddhism. My > humble opinion is that his action is about > emptiness, as any form of describing is wrong, even > thoughts of desribing is also wrong that is why he > kept quiet. This is the essence of emptiness and > words cannot adequately explain. If it can be > explain easily Buddha would have used one sutra to > do it just like the four noble truth, but in fact > Buddha use a large number of sutras trying to > explain emptiness idea or concept. > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > > rikpa21 wrote: --- Sarah wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > > I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana > point of view where I > understand > > sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at > least). > > Svabhava in the Mahayana is the equivalent of > "independent essence"-- > which is thoroughly rejected as inhering in anything > in all schools > of the Mahayana. > > > Rob E, I know you and Anders have a different > understanding from a > few of > us on > > some fundamental issues, > > I've seen nothing in Anders' presentation of anatta > I would consider > remotely at odds with Right Understanding. To the > contrary, in fact. > I have observed some interpret what he's saying in > ways that don't > accord with my interpretation of what he's saying, > perhaps due to > their being unaware of the fact there is an entire > tradition of > realized masters who use such terms as "Nature of > Mind"--which does > not mean what many conditioned by the Tripitaka's > presentation of the > Dharma may automatically assume it does. Hui Neng > comes to mind on > this point in the "Platform Sutra," for example. > > Yet, mysteriously, Hui Neng goes on to note in the > same sutra > that "when you get rid of the idea of a self and > that of a being, > Mount Meru will topple." I imagine such apparent > contradictions might > be a bit maddening to anyone who's latched on to the > idea of anatta > by itself as the be-all and end-all! Anyway, > regarding folks like Hui > Neng and in specific the Platform Sutra (where Hui > Neng mentions > this), Ajahn Chah noted: "Hui Neng's wisdom is very > keen. It is very > profound teaching, not easy for beginners to > understand. But if you > practice with our discipline and with patience, if > you practice not- > clinging, you will eventually understand." > > On that point, I can only concur heartily with both > Ajahn Chah's and > Anders' mention of letting go of clinging to views. > And I find it > very encouraging (and rather amusing) to see a > teenager with a > fraction of the textual training of the Abhidhamma > scholars here able > to cause such a ruckus, whose words carry more > impact and clarity and > insight by far, in my opinion, than the words of > those questioning > him. No offense intended, but I've observed what I > consider more > wisdom and behavior worthy of emulation coming from > a mere teenager > than I have from all the Abhidhamma scholars > combined. Then again, I > have been seeing an extraordinary degree of wisdom > coming from > teenagers lately. Perhaps that is because some of > them are less > fettered by preconceptions, views, and prejudices. > > When Ajahn Chah was asked "What is the biggest > problem of your new > disciples?" he replied: "Opinions. views and ideas > about all things. > About themselves, about practice, about the > teachings of the Buddha. > Many of those who come here have a high rank in the > community. There > are wealthy merchants or college graduates, teachers > and government > officials. Their minds are filled with opinions > about things. They > are too clever to listen to others. It is like water > in a cup. If a > cup is filled with dirty, stale water, it is > useless. Only after the > old water is thrown out can the cup become useful. > You must empty > your minds of opinions, then you will see. Our > practice goes beyond > cleverness and beyond stupidity. If you think;"I am > clever, I am > wealthy, I am important, I understand all about > Buddhism."; You cover > up the truth of anatta or no-self. All you will see > is self, I, mine. > But Buddhism is letting go of self. Voidness, > Emptiness, Nibbana." > > And I can also imagine that if one were attached to > one's own views > about the Pali Canon as sole authority and > simultaneously subject to > the affliction of issa, the idea that anyone who > accepts Mahayana > scriptures (let alone a teenager) might be possessed > of Right > Understanding could be a rather disquieting > prospect, given how many > carefully guarded preconceptions that would be > likely to upset. > Merely entertaining this possibility could erode the > foundations from > beneath years of carefully constructed elaborations > and (not to > diminish the tragedy this last week) send the entire > carefully > constructed edifice of fabrications toppling. I can > only hope that > this is the case. > > > Nor, as I read the > > Teachings, is there a Bodhi citta or Bodhisattva > ideal to be > realized by > us (or > > followed) if only we could read between the lines > in the Tipitaka. > > I find this a rather interesting interpretation, > given this was the > very path that Shakyamuni Buddha took, as noted in > the Pali Canon. I > would think that if you reject the Bodhisattva path, > then it would > appear that by implication you also reject > Shakyamuni Buddha, since > that is how he became the Shakyamuni Buddha in the > first place--at > least according to the Suttas of the Pali Canon. > Also, === message truncated === 8136 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 0:02pm Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > You have a number of positive states that have been > > entered into in order to reach > > it: Right View, Right Thinking, Right > > Concentration, insights and jhanas. > > The > > essence of all of these positive states that are > > entered into is that they are > > increasingly refined forms of apprehensions or > > awareness. > > Not sure what you mean by 'positive states'. The path > factors and so on are mental factors, arising and > subsiding instantaneously with moments of > consciousness. Certainly no one to 'enter into' them, > even conventionally speaking. Also not sure what you > mean by 'essence', 'apprehensions' or 'awareness'. If > by awareness you mean sati, this is also a cetasika > and a path-factor, which arises and subsides > instantaneously like the others. I see awareness as something that's always there. One is always aware of something. I don't look at it as the consciousness that corresponds to each mental act, but as a background awake quality that is always there. I can understand how that is not in accord with the view that there is nothing in human existence other than the kandhas. It introduces the idea of there being 'something' that's an experiencer. Only it's not personal, not an entity, not separate from the experience. It's more like a field, like space. I guess the question is, can you have something that experiences and still have anatta? I think you can, but I understand that most of you who are taking the abhidarmic reading of the Theravada scriptures would say that they are irreconcileable, and that not only no one but nothing experiences the experiences, except the momentary consciousnesses that arise with the objects of experience. I would ask you, how do you the consciousnesses that correspond to the perceptual or conceptual act arise? Where do they arise from? I know the kandhas are there from past accumulations [?], but what makes these momentary consciousnesses fire off? I understand that there is no one experiencing these experiences, they are just taking place, there is just experience and object of experience arising together, then there are the mental factors that take the experience and process it in some way, and that is another moment that arises and falls. And this keeps going on. But what is the quality of those experiences? There is the illusion of the experiencer, but what is contained int he experience? Is it really not an experience, but just a mental act. Does the momentary consciousness 'experience' the object, or do they just arise together mechanically? Hope this question makes sense. > As I understand it, insight (vipassanaa) arises and > subsides instantaneously and refines understanding > (paññaa), which accumulates and is passed along from > citta to citta. How does the understanding accumulate? That seems to contradict the momentary nature of every experience. Well, I guess the skandhas accumulate akusala, and that kusala can accumulate as well, eventually outweighing the accumulated akusala. Is that correct? I would still like to know if anything is really accumulated in this momentary arising and falling. What allows accumulation to take place, and what accumulates them? This would seem to me to be implying some sort of solidity which starts to border on entity if you have something that has duration and is able to accumulate qualities or understanding. > Hope you don't mind if I break this question down a > little: > Nibbaana is just the cessation of dukkha, as I > understand it. Okay. And dukkha is a result of aviddja, and the other qualities that are eliminated by the eightfold path. yes? > > is > > the refined awareness and insight and awareness that > > has been so meticulously > > developed to create the ladder to Nibbana also > > eliminated, > > By 'awareness', do you mean sati? And by 'insights', > vipassanaa? If so, I think you're referring to > satipatthaana vipassanaa. Yes, I think in this case that's correct. If by 'the ladder to > Nibbana' you mean the path, I think it's a very odd > metaphor. The path is not a structure, but a > collection of mental factors arising and subsiding > simultaneously and instantaneously, as I understand > it. except they accumulate understanding through vipassana? that's a little contradictory, isn't it? it's the accumulation of insight that allows the path to develop, but at the same time it's just a collection of instantaneous events? I don't mean to give you a hard time. I'm just trying really hard to see how the path develops through accumulation of insight and understanding, and then the whole thing, which is really momentary, all subsides leaving nothing at the end of the path but freedom from dukkha. > > or are they merely > > surpassed in a state that contains the same essence > > as this development but is > > totally beyond them? > > What is there to be surpassed, and by whom? The path > factors simply arise and then vanish completely. When > they've finished their function, dukkha is permanantly > eradicated. > > > It would make logical sense that the essence of the > > path would be exemplified in > > its most refined form in its final attainment, > > Nibbana. > > Again, I think it's a mistake to think of the path as > having an essence--just a very quick confluence of > mental factors, with the supreme function of > eradicating defilement, then vanishing completely. How is defilement eradicated by the accumulation of sati? What is the relation between these two? Why can't defilement just be 'purified' by some other factor, since understanding has no role in the final 'product'? I mean, there are other systems that get rid of attachment through meditation, purification, etc. Buddhism is the only path that focusses so heavily on understanding and insight. But it seems like the understanding and insight gets you to the threshold and then turns out not to really have any purpose, since the final goal is merely cessation of dukkha, and not a state of understanding. The final product has no need of insight or anything else. They were just expedients to get rid of suffering. > > To think that all is > > eliminated and that there is merely negation of > > negatives just doesn't make sense. > > Only if you think of there being something lasting > that can be negated or eliminated or whatever. Like > all other cetasikas, the path-factors arise, perform > their function and fall away completely. > > > It is not because of Mahayana doctrines that it > > doesn't make sense, > > Well, my take on this is that it is a difference > between the Mayahana and Theravada. My knowledge of > Mahayana doctrine is vague though, based on many years > as a Zen student but little academic study (aside from > having read a number of classics). So I may well be > mistaken about this. I'm starting to think you're right about this. At least if you interpret Theravadin doctrine to mean that there is merely cessation of dukkha and all the work with insight and sati is just an expedient, having no value in and of itself. That is where I think we disagree. I may be out of step with Theravadin doctrine in that, or perhaps it can be interpreted both ways. I am not well versed enough [no pun intended] to know that at this point. And I admit that I'm too busy and lazy to catch up really quickly, but one of these days I'll be more knowledgeable! > > but because > > of the path outlined by the Buddha and all of his > > statements about the > > pleasantness and uplifted quality of each > > progressive stage on the path. > > If you're referring to the stages of enlightenment, > they are subjectively very pleasant and uplifting, no > doubt (at least I imagine so--this is probably > addressed more specifically in the abhidhamma). I'm glad you agree that the path can be enjoyable -- in a non-clinging way of course. I'm not sure if everyone would agree with this. > > Where is > > that quality of refined joy and total discernment > > that characterize the Buddha's > > own statements and presumably his own state? > > The mental factors arising and subsiding with the > moments of consciousness of a Buddha are very refined, > no doubt--to say the least! I'm sure these are > catalogued somewhere in the abhidhamma, too. That would be interesting. For sure > they fall away completely in an instant. > > They > > are contained in and are the > > natural emanation of the state of Nibbana, of > > Arahatship, of Buddhahood. > > You seem to be equivocating nibbaana with Arahatship > and Buddhahood. The second two are very similar > (though not identical)--nibbaana is simply the > permanent cessation of dukkha, as I understand it. So what makes for an Arahat or a Buddha, beyond Nibbana? > > So it > > doesn't make sense to me that one cannot assert that > > there is a positive state, > > experience, or awareness in Nibbana. > > The question is, why would one assert such a thing, > with no record of the Buddha's every having taught it? > At least if there is any such assertion in the > tipitaka, I've never run across it. If you're aware > of such a teaching in the tipitaka, I'd like to hear > about it. Otherwise, to interpolate this into the > Buddhadhamma is a very big mistake, I think. > > > The Buddha is > > not 'dead'. He has not been > > annihilated by attaining Nibbana and Buddhahood. > > In which of the aggregates is, or was, there someone > to be annihilated (or not)? > > > In > > fact he is completely free > > and 'awake'. > > Certainly the Buddha was one who 'awoke' (achieved the > cessation of dukkha), conventionally speaking. If 'he > is completely free and 'awake'', in what aggregate or > element is 'he' to be found? In fact, I think that to > say that the Buddha 'is completely free and 'awake'' > is nothing less than bizarre, from the Theravada > perspective as I understand it (no offense!) No offense taken. But I think we look at Buddhi differently. The term Buddha means 'one who is awake or has awakened'. I don't take that to mean that he's merely awakened from dukkha. In any case, in Zen it has a much more positive interpretation. Two travellers were walking down the road when they sensed an amazing presence coming towards them. They were anxious to see who this person could be. They had never experienced anything like this before. As they came into the presence of the man, he seemed to give off an immense radiant energy. They questioned him and asked: "Why do you have this amazing aspect. Who are you?" The Buddha, for it was he, answered simply: "I am awake". > > Buddha means 'one who is awake'. Can > > one be 'awake' without > > sentience/consciousness/awareness? This also > > doesn't make sense. If you want to > > say that the Buddha is 'awake' but has none of those > > other attributes or > > qualities, you would have to at least say, based on > > his most popular title alone, > > that he at least partakes of 'awakeness'. Awakeness > > and awareness are synonyms. > > The Buddha 'awoke' (speaking conventionally) when he > achieved cessation of dukkha. After that, he could be > called 'awake' up until parinibbaana. At that point, > the conditions for the arising of any further naamas > (cittas or cetasikas, consciousnesses and mental > factors) were completely exhausted, as I understand > it. The rupas which composed his physical form will > continue to arise and subside as long as the > conditions exist for their continued existence. I understand this explanation, and it is certainly sensible. > Thanks for challenging my own perspectives, Robert. > Always good to hear from you. > > mike Same here. As always, it's a pleasure to talk to you as well. Best, Robert E. 8137 From: Howard Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:08am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi, Mike - In a message dated 9/17/01 8:09:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --- Howard wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I can't think of a nicer guy to be in > > disagreement with! ;-)) I have > > simply expressed an opinion, one in which I have not > > very much invested. I > > could be quite wrong. When it comes to what nibbana > > is I doubt that any of us > > really know what we are talking about! ;-)) > > Thanks, Howard, the sentiment is mutual. When it > comes to those things that most of us(!) don't claim > to know from experience, I think it's all the more > important to understand what the Buddha taught on the > subject. I appreciate your efforts to do so, as > always. > > > As far as the Theravada/Mahayana distinction > > is concerned on this > > issue, I would like to point out that the talk of > > unmanifestive discernment > > being "infinite, luminous all around, and falling on > > no objects" is derived > > from the Pali Sutta Pitaka, not Mahayana sources. > > If I remember this correctly, this referred to > bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise after > parinibbaana, by my understanding of the canon. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I think it was a reference something to the effect of the mind being originally luminous, but covered by adventitious defilements that is sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga. (BTW, I'm not sure whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in the suttas.) -------------------------------------------------- > Unfortunately, it seems to open a door for the > positing of some sort of 'cosmic consciousness', which > concept I believe is clearly alien to the Theravada. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't even have a clue what "cosmic consciousness" would be. But awareness without an object, beyond all conditions and conditioning, unborn, and deathless would be nibbana to me. --------------------------------------------------- > (By the way, if you have the citation handy, would you > mind re-posting it?--thanks). --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: It was Kevatta Sutta, DN 11. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Always a pleasure, Howard, -------------------------------------------- Howard: Likewise, mike! ------------------------------------------ > > mike > > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8138 From: Larry Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 0:20pm Subject: nonmanifestive consciousness Walshe, DN 11: Where consciousness is signless, boundless, all-luminous, That's where earth, water, fire and air find no footing -------------------------- according to the footnote, Nanananda in "Concept and Reality" p.59, understands this consciousness (anidassana-vinnana) as the consciousness of the arahant. Perhaps this could be considered a quality or characteristic of the arahant. The last line of the verse, "with the cessation of consciousness this is all destroyed" I read as the cessation of this anidassana-vinnana, but there isn't any commentarial note. As a tangential question concerning this discussion, does anyone know if the word "buddha" is in the pali cannon, or if not, where it first appears? metta, Larry 8139 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 0:31pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Trying to understand Anatta Dear Christine, it's always a pleasure to read about your careful consideration of the dhamma and your prolific internet research. I can't think of a more useful response to last week than the study of anatta (and the understanding of realities as anatta) at this moment;-)) Have no fear of being 'boring'! I can just imagine the volume of 'anatta' articles and views 'google' will have turned up and I think it says a lot for your understanding that this interesting and useful article is the one that was of most interest. I just looked through quickly and it seemed to be very well-written indeed. I look forward to reading it more carefully. I always appreciate your links too. What else? 1) I would suggest that any books or articles on Rob's website would be useful to you. In particular, I'd recommend Nina VG's 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life'. Just the first chapter helpfully explains that what we take for self are in reality only namas and rupas. http://www.abhidhamma.org/ 2) Please go to 'Useful Posts' and read the posts from dsg under 'anatta'. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts If you find any aspects or posts you wish to comment on or question (and the same for the books and articles above), I know that many of us will be glad to hear from you. (You can also look for headings of 'kamma and vipaka' and maybe 'Dependent Origination'.) Look f/w to hearing more from you, Sarah p.s On an old topic, Jon told me after I'd already writen, that he'd read in the vinaya or com. that the reason monks were forbidden from eating certain kinds of animal meat (you mentioned dogs, snakes etc) was because in the forest, these (dead) animals attracted predators. the ruling would not apply to us. Someone else may have the details:-)) --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Dear List Members, > > The events of the last week have given extra impetus to me to try to > understand several teachings in Buddhism that I have been unable to > grasp completely. The first was Kamma - but I have decided to let > that sit awhile after getting a headache and more confused by all the > permutations and combinations I found while pondering on it. > > Looking into Kamma made me realise that I needed to study and > understand Dependant Origination as well. > Looking into Dependent Origination just a little, made me realise > that the major key to it all might be to try and understand Anatta. > So, I wonder if anyone would care to give me the right perspective on > Anatta. For instance, what views are common mistakes to hold, which > would be better avoided. > > I put Anatta into Google,which is the way I usually learn, and found > a number of Suttas and articles, but the one that has had most impact > so far is the book by Sayadaw U Silananda, with an excerpt below. > > Hope this is not too boring for everyone, but I feel if I get this > right and understand it, I will be a bit further down the Path. > > metta, > Christine > > > In "Inner Core - Anatta" Chapter 5 'Understanding Anatta' > Sayadaw U Silananda > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/5787/anatta1.html 8140 From: Howard Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:33am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/17/01 9:48:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Robert (and Robert K) - > > > > In a message dated 9/17/01 6:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Robert E writes: > > > > > > > > S. XXII. 94 > > > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental > > > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, > > > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in > > > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no > > > > such thing.{endquote] > > > > robert > > > > > > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position clear. It is quite > > > different > > > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like to hear from those > who > > > say that > > > the two canons do not contradict each other. They do seem to. > > > > > > > > ======================= > > In this quoted material, the items referred to are instances of > the > > five khandas; they are conditioned phenomena, and all conditioned > phenomena > > are anicca. But nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, and it is not > > impermanent. It is a timeless, ultimate emptiness, perfect in every way, > and > > certainly not a dead state of dark unconsciousness. Nibbana is the > cessation > > of greed, hatred, and ignorance, shining with the brightness of wisdom, > and > > not a dark annihilation! > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > I agree with you, Howard. My question is: how can we analyze this sutra > so as to > make clear that saying the annihilation of the kandhic consciousness leaves > room > for that shining awareness which the Buddha, at least here, fails to > mention. > > What do you think? Is it implied here, or is it mentioned more positively > in > another sutra, as it is in the Mahayana doctrines? > > For the sake of communication, I would like to try to resolve this using > some > evidence from the Pali canon. > > But my view is the same as yours on this. I do not believe in absolute > annihilation. To me, it contradicts all the elements of the path as I > understand > them. > > Robert E. > ============================== The difficulty in finding what you want and what I would also love to see in the Pali canon (which, BTW, I take to be pretty much the word of the Buddha, whereas I take the Mahayana Sutras for the most part *not* to be the original Buddha word) is that the Buddha was apparently quite reticent in giving much in the way of details with regard to nibbana. I expect that is so largely for two reasons: (1) Every description will be wrong, because nibbana is beyond all our concepts and worldly experience, and (2) Any *remotely* adequate description carries the real danger, the *likelihood*, of being misinterpreted, of playing right into our defilements, and of fostering reification and clinging, instead of helping us along the path. Let me put it this way: Mara must love theoreticians! ;-)) 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) 8141 From: Howard Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 8:36am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/17/01 9:53:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > I can't help but compare it to a Biblical > reference, from the prophet Jeremiah: > > Woe unto the children of Israel, > For you have forsaken me, > The fountain of living Waters, > And have hewed out cisterns for yourself, > Cracked cisterns, which can hold no water. > ========================== Mmmm! That is *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) 8142 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 0:54pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Rob E, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > If I understand you, each dharma has a kind of 'flavor' which is all its own, > and > that is its essence or characteristic. In other words, its a way of saying > that > one tastes the actuality of that very thing itelf, rather than saying that it > has > an 'essence' like a 'self-nature' of some kind. I hope that's not put > confusingly, and I hope I'm not misinterpreting your point! This is an excellent way of putting it and not at all confusing. You've got my point (or rather what i understand to be the point in the Tipitaka) exactly. Flavor (or 'flavour' to us Brits) would be a very good translation to my mind. We can talk about the flavor of strawberry or chocolate which are quite distinct to the taste buds (or tasting), but this doesn't mean that the tasting, the flavor or the ice-cream are self......just different namas and rupas going about their business, all conditioned as the quote on 'Eating' I posted recently showed. Of course, as soon as there is any idea of flavor or 'strawberry', this is merely the thinking of the story and not the sabhava of hardness, softness, heat,cold or whatever other realities were experienced when tasting.... > So the sabhava of Nibbana would merely mean its particular quality, YES! which > points > to its quality of partaking of the cessation of all defilements, experiences, > etc. > would that be correct in your view? This depends on whether nibbana is referring here to that experienced by the sotapanna (or rather the cittas, as explained by Mike) for the first time, that experienced by the arahat or parinibbana (see Rob K's post on these distinctions ). When nibbana is the object of the lokuttara cittas, just the reality, the sabhava of nibbana is experienced as object. It is then clear and apparent (as I understand it) in the immediately following mind-door processes that some or all defilements have either been fully eradicated according to the 'stage'. As the others have pointed out, it is only at parinibbana that 'experiences' cease. > I'll just answer this briefly to see if I'm on the right track, in terms of > grasping your point. I appreciate your very careful consideration as always, Rob. > > And thanks for your hospitality when we bring up our odd views! We all start with 'odd views' and a list like this is just so we can mutually share and test these very views. Thank you for being so active, appreciative and pleasant to have around;-)) Sarah 8143 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 1:22pm Subject: Re: nibbana Dear Robert E. I'm really pushed for time. But i had to add that I am consistently impressed with your genuine desire to lay your views out in the open - amd even perhaps let some of them go. We have to do this. We have to examine so carefully what we believe. Someone may have the view that all paths are the same and this might sound like a open and spacious idea. But it can be clung to like life itself. Another might have the view that "I don't say either this or that is right" "nor do I say this or that is wrong" and still cling to this view like the devil. The depth that self view - that view that is the root of all others- goes is so deep, that is why we need a Buddha to show its craftiness, the different types and the ways it is attached to. One teacher in thailand (now 96years old) told me that we are like pickles in a pickle jar, saturated with the vinegar of self view. How to give this up?!! It takes much time as I know you know. Wrong view always comes with attachment and pleasant or neutral feeling. Its function is to delude and if it is present it MAKES one believe that what they believe is true. I guess you've spoken with cult members from time to time and noticed how happy many of the are - and yet how attached and sure of quite strange ideas. This is what Miccha-ditthi does. Sometimes it might be attractive or appear reasonable, and then it is not so obvious - but if it is tainted with self it is wrong. Dropping wrong view comes at different levels but if it is not seen at the grossest level - that of thinking - then why wonder about higher levels. This doesn't mean cling to right view though . Or try and brainwash ourselves to belive in anatta. That just obscures the truth too. (as your post makes clear) Such a hard path, so profound. I appreciate your reflections below. robert Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi Howard, > I always enjoy hearing from you. Of course we share a common vision of the path, > so this is natural. > > I'm reflecting that these differences in the view of Nibbana probably reflects in > some way the desire of the practitioner. I do not mean this in a negative way, > but we have a vision or an image of what we are attaining to. Even while we try > to rid ourselves of images that may obstruct the truth, there is a guiding > intention that allows us to follow one path or another. > > One person may crave the peace of final extinction of all the defilements of life, > while another craves the final freedom of an unimpeded state of awareness. > > Wouldn't this desire cause them to look for evidence of one view of Nibbana or the > other? > > Even in the same verses, we can interpret them to suggest an impersonal lighta t > the end of the Dhammic tunnel, or a great undifferentiated Void which is neither > light nor dark. When Buddha says the moon and sun do not shine, yet darkness does > not reign, you can interpret this either way. To me, who senses the same great > impersonal awareness behind all phenomena that you do, I see the statement that > darkness does not reign as a clear sign that there is the clear, unsullied light > of awareness in the Nibbanic state, free from all fetters. > > But since it is possible to promote both views, and the Theravadan and Mahayana > doctrines seem to interpret these differently, at least in the hands of able > practitioners, doesn't it suggest that we really should refrain from clinging to > views and interpretations, but follow the Buddha's example as best we can, > according to our temperaments? It's not necessary to win the debate, but it is > necessary to get views out of our eyes, so that we can see the true composition of > life as it unfolds in front of us, and begin to see what the Buddha has suggested, > if we want to reach the final goal of the path, whatever it may contain. I guess > we would all agree that we want to be free of defilements and fetters, and we want > to some day experience what the Buddha did. 8144 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 1:38pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Thanks, Jon, for your reply to my questions. I take it by your description that > you believe that all arisings of kusala and akusala are the result of pre-existing > or dependently arising causes and effects, and that there is no volition involved > in whether a kusala or akusala moments. > > However, I take it by your indication that one can become more aware of the kusala > and akusala moments, and that this awareness or understanding has an effect on > cultivation of kusala, that these factors are more subject to an intent or effort > to be more aware or understanding? Or are these factors as well just the outcome > of arising conditions and causes? > > I am just trying to see if you would believe one to be completely passive to this > process [since in fact there is no self, but only the shifting conditions of the > kandhas] or whether there is a moment of volition there if one notices the > arisings. > > Thanks, > Robert E. > ++++++ Dear Robert E. Just to butt in here. I mentioned in a post to you about the 24 paccaya(conditions) explained in the Patthana , the last book of the abhidhamma. Some of these are past, some are present. They condition and they are conditioned. Very intricate! But not all of them are past ones (which your letter indicates you might be assuming.) robert 8145 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 2:06pm Subject: 'I prefer directness' - Erik Hi Erik, Let me start with your last paragraph if I may: --- rikpa21 wrote: > Speaking for these khandas, I prefer directness to beating around the > bush. Particularly on matters like this. Please, feel free to share > your opinions without fear of offending the likes of me. After all, > it was seeing the the implication that the Dalai Lama is teaching > corrupt Dharma that spurred me to join DSG in the first place, since > I thought it might be interesting to examine that view in greater > detail. I think that even if you disagree, I hope you do at least > find find such dialogues entertaining, if not enlightening. :) ‘Entertaining if not enlightening’ Mmmmmm, I’m not sure. As you prefer ‘directness’, I think ‘exhausting’ would be closer to what I find;-)) Frankly I find it a lot easier to talk to Anders, Rob E or Howard who may share some of your views but who always present them in a rational and calm manner which I appreciate. Still, we are as we are (conventionally speaking);-))) Much of what you wrote in your message seemed to have little relation to anything I or anyone else has said and there were many suggestions or inferences which were without basis in my view. In other words, to be very direct, it sounded like a rave;-)) On a technical point above, I think you had to join dsg and then read through much of the archives in order to find one post you strongly objected to, which was absolutely fine. OK, let me look at just a few of your points: > I think this confusion is only from a Mahayana point of view where I > understand > > sabhava is synonymous with self (or close to it at least). > > Svabhava in the Mahayana is the equivalent of "independent essence"-- > which is thoroughly rejected as inhering in anything in all schools > of the Mahayana. This was just my point..sorry if it wasn’t clear. > > > I've seen nothing in Anders' presentation of anatta I would consider > remotely at odds with Right Understanding. To the contrary, in fact. > I have observed some interpret what he's saying in ways that don't > accord with my interpretation of what he's saying, perhaps due to > their being unaware of the fact there is an entire tradition of > realized masters who use such terms as "Nature of Mind"--which does > not mean what many conditioned by the Tripitaka's presentation of the > Dharma may automatically assume it does. Hui Neng comes to mind on > this point in the "Platform Sutra," for example. Erik, as you know, on dsg we are discussing anatta and rt understanding as found in the pali Tipitaka (inc. abhidhamma and coms.) It doesn’t mean that those who use another language or set of concepts are right or wrong, but we are merely looking at what the Buddha meant in the above. > > On that point, I can only concur heartily with both Ajahn Chah's and > Anders' mention of letting go of clinging to views. My main concern, on the other hand, is to carefully consider the Buddha’s words. > > And I can also imagine that if one were attached to one's own views > about the Pali Canon as sole authority and simultaneously subject to > the affliction of issa, the idea that anyone who accepts Mahayana > scriptures (let alone a teenager) might be possessed of Right > Understanding could be a rather disquieting prospect, given how many > carefully guarded preconceptions that would be likely to upset. > Merely entertaining this possibility could erode the foundations from > beneath years of carefully constructed elaborations and (not to > diminish the tragedy this last week) send the entire carefully > constructed edifice of fabrications toppling. I can only hope that > this is the case. Personally, I greatly appreciate any indication of rt understanding OF REALITIES regardless of the background, age, school or label of the speaker. Erik, perhaps it would be more useful if we were ALL to consider our own preconceptions, issa, attachments and wrong views, rather than dwelling on the others’. After all, it is only by knowing ‘our own’ cittas and other namas and rupas right now that any rt understanding can possibly BEGIN to develop. I realy don’t mind (and I don’t think anyone else here does that I’ve noticed) whether someone calls themselves a Theravadan, a Mahayanist, a Christian, Jew, Siehk (sorry Sukin, sp?) or anything else....We’re just here to study the Pali Tipitaka together. > > I find this a rather interesting interpretation, given this was the > very path that Shakyamuni Buddha took, as noted in the Pali Canon. Yes, but where does he encourage us to follow the Bodhisattva path rather than the 8fold path towards final cessation.? > would think that if you reject the Bodhisattva path, then it would > appear that by implication you also reject Shakyamuni Buddha, since > that is how he became the Shakyamuni Buddha in the first place--at > least according to the Suttas of the Pali Canon. ?? Also, in rejecting > Bodhicitta (Mind of Enlightenment) you reject lokuttara panna, > because that is the precise definition of "Bodhicitta" in the systems > that teach it. But here we’re looking at the pali Tipitaka and there is no mention of Bodhicitta in the lokuttara panna of the arahats or earlier stages of enlightenment. > But I suppose first understanding those systems in the > way they are intended to be understood may demand too much effort, > and it's easier to reflexivly suggest an entire tradition that fails > to accord with one's prejudices and speculations has somehow missed > the mark. Mmmm, reminds me of an aunt who says things like 'I suppose it would just take too much effort to come and visit ...' I’m not studying, accepting or making any suggestions about any other teachings or traditions. We're studying the Pali Tipitaka and talking about what is being taught here. This doesn’t mean I don’t study other areas of interest such as politics, literature, psychology or linguistics (to name a few), but they are not of relevance to this discussion. > > To me rejecting the Three Jewels like this would seem to be a pretty > serious problem for anyone who professes to be a follower of the > Buddha. So suggesting that anyone with the "Mahayana" label must be > mistaken merely by virtue of their having a "Mahayana" label, and in > sole dependence on that label cannot possibly have rightly understood > the way leading to the cessation of suffering, seems a rather risky > position to take. I don’t see the problem, Erik. We study the pali canon which reflects the Buddha’s teachings and this is what we’re discussing here. I’ve seen no suggestion of any generalisations of ‘anyone with the ‘Mahayana label’ and frankly these labels don’t interest me at all. I just look at the words which are written, regardless of the speaker, and consider them accordingly. Occasionally even Jon and I have a different understandings of a term or sutta or point. This is healthy and we don’t find it threatening or a condition for issa or fear any of the other suggestions you make. > > I would imagine that the implications of this view should give anyone > serious about the entire point of the Buddha's Dharma--the cessation > of suffering (and not something else, like the accumulation of praise > or fame or book-knowledge)--pause for careful consideration. Perhaps there is just a little too much imagining here...;-))) > From the Vajjiya Sutta: > > "Criticizing what should be criticized, praising what should be > praised, the Blessed One is one who speaks making distinctions, not > one who speaks categorically on this matter." The Buddha is making the point in these lines that he is very specific, ‘one who speaks making distinctions’ (vibhajja-vaado, ekansa-vaado) about what is right, ‘what should be praised’ and what is wrong, ‘what should be criticized’. He is not one who makes ‘sweeping assertions’ (PTS trans.) In this sutta these assertions are in reference to the life of an ascetic or ascetic ways.: ‘If, housefather, in one practising austerities unprofitable states wax and profitable states wane, such austerity should not be practised, I declare. If in one practising austerities, unprofitable states wane and profitable states wax, such austerities should be practised, I declare....’(AN,v, 189ff) In other words, Erik, it is not the ‘situation’, the outer appearance or the label that counts, but the development of all kinds of kusala that does. Erik, I haven’t forgotten your other post to me about ‘seeing’ which I look forward to responding to after a couple to Nina which I plan to do next;-) Hope all’s well for you in Bkk and hope you still get to see our other friends, including K.Sujin, there. Sarah 8146 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 2:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert & Robert, > > > > S. XXII. 94 > > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a > > mental > > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and > > persistent, > > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing > > the wise men in > > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that > > there is no > > > such thing.{endquote] > > > robert > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position > > clear. It is quite different > > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like > > to hear from those who say that > > the two canons do not contradict each other. They > > do seem to. > > > > I would tend to think that the Buddha would not > > mention an unmoving awareness > > because one would turn it into a concept that would > > block the entry into Nibbana. > > However, I may be grasping at straws, as this sutra > > states quite unequivocally > > that no such thing exists. > > Thanks, both, for helping to further clarify this > distinction. Of course, I just like Robert K.'s > citation because it seems to confirm my own opinion. > I still have great respect for your investigations, > Robert E. > > mike That's very kind of you Mike. You seem to be a good example of someone who can have a view that is sensible, without clinging to your view while having it, a very good attribute. I learn something from that! Thanks, Robert E. 8147 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 2:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: nibbana --- rikpa21 wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > When Buddha says the moon and sun do not shine, yet darkness does > > not reign, you can interpret this either way. To me, who senses > the same great > > impersonal awareness behind all phenomena that you do, I see the > statement that > > darkness does not reign as a clear sign that there is the clear, > unsullied light > > of awareness in the Nibbanic state, free from all fetters. > > > > But since it is possible to promote both views, and the Theravadan > and Mahayana > > doctrines seem to interpret these differently, at least in the > hands of able > > practitioners, doesn't it suggest that we really should refrain > from clinging to > > views and interpretations, but follow the Buddha's example as best > we can, > > according to our temperaments? > > That sounds like mighty sage advice to these ears. :) > > > if we want to reach the final goal of the path, whatever it may > contain. I guess > > we would all agree that we want to be free of defilements and > fetters, and we want > > to some day experience what the Buddha did. Of one thing I am > sure: no matter > > what map we use to get there, the map by itself, meaning the > Sutras, will not get > > us there. > > Indeed the map is not the territory. Not even close. I particularly > like this excerpt from the story of Ajahn Mun: > > "In the long course of his wilderness training, Ajaan Mun learned > that -- contrary to Reform and Customary beliefs -- the path to > nirvana was not closed. The true Dhamma was to be found not in old > customs or texts but in the well-trained heart and mind. The texts > were pointers for training, nothing more or less. The rules of the > Vinaya, instead of simply being external customs, played an important > role in physical and mental survival. As for the Dhamma texts, > practice was not just a matter of confirming what they said. Reading > and thinking about the texts could not give an adequate understanding > of what they meant--and did not count as showing them true respect. > True respect for the texts meant taking them as a challenge: putting > their teachings seriously to the test to see if, in fact, they are > true. In the course of testing the teachings, the mind would come to > many unexpected realizations that were not contained in the texts. > These in turn had to be put to the test as well, so that one learned > gradually by trial and error to the point of an actual noble > attainment. Only then, Ajaan Mun would say, did one understand the > Dhamma." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/customs.html > > > If we don't apply the instructions in a purposeful way, either > > practicing meditation, if that is our bent, or discerning in life > and observation, > > if that is our practice, then we can't get real insight, only > intellectual > > understanding. > > The true Dhamma has never existed within the pages of any text, or in > the words of any teacher, but in the heart. > > > We are all committed, I think, to getting there, and I think it has > been > > demonstrated that both people in the Theravadan and Mahayana > traditions have > > enjoyed full enlightenment. > > Which is why when we find the vehicle best suited to our > accumulations we should take it up and thoroughly put it to the test, > so we can, as Ajahn Mun observed, truly come to understand the Dhamma. > > > So we should take heart, and realize that we must use > > views, but without clinging to them, each in our own way. > > Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! My friend in the Dhamma! :) Thanks for your words of affirmation, and for considering me a Dhamma friend! Best, Robert E. 8148 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 3:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: paramis --- rikpa21 wrote: > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Jonothan, > > > The qualities that are the paramis (generosity, determination, > etc.) can > > be developed by any one at any time, but the level at which the > quality is > > being developed will depend on the level of understanding or > otherwise > > that accompanies the moment of consciousness. > > > > So I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of panna being > developed > > first or the paramis being developed first. If we see the > importance of > > developing kusala we will develop all kinds of kusala--including > panna and > > the qualities that are the paramis--as and when the occasion > arises. > > I think I am going into something approaching shock, Jonothan, > because I find myself in total agreement with what you've said > here! :) Erik, you are obviously more smitten that any of us realised! (Next you'll be agreeing that the ancient commentaries are necessary reading...) Jon 8149 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 4:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Hi Azita, I'm very glad indeed to read your comments below and to note that you'venot only been receiving the messages this time, but are also appreciating them;-)) Tadao, you'll remember Azita from Bkk and Sri Lanka in the 70s, I'm sure (though I've just realised you both had different names then...) and Nina of course too. Christine, let me also introduce Azita as another keen Qld dhamma student! Azita, I look forward to hearing plenty more from you . Our very best wishes to other 'old hands' you're in touch with too and hoping (yes, with lots of attachment) to see them here as well. Best wishes, Sarah --- azita gill wrote: > hello dsg, this is my first comment to dsg. in reply > to K.Ong about Achan Chah whose statement"there is one > essential point that all good practice must come to - > not clinging" my understanding of 'not clinging' > is a moment in time which arises and falls away so > quickly that 'we' hardly notice unless sati arises > [and also falls away] to know the difference between > clinging and not clinging. If sati and panya are not > developed to a degree to know this difference, then > who knows? My understanding of 'no self' is that in > reality, no self can be found in the rapid arising and > falling away of, say, generosity, anger, attachment, > wisdom, compassion, conceit, and the rupas or matter > which we take for "me" or "mine" e.g. my hair,my car, > my friends. > I am greatly appreciating the amount of dhamma that > is available via this dsg. may all beings be happy, > Azita 8150 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 7:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on lokuttara, sense-door, mind-door This is a long and picky ‘abhidhamma’ post for those who prefer to ignore the like;-)) Dear Nina, Sometimes I also find this topic of doorways can be confusing.....let me add one or two comments according to my understanding and from chatting to KS in between your recent notes here and Cambodia conversation...pls feel very free to correct me . Nina:> > Another question: concerning my translation of Camb talks. In Cambodia, > > A. > > Sujin explains about the mind-door that is hidden by the sense-doors in > > our > > daily life. I understand. When there is no vipassana ~aa.na, the > > mind-door > > does not appear, although there is a mind-door process after each > > sense-door > > process. Could we say ‘before there is the first stage of vipas. ~nana....’? KS kept stressing this moment. Now there is seeing and we’re so attached to what is seen that it seems that the seeing lasts. In this sense the sense door (of the eye) covers up the mind-door. >>But also, A Sujin says, while thinking about names and > > concepts, > > the mind-door is hidden by the sense-doors, and we do not realize at > > such > > moments realities that arise and fall away. Yes, no awareness and so there is no understanding of the difference between seeing and thinking or other realities. >>My feeling is: we think of > > concepts on account of the sense objects, and in between our thinking > > there > > are sense impressions time and again, the mind-door process does not > > appear. > > Is this the reason that even while thinking of concepts the mind-door > > process is hidden by the sense-door processes? Yes, this sounds exactly right to me. We’re lost in the world of concepts about visible objects, sounds etc and there is no understanding of the mind-door realities. > Jon:> My only recollection of the translation of the Cambodia talks is of a > passage dealing with 'thinking hiding the sense-doors'. Have I got this > wrong? Perhaps you could refer us again to the part about mind-door being > hidden by sense-doors. Thanks. Yes she talked about this quite a bit. The emphasis was very much on how right now, because of the thinking about so many concepts without awareness, there is no understanding of the many moments of seeing and hearing and other sense door activities, no understanding of different namas and rupas. The sense doors are covered up in this sense by the conepts In summary, I think that because there is no awareness most the time, it seems that sense door activities last and the mind door activities are hidden (sense door covering mind door) and/or we’re lost in the world of concepts which are taken to be realities (mind door covering sense door). At 1st vipas ~nana, no more wrong view or taking concepts for realities and clear distinction between namas and rupas, seeing and thinking etc. Now I’ll extract one or two points from yr Cambodia translations. to read the full context, anyone should read the full conversation which can be found in full under ‘Cambodia talks’ at; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Message 7684 ************************************************* Dhamma Discussion in the Sam Paothong Temple Sujin: At this moment realities are appearing, such as seeing arising in the eye-door process. However, people do not know the true nature of what appears, they take what they see for people and things. Therefore, the thinking on account of what was seen, thus, the thinking of people and things, hides the truth. ***************************** *************************************** ................. At this moment heat, cold, softness or hardness appear through the bodysense. However, one does not know that when each of these sense-door processes has fallen away, a mind-door process has to succeed that sense-door process immediately, after there have been bhavanga-cittas in between 1 . Thus, at this moment it seems that there is seeing and then immediately hearing, and one does not know when the mind-door process arises. There are different sense-door processes arising and falling away one after the other, and this can be known because there is a mind-door process in between. ****************************************** ****************************************** However, that does not mean that one realizes the characteristic of the mind-door process. One may merely know that when a sense-door process does not arise and there are only cittas which are thinking, that there must be cittas arising in a mind-door process. ****************************************** ********************************************** If satipatthåna does not arise, the nåma and rúpa of just a moment ago have fallen away, but people did not derive any benefit from them since they did not realize the true nature of those dhammas. If satipatthåna does arise, it is not aware of anything else but the characteristic of the reality that is appearing at this moment through whatever doorway. *********************************** When satipatthåna arising with mahå-kusala citta 2 in a mind-door process knows a characteristic of a reality appearing through one of the six doorways, it does not arise in the same process as that reality. When satipaììhåna arising in a mind-door process investigates a characteristic of rúpa, it realizes rúpa that appears through one of the sensedoors. If satipatthåna is aware of a nåma dhamma, it knows a nåma that arose and fell away. That nåma arose and fell away, but that characteristic still appears, so that it can be studied and correctly understood as a characteristic of nåma dhamma, different from rúpa dhamma. The arising and falling away of realities is extremely rapid. ************************************* **************************************** Is there anybody who can, while there is seeing, discern the eye-door process that has fallen away, the bhavanga-cittas that arise in between sense-door process and mind-door process, and the mind-door process cittas that experience what appeared through the eye-door? Is there anybody who can distinguish between the sense-door process and the mind-door process? When softness or hardness is appearing, and sati is aware of the characteristic that appears, can anybody tell through which doorway that characteristic appears? ******************* *********************** The paññå that can distinguish the difference between the mind-door and the sense-door must be insight-knowledge, vipassanå ñåna 3. ************************** ***************************** If one asks a person who studies the Dhamma in which kinds of processes mahå-kusala citta can arise, the answer is in the sense-door processes and in the mind-door process. It can be known when mahå-kusala citta accompanied by paññå arises in a sense-door process, because at that moment paññå knows a characteristic of rúpa. When satipaììhåna arises in a mind-door process it can arise alternately in a sense-door process 4 . Paññå that accompanies kusala citta arising in a mind-door process can gradually have more understanding of realities, and it can also penetrate the true nature of rúpa. ************************** ******************************* Footnotes 3. There are several stages of insight knowledge, vipassanå ñåùa. The first stage is distinguishing the difference between nåma and rúpa and this arises in a mind-door process. Rúpa can be known through a sense-door and through the mind-door, and nåma can only be known through the mind-door. Thus, the difference between nåma and rúpa is known through the mind-door. Now, at this moment, the mind-door is covered up by the sense-doors, but at that stage of insight knowledge it is understood what the mind-door is. ****************************** ******************************* Acharn Sujin explains in ?A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Part V, Ch 2, The Stages of Insight: ?The rúpas which are sense-objects are experienced through the corresponding sense-doors and after each sense-door process the object is experienced through the mind-door. However, when there is no vipassanå ñåùa, insight knowledge, the mind-door process does not appear, it is as it were hidden by the sense objects experienced in the sense-door processes. *************************** ***************************** At the moments of vipassanå ñåùa, rúpas appear very clearly through the mind-door, and at that moment the mind-door hides as it were the sense-doors. Then the situation is opposite to the moments when there is no vipassanå ñåùa. ************************ > After looking at a few points made by Sarah, Robert E and rikpa21(sorry did > not get your name), I would like to say that what Sarah and Robert are trying > to do is describing emptiness which in the first place impossible to > describe. just for the record, i've never tried to describe emptiness and frankly have no idea what emptiness is. It's not a word/concept I've ever used here;-)) What I tend to talk about (too much for some) are realities , the 'anattaness' of realities and the development of understanding of these same realities. Thanks for your keen interest, Kenneth, Sarah 8153 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 9:50pm Subject: Purnomo Sorry for the broadcast, _/\_ If anyone is in contact with Purnomo , pls ask Purnomo to mail me offlist. Or if anyone knows Purnomo's present (snail)mail address, I'd appreciate if I can have that. I need to mail some books to Purnomo, have 2 (snail)mail addresses , but don't know which one ( or any one of them ) is the correct one. Thanx gayan 8154 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 9:50pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon & Ranil, > > Thanks Jon for ID'ing this sutta. Here's a link to a > translation: > > http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sam/sn3-17.htm > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > The com and subcom explain 'diligence' as diligence > > that motivates one to > > engage in the three bases of meritorious deeds > > [punna kiriya vatthu?] of > > dana, sila and bhavana, and describes diligence, > > though mundane, as chief > > among the supramundane states because it is the > > cause for their > > attainment. > > I think I remember that appamaada is (sometimes?) a > synonym for satipatthaana. If this is correct, > wouldn't appamaada also be chief among mundane states? Yes, I think that follows. Actually, I'm not very familiar with appamada as meaning 'diligence'. I am more familiar with its meaning of 'heedlessness' which is pretty much the negative formulation of 'mindfulness' (= your satipatthana above). Nyanatiloka in his 'Buddhist Dictionary' gives the meanings of 'zeal, non-laxity, earnestness and diligence', and notes that "In the commentaries, it is often explained as the presence (lit. non-absence) of mindfulness (satiyaa avippavaasa).' As to mundane vs. supramundane, I take the com. as saying that even though it is a (mere) mundane state, because of what it leads to it is reckoned as chief among the supramundane states. Difficult to know for sure with so little available from the Com. (and so much ignorance!). Jon 8155 From: rikpa21 Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 10:13pm Subject: Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah, > Much of what you wrote in your message seemed to have little relation to > anything I or anyone else has said and there were many suggestions or > inferences which were without basis in my view. Chalk my response up to a deeply ingrained tendency of not wishing to see various aspects of the Dharma mischaracterized or denigrated via either suggestion or implication. But on futher reflection, I can now see now the pointlessness of that exercise. Besides, what does this beginner on the path with no rank, status, credentials, or even formal learning, really have to say that hasn't been said a thousand times better already by those of infinitely greater knowledge and wisdom? 8156 From: Howard Date: Tue Sep 18, 2001 6:15pm Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi, Robert(, Mike, and all) - In a message dated 9/18/01 4:02:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > You have a number of positive states that have been > > > entered into in order to reach > > > it: Right View, Right Thinking, Right > > > Concentration, insights and jhanas. > > > The > > > essence of all of these positive states that are > > > entered into is that they are > > > increasingly refined forms of apprehensions or > > > awareness. > > > > Not sure what you mean by 'positive states'. The path > > factors and so on are mental factors, arising and > > subsiding instantaneously with moments of > > consciousness. Certainly no one to 'enter into' them, > > even conventionally speaking. Also not sure what you > > mean by 'essence', 'apprehensions' or 'awareness'. If > > by awareness you mean sati, this is also a cetasika > > and a path-factor, which arises and subsides > > instantaneously like the others. > > I see awareness as something that's always there. One is always aware of > something. I don't look at it as the consciousness that corresponds to each > mental act, but as a background awake quality that is always there. I can > understand how that is not in accord with the view that there is nothing in > human > existence other than the kandhas. It introduces the idea of there being > 'something' that's an experiencer. Only it's not personal, not an entity, > not > separate from the experience. It's more like a field, like space. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: We see this in pretty much the same way, except perhaps for terminological nuance. I see all the khandas, I see the vi~n~nana/namarupa vortex, as depending upon an underlying field of awareness. But that underlying field of awareness is not to be thought of as a substance or thing, but rather as a functional potential. I see vi~n~nana as the function of discerning objects within the overall field of awareness. For example, when "consciousness averts" to an object, there is a sense in which that object needs to already be "present" for discerning. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > I guess the question is, can you have something that experiences and still > have > anatta? > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think there is "something" which experiences. There is just the experiencing, itself. ---------------------------------------------------------- I think you can, but I understand that most of you who are taking the > abhidarmic reading of the Theravada scriptures would say that they are > irreconcileable, and that not only no one but nothing experiences the > experiences, > except the momentary consciousnesses that arise with the objects of > experience. > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I see no need for some "thing" which experiences. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > I would ask you, how do you the consciousnesses that correspond to the > perceptual > or conceptual act arise? Where do they arise from? I know the kandhas are > there > from past accumulations [?], but what makes these momentary consciousnesses > fire > off? ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is a valid question! I see the answer being that each realm of experience, is a shared dynamic flow of discernment which is the creation of the kamma of those "beings" associated with that realm, the function of discernment constantly carving out new objects of experience from the general field of awareness within that limited realm. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I understand that there is no one experiencing these experiences, they are > just > taking place, there is just experience and object of experience arising > together, > then there are the mental factors that take the experience and process it > in some > way, and that is another moment that arises and falls. And this keeps > going on. > But what is the quality of those experiences? There is the illusion of the > experiencer, but what is contained int he experience? Is it really not an > experience, but just a mental act. Does the momentary consciousness > 'experience' > the object, or do they just arise together mechanically? ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The momentary consciousness, if, indeed, it is actually a momentary phenomenon, *is* the experiencing of the object. The function of discerning and the discerned object cannot be separated. They not only co-occur, but are, in fact, two sides of the same coin. Vi~n~nana and namarupa are likened by the Buddha to two sheaves of reeds, standing up and lying against each other, providing mutual support, so that were either to fall, both would fall. -------------------------------------------------------------- > sense. > > > As I understand it, insight (vipassanaa) arises and > > subsides instantaneously and refines understanding > > (paññaa), which accumulates and is passed along from > > citta to citta. > > How does the understanding accumulate? That seems to contradict the > momentary > nature of every experience. Well, I guess the skandhas accumulate akusala, > and > that kusala can accumulate as well, eventually outweighing the accumulated > akusala. Is that correct? I would still like to know if anything is really > accumulated in this momentary arising and falling. What allows > accumulation to > take place, and what accumulates them? This would seem to me to be > implying some > sort of solidity which starts to border on entity if you have something > that has > duration and is able to accumulate qualities or understanding. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What is being passed on are properties, patterns, and functions, but nothing substantial. A physicist might say, I would think, that when one billiard ball hits a second, nothing has truly made contact - yet motion is transferred. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Hope you don't mind if I break this question down a > > little: > > > Nibbaana is just the cessation of dukkha, as I > > understand it. > > Okay. And dukkha is a result of aviddja, and the other qualities that are > eliminated by the eightfold path. yes? > > > > is > > > the refined awareness and insight and awareness that > > > has been so meticulously > > > developed to create the ladder to Nibbana also > > > eliminated, > > > > By 'awareness', do you mean sati? And by 'insights', > > vipassanaa? If so, I think you're referring to > > satipatthaana vipassanaa. > > Yes, I think in this case that's correct. > > If by 'the ladder to > > Nibbana' you mean the path, I think it's a very odd > > metaphor. The path is not a structure, but a > > collection of mental factors arising and subsiding > > simultaneously and instantaneously, as I understand > > it. > > except they accumulate understanding through vipassana? that's a little > contradictory, isn't it? it's the accumulation of insight that allows the > path to > develop, but at the same time it's just a collection of instantaneous > events? > > I don't mean to give you a hard time. I'm just trying really hard to see > how the > path develops through accumulation of insight and understanding, and then > the > whole thing, which is really momentary, all subsides leaving nothing at the > end of > the path but freedom from dukkha. > > > > or are they merely > > > surpassed in a state that contains the same essence > > > as this development but is > > > totally beyond them? > > > > What is there to be surpassed, and by whom? The path > > factors simply arise and then vanish completely. When > > they've finished their function, dukkha is permanantly > > eradicated. > > > > > It would make logical sense that the essence of the > > > path would be exemplified in > > > its most refined form in its final attainment, > > > Nibbana. > > > > Again, I think it's a mistake to think of the path as > > having an essence--just a very quick confluence of > > mental factors, with the supreme function of > > eradicating defilement, then vanishing completely. > > How is defilement eradicated by the accumulation of sati? What is the > relation > between these two? Why can't defilement just be 'purified' by some other > factor, > since understanding has no role in the final 'product'? I mean, there are > other > systems that get rid of attachment through meditation, purification, etc. > Buddhism is the only path that focusses so heavily on understanding and > insight. > But it seems like the understanding and insight gets you to the threshold > and then > turns out not to really have any purpose, since the final goal is merely > cessation > of dukkha, and not a state of understanding. The final product has no need > of > insight or anything else. They were just expedients to get rid of > suffering. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think that is a misreading of the Theravadin understanding. ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > To think that all is > > > eliminated and that there is merely negation of > > > negatives just doesn't make sense. > > > > Only if you think of there being something lasting > > that can be negated or eliminated or whatever. Like > > all other cetasikas, the path-factors arise, perform > > their function and fall away completely. > > > > > It is not because of Mahayana doctrines that it > > > doesn't make sense, > > > > Well, my take on this is that it is a difference > > between the Mayahana and Theravada. My knowledge of > > Mahayana doctrine is vague though, based on many years > > as a Zen student but little academic study (aside from > > having read a number of classics). So I may well be > > mistaken about this. > > I'm starting to think you're right about this. At least if you interpret > Theravadin doctrine to mean that there is merely cessation of dukkha and > all the > work with insight and sati is just an expedient, having no value in and of > itself. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Robert, for an alternative presentation of Theravada, I would encourage you to read The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism, by Peter Harvey, Curzon Press, 1995 (ISBN 0 7007 0338 1 for the paperback). It has become one of my "bibles"! It is excellent, IMHO!! ----------------------------------------------------------- > That is where I think we disagree. I may be out of step with Theravadin > doctrine > in that, or perhaps it can be interpreted both ways. I am not well versed > enough > [no pun intended] to know that at this point. And I admit that I'm too > busy and > lazy to catch up really quickly, but one of these days I'll be more > knowledgeable! > > > > but because > > > of the path outlined by the Buddha and all of his > > > statements about the > > > pleasantness and uplifted quality of each > > > progressive stage on the path. > > > > If you're referring to the stages of enlightenment, > > they are subjectively very pleasant and uplifting, no > > doubt (at least I imagine so--this is probably > > addressed more specifically in the abhidhamma). > > I'm glad you agree that the path can be enjoyable -- in a non-clinging way > of > course. I'm not sure if everyone would agree with this. > > > > Where is > > > that quality of refined joy and total discernment > > > that characterize the Buddha's > > > own statements and presumably his own state? > > > > The mental factors arising and subsiding with the > > moments of consciousness of a Buddha are very refined, > > no doubt--to say the least! I'm sure these are > > catalogued somewhere in the abhidhamma, too. > > That would be interesting. > > For sure > > they fall away completely in an instant. > > > > They > > > are contained in and are the > > > natural emanation of the state of Nibbana, of > > > Arahatship, of Buddhahood. > > > > You seem to be equivocating nibbaana with Arahatship > > and Buddhahood. The second two are very similar > > (though not identical)--nibbaana is simply the > > permanent cessation of dukkha, as I understand it. > > So what makes for an Arahat or a Buddha, beyond Nibbana? > > > > So it > > > doesn't make sense to me that one cannot assert that > > > there is a positive state, > > > experience, or awareness in Nibbana. > > > > The question is, why would one assert such a thing, > > with no record of the Buddha's every having taught it? > > At least if there is any such assertion in the > > tipitaka, I've never run across it. If you're aware > > of such a teaching in the tipitaka, I'd like to hear > > about it. Otherwise, to interpolate this into the > > Buddhadhamma is a very big mistake, I think. > > > > > The Buddha is > > > not 'dead'. He has not been > > > annihilated by attaining Nibbana and Buddhahood. > > > > In which of the aggregates is, or was, there someone > > to be annihilated (or not)? > > > > > In > > > fact he is completely free > > > and 'awake'. > > > > Certainly the Buddha was one who 'awoke' (achieved the > > cessation of dukkha), conventionally speaking. If 'he > > is completely free and 'awake'', in what aggregate or > > element is 'he' to be found? In fact, I think that to > > say that the Buddha 'is completely free and 'awake'' > > is nothing less than bizarre, from the Theravada > > perspective as I understand it (no offense!) > > No offense taken. But I think we look at Buddhi differently. The term > Buddha > means 'one who is awake or has awakened'. I don't take that to mean that > he's > merely awakened from dukkha. In any case, in Zen it has a much more > positive > interpretation. > > Two travellers were walking down the road when they sensed an amazing > presence > coming towards them. They were anxious to see who this person could be. > They had > never experienced anything like this before. As they came into the > presence of > the man, he seemed to give off an immense radiant energy. They questioned > him and > asked: "Why do you have this amazing aspect. Who are you?" The Buddha, > for it > was he, answered simply: "I am awake". > > > > Buddha means 'one who is awake'. Can > > > one be 'awake' without > > > sentience/consciousness/awareness? This also > > > doesn't make sense. If you want to > > > say that the Buddha is 'awake' but has none of those > > > other attributes or > > > qualities, you would have to at least say, based on > > > his most popular title alone, > > > that he at least partakes of 'awakeness'. Awakeness > > > and awareness are synonyms. > > > > The Buddha 'awoke' (speaking conventionally) when he > > achieved cessation of dukkha. After that, he could be > > called 'awake' up until parinibbaana. At that point, > > the conditions for the arising of any further naamas > > (cittas or cetasikas, consciousnesses and mental > > factors) were completely exhausted, as I understand > > it. The rupas which composed his physical form will > > continue to arise and subside as long as the > > conditions exist for their continued existence. > > I understand this explanation, and it is certainly sensible. > > > Thanks for challenging my own perspectives, Robert. > > Always good to hear from you. > > > > mike > > Same here. As always, it's a pleasure to talk to you as well. > > Best, > Robert E. > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8157 From: Jinavamsa Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 1:44am Subject: peace > Dear Dan > Dear group > > I understand that for an American citizen the > emotional contents of this terroristic episode are > particularly shocking and intense; certainly much more > that for somebody who is not 'directly' involved even > being sympathetic. > Nevertheless this is not a justification to > misinterpret what I commented, whether you agree or > disagree with it. > I wish to clarify and be listened without prejudice > but I suppose is not feasible, too early, too 'raw the > wounds' as Howard expressed. > I never intended any 'personal' insinuation that > anybody in this tragedy 'deserved' such pain. > Neither I attempted to penetrate the misteries of > kamma making assertions I could not be clear-sighted > about. > I only expressed my point of view observing the > situation and whether you like or dislike it I am not > going to 'lie' to recover 'popularity'. > > Response in the context: > --- Dan Dalthorp wrote: > > > America' when this tragedy is a result of > > American > > > > imperialism all over the world > > > > No. It is the result of an intense hatred and > > ignorance. I can't > > imagine the cetasikas arising and passing away in > > the planning and > > execution of the attacks. > > Dan this hatred and ignorance were in the deeds of > american politics all the same not only in the mind of > who planned and executed this attack. > What doesn't means I have no compassion for the people > involved. > However it seems that anything regarding America > becomes a 'media sensation' and the millions who > suffer tragedies all over the world which don't get > all that publicity yet endure devastating suffering > all the same are neglected. > This certainly doesn't diminish the sorrow and grief > of Americans but is a fact to consider in my opinion. > And I have the right to express freely my opinion even > if is not 'politically correct' for you. > Too easy blame others, too hard and painful consider > the political mistakes (equally fruit of hatred, > greedy and ignorance) that conduce to such clamorous > extremes. > > > > And my friends who work in Manhattan really didn't > > "deserve" to be > > attacked. Vipaka isn't necessarily proportional. > > Dan, who 'deserves' ever being hurt, suffering > injustice or whatever pain one may have to face? > But there are seeds of violence who bears fruits of > violence and I believe that this tragedy is one of the > consequences of all this 'ignorance and hatred' in > international politics. > I was not exactly considering the results of kamma of > your friends and I know very well that vipaka is not > necessarily proportional. > But a nation as an individual has kammic > responsabilities in my view. > And if a nation commit violence cannot expect > indulgence from another nation particularly if > actually we are speaking of fundamentalists, radical > and exalted. > I don't 'hate' americans but as I told Robert E. I > have no sympathy for American internationl policy of > continuous interference like in Vietnam who leads to > much more suffering. > I am sorry if this add more burden to your pain but > many of us from the Third World, in South America, in > Africa, in Asia had to suffer a lot as a result of > American interference. > This is a real fact and I am not going to deny > reality. > As I am not insensible or denying your or other people > sufferings in this tragedy. > I am not expecting you to accept my view but I thought > would be fair to clarify my position. > I know this is not going to bring me popularity but I > am not a hypocritical. > > Metta > Cybele > 8158 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 5:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Azita, Welcome--what a great first post. I'm a great admirer of Ajahn Chah AND I think you've hit the nail on the head. mike --- azita gill wrote: > hello dsg, this is my first comment to dsg. in > reply > to K.Ong about Achan Chah whose statement "there is > one > essential point that all good practice must come to > - > not clinging" my understanding of 'not clinging' > is a moment in time which arises and falls away so > quickly that 'we' hardly notice unless sati arises > [and also falls away] to know the difference between > clinging and not clinging. If sati and panya are not > developed to a degree to know this difference, then > who knows? My understanding of 'no self' is that > in > reality, no self can be found in the rapid arising > and > falling away of, say, generosity, anger, attachment, > wisdom, compassion, conceit, and the rupas or matter > which we take for "me" or "mine" e.g. my hair,my > car, > my friends. > I am greatly appreciating the amount of dhamma > that > is available via this dsg. may all beings be happy, > > Azita 8159 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 6:07am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] peace I have in the present context just created a new group. This is not > meant in any way to replace any spiritual groups. Its focus is > rather precise and specific... > > Please visit its homepage, where its statement of focus is > presented; its name itself also points to its interest. > > The group is CreativeSolutionsForPeace and is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreativeSolutionsForPeace > > in peace (may it be), > Jinavamsa > ========= > 8160 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 6:23am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] nibbana 3 --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 9/17/01 9:48:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > > Hi, Robert (and Robert K) - > > > > > > In a message dated 9/17/01 6:48:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > > Robert E writes: > > > > > > > > > > > S. XXII. 94 > > > > > A corporeal phenomenon, a feeling, a perception, a mental > > > > > formation, a consciousness, which is permanent and persistent, > > > > > eternal and not subject to change, such a thing the wise men in > > > > > this world do not recognize; and I also say that there is no > > > > > such thing.{endquote] > > > > > robert > > > > > > > > Thanks, that certainly seems to make the position clear. It is quite > > > > different > > > > from the Mahayana canon in this way. I would like to hear from those > > who > > > > say that > > > > the two canons do not contradict each other. They do seem to. > > > > > > > > > > > ======================= > > > In this quoted material, the items referred to are instances of > > the > > > five khandas; they are conditioned phenomena, and all conditioned > > phenomena > > > are anicca. But nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma, and it is not > > > impermanent. It is a timeless, ultimate emptiness, perfect in every way, > > and > > > certainly not a dead state of dark unconsciousness. Nibbana is the > > cessation > > > of greed, hatred, and ignorance, shining with the brightness of wisdom, > > and > > > not a dark annihilation! > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > > > I agree with you, Howard. My question is: how can we analyze this sutra > > so as to > > make clear that saying the annihilation of the kandhic consciousness leaves > > room > > for that shining awareness which the Buddha, at least here, fails to > > mention. > > > > What do you think? Is it implied here, or is it mentioned more positively > > in > > another sutra, as it is in the Mahayana doctrines? > > > > For the sake of communication, I would like to try to resolve this using > > some > > evidence from the Pali canon. > > > > But my view is the same as yours on this. I do not believe in absolute > > annihilation. To me, it contradicts all the elements of the path as I > > understand > > them. > > > > Robert E. > > > ============================== > The difficulty in finding what you want and what I would also love to > see in the Pali canon (which, BTW, I take to be pretty much the word of the > Buddha, whereas I take the Mahayana Sutras for the most part *not* to be the > original Buddha word) is that the Buddha was apparently quite reticent in > giving much in the way of details with regard to nibbana. I expect that is so > largely for two reasons: (1) Every description will be wrong, because nibbana > is beyond all our concepts and worldly experience, and (2) Any *remotely* > adequate description carries the real danger, the *likelihood*, of being > misinterpreted, of playing right into our defilements, and of fostering > reification and clinging, instead of helping us along the path. I think your reasons are correct. That is also my sense. He gives clear indications in statements that talk about the 'luminous consciousness all around' and that 'darkness does not reign'. Even though one has to look for them, they are there, and I find it hard to really find an interpretation of such statements that does not indicate some sort of presence in Nibbana. For me the clues are good enough to indicate that a consciousness that is not dependent on the rising and falling of conditions is present in Nibbana. But I understand that others will interpret these passages differently. Best, Robert E. 8161 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 6:31am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik Hi Erik, --- rikpa21 wrote: > Chalk my response up to a deeply ingrained tendency of not wishing to > see various aspects of the Dharma mischaracterized or denigrated via > either suggestion or implication. Yes, I agree. I think this is the problem. So what if the dhamma or dharma, our teacher(s) and tradition(s) really are being 'mischaracterized or denigrated'. What is the real problema at that time? Is it the wrong view (as we perceive it) of the one who is criticizing, is it the teachers or traditions for not making the points clearer? Is it the forum where we read/hear these comments? I'd like to suggest the problem (as always) comes back to our attachment to the above and our aversion when we hear or read any criticism. In other words, it always comes back to this very citta now, however much we would like to blame the other. Of course, it's very natural not to wish to hear, even by any implication, any criticism of what we hold dear. Doesn't our old friend, mana (pride), again rear its ugly head again at these times? When I was in Bkk last wek, Khun Sujin was emphasising that we can't be the 'world manager' and need to learn to 'mind our own business'. What she meant by this was that instead of being concerned about the others' wrong views and unskilful deeds and actions, we should develop more understanding at this very moment of our 'own' mental and physical phenomena. We should help others as we can and as we have opportunity to do so, but not with expectation and clinging. >But on futher reflection, I can now > see now the pointlessness of that exercise. there is never a point to clinging. >Besides, what does this > beginner on the path with no rank, status, credentials, or even > formal learning, really have to say that hasn't been said a thousand > times better already by those of infinitely greater knowledge and > wisdom? Erik, you have many useful things to say and in my book, you're a very valued member here on dsg and I miss you when you're not around. I'll get back to your good questions on 'seeing' soon as I mentioned. In the meantime you may like to contribute the good story you wrote me off-list about what we take for being good and bad result, when in fact we never really know. You mentioned that it seemed like pretty bad news to have to leave Manhatten for what your friends in NY considered unsafe Thailand and Cambodia and told me the story (which I'd studied in my Chinese class) about the man who lost his horse..... Sarah 8162 From: Jinavamsa Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 7:03am Subject: peace Dear Jina, > > Good to see you around and I hope you also find time to follow some of the > messages here, too. We'd love to hear from you on any of the dhamma points from > time to time, but I know you're very busy with your website and list. > > Thanks for telling us about your new group below - an excellent idea and best > wishes for it. > > Sarah > > p.s. nice photo btw! very youthful-looking! > > --- 045176234237017031072232175248243208071048 wrote: > > I have in the present context just created a new group. This is not > > meant in any way to replace any spiritual groups. Its focus is > > rather precise and specific... > > > > Please visit its homepage, where its statement of focus is > > presented; its name itself also points to its interest. > > > > The group is CreativeSolutionsForPeace and is at: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreativeSolutionsForPeace > > > > in peace (may it be), > > Jinavamsa > > ========= > > 8163 From: rikpa21 Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 8:02am Subject: Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Erik, > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > > Chalk my response up to a deeply ingrained tendency of not wishing to > > see various aspects of the Dharma mischaracterized or denigrated via > > either suggestion or implication. > > Yes, I agree. I think this is the problem. So what if the dhamma or dharma, our > teacher(s) and tradition(s) really are being 'mischaracterized or denigrated'. What is the real problema at that time? > I'd like to suggest the problem (as always) comes back to > our attachment to the above and our aversion when we hear or > read any criticism. The real problem at that time is not necessarily attachment in one responding to such mischaracterizations, as you suggest. The real motivation may, in fact, be something altogether different. You are free to believe such actions are motivated by anything you wish. There could in fact be a whole range of different reasons for doing that sort of thing, just as there could be a range of motivations behind someone denigrating the Dharma--as a means to to turn the Dharma wheel in a debate by drawing a refutation, for example, for the sole benefit of sentient beings. My teachers have reminded me that sometimes there are "plants" out there who put out subtly wrong views to generate a response that clarifies something another person who sees this point uncovered needed clarification on. As far as I know those making the mischaracterizations could well be playing this time-honored game with me, and I am happy to oblige! :) 8164 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 9:13am Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > The com and subcom explain 'diligence' as > diligence > > > that motivates one to > > > engage in the three bases of meritorious deeds > > > [punna kiriya vatthu?] of > > > dana, sila and bhavana, and describes diligence, > > > though mundane, as chief > > > among the supramundane states because it is the > > > cause for their > > > attainment. > > > > I think I remember that appamaada is (sometimes?) > a > > synonym for satipatthaana. If this is correct, > > wouldn't appamaada also be chief among mundane > states? > > Yes, I think that follows. Actually, I'm not very > familiar with appamada > as meaning 'diligence'. I am more familiar with its > meaning of > 'heedlessness' which is pretty much the negative > formulation of > 'mindfulness' (= your satipatthana above). I assume you meant 'heedfulness' here, rather than 'heedlessness'? Ven. Buddhadatta has, for appamaada: vigilance; earnestness. and for pamaada: negligence; indolence; remissness; carelessness. > Nyanatiloka in his 'Buddhist Dictionary' gives the > meanings of 'zeal, > non-laxity, earnestness and diligence', and notes > that "In the > commentaries, it is often explained as the presence > (lit. non-absence) of > mindfulness (satiyaa avippavaasa).' Glad for this confirmation. > As to mundane vs. supramundane, I take the com. as > saying that even though > it is a (mere) mundane state, because of what it > leads to it is reckoned > as chief among the supramundane states. Somehow not surprising that it bridges the gap (because being both a mundane and supramundane factor). > Difficult to know for sure with so little available > from the Com. (and so > much ignorance!). Yes, some speculation here. mike 8165 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 11:01am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- Sarah wrote: > > And thanks for your hospitality when we bring up our odd views! > > We all start with 'odd views' and a list like this is just so we can mutually > share and test these very views. Thank you for being so active, appreciative > and pleasant to have around;-)) Dear Sarah, Thanks for your response and your kind words. I'll continue to wrestle with these issues. I do believe I'm learning something about the Theravadin perspective. Now, if you can possible summarize the distinction between the Theravadin path in general and how it is approached by the Abhidhamma, I would appreciate it. Or perhaps you can direct me to an appropriate place in the archives. Thanks for the good exchange! Regards, Robert E. 8166 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 11:06am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: nibbana --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Robert E. > I'm really pushed for time. But i had to add that I am consistently > impressed with your genuine desire to lay your views out in the open - > amd even perhaps let some of them go. We have to do this. We have > to examine so carefully what we believe. Someone may have the view > that all paths are the same and this might sound like a open and > spacious idea. But it can be clung to like life itself. Another might > have the view that "I don't say either this or that is right" "nor do > I say this or that is wrong" and still cling to this view like the > devil. The depth that self view - that view that is the root of all > others- goes is so deep, that is why we need a Buddha to show its > craftiness, the different types and the ways it is attached to. One > teacher in thailand (now 96years old) told me that we are like > pickles in a pickle jar, saturated with the vinegar of self view. > How to give this up?!! It takes much time as I know you know. > Wrong view always comes with attachment and pleasant or neutral > feeling. Its function is to delude and if it is present it MAKES one > believe that what they believe is true. I guess you've spoken with > cult members from time to time and noticed how happy many of the are - > and yet how attached and sure of quite strange ideas. This is what > Miccha-ditthi does. Sometimes it might be attractive or appear > reasonable, and then it is not so obvious - but if it is tainted with > self it is wrong. > Dropping wrong view comes at different levels but if it is not seen > at the grossest level - that of thinking - then why wonder about > higher levels. > This doesn't mean cling to right view though . Or try and brainwash > ourselves to belive in anatta. That just obscures the truth too. (as > your post makes clear) > Such a hard path, so profound. > I appreciate your reflections below. > robert Dear Robert, Thanks. I appreciate your sincere comments. Best, Robert E. ================= 8167 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 11:09am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Robert E. > Just to butt in here. I mentioned in a post to you about the 24 > paccaya(conditions) explained in the Patthana , the last book of the > abhidhamma. Some of these are past, some are present. They condition > and they are conditioned. Very intricate! But not all of them are > past ones (which your letter indicates you might be assuming.) > robert Thanks, Robert. Just wondering if one of the conditions that condition is the volitional attempt to observe the real components of the passing reality. Robert E. 8168 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 0:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on lokuttara, sense-door, mind-door Dear Sarah, Just want to tell you that, doctrinal disputes and questions aside, I find the specific discussions of mind-door/sense-door and the components of the moments as they arise [and are seemingly prolonged by mind-door processes] to be quite fascinating and hopeful. Whatever one thinks is there at the end of the process, clear seeing has to be the method of operation for getting rid of delusion. To have a breakdown of how one can see what is truly at play when dharmas are constituted for the mind is quite a great tool. Very interesting. I'm one of those people who like this kind of breakdown into specific mechanics. Anyway, I read the whole thing and even understood a surprisingly large percentage of it, something I would not have been able to say a month ago. Best, Robert E. =========================== --- Sarah wrote: > This is a long and picky ‘abhidhamma’ post for those who prefer to ignore the > like;-)) > > Dear Nina, > > Sometimes I also find this topic of doorways can be confusing.....let me add > one or two comments according to my understanding and from chatting to KS in > between your recent notes here and Cambodia conversation...pls feel very free > to correct me . > > Nina:> > Another question: concerning my translation of Camb talks. In > Cambodia, > > > A. > > > Sujin explains about the mind-door that is hidden by the sense-doors in > > > our > > > daily life. I understand. When there is no vipassana ~aa.na, the > > > mind-door > > > does not appear, although there is a mind-door process after each > > > sense-door > > > process. > > Could we say ‘before there is the first stage of vipas. ~nana....’? > KS kept stressing this moment. Now there is seeing and we’re so attached to > what is seen that it seems that the seeing lasts. In this sense the sense door > (of the eye) covers up the mind-door. > > >>But also, A Sujin says, while thinking about names and > > > concepts, > > > the mind-door is hidden by the sense-doors, and we do not realize at > > > such > > > moments realities that arise and fall away. > > Yes, no awareness and so there is no understanding of the difference between > seeing and thinking or other realities. > > >>My feeling is: we think of > > > concepts on account of the sense objects, and in between our thinking > > > there > > > are sense impressions time and again, the mind-door process does not > > > appear. > > > Is this the reason that even while thinking of concepts the mind-door > > > process is hidden by the sense-door processes? > > Yes, this sounds exactly right to me. We’re lost in the world of concepts about > visible objects, sounds etc and there is no understanding of the mind-door > realities. > > > Jon:> My only recollection of the translation of the Cambodia talks is of a > > passage dealing with 'thinking hiding the sense-doors'. Have I got this > > wrong? Perhaps you could refer us again to the part about mind-door being > > hidden by sense-doors. Thanks. > > Yes she talked about this quite a bit. The emphasis was very much on how right > now, because of the thinking about so many concepts without awareness, there is > no understanding of the many moments of seeing and hearing and other sense door > activities, no understanding of different namas and rupas. The sense doors are > covered up in this sense by the conepts > > In summary, I think that because there is no awareness most the time, it seems > that sense door activities last and the mind door activities are hidden (sense > door covering mind door) and/or we’re lost in the world of concepts which are > taken to be realities (mind door covering sense door). At 1st vipas ~nana, no > more wrong view or taking concepts for realities and clear distinction between > namas and rupas, seeing and thinking etc. > > Now I’ll extract one or two points from yr Cambodia translations. to read the > full context, anyone should read the full conversation which can be found in > full under ‘Cambodia talks’ at; > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > Message 7684 > ************************************************* > Dhamma Discussion in the Sam Paothong Temple > > Sujin: At this moment realities are appearing, such as seeing > arising in the eye-door process. However, people do not know the > true nature of what appears, they take what they see for people > and things. Therefore, the thinking on account of what was seen, > thus, the thinking of people and things, hides the truth. > ***************************** > > *************************************** > ................. At this moment heat, cold, softness or > hardness appear through the bodysense. However, one does not > know that when each of these sense-door processes has fallen > away, a mind-door process has to succeed that sense-door process > immediately, after there have been bhavanga-cittas in between 1 > . Thus, at this moment it seems that there is seeing and then > immediately hearing, and one does not know when the mind-door > process arises. There are different sense-door processes arising > and falling away one after the other, and this can be known > because there is a mind-door process in between. > ****************************************** > these realities by knowing them and distinguishing them from thinking etc. If > there were only sense door processes, this wouldn’t be possible> > ****************************************** > However, that > does not mean that one realizes the characteristic of the > mind-door process. One may merely know that when a sense-door > process does not arise and there are only cittas which are > thinking, that there must be cittas arising in a mind-door > process. > ****************************************** > processs’. Could we instead say ‘characteristics of realities (or just > realities) in the mind door process’ which would make more sense to me.> > > ********************************************** > > If satipatthåna does not arise, the nåma and rúpa of just a > moment ago have fallen away, but people did not derive any > benefit from them since they did not realize the true nature of > those dhammas. If satipatthåna does arise, it is not aware of > anything else but the characteristic of the reality that is > appearing at this moment through whatever doorway. > > whatever doorway), there is no concern at all about doorway. In other words, > when sati is aware of seeing it doesn’t mind or care at all whether the reality > is appearing at hat moment through eye door or mind door and it doesn’t care > whether it is at that v.instant arising and falling away or a split-instant ago > through the previous sense process. In other words just the characteristic of > seeing is object regardless of doorway..> > > *********************************** > > When > satipatthåna arising with mahå-kusala citta 2 in a mind-door > process knows a characteristic of a reality appearing through > one of the six doorways, it does not arise in the same process > as that reality. When satipaììhåna arising in a mind-door > process investigates a characteristic of rúpa, it realizes rúpa > that appears through one of the sensedoors. If satipatthåna is > aware of a nåma dhamma, it knows a nåma that arose and fell > away. That nåma arose and fell away, but that characteristic > still appears, so that it can be studied and correctly > understood as a characteristic of nåma dhamma, different from > rúpa dhamma. The arising and falling away of realities is > extremely rapid. > > ************************************* > > point that Howard (and others) finds difficult. As I just said, KS stresses > that at a moment of awareness there is no concern arout doorways or processes. > The characteristic of the nama, say seeing or hearing, is known more and more > precisely until even the arising and falling of that reality can be known when > it appears. Thinking about which doorway or process is just thinking about > concepts, but it helps to study the details to understand more about the > anattaness of these realities. No reality lasts at all, not even awareness!> > **************************************** > Is there anybody who can, while there is seeing, discern the > eye-door process that has fallen away, the bhavanga-cittas that > arise in between sense-door process and mind-door process, and > the mind-door process cittas that experience what appeared > through the eye-door? Is there anybody who can distinguish > between the sense-door process and the mind-door process? When > softness or hardness is appearing, and sati is aware of the > characteristic that appears, can anybody tell through which > doorway that characteristic appears? > > ******************* > wisdom of the Buddha who could understand all the intricate details in the > abhidhamma.> > > *********************** > The paññå that can > distinguish the difference between the mind-door and the > sense-door must be insight-knowledge, vipassanå ñåna 3. > > ************************** > over and over again and of nama through mind-door....many, many moments of > awareness> > > ***************************** > > If one asks a person who studies the Dhamma in which kinds of > processes mahå-kusala citta can arise, the answer is in the > sense-door processes and in the mind-door process. It can be > known when mahå-kusala citta accompanied by paññå arises in a > sense-door process, because at that moment paññå knows a > characteristic of rúpa. When satipaììhåna arises in a mind-door > process it can arise alternately in a sense-door process 4 . > Paññå that accompanies kusala citta arising in a mind-door > process can gradually have more understanding of realities, and > it can also penetrate the true nature of rúpa. > > ************************** > > > > ******************************* > Footnotes > > 3. There are several stages of insight knowledge, vipassanå > ñåùa. The first stage is distinguishing the difference between > nåma and rúpa and this arises in a mind-door process. Rúpa can > be known through a sense-door and through the mind-door, and > nåma can only be known through the mind-door. Thus, the > difference between nåma and rúpa is known through the mind-door. > Now, at this moment, the mind-door is covered up by the > sense-doors, but at that stage of insight knowledge it is > understood what the mind-door is. > ****************************** > > the sense-door process and vice versa. At the stage of insight knowledge rupa > appears as rupa and nama as nama, distinct from each other and the sense door > and mind-door (processes?) are clearly distinguished. (Should this be mind-door > or mind-door process?) Now I’m confused..I had u’stood it to be mind-door > process so that the difference between nama and rupa is clear..at higher > stages, the mind-door process can know directly the falling away of the one > before, I u’stand, by the highly developed panna which understands the > realities more and more precisely. (Of course this is also the reason that in > the arupa plane there cannot be this development of panna b/c ther is no rupa > and so the difference between nama and rupa can’t be understood as Rob wrote > about recently I think)> > > ******************************* > Acharn Sujin explains in ?A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Part > V, Ch 2, The Stages of Insight: ?The rúpas which are > sense-objects are experienced through the corresponding > sense-doors and after each sense-door process the object is > experienced through the mind-door. However, when there is no > vipassanå ñåùa, insight knowledge, the mind-door process does > not appear, it is as it were hidden by the sense objects > experienced in the sense-door processes. > > *************************** > > > ***************************** > > At the moments of > vipassanå ñåùa, rúpas appear very clearly through the mind-door, > and at that moment the mind-door hides as it were the > sense-doors. Then the situation is opposite to the moments when > there is no vipassanå ñåùa. > > ************************ > > now mind-door hides sense-door such as when we’re lost in concepts...I > understand that when rupas are appearing clearly thr’ mind-door that there is > no sense door process at that very time but this seems to be another meaning of > ‘hide’. Are mind-door and mind-door process being used interchangeably? > > *********************** > > Nina, I think I’ve confused rather than clarified this topic..... In any case, > the very clear message I always hear from KS is to develop understanding of > seeing, visible object etc rather than be too concerned about doorways and > processes. Do you have any relevant Tipitaka or com. refs by the way? > > I’m hoping to get back on one or two other topics, before you leave for India, > but we'll see.... > > Best regards, > Sarah > > 8169 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 2:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik Hi Erik, I don't think anyone here is playing any game or trying to put out any 'subtly wrong views'. As I said before, we're discussing the Pali Tipitaka here as best we can acording to our limited understanding and with all the kilesa we've mentioned many times so very prevalent. As both Dan and Mike wrote so well in their responses to the events in US last week, there are so many moments of attachment (for most of us, anyway) as soon as we see or hear and form a 'story'. Even when we see and hear dhamma, isn't it the same? We like some 'words' and dislike others. Don't we have different motivations all the time? One moment there is metta (if we're lucky), the next there is impatience or restlessnes or attachment. So many, many different states arising and so many opportunities for satipatthana even now while we discuss. Very best wishes for your dhamma studies, Erik and my apologies if I took the title above too literally;-)) or unintentionally caused (or conditioned) any offense. Sarah > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > The real problem at that time is not necessarily attachment in one > responding to such mischaracterizations, as you suggest. The real > motivation may, in fact, be something altogether different. You are > free to believe such actions are motivated by anything you wish. > There could in fact be a whole range of different reasons for doing > that sort of thing, just as there could be a range of motivations > behind someone denigrating the Dharma--as a means to to turn the > Dharma wheel in a debate by drawing a refutation, for example, for > the sole benefit of sentient beings. My teachers have reminded me > that sometimes there are "plants" out there who put out subtly wrong > views to generate a response that clarifies something another person > who sees this point uncovered needed clarification on. As far as I > know those making the mischaracterizations could well be playing this > time-honored game with me, and I am happy to oblige! :) > 8170 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 3:36pm Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for your response and your kind words. I'll continue to wrestle with these > issues. I do believe I'm learning something about the Theravadin perspective. > Now, if you can possible summarize the distinction between the Theravadin path in > general and how it is approached by the Abhidhamma, I would appreciate it. Or > perhaps you can direct me to an appropriate place in the archives. > > Thanks for the good exchange! > > Regards, > Robert E. _______ Dear Robert e. I don't know what sarah will say but here is something from the Venerable Sitagu Sayadaw of Burma: >>'Abbhidhamma' means dhamma which is exceedingly subtle, deep, difficult to comprehend, and vast in scope. That exceedingly subtle, deep, difficult, excellent and wide Abhidhamma, which is real and correct because it speaks of the selflessness of beings and the natural essential condition of things, .... 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. For example, one method of Vipassana accomplishes this goal through ten kinds of knowledge whereby one comes to understand the nature of matter as producing effects in mutual dependence on matter; and similarly, the nature of mind as producing effects in mutual dependence on mind. Another method which achieves the same end; 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."ENDQUOTE robert 8171 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 4:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Rob E, I told myself I wouldn’t post anything here today because I’m so behind on office and other work, but then I see your posts here for which I’m truly appreciative and so conditions and intentions change! --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for your response and your kind words. I'll continue to wrestle with > these > issues. I do believe I'm learning something about the Theravadin > perspective. > Now, if you can possible summarize the distinction between the Theravadin > path in > general and how it is approached by the Abhidhamma, I would appreciate it. > Or > perhaps you can direct me to an appropriate place in the archives. To my mind the abhidhamma is the heart of the Theravadin path. the details found in the abhidhamma are essential for understanding what is taught in the Tipitaka as a whole. There is no distinction at all in terms of path or practice for me. This doesn’t mean at all that we have to memorise all the details or even study them all. However, without an appreciation of different mental and physical phenomena in some detail there is bound to be an idea of self and something lasting. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Just want to tell you that, doctrinal disputes and questions aside, I find > the > specific discussions of mind-door/sense-door and the components of the > moments as > they arise [and are seemingly prolonged by mind-door processes] to be quite > fascinating and hopeful. > > Whatever one thinks is there at the end of the process, clear seeing has to > be the > method of operation for getting rid of delusion. To have a breakdown of how > one > can see what is truly at play when dharmas are constituted for the mind is > quite a > great tool. Very interesting. I'm one of those people who like this kind of > breakdown into specific mechanics. > May I say, Rob, that this response and encouragement is exactly the reason why I post a message like this here (and indeed why dsg is run at all) rather than in private or just to 2 or 3 friends who I thought might be interested. The study of the dhamma and abhidhamma is not easy at all, but we can see in these details how what we take for a lasting consciousness are really different moments of seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. There is so very little awareness even now when we discuss these realities and so much delusion, as you say, most of the time. If we don’t begin to know these different namas and rupas and how intricate they are, we may so easily delude ourselves that we have attained high levels of wisdom without even beginning to know anything about these characteristics appearing now. When we begin to study these realities through 6 doorways (in theory and with direct panna), only then do we (or rather panna) begin to understand what is meant by anatta. > Anyway, I read the whole thing and even understood a surprisingly large > percentage > of it, something I would not have been able to say a month ago. Rob E, my sincere appreciation for your careful consideration and interest. (You're obviously a much faster learner than me;-)) Abhidhamma is simply seeing now, visible object now, touching now, hardness now, thinking now and so on....no special labels and nothing mystical about it. Just those realities which can be tested and directly proved. Anumodana and bows, Sarah p.s I've just seen the extract from the excellent article Rob's posted. The full article is on his website and well-worth reading imho: http://www.abhidhamma.org/ I’m also greatly enjoying your dialogue with Mike, btw. Hope you both keep it up! 8172 From: rikpa21 Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 7:12pm Subject: Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Erik, > > I don't think anyone here is playing any game or trying to put out any 'subtly > wrong views'. I just restated a point some of my teachers have mentioned. This sort of thing is a great way to turn the wheel of Dharma, to expose issues that may otherwise remain hidden. The Dharma is hard. Understanding demands courage and ruthless honesty. Speaking only for myself, I have found I've made the greatest progress when I have had most deeply-held assumptions and beliefs thoroughly put to the test and challenged--the more directly, the better. That is why I enjoy engaging those with a different perspective, and why I prefer directness. I hope those who have had their understanding tested in return benefit in the same way. And anyway, for the record, I much prefer playing games to seriousness. It is possible to have serious fun, you know! :) > Very best wishes for your dhamma studies, Erik and my apologies if I took the > title above too literally;-)) or unintentionally caused (or conditioned) any > offense. As I mentioned, I don't any take personal offense at directness. Believe me, if your characterizations are accurate I am grateful to have any areas I need to examine pointed out. If they aren't accurate, then how could I possibly take offense at anything I know isn't true? 8173 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 7:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik Hi Erik again, --- rikpa21 wrote: > Speaking only for myself, I have found I've made the greatest > progress when I have had most deeply-held assumptions and beliefs > thoroughly put to the test and challenged--the more directly, the > better. That is why I enjoy engaging those with a different > perspective, and why I prefer directness. I hope those who have had > their understanding tested in return benefit in the same way. Thanks for these comments and I'm sure we all have our ideas and understandings well challenged here;-)) > > And anyway, for the record, I much prefer playing games to > seriousness. It is possible to have serious fun, you know! :) I do realise, especially having met you, that you are having a lot of serious fun most the time;) I also realise your bark is worse than your bite;-) > > As I mentioned, I don't any take personal offense at directness. > Believe me, if your characterizations are accurate I am grateful to > have any areas I need to examine pointed out. If they aren't > accurate, then how could I possibly take offense at anything I know > isn't true? This is an admirable response and I appreciate your sincerity in these remarks. Speak soon, Sarah 8174 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 8:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for your response and your kind words. I'll continue to > wrestle with these > > issues. I do believe I'm learning something about the Theravadin > perspective. > > Now, if you can possible summarize the distinction between the > Theravadin path in > > general and how it is approached by the Abhidhamma, I would > appreciate it. Or > > perhaps you can direct me to an appropriate place in the archives. > > > > Thanks for the good exchange! > > > > Regards, > > Robert E. > _______ > Dear Robert e. > I don't know what sarah will say but here is something from the > Venerable Sitagu Sayadaw of Burma: > >>'Abbhidhamma' means dhamma which is exceedingly subtle, deep, > difficult to comprehend, and vast in scope. That exceedingly subtle, > deep, difficult, excellent and wide Abhidhamma, which is real and > correct because it speaks of the selflessness of beings and the > natural essential condition of things, .... > 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. For > example, one method of Vipassana accomplishes this goal through ten > kinds of knowledge whereby one comes to understand the nature of > matter as producing effects in mutual dependence on matter; and > similarly, the nature of mind as producing effects in mutual > dependence on mind. Another method which achieves the same end; 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."ENDQUOTE > robert Dear Robert, Thanks for this quote. The connection cited between abhidhamma and vipassana meditation is very interesting. Is vipassana meditation originally derived from Abhidhamma? I will do a search for something on the historical place of Abhidhamma in the Theravadin tradition in general. I assume it is one of several schools that have been traditionally engaged in the study of the Pali Canon and its content. Best, Robert E. 8175 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 8:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Thanks, Sarah, for your message. Yes, the mechanics of which factor is at play at any given moment is both interesting in its own right, and gives a strong indication for the approach to Vipassana meditation. I don't know if this is redundant for this group, but I am interested in how one applies this methodology to the four foundations of mindfulness. It seems that most of the discussion of Adhidhamma focusses on the relationship between the sense doors and the mind doors and how they interact, as well as the accumulation of panna. I wonder how the breakdown into body/sensations, feelings/emotions, mind and objects of mind [do I have that right?] is incorporated into the analysis. Or is that more or less incidental to the actual seeing of the specific reality of the moment? Thanks, Robert E. ========================= --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob E, > > I told myself I wouldn’t post anything here today because I’m so behind on > office and other work, but then I see your posts here for which I’m truly > appreciative and so conditions and intentions change! > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for your response and your kind words. I'll continue to wrestle with > > these > > issues. I do believe I'm learning something about the Theravadin > > perspective. > > Now, if you can possible summarize the distinction between the Theravadin > > path in > > general and how it is approached by the Abhidhamma, I would appreciate it. > > Or > > perhaps you can direct me to an appropriate place in the archives. > > To my mind the abhidhamma is the heart of the Theravadin path. the details > found in the abhidhamma are essential for understanding what is taught in the > Tipitaka as a whole. There is no distinction at all in terms of path or > practice for me. This doesn’t mean at all that we have to memorise all the > details or even study them all. However, without an appreciation of different > mental and physical phenomena in some detail there is bound to be an idea of > self and something lasting. > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Just want to tell you that, doctrinal disputes and questions aside, I find > > the > > specific discussions of mind-door/sense-door and the components of the > > moments as > > they arise [and are seemingly prolonged by mind-door processes] to be quite > > fascinating and hopeful. > > > > Whatever one thinks is there at the end of the process, clear seeing has to > > be the > > method of operation for getting rid of delusion. To have a breakdown of how > > one > > can see what is truly at play when dharmas are constituted for the mind is > > quite a > > great tool. Very interesting. I'm one of those people who like this kind of > > breakdown into specific mechanics. > > > May I say, Rob, that this response and encouragement is exactly the reason why > I post a message like this here (and indeed why dsg is run at all) rather than > in private or just to 2 or 3 friends who I thought might be interested. > > The study of the dhamma and abhidhamma is not easy at all, but we can see in > these details how what we take for a lasting consciousness are really different > moments of seeing, hearing, thinking and so on. There is so very little > awareness even now when we discuss these realities and so much delusion, as you > say, most of the time. If we don’t begin to know these different namas and > rupas and how intricate they are, we may so easily delude ourselves that we > have attained high levels of wisdom without even beginning to know anything > about these characteristics appearing now. > > When we begin to study these realities through 6 doorways (in theory and with > direct panna), only then do we (or rather panna) begin to understand what is > meant by anatta. > > > Anyway, I read the whole thing and even understood a surprisingly large > > percentage > > of it, something I would not have been able to say a month ago. > > Rob E, my sincere appreciation for your careful consideration and interest. > (You're obviously a much faster learner than me;-)) > > Abhidhamma is simply seeing now, visible object now, touching now, hardness > now, thinking now and so on....no special labels and nothing mystical about it. > Just those realities which can be tested and directly proved. > > Anumodana and bows, > > Sarah > > p.s I've just seen the extract from the excellent article Rob's posted. The > full article is on his website and well-worth reading imho: > http://www.abhidhamma.org/ > > I’m also greatly enjoying your dialogue with Mike, btw. Hope you both keep it > up! > 8176 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 19, 2001 8:56pm Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Dear Robert, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I see awareness as something that's always there. > One is always aware of > something. I don't look at it as the consciousness > that corresponds to each > mental act, but as a background awake quality that > is always there. I can > understand how that is not in accord with the view > that there is nothing in human > existence other than the kandhas. It introduces the > idea of there being > 'something' that's an experiencer. Only it's not > personal, not an entity, not > separate from the experience. It's more like a > field, like space. Yes, I think I understand what you're saying. Is this something like 'original mind' in Zen? > I guess the question is, can you have something that > experiences and still have > anatta? I think you can, but I understand that most > of you who are taking the > abhidarmic reading of the Theravada scriptures would > say that they are > irreconcileable, and that not only no one but > nothing experiences the experiences, > except the momentary consciousnesses that arise with > the objects of experience. No, I don't think anyone would say that 'nothing experiences'; just that mental consciousness experiences mental objects, visual consciousness experiences visual objects and so on. > I would ask you, how do you the consciousnesses that > correspond to the perceptual > or conceptual act arise? Where do they arise from? > I know the kandhas are there > from past accumulations [?], but what makes these > momentary consciousnesses fire > off? Each moment of consciousness arises from a very(!) complex set of conditions. I think you could say that it's 'fired off' by contact. > I understand that there is no one experiencing these > experiences, they are just > taking place, there is just experience and object of > experience arising together, > then there are the mental factors that take the > experience and process it in some > way, and that is another moment that arises and > falls. And this keeps going on. I do realize that you understand this, pretty much as I do, I think. I wouldn't say that the mental factors process the experience--they sort of 'color' it, I think--they support it and imbue it with particular characteristics, as I understand it. > But what is the quality of those experiences? There > is the illusion of the > experiencer, but what is contained int he > experience? Is it really not an > experience, but just a mental act. Does the > momentary consciousness 'experience' > the object, or do they just arise together > mechanically? Hope this question makes > sense. Perfect sense--as I understand it, the citta does experience its object. > > As I understand it, insight (vipassanaa) arises > and > > subsides instantaneously and refines understanding > > (paññaa), which accumulates and is passed along > from > > citta to citta. > > How does the understanding accumulate? That seems > to contradict the momentary > nature of every experience. It does, doesn't it? The answer to that, though I still don't understand it well, is what began to make the abhidhamma make sense to me. As I understand it, each citta inherits all the conditions of the citta preceding it, mostly(?) in the form of latent tendencies. Do I know this to be true? No. For me it answers more questions while creating fewer new ones than any other 'theory', and accords with my reading of the tipitaka--so I accept it as a working hypothesis. How citta does this (if it does) is an absolute mystery to me. I have a lot of questions about this which I mean to continue to investigate. One notion that's occured to me lately is that citta, though so brief, must be incredibly vast, in a sense. I have no idea whether or not this is supported by abhidhamma. > Well, I guess the > skandhas accumulate akusala, and > that kusala can accumulate as well, eventually > outweighing the accumulated > akusala. Is that correct? Kusala and akusala both lead to the continuation of samsaara, I think. Kusala is 'preferable' to the extent that it leads to the understanding which eliminates defilements. And, of course, understanding leads to kusala. > I would still like to > know if anything is really > accumulated in this momentary arising and falling. > What allows accumulation to > take place, and what accumulates them? This would > seem to me to be implying some > sort of solidity which starts to border on entity if > you have something that has > duration and is able to accumulate qualities or > understanding. Yes, Robert K. and Howard have both warned me against starting to think of citta as a kind of discrete 'particle'. What is accumulated, I THINK, is kamma, vipaaka, understanding, delusion and so on. Somehow each citta 'passes on' this 'inheritance' to the next citta. If I have this wrong (as usual) I hope someone will correct me. > > Hope you don't mind if I break this question down > a > > little: > > > Nibbaana is just the cessation of dukkha, as I > > understand it. > > Okay. And dukkha is a result of aviddja, and the > other qualities that are > eliminated by the eightfold path. yes? As I understand it, dukkha is the product of, and/or actually is dependent origination, including avijjaa. As I understand it, the beginning of this isn't discernible (before enlightenment)--maybe because it began so long ago. The path, as I understand it, eradicates the defilements and breaks the chain of dependent origination. > > > is > > > the refined awareness and insight and awareness > that > > > has been so meticulously > > > developed to create the ladder to Nibbana also > > > eliminated, > > > > By 'awareness', do you mean sati? And by > 'insights', > > vipassanaa? If so, I think you're referring to > > satipatthaana vipassanaa. > > Yes, I think in this case that's correct. > > If by 'the ladder to > > Nibbana' you mean the path, I think it's a very > odd > > metaphor. The path is not a structure, but a > > collection of mental factors arising and subsiding > > simultaneously and instantaneously, as I > understand > > it. > > except they accumulate understanding through > vipassana? that's a little > contradictory, isn't it? it's the accumulation of > insight that allows the path to > develop, but at the same time it's just a collection > of instantaneous events? Understanding is (or isn't) accumulated, and passed along from citta to citta, I THINK. > I don't mean to give you a hard time. Only in the sense that you're making me take a hard look at my own views. I personally find your manner of doing so completely commendable--and I really appreciate it. The courtesy of the members is one of the things that makes this list such a pleasant 'place'. > I'm just > trying really hard to see how the > path develops through accumulation of insight and > understanding, and then the > whole thing, which is really momentary, all subsides > leaving nothing at the end of > the path but freedom from dukkha. I don't think that insight accumulates--just understanding, specifically of the four noble truths. > > > or are they merely > > > surpassed in a state that contains the same > essence > > > as this development but is > > > totally beyond them? > > > > What is there to be surpassed, and by whom? The > path > > factors simply arise and then vanish completely. > When > > they've finished their function, dukkha is > permanantly > > eradicated. > > > > > It would make logical sense that the essence of > the > > > path would be exemplified in > > > its most refined form in its final attainment, > > > Nibbana. > > > > Again, I think it's a mistake to think of the path > as > > having an essence--just a very quick confluence of > > mental factors, with the supreme function of > > eradicating defilement, then vanishing completely. > > How is defilement eradicated by the accumulation of > sati? Not sati, but paññaa. One of the unique characteristics of paññaa is that it eradicates defilements. How it does this is maybe a question for a different thread? Others can answer this much better than I can. > What is the relation > between these two? Why can't defilement just be > 'purified' by some other factor, > since understanding has no role in the final > 'product'? Understanding (paññaa), in the form of Right View of the Noble Eightfold Path, has the role of 'producing' the final product--cessation of dukkha. > I mean, there are other > systems that get rid of attachment through > meditation, purification, etc. Only temporarily, I think. > Buddhism is the only path that focusses so heavily > on understanding and insight. > But it seems like the understanding and insight gets > you to the threshold and then > turns out not to really have any purpose, since the > final goal is merely cessation > of dukkha, and not a state of understanding. To me, the phrase 'merely cessation of dukkha' is saying exactly 'merely enlightenment'. The eradication of the defilements and the breaking of the chain of conditioned origination is, to my mind, the profoundest achievement possible and precisely the goal achieved by the Buddha and the arahanta. > The > final product has no need of > insight or anything else. They were just expedients > to get rid of suffering. Jus so, as I see it. > > > To think that all is > > > eliminated and that there is merely negation of > > > negatives just doesn't make sense. > > > > Only if you think of there being something lasting > > that can be negated or eliminated or whatever. > Like > > all other cetasikas, the path-factors arise, > perform > > their function and fall away completely. > > > > > It is not because of Mahayana doctrines that it > > > doesn't make sense, > > > > Well, my take on this is that it is a difference > > between the Mayahana and Theravada. My knowledge > of > > Mahayana doctrine is vague though, based on many > years > > as a Zen student but little academic study (aside > from > > having read a number of classics). So I may well > be > > mistaken about this. > > I'm starting to think you're right about this. At > least if you interpret > Theravadin doctrine to mean that there is merely > cessation of dukkha and all the > work with insight and sati is just an expedient, > having no value in and of itself. > That is where I think we disagree. I may be out of > step with Theravadin doctrine > in that, or perhaps it can be interpreted both ways. > I am not well versed enough > [no pun intended] to know that at this point. And I > admit that I'm too busy and > lazy to catch up really quickly, but one of these > days I'll be more knowledgeable! Me too! > > > but because > > > of the path outlined by the Buddha and all of > his > > > statements about the > > > pleasantness and uplifted quality of each > > > progressive stage on the path. > > > > If you're referring to the stages of > enlightenment, > > they are subjectively very pleasant and uplifting, > no > > doubt (at least I imagine so--this is probably > > addressed more specifically in the abhidhamma). > > I'm glad you agree that the path can be enjoyable -- > in a non-clinging way of > course. I'm not sure if everyone would agree with > this. Well, I can't claim to personal knowledge of path-consciousness. Can't help thinking it sounds like fun, though(!). I'd sure like to find out. > > > Where is > > > that quality of refined joy and total > discernment > > > that characterize the Buddha's > > > own statements and presumably his own state? > > > > The mental factors arising and subsiding with the > > moments of consciousness of a Buddha are very > refined, > > no doubt--to say the least! I'm sure these are > > catalogued somewhere in the abhidhamma, too. > > That would be interesting. I think so too--if someone out there with more knowledge of abhidhamma could list these in a way we could comprehend them, I'd be grateful. > For sure > > they fall away completely in an instant. > > > > They > > > are contained in and are the > > > natural emanation of the state of Nibbana, of > > > Arahatship, of Buddhahood. > > > > You seem to be equivocating nibbaana with > Arahatship > > and Buddhahood. The second two are very similar > > (though not identical)--nibbaana is simply the > > permanent cessation of dukkha, as I understand it. > > So what makes for an Arahat or a Buddha, beyond > Nibbana? As I understand it, a Buddha discovers, awakens to and teaches the four noble truths--an arahanta only(!) has to awaken to them. > > > So it > > > doesn't make sense to me that one cannot assert > that > > > there is a positive state, > > > experience, or awareness in Nibbana. > > > > The question is, why would one assert such a > thing, > > with no record of the Buddha's every having taught > it? > > At least if there is any such assertion in the > > tipitaka, I've never run across it. If you're > aware > > of such a teaching in the tipitaka, I'd like to > hear > > about it. Otherwise, to interpolate this into the > > Buddhadhamma is a very big mistake, I think. > > > > > The Buddha is > > > not 'dead'. He has not been > > > annihilated by attaining Nibbana and Buddhahood. > > > > > In which of the aggregates is, or was, there > someone > > to be annihilated (or not)? > > > > > In > > > fact he is completely free > > > and 'awake'. > > > > Certainly the Buddha was one who 'awoke' (achieved > the > > cessation of dukkha), conventionally speaking. If > 'he > > is completely free and 'awake'', in what aggregate > or > > element is 'he' to be found? In fact, I think > that to > > say that the Buddha 'is completely free and > 'awake'' > > is nothing less than bizarre, from the Theravada > > perspective as I understand it (no offense!) > > No offense taken. But I think we look at Buddhi > differently. The term Buddha > means 'one who is awake or has awakened'. I don't > take that to mean that he's > merely awakened from dukkha. In any case, in Zen it > has a much more positive > interpretation. Yes, an interpretation that was very dear to me for many years. > Two travellers were walking down the road when they > sensed an amazing presence > coming towards them. They were anxious to see who > this person could be. They had > never experienced anything like this before. As > they came into the presence of > the man, he seemed to give off an immense radiant > energy. They questioned him and > asked: "Why do you have this amazing aspect. Who > are you?" The Buddha, for it > was he, answered simply: "I am awake". Interesting story! I wonder if it has a correlary somewhere in the suttanta. At any rate, it doesn't suggest to me any 'greater' accomplishment than having broken the chain of dependent origination and permanently eradicated the defilements. The cittas and cetasikas of a Buddha must make for some extraordinary non-verbal communication, to say the least. There are many accounts in the tipitaka of the Buddha and the arahanta having a very extraordinary demeanor. > > > Buddha means 'one who is awake'. Can > > > one be 'awake' without > > > sentience/consciousness/awareness? This also > > > doesn't make sense. If you want to > > > say that the Buddha is 'awake' but has none of > those > > > other attributes or > > > qualities, you would have to at least say, based > on > > > his most popular title alone, > > > that he at least partakes of 'awakeness'. > Awakeness > > > and awareness are synonyms. > > > > The Buddha 'awoke' (speaking conventionally) when > he > > achieved cessation of dukkha. After that, he > could be > > called 'awake' up until parinibbaana. At that > point, > > the conditions for the arising of any further > naamas > > (cittas or cetasikas, consciousnesses and mental > > factors) were completely exhausted, as I > understand > > it. The rupas which composed his physical form > will > > continue to arise and subside as long as the > > conditions exist for their continued existence. > > I understand this explanation, and it is certainly > sensible. > > > Thanks for challenging my own perspectives, > Robert. > > Always good to hear from you. > > > > mike > > Same here. As always, it's a pleasure to talk to > you as well. Back at you again, Robert. Thanks for the privilege of taking part in this discussion with you. mike 8177 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 1:16am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on sense-door, mind-door op 18-09-2001 13:59 schreef Sarah op Sarah > > Dear Nina, > > Sometimes I also find this topic of doorways can be confusing.. > > Nina wrote> > Another question: concerning my translation of Camb talks. In > Cambodia, >>> A. >>> Sujin explains about the mind-door that is hidden by the sense-doors in >>> our >>> daily life. I understand. When there is no vipassana ~aa.na, the >>> mind-door >>> does not appear, although there is a mind-door process after each >>> sense-door >>> process. > > Sarah: Could we say before there is the first stage of vipas. ~nana....’? > KS kept stressing this moment. Now there is seeing and we’re so attached to > what is seen that it seems that the seeing lasts. In this sense the sense door > (of the eye) covers up the mind-door. Nina: In the text is just vipassana ~naa.na, and since I am translating I try to change as little as possible. Moreover, it is true, at the moments of insight knowledge namas and rupas appear one at a time through the mind-door. Then such moments of insight fall away, and, after that, A.Sujin explained, the world appears as usual, as a whole. Because in between the stages of insight the insight one gained has to be applied, and those are pari~n~naa, full comprehension (see Survey, three levels of them). Thus panna has to be developed on and on. >>> But also, A Sujin says, while thinking about names and >>> concepts, >>> the mind-door is hidden by the sense-doors, and we do not realize at >>> such >>> moments realities that arise and fall away. > S: Yes, no awareness and so there is no understanding of the difference between > seeing and thinking or other realities. > N: My feeling is: we think of >>> concepts on account of the sense objects, and in between our thinking >>> there >>> are sense impressions time and again, the mind-door process does not >>> appear. >>> Is this the reason that even while thinking of concepts the mind-door >>> process is hidden by the sense-door processes? > > Sarah: Yes, this sounds exactly right to me. We’re lost in the world of concepts > about > visible objects, sounds etc and there is no understanding of the mind-door > realities. >> > Jon:> My only recollection of the translation of the Cambodia talks is of a >> passage dealing with 'thinking hiding the sense-doors'. Have I got this >> wrong? Perhaps you could refer us again to the part about mind-door being >> hidden by sense-doors. Thanks. > S: Yes she talked about this quite a bit. The emphasis was very much on how right > now, because of the thinking about so many concepts without awareness, there > is > no understanding of the many moments of seeing and hearing and other sense > door > activities, no understanding of different namas and rupas. The sense doors are > covered up in this sense by the concepts > > In summary, I think that because there is no awareness most the time, it seems > that sense door activities last and the mind door activities are hidden (sense > door covering mind door) and/or we’re lost in the world of concepts which are > taken to be realities (mind door covering sense door). Nina: As Khun Sujin explained: now, we do not realize what the mind-door is,we only know in theory that there are sense-door processes and mind-door processes. We know about sense-cognitions, but, although each sense-door process is followed by a mind-door process, we have no direct understanding of this fact, and thus we can say: the mind-door is as it were hidden by the sense-doors. An example she gave long ago to Alan Weller: the world seems to be light all the time, no darkness, but in reality there is light only at those short moments colour impinges on the eyesense and there is seeing. Thus, many, many moments of darkness, at all those moments there is no seeing, but we do not realize this.There seems to be seeing all the time. When I come to think of it, it is so strange, isn't it, but it is true. Now, at the moments of insight knowledge, nama and rupa appear very clearly one at a time through the mind-door. At such moments we shall know what mind-door and mind-door process means. A. Sujin said: It is as if there are no sense-doors, because rupas appear through the mind-door. Thus, then the sense-doors are as it were hidden by the mind-door, the situation is opposite to what we experience now, while there is no insight knowledge. Amara recently quoted A. Sujin: at the first stage of insight the mind-door appears for the first time in samsara, the cycle of birth and death. This can remind us of what we do not know yet and may not realize for a long time. This subject is most difficult, but it can be useful to know about it at least in theory, so that we will not go astray and take for insight what is not insight. When beginning to be aware now we do not think of doorways and processes, that is only thinking. But still the theory is helpful. I do not believe that we should think of being aware of rupa through a sensedoor and through a mind-door, that is again thinking. Thus, when we are lost in thinking of concepts I would prefer not to use in this context the expression mind-door covering the sense-door, rather: no awareness. In Cambodia some people thought that, while thinking, one knows the mind-door, but this is not so. I cannot copy now from all these chapters, I have such lack of time. I gave each chapter one at a time to Robert (given up making attachments), and he copied some for dsg. I could if you like do the same for dsg, but, I thought that these would become to lengthy posts. But not before India, it takes a lot of time to copy and paste. > how > now mind-door hides sense-door such as when we’re lost in concepts... N: See above, there is no question here of mind-door being evident, just unawareness and also in between such moments of thinking there are seeing, hearing. > Nina, I think I’ve confused rather than clarified this topic..... In any case, > the very clear message I always hear from KS is to develop understanding of > seeing, visible object etc rather than be too concerned about doorways and > processes. Do you have any relevant Tipitaka or com. refs by the way? N: The stages of insight: Path of Discrimination, patisambidha magga, Treatise on Knowledge, it is explained what should be "defined",that is considered. The English text is not clear, so I have the Thai also plus commentary, but not studied yet. Ch IV, until Ch Xi. Also in Vis. About sense-door and mind-door, this is something we have to deeply consider ourselves: nama can only be experienced through the mind-door, rupa is experienced through sense-door and mind-door, and thus the insight that understands their differences must arise in a mind-door process. Then the characteristics of both nama and rupa appear very clearly, no doubt. For the teaching of Dhamma, there is the person who explains and there must be the person who thoroughly considers what he hears, that is said in the Suttanta. It depends on the listener what he gets from the teaching. What A. Sujin explains about the doorways is very logical but we have to deeply consider what is taught. It is profound and difficult to understand. Nina. 8178 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 5:19am Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- > > Dear Robert, > Thanks for this quote. The connection cited between abhidhamma and vipassana > meditation is very interesting. Is vipassana meditation originally derived from > Abhidhamma? > > I will do a search for something on the historical place of Abhidhamma in the > Theravadin tradition in general. I assume it is one of several schools that have > been traditionally engaged in the study of the Pali Canon and its content. > > Best, > Robert E. _______ Dear Robert E., Vipassana means special or profound seeing. That is, insight into the true nature of dhammas, realities. These dhammas are analysed and explained by the Sammasamabuddha in the most careful way in the Abhidhamma. They are also explained throughout the rest of the Tipitaka but in a less comprehensive way. The Buddha's teaching are sometimes called DhammaVinaya (the teachings and discipline). And these are recorded in the Tipitaka (the pali canon). Ti means three and so it is divided into 1) Vinaya (rules for monks and nuns). 2)Suttanta - individual discourses to various people on diverse topics and 3) Abhidhamma People have different accumulations and hence there are differences as to which aspects of the DhammaVinaya are most appealing. However, even one who devotes most time to suttanta or vinaya will have to know much about the khandas, the ayatanas(sense fields), and the dhatus(elements) , the different conditions; as these are, as the visuddhimagga says "the soil in which understanding grows". These are all found in the suttanta and even a little in the vinaya . But it is only in the Abhidhamma where they are elucidated in full detail. The Abhidhamma details all that the realities that we experience in daily life as well as those that we aspire to. Understanding Abhidhamma is synonymous with with understanding life, with vipassana . (By understanding I mean not as an academic understands but as direct and deep understanding of whatever appears at the 6doors.) here is an url: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tipintr4.htm robert 8179 From: Sarah Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 6:12am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on sense-door, mind-door Dear Nina, Thank you for all your comments which I'll read more carefully later. We've actually ordered the Path of Discrimination which I've always benn rather put off b/c of the difficult translation. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I cannot copy now from all these chapters, I have such lack of time. I gave > each chapter one at a time to Robert (given up making attachments), and he > copied some for dsg. I could if you like do the same for dsg, but, I thought > that these would become to lengthy posts. I'm sure Rob will put these on his website in due course and then it's easy to look there. I think there's no need to do the same for dsg (as you say, they may be too lengthy) but you and he can quote any extracts that are relevant to discussions and that would be very helpful and I look forward to it. But not before India, it takes a > lot of time to copy and paste. not necessary and please conserve your energy for the trip. I think it was Cybele before who asked about the India trip which keeps being mentioned, so I'll just say now that in mid-October around 120 people will be joining Khun Sujin on a 'pilgrimage' to the holy places in India with plenty of dhamma discussion/talk at each point. There has been a waiting list (I understand) for many months and the talks on this trip will be in Thai, so we didn't mention it here. Nina, Jon, Kom (and others from the California group who lurk here), Betty, Amara and one or two other Thais who also lurk here, will all be going. I know Nina, that you and your husband Lodevick will be leaving early, so I'd like to take this chance now to wish you all a very useful, enjoyable and inspiring trip. We'll look forward to hearing some of the wisdom from you all on your return at the end of Oct/beg Nov.....I forget the dates. I hope we manage without you all! Very best wishes, Sarah p.s Next year, in october I think, the California group above mentioned have invited khun Sujin for a return trip and discussions there. Anyone is welcome and this may be of interest to people like Rob E. I'm hoping to go to join this, but we'll see. Kom or I will give details in due course. 8180 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 8:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on sense-door, mind-door --- Sarah wrote: > p.s Next year, in october I think, the California group above mentioned have > invited khun Sujin for a return trip and discussions there. Anyone is welcome > and this may be of interest to people like Rob E. I'm hoping to go to join > this, but we'll see. Kom or I will give details in due course. Yes, I would be interested. My daughter, whom I watch during the day, will be four then, so I'll have to see if arising conditions are such that I'm allowed to go! , but please keep me and us informed. Best, Robert E. 8181 From: rikpa21 Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 10:01am Subject: Re: 'I prefer directness' - Erik --- Sarah wrote: Hi Sarah, > I do realise, especially having met you, that you are having a lot of serious > fun most the time;) I also realise your bark is worse than your bite;-) Indeed, and you also hopefully know there is not a trace of ill-will behind my words. To the contrary. If they may at times sound unendearing, at least I hope that in some way they are beneficial. 8182 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 10:47am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- > > > Dear Robert, > > Thanks for this quote. The connection cited between abhidhamma and > vipassana > > meditation is very interesting. Is vipassana meditation originally > derived from > > Abhidhamma? > > > > I will do a search for something on the historical place of > Abhidhamma in the > > Theravadin tradition in general. I assume it is one of several > schools that have > > been traditionally engaged in the study of the Pali Canon and its > content. > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > > _______ > Dear Robert E., > Vipassana means special or profound seeing. That is, insight into the > true nature of dhammas, realities. These dhammas are analysed and > explained by the Sammasamabuddha in the most careful way in the > Abhidhamma. They are also explained throughout the rest of the > Tipitaka but in a less comprehensive way. > The Buddha's teaching are sometimes called DhammaVinaya (the > teachings and discipline). And these are recorded in the Tipitaka > (the pali canon). Ti means three and so it is divided into 1) Vinaya > (rules for monks and nuns). 2)Suttanta - individual discourses to > various people on diverse topics and 3) Abhidhamma > People have different accumulations and hence there are differences > as to which aspects of the DhammaVinaya are most appealing. However, > even one who devotes most time to suttanta or vinaya will have to > know much about the khandas, the ayatanas(sense fields), and the > dhatus(elements) , the different conditions; as these are, as the > visuddhimagga says "the soil in which understanding grows". These are > all found in the suttanta and even a little in the vinaya . But it is > only in the Abhidhamma where they are elucidated in full detail. The > Abhidhamma details all that the realities that we experience in daily > life as well as those that we aspire to. Understanding Abhidhamma is > synonymous with with understanding life, with vipassana . (By > understanding I mean not as an academic understands but as direct and > deep understanding of whatever appears at the 6doors.) > here is an url: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tipintr4.htm > robert > Dear Robert, This is a very interesting and useful explanation. Thanks for the breakdown on the Tipitaka as well. I have bookmarked the site and I will read some of the material as time allows. Thanks again. Best Regards, Robert E. 8183 From: Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 11:15am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Robert K., I am deeply touched by the clear and concise explanation. It is excellent! Sadhu! Sadhu! Sahdu! If you would be so kind, could you communicate some things about actual practice? It would be very helpful to many surely! Metta and Karuna Dhammapiyo Bhante ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Epstein" Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:47 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E > > --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > --- > > > > Dear Robert, > > > Thanks for this quote. The connection cited between abhidhamma and > > vipassana > > > meditation is very interesting. Is vipassana meditation originally > > derived from > > > Abhidhamma? > > > > > > I will do a search for something on the historical place of > > Abhidhamma in the > > > Theravadin tradition in general. I assume it is one of several > > schools that have > > > been traditionally engaged in the study of the Pali Canon and its > > content. > > > > > > Best, > > > Robert E. > > > > > > _______ > > Dear Robert E., > > Vipassana means special or profound seeing. That is, insight into the > > true nature of dhammas, realities. These dhammas are analysed and > > explained by the Sammasamabuddha in the most careful way in the > > Abhidhamma. They are also explained throughout the rest of the > > Tipitaka but in a less comprehensive way. > > The Buddha's teaching are sometimes called DhammaVinaya (the > > teachings and discipline). And these are recorded in the Tipitaka > > (the pali canon). Ti means three and so it is divided into 1) Vinaya > > (rules for monks and nuns). 2)Suttanta - individual discourses to > > various people on diverse topics and 3) Abhidhamma > > People have different accumulations and hence there are differences > > as to which aspects of the DhammaVinaya are most appealing. However, > > even one who devotes most time to suttanta or vinaya will have to > > know much about the khandas, the ayatanas(sense fields), and the > > dhatus(elements) , the different conditions; as these are, as the > > visuddhimagga says "the soil in which understanding grows". These are > > all found in the suttanta and even a little in the vinaya . But it is > > only in the Abhidhamma where they are elucidated in full detail. The > > Abhidhamma details all that the realities that we experience in daily > > life as well as those that we aspire to. Understanding Abhidhamma is > > synonymous with with understanding life, with vipassana . (By > > understanding I mean not as an academic understands but as direct and > > deep understanding of whatever appears at the 6doors.) > > here is an url: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tipintr4.htm > > robert > > > > Dear Robert, > This is a very interesting and useful explanation. Thanks for the breakdown on > the Tipitaka as well. I have bookmarked the site and I will read some of the > material as time allows. Thanks again. > > Best Regards, > Robert E. > > > 8184 From: rikpa21 Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 8:38pm Subject: Clinging --- azita gill wrote: Hi Azita, > hello dsg, this is my first comment to dsg. in reply > to K.Ong about Achan Chah whose statement"there is one > essential point that all good practice must come to - > not clinging" my understanding of 'not clinging' > is a moment in time which arises and falls away so > quickly that 'we' hardly notice unless sati arises > [and also falls away] to know the difference between > clinging and not clinging. It seems a rather difficult task for a beginner like me to discern a single moment in time arising and passing away. It sounds like it must be happening at an extremely rapid rate, and I have a hard enough time just remaining focused on putting one foot in front of the other without my mind wandering off in a hundred different directions. As a result, I fear this sounds like a terribly advanced practice, but I'm game for trying out any techniques you can point me at that will help me to directly see one of these moments arising and passing away. On that note, what practices would you suggest I try to come to the point of discerning one of these moments arising and passing away? Also, to help me understand better, how long a time-frame are we talking about here? One second? One one-hundredth of a second? One billionth of a second? Also, I am a bit unclear on what, specifically, I should be looking for. How does one of these moments appear--what does it look like, feel like, taste like--anything that will help me get some sense of what I'm trying to observe--so I will be able to discern its arising and passing away? If I have some means of identifying it I will perhaps be able to someday go "aha! a moment arising and passing away!" (Others have mentioned "just seeing" "just hearing" as well, though I am still very curious to understand the specific characteristics in seeing and hearing I am supposed to be observing, because I still haven't enough of a clue to know where to begin with this). I am asking in all seriousness here, because this is obviously a method many here in DSG advocate, and I am still scratching my head after all this time about what I am missing that makes it so difficult for me to understand how I'm supposed to come to see this, let alone where to even begin. I would imagine those with decades of experience noting the arising and passing away of these moments should be readily able to explain, in plain language, how I can replicate that experience through my own diligent efforts. And I make the sincere promise that if anyone explains to me how to come to directly see this from their own knowledge and experience, that I will put that into practice with my very best efforts, because I wish to eradicate my questions about this as a method, and I am willing to go to any lengths I can to do so, in all sincerity and honesty. I am totally open to listening carefully to any and all instructions on how this works, and it is in this spirit I am asking. In other words, this is a sincere request for Dharma instructions on this practice. If there is no one here who feels up to the task, perhaps there may be others not present who could explain this in the way needed to clarify this. I am sure this would be of great benefit for all to hear, since as I understand it the Buddha's Dharma is all about terminating suffering, and this sounds as if it might be a way to come to directly see the impermanance and insubstantiality of all dharmas. I don't imagine anyone could lose from a detailed explanation of how we can use this to terminate suffering. Anyway, for the time being, since I am only a beginner and what you mention sounds extremely advanced, I have found that understanding the four types of clinging described in the Suttas has been very helpful as a starting point up to now: 1. Kamupadana - clinging to sensuous desires. 2. Ditthupadana - clinging to views (even one's ideas of "right views") 3. Silabbatupadana - clinging to the belief in the efficacy of rites, rituals 4. Attavadupadana - clinging to self-view I liked Buddhadasa Bikkhu's essay on clinging, and am including his commentary on the first two types of clinging (given space constraints): "1) Sensual attachment (Kamupanana) is clinging to attractive and desirable sense objects. It is the attachment that we naturally develop for things we like and find satisfaction in: colours and shapes, sounds, occurs, tastes, tactile objects, or mental images, objects past, present, or future that arise in the mind, and either correspond to material objects in the world outside or within the body, or are just imaginings. We instinctively find pleasure, enchantment delight in these six kinds of sense objects. They induce delight and enchantment in the mind perceiving them. "As soon as an individual is born, he comes to know the taste of these six sense objects, and clings to them, and as time passes he becomes more and more firmly attached to them. Ordinary people are incapable of withdrawing from them, so they present a major problem. It is necessary to have a proper knowledge and understanding of these sense objects and to act appropriately with respect to them, otherwise clinging to them may load to complete and utter dereliction. If we examine the case history of any person who has sunk into dereliction, we always find that it has come about through his clinging fast to some desirable sense object. Actually every single thing a human being does has its origin in sensuality. Whether we love, became angry, hate, feel envious murder, or commit suicide, the ultimate cause must be some sense object. If we investigate what is it that drives human beings to work energetically, or to do anything at all for that matter, we find it a all desire to get things of one kind or another. People arrive, study, and earn what money they can, and then go off in search of pleasure - in the form of colours and shapes, sounds, odours, tastes, and tactile objects - which is what keeps them going. Even merit making in order to go to heaven has its origins simply in a wish based on sensuality. Taken together, all the trouble and chaos in the world has its origin in sensuality. "The danger of sensuality lies in the power of sensual attachment. For this reason the Buddha reckoned clinging to sensuality as the primary form of attachment. It is a real world problem. Whether the world is to be completely destroyed, or whatever is to happen, is bound to depend on this very sensual clinging. It behoves us to examine ourselves to find out in what ways we are attached to sensuality and how firmly, and whether it is not perhaps within our power to give it up. Speaking in worldly terms, attachment to sensuality is a very good thing. It conduces family love, to diligence and energy in the search for wealth and fame, and so on. But if looked at from the spiritual point of view, it is seen to be the secret entrance for suffering and torment. Spiritually speaking, attachment to sensuality is something to be kept under control. And if all suffering is to be eliminated, sensual attachment has to be done away with completely. "2) Attachment to opinions (Ditthupadana). Clinging to views and opinions is not difficult to detect and identity once we do a little introspection. Ever since we were born into the world, we have been receiving instruction and training, which has given rise to ideas and opinions. In speaking here of opinions, what we have in mind is the kind of ideas one hangs on to and refuses to let go of. To cling to one's own ideas and opinions is quite natural and is not normally condemned or disapproved of. But it is no less grave a danger than attachment to attractive and desirable objects. It can happen that preconceived ideas and opinions to which we had always clung obstinately come to be destroyed. For this reason it is necessary that we continually amend our views, making them progressively more correct, better, higher higher, changing false views into views that are closer and closer to the truth, and ultimately into the kind of views that incorporate the Four Noble Truths. "Obstinate and stubborn opinions have various origins, but in the main they are bound up with customs, traditions, ceremonies and religious doctrines. Stubborn personal convictions are not a matter of great importance. They are far less numerous than convictions stemming from long held popular traditions and ceremonies. Adherence to views is based on ignorance. Lacking knowledge, we develop our own personal views on things, based on our own original stupidity. For instance, we are convinced that things are desirable and worth clinging to, that they really endure, are worthwhile and are selves, instead of perceiving that they are just a delusion and a deception, transient, worthless, and devoid of selfhood. Once we have come to have certain ideas about something, we natually don't like to admit later on that we were mistaken. Even though we may occasionally see that we are wrong, we simply refuse to admit it. Obstinacy of this sort is to be considered a major obstacle to progress, rendering us incapable of changing for the better, incapable of modifying false religious convictions and other longstanding beliefs. This is likely to be a problem for people who hold to naive doctrine. Even though they may later come to see them as naive, they refuse to change on the grounds that their parents, grandparents, and ancestors all hold those same views. Or if they are not really interested in correcting and improving themselves, they may simply brush away any arguments against their old ideas with the remark that this is what they have always believed. For these very reasons, attachment to opinions is to be considered a dangerous defilement, a major danger, which, if we are to better ourselves at all, we ought to make all efforts to eliminate." 8185 From: Sarah Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 9:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik Hi Erik, Your other messages (to me) rather jumped the queue...back to this one as promised;-) --- rikpa21 wrote: Sarah:> > 2)Nibbana, > > even though it's unconditioned, is a reality with its own 'sabhava' > even if it > > lacks many/most the > > characteristics of other realities. Because we often use negative > terms to > > describe it (the > > un-this and un-that) it's very easy to be left with the idea that > there is > > nothing to be realized. E: > What about the non-affirming negation represented by the label > Nibbana can be positively known? I think I'll leave this question to the 'experts';-)) Or rather, please look under nibbana at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts S: > > Also, of > > course, all realities are not self and yet phassa 'contacts' > them..this doesn't > > make them > > non-existent. > E: > Phassa contacts mundane realities, which may have anatta as a > ultimate characteristic, but phassa isn't contacting that aspect of > them. That is the function of lokuttara panna. At any given moment, citta and its accompanying cetasikas (always including phassa) experience a reality as it is exactly. So for example, seeing experiences visible object accompanied by phassa and the rest. The nature or characteristic of both seeing and visible object is anatta and just as no one ever sees, seeing never experiences or touches any self or thing in visible object regardless of whether wrong view has or has not been eradicated. It is the moha, micha ditthi, sanna and other cetasikas accompanying the following cittas that make it seem otherwise. In other words, the nature of realities doesn’t change, but the understanding of this nature does. > S:> > 3) The only way that seeing can be known as anatta is by > > being aware of the essence of seeing when it appears > > at this moment. Whether sati arises at the exact > > moment of seeing or immediately following it in the > > mind-door process is not very important. What is > > important is to understand its nature when it appears. > > I can hear Erik ready to object! > E:> I am curious where in the Satipatthana Sutta this is mentioned, > because I've combed through it and haven't found this referenced > there. What I have found is this: "There is the case where he > discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that > arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an > unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a > fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further > appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The > same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, > tongue, body, & intellect.)" Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness: ‘he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness, ardent, clearly comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome in this world covetousness and grief...’ What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door experiencing. E:> This says to be mindful of the *fetters* arising dependent on *forms* > arising in dependence on the eye-sense. Nowhere does it say to be > mindful of the "essence of seeing". I have no idea how one would even > go about being mindful of such a thing. Is it possible to explain how > one is supposed to be mindful of the "essence of seeing"? What > in particular is one supposed to pay attention to, such that sati > finds a firm foundation for arising? One doesn’t go about anything, but at this moment there is the experiencing of visible object in front of us. Like you say, if there were no eye-sense or arammana (object) to be experienced there would be no seeing. On account of what is seen, the fetters arise. Understanding first in theory that what is seeing now is just a citta, a moment of experiencing, no self at all, can begin to help provide the necessary conditions for satipatthana to arise and be aware of its very characteristic or nature. (I’ll leave sabhava and essence for now;-)) > E:> Of all the meditations in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, such as on the > five hindrances, the body, the Four Noble Truths, pleasant feeling, > unleasant feeling, I can't find any reference to this at all. Let me know if I’ve misunderstood you above. S:> > Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, > > and it brings about the penetration of its > > characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by > > endeavouring, the manifestation of the (supramundane) > > path. Understanding knows the object in the way > > already stated, it brings about the penetration of the > > characteristics, and it brings about, by endeavouring, > > the manifestation of the > > path.................Understanding has the > > characteristic of penetrating the individual essences > > of states*. Its function is to abolish the darkness > > of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of > > states. It is manifested as non-delusion. Because of > > the words "One who is concentrated knows and sees > > correctly (A.v.3), its proximate cause is > > concentration...' > > > > *' 'A phenomenon's own essence (sako bhavo) or > > existing essence (samano va bhava) is its individual > > essence (sabhava). Cf Ch V111, note 68 where Pm gives > > the definition from saha-bhava (with essence). E:> This sounds like it's actually contradicting you Sarah! There is not > mention of penetrating the essence of "seeing" but rather the > essence of *what* (phenomenon) is being seen: as painful, > impermanent, and not-self. I can’t find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant these same realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other suttas) such as seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on. E:>But consciousness is also mentioned as a > factor for understanding here, meaning consciousness of *what* is > being perceived, not the "essence of seeing". ‘Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow......understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essence of states....’ In other words, seeing (consciousness or citta for this example) merely sees visible object (or colour)...it just sees but it doesn’t know anything about reality or about the visible object. It doesn’t mark it, remember it or like it, it just sees. On the other hand, it is pa~n~na which understands the characteristic of seeing or visible object or any other reality. It penetrates its ‘individual essence’. E:>To me this very clearly > appears to be referring to the nature of what is *being* seen--again, > the forms arisen in dependence on the eye-sense. That is a pretty big > difference. In fact, if read as the the essence of *what is being > seen*, it accords with the Satipatthana Sutta, because here it says > that understanding, using consciousness, investigates the > characteristics of its object, and comes to see them as impermanent, > painful, and not-self. Both the Satipatthana Sutta and the use of states in this quote above are referring to all conditioned realities that should be known and understood, including consciousness. I have an idea that the confusion is because you may have forgotten that seeing, hearing etc are also cittas, or moments of consciousness. E:> This makes even more sense to me if I just consider my own > experience. For example, I can discern the fetter of unarisen sensual > desire arising in me when I'm around my girlfriend. In this way I can > easily note the arising of this unarisen fetter, and likewise, some > time after taking a cold shower, if I'm lucky, the passing away of > this fetter. > > What I am still unable to do, however, is figure out how I'm supposed > to note any of the three characteristics of the "essence of seeing" > going on at the same time. Can you understasnd where I might have a > hard time discerning how one is supposed to recognize this > mysterious "essence of seeing", when it's so very simple to instead > observe the characteristics of all these obvious fetters like > kamachanda arising and passing away? I do understand. The development of awareness is not as simple as many believe at all. In your example above, as you say there are many, many moments of lobha. What about in between the lobha? Aren’t there also many, many moments of seeing, hearing, touching hardness and so on? Like you say, most of the time there is no awareness at all of any of these realities and we’re just lost in the lobha and the ‘story’. Erik, I really think that recognizing as you do here, just how little (or no awareness), there is of any other realities at these times is a very good stepping stone. When we think in our ignorance that there’s constant awareness, it’s very hard (read impossible) for satipatthana to develop. Studying and considering more about what are the realities now, even while dreaming about Aert (yr girlfriend) is the way that satipatthana will develop for sure. It has to be developed in daily life. S:> > As I have mentioned, there has to be awareness of the > > characteristic of 'essence' or nature of seeing over > > and over and over again. Direct understanding has to > > know its nature as being not-self and quite different > > from visible object, sanna and thinking. > E:> Again, to help with my obtuseness, how do do this? What > about "seeing" gives me enough of a hook to sink my sati into that I > can work with right now? How do I get "clear comprehension" of this > essence--because after all clear comprehension and mindfulness work > together, and I can't even get a clear comprehension of what > this "essence of seeing" refers to, let alone how I'd begin to > recognize this in any way even if I did had an idea what this is > supposed to mean! :) Just forget about ‘essence’ for now, I suggest, or just understand how different seeing is from hearing or from visible object or from clinging. There is no self that can get a clear comprehension or do anything. But these questions of yours about understanding these realities now show that already you appreciate the importance of hearing and considering details about dhammas wisely and realise that awareness doesn’t just arise at will without a lot of clear comprehension of what the objects are to be known. Erik, I appreciated this post of yours and the questions raised very much because they really relate to the practice of satipatthana right now. Many thanks for giving me the opportunity for these reflections, Sarah 8186 From: Jill Harrison Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 9:23pm Subject: RE: [DhammaStudyGroup] Clinging > I am asking in all seriousness here, because this is obviously a > method many here in DSG advocate, and I am still scratching my head > after all this time about what I am missing that makes it so > difficult for me to understand how I'm supposed to come to see this, > let alone where to even begin. > i'm also a beginner, but i've found: Mindfulness in Plain English by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana, Henepola Gunaratana to be very helpful. 8187 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 9:51pm Subject: Re: Clinging Dear Erik, Just popping my head into dsg again---I better be careful because I'm starting to make a habit of it! Just a few quick comments, in a direct sort of way: > On that note, what practices would you suggest I try to come to the > point of discerning one of these moments arising and passing away? Struggling to find a "method" with a formula of "do such-and-such in order to have such-and-such experience" is bound to be a dead end because ultimately any such ritual is impotent, and the search for the effective ritual, the silver bullet, THE "technique" is silabbataparamasa---a fetter that hinders liberation. > I would imagine those with decades of experience noting the > arising and passing away of these moments should be readily able to > explain, in plain language, how I can replicate that experience > through my own diligent efforts. Buddha was much wiser and much more eloquent than I, but even he could not explain, in plain language, how to replicate that experience through diligent effort. The problem is that once you start to say "I'm going to do this to effect that", the mythical "I" is created and all efforts go into elaborating on that "I", protecting that "I", gratifying that "I", and magnifying that "I". And that "I" is remarkably resisient and sneaky. Soon this very "I" starts building up an elaborate set of words and concepts and systems to "convince itself" that it really doesn't believe in itself, rejects itself. Instead of prescribing a ritual to guarantee enlightenment, the Buddha described the nature of reality and suggested that we carefully consider his words, not just intellectually, but as they apply to each moment in the day. If you want to sit quietly in the corner, eyes closed, and "meditate", or to walk back and forth at a snail's pace, noting the lifting, raising, moving, touching, placing of the foot, that's fine. It may even be helpful...perhaps. There is a danger, though, that that "practice" takes on the appearance of a "method" that liberates, at which point it becomes a dead end. Buddhadasa's word about the kinds of clinging are certainly instructive. What kinds of clinging am I experiencing now? A whole rash of them are apparent in retrospect, as they occurred a second ago, or a few seconds ago. Sometimes it is less than a second ago. Sometimes there is a moment or two where there is awareness of vedana or tanha or bhava without elaboration. These moments are quite different from most moments and description of them is difficult. 8188 From: KennethOng Date: Thu Sep 20, 2001 10:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik Hi all, Could I suggest that there is a standard way of writing this is Pali word or this is a Sankrist word. To me because I can get very perplex by Pali words meanings as I am not fimiliar with them. Soemtimes I feel that I miss out impt discussions here because of my lack of understanding of Pali words. The only source so far I have is from this link http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html for Pali word meaning. Maybe bold to represent Pali or Capitalize it. Could someone please kindly assist in pointing a good source of pali glossary other than the one I mentioned here. And a sankrist one also please. I could not find Phassa word in this Pali Glossary, is this a Sankrist word. A million thanks KO Sarah wrote: Hi Erik, Your other messages (to me) rather jumped the queue...back to this one as promised;-) --- rikpa21 wrote: Sarah:> > 2)Nibbana, > > even though it's unconditioned, is a reality with its own 'sabhava' > even if it > > lacks many/most the > > characteristics of other realities. Because we often use negative > terms to > > describe it (the > > un-this and un-that) it's very easy to be left with the idea that > there is > > nothing to be realized. E: > What about the non-affirming negation represented by the label > Nibbana can be positively known? I think I'll leave this question to the 'experts';-)) Or rather, please look under nibbana at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts S: > > Also, of > > course, all realities are not self and yet phassa 'contacts' > them..this doesn't > > make them > > non-existent. > E: > Phassa contacts mundane realities, which may have anatta as a > ultimate characteristic, but phassa isn't contacting that aspect of > them. That is the function of lokuttara panna. At any given moment, citta and its accompanying cetasikas (always including phassa) experience a reality as it is exactly. So for example, seeing experiences visible object accompanied by phassa and the rest. The nature or characteristic of both seeing and visible object is anatta and just as no one ever sees, seeing never experiences or touches any self or thing in visible object regardless of whether wrong view has or has not been eradicated. It is the moha, micha ditthi, sanna and other cetasikas accompanying the following cittas that make it seem otherwise. In other words, the nature of realities doesn’t change, but the understanding of this nature does. > S:> > 3) The only way that seeing can be known as anatta is by > > being aware of the essence of seeing when it appears > > at this moment. Whether sati arises at the exact > > moment of seeing or immediately following it in the > > mind-door process is not very important. What is > > important is to understand its nature when it appears. > > I can hear Erik ready to object! > E:> I am curious where in the Satipatthana Sutta this is mentioned, > because I've combed through it and haven't found this referenced > there. What I have found is this: "There is the case where he > discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that > arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an > unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a > fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further > appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The > same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, > tongue, body, & intellect.)" Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness: ‘he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness, ardent, clearly comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome in this world covetousness and grief...’ What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door experiencing. E:> This says to be mindful of the *fetters* arising dependent on *forms* > arising in dependence on the eye-sense. Nowhere does it say to be > mindful of the "essence of seeing". I have no idea how one would even > go about being mindful of such a thing. Is it possible to explain how > one is supposed to be mindful of the "essence of seeing"? What > in particular is one supposed to pay attention to, such that sati > finds a firm foundation for arising? One doesn’t go about anything, but at this moment there is the experiencing of visible object in front of us. Like you say, if there were no eye-sense or arammana (object) to be experienced there would be no seeing. On account of what is seen, the fetters arise. Understanding first in theory that what is seeing now is just a citta, a moment of experiencing, no self at all, can begin to help provide the necessary conditions for satipatthana to arise and be aware of its very characteristic or nature. (I’ll leave sabhava and essence for now;-)) > E:> Of all the meditations in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, such as on the > five hindrances, the body, the Four Noble Truths, pleasant feeling, > unleasant feeling, I can't find any reference to this at all. Let me know if I’ve misunderstood you above. S:> > Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, > > and it brings about the penetration of its > > characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by > > endeavouring, the manifestation of the (supramundane) > > path. Understanding knows the object in the way > > already stated, it brings about the penetration of the > > characteristics, and it brings about, by endeavouring, > > the manifestation of the > > path.................Understanding has the > > characteristic of penetrating the individual essences > > of states*. Its function is to abolish the darkness > > of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of > > states. It is manifested as non-delusion. Because of > > the words "One who is concentrated knows and sees > > correctly (A.v.3), its proximate cause is > > concentration...' > > > > *' 'A phenomenon's own essence (sako bhavo) or > > existing essence (samano va bhava) is its individual > > essence (sabhava). Cf Ch V111, note 68 where Pm gives > > the definition from saha-bhava (with essence). E:> This sounds like it's actually contradicting you Sarah! There is not > mention of penetrating the essence of "seeing" but rather the > essence of *what* (phenomenon) is being seen: as painful, > impermanent, and not-self. I can’t find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant these same realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other suttas) such as seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on. E:>But consciousness is also mentioned as a > factor for understanding here, meaning consciousness of *what* is > being perceived, not the "essence of seeing". ‘Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow......understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essence of states....’ In other words, seeing (consciousness or citta for this example) merely sees visible object (or colour)...it just sees but it doesn’t know anything about reality or about the visible object. It doesn’t mark it, remember it or like it, it just sees. On the other hand, it is pa~n~na which understands the characteristic of seeing or visible object or any other reality. It penetrates its ‘individual essence’. E:>To me this very clearly > appears to be referring to the nature of what is *being* seen--again, > the forms arisen in dependence on the eye-sense. That is a pretty big > difference. In fact, if read as the the essence of *what is being > seen*, it accords with the Satipatthana Sutta, because here it says > that understanding, using consciousness, investigates the > characteristics of its object, and comes to see them as impermanent, > painful, and not-self. Both the Satipatthana Sutta and the use of states in this quote above are referring to all conditioned realities that should be known and understood, including consciousness. I have an idea that the confusion is because you may have forgotten that seeing, hearing etc are also cittas, or moments of consciousness. E:> This makes even more sense to me if I just consider my own > experience. For example, I can discern the fetter of unarisen sensual > desire arising in me when I'm around my girlfriend. In this way I can > easily note the arising of this unarisen fetter, and likewise, some > time after taking a cold shower, if I'm lucky, the passing away of > this fetter. > > What I am still unable to do, however, is figure out how I'm supposed > to note any of the three characteristics of the "essence of seeing" > going on at the same time. Can you understasnd where I might have a > hard time discerning how one is supposed to recognize this > mysterious "essence of seeing", when it's so very simple to instead > observe the characteristics of all these obvious fetters like > kamachanda arising and passing away? I do understand. The development of awareness is not as simple as many believe at all. In your example above, as you say there are many, many moments of lobha. What about in between the lobha? Aren’t there also many, many moments of seeing, hearing, touching hardness and so on? Like you say, most of the time there is no awareness at all of any of these realities and we’re just lost in the lobha and the ‘story’. Erik, I really think that recognizing as you do here, just how little (or no awareness), there is of any other realities at these times is a very good stepping stone. When we think in our ignorance that there’s constant awareness, it’s very hard (read impossible) for satipatthana to develop. Studying and considering more about what are the realities now, even while dreaming about Aert (yr girlfriend) is the way that satipatthana will develop for sure. It has to be developed in daily life. S:> > As I have mentioned, there has to be awareness of the > > characteristic of 'essence' or nature of seeing over > > and over and over again. Direct understanding has to > > know its nature as being not-self and quite different > > from visible object, sanna and thinking. > E:> Again, to help with my obtuseness, how do do this? What > about "seeing" gives me enough of a hook to sink my sati into that I > can work with right now? How do I get "clear comprehension" of this > essence--because after all clear comprehension and mindfulness work > together, and I can't even get a clear comprehension of what > this "essence of seeing" refers to, let alone how I'd begin to > recognize this in any way even if I did had an idea what this is > supposed to mean! :) Just forget about ‘essence’ for now, I suggest, or just understand how different seeing is from hearing or from visible object or from clinging. There is no self that can get a clear comprehension or do anything. But these questions of yours about understanding these realities now show that already you appreciate the importance of hearing and considering details about dhammas wisely and realise that awareness doesn’t just arise at will without a lot of clear comprehension of what the objects are to be known. Erik, I appreciated this post of yours and the questions raised very much because they really relate to the practice of satipatthana right now. Many thanks for giving me the opportunity for these reflections, Sarah 8189 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 5:22am Subject: Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo Dear Venerable Dhammapiyo, Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. I find it not easy to talk about the practice as if it were something we should do, different from what we are doing right now. It seems so much just part of life, the study, the considering, the moments when there is direct awareness; It all goes together, and each assists the development of the others. Writing on the internet there are many reminders of the nature of realities, or reading the newspaper, the death and sorrow we read about remind me of the paticcasamupada (dependent origination) and how actually death is happening right now : the momentary death of a moment of seeing which falls away to be replaced by some other conditioned dhamma. Yesterday I went for a long walk in the New Zealand wilderness where I am now holidaying. In one part there was a foul smell and I soon saw the rotting carcase of a large cow in the swamp. How does this relate to the practice and Abhidhamma? There was smelling (a type of citta)and smell (a rupa). then so quickly some slight degree of dosa (aversion)- a cetasika that arose because of several conditions. Then there was very quickly the thought that "soon I will die and be like this" and that thinking was underlaid by detachment and calm so is a level of samatha. And then there was some understanding of the difference between the understanding that was at the level of samatha and that that was of satipatthana. There was not understanding of the degree of vipassana. Nor was there samatha at the level of upacara (access concentration). And yet confidence (saddha) (another cetasika - not self)was strong. We read in the suttas about a monk seeing a corpse, or some other object, and how he immediately became enlightened. Learning about these different moments in our own life one knows how it must have been for those monks. One sees the way that understanding develops and is confident, to whatever degree is suitable, of what the path is. No one can say when enough understanding will be developed so that such moments could condition magga citta (path moment). It might be next week or it might be a thousand lifetimes later- or much more. It doesn't matter; what is most important is learning what the buddha really taught and seeing it over and over. I believe it is not so much a matter of doing and trying but of learning to see. The dhammas in the Abhidhamma are here and now. We don't have to go anywhere or do anything; but there does have to be sufficient conditions. There should be awe and respect for the Dhamma so that one studies not with the aim of getting something, but rather of genuinely testing out what is heard against this moment. The more we listen and consider and investigate directly, then for sure there are more conditions been built up for insight. In the very beginning there are only conditions for ignorance and craving so almost everyone tries so hard to see. But the sort of seeing that the Buddha meant is detached. Thus real insight comes not from trying and wanting but through fulfilling the correct conditions. Then there are moments, maybe a few more every year, where awareness arises just because it must, and this is deeper than when we try to make it come about. Then awareness too is known as anatta, as not under control of anyone. However, this doesn't mean 'well it's all conditioned, I'll just let it happen'. So I am not saying 'don't try to be aware", but by being awake to lobha(craving) we know it is always trying to slip in. It can be extremely refined. Also I feel the moments when there is only heedlessness are very natural , conditioned , not self: we don't need to be frightened of unwholesome moments as they are only conditioned dhammas- so insignificant and fleeting- we should see them as they are. Then again it is not the middle way if we tolerate the kilesa either, then we are not sincere... Another point. I find different reminders and different ways of considering very helpful. Otherwise there is a tendency, because life has become easier (through more understanding, or samattha or sila), to get comfortable and coast. Reading different suttas reminds us of different realities and the complex ways they are conditioned; it helps us see these dhammas as anatta when they appear in daily life These are just my reflections. I think there are not rules we should follow because everyone's accumulations are vastly different. I like what Dan wrote about this:"Instead of prescribing a ritual to guarantee enlightenment, the Buddha described the nature of reality and suggested that we carefully consider his words, not just intellectually, but as they apply to each moment in the day." Anumodana on your great interest for Dhamma as shown by your life as a Bhikkhu in the sasana of the Buddha. robert Dear Robert K., I am deeply touched by the clear and concise explanation. It is excellent! Sadhu! Sadhu! Sahdu! If you would be so kind, could you communicate some things about actual practice? It would be very helpful to many surely! Metta and Karuna Dhammapiyo Bhante ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Epstein" Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:47 PM Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E > > --- <> wrote: > > --- : > > > _______ > > Dear Robert E., > > Vipassana means special or profound seeing. That is, insight into the > > true nature of dhammas, realities. These dhammas are analysed and > > explained by the Sammasamabuddha in the most careful way in the > > Abhidhamma. They are also explained throughout the rest of the > > Tipitaka but in a less comprehensive way. > > The Buddha's teaching are sometimes called DhammaVinaya (the > > teachings and discipline). And these are recorded in the Tipitaka > > (the pali canon). Ti means three and so it is divided into 1) Vinaya > > (rules for monks and nuns). 2)Suttanta - individual discourses to > > various people on diverse topics and 3) Abhidhamma > > People have different accumulations and hence there are differences > > as to which aspects of the DhammaVinaya are most appealing. However, > > even one who devotes most time to suttanta or vinaya will have to > > know much about the khandas, the ayatanas(sense fields), and the > > dhatus(elements) , the different conditions; as these are, as the > > visuddhimagga says "the soil in which understanding grows". These are > > all found in the suttanta and even a little in the vinaya . But it is > > only in the Abhidhamma where they are elucidated in full detail. The > > Abhidhamma details all that the realities that we experience in daily > > life as well as those that we aspire to. Understanding Abhidhamma is > > synonymous with with understanding life, with vipassana . (By > > understanding I mean not as an academic understands but as direct and > > deep understanding of whatever appears at the 6doors.) > > here is an url: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/tipintr4.htm > > robert 8190 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 6:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik Dear Kenneth, My apologies. Phassa (contact) is first of the 7 universal cetasikas (mental factors) which accompanies every citta (consciousness) and in brief it 'contacts' the object so that citta, e.g seeing or hearing can experience it. Usually we put the translation in brackets if they are Pali words which haven't been discussed much. We try to encourage everyone to use Pali rather than Sanskrit words here as this is a Theravada (Pali canon) list. I know this is hard fro those more familiar with Sanskrit and so it's not a rigid rule. Any words I use will certainly be Pali rather than Sanskrit. You can find a glossary for most words used on the homepage under files and perhaps it would be useful to print it out and keep it handy for anyone new to the list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Pali_Glossary We've had some detailed discussion about phassa before which you can probably find under phassa: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts or search for phassa at; http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ (password:metta) Finally I'd encourage you and anyone else who is interested to study mor about phassa and other cetasikas to read Nina's book 'Cetasikas' which is well-worth purchasing but can also be found on line at: http://www.dhammastudy.com/ I hope this has answered your question and thank you for bringing it to my attention - i'm sure there are many others in the same position as you. Btw, I'm appreciating your contributions and especially the one you wrote to Dan and Cybele (I think) with regard to the attacks and the importance on reflecting on the dhamma at these times. Look f/w to more, Sarah --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi all, > Could I suggest that there is a standard way of writing this is Pali word or > this is a Sankrist word. To me because I can get very perplex by Pali words > meanings as I am not fimiliar with them. Soemtimes I feel that I miss out > impt discussions here because of my lack of understanding of Pali words. The > only source so far I have is from this link > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html for Pali word meaning. Maybe > bold to represent Pali or Capitalize it. Could someone please kindly assist > in pointing a good source of pali glossary other than the one I mentioned > here. And a sankrist one also please. I could not find Phassa word in this > Pali Glossary, is this a Sankrist word. > A million thanks > KO > > Sarah wrote: Hi Erik, > > Your other messages (to me) rather jumped the queue...back to this one as > promised;-) > > --- rikpa21 wrote: > > Sarah:> > 2)Nibbana, > > > even though it's unconditioned, is a reality with its own 'sabhava' > > even if it > > > lacks many/most the > > > characteristics of other realities. Because we often use negative > > terms to > > > describe it (the > > > un-this and un-that) it's very easy to be left with the idea that > > there is > > > nothing to be realized. > > E: > What about the non-affirming negation represented by the label > > Nibbana can be positively known? > > I think I'll leave this question to the 'experts';-)) Or rather, please look > under nibbana at: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > > > S: > > Also, of > > > course, all realities are not self and yet phassa 'contacts' > > them..this doesn't > > > make them > > > non-existent. > > > E: > Phassa contacts mundane realities, which may have anatta as a > > ultimate characteristic, but phassa isn't contacting that aspect of > > them. That is the function of lokuttara panna. > > At any given moment, citta and its accompanying cetasikas (always including > phassa) experience a reality as it is exactly. So for example, seeing > experiences visible object accompanied by phassa and the rest. The nature or > characteristic of both seeing and visible object is anatta and just as no one > ever sees, seeing never experiences or touches any self or thing in visible > object regardless of whether wrong view has or has not been eradicated. It is > the moha, micha ditthi, sanna and other cetasikas accompanying the following > cittas that make it seem otherwise. In other words, the nature of realities > doesn’t change, but the understanding of this nature does. > > > S:> > 3) The only way that seeing can be known as anatta is by > > > being aware of the essence of seeing when it appears > > > at this moment. Whether sati arises at the exact > > > moment of seeing or immediately following it in the > > > mind-door process is not very important. What is > > > important is to understand its nature when it appears. > > > I can hear Erik ready to object! > > > E:> I am curious where in the Satipatthana Sutta this is mentioned, > > because I've combed through it and haven't found this referenced > > there. What I have found is this: "There is the case where he > > discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that > > arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an > > unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a > > fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further > > appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The > > same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, > > tongue, body, & intellect.)" > > Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness: > > ‘he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness, ardent, clearly > comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome in this world > covetousness and grief...’ > > What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing, hearing, > smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door > experiencing. > > E:> This says to be mindful of the *fetters* arising dependent on *forms* > > arising in dependence on the eye-sense. Nowhere does it say to be > > mindful of the "essence of seeing". I have no idea how one would even > > go about being mindful of such a thing. Is it possible to explain how > > one is supposed to be mindful of the "essence of seeing"? What > > in particular is one supposed to pay attention to, such that sati > > finds a firm foundation for arising? > > One doesn’t go about anything, but at this moment there is the experiencing > of > visible object in front of us. Like you say, if there were no eye-sense or > arammana (object) to be experienced there would be no seeing. On account of > what is seen, the fetters arise. Understanding first in theory that what is > seeing now is just a citta, a moment of experiencing, no self at all, can > begin > to help provide the necessary conditions for satipatthana to arise and be > aware > of its very characteristic or nature. (I’ll leave sabhava and essence for > now;-)) > > > E:> Of all the meditations in the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, such as on the > > five hindrances, the body, the Four Noble Truths, pleasant feeling, > > unleasant feeling, I can't find any reference to this at all. > > Let me know if I’ve misunderstood you above. > > S:> > Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow, > > > and it brings about the penetration of its > > > characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by > > > endeavouring, the manifestation of the (supramundane) > > > path. Understanding knows the object in the way > > > already stated, it brings about the penetration of the > > > characteristics, and it brings about, by endeavouring, > > > the manifestation of the > > > path.................Understanding has the > > > characteristic of penetrating the individual essences > > > of states*. Its function is to abolish the darkness > > > of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of > > > states. It is manifested as non-delusion. Because of > > > the words "One who is concentrated knows and sees > > > correctly (A.v.3), its proximate cause is > > > concentration...' > > > > > > *' 'A phenomenon's own essence (sako bhavo) or > > > existing essence (samano va bhava) is its individual > > > essence (sabhava). Cf Ch V111, note 68 where Pm gives > > > the definition from saha-bhava (with essence). > > E:> This sounds like it's actually contradicting you Sarah! There is not > > mention of penetrating the essence of "seeing" but rather the > > essence of *what* (phenomenon) is being seen: as painful, > > impermanent, and not-self. > > I can’t find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant these same > realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other suttas) such as > seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on. > > E:>But consciousness is also mentioned as a > > factor for understanding here, meaning consciousness of *what* is > > being perceived, not the "essence of seeing". > > ‘Consciousness knows the objects as blue or yellow......understanding has the > characteristic of penetrating the individual essence of states....’ > > In other words, seeing (consciousness or citta for this example) merely sees > visible object (or colour)...it just sees but it doesn’t know anything about > reality or about the visible object. It doesn’t mark it, remember it or like > it, it just sees. On the other hand, it is pa~n~na which understands the > characteristic of seeing or visible object or any other reality. It > penetrates > its ‘individual essence’. > > E:>To me this very clearly > > appears to be referring to the nature of what is *being* seen--again, > > the forms arisen in dependence on the eye-sense. That is a pretty big > > difference. In fact, if read as the the essence of *what is being > > seen*, it accords with the Satipatthana Sutta, because here it says > > that understanding, using consciousness, investigates the > > characteristics of its object, and comes to see them as impermanent, > > painful, and not-self. > > Both the Satipatthana Sutta and the use of states in this quote above are > referring to all conditioned realities that should be known and understood, > including consciousness. I have an idea that the confusion is because you may > have forgotten that seeing, hearing etc are also cittas, or moments of > consciousness. > > E:> This makes even more sense to me if I just consider my own > > experience. For example, I can discern the fetter of unarisen sensual > > desire arising in me when I'm around my girlfriend. In this way I can > > easily note the arising of this unarisen fetter, and likewise, some > > time after taking a cold shower, if I'm lucky, the passing away of > > this fetter. > > > > What I am still unable to do, however, is figure out how I'm supposed > > to note any of the three characteristics of the "essence of seeing" > > going on at the same time. Can you understasnd where I might have a > > hard time discerning how one is supposed to recognize this > > mysterious "essence of seeing", when it's so very simple to instead > > observe the characteristics of all these obvious fetters like > > kamachanda arising and passing away? > > I do understand. The development of awareness is not as simple as many > believe > at all. In your example above, as you say there are many, many moments of > lobha. What about in between the lobha? Aren’t there also many, many moments > of > seeing, hearing, touching hardness and so on? Like you say, most of the time > there is no awareness at all of any of these realities and we’re just lost in > the lobha and the ‘story’. > > Erik, I really think that recognizing as you do here, just how little (or no > awareness), there is of any other realities at these times is a very good > stepping stone. When we think in our ignorance that there’s constant > awareness, > it’s very hard (read impossible) for satipatthana to develop. Studying and > considering more about what are the realities now, even while dreaming about > Aert (yr girlfriend) is the way that satipatthana will develop for sure. It > has > to be developed in daily life. > > S:> > As I have mentioned, there has to be awareness of the > > > characteristic of 'essence' or nature of seeing over > > > and over and over again. Direct understanding has to > > > know its nature as being not-self and quite different > > > from visible object, sanna and thinking. > > > E:> Again, to help with my obtuseness, how do do this? What > > about "seeing" gives me enough of a hook to sink my sati into that I > > can work with right now? How do I get "clear comprehension" of this > > essence--because after all clear comprehension and mindfulness work > > together, and I can't even get a clear comprehension of what > > this "essence of seeing" refers to, let alone how I'd begin to > > recognize this in any way even if I did had an idea what this is > > supposed to mean! :) > > Just forget about ‘essence’ for now, I suggest, or just understand how > different seeing is from hearing or from visible object or from clinging. > There > is no self that can get a clear comprehension or do anything. But these > questions of yours about understanding these realities now show that already > you appreciate the importance of hearing and considering details about > dhammas > wisely and realise that awareness doesn’t just arise at will without a lot of > clear comprehension of what the objects are to be known. > > Erik, I appreciated this post of yours and the questions raised very much > because they really relate to the practice of satipatthana right now. > > Many thanks for giving me the opportunity for these reflections, > > Sarah 8191 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 7:02am Subject: clinging and welcome Jill Dear Jill, thanks for your recommendation below...I like the title;-)) Actually we're all beginners here and I apprciate that Erik , in spite of his many, many years of dhamma study and practice, realizes how very long the path is. I'd be interested to know where you're from and how you found your way here or anything about your interest in dhamma. This isn't compulsory but just a way for us to get to know and welcome new members! Anway, welcome here and I'm glad you found us. Sarah p.s Kenneth, still looking forward to your intro one day;-)) --- Jill Harrison wrote: > > I am asking in all seriousness here, because this is obviously a > > method many here in DSG advocate, and I am still scratching my head > > after all this time about what I am missing that makes it so > > difficult for me to understand how I'm supposed to come to see this, > > let alone where to even begin. > > > > i'm also a beginner, but i've found: > Mindfulness in Plain English > by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana, Henepola Gunaratana > to be very helpful. > 8192 From: Herman Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 7:56am Subject: Practise Hi all, I am not selective in the suttas I read, and most of them desribe the Buddha in a sitting meditation position, prior to him speaking. The introductions to the suttas I have read, and these introductions are as much a part of the suttas as what others may consider the "meat" of the suttas, leave no doubt in this little mind that the method of the Buddha was seated meditation. There has been discussion previously as to whether or not seated meditation is explicitly prescribed in the suttas. Is it possible that seated meditation is so implicit in everything the Buddha did, that it was considered labouring an obvious point to have mentioned it the discursive sections of the Tipitaka?? NZ was ixcellent (sic). Our knees are just fine. Love Herman 8193 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:08am Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Dear Howard, --- Howard wrote: > > If I remember this correctly, this referred to > > bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise > after > > parinibbaana, by my understanding of the canon. > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, I think it was a reference something to > the effect of the mind > being originally luminous, but covered by > adventitious defilements that is > sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga. Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd be very interested in finding this idea (an originally luminous mind, covered by adventitious defilements) anywhere in the Pali canon. > (BTW, I'm not sure > whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in the > suttas.) -------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure either, not at all sure. You know, last time we chatted off-list, I expressed some grave reservations about the abhidhamma, and the conviction that it was of far less significance than the other two baskets. Fickle fellow that I am, I seem to've swung back into a more standard Theravadin view. At the time I think I was reacting against some of Jon's comments regarding the path. I REALLY didn't want to give up my path--unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that Jon was right, and yet another view lies in ruins (damn--I thought they were already all kaput!) > -------------------------------------------------- > > > Unfortunately, it seems to open a door for the > > positing of some sort of 'cosmic consciousness', > which > > concept I believe is clearly alien to the > Theravada. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't even have a clue what "cosmic > consciousness" would be. But > awareness without an object, beyond all conditions > and conditioning, unborn, > and deathless would be nibbana to me. > --------------------------------------------------- Well, by my reading of Mr. Webster, 'boundless awareness' could certainly be a synonym for 'cosmic consciousness'--an expression I've heard often, and for a long time. I didn't mean to be insulting, though. Shalom! mike 8194 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 0:45pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill Dear Sarah, I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few years of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn Thervada also because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I also learn a lot of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and I have benefitted greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in understanding Mahayana Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of them equally (oops attachment). Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life. It has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another attachement) :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help me in my life in so many ways that i cannot descibed. But I have to admit that I still have many weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very proud of myself. Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware and not be easily angry or proud. My mindful periods are very brief, morning mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period starts when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after work till late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also on the hand does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply be appreciated. Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend after family commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this chat group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could learn a lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take this opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple here who contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of Buddhism and practises. My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am a Singaporean. With kind regards KO Sarah wrote: Dear Jill, thanks for your recommendation below...I like the title;-)) Actually we're all beginners here and I apprciate that Erik , in spite of his many, many years of dhamma study and practice, realizes how very long the path is. I'd be interested to know where you're from and how you found your way here or anything about your interest in dhamma. This isn't compulsory but just a way for us to get to know and welcome new members! Anway, welcome here and I'm glad you found us. Sarah p.s Kenneth, still looking forward to your intro one day;-)) --- Jill Harrison wrote: > > I am asking in all seriousness here, because this is obviously a > > method many here in DSG advocate, and I am still scratching my head > > after all this time about what I am missing that makes it so > > difficult for me to understand how I'm supposed to come to see this, > > let alone where to even begin. > > > > i'm also a beginner, but i've found: > Mindfulness in Plain English > by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana, Henepola Gunaratana > to be very helpful. > 8195 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 2:17pm Subject: Hello Kenneth (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill) --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few years > of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn Thervada also > because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I also learn a lot > of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and I have benefitted > greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in understanding Mahayana > Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of them equally (oops > attachment). > Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life. It > has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another attachement) > :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help me in my life in > so many ways that i cannot descibed. But I have to admit that I still have many > weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very proud > of myself. > Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware > and not be easily angry or proud. My mindful periods are very brief, morning > mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period starts > when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after work till > late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also on the hand > does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply be appreciated. > Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend after family > commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated. > Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring > sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this chat > group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could learn a > lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take this > opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple here who > contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of Buddhism and > practises. > My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am a > Singaporean. > With kind regards > KO Kenneth, I have enjoyed your direct and sincere posts, including our discussions on the somewhat heated subject of the attack on the U.S. I am happy to hear a bit about your background and personal history. This has led me to realize that I never posted an intro myself. I am happy to hear about your family. I have a three year old daughter myself, although I am a little older than you [I'm a late starter]. One question: Could you say a word about the Pure Land practices? I am familiar with Ch'an/Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, but I have only heard briefly about Pure Land Buddhism before. I would be interested in a little talk on that if you feel you would like to. Regards, Robert E. ====================== 8196 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 2:21pm Subject: Re: Practise Dear Herman, Thank you for your post below. I am also curious about the relative importance of sitting meditation. Below is a post I sent to D-L yesterday: I have had three excellent replies, but would like to hear from DSG members as well. "I read the Mahasatipatthana Sutta you mentioned, at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/index.html#dn22 This is very interesting, it doesn't say that Breath is one of the Great Frames of Reference: It mentions body, feelings, mind, and mind- objects. Breath would be one of the mind-objects? So it seems that sitting and walking meditation, and concentration on the breath as the primary object is not the ONLY way to meditate - but just one way among many? Why does Buddhism (at least here in Australia) only seem to emphasise sitting on the cushion and watching the breath, I wonder." metta, Christine --- Herman wrote: > Hi all, > > I am not selective in the suttas I read, and most of them desribe the > Buddha in a sitting meditation position, prior to him speaking. > > The introductions to the suttas I have read, and these introductions > are as much a part of the suttas as what others may consider > the "meat" of the suttas, leave no doubt in this little mind that the > method of the Buddha was seated meditation. > > There has been discussion previously as to whether or not seated > meditation is explicitly prescribed in the suttas. > > Is it possible that seated meditation is so implicit in everything > the Buddha did, that it was considered labouring an obvious point to > have mentioned it the discursive sections of the Tipitaka?? > > > NZ was ixcellent (sic). Our knees are just fine. > > Love > > Herman 8197 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 2:48pm Subject: Hi from Robert E. Dear Friends, Well, this is a little late, but I was inspired by Kenneth to present a bio. My recollection is that I sort of introduced myself when I first popped in here as a visitor, but not really in any detail. I live in Washington, D.C., in the U.S., and I am originally from New York. My wife has a government job, and we have a three-year old daughter. I am in my mid-fourties, but I have the personality of someone younger in many ways. Let's say I haven't had a great interest in growing up! I have a background in music, played jazz saxaphone in bands when younger, as well as singing from pop to lieder, writing poetry for many years, and involvements in drama. I have a college degree [B.A.] in philosophy, which explains my tendency to complicate things when I talk or write. I became interested in Zen when I was a teenager, later in T'ai Chi, which I studied for 10 years, then yoga, which I studied and taught for almost 15 years after that. I studied a number of different meditation and spiritual systems, including an interesting New Age version of Agni Yoga [purifying inner fire meditation] for about 8 years. From my yoga teaching, I became interested in massage, since guiding touch seemed to be very effective in giving students greater awareness and mobility. I studied and was licensed in massage and established a practice in deep tissue and healing massage, along with yoga teaching, for a number of years in New York. I studied a number of interesting massage techniques, such as Shiatsu, Reiki, and Cranio-Sacral work [based on Osteopathy]. Along the way I managed to take a seminary program and was ordained as an Interfaith Minister in the late '90s. I have performed one wedding and for a while was giving home-made services to a small group at home. Meanwhile, I studied acting in New York for almost a decade and became an acting teacher, and began formulating a long-term acting course which has continued through my move to DC a few years ago. I have now been teaching acting for about 15 years, and I now have my full-time work as an acting teacher, working with about four groups a week, and doing my lesson plans and communications at home. At home during the day, I have primary responsibility for caring for our three-year old, with a little help from babysitters. Raising my daughter is my first responsiblity, a very pleasurable one, but I manage to keep on top of my business as well. My daughter is kind enough to let me write an occasional email during the day but I do most of it late at night. At a certain point in my yoga career, my own yoga teacher announced that he was engaging in intensive work in Vipassana meditation. He disappeared for a long time and did a number of lengthy retreats at the Insight Meditation Centre in Barre, Mass., in the U.S., which is visited by many major Vipassana teachers from around the world. After several years, he returned and offered some of his closer students a chance to go into a short retreat under his direction. We had something like a four-day retreat but it was very intensive from my point of view and I found it a life-changing initiation. On top of this, he was kind enough to give me some private instruction and I got a simple, but deep, introduction to Vipassana practice, which has been the model for my meditation for a number of years now. At the same time, I have spent many years studying and contemplating the koans and writings of the great Zen masters, some of the Advaita Vedanta masters in India, such as Ramana Maharshi, and Tibetan writings as well. I have been especially influenced by the Chinese BLUE CLIFF RECORD [Ch'an], the DIAMOND SUTRA and Hui-Neng's PLATFORM SUTRA, as well as the LANKAVATARA SUTRA. Ch'an Masters Hui Hai, Chao-Chou and 15th century Zen Master and poet Ikkyu have also been influential. I am currently enjoying being educated in the Pali Canon here on dsg, while continuing my interest in Ch'an/Zen and Tibetan Dzogchen. I am also revivifying my interest in playing music. I recently purchased a bass clarinet and a soprano saxaphone, which brings my collection up to 2 clarinets, three saxes, a piano and a guitar. Our older cat recently passed away, leaving us with one very neurotic but sweet cat named Smallcat. [She's actually quite large]. Thanks for allowing me to introduce myself. Sorry I'm not very good at being brief. Regards, Robert E. ============================= ===== Robert Epstein, Program Director / Acting Instructor THE COMPLETE MEISNER-BASED ACTOR'S TRAINING in Wash., D.C. homepage: http://homepage.mac.com/epsteinrob1/ commentary: http://www.scene4.com/commentary/commentary.html profile: http://www.aviar.com/snsmembers/Robert_Epstein/robert_epstein.html "What you learn to really do becomes real" "Great actors create actions that are as rich as text" 8198 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 3:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill Dear Kenneth, --- KennethOng wrote: > I have to > admit that I still have many weaknesses especially > laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very > proud of myself. I know you know that these are impersonal phenomena, arising and subsiding according to conditions. Attributing them to 'yourself' is just a form of maana and, worse, self-view, I think. mike 8199 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 3:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise Dear Christine, I think your question will be answered by reading the Anapanasati Sutta, THE SUTRA ON THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE BREATHING, in which the Buddha says that the breath is the foundation for experiencing the four foundations of mindfulness and the seven factors of awakening. This site has a complete translation by Thannisaro Bikkhu of Saigon: http://maxpages.com/drfu6/Anapanasati_Sutra I'd be interested in your comments after reading this. Best, Robert E. =================================== --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Dear Herman, > > Thank you for your post below. > I am also curious about the relative importance of sitting > meditation. Below is a post I sent to D-L yesterday: I have had > three excellent replies, but would like to hear from DSG members as > well. > > "I read the Mahasatipatthana Sutta you mentioned, at > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/index.html#dn22 > > This is very interesting, it doesn't say that Breath is one of the > Great Frames of Reference: It mentions body, feelings, mind, and mind- > objects. Breath would be one of the mind-objects? So it seems that > sitting and walking meditation, and concentration on the breath as > the primary object is not the ONLY way to meditate - but just one way > among many? Why does Buddhism (at least here in Australia) only seem > to emphasise sitting on the cushion and watching the breath, I > wonder." > > metta, > Christine > > --- Herman wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am not selective in the suttas I read, and most of them desribe > the > > Buddha in a sitting meditation position, prior to him speaking. > > > > The introductions to the suttas I have read, and these > introductions > > are as much a part of the suttas as what others may consider > > the "meat" of the suttas, leave no doubt in this little mind that > the > > method of the Buddha was seated meditation. > > > > There has been discussion previously as to whether or not seated > > meditation is explicitly prescribed in the suttas. > > > > Is it possible that seated meditation is so implicit in everything > > the Buddha did, that it was considered labouring an obvious point > to > > have mentioned it the discursive sections of the Tipitaka?? > > > > > > NZ was ixcellent (sic). Our knees are just fine. > > > > Love > > > > Herman 8200 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 3:38pm Subject: Re: Hello Kenneth (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill) Pure Land Buddhism is centre upon Amitabha Buddha where his land is known as the Land of Utmost Bliss. According to Mahayana Sutras, Amitabha Buddha have been a Buddha for ten Kalpas and have not gone into Nirvana Pure Land Buddhism is based upon these few pillars (from what I think). a. recitings of Amitabha Buddha name. In mindfulness we are mindful of feelings, body, consciousness and mental formations. Pure Land utilised mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha name so that the mind could reach oneness and break away from dualism. b. To hold on to the ten precepts It is the extension of the five precepts but I think it is different from the ten precepts of Thervadas. c. There is a desire to be born there. This is the most contentious topic of Pure Land Buddhism because it sounds like Christainity. Sentinental beings could be born in Amitabha Buddha Pureland if they desire due to the vows he made when Amitabha Buddha is an inspiring Budhisattvas just like Sakyamuni Buddha, when he is a Bodhisattvas, he vow to born in Saha world. However, there is a catch, you got to practise the ten precepts and also mindfullness of his name (actually can be any other Buddha or Bodhisattvas names as long as the desire is to be born there). There is no such things as grace or confession or easy way out. You got to learn to be mindful and practise the ten precepts. d. the Transference of merit to all sentinental beings or to Pure Land e. this is a practise by one great Pure Land guru, he said that we got to learn to be humble and always reflect on our own actions. (I think should be including as another pillar). the reasons I practise Pureland Buddhism is because I am terribly scare of going through the wheel of cycle of life again since there is a better place for me to go, I really wish to go there. It is like a buying a insurance policy for our retirement. we pay premiuns like mindfullness and keep our precepts. Pure Land is enticing (attachment) to me because firstly, Buddha is always there to teach us, all beings lifespans are limitless, thirdly you can practise there until you reach the last stage of Bodhisattvas or you can choose to go elsewhere, fourly there is no hell beings, ghosts realm, and all are sexless, nameless. In my personal opinin, it is a very good enivronment to practise. Pure Land Buddhism can be easily lead to superstitions if Practitioners do not know what they are doing and why they are doing this or that. I welcome comments or discussions so that I could learn more abt Buddhism. Personnaly I do not have any Pure Land Statutes in my house nor do I go to temple to pay homage because to me the most importantly is that Buddha is inside me and not outside. with kindest regards Kenneth Ong Robert Epstein wrote: --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few years > of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn Thervada also > because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I also learn a lot > of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and I have benefitted > greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in understanding Mahayana > Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of them equally (oops > attachment). > Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life. It > has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another attachement) > :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help me in my life in > so many ways that i cannot descibed. But I have to admit that I still have many > weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very proud > of myself. > Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware > and not be easily angry or proud. My mindful periods are very brief, morning > mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period starts > when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after work till > late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also on the hand > does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply be appreciated. > Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend after family > commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated. > Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring > sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this chat > group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could learn a > lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take this > opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple here who > contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of Buddhism and > practises. > My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am a > Singaporean. > With kind regards > KO Kenneth, I have enjoyed your direct and sincere posts, including our discussions on the somewhat heated subject of the attack on the U.S. I am happy to hear a bit about your background and personal history. This has led me to realize that I never posted an intro myself. I am happy to hear about your family. I have a three year old daughter myself, although I am a little older than you [I'm a late starter]. One question: Could you say a word about the Pure Land practices? I am familiar with Ch'an/Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, but I have only heard briefly about Pure Land Buddhism before. I would be interested in a little talk on that if you feel you would like to. Regards, Robert E. ====================== 8201 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 4:20pm Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan) --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > Dear Erik, > Just popping my head into dsg again---I better be careful because I'm > starting to make a habit of it! > > Just a few quick comments, in a direct sort of way: As you know, I do prefer directness, Dan! :) > > On that note, what practices would you suggest I try to come to the > > point of discerning one of these moments arising and passing away? > > Struggling to find a "method" with a formula of "do such-and-such in > order to have such-and-such experience" is bound to be a dead end > because ultimately any such ritual is impotent, and the search for the > effective ritual, the silver bullet, THE "technique" is > silabbataparamasa---a fetter that hinders liberation. I find these comments unusual, given the Buddha seemed to pretty clearly describe a whole slew of "techniques" for cultivating mindfulness (cf. the Satipatthana Sutta). By the way, the definition of "technique" I am using is the commonly accepted one: "The systematic procedure by which a complex or scientific task is accomplished". Dukkha-nirodha seems to fit the bill of being a complex task, to me. At least, I've never heard anyone suggest that dukkha-nirodha is easy. It appears you're either using a very different definition of "technique" than I am, or you have misunderstood the meaning of silabbataparamasa (belief in the efficacy of rites and rituals). It sound as if you are suggesting that we need not do anything at all, not even "focusing on the body...feelings...mind...mental qualities"; that enlightenment will just magically drop in our laps apropos of nothing--or even more surprising (given I have never seen this interpretation anyplace other than DSG), that any efforts at all are the fetter of silabbataparamasa and directly hinder enlightenment! Is this what you're suggesting? I have seen this view expressed often here in DSG, so perhaps it is. Since this is a view that seems to be endorsed by some of the learned scholars here in DSG, I imagine someone should be able to show plenty of support for this in the Suttas of the Pali Canon (something we can all agree represent the Buddha's instructions to his disciples). Just a single in-context reference from the Suttas would do so much to help clarify this. I think this is a rather crucial point, all told. Also, given you appear to be using the term silabbataparamasa, perhaps you can point to a Sutta which provides us with the definition of the term as you're using it, which specifically talks about thinking of Satipatthana as a "method" is a hindrance to awakening. From what I see, Dan's definition of silabbataparamasa appears to include any efforts spent practicing the techniques of Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, or viewing these as "methods". For the record, I use the definition I have found in the Tripitaka, which matches definitions like Buddhadasa Bikkhu's: "Attachment to rites and rituals (Silabbatupadana): This refers to clinging to meaningless traditional practices that have been thoughtlessly handed down, practices which people choose to regard as sacred and not to be changed under any circumstances. In Thailand there are beliefs involving amulets, magical artifacts, and all manner of secret procedures." Given these definitions of silabbataparamasa and silabbatupadana, I can't see how employing techniques and methods and purification practices found in, for example, the Satipatthana Sutta, can be construed as "silabbataparamasa ". I am not trying to twist your words here. If this is not what you mean, can you explain how you see these practices in light of the above definition? Since I've heard you make this comment on a number of occasions, I assume you have some basis for this from the Suttas you can share with us that might help clarify your understanding on this. The reason I am spending so much precious time sitting here addressing these issues is because many of the discussions here in DSG seem to come back to this in one way or another. The nature of Right Effort keeps popping up in some way, and I have seen some make the argument that there is no need at all to seek out favorable conditions for developing Right Mindfulness; that we can, without any sort of diligent effort or practice, simply be aware of all realities arising here and now, and that this alone leads to Nibbana. Yet another opinion I have seen expressed here--taking this idea even further--is that any effort spent in cultivating favorable conditions for the development of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness is "wrong practice" somehow--that by directing one's efforts one is actually hindering enlightenment! I have to say that the only place I have ever seen this opinion expressed is right here in DSG, and nowhere else. This opinion implies (and I have heard this stated directly on a number of occasions, most recently in your post), that those who suggest seeking out favorable conditions for development and practicing the cultivation of mindfulness using the Four Frames of Reference and all the accepted objects--like the breath, the body, the hindrances, the Four Noble Truths--are mistaken and advocating silabbataparamasa. By my reckoning, that would appear to include the Buddha! And I hope you can clarify your interpretation, because that is a pretty tough nut to swallow! Once again, I am completely and dispassionately open to hearing a case made for what you're saying--backed up by references from the Suttas--since my sole interest is in any method (or even any non- method) demonstrated to bring dukkha to cessation--my own and that of others if I may be so presumptuous as to imagine I could ever be of service in such a way. Because that to me would be in accord with the Dhamma as I understand its purpose ("dukkham ceva paññapemi, dukkhassa ca nirodham"). Anything not leading directly to the cessation of suffering would not be in accord with the teacher's instructions as I understand them. For example, the little book on Mindfulness I brought home from Wat Mahatat the other day discusses the practice of Mindfulness. I am curious as to how you see these instructions, and if you agree or disagree with what they say. And if you agree or disagree, I am curious on which points specifically, and why. This goes for anyone here who cares to comment: "[The mediator] must practice mindfulness meditation seriously. If he is not serious about the technique or the result of the meditation, then he will not put enough effort into the practice. Consequently, he will not concentrate his mind well on the object of meditation and realize the true nature of nama and rupa. He must also be constantly mindful of what is happening in his body and mind. In other words, his mindfulness must be constant, sustained, uninterrupted, and continuous. Only when he is able to do this will he be able to attain the deep concentration to build the insight knowledge which penetrates into the true nature of the bodily and mental processes. This is a very important point, a very important way in which every mediator must follow...Sati means constant, sustained, uninterrupted mindfulness and not the ordinary mindfulness." In light of this (which by the way accords in every way with what I have been taught in the "Mahayana"), how does the meditation system and practice you're advocating enable one to sustain focus such that sufficient concentration arises to penetrate the essence of dhammas? That is where the rubber meets the road, as I see it. How long can you sustain meditation without interruption using the non-method you appear to be advocating? Again, based on the above (which concurs not only again with everything I've been taught in the Mahayana, but also accords perfectly with my own experience), one should be able to sustain uninterrupted concentration without break for long enough periods of time for there to be enough of a "head of steam" to penetrate the characteristics of nama and rupa, or at the very least to be able to easily discern their arising and passing away. If there is not this degree of sustained and uninterrupted concentration, I am at a loss to see how there is any hope at all of coming to see things as they are. It just doesn't follow that there would be without the basis of rock-solid concentration. And there are a number of distinguishing characteristics that become very evident to any mediator who's properly practiced sati meditation, which I would be happy to enumerate at some other point so we're all on the same page. > Buddha was much wiser and much more eloquent than I, but even he could > not explain, in plain language, how to replicate that experience > through diligent effort. If you do agree with me that the sole reason for the Buddha's use of plain language (at least language like "when breathing in long, note breathing in long; when breathing out long, note breathing out long..." is plain to me, perhaps this is confusing for some) in the Suttas was for the express purpose of showing us how to end our suffering (thus replicating the Buddha's experience), how does Dan see us getting from suffering sentient being right now to arahat? I think hearing how we're supposed to do this from your own understanding would be the most instructive thing of all here (this is what I've been asking for here all along, and in my original post), because from this we can perhaps work through the chain of cause-and-effect from Dan's understanding of getting from suffering sentient being to dukkha nirodha, and see how Dan's version of this fits (or not) with the Buddha's teachings on the chain of causes and conditions leading from suffering sentient being to arahat. That is, if you accept that there is a chain of cause-and-effect that leads from suffering sentient being to arahat, which, based on your earlier comments, isn't entirely clear to me. > The problem is that once you start to say > "I'm going to do this to effect that", the mythical "I" is created and > all efforts go into elaborating on that "I", protecting that "I", > gratifying that "I", and magnifying that "I". And that "I" is > remarkably resisient and sneaky. Dan, I think we all accept that the false idea of "I" is always there until sotapatti-magga-nana (and the anusaya version of it is there until arahata-magga-nana), and there's certainly no need to expend any special effort creating it. From my understanding, though, we do have to expend serious effort getting rid of that notion, and for that there is the practice outlines in the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. If we are entirely honest, there is a sense of "I" to be worked with while cultivating the path, and this reality has to be worked with skillfully, not simply ignored by sticking our fingers in our ears and singing "it's all anatta"--but by applying that undersatnding when observing the characteristics of composed things as they arise and cease, thus discerning them as impermanent, suffering, and not- self by observing these very characteristics. Simply understanding this fact intellectually doesn't terminate the problem. If that's all it took, then we'd all be arahats by now. There has to be more to it than this. And according to my understanding, diligently applying the instructions in the Sutra on the Four Foundations of Mindfulness-- focusing on specific objects (body, feelings, mind, mental qualities) as a way to train the mind to observe how whatever we're observing all share the characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and not- "self"--is that very way. > Soon this very "I" starts building up > an elaborate set of words and concepts and systems to "convince > itself" that it really doesn't believe in itself, rejects itself. Glad you mention this, because there appears to be a lot of evidence that merely studying scriptures and learning the definitions for "anatta", or just saying the words "just seeing", without diligently applying this understanding in directed practice (until this mindfulness is naturally established such that there is clear noting of these characteristics) acts as a condition for exactly the sort of problem you indicate. > Instead of prescribing a ritual to guarantee enlightenment, the Buddha > described the nature of reality and suggested that we carefully > consider his words, not just intellectually, but as they apply to each > moment in the day. There's that elusive "moment" again. Where? What does the "reality" of this moment look like? What characteristics are we supposed to be looking for here? That was my original question, and I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer on this one. > If you want to sit quietly in the corner, eyes closed, and "meditate", > or to walk back and forth at a snail's pace, noting the lifting, > raising, moving, touching, placing of the foot, that's fine. It may > even be helpful...perhaps. There is a danger, though, that > that "practice" takes on the appearance of a "method" that liberates, > at which point it becomes a dead end. I would be interested in seeing the references in the Suttas that clearly say how the Four Foundations of Mindfulness become a "dead end" if they are seen as a "method". The Buddha seemed to teach it as a "method": "[Satipatthana] is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding -- in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said." "Path" is a synonym of "method" in the thesaurus, Dan, so to me it appears that the Buddha is indeed advocating a "method"--which by your definition is slabbataparamasa? There are only two possibilities I can see here regarding what you've just said: 1) your definition of the term "method" differs vastly from mine or 2) your intended meaning differs from the Buddha's intended meaning somehow. Given you're a college educated chap, I will be generous and assume you at least share the same definition of "method" I'm using, since that would seem pretty basic for anyone who's been properly educated in the English language. > Buddhadasa's word about the kinds of clinging are certainly > instructive. What kinds of clinging am I experiencing now? A whole > rash of them are apparent in retrospect, as they occurred a second > ago, or a few seconds ago. Sometimes it is less than a second ago. > Sometimes there is a moment or two where there is awareness of vedana > or tanha or bhava without elaboration. These moments are quite > different from most moments and description of them is difficult. Ah, now we get to something a bit more meaty. Your suggestion that "you" experience vedana, tanha, or bhava without elaboration implies you have directly seen realities as they are (yatha-bhuta- dasa-nana), and now I am really interested in what you have to say, because this is exactly the sort of thing I have been hoping to hear from someone. Anyway, I am far less interested in hearing about others' meditative experiences (unless doing so is some form of helpful instruction) and am far more interested in hearing how I can get the same understanding as you claim to have. So, if you would be so kind, please tell, how did you get from "deluded Dan" to where you are now able to clearly discern these things as impermanent, suffering, and not-self? What "method" (as in path) did you employ to bring this knowledge about? What were or are the conditions for its arising (surely it can't arise absent conditions, there have to be conditions someplace, in keeping with the law of cause and effect)? 8202 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 5:03pm Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E. Dear Robert, Thank you for this link. I have printed it off and will look in detail. I take a while to think things through, not terribly learned in Dhamma, but will let you know [eventually :-)] any comments I might have. Previously, I have been practising intermittently the Mahasi method of meditating - concentration on rising and falling of the abdomen, and was interested in finding out why some people I respect greatly do not do sitting meditation. metta, Christine --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Christine, > I think your question will be answered by reading the Anapanasati Sutta, THE SUTRA > ON THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE BREATHING, in which the Buddha says that the breath > is the foundation for experiencing the four foundations of mindfulness and the > seven factors of awakening. > > This site has a complete translation by Thannisaro Bikkhu of Saigon: > > http://maxpages.com/drfu6/Anapanasati_Sutra > > I'd be interested in your comments after reading this. > > Best, > Robert E. 8203 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 5:17pm Subject: Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Erik, Hi Sarah! > Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness: Right, though I am also concerned with the other three, namely, the body, the feelings, and mental qualities. It is called the "Four Foundations of Mindfulness" after all. :) > 'he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness, ardent, clearly > comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome in this world > covetousness and grief...' > > What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing, hearing, > smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door > experiencing. I don't quite take away this interpretation from the Maha- Satipatthana Sutta: "And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion. "When the mind is restricted, he discerns that the mind is restricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns that the mind is not released. "In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the mind. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a mind' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the mind in & of itself. " > E:> This says to be mindful of the *fetters* arising dependent on *forms* > > arising in dependence on the eye-sense. Nowhere does it say to be > > mindful of the "essence of seeing". I have no idea how one would even > > go about being mindful of such a thing. Is it possible to explain how > > one is supposed to be mindful of the "essence of seeing"? What > > in particular is one supposed to pay attention to, such that sati > > finds a firm foundation for arising? > > One doesn't go about anything, Not even "remaining focused" as the Buddha enjoined? Do you mean we just sit here like lumps? > but at this moment there is the experiencing of visible object in front of us. Agreed, but how, specifically, does merely knowing this fact engender mindfulness and concentration to the degree we can penetrate the characteristics of what we're seeing? > Like you say, if there were no eye-sense or > arammana (object) to be experienced there would be no seeing. On account of > what is seen, the fetters arise. Understanding first in theory that what is > seeing now is just a citta, a moment of experiencing, no self at all, can begin > to help provide the necessary conditions for satipatthana to arise and be aware > of its very characteristic or nature. (I'll leave sabhava and essence for > now;-)) I agree that knowing how things are not "self" is critical, and the bare beginning point in discerning realities as they are. Unless we understand this fact we are liable to interpret what we see as permanent, or desirable, for example. But this is only the barest beginning point as I understand it. There has to be more, because I cannot see how merely knowing this fact (like knowing that the birth and death of an self-entity are ultimately illusory) does anything to help terminate birth and death. If it were this simple, I am sure we'd all be arahats by now. > I can't find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant these same > realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other suttas) such as > seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on. Where are these items mentioned specifically in the Satipatthana Sutta and "all the other suttas" other than by implication? Again, the objects I see mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta include specific parts of the body, specific feelings, specific characteristics of the mind, specific mental qualities with reference (does "Frame of Reference" have any bearing here?) to the five hindrances, the five aggregates, the six sense-bases, the seven factors of awakening, the Four Noble Truths. Other than merely knowing that what we observe arises is not self, it doesn't follow that merely being aware of this in theory has any bearing on seeing deeply enough into the true nature of things that this bringe about the end of suffering. There have to be objects to apply this understanding to, so that we come to directly see the characteristics of these objects as impermanent, suffering, and not- self. > Both the Satipatthana Sutta and the use of states in this quote above are > referring to all conditioned realities that should be known and understood, > including consciousness. I have an idea that the confusion is because you may > have forgotten that seeing, hearing etc are also cittas, or moments of > consciousness. I have not forgotten, but that is not what I am driving at. Again, I question how merely knowing this factually is conducive of the sort of concentration needed to penetrate the characteristics of these things at all. Again, without an object, there is nothing for sati to focus on. And the most important factor in mindfulness is remaining focused. This is the basis for sampajana (clear comprehension) and sati (mindfulness). Without this deliberate concentration (at least at first, until it is so well-established it becomes automatic), the mind will never be concentrated enough to penetrate the characteristics of anything, because it won't have any object to in which it sees these characteristics reflected, being so scattered and heedless it flits from one thing to another without ever "sinking in" deeply enough to know what it is perceiving with clarity and discernment. > I do understand. The development of awareness is not as simple as many believe > at all. Indeed it is not, and it takes enormous discipline to practice to develop awareness and clear comprehension to the point they remain focused for extended periods of time--which is the prerequisite for penetrating the characteristics of any object being noted. Mindfulness can only be aware of one object at a time. It may get more refined and be able to switch very quickly between different objects the more developed it is, but it is not possible for the mind to focus on more than one thing at a time, which is why the exercises in the Satipatthana Sutta detail various objects and how they are best investigated. What is again unclear from your presentation is how this degree of focus is established in the first place. > Studying and considering more about what are the realities now, even while > dreaming about > Aert (yr girlfriend) is the way that satipatthana will develop for sure. It has > to be developed in daily life. Right, but it doesn't just happen just from studying texts, but by deliberately noting specific feelings arising and passing away. Knowing what these objects of investigation are is the first step, the barest beginning, as I see it. To come to see their characteristics directly demands diligent effort applied over time, until unbroken concentration and awareness are developed enough "sink in" to any object being observing. 8204 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 6:04pm Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E. --- Dear Christine, As I know you realise, the Dhamma of the supreme Buddha is not easily comprehended. You are right to query and investigate anything that is said. Anapanasati, mindfulness of breath, is an object that has numerous benefits, it can be an object for samattha and is also included in the satipatthaan sutta. It is the object of samattha from which the Buddha emerged and developed vipassana on the morning he was enlightened. However, it has never been an object that was recommended for all people. The reason:it is a sublime object and can be misunderstood. One may focus on breath but it may be with very subtle attachment and one might not realise this. The feeling will be calm but not necessarily of kusala. This object does need special conditions - erect back, fixed posture, quiet, much application etc.; thus when on dsg we talk about vipassana in daily life it perhaps seems so different from what people are used to thinking of as bhavana (mental development- meditation). However ,there are other samatha objects that can be developed in daily life in any posture. The Anguttara nikaya (Book of the Elevens ii 13 p213 Mahanama) says about recollection of the virtues of the Buddha, and recollection of the Dhamma and several other types of sammattha that: "` you should develop it as you sit, as you stand, as you lie, as you apply yourself to business. You should make it grow as you dwell at home in your lodging crowded with children"ENDQUOTE In the Samyutta nikaya V (Sayings on stream entry p347 The great chapter Dhammadina ) 5oo rich merchants came to see the Buddha . They asked how they should live their lives. The Buddha suggested that they train themselves thus: "as to those discourses uttered by the Tathagatha, deep, deep in meaning, transcendental and concerened with the void (about anatta) from time to time we will spend our days learning them. That is how you must spend your days." _ Ken (also Australian) recently wrote about a sutta that is very worthy of contemplation "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." (M III (PTS),p19) I like this so much, I have been treating it as a kind of mantra. (!)"" You might find this letter I wrote helpful http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/5540 best wishes robert "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > Dear Robert, > Thank you for this link. I have printed it off and will look in > detail. I take a while to think things through, not terribly learned > in Dhamma, but will let you know [eventually :-)] any comments I > might have. > Previously, I have been practising intermittently the Mahasi method > of meditating - concentration on rising and falling of the abdomen, > and was interested in finding out why some people I respect greatly > do not do sitting meditation. > metta, > Christine > > 8205 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 4:02pm Subject: Re: Nibbana as Absence or Presence (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Cat... Hi, Mike - In a message dated 9/20/01 8:12:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > Dear Howard, > > --- Howard wrote: > > > > If I remember this correctly, this referred to > > > bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise > > after > > > parinibbaana, by my understanding of the canon. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > No, I think it was a reference something to > > the effect of the mind > > being originally luminous, but covered by > > adventitious defilements that is > > sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga. > > Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what > commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd be > very interested in finding this idea (an originally > luminous mind, covered by adventitious defilements) > anywhere in the Pali canon. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm too poor of a Buddhist scholar, unfortunately, to give you any specifics here with regard to commentaries, but there is the following sutta: Anguttara Nikaya I.49-52 Pabhassara Suttas Luminous For free distribution only, as a gift of Dhamma Context of this sutta "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements." "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that -- for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person -- there is no development of the mind." "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed noble disciple discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that -- for the well-instructed noble disciple -- there is development of the mind." Revised: 9 November 1998 http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/anguttara/an1-49.html ------------------------------------------------------- > > (BTW, I'm not sure > > whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in the > > suttas.) > -------------------------------------------------- > > I'm not sure either, not at all sure. You know, last > time we chatted off-list, I expressed some grave > reservations about the abhidhamma, and the conviction > that it was of far less significance than the other > two baskets. Fickle fellow that I am, I seem to've > swung back into a more standard Theravadin view. At > the time I think I was reacting against some of Jon's > comments regarding the path. I REALLY didn't want to > give up my path--unfortunately, I've come to the > conclusion that Jon was right, and yet another view > lies in ruins (damn--I thought they were already all > kaput!) > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: My "view" remains pretty much as it was. I have reservations and questions about the Abhidhamma, but I also value it highly; and it has had its effect on my understanding of the Dhamma, a salutary one. ------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Unfortunately, it seems to open a door for the > > > positing of some sort of 'cosmic consciousness', > > which > > > concept I believe is clearly alien to the > > Theravada. > > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I don't even have a clue what "cosmic > > consciousness" would be. But > > awareness without an object, beyond all conditions > > and conditioning, unborn, > > and deathless would be nibbana to me. > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Well, by my reading of Mr. Webster, 'boundless > awareness' could certainly be a synonym for 'cosmic > consciousness'--an expression I've heard often, and > for a long time. I didn't mean to be insulting, > though. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I didn't think you had. I was just clarifying my perspective. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Shalom! > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Hah! ;-)) And Salaam as well. ---------------------------------------------------- > > mike > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8206 From: Derek Cameron Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 8:44pm Subject: Unsubscribing Hi, all, I haven't posted in a long long time but there is so much happening in my life right now I am going to unsubscribe. Thank you all for your stimulating posts. Derek. 8207 From: Gayan Karunaratne Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 10:03pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Unsubscribing OK, sir, pls return with a vengence! :o) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Derek Cameron" Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 8:44 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Unsubscribing > Hi, all, > > I haven't posted in a long long time but there is so much happening > in my life right now I am going to unsubscribe. Thank you all for > your stimulating posts. > > Derek. 8208 From: Dan Dalthorp Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 10:18pm Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan) Excellent, Erik! You are asking all the right questions. They are all frequently discussed in dsg, but I (for one) never tire of discussing them. I do have other obligations, though, so I can't spend too much time writing here, and I really mustn't make of habit of posting. I hope to address each of your questions, in my own clumsy way, but I certainly won't be able to do it all today. Only a few very brief comments for now. > If you do agree with me that the sole reason for the Buddha's use of > plain language (at least language like "when breathing in long, note > breathing in long; when breathing out long, note breathing out > long..." is plain to me, perhaps this is confusing for some) I agree that he uses plain language but not so clear that he is discussing "technique". Is this really an accurate translation of Buddha's words? This has quite a different ring to it than what I am familiar with (e.g. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn010.html): "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short." There is a distinct difference between the two. The first is prescriptive, a thing-to-do. The second is descriptive, what is discerned. It could be that the "technique" of the first, leads to the awareness in the second. Sometimes. Perhaps. Now, what is that technique? "Sit cross-legged on a cushion. Note the rising and falling of the abdomen as the breath goes in and out. Note whether the breath is long or short." Can you see how this is ultimately the same as any other ritual? I am not asking how it differs from other rituals, but what it has in common with other rituals. I don't think I'd ever be able to convince you that "technique" is a cryptic synonym for "ritual", but it may be useful to think about how it might be so. Dan 8209 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 6:07am Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan) --- Dear Dan, If I could just butt in a little to your interesting conversation. I think we can say that samatha bhavana (tranquility meditation) is, at least to some degree, dependent on following a correct method (as well as much understanding of the actual nature of kusala and akusala - not easy). And that method is described in the suttas and commentaries. It is vipassana bhavana, profound insight into dhammas as are they are, that can't (I believe) be reduced to a simple technique. robert "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > Excellent, Erik! You are asking all the right questions. They are all > frequently discussed in dsg, but I (for one) never tire of discussing > them. I do have other obligations, though, so I can't spend too much > time writing here, and I really mustn't make of habit of posting. I > hope to address each of your questions, in my own clumsy way, but I > certainly won't be able to do it all today. Only a few very brief > comments for now. > > > If you do agree with me that the sole reason for the Buddha's use of > > plain language (at least language like "when breathing in long, note > > breathing in long; when breathing out long, note breathing out > > long..." is plain to me, perhaps this is confusing for some) > > I agree that he uses plain language but not so clear that he is > discussing "technique". Is this really an accurate translation of > Buddha's words? This has quite a different ring to it than what I am > familiar with (e.g. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn010.html): "Breathing > in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out > long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in > short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out > short, he discerns that he is breathing out short." There is a > distinct difference between the two. The first is prescriptive, a > thing-to-do. The second is descriptive, what is discerned. It could be > that the "technique" of the first, leads to the awareness in the > second. Sometimes. Perhaps. Now, what is that technique? "Sit > cross-legged on a cushion. Note the rising and falling of the abdomen > as the breath goes in and out. Note whether the breath is long or > short." Can you see how this is ultimately the same as any other > ritual? I am not asking how it differs from other rituals, but what it > has in common with other rituals. I don't think I'd ever be able to > convince you that "technique" is a cryptic synonym for "ritual", but > it may be useful to think about how it might be so. > > Dan 8210 From: Cybele Chiodi Date: Fri Sep 21, 2001 10:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Unsubscribing Sweetheart! Best wishes to you and however life is more stimulating than our blah, blah! All the best for your practice and your life. :-) Love Cybele --- Derek Cameron wrote: > Hi, all, > > I haven't posted in a long long time but there is so > much happening > in my life right now I am going to unsubscribe. > Thank you all for > your stimulating posts. > > Derek. 8211 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 9:50am Subject: Re: Hello Kenneth (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] clinging and welcome Jill) Thanks, Kenneth. I appreciate the description of Pure Land Buddhism. Wouldn't it be nice if we all wound up, in one of these lifetimes, in the company of Amitahba and each other, in the land of Utmost Bliss? It sounds pretty good to me. Best Wishes to you, Robert E. ================================== --- KennethOng wrote: > > Pure Land Buddhism is centre upon Amitabha Buddha where his land is known as the > Land of Utmost Bliss. According to Mahayana Sutras, Amitabha Buddha have been a > Buddha for ten Kalpas and have not gone into Nirvana > Pure Land Buddhism is based upon these few pillars (from what I think). > a. recitings of Amitabha Buddha name. In mindfulness we are mindful of > feelings, body, consciousness and mental formations. Pure Land utilised > mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha name so that the mind could reach oneness and > break away from dualism. > b. To hold on to the ten precepts It is the extension of the five precepts > but I think it is different from the ten precepts of Thervadas. > c. There is a desire to be born there. This is the most contentious topic > of Pure Land Buddhism because it sounds like Christainity. Sentinental beings > could be born in Amitabha Buddha Pureland if they desire due to the vows he made > when Amitabha Buddha is an inspiring Budhisattvas just like Sakyamuni Buddha, > when he is a Bodhisattvas, he vow to born in Saha world. However, there is a > catch, you got to practise the ten precepts and also mindfullness of his name > (actually can be any other Buddha or Bodhisattvas names as long as the desire is > to be born there). There is no such things as grace or confession or easy way > out. You got to learn to be mindful and practise the ten precepts. > d. the Transference of merit to all sentinental beings or to Pure Land > e. this is a practise by one great Pure Land guru, he said that we got to > learn to be humble and always reflect on our own actions. (I think should be > including as another pillar). > the reasons I practise Pureland Buddhism is because I am terribly scare of going > through the wheel of cycle of life again since there is a better place for me to > go, I really wish to go there. It is like a buying a insurance policy for our > retirement. we pay premiuns like mindfullness and keep our precepts. Pure Land > is enticing (attachment) to me because firstly, Buddha is always there to teach > us, all beings lifespans are limitless, thirdly you can practise there until you > reach the last stage of Bodhisattvas or you can choose to go elsewhere, fourly > there is no hell beings, ghosts realm, and all are sexless, nameless. In my > personal opinin, it is a very good enivronment to practise. > Pure Land Buddhism can be easily lead to superstitions if Practitioners do not > know what they are doing and why they are doing this or that. I welcome > comments or discussions so that I could learn more abt Buddhism. Personnaly I > do not have any Pure Land Statutes in my house nor do I go to temple to pay > homage because to me the most importantly is that Buddha is inside me and not > outside. > with kindest regards > Kenneth Ong > > > Robert Epstein wrote: --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > Dear Sarah, > > I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few > years > > of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn Thervada > also > > because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I also learn a lot > > of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and I have benefitted > > greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in understanding Mahayana > > Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of them equally (oops > > attachment). > > Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life. It > > has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another > attachement) > > :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help me in my life in > > so many ways that i cannot descibed. But I have to admit that I still have > many > > weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst petty and also very > proud > > of myself. > > Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware > > and not be easily angry or proud. My mindful periods are very brief, morning > > mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period starts > > when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after work till > > late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also on the hand > > does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply be > appreciated. > > Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend after family > > commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated. > > Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring > > sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this chat > > group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could learn > a > > lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take this > > opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple here who > > contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of Buddhism and > > practises. > > My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am a > > Singaporean. > > With kind regards > > KO > > Kenneth, > I have enjoyed your direct and sincere posts, including our discussions on the > somewhat heated subject of the attack on the U.S. I am happy to hear a bit about > your background and personal history. This has led me to realize that I never > posted an intro myself. I am happy to hear about your family. I have a three > year old daughter myself, although I am a little older than you [I'm a late > starter]. > > One question: Could you say a word about the Pure Land practices? I am familiar > with Ch'an/Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, but I have only heard briefly about Pure > Land > Buddhism before. I would be interested in a little talk on that if you feel you > would like to. > > Regards, > Robert E. 8212 From: rikpa21 Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:13am Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan) --- "Dan Dalthorp" wrote: > Excellent, Erik! You are asking all the right questions. They are all > frequently discussed in dsg, but I (for one) never tire of discussing > them. Nor do I, as these questions are central to the cessation of dukkha, as I see it. If by believing Satipatthana is not something to be diligently developed, then that has direct bearing on whether or not there is the cessation of dukkha, because without this understanding, there will never be the appropriate effort (sammapadana) of arousing persistence, developing, endeavouring, upholding and exerting one's intent for the abandoning unskillful qualities and taking up and developing skillful qualities. Any suggestion that we need not energetically pursue the development of practices like Satipatthana does not appear to accord with the criteria as the teacher's instruction, since it is not conducive to aroused persistence, not to laziness (cf. Gotami Sutta). > I agree that he uses plain language but not so clear that he is > discussing "technique". Is this really an accurate translation of > Buddha's words? My question to you was, and is, by observing that Satipatthana is a "method" or "technique", does this have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not it works? Perhaps the words the Blessed One spoke here would be beneficial to consider, as I think this addresses the question you raise (and the Buddha even talks about, Brahma forbid, *the wish for results*!) "...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 [for results], 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." The Bhumija Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn126.html This has quite a different ring to it than what I am > familiar with (e.g. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn010.html): "Breathing > in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out > long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in > short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out > short, he discerns that he is breathing out short." There is a > distinct difference between the two. The first is prescriptive, a > thing-to-do. The second is descriptive, what is discerned. It could be > that the "technique" of the first, leads to the awareness in the > second. Sometimes. Perhaps. This sounds like a case semantic hair-spliting to these ears. I see no fundamental difference between the intended meaning of "noting" vs. that of "discerning". I think the important issue is that one practice noting/discerning on the appropriate objects, in an appropriate fashion, such that one comes to see them as impermanent, suffering, and not-self. That is what I see as being the thing that that matters here, not whether we label that technique "noting" or "discerning" (both synonyms, by the way). To get caught on superficial distinctions between mere labels while ignoring what those labels are pointing at seems to be a case of focusing on the finger, rather than the moon. > Now, what is that technique? "Sit > cross-legged on a cushion. Note the rising and falling of the abdomen > as the breath goes in and out. Note whether the breath is long or > short." Can you see how this is ultimately the same as any other > ritual? I am not asking how it differs from other rituals, but what it > has in common with other rituals. I don't think I'd ever be able to > convince you that "technique" is a cryptic synonym for "ritual", but > it may be useful to think about how it might be so. I don't see how this is profitable at all, because I can't see any connection between this and the cessation of dukkha. I can't see how thinking of Satipatthana as a technique or method has any bearing on whether or not it works if practiced diligently, the the point one has established unbroken concentration on the appropriate objects of discernment, such that one comes to see them as they are: anicca, dukkha, and anatta. . 8213 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 11:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E. --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Dear Robert, > Thank you for this link. I have printed it off and will look in > detail. I take a while to think things through, not terribly learned > in Dhamma, but will let you know [eventually :-)] any comments I > might have. > Previously, I have been practising intermittently the Mahasi method > of meditating - concentration on rising and falling of the abdomen, > and was interested in finding out why some people I respect greatly > do not do sitting meditation. > metta, > Christine Following and noting of the rising and falling of the breath is the root of my own practice as well. I think the Sutra will give you some good clues as to how you can expand that awareness to include the Four Foundations of Mindfulness once concentration is adequate and begin to observe all arising dharmas from the anchor of the breath. I speak as someone who finds it a possibilty and sees the potential there, but my meditation practice is not always so consistent. Best, Robert E. ==================================== > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > I think your question will be answered by reading the Anapanasati > Sutta, THE SUTRA > > ON THE FULL AWARENESS OF THE BREATHING, in which the Buddha says > that the breath > > is the foundation for experiencing the four foundations of > mindfulness and the > > seven factors of awakening. > > > > This site has a complete translation by Thannisaro Bikkhu of Saigon: > > > > http://maxpages.com/drfu6/Anapanasati_Sutra > > > > I'd be interested in your comments after reading this. > > > > Best, > > Robert E. 8214 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 1:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Questions on lokuttara, sense-door, mind-door Nina > > Another question: concerning my translation of Camb talks. In > Cambodia, > > A. > > Sujin explains about the mind-door that is hidden by the sense-doors > in > > our > > daily life. I understand. When there is no vipassana ~aa.na, the > > mind-door > > does not appear, although there is a mind-door process after each > > sense-door > > process. But also, A Sujin says, while thinking about names and > > concepts, > > the mind-door is hidden by the sense-doors, and we do not realize at > > such > > moments realities that arise and fall away. My feeling is: we think of > > concepts on account of the sense objects, and in between our thinking > > there > > are sense impressions time and again, the mind-door process does not > > appear. > > Is this the reason that even while thinking of concepts the mind-door > > process is hidden by the sense-door processes? > > My only recollection of the translation of the Cambodia talks is of a > passage dealing with 'thinking hiding the sense-doors'. Have I got this > wrong? Perhaps you could refer us again to the part about mind-door > being > hidden by sense-doors. Thanks. Here is the passage from the Cambodia talks I have in mind. It was about this passage that Sarah asked one or two questions in Bangkok. "Sujin: At this moment realities are appearing, such as seeing arising in the eye-door process. However, people do not know the true nature of what appears, they take what they see for people and things. Therefore, the thinking on account of what was seen, thus, the thinking of people and things, hides the truth. In reality dhammas appear for an extremely short moment, they arise and then fall away immediately. Thus, the thinking in a mind-door process is hiding the sense-door processes. At this moment it is not evident that what appears through the eyes falls away. It seems that one sees all the time, but in reality there are cittas of a mind-door process arising and falling away in succession in between the citta that sees and the citta that hears, and these cittas arise each in a different sense-door process." As regards the subject of 'mind-door being hidden by the sense-doors', I found the following reference in one of your footnotes to the Cambodia talks-- "3. There are several stages of insight knowledge, vipassanå ñåùa. The first stage is distinguishing the difference between nåma and rúpa and this arises in a mind-door process. Rúpa can be known through a sense-door and through the mind-door, and nåma can only be known through the mind-door. Thus, the difference between nåma and rúpa is known through the mind-door. Now, at this moment, the mind-door is covered up by the sense-doors, but at that stage of insight knowledge it is understood what the mind-door is. Acharn Sujin explains in A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Part V, Ch 2, The Stages of Insight: The rúpas which are sense-objects are experienced through the corresponding sense-doors and after each sense-door process the object is experienced through the mind-door. However, when there is no vipassanå ñåùa, insight knowledge, the mind-door process does not appear, it is as it were hidden by the sense objects experienced in the sense-door processes. At the moments of vipassanå ñåùa, rúpas appear very clearly through the mind-door, and at that moment the mind-door hides as it were the sense-doors. Then the situation is opposite to the moments when there is no vipassanå ñåùa. " Hope this clarifies! Jon 8215 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 2:53pm Subject: Re: Sex, desire, attachment (was: [DhammaStudyGroup] Erik saves my day ; it was Re: Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > Yes, I think that follows. Actually, I'm not very > > familiar with appamada > > as meaning 'diligence'. I am more familiar with its > > meaning of > > 'heedlessness' which is pretty much the negative > > formulation of > > 'mindfulness' (= your satipatthana above). > > I assume you meant 'heedfulness' here, rather than > 'heedlessness'? Thanks for this correction, and my apologies to all for any confusion. Ven. Buddhadatta has, for appamaada: > > vigilance; earnestness. > > and for pamaada: > > negligence; indolence; remissness; carelessness. I think this is similar to the meaning of the term (bramaat -- as in 'yaa bramaat') as used in Thai. Jon > > Nyanatiloka in his 'Buddhist Dictionary' gives the > > meanings of 'zeal, > > non-laxity, earnestness and diligence', and notes > > that "In the > > commentaries, it is often explained as the presence > > (lit. non-absence) of > > mindfulness (satiyaa avippavaasa).' > > Glad for this confirmation. > > > As to mundane vs. supramundane, I take the com. as > > saying that even though > > it is a (mere) mundane state, because of what it > > leads to it is reckoned > > as chief among the supramundane states. > > Somehow not surprising that it bridges the gap > (because being both a mundane and supramundane > factor). > > > Difficult to know for sure with so little available > > from the Com. (and so > > much ignorance!). > > Yes, some speculation here. > > mike 8216 From: dalthorp Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 7:47pm Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan) Erik: > Nor do I, as these questions are central to the cessation of dukkha, > as I see it. If by believing Satipatthana is not something to be > diligently developed, then that has direct bearing on whether or not > there is the cessation of dukkha, because without this understanding, > there will never be the appropriate effort (sammapadana) of arousing > persistence, developing, endeavouring, upholding and exerting one's > intent for the abandoning unskillful qualities and taking up and > developing skillful qualities. Any suggestion that we need not > energetically pursue the development of practices like Satipatthana > does not appear to accord with the criteria as the teacher's > instruction, since it is not conducive to aroused persistence, not to > laziness (cf. Gotami Sutta). I agree 100%. Satipatthana is to be diligently developed. Where we disagree is on the necessity of viewing satipatthana as a ritual. I consider clinging to ritual a fetter to be broken, and you say you don't think it's important how satipatthana can be misinterpreted as a ritual (In response to my suggestion to think about how 'technique' interpretation of satipatthana is taking satipatthana as ritual, you wrote: "I don't see how this is profitable at all, because I can't see any connection between this and the cessation of dukkha. I can't see how thinking of Satipatthana as a technique or method has any bearing on whether or not it works..."). > "...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 [for results], 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." Hmmmm....Being endowed with right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration and living the holy life brings results? I should say so! Now which ritual was he selling here? > This sounds like a case semantic hair-spliting to these ears. I see > no fundamental difference between the intended meaning of "noting" > vs. that of "discerning". I'm not talking about noting vs. discerning, but imperative vs. declarative. The difference may seem like subtle hair-splitting, but the difference in meaning is tremendous. 8217 From: Sarah Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 8:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Rob E, Sorry for the slow response to the useful points and questions here: --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks, Sarah, for your message. > > Yes, the mechanics of which factor is at play at any given moment is both > interesting in its own right, and gives a strong indication for the approach > to > Vipassana meditation. > > I don't know if this is redundant for this group, but I am interested in how > one > applies this methodology to the four foundations of mindfulness. It seems > that > most of the discussion of Adhidhamma focusses on the relationship between the > sense doors and the mind doors and how they interact, as well as the > accumulation > of panna. > > I wonder how the breakdown into body/sensations, feelings/emotions, mind and > objects of mind [do I have that right?] is incorporated into the analysis. > Or is > that more or less incidental to the actual seeing of the specific reality of > the > moment? Firstly these points are most certainly not ‘redundant for this group’ and go to the very core of the Teachings and understanding of satipatthana and Abhidhamma. Let me simply say that the abhidhamma talks (in precise detail) about all realities that can ever be experienced, including the ones you mention. When we talk about panna (rt understanding) developing and understanding specific realities ‘of the moment’, they are the same realities referred to in the four foundations of mindfulness. ‘If one considers the teaching of Abhidhamma starting with Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma), and ending with Patthana (last book of the Abhidhamma), it will be seen that aggregates, bases, elements and so on are expounded in them. This shows that the realities, with which Abhidhamma deals, consist of aggregates, bases and elements that behave according to their own natures and, therefore, are not dependent on one’s wishes. In other words, the realities behave according to the principle of anatta.’ U Narada, ‘Guide to Conditional Relations’, xii These very same aggregates, bases and elements in the abhidhamma are the mental and physical phenomena discussed in the four foundations of mindfulness (and all the other suttas), i.e: 1) the rupas (realities experienced through bodysense, eyes, ears, nose, tongue and mouth i.e. sense and body doorways) = 2) the vedana (feelings) which arise with every moment of citta (consciousness) = 3) the cittas (moments of conciousness themselves) which (as I explained to Erik) include moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, experiencing through the body-sense, and mind-door experiencing = 4) the cetasikas (mental factors), excluding vedana, accompanying the cittas (moments of consciousness). These include phassa (contact), sanna (memory), lobha (attachment, dosa (aversion) and all the other ones = In fact these are just the same realities as discussed in the 5 khandhas (aggregates) for example, but different ‘groupings’ are given in different suttas or contexts. The aim of the ‘groupings’ are merely to help us understand there is no self existing in any form at all in these conditioned realities. Rob, I think if you read the first 2 or 3 chapters of ‘Abhidhamma in Daily Life’, available on most the websites on the dsg homepage, it will clarify these points further. Of course as you well know now , it’s not so much a matter of applying any methodology so much as knowing (first in theory) what the realities are to be understood so that panna and sati can go about their respective tasks of understanding and being aware when conditions are right. This is how vipassana bhavana (mental development/meditation) can slowly be developed at this very moment by panna. Hope this helps. Let me know if I haven't answered the question. Sarah p.s Many thanks for your unusual and interesting late intro (and I enjoyed the wordiness;-)) 8218 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 9:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging (Dan) It seems that on one hand we are here discussing about Satipatthana but on the other hand are we practising it right now while we are typing the emails. I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations. It is definitely impt to be mindfull, actually mindfullness is the pivotal practises, all school of thoughts, be it Thervadas, Zen, Tibetan or Other Mahayana Schools, on depend on this to reach enlightment. My humble opinion is that this is the "mother of all practises" If I am not wrong what dalthorp (sorry did not get your name) trying to point out is that, cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness. From your point of view, it seems like everything is a ritual. If i am not wrong in my interpretation of your view, it seems that breathing meditation could be a ritual. You are not wrong by saying that. If I do not forget, there is a story about letting go of the raft after crossing the river. But I have to admit that I really needs this raft. It is excellent that you have point this ritual as a fetter, however presently in my humblest opinion I really need this ritual in order to practise. I hope I do not get you wrong. Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by declarative and imperative. I quite confuse what you are referring to. Sorry if I have misinterpret your meaning. With my kindest regards Kenneth Ong P.S. Could I suggest that all of us kindly provide a name or initials after the end of our email so that we could identify each other as sometimes the reply could get very confusing and I always wondering who is who. dalthorp wrote: Erik: > Nor do I, as these questions are central to the cessation of dukkha, > as I see it. If by believing Satipatthana is not something to be > diligently developed, then that has direct bearing on whether or not > there is the cessation of dukkha, because without this understanding, > there will never be the appropriate effort (sammapadana) of arousing > persistence, developing, endeavouring, upholding and exerting one's > intent for the abandoning unskillful qualities and taking up and > developing skillful qualities. Any suggestion that we need not > energetically pursue the development of practices like Satipatthana > does not appear to accord with the criteria as the teacher's > instruction, since it is not conducive to aroused persistence, not to > laziness (cf. Gotami Sutta). I agree 100%. Satipatthana is to be diligently developed. Where we disagree is on the necessity of viewing satipatthana as a ritual. I consider clinging to ritual a fetter to be broken, and you say you don't think it's important how satipatthana can be misinterpreted as a ritual (In response to my suggestion to think about how 'technique' interpretation of satipatthana is taking satipatthana as ritual, you wrote: "I don't see how this is profitable at all, because I can't see any connection between this and the cessation of dukkha. I can't see how thinking of Satipatthana as a technique or method has any bearing on whether or not it works..."). > "...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 [for results], 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." Hmmmm....Being endowed with right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration and living the holy life brings results? I should say so! Now which ritual was he selling here? > This sounds like a case semantic hair-spliting to these ears. I see > no fundamental difference between the intended meaning of "noting" > vs. that of "discerning". I'm not talking about noting vs. discerning, but imperative vs. declarative. The difference may seem like subtle hair-splitting, but the difference in meaning is tremendous. 8219 From: rikpa21 Date: Sat Sep 22, 2001 9:07pm Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan) --- Dan D wrote: Dan, > I'm not talking about noting vs. discerning, but imperative vs. > declarative. The difference may seem like subtle hair-splitting, but > the difference in meaning is tremendous. Since you seem to believe this is so critical, then I imagine you should have no problem describing from your own experience how you have found this distincion directly applicable to overcoming dukkha. Or if you don't have any direct experience to share on this, where the Buddha clearly noted the importance of this to overcoming dukkha. 8220 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 7:06am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Sarah, I think your post is very much on point to what I was asking. I am somewhat quizzical as to why there are all these different classification schemes in different parts of the canon, but considering that there are even more than one canon, I suppose that is to be expected. It seems that at different times, for different audiences, the Buddha broke down even the technical realities of perception, thought and consciousness in different types of classifications or nomenclatures. Perhaps he even developed his understand of how best to break these things down at different points in his career. I would guess that even the Buddha would reserve the right to get clearer about how to explain things as he went along. In any case, it isn't particularly helpful for coordinating one's [already lax] understanding of different suttas. The 3 schemes mentioned here are: 4 foundations of mindfulness; 5 kandhas; aggregates, bases and elements. I guess if you study them, they could be coordinated. But your basic point on this is that they are not 'actual' divisions of experience, but ways of organizing them in order to highlight their mechanics and the main point of anatta being the essence of them all. [?] I keep getting myself in hot water, in the sense that each of my questions leads to a reading assignment! I will try to read those chapters. Thanks for your explanation. And thanks for your nice response to my 'wordy' self-intro. :-) Best, Robert E. ================================ --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob E, > > Sorry for the slow response to the useful points and questions here: > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks, Sarah, for your > message. > > > > Yes, the mechanics of which factor is at play at any given moment is both > > interesting in its own right, and gives a strong indication for the approach > > to > > Vipassana meditation. > > > > I don't know if this is redundant for this group, but I am interested in how > > one > > applies this methodology to the four foundations of mindfulness. It seems > > that > > most of the discussion of Adhidhamma focusses on the relationship between the > > sense doors and the mind doors and how they interact, as well as the > > accumulation > > of panna. > > > > I wonder how the breakdown into body/sensations, feelings/emotions, mind and > > objects of mind [do I have that right?] is incorporated into the analysis. > > Or is > > that more or less incidental to the actual seeing of the specific reality of > > the > > moment? > > Firstly these points are most certainly not ‘redundant for this group’ and go > to the very core of the Teachings and understanding of satipatthana and > Abhidhamma. > > Let me simply say that the abhidhamma talks (in precise detail) about all > realities that can ever be experienced, including the ones you mention. When we > talk about panna (rt understanding) developing and understanding specific > realities ‘of the moment’, they are the same realities referred to in the four > foundations of mindfulness. > > ‘If one considers the teaching of Abhidhamma starting with Dhammasangani (first > book of the Abhidhamma), and ending with Patthana (last book of the > Abhidhamma), it will be seen that aggregates, bases, elements and so on are > expounded in them. This shows that the realities, with which Abhidhamma deals, > consist of aggregates, bases and elements that behave according to their own > natures and, therefore, are not dependent on one’s wishes. In other words, the > realities behave according to the principle of anatta.’ U Narada, > ‘Guide to Conditional Relations’, xii > > These very same aggregates, bases and elements in the abhidhamma are the mental > and physical phenomena discussed in the four foundations of mindfulness (and > all the other suttas), i.e: > > 1) the rupas (realities experienced through bodysense, eyes, ears, nose, tongue > and mouth i.e. sense and body doorways) = > > 2) the vedana (feelings) which arise with every moment of citta (consciousness) > = > > 3) the cittas (moments of conciousness themselves) which (as I explained to > Erik) include moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, > experiencing through the body-sense, and mind-door experiencing = > > > 4) the cetasikas (mental factors), excluding vedana, accompanying the cittas > (moments of consciousness). These include phassa (contact), sanna (memory), > lobha (attachment, dosa (aversion) and all the other ones = > > In fact these are just the same realities as discussed in the 5 khandhas > (aggregates) for example, but different ‘groupings’ are given in different > suttas or contexts. The aim of the ‘groupings’ are merely to help us understand > there is no self existing in any form at all in these conditioned realities. > > Rob, I think if you read the first 2 or 3 chapters of ‘Abhidhamma in Daily > Life’, available on most the websites on the dsg homepage, it will clarify > these points further. Of course as you well know now , it’s not so much a > matter of applying any methodology so much as knowing (first in theory) what > the realities are to be understood so that panna and sati can go about their > respective tasks of understanding and being aware when conditions are right. > This is how vipassana bhavana (mental development/meditation) can slowly be > developed at this very moment by panna. > > Hope this helps. Let me know if I haven't answered the question. > > Sarah > > p.s Many thanks for your unusual and interesting late intro (and I enjoyed the > wordiness;-)) 8221 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:01am Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E. Dear Robert E., Robert K., I'd like to share this excerpt that was posted on D-L recently. metta, Christine "The Indispensable Factor Buddhist practice constantly emphasizes one major factor for spiritual evolution: Commitment to continuous and correct practice! It is this single factor which advances or impedes spiritual development. The fruits of meditation and the spiritual life will not mysteriously appear without constant watchfulness and development. The Buddhist devotee is repeatedly urged to pursue cultivation of meditation and other aspects of the spiritual life in an appropriate, non stressful and skilled manner. As a young novice monk, my teachers taught me Buddhist philosophy and meditation principles for many years. All my instructors, especially my first teacher, constantly emphasized the importance of devotion and continuity in training. I became bored and impatient hearing these admonishments years after year. A few years later, I became an instructor and taught for some time. I realized that I had only "book" Dharma, so I entered a period of intensive, uninterrupted vipassana meditation for seven months. I finally understood their intention and great kindness in teaching their students so well. When truly realizing the necessity of cultivating the mind, we will understand that training takes place everywhere. Self-cultivation contnues *all the time*. To "break" training does not arise for the meditator who fully comprehends the implications of mind development. When we decide to become seriously committed to practice, there are no disturbances which can harm our practice. No longer is "meditating" confined to the formal sitting posture, being in a special environment or associating with like- minded friends. We can try our best to stay wide awake in the midst of all sights, sounds and experiences. THIS ATTITUDE IS THE REAL DEVELOPEMENT OF INSIGHT MEDITATION...not grasping and attaching to any circumstance in life and using skillful means at every opportunity to fulfill our responsibilities. Then our life is really free and unburdened, moment to moment. Insight meditation in daily life is cultivated by developing the "Art of Non-Attachment." Achan Sobin S.Namto ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8222 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:22am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E. Dear Christine, This message has an important point, but I have a couple of questions about it. 1/ It seems contradictory in a sense. The writer says that Insight Meditation should take place at all times and does not begin or end with formal meditation. Yet it was apparently his [?] 7 months of intensive meditation that opened his eyes to this reality. Is he advocating a commitment to Insight meditation or not? It is hard for me to tell from this message. 2/ It seems that he is promoting a particular view of practice, and rather strongly. To say that commitment to real and correct practice is the one essential ingredient that causes progress is both obvious and simplistic. It is certainly important, but sometimes it's not good enough and sometimes it's not the most important ingredient. The idea that if we are really committed 'nothing can disturb' our practice seems too simple to me. But maybe that is because I haven't entered that level of commitment. My commitment has been very long, but my practice has not always been very consistent. It doesn't seem a simple matter to me to become consistent. On the other hand, if one is consistent but has the wrong spirit of practice, or has a practice that is not right for him, commitment and even 'correctness' will not be enough. Anyway, I'm not quite sure what is the main point I'm supposed to get out of it is, but I'd be happy to hear from you what you think are the most important points. Best, Robert E. ====================== --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Dear Robert E., Robert K., > > I'd like to share this excerpt that was posted on D-L recently. > > metta, > Christine > > "The Indispensable Factor > > Buddhist practice constantly emphasizes one major factor for spiritual > evolution: > > Commitment to continuous and correct practice! > > It is this single factor which advances or impedes spiritual > development. > The fruits of meditation and the spiritual life will not mysteriously > appear > without constant watchfulness and development. The Buddhist devotee is > repeatedly urged to pursue cultivation of meditation and other > aspects of > the spiritual life in an appropriate, non stressful and skilled > manner. > > As a young novice monk, my teachers taught me Buddhist philosophy and > meditation principles for many years. All my instructors, especially > my > first teacher, constantly emphasized the importance of devotion and > continuity in training. I became bored and impatient hearing these > admonishments years after year. A few years later, I became an > instructor > and taught for some time. I realized that I had only "book" Dharma, > so I > entered a period of intensive, uninterrupted vipassana meditation for > seven > months. I finally understood their intention and great kindness in > teaching > their students so well. > > When truly realizing the necessity of cultivating the mind, we will > understand that training takes place everywhere. Self-cultivation > contnues > *all the time*. To "break" training does not arise for the meditator > who > fully comprehends the implications of mind development. When we > decide to > become seriously committed to practice, there are no disturbances > which can > harm our practice. No longer is "meditating" confined to the formal > sitting > posture, being in a special environment or associating with like- > minded > friends. > > We can try our best to stay wide awake in the midst of all sights, > sounds > and experiences. > > THIS ATTITUDE IS THE REAL DEVELOPEMENT OF INSIGHT MEDITATION...not > grasping > and attaching to any circumstance in life and using skillful means at > every > opportunity to fulfill our responsibilities. Then our life is really > free > and unburdened, moment to moment. Insight meditation in daily life is > cultivated by developing the "Art of Non-Attachment." > > Achan Sobin S.Namto > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8225 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 11:28am Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E. Dear Robert, Thank you for your reply. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wasn't expecting you to get any point out of it. I was hoping for any comments you cared to make (or not). Totally selfish - wanting to learn. :-)I guess I am still at the pre-school stage of learning Dhamma and see everyone else as, at the very least, in High School, if not the teacher. And I don't seem to learn the first time I read/hear what seems to be a perfectly straightforward explanation. I am quite intelligent in most respects, Uni degrees etc. But Social Work and Management studies don't seem to help much with Dhamma. It is so exasperating. It seemed to me that the excerpt might have been meaning that sitting meditation was a sort of beginning/intermediate practice to learn concentration, and once that was thoroughly known and easily evoked, one could/should leave it behind and go on to a generalised continuous mindfullness. Yes, I do see the over-simplifying and possible contradictions. Perhaps because this is an excerpt from a book and not an article complete in itself. metta, Christine --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Christine, > This message has an important point, but I have a couple of questions about it. > > 1/ It seems contradictory in a sense. The writer says that Insight Meditation > should take place at all times and does not begin or end with formal meditation. > Yet it was apparently his [?] 7 months of intensive meditation that opened his > eyes to this reality. > > Is he advocating a commitment to Insight meditation or not? It is hard for me to > tell from this message. > > 2/ It seems that he is promoting a particular view of practice, and rather > strongly. To say that commitment to real and correct practice is the one > essential ingredient that causes progress is both obvious and simplistic. It is > certainly important, but sometimes it's not good enough and sometimes it's not the > most important ingredient. The idea that if we are really committed 'nothing can > disturb' our practice seems too simple to me. But maybe that is because I haven't > entered that level of commitment. My commitment has been very long, but my > practice has not always been very consistent. It doesn't seem a simple matter to > me to become consistent. > > On the other hand, if one is consistent but has the wrong spirit of practice, or > has a practice that is not right for him, commitment and even 'correctness' will > not be enough. > > Anyway, I'm not quite sure what is the main point I'm supposed to get out of it > is, but I'd be happy to hear from you what you think are the most important > points. > > Best, > Robert E. > > ====================== 8226 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 11:42am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E. Hi Christine. Thanks for the clarification. I guess what I would say is that each person should seriously find what works for them. To me this means that you can try out a number of approaches, and at some point you may find one particular way of contemplating or meditating or focussing or learning that will allow you to grow in understanding. I tend to be eclectic, so I can't give any great testimonials on commitment to one form of practice, but there is still a strong pattern of growth in my spiritual history. It's just hard for me to define. At this point in my life, I see that Buddhism resonates for me the most clearly. I wanted to say that I was committing myself to a Zen view, but then my interest expanded into both Dzogchen [Tibetan] and Theravada. This list has introduced me to the abhidhamma, which I am finding fascinating, and so my attempts to focus seem to only lead me to more expansion. Within all of this, there have been two actual practices that have been stable for long periods of time: one is the practice of physical yoga, which I did and taught for many years, and the other is basic Vipassana meditation, starting with breathing awareness and then trying to become mindful of arising conditions as completely as possible. Since my three-year old was born it's been difficult for me to have a regular practice and to find quiet time, and I find that I don't feel up to it by the time she goes to bed [late]. So these days my practice is mainly trying to practice awareness and mindfulness at all times, to the extent I can. I've made my life an imperfect meditation, but it seems to lead to insights at times. When I do have a chance to sit, I love it. I would never give up the idea of sitting meditation because I find it deepens my experience of everything. I also would never give up the idea of practicing mindfulness in everyday life. I think both is a great combination. That way, you can have your specialized meditation time, and you can also have your commitment to making life an exercise in awareness. Best of both worlds. Regards, Robert E. ========================= --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Thank you for your reply. > > Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wasn't expecting you to get any > point out of it. I was hoping for any comments you cared to make (or > not). Totally selfish - wanting to learn. :-)I guess I am still at > the pre-school stage of learning Dhamma and see everyone else as, at > the very least, in High School, if not the teacher. And I don't seem > to learn the first time I read/hear what seems to be a perfectly > straightforward explanation. I am quite intelligent in most respects, > Uni degrees etc. But Social Work and Management studies don't seem > to help much with Dhamma. It is so exasperating. > > It seemed to me that the excerpt might have been meaning that sitting > meditation was a sort of beginning/intermediate practice to learn > concentration, and once that was thoroughly known and easily evoked, > one could/should leave it behind and go on to a generalised > continuous mindfullness. > > Yes, I do see the over-simplifying and possible contradictions. > Perhaps because this is an excerpt from a book and not an article > complete in itself. > > metta, > Christine > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > This message has an important point, but I have a couple of > questions about it. > > > > 1/ It seems contradictory in a sense. The writer says that > Insight Meditation > > should take place at all times and does not begin or end with > formal meditation. > > Yet it was apparently his [?] 7 months of intensive meditation that > opened his > > eyes to this reality. > > > > Is he advocating a commitment to Insight meditation or not? It is > hard for me to > > tell from this message. > > > > 2/ It seems that he is promoting a particular view of practice, > and rather > > strongly. To say that commitment to real and correct practice is > the one > > essential ingredient that causes progress is both obvious and > simplistic. It is > > certainly important, but sometimes it's not good enough and > sometimes it's not the > > most important ingredient. The idea that if we are really > committed 'nothing can > > disturb' our practice seems too simple to me. But maybe that is > because I haven't > > entered that level of commitment. My commitment has been very > long, but my > > practice has not always been very consistent. It doesn't seem a > simple matter to > > me to become consistent. > > > > On the other hand, if one is consistent but has the wrong spirit of > practice, or > > has a practice that is not right for him, commitment and > even 'correctness' will > > not be enough. > > > > Anyway, I'm not quite sure what is the main point I'm supposed to > get out of it > > is, but I'd be happy to hear from you what you think are the most > important > > points. > > > > Best, > > Robert E. > > 8227 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 1:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Howard Catching up. Just found this earlier post of yours that I had part answered and put aside. Sorry for the delay in getting back. --- Howard wrote: >>Jon: > > In the meantime, I would be interested to hear an example/instance of > > 'conventional' Right Effort of the Eightfold Path, as might apply in > your > > own case. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'll try to answer this in a few ways. An example of conventional > > right effort during meditation is to initiate mindfulness and focus on > the > meditation subject, to further these when already present, and to return > to > these when the mind has wandered. When not meditating, a general example > is > to let go of akusala thoughts when these are present, to initiate kusala > > thoughts when not present, and to further kusala thoughts when already > present. Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks about it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily 'right' effort. Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the letting go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice that we are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could also itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an unwelcome interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it showed us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other reasons shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of obvious akusala could not be 'right effort'. On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just anger, or of the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if it didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional sense*. As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever (including the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness can arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture. Or there might be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for example, that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different reality altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different Foundation in the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of this difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or visible object arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from the mind with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time (and are themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger). When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously 'letting go of' the akusala. I know this was intended to be implicit in what you say above, but it is easy to fall into the trap of looking at things in a 'situational' light -- eg, anger is akusala so I need to do something about it, if I had less anger/attachment I could be having more awareness, I'm letting go of the anger so it must be kusala. Because we all have the ingrained tendency to think in these terms, we need to be reminded frequently and in detail of the fact that there need not be any idea of 'letting go' of the anger in order for kusala of some level to occur. When kusala does arise at such moments the effort is 'right' by nature and the anger is indeed let go of for just those moments. In the longer term, it is the accumulation of these moments of kusala that leads to more sustained moments/periods of kusala of whatever level or, to put it another way, that the mind becomes more focussed on kusala. But this development can only come slowly and gradually, by natural accretion rather than by deliberate accumulation (in that sense of the word). 'Right effort' is the effort *of* kusala, rather than the effort *to have* kusala. Jon 8228 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 2:00pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > The anusaya (latent > > unwholesome tendencies) are carried forward not just > > in the bhavanga citta > > but in every citta, including the kusala citta. > > Understood--also latent wholesome tendencies etc. > > > So the explanation for this might not be quite as > > intricate as Suan has > > described in his interesting example. It just > > happens to be that way, in > > the same way that every moment of sanna is also > > passed on in every citta. > > It has to do perhaps with the relationship > > (conditions/paccaya) between > > one citta and the next, and the fact that there is > > no 'gap' between the 2. > > Yes, this makes sense. I'm thinking that maybe > 'passed along' or 'carried forward' are somewhat > misleading expressions (to me). Maybe what's > accumulated and inherited by each citta is more like > history--that is that each citta inherits the > 'history' (conditions/paccaya?) of all the cittas > preceding it. I've been thinking of it as something > like data or information or memory. I tend to think of it as the totality of the experience of every previous moment of consciousness. However, I don't know of any texts that explain this aspect of things. Anyone? > I suppose saññaa > is largely latent too (like anusaya), or wouldn't > recognition of everything experienced be occurring all > the time? I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that 'latent' is the right word for sanna since, as you know, sanna actually arises with every citta. > So that this 'history' is the condition > that makes it possible for latent perception, or > kusala or akusala citta to (re)arise when conditions > are right. Still, it seems somehow to carry a lot of > 'information'. I still don't get it--maybe someday... Certainly as far as latent kusala or akusala is concerned, it is all accumulated and lies there latent, ready to arise when, as you say, conditions are right. Difficult concepts to grasp, but we can see in our lives how the kilesas do pop up without the slightest provocation and despite our best resolutions to the contrary ie. for no reason other than that we have that particular accumulation of unwholesomeness (this is easier to see in others than in ourselves, of course!). Jon 8229 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 2:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Rob E, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I think your post is very much on point to what I was asking. I am somewhat > quizzical as to why there are all these different classification schemes in > different parts of the canon, but considering that there are even more than > one > canon, I suppose that is to be expected. I’m not sure we can say there is more than one canon, but I’ll leave that to others;-)) The reason, I think, why there are different classification schemes is to stress different realities to be known in different contexts and with different audiences. We could just say that all paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities) are namas (mental phenomena) or rupas (physical phenomena) and leave it at that. For most people, however, this simple classification does not give enough detail to really understand those realities or to understand the anattaness, impermanence or unsatisfactoriness of them. So, for example, when talking about the 5 khandhas of rupas (physical phenomena), vedana (feelings), sanna (perception), sankhara (formations) and vinnana (consciousness), we have a further break down of the namas (mental phenomena) to help us understand that consciousness (=citta) is different from, but accompanied by mental factors (= cetasikas). Further more, in this classification, feelings and perception are given their ‘own’ aggregate to stress their important roles. Both arise with every single moment of consciousness. Aren’t we so very affected by the feelings accompanying seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and so on. We complain about dosa (aversion) because the feeling is unpleasant and we seldom object to lobha (attachment) because the feeling is usually so pleasant. In the same way, sanna (perception) plays a critical role. Seeing now merely sees its object, but it is the perception, the marking which helps give rise to the world of concepts in which we live (with right or wrong view). Could we even function for an instant without sanna? Even the arahats who have eradicated all kilesa still have vedana and sanna accompanying every citta . > It seems that at different times, for different audiences, the Buddha broke > down > even the technical realities of perception, thought and consciousness in > different > types of classifications or nomenclatures. Perhaps he even developed his > understand of how best to break these things down at different points in his > career. I would guess that even the Buddha would reserve the right to get > clearer > about how to explain things as he went along. In any case, it isn't > particularly > helpful for coordinating one's [already lax] understanding of different > suttas. I think that the classifications used on different occasions by the Buddha were probably perfectly clear and appropriate from the start. With his omniscience and wisdom, he knew at any time what would be most helpful. I don’t think it matters very much whether we remember the numbers or different classifications (I’ve always been hopeless at remembering the details, unlike Rob or Kom or Num, for example, who have a more ‘scientific’ bent). What is really important is to begin to understand different realities, however they are classified and then, whatever one reads or studies, it becomes clearer what is being discussed. > > The 3 schemes mentioned here are: 4 foundations of mindfulness; 5 kandhas; > aggregates, bases and elements. I guess if you study them, they could be > coordinated. Even here, if you look under the 4th foundation, dhammanupassana, you’ll see it actually includes ALL realities: 1. The 5 hindrances 2. The 5 aggregates (yes, our friends the khanhas all included here) 3. the 6 internal and the 6 external sense-bases 4. the 7 Factors of Enlightenment 5. the 4 Noble Truths So again, we have different realities being stressed in different classifications. Rupas, vedana and cittas were given their own ‘Foundation’ but are included again here. The hindrances (5 cetasikas) are discussed as a category of their own and so on. None of this is meant to be confusing or meant to be memorised. As I mentioned before, the Buddha discusses the different phenomena that can be known right now in daily life in order that we can see that there is no self or lasting consciousness anywhere to be found . But your basic point on this is that they are not 'actual' > divisions > of experience, but ways of organizing them in order to highlight their > mechanics > and the main point of anatta being the essence of them all. [?] YES! Very nicely put too. > > I keep getting myself in hot water, in the sense that each of my questions > leads > to a reading assignment! I will try to read those chapters. Thanks for your > explanation The same happens to me too. This weekend is pretty busy because I’m attending some yoga workshops and have a lot of work to do. I think I'll just be here for a few minutes and then I find I need to check a reference, start reading more and so on;-)) Thanks for your encouragement, Sarah p.s. a minor correction here to my last post: > > 1) the rupas (realities experienced through bodysense, eyes, ears, nose, > tongue > > and mouth i.e. sense and body doorways) = This should have just read as sense doorways (b/c body already comes under the 5 sense doorways) 8230 From: Herman Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:30pm Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E. Dear Robert E. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Hi Christine. > > Thanks for the clarification. > > I guess what I would say is that each person should seriously find what works for > them. I am sorry to take just one line out of the recent discussion and to query you on this alone. I hope you don't mind. ( I guess it means I found nothing controversial in the preceding). How does one know if something works for them ? To me this implies a knowledge of the goal before one has started the journey ie already having been there previously. The reason why I would follow the prescriptions of the Buddha is because he has said that he has reached enlightenment, and he has described how he got there. When the Buddha describes the goal he has reached, of course I have no idea what he is talking about. I only imagine my imaginations to be similar to what he found along the way. But I acknowledge as I go, that I know nothing, and need to shed even that. But back to sitting. When I sit, am I on the way to enlightenment? The Buddha says so, he's been there and I haven't. Simplistic? I don't think so. Simply an acknowledgement that a Buddha is one who knows. Love Herman 8231 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 8:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sabhava or 'essence'- Erik Hi Erik, I’m back! --- rikpa21 wrote: > Hi Sarah! > > > Erik, the third object of mindfulness is consciousness: > > Right, though I am also concerned with the other three, namely, the > body, the feelings, and mental qualities. It is called the "Four > Foundations of Mindfulness" after all. :) Good, we’re all agreed here. S:> > What is meant by consciousness (citta or vi~n~naana) is seeing, > hearing, > > smelling, tasting, touching (through the body-sense) and mind-door > > experiencing. > > I don't quite take away this interpretation from the Maha- > Satipatthana Sutta: Hopefully my posts to Rob E have clarified;-) ‘ citte cittaanupassi....viharati’ - he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness. I’ve personally found it really helps to consider any sutta in the light of other suttas, the abhidhamma and commentary notes, but I know this is all controversial;-)) > > "And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There > is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that > the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns > that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he > discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without > aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the > mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the > mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without > delusion. > > S: > > One doesn't go about anything, > > Not even "remaining focused" as the Buddha enjoined? Do you mean we > just sit here like lumps? The translation for this section by Soma Thera starts: “And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating consciousness in conciousness?” “ Here, o bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust; the conciousness without lust, as without lust; the consciousness with hate, as with hate............” By contemplating consciousness (cittanupassanaa) is meant sati (awareness) of the cittas discussed. There is no self to remain focussed or to sit like a lump except in the world of pa~n~natti (concepts). > > > but at this moment there is the experiencing of visible object in > front of us. > > Agreed, but how, specifically, does merely knowing this fact engender > mindfulness and concentration to the degree we can penetrate the > characteristics of what we're seeing? Again, we don’t penetrate anything. It may seem, like you were saying to Dan, that we’re arguing about semantics, but like he expressed so clearly, these are very important distinctions. By beginning to understand more precisely the difference between concepts and realities now, by knowing more and more what the objects of sati (awareness) are, by realizing there is nothing at all to be done by you or me, no method to follow at all, sati can and will begin to be aware of these same realities and panna (understanding) will begin to know or penetrate the characteristics. If there is doubt about this (or anything else) or attachment to results (or anything else), these are also realities which can be known as they arise now. > I agree that knowing how things are not "self" is critical, and the > bare beginning point in discerning realities as they are. Unless we > understand this fact we are liable to interpret what we see as > permanent, or desirable, for example. But this is only the barest > beginning point as I understand it. There has to be more, because I > cannot see how merely knowing this fact (like knowing that the birth > and death of an self-entity are ultimately illusory) does anything to > help terminate birth and death. If it were this simple, I am sure > we'd all be arahats by now. I think it’s simple and not simple. It’s simple in that nothing has to be done or changed. Realities are already arising and falling away and when awareness begins to be aware of them, it’s not a matter of changing them or leading a different lifestyle at all. It’s not simple because although we repeat that these realities are not self and so on, there is no understanding at all of what this means if there isn’t any understanding now of the reality appearing, whether it is seeing, visible object, doubt or attachment . > > > I can't find any contradiction. By states or objects are meant > these same > > realities found in the Satipatthana Sutta (and all the other > suttas) such > as > > seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and so on. > > Where are these items mentioned specifically in the Satipatthana > Sutta and "all the other suttas" other than by implication? Again, > the objects I see mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta include > specific parts of the body, specific feelings, specific > characteristics of the mind, specific mental qualities with reference > (does "Frame of Reference" have any bearing here?) to the five > hindrances, the five aggregates, the six sense-bases, the seven > factors of awakening, the Four Noble Truths. Let me know if this still isn’t clear after my posts to Rob E. All realities are included at least twice over as I read it. The same realities are discussed over and over in the suttas. In the Samyutta Nikaya (Kindred Sayings), Salayatana-vagga, there are many suttas which discuss the ‘6 worlds’ and the 'All'. In First Fifty, Ch 111, par 25 we read: ‘The eye, monks, must be abandoned by fully knowing, by fully comprehending it. Objects..eye-consciousness..eye-contact..that pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or neutral feeling..that also must be abandoned by fully knowing , by fully comprehending it. The mind..mind-states..that pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or neutral feeling..that also must be abandoned by fully knowing it, by comprehending it.’ > > Other than merely knowing that what we observe arises is not self, it > doesn't follow that merely being aware of this in theory has any > bearing on seeing deeply enough into the true nature of things that > this bringe about the end of suffering. There have to be objects to > apply this understanding to, so that we come to directly see the > characteristics of these objects as impermanent, suffering, and not- > self. Exactly so, and this is why your questions here about the objects of satipatthana are exactly the questions many of us have been waiting quite a long time for you to ask;-)) > I have not forgotten, but that is not what I am driving at. Again, I > question how merely knowing this factually is conducive of the sort > of concentration needed to penetrate the characteristics of these > things at all. Again, without an object, there is nothing for sati to > focus on. And the most important factor in mindfulness is remaining > focused. This is the basis for sampajana (clear comprehension) and > sati (mindfulness). Without this deliberate concentration (at least > at first, until it is so well-established it becomes automatic), the > mind will never be concentrated enough to penetrate the > characteristics of anything, because it won't have any object to in > which it sees these characteristics reflected, being so scattered and > heedless it flits from one thing to another without ever "sinking in" > deeply enough to know what it is perceiving with clarity and > discernment. I'd say, forget about this deliberate concentration, ‘sinking in’ and focussing. They are all accompanied by a subtle idea of self ‘trying to do’. Understanding is the key. If there is minding about the object, it shows the attachment rather than the understanding. Concentration (ekaggata cetasika) as we’ve discussed before, will in any case arise with every citta and when there is a wholesome citta, concentration will be wholesome anyway, assisting the other cetasikas and citta by being one-pointed on the object or 'welding together the co-existent states' at that moment. As the citta falls away in an instant (right now), concentration falls away with it. It doesn't make it last longer. > > and it takes enormous discipline to practice to > develop awareness and clear comprehension to the point they remain > focused for extended periods of time--which is the prerequisite for > penetrating the characteristics of any object being noted. Does it? Is it? > > Mindfulness can only be aware of one object at a time. True. It lasts for an instant and then gone! It may get > more refined and be able to switch very quickly between different > objects the more developed it is, but it is not possible for the mind > to focus on more than one thing at a time, which is why the exercises > in the Satipatthana Sutta detail various objects and how they are > best investigated. What is again unclear from your presentation is > how this degree of focus is established in the first place. I don’t find any exercises in the Sutta and I think it's more interesting to understand what awareness is and what the objects are rather than focussing. > > Right, but it doesn't just happen just from studying texts, but by > deliberately noting specific feelings arising and passing away. Being aware rather than deliberately noting with attachment. > Knowing what these objects of investigation are is the first step, > the barest beginning, as I see it. YES! To come to see their > characteristics directly demands diligent effort applied over time, > until unbroken concentration and awareness are developed enough "sink > in" to any object being observing. ....now we’re off on different tracks again ;-(( Erik, your recent posts and questions are really showing a sincere interest in understanding all the dhammas discussed by the Buddha and described in the Tipitaka. Please be patient if we’re slow to respond or don’t make ourselves clear enough . Sarah 8232 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Right View as to kamma and vipaka Nina Thanks very much for the comments below and the reference to 'Asoka's Footsteps' which I have just read (I found it very helpful). --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon and all, > A.Sujin spoke in India about the understanding of kamma and vipaka, > kammassakata ~naa.na (saka meaning one's own, kamma that is one's own), > see > my in Asoka's Footsteps, Ch 3, Zolag Web. She explained that there is > this > understanding at each stage of insight. At those moments there is no > self, > no world, no doer of deeds, nobody who receives results. Panna can > realize > seeing as a conditioned element. It realizes seeing as nama. Panna can > realize immediately that seeing is vipaka, different from kusala or > akusala, > no need to think. We read in the Sumangala Vilasini, Co to Sangiti Sutta > (D.N.) that the panna that is kammasakata ~naa.na is vipassana > adhipanna, > higher panna of vipassana. We may have theoretical understanding of > kamma > and vipaka,and this is a level of panna, but the deep understanding is > developed through satipatthana. On this last point, I think that clarifies the question I had. It must be a level of panna (ie, samatha or vipassana), but only the panna of satipatthana brings deep understanding. Jon 8233 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma Nina I was interested to read the passage below, which seems to suggest there are different 'methods' of practice -- sutta, vinaya and abhidhamma -- whereas I would have expected to hear the opposite coming from Khun Sujin. I would be interested to hear what you make of this. Do the 'methods' refer to practice or to the manner of teaching? Jon --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear friends, many times we discussed the methods of Sutta and > Abhidhamma. > We know that there is also Abhidhamma in the suttas, and Suan explained > this > very well recently. Now I would like to quote from A.Sujin's Cambodian > talks > about this subject. Her approach is directed towards the practice. She > stresses all the time that right understanding should be developed of > the > characteristics of realities appearing now, through six doors, otherwise > we > shall only have theoretical understanding. Then we shall also understand > the > deep meaning of the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma. The > method > of the Vinaya is important, also for laypeople. When you are used to the > idea of the Suttanta method as being the Dhamma explained in > conventional > terms, you may wonder why A.Sujin says that the Buddha in the suttas > explained about confidence, moral shame and fear of blame. These > accompany > kusala citta, and the Suttanta method teaches us to see the benefit of > kusala and the disadvantage of akusala. Moral shame, hiri, and fear of > blame, ottappa, perform their functions when one sees the disadvantage > of > akusala. Again, the purpose is not the theory, but the practice. Now I > quote: > > understanding of realities, but it should be the practice, that is the > development of paññå according to the method of the Suttanta, of the > Abhidhamma and of the Vinaya, the Book of Discipline for the monks . > > Question: In which way is the practice according to those three methods > different? > > Sujin: They are different methods. The Vinaya deals with conduct through > body and speech. When we study the Vinaya we know that wholesome conduct > through body and speech is developed by kusala citta. An example of this > is > the case of a monk who entered a house and sat down without having been > invited by the owner of the house. When the Buddha heard of this he laid > down a rule that only when the owner of a place had invited the monk he > could sit down. Thus, when the monk goes to someone1s house, but the > owner > has not yet invited him, should he sit down? Even small matters, matters > that concern etiquette and manners, such as while one is eating, are all > explained in the Vinaya, and everybody can apply these. We do not need > to > sit down and consider how many more sílas in addition to the five > precepts > we shall observe. Síla concerns our conduct through body and speech. > As to the method of the Suttanta, this is very subtle and detailed, such > as > the teaching of dukkha-dukkha (intrinsic dukkha, bodily pain and unhappy > feeling), vipariùåma-dukkha (dukkha because of change) and > saòkhåra-dukkha > (dukkha inherent in all conditioned realities). We should study the > Suttanta > so that we acquire a more detailed understanding of confidence, saddhå, > moral shame, hiri, and fear of blame, ottappa. When we listen to the > Dhamma > there is confidence, sati, hiri and ottappa. We do not realize that > there > are hiri and ottappa, even though they are there in reality. Whenever > kusala > citta arises it is accompanied by hiri and ottappa, without the need to > think that we are ashamed of akusala. We do not need to think first of > moral > shame in order that it arises and that we shall listen to the Dhamma. > Whenever the reality of moral shame arises there is kusala citta at that > moment. Thus, we should have more understanding of realities in detail. > With regard to the Abhidhamma method, this is in accordance with the > characteristics of each and every one of the realities. The practice > according to the Abhidhamma method is not merely knowledge of the > concepts > nåma and rúpa, but it is the realization of the characteristics of nåma > and > rúpa that are appearing. When satipaììhåna arises there is awareness and > understanding of the characteristics of realities, one at a time. When > anger > arises, is there anybody who does not know this, even if he does not > study > the Abhidhamma. When jealousy or stinginess arises, is it necessary to > study > the Abhidhamma so that one knows it? People know it without study, but > they > take these realities for self, and they do not know that these are only > different dhammas. If one practises according to the Abhidhamma method > one > understands that all realities are non-self. When attachment, aversion > or > conceit arise, or when we enjoy ourselves, there is no person, no self. > When > there is the firm remembrance of the truth of anattå, a person will not > have > misunderstandings about it and believe that he can do whatever he likes > because everything is anattå anyway. Then he uses anattå as a trick to > excuse his behaviour and he gives his own interpretation of this term. > As > regards the truth of anattå, does paññå grasp already its meaning? Or do > we > just repeat that everything is anattå? There is a considerable > difference in > the understanding of someone who merely studies the theory of the Dhamma > and > of someone who develops pañña and knows the characteristics of realities > as > they are. We should understand this correctly: if we know only terms and > names of dhammas, we shall remain only at that level, and we shall > continue > to know only terms. We should develop pañña so that the truth of anattå > can > be realized, in accordance with the teaching that all dhammas are > anattå. > Otherwise, to use a simile, we are like the ladle that serves the curry > but > does not know the taste of it. If we study but we do not realize the > true > nature of realities, how many lives shall we be only at that level, and > this > means that we study and then forget what we learnt. > > If we know that we study with the purpose of understanding realities at > this > very moment, then our understanding will be in accordance with our > ability. > We can understand, for example, what årammaùa, object, is. It is > impossible > that citta does not experience an object. Citta is the reality that > experiences and thus there must be something that is experienced. That > which is experienced can be anything, it can be citta, cetasika, rúpa or > nibbåna. A concept, paññatti , is the object of citta that thinks. We > can > know when the citta knows a concept and when an ultimate reality, > paramattha > dhamma. When a paramattha dhamma is the object of citta, it must have > the > characteristic of arising and falling away, it has a true > characteristic. > When the object is not a paramattha dhamma with its true characteristic, > the > object is a concept. If we understand this, sati can be aware of the > characteristics of paramattha dhammas, because satipaììhåna must know > paramattha dhammas. The study can support correct understanding of the > way > of development of paññå. Everything we learn from the beginning is > accumulated as the khandha of formations, saòkhårakkhandha, and this is > a > condition for the growth of pañña.> > > End quote. Nina. 8234 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui Howard (Still catching up) --- Howard wrote: > I would like to add just a drop of a (possibly clarifying) > comment. > Many of us on this list, including Cybele and me, and *possibly* > including a > few of the students of Khun Sujin, *do* engage in regular, formal > meditation, > sitting and/or walking, as well as maintaining a "general mindfulness" > of > mind and body in various positions and activities. However, it *does* > seem > that most of the followers of Khun Sujin on this list do *not* engage in > > formal meditation. Perhaps a few of them engage in no meditation at all. > But > most of her followers here, I think, *do* attempt to maintain a "general > > mindfulness" as described above. Because of this last, I think it may be > not > entirely accurate to say that they don't meditate at all. As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental state, posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation. However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do with one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness. So I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general mindfulness. Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. Jon 8235 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 9:43pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > But is there any doubt that the Buddha himself and all his > immediate adherents sat in full lotus or a variation and practiced > mindfulness meditation? > So the safe bet would be to do likewise, no? As Fa Hui pointed out, this posture has always been in general use. So it would surely not be safe to infer a special significance from it's use by the Buddha at the time of his enlightenment. Of more relevance would be anything the Buddha might have said in the discourses, or any mention in the ancient commentaries, about a special significance. As far as this goes, I don't believe there is any particular connection to be found. Some take the view that the best (or perhaps only) way to settle this sort of question is to 'try it and see'. This approach is, unfortunately, a flawed one, since we are in effect relying on our accumulated ignorance and wrong view to make a proper judgment. Jon 8236 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 7:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > > Howard > > Catching up. Just found this earlier post of yours that I had part > answered and put aside. Sorry for the delay in getting back. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No problem. As a matter of fact, with regard to replying to posts, it probably isn't really necessary that everyone reply to every post directed to him/her, especially in a sequence of posts. Sometimes, just as one example, a third (or 4th) party adds a msg, making a reply by the original recipient unnecessary. ----------------------------------------------------------- > --- Howard wrote: > >>Jon: > > > In the meantime, I would be interested to hear an example/instance of > > > 'conventional' Right Effort of the Eightfold Path, as might apply in > > your > > > own case. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I'll try to answer this in a few ways. An example of conventional > > > > right effort during meditation is to initiate mindfulness and focus on > > the > > meditation subject, to further these when already present, and to return > > to > > these when the mind has wandered. When not meditating, a general example > > is > > to let go of akusala thoughts when these are present, to initiate kusala > > > > thoughts when not present, and to further kusala thoughts when already > > present. > > Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks about > it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily 'right' > effort. > > Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the letting > go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice that we > are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could also > itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an unwelcome > interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make > awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it showed > us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other reasons > shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of obvious > akusala could not be 'right effort'. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that there be) no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of the event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until that object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for attention to return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter of *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing it or tearing the mind away. -------------------------------------------------- > > On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just anger, or of > the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if it > didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional sense*. > As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever (including > the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness can > arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yep! --------------------------------------------------- Or there might > be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for example, > that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different reality > altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different Foundation in > the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of this > difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or visible object > arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from the mind > with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time (and are > themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger). > > When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously 'letting go > of' the akusala. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard. ------------------------------------------------------- > > I know this was intended to be implicit in what you say above, but it is > easy to fall into the trap of looking at things in a 'situational' light > -- eg, anger is akusala so I need to do something about it, if I had less > anger/attachment I could be having more awareness, I'm letting go of the > anger so it must be kusala. > > Because we all have the ingrained tendency to think in these terms, we > need to be reminded frequently and in detail of the fact that there need > not be any idea of 'letting go' of the anger in order for kusala of some > level to occur. When kusala does arise at such moments the effort is > 'right' by nature and the anger is indeed let go of for just those > moments. In the longer term, it is the accumulation of these moments of > kusala that leads to more sustained moments/periods of kusala of whatever > level or, to put it another way, that the mind becomes more focussed on > kusala. But this development can only come slowly and gradually, by > natural accretion rather than by deliberate accumulation (in that sense of > the word). > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: We should "let go" of all dhammas, kusala, akusala, whatever, neither pushing away nor grasping, but being mindful of them, without reaction, merely noting them, their nature, their inception, continuation, diminution, and cessation. -------------------------------------------------------------- > > 'Right effort' is the effort *of* kusala, rather than the effort *to have* > kusala. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: But it *is* effort. In one well along the way, applying mindfulness, focussed attention, and clear comprehension may frequently occur rather automatically, but, for most of us, most of the time, this requires the conscious application of volition and constant remembering. ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 8237 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 23, 2001 7:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > (Still catching up) > > --- Howard wrote: > > > I would like to add just a drop of a (possibly clarifying) > > comment. > > Many of us on this list, including Cybele and me, and *possibly* > > including a > > few of the students of Khun Sujin, *do* engage in regular, formal > > meditation, > > sitting and/or walking, as well as maintaining a "general mindfulness" > > of > > mind and body in various positions and activities. However, it *does* > > seem > > that most of the followers of Khun Sujin on this list do *not* engage in > > > > formal meditation. Perhaps a few of them engage in no meditation at all. > > But > > most of her followers here, I think, *do* attempt to maintain a "general > > > > mindfulness" as described above. Because of this last, I think it may be > > not > > entirely accurate to say that they don't meditate at all. > > As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can > occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental state, > posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any moment. But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the practice laid out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking about what the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom can arise at any time - or, it may not. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do with > one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the > teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of > awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness. -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught. -------------------------------------------------------------- > So > I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general > mindfulness. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your practice to be that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually lead to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort to exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or not, independent of "personal" effort? ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 8238 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 1:08am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Hi from Robert E. Dear Robert, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I can understand how any one property emphasized > improperly could create a > problem. The three pillars of Zen are considered to > be Prajna [wisdom], Sila > [morality] and Samadhi [concentration]. I don't think I've mentioned (to you) that I was a student of Rinzai Zen for about ten years before discovering the Theravada and running off to Thailand and Burma. Kapleau's 'Three Pillars of Zen' was my second Zen book, if memory serves--I was tremendously impressed by it at the time. I wonder if you're thinking of this book? By the way, I'm also very familiar with all the texts you mentioned in your introduction. Several were among my favorites. As I'm sure you know these are considered to be 'sections' of the path--1 and 2 in 'paññaa (Prajña), 3 - 6 in 'sila', and 7 and 8 in 'samaadhi'. So all three are present (and balanced, I think) in a moment of satipatthaana. > Too much > Prajna and you would probably > have someone who was intellectually wise but not > experientially wise. Too much > Samadhi and you would become attached to the trance > state perhaps, or use the > power of concentration to suppress faults. Too much > Sila and you have a moralist > with no real insight. Though I think I'm somewhat at odds with the group on this one, I think that there's a sort of conventional path at the level of concept. Insight is possible here only on a conceptual level (because concepts can't be objects of satipatthaana--only cittas, cetasikas, ruupas and nibbaana). On this level the three can certainly be out of whack as you've described, I think. In a moment of satipatthaana, however, all three are present and balanced, I think, whether on the mundane (five- or six-fold) or on the supramundane (eight-fold) path. It is at these levels that satipatthaana can occur and paññaa can be developed, in a sense slightly different from paññaa as a 'section' of the path--that of Right View of the Path. On this level there is no such thing as too much paññaa because for there to be satipatthaana, as I understand it, these must all arise simultaneously and spontaneously, in balance (and fall away instantly, of course--leaving only paññaa 'behind' as an 'accumulation'. > The three properties are supposed to support each > other, and should also be > developed in balance. Here I would stress that the idea that any of these can be developed presupposes a developer. The subjective experience of 'I'm developing these', besides its implicit 'I', can only give rise to conceptual development, I think. Though by no means useless (because it can condition investigation and so forth), development on this level can't produce profound insight. If I understand this correctly, the path factors (on the level of satipathaana) can all only arise (and subside) according to conditions, most importantly hearing and reflecting on the Dhamma. > But I can't see highlighting > samadhi as a fault in its own > right. I wouldn't fault samaadhi in its own right at all, sorry if I gave that impression. However it is completely neutral and can (and will) coordinate and concentrate and strengthen whatever it arises with, for good or ill. When it arises with the other path-factors it's among the very best of things. When it arises without them, it isn't and can (and will) contribute to any act imaginable. > Without the deep ability to concentrate, I > don't see how mindfulness is > possible. Concentration isn't really an ability--it's a mental factor that arises according to conditions and instantly falls away completely. Satipatthaana is exactly the same and always arises with sufficient samaadhi to perform its function. So, although satipatthaana always arises with samma-samaadhi, it is by no means dependent on it as a prerequisite or a precursor. There are many instances in the Dhammavinaya of laypeople with no jhaana background experiencing profound insight on hearing the Dhamma--this could not have occurred without the spontaneous arising of samma-samaadhi (and the other path factors). > And from what I understand of the jhanas, > they are dependent on > samadhi. Is that not correct? Definitely, as I understand it. There isn't much attention to attaining by way of the jhaanas on this list, partly because some members are convinced (by a commentary) that those born by this time in the saasana cannot attain jhaana. I don't know if this is true or not. But I do think there is more than ample evidence in the Dhammavinaya alone (not to mention the Abhidhamma) that the jhaanas are not the only way to path and fruition. Remember that the Buddha learned samaadhi from his teacher--it was commonplace among samanas in India before the Buddha saasana. This is speculation on my part, but since this was a common tool to the recluses of the day, why wouldn't the Buddha suggest they use it to take a look at the four noble truths rather than their customary objects? On the other hand, I am unaware of his ever teaching anyone that s/he had to master the jhaanas before experiencing satipatthaana. > So i sympathize with what you say, particularly if > samadhi is the exclusive 'hook' > of the practice, but don't quite understand the idea > that samadhi in itself is > more dangerous than an imbalance in the other two. I hope my comments above have addressed this. > Interested in hearing your comments on this, and I'm > glad you feel so nurtured by > the process on dsg. This really isn't the way I feel about it. Certainly I would see anything that nurtures 'I' as something to be carefully avoided (though I do welcome the encouragements, of course). Most of what I've experienced in the year that I've been here as been the gradual (occasionally sudden) demolition of a number of big ideas I held very dear for many, many years. This hasn't always been pleasant at the moment but looking back, there's no way I would (or could) return to the ruins of my old views. Hope this is a good thing(!). > Always great talking to you! A pleasure as always, Robert, mike > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > > To tell you the truth, I would gladly trade the > three > > months in Rangoon for a week of correspondence on > this > > list. The one lasting benefit 'I' gained from the > > retreat was the conviction that Ven. Mahasi's way > is > > not the way--at least not for me. I was so > > tremendously impressed by his writing and > translations > > before going that I don't think I would have got > past > > it without this experience. > > > > I don't have the problems with samaadhi meditation > > that some in the group have, but I do think their > > warnings are very pertinent. The problem with > > samaadhi is that it can more easily be akusala > than > > kusala and it's VERY hard to tell the difference. > It > > has the function of consolidating some other > mental > > factors and sort of strengthening them, I think (I > > forget the technical details)--it really doesn't > care > > if they're kusala or akusala. So, since it sort > of > > 'strengthens', consolidates and so on, and since > most > > moments of most days are akusala, I think it's > much > > more likely to be strengthening akusala than > > kusala--especially self-view, conceit and liking > for > > calm itself. I still do it, anyway, because I > enjoy > > it. But I don't take it for the path anymore, > that's > > for sure. > > > > Pardon the rant, > > > > mike 8239 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 1:45am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > I suppose saññaa > > is largely latent too (like anusaya), or wouldn't > > recognition of everything experienced be occurring > > all > > the time? > > I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that 'latent' > is the right word for > sanna since, as you know, sanna actually arises with > every citta. Understood. The Atthasaalinii says "It has the characteristic of noting and of recognizing what has been previously noted." When I spectulated that it's 'largely latent', I meant in the sense of having the latent ability to recognize what is not being noted (cognized) at the moment--an infinitessimally small part of what it can recognize from having noted it in the past...(?) > > So that this 'history' is the condition > > that makes it possible for latent perception, or > > kusala or akusala citta to (re)arise when > > conditions > > are right. Still, it seems somehow to carry a lot > > of > > 'information'. I still don't get it--maybe > > someday... > > Certainly as far as latent kusala or akusala is > concerned, it is all > accumulated and lies there latent, ready to arise > when, as you say, > conditions are right. Difficult concepts to grasp, Actually easier to grasp than any other explanation I'm aware of... > but we can see in our > lives how the kilesas do pop up without the > slightest provocation and > despite our best resolutions to the contrary ie. for > no reason other than > that we have that particular accumulation of > unwholesomeness (this is > easier to see in others than in ourselves, of > course!). To be sure. mike 8240 From: dalthorp Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 9:43am Subject: Re: Clinging [Kenneth] Hi Kenneth, Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You are a good presence on the dsg. I have a few comments on your comments on my comments about Erik's comments. Hmmmm.... ---------------------- Kenneth: "It seems that on one hand we are here discussing about Satipatthana but on the other hand are we practising it right now while we are typing the emails." ---------------------- This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it, and observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition satipatthana. --------------------- Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?" --------------------- Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I say, that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of my words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber- dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of inquiry. I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As with anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until that glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik? Rest assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness. -------------------- Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point out is that, cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness." -------------------- Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life. Sati can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. The notion that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are necessarily helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link between deep concentration and satipatthana, and may even be convinced that sati cannot arise without that still, deep concentration that may arise from time to time on the cushion or even that the still, deep concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for sati to arise in everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think it's possible! Oh, the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion, those times that satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a meditator to think that he's safe from this danger because he believes that it is indeed possible for sati to arise in everyday situations, but has the understanding advanced beyond a superficial intellectual level? Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can so easily confuse samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the mind may attempt to establish sati by trying to reproduce the conditions of the cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing sati to arise. This may go on for years and years without the meditator ever realizing that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way. Not me." Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced" and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for the subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize because it is unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is kusala because all is so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? I'm not cautioning against being attached to the practice of mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing mindfulness with concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala, becoming attached to the special conditions and special experiences of the cushion. --------------------- Kenneth: "From your point of view, it seems like everything is a ritual. If i am not wrong in my interpretation of your view, it seems that breathing meditation could be a ritual." --------------------- What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity itself but the attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that a particular activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by engaging in a particular activity one will make spiritual progress? If so, the activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing really wrong with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for developing kusala habits. But development of insight requires something different. It requires establishment of right view and right effort, but that's another topic. [There are a number of excellent posts in the dsg archives on cultivating right view and right effort.] --------------------- Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I really need this ritual in order to practise." --------------------- Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits. Best wishes for your practice, and may you find peace. -------------------- Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by declarative and imperative." -------------------- "Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling someone to do something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact statement about a situation. In the context of the satipatthana post, the "imperative" interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When doing that, note that") would be that the Buddha was giving instructions for how to establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation ("When doing this, the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha was describing the consciousness of someone when sati is established. A simile--- Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of the lips turn up, the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from the mouth." Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip corners up, tilt your head back, and make a joyous noise come out your mouth." The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana Sutta. Dan 8241 From: dalthorp Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 9:56am Subject: Re: Clinging (Dan) Hi Erik, Robert already wrote a nice post to Bhante D. entitled "Sabhava or 'essence'- Ven. Dhammapiyo" (no. 8189) addressing some of the issues in your question. Also, my post to Kenneth touches on some of the issues as well. Enjoy! Dan > > I'm not talking about noting vs. discerning, but imperative vs. > > declarative. The difference may seem like subtle hair-splitting, > but > > the difference in meaning is tremendous. > > Since you seem to believe this is so critical, then I imagine you > should have no problem describing from your own experience how you > have found this distincion directly applicable to overcoming dukkha. > > Or if you don't have any direct experience to share on this, where > the Buddha clearly noted the importance of this to overcoming dukkha. 8242 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 10:54am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Thanks Sarah, That actually clarifies a lot. I'm starting to get a better sense of some of these breakdowns and how they coordinate through hitting it at different angles this way. But as you stress, the direct apprehension of realities to the extent one is capable is where the classifications find their real expression in life. If we take what is happening in the moment, then the classifications are not as important. They will sort themselves out as they become useful in looking at real experiences. This is my thought anyway, after these exchanges. However, I'm happy to be getting a little better picture of where and how the Buddha breaks down these realities. Thanks again. Best, Robert E. ======================== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob E, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > I think your post is very much on point to what I was asking. I am somewhat > > quizzical as to why there are all these different classification schemes in > > different parts of the canon, but considering that there are even more than > > one > > canon, I suppose that is to be expected. > > I’m not sure we can say there is more than one canon, but I’ll leave that to > others;-)) > > The reason, I think, why there are different classification schemes is to > stress different realities to be known in different contexts and with different > audiences. > > We could just say that all paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities) are namas > (mental phenomena) or rupas (physical phenomena) and leave it at that. For most > people, however, this simple classification does not give enough detail to > really understand those realities or to understand the anattaness, impermanence > or unsatisfactoriness of them. > > So, for example, when talking about the 5 khandhas of rupas (physical > phenomena), vedana (feelings), sanna (perception), sankhara (formations) and > vinnana (consciousness), we have a further break down of the namas (mental > phenomena) to help us understand that consciousness (=citta) is different from, > but accompanied by mental factors (= cetasikas). Further more, in this > classification, feelings and perception are given their ‘own’ aggregate to > stress their important roles. > > Both arise with every single moment of consciousness. Aren’t we so very > affected by the feelings accompanying seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and so > on. We complain about dosa (aversion) because the feeling is unpleasant and we > seldom object to lobha (attachment) because the feeling is usually so pleasant. > In the same way, sanna (perception) plays a critical role. Seeing now merely > sees its object, but it is the perception, the marking which helps give rise to > the world of concepts in which we live (with right or wrong view). Could we > even function for an instant without sanna? Even the arahats who have > eradicated all kilesa still have vedana and sanna accompanying every citta . > > > It seems that at different times, for different audiences, the Buddha broke > > down > > even the technical realities of perception, thought and consciousness in > > different > > types of classifications or nomenclatures. Perhaps he even developed his > > understand of how best to break these things down at different points in his > > career. I would guess that even the Buddha would reserve the right to get > > clearer > > about how to explain things as he went along. In any case, it isn't > > particularly > > helpful for coordinating one's [already lax] understanding of different > > suttas. > > I think that the classifications used on different occasions by the Buddha were > probably perfectly clear and appropriate from the start. With his omniscience > and wisdom, he knew at any time what would be most helpful. > > I don’t think it matters very much whether we remember the numbers or different > classifications (I’ve always been hopeless at remembering the details, unlike > Rob or Kom or Num, for example, who have a more ‘scientific’ bent). What is > really important is to begin to understand different realities, however they > are classified and then, whatever one reads or studies, it becomes clearer what > is being discussed. > > > > The 3 schemes mentioned here are: 4 foundations of mindfulness; 5 kandhas; > > aggregates, bases and elements. I guess if you study them, they could be > > coordinated. > > Even here, if you look under the 4th foundation, dhammanupassana, you’ll see it > actually includes ALL realities: > 1. The 5 hindrances > 2. The 5 aggregates (yes, our friends the khanhas all included here) > 3. the 6 internal and the 6 external sense-bases > 4. the 7 Factors of Enlightenment > 5. the 4 Noble Truths > > So again, we have different realities being stressed in different > classifications. Rupas, vedana and cittas were given their own ‘Foundation’ but > are included again here. The hindrances (5 cetasikas) are discussed as a > category of their own and so on. None of this is meant to be confusing or meant > to be memorised. As I mentioned before, the Buddha discusses the different > phenomena that can be known right now in daily life in order that we can see > that there is no self or lasting consciousness anywhere to be found . > > But your basic point on this is that they are not 'actual' > > divisions > > of experience, but ways of organizing them in order to highlight their > > mechanics > > and the main point of anatta being the essence of them all. [?] > > YES! Very nicely put too. > > > > I keep getting myself in hot water, in the sense that each of my questions > > leads > > to a reading assignment! I will try to read those chapters. Thanks for your > > explanation > > The same happens to me too. This weekend is pretty busy because I’m attending > some yoga workshops and have a lot of work to do. I think I'll just be here for > a few minutes and then I find I need to check a reference, start reading more > and so on;-)) > > Thanks for your encouragement, > > Sarah > > p.s. a minor correction here to my last post: > > > 1) the rupas (realities experienced through bodysense, eyes, ears, nose, > > tongue > > > and mouth i.e. sense and body doorways) = > > This should have just read as sense doorways (b/c body already comes under the > 5 sense doorways) 8243 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:10am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Practise - Robert E. Dear Herman, Well, I would certainly agree that following the Buddha's intent and instructions will lead you in a good direction. However, I might hasten to add that there are a lot of different indications for how to do this. In one sutra he talks about breathing as a base for mindfulness, gradually adding the four foundations and moving through the 7 factors of awakening. In another he talks about being mindful in every possible position and circumstance of life. In another he talks about developing various supernatural powers and how to cultivate them for an advanced stage of the path. In another he talks about breaking down every reality in detail and the different categories that they fall into. In another he talks about the ways in which one should live and work, etc. Well, I guess we should do all of those things, but there is certainly a lot of room for variation in how one emphasizes all of these factors and organizes an actual life around them. One person may eat sparsely, spend hours reading sutras and do one hour of meditation in the morning and one in the evening. Another person may not meditate at all, and may try to stay aware of the distinctions in the Abhidhamma at all times. Another may spend time doing yoga to cultivate a good full lotus and then make sure they are sitting correctly before doing extensive noting of breathing. Another may spent time on practicing metta and good works, and also do some meditation. Another may go to a Buddhist temple every day and listen to lectures on the Buddha's teaching as a way of gaining understanding. This of course is not even considering the different Buddhist schools which have differen philosophies and ways of meditating or seeing realities, such as Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, and Dzogchen. One may think that these are not the direct methods of the Buddha, and others may think that they are advanced methods given to advanced students. No doubt that in the Buddhist history at this point, there have been many brilliant teachers in different Buddhist traditions who have given different forms of practice. Whether one thinks one or another is valid is up to each one of us, isn't it? So when I say 'whatever works for you' I mean whatever path seems right for you. You will find yourself on one path or another, one way or the other, so it is a question of whether your path is congenial for your temperament and, as you say, whether you can presume that it will eventually get you to your goal. For myself, I have no doubt that there are enlightened people in the history of Buddhism who practiced Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, with various emphasese within each one of these, since each of them have a number of different practices and possible stages of practice. So I think it's important that Christine, as with anyone else, make a choice that is right for her. Should one contemplate the distinctions of the Abhidhamma? Should one do sitting meditation on the breath? Should one go through the day breaking down countless momentary realities to see how they are really constituted? Should one read sutras and contemplate the teachings so as to understand the Buddha's view of reality better? Should one work systematically through the four foundations of mindfulness, looking at sensations for a time, then switching to emotions, then looking at mind, etc.? Should one go to a zen master and contemplate a series of koans under his direction? Should one focus on anatta in all experiences and try to see the basic emptiness and self-lessness of all arising experiences? I don't think there's a yes or no answer to how these questions should play into any one person's practice or non-practice of Buddhism. Do you have one answer as to what the Buddha presecribed every person to do? You also say that you do not have any idea what the goal is like. I hate to disagree on something so intimate, but if you had no idea what the goal was like, and that it was a worthwhile goal, you would not practice Buddhism. So you do have some idea. You follow the Buddha's instructions because they accord with your instinctive sense of where a human being can wind up: free from suffering, with a truly refined understanding of consciousness and what this world really is. I believe in this instinct. I believe we all have an instinct for what enlightenment is, or these teachings would go by as like air. We wouldn't even notice them. We must realize that there is arising within us some sort of understanding of what we are heading for, how we need to get there, and where we want to wind up. Best Regards, Robert E. =============================================== --- Herman wrote: > Dear Robert E. > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Hi Christine. > > > > Thanks for the clarification. > > > > I guess what I would say is that each person should seriously find > what works for > > them. > > I am sorry to take just one line out of the recent discussion and to > query you on this alone. I hope you don't mind. ( I guess it means I > found nothing controversial in the preceding). > > How does one know if something works for them ? To me this implies a > knowledge of the goal before one has started the journey ie already > having been there previously. > > The reason why I would follow the prescriptions of the Buddha is > because he has said that he has reached enlightenment, and he has > described how he got there. When the Buddha describes the goal he has > reached, of course I have no idea what he is talking about. I only > imagine my imaginations to be similar to what he found along the way. > But I acknowledge as I go, that I know nothing, and need to shed even > that. But back to sitting. When I sit, am I on the way to > enlightenment? The Buddha says so, he's been there and I haven't. > > Simplistic? I don't think so. Simply an acknowledgement that a Buddha > is one who knows. > > > Love > > Herman 8244 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:20am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > But is there any doubt that the Buddha himself and all his > > immediate adherents sat in full lotus or a variation and > practiced > > mindfulness meditation? > > So the safe bet would be to do likewise, no? > > As Fa Hui pointed out, this posture has always been in general > use. So it would surely not be safe to infer a special significance > from it's use by the Buddha at the time of his enlightenment. > > Of more relevance would be anything the Buddha might have > said in the discourses, or any mention in the ancient > commentaries, about a special significance. As far as this goes, > I don't believe there is any particular connection to be found. > > Some take the view that the best (or perhaps only) way to settle > this sort of question is to 'try it and see'. This approach is, > unfortunately, a flawed one, since we are in effect relying on our > accumulated ignorance and wrong view to make a proper > judgment. > > Jon Dear Jon, Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full lotus quite a bit, as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance, but on the other hand, it is possible that it does. While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that the fact that he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to get into, it has to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a difficult posture if it had no significance? Many other meditative traditions, from yoga to the Taoists and Tibetans consider the cross-legged sitting position to allow the body's natural energies to align properly, and for energetic centers to be held in a particular relation when meditating. If the Buddha did not specifically emphasize such things, it may be that they do not matter to the path of understanding that is uniquely his. But it may also be, as some have suggested, that he took it for granted as a proper way of sitting for meditation or contemplation. I agree that we cannot decide in ignorance that this is the best way to sit, but should we then decide in equal ignorance that it is not? Best Regards, Robert E. ================================ 8245 From: rikpa21 Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:32am Subject: Re: Clinging [Kenneth] --- Dan D wrote: > This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for > satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while > sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a > snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and > hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it, and > observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition > satipatthana. Dan, it appears we agree completely on this point. > --------------------- > Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated > up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?" > --------------------- > > Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know > that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I say, > that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't > do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of my > words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he > serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber- > dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of > inquiry. Thanks for mentioning this, Dan, because this may not always be obvious to those unfamiliar with my style, or yours. There is also a very long tradition, at least in the Tibetan debating system, of "challenger" (the role I've been playing with Sarah and Dan recently) to shake and rattle the "witness", much like a lawyer cross- examination a witness on the stand. This long and noble tradition is enshrined in Tibetan debate because it helps tease out key issues. It is also a great way to train in not taking debates "personally", since any discomfort that arises in the course of having views challenged and examined is an excellent opportunity for satipatthana, noting the arising of clinging to self in terms of how much of a "me" is there in the view under discussion. The Dhamma is much like cooking a soup. You need lots of heat and to stir constantly. :) Or, another analogy I like. The Dhamma is about turning ordinary carbon into the most refined diamond. There is only one way I know of doing that: heat and pressure. > I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As with > anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until that > glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing > Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and > always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik? Rest > assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed > out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness. And you have to admit, this has been some really good back-and-forth on essential points of Dhamma as of late. > Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as > something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life. In this we appear to agree again, Dan. Agreeing with you AND Jonothan within the span of a week. This is nearly unprecedented! :) > Sati > can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible > objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an > opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the > diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. I agree. To use a concrete experience from my own life, I take "panic attacks". Anyone who's ever had the wonderful opportunity for satipatthana these present will know what I'm talking about. It was going into states of "panic" that helped really illustrate what the deeper nature of satipatthana is all about, in particular by seeing how it's possible to disengage the arising of bodily sensations presaging a panic attack from a sense of "self". The problem with a panic attack is not with the sensations that arise, but with identifying these sensations with a "self" that suffers them, which leads to a vicious feedback-loop that only serves as the conditions for increasing panic. Being subject to panic attacks at one point in my practice was one of the most incredible blessings I've ever had in terms of discovering how it's possible to neutralize panic using the understanding of impermanance, but especially, no-self, and applying the foundations of mindfulness to the bodily "trigger" sensations arising (which served as a condition for the arising of severe dukkha in the form of panic). There was a point where I'd even seek out special conditions for panic, by taking psychedelic drugs in a way sufficient to trigger a massive, several-hour series of panic-moments where the panic was deep enough to make me think I'd lose "my" mind at some points. The degree of panic in these moments was infinitely greater than the panic I felt peering over the edge of a bungee platform a few years ago, for example, so this was excellent training. In terms of daily life, training in seeing this panic (or any unpleasant sensation) as not-self made it possible to stroll a mile through what sure looked like the "Killing Fields" into a former Khmer Rouge stronghold recently. This was a place my Cambodian companion, who'd fought the KR in combat, was utterly terrified of going into with me--as the names may have changed, but the attitudes haven't. This was as a passport and cash-carrying American--for whom the KR have an unusual antipathy--walking side-by-side with the daughter of a former KR. There was only a moment of initial apprehension after hearing my friend say that he was too scared to come along, and that I should turn back (we had seen the former head of the KR cadres on the way to this village, who'd stopped his moto to "chat" with us, by the way, which I think provoked my friend's fear even more). It was having trained in confronting fear and panic with the tool of satipatthana that enabled the noting of the arising of sensations normally associated with fear without clinging to it, and in so doing, the sensation that normally triggers a "fear" response, like all impermanent things, ceased, and never resurfaced once afterward. That is an example of a real-world effect of satipatthana training (though I do not pretend to have mastered this by any means). There was no need for any false bravado. There was only the understanding that there is uncontrollable vipaka arising moment to moment; and that even if it were to cost me my life (or worse), that none of these things are "self". It was a very interesting test of understanding, and as concrete an example as I can think of for how this applies in daily life, even in a rather unusual case. (By-the- by, it was in this little village that it became clear that the woman I was with would become my wife, and turned out to be one of the most incredible moments of this short life!) > The notion > that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in > moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking > at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are necessarily > helpful can be dangerous. Agreed. However, the point I was making was that we have to diligently *train* the mind to get to the point of having sati amidst daily activities. This isn't something that just happens without serious training, at least not in my experience, and not in the experience of teachers I greatly admire. So while I agree that to believe mindfulness can only happen on the cushion is unhelpful, ultimately, until mindfulness is truly developed by this type of practice (the reason the Buddha and every teacher I've studied with has recommend this approach), to think it possible to dispense with this training is to pretend it's possible to run before having learned to walk. That has been the entire point of my line of inquiry in these posts. Because let's face it, there are plent of people who don't train the mind out there, and if sati simply arose spontaneously, without training, we'd have a lot of arahats walking around. But in practical terms, this is not the case. In practical terms, the fruits of the noble path will have no conditions to arise without diligent practice (even though the can't be forced or expecetd even a little bit, and ripen in their own sweet time independent of any wishes). We have to cultivate our little plot of land with urgency no matter what: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-093.html > Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the > fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong > attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced" > and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for the > subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a > particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with > pleasant feeling. Any good teacher should be able to help the student see past this clinging with some gentle reminders. Proper training in meditation should include a very clear list of the dangers that can arise, I think, and in the case of meditation, the role of a qualified meditation instructor is indispensible. > But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations > cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the > attachment to the cushion? This gets into "near enemies"--lobha masquerading as kusala. I've had these battles many times (and still do, though I'm getting better and better at seeing them for what they are). Not just regarding pleasant sensations in meditation--which never proved a big problem for me since this body rarely "feels" somanassa at all, and domanassa is the predominant condition of experience--perhaps due to chemistry. There was mistaking serious lobha for kusala on more than one occasion. But that misunderstanding is always exposed once the source of the pleasant sensation engendering clinging disappears and there is only the aftermath of dukkha arising from, what else, lobha? Wisdom, as they say, arises from experience. And experience arises from making mistakes. So making mistakes isn't bad in & of itself. Not knowing how to profit from them is. I think that if practice is going well, if one is training under experienced teachers and places enough trust in their judgment to apply their instructions as diligently as possible, there will still be mistakes and learning, since the map is most definitely not the territory, and the territory will throw out surpises in the process of exploration. But any mistakes will not become fatal hindarnces, and be overcome far more readily and not become the sticking-points they might otherwise become. That is where I really think the role of kalyana- mitrata comes in, because having the guidance of someone who's not only studied the maps, but more important, actually covered that territory, is necessary, I think. And this is exactly why I am so grateful to my teachers for their tireless guidance. 8246 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:55am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Practise Hi Herman, Welcome back;-)) --- Herman wrote: I'm leaving the role of knees in the enlightenment process to others, but regardless of whether one sees a cross-legged position as important or not, I know from years of problematic-knee-experience that they're worth taking care of;-)) > > NZ was ixcellent (sic). Our knees are just fine. Glad to hear about yr ixcellent trip and intact knees. NZ sounds like a pretty good place to hang out these days (months? years?). I don't suppose you bumped into Rob K... As you'll have seen, we're all finding plenty to discuss/debate. Still no news from your nearest neighbour, Antony Brennan. What else? Erik's phenomenal typing speed may have reduced a little (probably because the rest of our combined brain cells and fingers cannot keep up with him;-) Anyway, glad to have you back and appreciating your discussion here with Rob E and others. Keep it up! Sarah 8247 From: KennethOng Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 11:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging [Kenneth] Dan, Many thousand thanks for your clarification. I agree with you that satipatthana is practise in everyday life, in fact if we could, every breath of our life. Mediation is good to calm the mind esp for pple like me who has a restless mind like a monkey. It is true that we should not attached to mediation also as it is also an attachment. Just like I am attached to emails in yahoo. It is kind of addiction to see email everyday (got to let go of it someday). Thanks for the explanation on imperative and declarative. It is true that Buddha usually like to use declarative in his instructions to his disciples as he encourages his disciples to think and reflect and not to be like computers just taking instructions or programming codes. With kindest regards Kenneth Ong P.S: Dan, many thousand thanks again for using names at the end of the email. dalthorp wrote: Hi Kenneth, Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You are a good presence on the dsg. I have a few comments on your comments on my comments about Erik's comments. Hmmmm.... ---------------------- Kenneth: "It seems that on one hand we are here discussing about Satipatthana but on the other hand are we practising it right now while we are typing the emails." ---------------------- This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it, and observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition satipatthana. --------------------- Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?" --------------------- Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I say, that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of my words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber- dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of inquiry. I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As with anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until that glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik? Rest assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness. -------------------- Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point out is that, cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness." -------------------- Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life. Sati can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. The notion that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are necessarily helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link between deep concentration and satipatthana, and may even be convinced that sati cannot arise without that still, deep concentration that may arise from time to time on the cushion or even that the still, deep concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for sati to arise in everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think it's possible! Oh, the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion, those times that satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a meditator to think that he's safe from this danger because he believes that it is indeed possible for sati to arise in everyday situations, but has the understanding advanced beyond a superficial intellectual level? Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can so easily confuse samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the mind may attempt to establish sati by trying to reproduce the conditions of the cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing sati to arise. This may go on for years and years without the meditator ever realizing that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way. Not me." Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced" and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for the subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize because it is unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is kusala because all is so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the attachment to the cushion? I'm not cautioning against being attached to the practice of mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing mindfulness with concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala, becoming attached to the special conditions and special experiences of the cushion. --------------------- Kenneth: "From your point of view, it seems like everything is a ritual. If i am not wrong in my interpretation of your view, it seems that breathing meditation could be a ritual." --------------------- What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity itself but the attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that a particular activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by engaging in a particular activity one will make spiritual progress? If so, the activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing really wrong with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for developing kusala habits. But development of insight requires something different. It requires establishment of right view and right effort, but that's another topic. [There are a number of excellent posts in the dsg archives on cultivating right view and right effort.] --------------------- Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I really need this ritual in order to practise." --------------------- Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits. Best wishes for your practice, and may you find peace. -------------------- Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by declarative and imperative." -------------------- "Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling someone to do something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact statement about a situation. In the context of the satipatthana post, the "imperative" interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When doing that, note that") would be that the Buddha was giving instructions for how to establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation ("When doing this, the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha was describing the consciousness of someone when sati is established. A simile--- Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of the lips turn up, the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from the mouth." Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip corners up, tilt your head back, and make a joyous noise come out your mouth." The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana Sutta. Dan 8248 From: Sarah Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 0:15pm Subject: Kenneth's intro Dear Kenneth, Thanks a lot for all the info you cared to share with us. I have a dear (Chinese) friend here in Hong Kong who also follows Pure Land practise. Now I know a little more about it. I have to say it sounds a little like a fantasy land to me, but don't we all have our fantasy lands? --- KennethOng wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > I practise Mahayana Buddhism focusing on Pure Land Practises. After a few > years of practising, I begining to realise that there is a need to learn > Thervada also because the foundations of Buddhism is there. In Thervada, I > also learn a lot of wonderful and helpful Buddhism concepts and practises and > I have benefitted greatly from it. These concepts have assisted me in > understanding Mahayana Buddhism better. In the end I realise I like both of > them equally (oops attachment). Well. it's good you see the attachment and it's so very, very common for us all;-) > Living the Buddhists ways, has been the greatest discovery of all my life. > It has greatly assist me in making my life much happier (oops another > attachement) :). My life change and becomes easier, and Buddhism has help > me in my life in so many ways that i cannot descibed. I'm glad to hear this and it's how it should be...it should make life easier rather than harder. >But I have to admit > that I still have many weaknesses especially laziness and forgetful and worst > petty and also very proud of myself. > Actually I was trying to find ways to be more mindful so that I am more aware > and not be easily angry or proud. Like Mike said, not self and again the weaknesses are so common....no need to mind about them..better just to know and be aware. >My mindful periods are very brief, morning > mediation, eating or brushing teeth, then driving. The forgetful period > starts when i start the working hours and till evening sometimes even after > work till late at nite . Is there ways to learn to be more mindful and also > on the hand does not affect my work. Any kind of suggestions will be deeply > be appreciated. Yes any mindfulnesses should help rather than hinder one's work. If one starts slowing down or changing one's work pattern, this doesn't seem right at all to me. However, if there is more understanding and awareness while following one's responsibilities, it cannot but help. Any wholesome states are always useful. I think you're already finding it useful to read and consider here and perhaps because of the emphasis some of us encourage in daily life, this will help. You mentioned in your subsequent post that you have a lot of fear of future lives and this is one reason for 'buying' your Pure Land 'insurance' now. I'd like to stress that we have no idea about even the next moment and there is no self to fix it or control it in anyway. The most useful thing is to develop awareness and understanding and all kinds of skilful states now which will 'fix' the future accordingly without having to think about it or cling to it or be afraid of it. >Also sometimes I wonder how to spend my time at weekend > after family commitment, any helpful thoughts would be greatly appreciated. I have the opposite problem...I teach all day Saturday, I'm usually exhausted and have chores to do on Sundays and also like to hike and look in here. Why not just give me some of your spare time? I'm joking of course. We'd love to see plenty from you here at weekends;-)) > Only recently I happen to go into this group because I went to the dharmaring > sites. From there I went to Sangha group chat and later on discover this > chat group. Honestly the group is intellectual and an eye opener and I could > learn a lot of Thervada Buddhism from the kind pple here. I like to take > this opportunity to express my gratidute and thanks for the wonderful pple > here who contributed many views that assist me in my understanding of > Buddhism and practises. Thanks Kenneth. I'm sure we'll all learn plenty from you as well, including your pleasant and polite manners and good reminders of right speech. > My personal data, I am married with two children and I am 30 years old. I am > a Singaporean. I thought you must be either in Sing or Taiwan as we only have Ngs here and not Ongs;-) Let us know if you visit HK anytime. Btw, I think it was a good reminder you gave to everyone to put a name at the end of posts. If you also put a name at the start of your posts, as you did with this one (e.g Sarah, Dan or All) that would be helpful too. Thanks again Kenneth and I'm enjoying all your correspondence with others. Sarah 8249 From: Herman Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 0:49pm Subject: Re: Practise - Robert E. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Herman, > I don't think there's a yes or no answer to how these questions should play into > any one person's practice or non-practice of Buddhism. Do you have one answer as > to what the Buddha presecribed every person to do? > Well put Robert. No , I don't have an answer to that. In the case of JC I would have said that the prescription was "to love" and thereby discover what love is. In the case of the Buddha I could generalise from my strictly limited knowledge and say that he advised to foster awareness, but I honestly wouldn't feel comfortable making that statement. I do think that the Buddha spent most of his life (after leaving the wife and kids :-) ) cross-legged, and that this would in itself be a suggestion as to how to proceed. I can see that the physical inactivity that comes with sitting with eyes closed would naturally lead to awareness of mentation (or just plain awareness). Having said all this I do not deny any one the approach they take. > You also say that you do not have any idea what the goal is like. I hate to > disagree on something so intimate, but if you had no idea what the goal was like, > and that it was a worthwhile goal, you would not practice Buddhism. So you do > have some idea. You follow the Buddha's instructions because they accord with > your instinctive sense of where a human being can wind up: free from suffering, > with a truly refined understanding of consciousness and what this world really is. I wonder whether we have some instinctive knowledge of the goal as you suggest, or whether we are subtly aware of the unease that comes with investing in belief systems that do not correlate with reality ie belief in a self (ego) and the wholeness and permanence of phenomena? And that the search for the path is a desire to eliminate the unease that is subtly felt? An escape from the undesirable rather than a search for the desirable? This could explain the multiplicity of paths, not just in Buddhism, but in all cultures and faiths. What is common is suffering and unease, what is uncertain or not agreed on is the way out. > > > I believe in this instinct. I believe we all have an instinct for what > enlightenment is, or these teachings would go by as like air. We wouldn't even > notice them. We must realize that there is arising within us some sort of > understanding of what we are heading for, how we need to get there, and where we > want to wind up. > > Best Regards, > Robert E. > All the best, Robert Herman 8250 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 1:30pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Dear Jon, > Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full lotus quite a bit, > as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance, but on the > other hand, it is possible that it does. > > While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that the fact that > he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to get into, it has > to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a difficult posture > if it had no significance? > > __________________ Dear Robert E. I'm not sure if you read my earlier post where I noted that some among the objects of samatha do require special conditions including a crosslegged posture, erect back, a very quiet place, solitude... This is all well explained in the visuddhimagga. In particular this applies to anapanasati - breath. If that is the object one chooses then these conditions are necessary if one wants to succeed. However, we should know that anapanasati is singled out as being the most difficult of all the 40 objects.Here is a passage from the Visuddhimagga Viii 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is successful only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any meditation subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on giving it his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is difficult, difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of Buddhas, paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is no trivial matter, nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." . Also one should understand the difference bettwen the development of vipassana and samatha (see dans post earlier today for some good points). For the one who is truly at home with samatha bhavana (calm meditation) then that has to be an object for insight as well other wise it will be taken a self. It is not considered a preferable object but rather that all objects should be known as they are for insight to develop . Hence Erik noted that his biggest insights have come while seeing panic as being anatta, while one who is a master of jhana would have to see those very pleasant objects in the same way - as conditioned phenomena- for it to be an object for the development of vipassana. All kusala is supportive, to some degree, of the path, so if we have the skill and wish to develop samatha that is good . But easy, as dan mentioned, to get confused about the difference between sati(of the eigtfold path) and samadhi and samatha and vipassana. One can have subtle desire for just a little more calmness, a little more clarity of mind. And if so one is not developing vipassana. This slight desire moves one out of the present moment - one doesn't want to see what is there at this very moment. If we are sittting crosslegged now and we feel we have to stand to have awareness, or read a Dhamma book, then that would show a misunderstanding. I feel the issue of positions becomes irrelevant to vippasana bhavana to the degree that there is understanding of the objects for sati (all paramatha dhammas). For sure some people are going to want to sit quietly more than others. But it should be by their accumulations, their nature, rather than because they think it is the condition for insight. Also it takes time for everyone to understand how to be aware: that is to be aware without craving for some experience. Seeing and colour are objects that the Buddha mentioned time and again and yet so few people seem to be interested in these objects. But why? Because of colours and seeing so many concepts are formed up in the following mind-door processes. If there is not awareness in association with wise attention (yoniso manisikara) after seeing then there will be ignorance or craving or dosa. One will believe (attasanna -self perception) that one sees people, friends, enemies, neutral ones, or computers, cars etc.. But seeing only experiences colours. Panna (insight) in conjunction with sati and samadhi and other factors can understand this and break the wheel of dependent origination (paticcasamupada) there and then. Not necessary to be watching the breath or sitting in the full lotus for this to happen robert 8251 From: Herman Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 4:04pm Subject: Re: Clinging [Kenneth] Dear Kenneth Dan et al, Life is full of distractions, and much human activity is purposely expended on creating more distractions. When the suttas were written there was no TV, radio, computers, Internet and tourism and marketing were not fashionable. I cannot but think that practise in daily life today has less fertile soil in which to be grounded than when the Buddha lived. A cursory glimpse of awareness here and there, in between hours of captivating but meaningless activity is how I would describe my situation. A layman today is not the layman the Buddha would have addressed. Extrapolating from the Buddha's sayings, from the Buddha's time and culture, whether it be declarative or imperative, is asking for irrelevant conclusions. Given the pace of urban life, I would have thought that the ability to pursue formal meditation, coupled with practise in daily life, would be like an invitation to an oasis. Why reject it? It seems strange to hear of the dangers of the cushion. I'd rather be attached to the fruits of concentration than to the Nintendo, Oracle financials or IIS security patches :-) This is not a reply to a specific point or person, just my two bits worth, thats all :-) Herman --- KennethOng wrote: > > Dan, > Many thousand thanks for your clarification. I agree with you that satipatthana is practise in everyday life, in fact if we could, every breath of our life. Mediation is good to calm the mind esp for pple like me who has a restless mind like a monkey. It is true that we should not attached to mediation also as it is also an attachment. Just like I am attached to emails in yahoo. It is kind of addiction to see email everyday (got to let go of it someday). Thanks for the explanation on imperative and declarative. It is true that Buddha usually like to use declarative in his instructions to his disciples as he encourages his disciples to think and reflect and not to be like computers just taking instructions or programming codes. > > > With kindest regards > > Kenneth Ong > > P.S: Dan, many thousand thanks again for using names at the end of the email. > > > > Dan D wrote: Hi Kenneth, > Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You are a good > presence on the dsg. > > I have a few comments on your comments on my comments about Erik's > comments. Hmmmm.... > > ---------------------- > Kenneth: "It seems that on one hand we are here discussing about > Satipatthana but on the other hand are we practising it right now > while we are typing the emails." > ---------------------- > > This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate objects for > satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and fall while > sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back and forth at a > snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for satipatthana, and > hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, discussing it, and > observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can help condition > satipatthana. > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic kind of heated > up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental formations?" > --------------------- > > Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being direct. I know > that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of anything that I say, > that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in him, that he won't > do anything rash or harmful to himself or other beings because of my > words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to Erik, and he > serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber- > dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of > inquiry. > > I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does domanassa arise? As with > anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to happen until that > glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when discussing > Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never intensely, and > always short-lived. The interaction is mostly joyful. And Erik? Rest > assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as Sarah has pointed > out. No need to be averse to our private playfulness. > > -------------------- > Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point out is that, > cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of mindfullness." > -------------------- > > Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing satipatthana as > something that happens on the cushion and not in everyday life. Sati > can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible > objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an > opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the > diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. The notion > that satipatthana requires the special phenomena that may arise in > moments of deep concentration while sitting cross-legged or walking > at a snail's pace, or even that the special phenomena are necessarily > helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link between deep > concentration and satipatthana, and may even be convinced that sati > cannot arise without that still, deep concentration that may arise > from time to time on the cushion or even that the still, deep > concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for sati to arise in > everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think it's possible! Oh, > the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion, those times that > satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a meditator to think that > he's safe from this danger because he believes that it is indeed > possible for sati to arise in everyday situations, but has the > understanding advanced beyond a superficial intellectual level? Well, > how strong is the attachment to the cushion? > > Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can so easily confuse > samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the mind may attempt > to establish sati by trying to reproduce the conditions of the > cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing sati to arise. This > may go on for years and years without the meditator ever realizing > that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way. Not me." Well, how > strong is the attachment to the cushion? > > Another danger of the cushion is that the special phenomena, the > fruits of concentration can readily become objects of strong > attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite "advanced" > and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there craving for the > subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? This is a > particularly difficult danger because lobha may be associated with > pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize because it is > unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is kusala because all is > so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant sensations > cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how strong is the > attachment to the cushion? > > I'm not cautioning against being attached to the practice of > mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing mindfulness with > concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala, becoming attached to > the special conditions and special experiences of the cushion. > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "From your point of view, it seems like everything is a > ritual. If i am not wrong in my interpretation of your view, it > seems that breathing meditation could be a ritual." > --------------------- > > What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity itself but the > attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that a particular > activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by engaging in a > particular activity one will make spiritual progress? If so, the > activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing really wrong > with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for developing kusala > habits. But development of insight requires something different. It > requires establishment of right view and right effort, but that's > another topic. [There are a number of excellent posts in the dsg > archives on cultivating right view and right effort.] > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I really need this > ritual in order to practise." > --------------------- > > Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits. Best wishes for > your practice, and may you find peace. > > -------------------- > Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you mean by declarative > and imperative." > -------------------- > > "Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling someone to do > something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact statement about a > situation. In the context of the satipatthana post, the "imperative" > interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When doing that, note > that") would be that the Buddha was giving instructions for how to > establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation ("When doing this, > the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha was describing > the consciousness of someone when sati is established. > > A simile--- > > Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of the lips turn up, > the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from the mouth." > > Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip corners up, tilt > your head back, and make a joyous noise come out your mouth." > > The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana Sutta. > > Dan > > 8252 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging [Kenneth] Dear Ken, Just wanted to say (again?) that it's really good to have you on this list. Remember that talk about bhaavanaa (cultivation) is one of the three kinds of kusala speech (along with silaa (morality) and daana (generosity) (sorry that I can't cite the source of this--anyone?). So I hope you won't 'let go' of these emails on general principle (that is, because of the idea that letting go is good in general)... mike --- KennethOng wrote: > > Dan, > Many thousand thanks for your clarification. I > agree with you that satipatthana is practise in > everyday life, in fact if we could, every breath of > our life. Mediation is good to calm the mind esp > for pple like me who has a restless mind like a > monkey. It is true that we should not attached to > mediation also as it is also an attachment. Just > like I am attached to emails in yahoo. It is kind > of addiction to see email everyday (got to let go of > it someday). Thanks for the explanation on > imperative and declarative. It is true that Buddha > usually like to use declarative in his instructions > to his disciples as he encourages his disciples to > think and reflect and not to be like computers just > taking instructions or programming codes. > > > With kindest regards > > Kenneth Ong > > P.S: Dan, many thousand thanks again for using > names at the end of the email. > > > > dalthorp wrote: Hi Kenneth, > Thanks for your insightful and helpful comments. You > are a good > presence on the dsg. > > I have a few comments on your comments on my > comments about Erik's > comments. Hmmmm.... > > ---------------------- > Kenneth: "It seems that on one hand we are here > discussing about > Satipatthana but on the other hand are we practising > it right now > while we are typing the emails." > ---------------------- > > This is hitting the nail on the head. Appropriate > objects for > satipatthana are not limited to those that arise and > fall while > sitting cross-legged on a cushion or walking back > and forth at a > snail's pace. Every moment is an opportunity for > satipatthana, and > hearing about Dhamma and carefully considering it, > discussing it, and > observing the Dhamma in everyday experiences can > help condition > satipatthana. > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "I feel that these exchanges on this topic > kind of heated > up. Is there arise an unplesant feeling or mental > formations?" > --------------------- > > Erik likes to hear direct things, and I like being > direct. I know > that Erik's feelings won't be hurt on account of > anything that I say, > that a raging fire of anger will not flare up in > him, that he won't > do anything rash or harmful to himself or other > beings because of my > words. So I speak directly, bluntly, even harshly to > Erik, and he > serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! > Erik's a good cyber- > dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy > spirit of > inquiry. > > I do appreciate your reminder, though. Does > domanassa arise? As with > anything else I do, of course! It that is bound to > happen until that > glorious day when anagami-hood is realized. But when > discussing > Dhamma with Erik, the domanassa is not often, never > intensely, and > always short-lived. The interaction is mostly > joyful. And Erik? Rest > assured that his bark is worse than his bite, as > Sarah has pointed > out. No need to be averse to our private > playfulness. > > -------------------- > Kenneth: "If I am not wrong what Dan trying to point > out is that, > cautioning us not to be attached to the practise of > mindfullness." > -------------------- > > Not exactly. I am cautioning against viewing > satipatthana as > something that happens on the cushion and not in > everyday life. Sati > can arise at any time, and a wide variety of > phenomena are possible > objects. When this is understood clearly, every > moment becomes an > opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to > Dhamma and the > diligence with which it is pursued increases > markedly. The notion > that satipatthana requires the special phenomena > that may arise in > moments of deep concentration while sitting > cross-legged or walking > at a snail's pace, or even that the special > phenomena are necessarily > helpful can be dangerous. The mind conceives a link > between deep > concentration and satipatthana, and may even be > convinced that sati > cannot arise without that still, deep concentration > that may arise > from time to time on the cushion or even that the > still, deep > concentration IS sati. How difficult it becomes for > sati to arise in > everyday situations in a mind that doesn't think > it's possible! Oh, > the mind craves those quiet times on the cushion, > those times that > satipatthana may occur. Well, it's easy for a > meditator to think that > he's safe from this danger because he believes that > it is indeed > possible for sati to arise in everyday situations, > but has the > understanding advanced beyond a superficial > intellectual level? Well, > how strong is the attachment to the cushion? > > Another danger of the cushion is that the mind can > so easily confuse > samadhi for sati. Then, in everyday situations, the > mind may attempt > to establish sati by trying to reproduce the > conditions of the > cushion, i.e. chasing samadhi in hope of forcing > sati to arise. This > may go on for years and years without the meditator > ever realizing > that this is happening. "Happening to me? No way. > Not me." Well, how > strong is the attachment to the cushion? > > Another danger of the cushion is that the special > phenomena, the > fruits of concentration can readily become objects > of strong > attachment (lobha). The meditation may feel quite > "advanced" > and "developed", yet is there awareness? Or is there > craving for the > subtle sensations and quiet calm of concentration? > This is a > particularly difficult danger because lobha may be > associated with > pleasant feeling. Dosa is easier to recognize > because it is > unpleasant, so the mind may think everything is > kusala because all is > so pleasant. But is unwise attention to the pleasant > sensations > cultivating a habit of generating lobha? Well, how > strong is the > attachment to the cushion? > > I'm not cautioning against being attached to the > practice of > mindfulness, but I am cautioning against confusing > mindfulness with > concentration, confusing pleasure with kusala, > becoming attached to > the special conditions and special experiences of > the cushion. > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "From your point of view, it seems like > everything is a > ritual. If i am not wrong in my interpretation of > your view, it > seems that breathing meditation could be a ritual." > --------------------- > > What makes an activity a ritual is not the activity > itself but the > attitude toward the activity. Is there the idea that > a particular > activity has intrinsic spiritual value? That by > engaging in a > particular activity one will make spiritual > progress? If so, the > activity is being viewed as ritual. There is nothing > really wrong > with this, and ritual can certainly be a tool for > developing kusala > habits. But development of insight requires > something different. It > requires establishment of right view and right > effort, but that's > another topic. [There are a number of excellent > posts in the dsg > archives on cultivating right view and right > effort.] > > --------------------- > Kenneth: "...presently in my humblest opinion I > really need this > ritual in order to practise." > --------------------- > > Do not doubt that ritual can bring great benefits. > Best wishes for > your practice, and may you find peace. > > -------------------- > Kenneth: "Could you also kindly tell me what you > mean by declarative > and imperative." > -------------------- > > "Imperative" is an order, a command, or just telling > someone to do > something. "Declarative" is just a matter-of-fact > statement about a > situation. In the context of the satipatthana post, > the "imperative" > interpretation ("When doing this, note this; When > doing that, note > that") would be that the Buddha was giving > instructions for how to > establish sati; the "declarative" interpretation > ("When doing this, > the bhikkhu discerns this") would be that the Buddha > was describing > the consciousness of someone when sati is > established. > > A simile--- > > Declarative: "When someone laughs, the corners of > the lips turn up, > the head tilts back, and a joyous noise comes from > the mouth." > > Imperative: "If you want to laugh, turn your lip > corners up, tilt > your head back, and make a joyous noise come out > your mouth." > > The Buddha used the declarative in the Satipatthana > Sutta. > > Dan > > 8253 From: dalthorp Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:30pm Subject: Back to hiatus I have a busy few weeks coming up. I will not be checking in with dsg until at least Oct. 10. I don't relish missing the interesting discussions unfolding! Dan 8254 From: m. nease Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:42pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Back to hiatus Dan, Miss you already (sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear). I know you're busy but hope you don't underestimate the value of your contributions here. mike --- dalthorp wrote: > I have a busy few weeks coming up. I will not be > checking in with dsg > until at least Oct. 10. I don't relish missing the > interesting > discussions unfolding! > > Dan 8255 From: Anders Honore Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:53pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Anders - > > In a message dated 9/14/01 6:01:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > > ========================= > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I > have no idea of where to look. I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read the > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta Nipata, the > Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come across this, > and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think this is an > important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana is > impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is unacceptable. I am not at my home computer, so I can't give you anymore specific info. I'll get back to you later this week. 8256 From: Howard Date: Mon Sep 24, 2001 5:39pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Thanks, Anders. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/24/01 8:54:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Anders writes: > > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? > From "SN 4" I > > have no idea of where to look. > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I > have read the > > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta > Nipata, the > > Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come > across this, > > and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think > this is an > > important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana is > > impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is > unacceptable. > > I am not at my home computer, so I can't give you anymore specific > info. I'll get back to you later this week. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8257 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:10am Subject: conditionality Dear Friends, someone mentioned a text that the Buddha told the monks to see conditionality everywhere in all things, and he said that he uses this as a mantra. The text was in M. III, p. 19, but I am lost. I have a P.T.S. translation. Can someone help me to find the chapter and par.? I found it such a good reminder, just now. We get so overwhelmed when looking at the news or reading the newspaper, that we are forgetful of realities that are conditioned. Even sadness about the news is conditioned. Amara wrote before that we receive the news through eyes and ears, and also this is a good reminder. We forget that there is visible object through the eyes, sound through the ears, we rae carried away by the stories. Thinking about the news is also conditioned, and it is natural that we think about stories, we lead our daily life naturally, but it is helpful that sometimes there can be understanding of what is real in the ultimate sense. Nina. 8258 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 3:23am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Robert, I think this is a very fertile message, meaning that I think it is well composed and at the same time opens the door for a *lot* of really interesting questions. I see some possibilities in it that are very interesting, some important quesitons, and also some contradictions -- probably from my own confusion about the topics -- which I would love to have clarified. I will go through this more slowly and send you a detailed post in the next day or two. I just wanted to tell you for now that I think your basic points are very interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the fact that the breath is such a difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object of choice for almost every meditation system in every culture. I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga, or Hindu meditation class or centre that didn't give breathing as the object of meditation! So the fact that it is supposed to be only for the most advanced students is extremely funny to me. It must be some kind of cosmic joke. I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so many systems is that it is the bridge between awareness, life, physicality and outer envirnonment, and so brings a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from this, systems that are interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and intensification find that the breath is a vehicle for opening up the psychophysical system, and I think that appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the person's vitality, capability and awareness all together. In any case, the only systems I have encountered that are not particularly interested in the breath are the ones that are confronting the mind and its objects more directly, and this seems to me to be more advanced, not less advanced than working with the breath. For instance, abhidhamma seems to me to be attempting the kind of specific breakdown of objective realities and their apprehension that is only really suited for a philosopher. Can someone who does not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the abhidhamma? I doubt it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at objects in the moment and at least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the moment, but even this requires a sharp intellect. In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and the immediate reality of contact, perception and thought are also directly confronted in a particular way. This is also in some ways an intellectual's anti-intellectual exercise. It attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts of realities as real, but at the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind has to be pretty sharp. But anyone can do breathing meditation on some level. It is more basic for most people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very interesting. Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more questions. I'll get back with a detailed inquiry soon! [can you tell how excited I am by this topic?] Best Regards, Robert E. ============================ --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > > Dear Jon, > > Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full > lotus quite a bit, > > as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance, > but on the > > other hand, it is possible that it does. > > > > While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that > the fact that > > he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to > get into, it has > > to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a > difficult posture > > if it had no significance? > > > > __________________ > Dear Robert E. > I'm not sure if you read my earlier post where I noted that some > among the objects of samatha do require special conditions including > a crosslegged posture, erect back, a very quiet place, solitude... > This is all well explained in the visuddhimagga. In particular this > applies to anapanasati - breath. If that is the object one chooses > then these conditions are necessary if one wants to succeed. > However, we should know that anapanasati is singled out as being the > most difficult of all the 40 objects.Here is a passage from the > Visuddhimagga Viii > 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is > successful > only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any meditation > subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on > giving it > his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is difficult, > difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of > Buddhas, > paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is no trivial > matter, > nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." . > > Also one should understand the difference bettwen the development of > vipassana and samatha (see dans post earlier today for some good > points). For the one who is truly at home with samatha bhavana (calm > meditation) then that has to be an object for insight as well other > wise it will be taken a self. It is not considered a preferable > object but rather that all objects should be known as they are for > insight to develop . Hence Erik noted that his biggest insights have > come while seeing panic as being anatta, while one who is a master of > jhana would have to see those very pleasant objects in the same way - > as conditioned phenomena- for it to be an object for the development > of vipassana. > All kusala is supportive, to some degree, of the path, so if we have > the skill and wish to develop samatha that is good . But easy, as dan > mentioned, to get confused about the difference between sati(of the > eigtfold path) and samadhi and samatha and vipassana. > > One can have subtle desire for just a little more calmness, a little > more clarity of mind. And if so one is not developing vipassana. > This slight desire moves one out of the present moment - one doesn't > want to see what is there at this very moment. If we are sittting > crosslegged now and we feel we have to stand to have awareness, or > read a Dhamma book, then that would show a misunderstanding. I feel > the issue of positions becomes irrelevant to vippasana bhavana to the > degree that there is understanding of the objects for sati (all > paramatha dhammas). For sure some people are going to want to sit > quietly more than others. But it should be by their accumulations, > their nature, rather than because they think it is the condition for > insight. > > Also it takes time for everyone to understand how to be aware: that > is to be aware without craving for some experience. Seeing and colour > are objects that the Buddha mentioned time and again and yet so few > people seem to be interested in these objects. But why? Because of > colours and seeing so many concepts are formed up in the following > mind-door processes. If there is not awareness in association with > wise attention (yoniso manisikara) after seeing then there will be > ignorance or craving or dosa. One will believe (attasanna -self > perception) that one sees people, friends, enemies, neutral ones, or > computers, cars etc.. But seeing only experiences colours. Panna > (insight) in conjunction with sati and samadhi and other factors can > understand this and break the wheel of dependent origination > (paticcasamupada) there and then. Not necessary to be watching the > breath or sitting in the full lotus for this to happen > > robert > 8259 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 5:04am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Robert, Glad to hear you say this, hope you don't mind my butting in. I think it's noteworthy that, at the beginning of the Anapanasati (Mindfulness of Breathing) sutta, the Buddha is in residence with a large number of monks, beginners and arahantas. The only 'practices' mentioned for the first three months of the rains retreat are teaching and instructing, being taught and being instructed--no meditation of any kind is mentioned. The Buddha is so pleased with this that he instructs them to extend the retreat for another month, still with only the mention of teaching and instruction. Throughout this time the new monks are said to have been making 'grand, successive distinctions'--impressive words coming from the Buddha. It isn't until this whole assembly has practiced to his great satisfaction for four months straight (making grand and successive distinctions the while) that he teaches them anapanasati. The sigificance of this that I think is often overlooked is the rather exalted mental states of his audience--achieved by having been taught and instructed (largely by arahantas). Personally I doubt my 'accumulations' are quite up to this standard... mike --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Robert, > I think this is a very fertile message, meaning that > I think it is well composed > and at the same time opens the door for a *lot* of > really interesting questions. > I see some possibilities in it that are very > interesting, some important > quesitons, and also some contradictions -- probably > from my own confusion about > the topics -- which I would love to have clarified. > > > I will go through this more slowly and send you a > detailed post in the next day or > two. I just wanted to tell you for now that I think > your basic points are very > interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the > fact that the breath is such a > difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object > of choice for almost every > meditation system in every culture. > > I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga, > or Hindu meditation class or > centre that didn't give breathing as the object of > meditation! So the fact that > it is supposed to be only for the most advanced > students is extremely funny to me. > It must be some kind of cosmic joke. > > I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so > many systems is that it is the > bridge between awareness, life, physicality and > outer envirnonment, and so brings > a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from > this, systems that are > interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and > intensification find that the > breath is a vehicle for opening up the > psychophysical system, and I think that > appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the > person's vitality, capability > and awareness all together. > > In any case, the only systems I have encountered > that are not particularly > interested in the breath are the ones that are > confronting the mind and its > objects more directly, and this seems to me to be > more advanced, not less advanced > than working with the breath. For instance, > abhidhamma seems to me to be > attempting the kind of specific breakdown of > objective realities and their > apprehension that is only really suited for a > philosopher. Can someone who does > not have an intellectual bent really follow the > sutras of the abhidhamma? I doubt > it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at > objects in the moment and at > least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the > moment, but even this requires > a sharp intellect. > > In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and > the immediate reality of > contact, perception and thought are also directly > confronted in a particular way. > This is also in some ways an intellectual's > anti-intellectual exercise. It > attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts > of realities as real, but at > the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind > has to be pretty sharp. > > But anyone can do breathing meditation on some > level. It is more basic for most > people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very > interesting. > > Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more > questions. I'll get back with a > detailed inquiry soon! > > [can you tell how excited I am by this topic?] > > Best Regards, > Robert E. > > ============================ > > --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > > --- Robert Epstein > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Jon, > > > Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did > sit in the full > > lotus quite a bit, > > > as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have > any significance, > > but on the > > > other hand, it is possible that it does. > > > > > > While the Buddha may not have emphasized the > posture, I think that > > the fact that > > > he used it means *something*. Full lotus has > never been easy to > > get into, it has > > > to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would > everyone use a > > difficult posture > > > if it had no significance? > > > > > > __________________ > > Dear Robert E. > > I'm not sure if you read my earlier post where I > noted that some > > among the objects of samatha do require special > conditions including > > a crosslegged posture, erect back, a very quiet > place, solitude... > > This is all well explained in the visuddhimagga. > In particular this > > applies to anapanasati - breath. If that is the > object one chooses > > then these conditions are necessary if one wants > to succeed. > > However, we should know that anapanasati is > singled out as being the > > most difficult of all the 40 objects.Here is a > passage from the > > Visuddhimagga Viii > > 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter > what, is > > successful > > only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet > any meditation > > subject other than this one gets more evident as > he goes on > > giving it > > his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing > is difficult, > > difficult to develop, a field in which only the > minds of > > Buddhas, > > paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is > no trivial > > matter, > > nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." . > > > > Also one should understand the difference bettwen > the development of > > vipassana and samatha (see dans post earlier today > for some good > > points). For the one who is truly at home with > samatha bhavana (calm > > meditation) then that has to be an object for > insight as well other > > wise it will be taken a self. It is not considered > a preferable > > object but rather that all objects should be known > as they are for > > insight to develop . Hence Erik noted that his > biggest insights have > > come while seeing panic as being anatta, while one > who is a master of > > jhana would have to see those very pleasant > objects in the same way - > > as conditioned phenomena- for it to be an object > for the development > > of vipassana. > > All kusala is supportive, to some degree, of the > path, so if we have > > the skill and wish to develop samatha that is good > . But easy, as dan > > mentioned, to get confused about the difference > between sati(of the > > eigtfold path) and samadhi and samatha and > vipassana. > > > > One can have subtle desire for just a little more > calmness, a little > > more clarity of mind. And if so one is not > developing vipassana. > > This slight desire moves one out of the present > moment - one doesn't > > want to see what is there at this very moment. If > we are sittting > > crosslegged now and we feel we have to stand to > have awareness, or > > read a Dhamma book, then that would show a > misunderstanding. I feel > > the issue of positions becomes irrelevant to > vippasana bhavana to the > > degree that there is understanding of the objects > for sati (all > > paramatha dhammas). For sure some people are going > to want to sit > > quietly more than others. But it should be by > their accumulations, > > their nature, rather than because they think it is > the condition for > > insight. > > > > Also it takes time for everyone to understand how > to be aware: that > > is to be aware without craving for some > experience. Seeing and colour > > are objects that the Buddha mentioned time and > again and yet so few > > people seem to be interested in these objects. But > why? Because of > > colours and seeing so many concepts are formed up > in the following > > mind-door processes. If there is not awareness in > association with > > wise attention (yoniso manisikara) after seeing > then there will be > > ignorance or craving or dosa. One will believe > (attasanna -self > > perception) that one sees people, friends, > enemies, neutral ones, or > > computers, cars etc.. But seeing only experiences > colours. Panna > > (insight) in conjunction with sati and samadhi and > other factors can > > understand this and break the wheel of dependent > origination > > (paticcasamupada) there and then. Not necessary to > be watching the > > breath or sitting in the full lotus for this to > happen > > > > robert > > > > 8260 From: Jinavamsa Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 11:46am Subject: Re: conditionality hello Nina, I see no one has as yet replied to you. I do not find what is apparently the passage you are referring to. In any case, I can add a bit: M.iii.19 corresponds to MN #109, from within sect. 13 to within sect. 15. The sutta is divided overall into 18 sects., by way of contextualization. I don't know if that helps. Is the citation correct? with metta, jinavamsa ============= --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Friends, someone mentioned a text that the Buddha told the monks to see > conditionality everywhere in all things, and he said that he uses this as a > mantra. The text was in M. III, p. 19, but I am lost. I have a P.T.S. > translation. Can someone help me to find the chapter and par.? I found it > such a good reminder, just now. We get so overwhelmed when looking at the > news or reading the newspaper, that we are forgetful of realities that are > conditioned. Even sadness about the news is conditioned. Amara wrote before > that we receive the news through eyes and ears, and also this is a good > reminder. We forget that there is visible object through the eyes, sound > through the ears, we rae carried away by the stories. Thinking about the > news is also conditioned, and it is natural that we think about stories, we > lead our daily life naturally, but it is helpful that sometimes there can > be understanding of what is real in the ultimate sense. > Nina. 8261 From: rikpa21 Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 0:03pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- "m. nease" wrote: Mike, > It isn't until this whole assembly has practiced to > his great satisfaction for four months straight > (making grand and successive distinctions the while) > that he teaches them anapanasati. The sigificance of > this that I think is often overlooked is the rather > exalted mental states of his audience--achieved by > having been taught and instructed (largely by > arahantas). Personally I doubt my 'accumulations' are > quite up to this standard... That sounds awfully defeatist, Mike! Without a basic degree of confidence that there is a real shot at getting out of samsara, what is the condition for the type of effort needed pursue and develop the path to completion? How does this attitude serve as a condition for relinquishment, or where does the Buddha suggest that adopting this kind of attitude profits? How, given the incredible rarity of a human birth (let alone the rarity of the kamma to come into contact with the Dhamma), not to mention the incredibly heavy suffering of samsara, does thinking like this benefit? Also, where is the avoiding comparing of self and other in this line of thinking? Where is the pair of samvega and pasada in what was just said? http://here-and-now.org/wwwArticles/samvega.html Is there now enough training in the basics of the Dhamma that anapanasati is possible? This is, after all, a practice the Buddha was "content at heart with". I have never heard the Buddha so praise any other practise to this degree. Obviously, there is enough samvega to enter the homeless life. But is there enough samvega to inspire an even greater urgency to the degree that there is no place given to the belief that anapanasati is somehow "too difficult"--to cast that belief aside that compares self and other to the degree of actual discouragement? It is easy to pile up layer after layer of reasons not to engage this practice (which is again the very first of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness that no teacher I have studied with has ever suggested is optional). Reasons like "it is too hard". Or "I am not advanced enough" etc. Let me just ask one question: can liberation possibly come to one who thinks these kinds of thoughts? I'm not trying to bust your chops, but asking. 8262 From: Larry Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 0:46pm Subject: Re: conditionality Hi Nina, I was interested in this quotation too. Robert Kirkpatrick brought it up in message #8204 and from there I did an archive search but archive search doesn't seem to be working right now. As I remember the original reference by Ken ? from Australia also mentioned the mahatanhasankhaya sutta in MN. However the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of that sutta doesn,t have anything like the line quoted. You might try doing an archive search for (M III (PTS),p19) and see if you can track down this Ken guy. Larry --------------------------- re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." 8263 From: Sarah Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:21pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ Dear Nina, Jina and Larry, I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by doing a search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case it helps. this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following dsg.....;-)) Sarah --- Larry wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > I was interested in this quotation too. Robert Kirkpatrick brought it up > in message #8204 and from there I did an archive search but archive > search doesn't seem to be working right now. As I remember the original > reference by Ken ? from Australia also mentioned the mahatanhasankhaya > sutta in MN. However the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of that sutta > doesn,t have anything like the line quoted. You might try doing an > archive search for (M III (PTS),p19) and see if you can track down this > Ken guy. > > Larry > --------------------------- > re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in > all > things." > Ken wrote originally: Hello Sarah After a brief flurry of activity, I seem to have reverted to my lurking ways. This doesn't mean my interest in dsg has waned; to the contrary, in my enthusiasm for what I am learning here, I am still inclined to see the issues in black and white -- one side right, one side wrong etc. Unfortunately, we zealots are the last ones to understand the `party line' we are pushing. I wonder how many times I've seen the explanation that there is no self who controls, there is no self who is controlled, and that dhammas arise only when the conditions for their arising are present. In the post to which you refer, I claimed to understand this, but immediately embarked on a theory which proved only that I didn't. Each time I read your reply and other excellent explanations of satipatthana, I think I am on the right track again but, with amazing speed, I slip back into conventional ways thinking. I have just seen a reference to the Mahatanhasamkhaya-sutta. Apparently it begins with the story of Bhikkhu Sati who taught a wrong theory on the nature of consciousness, and mistakenly attributed it to the Buddha. The lecture he received began with; "To whomever, you stupid one, have you heard me expounding the doctrine in this manner? Haven't I, in many ways explained consciousness as arising out of conditions; that there is no arising of consciousness without conditions . . ." This would seem to be an example of how we worldlings not only fail to have right understanding at the level of satipatthana, but also get it wrong at the intellectual level. But to think that this conventional lesson actually forms part of the Dhamma would be a mistake, would it not? Even references to conventional wisdom are to be seen in terms of absolute realities. Another good quote, which I found in the same book was, "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." (M III (PTS),p19) I like this so much, I have been treating it as a kind of mantra. (!) Kind regards Ken "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." (M III (PTS),p19) :-) 8264 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Glad to hear you say this, hope you don't mind my > butting in. I think it's noteworthy that, at the > beginning of the Anapanasati (Mindfulness of > Breathing) sutta, the Buddha is in residence with a > large number of monks, beginners and arahantas. The > only 'practices' mentioned for the first three months > of the rains retreat are teaching and instructing, > being taught and being instructed--no meditation of > any kind is mentioned. The Buddha is so pleased with > this that he instructs them to extend the retreat for > another month, still with only the mention of teaching > and instruction. Throughout this time the new monks > are said to have been making 'grand, successive > distinctions'--impressive words coming from the > Buddha. > > It isn't until this whole assembly has practiced to > his great satisfaction for four months straight > (making grand and successive distinctions the while) > that he teaches them anapanasati. The sigificance of > this that I think is often overlooked is the rather > exalted mental states of his audience--achieved by > having been taught and instructed (largely by > arahantas). Personally I doubt my 'accumulations' are > quite up to this standard... > > mike Well, if you ever see an Arahanta advertising for a roomate, I would jump at it. This also reminds me of the Platform Sutra of Hui Neng in Chinese Ch'an Buddhism. After many of the lectures, the last sentence is something like: "After Hui Neng finished speaking, the entire assembly was enlightened". Well, I would have liked to have been there! Robert ======================== 8265 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 4:09pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Dear Robert E., I think there are many reasons why the breath is so popular. For one thing it is the basis from which all Buddhas attain enlightenment. For another it is highly praised by the Buddha.The breath is in many ways a neutral object, hence it can be said to be suitable for all personality types. However, as we see it is not recommended for all. Breath as an object of samatha is difficult. If it is being developed correctly the citta that knows breath is associated with panna(wisdom ) and alobha(detachment)- Sometimes we can know breath BUT with lobha (attachment).However, even if it is an object of attachment it may still have benefits (in a conventional way)- it can be good for health or help to reduce the amount of thinking one does (hence less worries). It can help concentration too. It doesn't interfere with one's views when it is used in this way. Even fanatical terrorists could profitably develop it (in the attachment way - not as true samatha) as a way to relax themselves and focus the mind. Whereas such objects as Dhammanusati or Buddhanusati (ones that don't need special posture and that the Buddha specifically recommended to laypeople) will have an impact on view- and hence may not seem so appealing. You wrote "Can someone who does > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the abhidhamma? I doubt > it. "" Well I have some very good friends in Thailand who have been listening to T. A. Sujin's radio program for more than 20 years. They are very poor and completely illiterate. And the details in Thai are much more than we write here in English. I think the reasons one is interested in Abhidhamma go back over lifetimes and even aeons. I agree that only an intellectual would be interested in abhidhamma as an academic subject - but it is different once we see that Abhidhamma is about life here and now. I sometimes wonder why anyone wouldn't be interested in Abhidhamma. look fwd to your further comments. best wishes robert Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Robert, > > interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the fact that the breath is such a > difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object of choice for almost every > meditation system in every culture. > > I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga, or Hindu meditation class or > centre that didn't give breathing as the object of meditation! So the fact that > it is supposed to be only for the most advanced students is extremely funny to me. > It must be some kind of cosmic joke. > > I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so many systems is that it is the > bridge between awareness, life, physicality and outer envirnonment, and so brings > a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from this, systems that are > interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and intensification find that the > breath is a vehicle for opening up the psychophysical system, and I think that > appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the person's vitality, capability > and awareness all together. > > In any case, the only systems I have encountered that are not particularly > interested in the breath are the ones that are confronting the mind and its > objects more directly, and this seems to me to be more advanced, not less advanced > than working with the breath. For instance, abhidhamma seems to me to be > attempting the kind of specific breakdown of objective realities and their > apprehension that is only really suited for a philosopher. Can someone who does > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the abhidhamma? I doubt > it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at objects in the moment and at > least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the moment, but even this requires > a sharp intellect. > > In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and the immediate reality of > contact, perception and thought are also directly confronted in a particular way. > This is also in some ways an intellectual's anti-intellectual exercise. It > attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts of realities as real, but at > the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind has to be pretty sharp. > > But anyone can do breathing meditation on some level. It is more basic for most > people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very interesting. > > Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more questions. I'll get back with a > detailed inquiry soon! > > [can you tell how excited I am by this topic?] > > Best Regards, > Robert E. > > ============================ 8266 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ Nina, Jina, Larry, Sarah and others --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Nina, Jina and Larry, > > I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by doing > a > search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case it > helps. > this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following > dsg.....;-)) > Sarah > > --------------------------- > Ken wrote originally: > Another good quote, which I found in the same book was, "I have > taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all > things." (M III (PTS),p19) I like this so much, I have been > treating it as a kind of mantra. (!) I have checked the book from which Ken was quoting ('What the Buddha Taught') and the citation he gives is as in the book (p. 66). In case this is a mistake, there is another citation to the same passage, namely 'S III, p. 103', a reference to the Samyutta Nikaya, PTS edition. It might be posible to track the passage down from that. Jon 8267 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Rob E --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > When I speak of instinct, I actually give it strong weight. > Chogyam > Trungpa, a Tibetan Rinpoche in the Kagyu/Nyingma lineages, said > something to the > affect that when the deluded mind takes over, enlightenment takes on the > characteristic of an underlying instinct. Although you may not agree > with the > premise, I think you would agree that the delusory mind is deluded, > however, those > of us trying to reach an more enlightened state have some sort of > 'instinct' that > such a thing exists. Otherwise, I don't think the scriptures and sutras > would > particularly excite us….. Instinct can be based on understanding, or it can be based on ignorance or wrong view. Is there a solid reason for presuming that our instinct is based on understanding? What weight should we give to the assurances of modern-day commentators, if nothing to the same effect is found in the texts or commentaries? If the suttas are of interest to us in this lifetime, there is a relatively simple and straightforward explanation for that, namely an interest in the suttas in previous existences. But this is not an indicator of the degree of wisdom that has been developed, or the lack of accumulated strong wrong view -- simply an indicator of a previous interest in the teachings. > …. We sense that what is spoken of is a reality. > Personally, I feel that if one does not consult that reality in whatever > way one > has present access to it, then the sutras alone will not carry one. > Each stage of > the path must be experienced, must it not, to take root in the > understanding, not > just read about? I am with you as regards the need to clearly distinguish between the study and understanding of the teachings as given in the suttas, on the one hand, and the understanding by direct experience that is the practice being described in the suttas, on the other hand. But I don’t see where the 'sense of reality' (aka instinct) fits in, in terms of anything found in the teachings. What is this other factor that you are referring to, and why isn't it mentioned in the teachings? > My sense that enlightenment is one's true nature comes from glimpses and > experiences I've had in meditation as well. If I had no experiential > sense of > this, I probably wouldn't even have a concept of it. I would think > there is also > a guiding set of experiences that you have cultivated through > understanding or > practice that makes the sutras 'real' to you. Is that not so? It is tempting to ascribe significance to experiences one has had, but this is I believe an unhelpful and potentially misleading practice to develop. > Certainly the scriptures are a guide to what is to be understood, > practiced and > experienced. But I feel that without cultivating the experiences, the > scriptures > cannot really be understood, except as general indications. As specific > as the > words may be, they indicate something that is to be understood, if not > practiced, > something to be realized. I understand that there has been quite a bit > of > discussion about not taking the Buddha's words as calls to 'actions'. > But I would > think that practice, whether in meditation or contemplation of reality, > would be a > focus on understanding, rather than an attempt to change behavior or > perception > through some sort of gross activity. Again, if I read you correctly (and I hope I am not putting words in your mouth here, Rob), what you are saying implies that a material aspect of the development of the path is not to be found in the teachings as they come to us, but has been left unsaid. I think we should be very careful about developing an understanding of the teachings that requires or encourages any such interpretation. Jon 8268 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Yes, this makes perfect sense. From this angle, > understanding does condition the degree of kusala of > the parami being developed (or rather developing), so > paññaa seems to be unique among the paramis in this > regard. If so, it seems to be a kind of pre-immminent > parami. Is this supported by the abhidhamma? > (Apologies if someone has already made this clear). I think Rob K came in on this, but I can let you have a specific reference. In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka Atthakatha (published as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Brahmajala Sutta) it is explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the practice of the other paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all the paramis". It is also described as being to the other paramis as life is to the bodily organism. I think that gives it a certain pre-eminence. Another passage from the same section is of relevance to one of the other current threads on our list. In dealing with the role of wisdom in the perfection of energy parami, it says: "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the purpose desired, since it is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse energy at all than to arouse it in the wrong way." Note that energy is better not aroused at all than wrongly aroused. Strong words indeed. Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one that we probably associate with wisdom, is this: "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the wrongs of others, not the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the wrongs of others only provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his patience into play and make it grow even stronger." It might be interesting to consider the connection being made here. > > So I don't think it's necessary to think in terms of > > panna being developed > > first or the paramis being developed first. If we > > see the importance of > > developing kusala we will develop all kinds of > > kusala--including panna and > > the qualities that are the paramis--as and when the > > occasion arises. > > Likewise, if the importance of developing > understanding specifically is seen, this knowledge > will condition the development of more paññaa > specifically, I should think. That is, this seems to > me to encourage a particular emphasis on understanding > in the development of the paramis. Yes, I believe that's what is found in the teachings. Thanks for your useful comments, Mike. Jon 8269 From: m. nease Date: Tue Sep 25, 2001 10:33pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Hi Erik, --- rikpa21 wrote: > That sounds awfully defeatist, Mike! Really! I honestly hadn't thought of it that way--I suppose it could sound that way. All I really meant, though, was that it suggests to me that this was regarded by the Buddha as a rather advanced practice. Of course I could be mistaken, I am inferring this certainly. > Without a basic degree of confidence that there is a > real shot at > getting out of samsara, what is the condition for > the type of effort > needed pursue and develop the path to completion? > How does this > attitude serve as a condition for relinquishment, or > where does the > Buddha suggest that adopting this kind of attitude > profits? Sorry if I gave the impression that I don't the end of dukkha isn't attainable. I have great confidence that it is attainable, by the complete understanding of the four noble truths (exclusively, I think). > How, given the incredible rarity of a human birth > (let alone the > rarity of the kamma to come into contact with the > Dhamma), not to > mention the incredibly heavy suffering of samsara, > does thinking like > this benefit? Also, where is the avoiding comparing > of self and other > in this line of thinking? Where is the pair of > samvega and pasada in > what was just said? I'll have to wait a bit to answer this in detail. Certainly samvega conditions a sense of urgency--just not necessarily to practice anapanasati (for me anyway). > http://here-and-now.org/wwwArticles/samvega.html > > Is there now enough training in the basics of the > Dhamma that > anapanasati is possible? This is, after all, a > practice the Buddha > was "content at heart with". I have never heard the > Buddha so praise > any other practise to this degree. Obviously, there > is enough samvega > to enter the homeless life. But is there enough > samvega to inspire an > even greater urgency to the degree that there is no > place given to > the belief that anapanasati is somehow "too > difficult"--to cast that > belief aside that compares self and other to the > degree of actual > discouragement? There are so many practices and avenues described and encouraged in the tipitaka. Just not sure that this particular one is suitable for everyone, for the reasons we've so often discussed here. Of course, I'm also not certain that it isn't. > It is easy to pile up layer after layer of reasons > not to engage this > practice (which is again the very first of the Four > Foundations of > Mindfulness that no teacher I have studied with has > ever suggested is > optional). Reasons like "it is too hard". Or "I am > not advanced > enough" etc. Let me just ask one question: can > liberation possibly > come to one who thinks these kinds of thoughts? I'm > not trying to > bust your chops, but asking. Only if these thoughts are correct, I think. Much depends on our understanding of mindfulness and the foundations of mindfulness, to be sure. Thanks for your concern for my welfare. You may bust my chops anytime. mike 8270 From: Jinavamsa Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 1:05am Subject: Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ hello Nina, Larry, Sarah, Ken, and all, I was looking for the passage in M.iii.19. I notice that the sutta in question, Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, however, is not at all there but at M.i.256-271. That should make it easier to find the passage in question. The Wisdom Publ. (Nyanamoli/Bodhi tr.) version has "Misguided man, ..." not "you stupid one" , btw, .... :>) jinavamsa ====================== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Nina, Jina and Larry, > > I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by doing a > search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case it helps. > this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following dsg.....;-)) > Sarah > > --- <> wrote: > > > Hi Nina, > > > > I was interested in this quotation too. Robert Kirkpatrick brought it up > > in message #8204 and from there I did an archive search but archive > > search doesn't seem to be working right now. As I remember the original > > reference by Ken ? from Australia also mentioned the mahatanhasankhaya > > sutta in MN. However the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation of that sutta > > doesn,t have anything like the line quoted. You might try doing an > > archive search for (M III (PTS),p19) and see if you can track down this > > Ken guy. > > > > Larry > > --------------------------- > > re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in > > all > > things." > > > > Ken wrote originally: > > Hello Sarah > > After a brief flurry of activity, I seem to have reverted to my > lurking ways. This doesn't mean my interest in dsg has waned; to > the contrary, in my enthusiasm for what I am learning here, I am > still inclined to see the issues in black and white -- one side right, > one side wrong etc. > > Unfortunately, we zealots are the last ones to understand the > `party line' we are pushing. I wonder how many times > I've seen the > explanation that there is no self who controls, there is no self who > is controlled, and that dhammas arise only when the conditions for > their arising are present. In the post to which you refer, I claimed > to understand this, but immediately embarked on a theory which > proved only that I didn't. > > Each time I read your reply and other excellent explanations of > satipatthana, I think I am on the right track again but, with amazing > speed, I slip back into conventional ways thinking. > > I have just seen a reference to the Mahatanhasamkhaya-sutta. > Apparently it begins with the story of Bhikkhu Sati who taught a > wrong theory on the nature of consciousness, and mistakenly > attributed it to the Buddha. The lecture he received began with; > > "To whomever, you stupid one, have you heard me expounding the > doctrine in this manner? Haven't I, in many ways explained > consciousness as arising out of conditions; that there is no arising > of consciousness without conditions . . ." > > This would seem to be an example of how we worldlings not only > fail to have right understanding at the level of satipatthana, but > also get it wrong at the intellectual level. But to think that this > conventional lesson actually forms part of the Dhamma would be a > mistake, would it not? Even references to conventional wisdom are > to be seen in terms of absolute realities. > > Another good quote, which I found in the same book was, "I have > taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all > things." (M III (PTS),p19) I like this so much, I have been > treating it as a kind of mantra. (!) > > Kind regards > Ken > > "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere > in all things." (M III (PTS),p19) :-) 8271 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 1:05am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma op 23-09-2001 15:25 schreef Jonothan Abbott op Jonothan Abbott: > > I was interested to read the passage below, which seems to suggest there > are different 'methods' of practice -- sutta, vinaya and abhidhamma -- > whereas I would have expected to hear the opposite coming from Khun Sujin. > I would be interested to hear what you make of this. Do the 'methods' > refer to practice or to the manner of teaching? > > --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear friends, many times > we discussed the methods of Sutta and >> Abhidhamma. >> We know that there is also Abhidhamma in the suttas, and Suan explained >> this >> very well recently. Now I would like to quote from A.Sujin's Cambodian >> talks >> about this subject. Her approach is directed towards the practice. She >> stresses all the time that right understanding should be developed of >> the >> characteristics of realities appearing now, through six doors, otherwise >> we >> shall only have theoretical understanding. Then we shall also understand >> the >> deep meaning of the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma. The >> method >> of the Vinaya is important, also for laypeople. When you are used to the >> idea of the Suttanta method as being the Dhamma explained in >> conventional >> terms, you may wonder why A.Sujin says that the Buddha in the suttas >> explained about confidence, moral shame and fear of blame. These >> accompany >> kusala citta, and the Suttanta method teaches us to see the benefit of >> kusala and the disadvantage of akusala. Moral shame, hiri, and fear of >> blame, ottappa, perform their functions when one sees the disadvantage >> of >> akusala. Again, the purpose is not the theory, but the practice. Now I >> quote: >> >> > understanding of realities, but it should be the practice, that is the >> development of paññå according to the method of the Suttanta, of the >> Abhidhamma and of the Vinaya, the Book of Discipline for the monks . >> >> Question: In which way is the practice according to those three methods >> different? >> >> Sujin: They are different methods. The Vinaya deals with conduct through >> body and speech. When we study the Vinaya we know that wholesome conduct >> through body and speech is developed by kusala citta. An example of this >> is >> the case of a monk who entered a house and sat down without having been >> invited by the owner of the house. When the Buddha heard of this he laid >> down a rule that only when the owner of a place had invited the monk he >> could sit down. Thus, when the monk goes to someone's house, but the >> owner >> has not yet invited him, should he sit down? Even small matters, matters >> that concern etiquette and manners, such as while one is eating, are all >> explained in the Vinaya, and everybody can apply these. We do not need >> to >> sit down and consider how many more sílas in addition to the five >> precepts >> we shall observe. Síla concerns our conduct through body and speech. >> As to the method of the Suttanta, this is very subtle and detailed, such >> as >> the teaching of dukkha-dukkha (intrinsic dukkha, bodily pain and unhappy >> feeling), viparinama-dukkha (dukkha because of change) and >> sankhåra-dukkha >> (dukkha inherent in all conditioned realities). We should study the >> Suttanta >> so that we acquire a more detailed understanding of confidence, saddhå, >> moral shame, hiri, and fear of blame, ottappa. When we listen to the >> Dhamma >> there is confidence, sati, hiri and ottappa. We do not realize that >> there >> are hiri and ottappa, even though they are there in reality. Whenever >> kusala >> citta arises it is accompanied by hiri and ottappa, without the need to >> think that we are ashamed of akusala. We do not need to think first of >> moral >> shame in order that it arises and that we shall listen to the Dhamma. >> Whenever the reality of moral shame arises there is kusala citta at that >> moment. Thus, we should have more understanding of realities in detail. >> With regard to the Abhidhamma method, this is in accordance with the >> characteristics of each and every one of the realities. The practice >> according to the Abhidhamma method is not merely knowledge of the >> concepts >> nåma and rúpa, but it is the realization of the characteristics of nåma >> and >> rúpa that are appearing. When satipatthåna arises there is awareness and >> understanding of the characteristics of realities, one at a time. When >> anger >> arises, is there anybody who does not know this, even if he does not >> study >> the Abhidhamma. When jealousy or stinginess arises, is it necessary to >> study >> the Abhidhamma so that one knows it? People know it without study, but >> they >> take these realities for self, and they do not know that these are only >> different dhammas. If one practises according to the Abhidhamma method >> one >> understands that all realities are non-self. When attachment, aversion >> or >> conceit arise, or when we enjoy ourselves, there is no person, no self. >> When >> there is the firm remembrance of the truth of anattå, a person will not >> have >> misunderstandings about it and believe that he can do whatever he likes >> because everything is anattå anyway. Then he uses anattå as a trick to >> excuse his behaviour and he gives his own interpretation of this term. >> As >> regards the truth of anattå, does paññå grasp already its meaning? Or do >> we >> just repeat that everything is anattå? There is a considerable >> difference in >> the understanding of someone who merely studies the theory of the Dhamma >> and >> of someone who develops pañña and knows the characteristics of realities >> as >> they are. We should understand this correctly: if we know only terms and >> names of dhammas, we shall remain only at that level, and we shall >> continue >> to know only terms. We should develop pañña so that the truth of anattå >> can >> be realized, in accordance with the teaching that all dhammas are >> anattå. >> Otherwise, to use a simile, we are like the ladle that serves the curry >> but >> does not know the taste of it. If we study but we do not realize the >> true >> nature of realities, how many lives shall we be only at that level, and >> this >> means that we study and then forget what we learnt. >> >> If we know that we study with the purpose of understanding realities at >> this >> very moment, then our understanding will be in accordance with our >> ability. >> We can understand, for example, what årammana, object, is. It is >> impossible >> that citta does not experience an object. Citta is the reality that >> experiences and thus there must be something that is experienced. That >> which is experienced can be anything, it can be citta, cetasika, rúpa or >> nibbåna. A concept, paññatti , is the object of citta that thinks. We >> can >> know when the citta knows a concept and when an ultimate reality, >> paramattha >> dhamma. When a paramattha dhamma is the object of citta, it must have >> the >> characteristic of arising and falling away, it has a true >> characteristic. >> When the object is not a paramattha dhamma with its true characteristic, >> the >> object is a concept. If we understand this, sati can be aware of the >> characteristics of paramattha dhammas, because satipaììhåna must know >> paramattha dhammas. The study can support correct understanding of the >> way >> of development of paññå. Everything we learn from the beginning is >> accumulated as the khandha of formations, sankhårakkhandha, and this is >> a >> condition for the growth of pañña.> >> >> End quote. Nina: Dear Jon and all, The teaching according to the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma is different, but each one of these methods points to the same goal: the development of satipatthana which leads to the eradication of defilements. Satipatthana can only be taught by a Buddha and thus it is always implied. Satipatthana is the one way of practice leading to the goal. But by these three methods we are reminded of the goal under different aspects. Since we are by nature forgetful, we should be grateful to be reminded by way of different aspects of the teachings. The monk has to observe the rules of Patimokkha, he has to have Patimokkha samvara sila, but also indriya samvara sila, the guarding of the six doors. There are different degrees of guarding the six doors, but the highest is satipatthana. By mindfulness of nama and rupa the six doors are guarded, there can be higher sila, adhisila. Someone may be inclined to rude speech, or to hurt an insect, but sati can arise and then he will not utter bad speech or hurt a living being. Vinaya should not be separated from satipatthana. And, as A. Sujin says, also layfollowers can apply rules of the Vinaya in their own situation. In the Discourses the Buddha spoke about the dukkha in our life: the loss of family and friends, a grandmother who went around to the corners of the streets, exclaiming, where is my granddaughter. When people were ready for it he would explain dukkha in change, how things are susceptible to change, and if their panna was developed enough he would explain that the five khandhas that are impermanent are dukkha. As Robert said in his post about the three methods, also when reading suttas you have to know a lot about khandhas, elements, ayatanas (sensefields). The Buddha gave a gradual teaching to people, about the danger of akusala, the benefit of kusala, and if they were ready for it, he taught the four noble Truths, and then people could attain enlightenment. We study the suttas, but the study should have as purpose the understanding of the characteristics of realities appearing now: nama and rupa, the khandhas, the elements, the ayatanas. The study should not stay on the level of theoretical knowledge. As to the Abhidhamma method, as Robert said, Abhidhamma is synonymous with understanding life, with vipassana. Seeing, hearing, attachment, aversion, feeling, they are realities of life and they are elucidated in detail in the Abhidhamma. With what purpose? To understand this moment, because in that way the panna develops that can eventually erdicate wrong view and the other defilements. Thus, the three parts of the teachings are one, all pointing to the same goal. The practice is one: satipatthana, understanding this very moment. Someone was wondering who meditates and who does not. Meditation is a word that can create confusion, shall we use the word bhavana, mental development? Samatha is bhavana but also vipassana is bhavana, and for vipassana, this can be developed no matter what one is doing. I am so glad the Buddha speaks in the Vinaya about cleaning the dwellings, freeing them from dust, washing the robes. The monks are supposed to do such chores with mindfulness. I am cleaning, cooking, ironing, and I should not be forgetful either, but I am most of the time forgetful. The word kammatthana is used in connection with bhavana, translated as meditation subject. In the Commentary to the Gradual Sayings, Book of the Threes, Ch VII, § 5-8, elements have been explained in short and in detail as ayatanas, as khandhas and other dhammas. It is repeated that with these kammatthanas one can become an arahat. This means, they are not objects of mere concentration, they are objects of understanding. Understanding of the nama or rupa now. Otherwise arahatship could never be attained. Someone was looking for the text: all dhammas are anatta, this is in Dhammapada, vs. 279. Nibbana is included in all dhammas. Best wishes, Nina. 8272 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:26am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > > Yes, this makes perfect sense. From this angle, > > understanding does condition the degree of kusala > of > > the parami being developed (or rather developing), > so > > paññaa seems to be unique among the paramis in > this > > regard. If so, it seems to be a kind of > pre-immminent > > parami. Is this supported by the abhidhamma? > > (Apologies if someone has already made this > clear). > > I think Rob K came in on this, but I can let you > have a specific > reference. > > In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka > Atthakatha (published > as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the > Brahmajala Sutta) it is > explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the > practice of the other > paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all > the paramis". It is > also described as being to the other paramis as life > is to the bodily > organism. I think that gives it a certain > pre-eminence. Definitely (and thanks for correcting my 'pre-immminence'). > Another passage from the same section is of > relevance to one of the other > current threads on our list. In dealing with the > role of wisdom in the > perfection of energy parami, it says: > > "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the > purpose desired, since it > is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse > energy at all than to > arouse it in the wrong way." > > Note that energy is better not aroused at all than > wrongly aroused. > Strong words indeed. Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be true of the other paramis, too. Without understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can be dangerous I think. > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one > that we probably > associate with wisdom, is this: > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the > wrongs of others, not > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the > wrongs of others only > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his > patience into play > and make it grow even stronger." > > It might be interesting to consider the connection > being made here. Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening patience. Thanks, Jon, mike 8273 From: Lim Tai Eng. Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 7:47am Subject: Loving Kindness Dear All We hope you like the attachment. A good daily morning "prayer" for all of us. It does convey a beautiful universal message. Breathing in, I know I am breathing in, Breathing out, I know I am breathing out, Breathing in, I relax myself, Breathing out, I smile. Slowly, step by step, we will take this journey INWARDS. Learning to Touch Peace in every step that we take. Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu. With Metta LTE 8274 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:22am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ Jon, Nina, et al., --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > In case this is a mistake, there is another citation > to the same passage, > namely 'S III, p. 103', a reference to the Samyutta > Nikaya, PTS edition. > It might be posible to track the passage down from > that. I'm afraid it isn't here either. I haven't been able to locate this phrase anyhere, so far. I'll keep you posted. mike 8275 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 0:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Thanks, Robert, I think this is interesting. Thanks for your message on the breath, which does clarify things to some extent. I am very attracted to working with breath myself, although as I've emphasized, I haven't been able to meditate much in this phase. Could you give a brief rundown on Dhammanusati and Buddhanusati, or URLs to look at? I have some views I'd like to interfere with. :-) Best, Robert E. ======================== --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- > Dear Robert E., > I think there are many reasons why the breath is so popular. For one > thing it is the basis from which all Buddhas attain enlightenment. > For another it is highly praised by the Buddha.The breath is in many > ways a neutral object, hence it can be said to be suitable for all > personality types. However, as we see it is not recommended for all. > > Breath as an object of samatha is difficult. If it is being > developed correctly the citta that knows breath is associated with > panna(wisdom ) and alobha(detachment)- Sometimes we can know breath > BUT with lobha (attachment).However, even if it is an object of > attachment it may still have benefits (in a conventional way)- it can > be good for health or help to reduce the amount of thinking one does > (hence less worries). It can help concentration too. It doesn't > interfere with one's views when it is used in this way. Even > fanatical terrorists could profitably develop it (in the attachment > way - not as true samatha) as a way to relax themselves and focus the > mind. Whereas such objects as Dhammanusati or Buddhanusati (ones that > don't need special posture and that the Buddha specifically > recommended to laypeople) will have an impact on view- and hence may > not seem so appealing. > You wrote "Can someone who does > > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the > abhidhamma? I doubt > > it. "" > Well I have some very good friends in Thailand who have been > listening to T. A. Sujin's radio program for more than 20 years. They > are very poor and completely illiterate. And the details in Thai are > much more than we write here in English. I think the reasons one is > interested in Abhidhamma go back over lifetimes and even aeons. I > agree that only an intellectual would be interested in abhidhamma as > an academic subject - but it is different once we see that > Abhidhamma is about life here and now. I sometimes wonder why anyone > wouldn't be interested in Abhidhamma. > look fwd to your further comments. > best wishes > robert > > > Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > interesting. I am particularly fascinated by the fact that the > breath is such a > > difficult object, and yet it seems to be the object of choice for > almost every > > meditation system in every culture. > > > > I've never gone to a Vipassana, Zen, Tibetan, Yoga, or Hindu > meditation class or > > centre that didn't give breathing as the object of meditation! So > the fact that > > it is supposed to be only for the most advanced students is > extremely funny to me. > > It must be some kind of cosmic joke. > > > > I think the reason that breathing is chosen by so many systems is > that it is the > > bridge between awareness, life, physicality and outer envirnonment, > and so brings > > a lot of qualities of life into play. Aside from this, systems > that are > > interested in prana [life-energy] circulation and intensification > find that the > > breath is a vehicle for opening up the psychophysical system, and I > think that > > appeals to a lot of systems who want to develop the person's > vitality, capability > > and awareness all together. > > > > In any case, the only systems I have encountered that are not > particularly > > interested in the breath are the ones that are confronting the mind > and its > > objects more directly, and this seems to me to be more advanced, > not less advanced > > than working with the breath. For instance, abhidhamma seems to me > to be > > attempting the kind of specific breakdown of objective realities > and their > > apprehension that is only really suited for a philosopher. Can > someone who does > > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the > abhidhamma? I doubt > > it. Of course, anyone can be trained to look at objects in the > moment and at > > least *attempt* to see that they are arising in the moment, but > even this requires > > a sharp intellect. > > > > In Zen teachings, the mind and objects of mind and the immediate > reality of > > contact, perception and thought are also directly confronted in a > particular way. > > This is also in some ways an intellectual's anti-intellectual > exercise. It > > attempts to stop the mind from taking its concepts of realities as > real, but at > > the same time, to even grasp this project one's mind has to be > pretty sharp. > > > > But anyone can do breathing meditation on some level. It is more > basic for most > > people, but advanced according to the Buddha. Very interesting. > > > > Well, this is only my intro, I have a lot more questions. I'll get > back with a > > detailed inquiry soon! > > > > [can you tell how excited I am by this topic?] > > > > Best Regards, > > Robert E. > > > > ============================ > 8276 From: Larry Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 0:24pm Subject: Re: conditionality M III (PTS), p.19 is correct. I think it refers to the PTS english script pali edition. In the Wisdom edition it is Mahapunnama Sutta 109.14. There the line is translated, "Now bhikkhus, you have been trained by me through interrogation on various occasions in regard to various things." The footnote says, "The readings of this sentence are highly divergent in different editions..." My guess is the quotation from "What The Buddha Taught" is Walpola Rahula's translation. Larry ------------------ re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." p.s. "conditionality" here seems to refer to dependent arising rather than compoundedness (sankhata) though for me sankhata is more experientially accessible. L. 8277 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 0:31pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Jon, A few possible points for your consideration: If the Sutras contained all that we need to know, why the commentaries, and why the teachers? I hope this won't be taken the wrong way, but if Ajahn Chah or K. Sujin give teachings on how to work with the sutras and their application, then we can say that additional interpretations are actually necessary to put the sutras into practice. In other words, our understanding is not adequately fulfilled in many cases by the Buddha's words alone, or even by the Buddha's words and the traditional commentaries alone. But there is a growing, living tradition of understandings and insights at any given time, and we avail ourselves of these rivulets of wisdom that come off the main stream, do we not? Likewise, I may be more or less developed in my understanding, but I have to consult and develop my own sense of wisdom, as laughable as that may start out, in order to make the choices that I make from moment to moment. Is there anything inherently more desireable in considering oneself to be completely unqualified to discern the truth, than to promote one's own understanding through cultivation and referring back to it to see how it's coming along? I may have a very different view of things, but I don't see those on the path as being incapable of discerning anything apart from the sutras. I see the sutras as something to be incorporated and assimilated into one's own storehouse of wisdom. As I understand it [in the vaguest possible way] Abhidhamma teaches that panna is passed on and accumulated in successions of continuing moments, even though they arise and fall instantaneously one after the other. If one is growing an ability to see more and understand more of the true nature of things as one progresses, I would think that one's ability to discern what is true and false to increase as well. We will never reach spiritual maturity if we see ourselves as nothing and the Buddha as everything. I prefer to see us as potential Buddhas in training. Otherwise, by choosing a kind of passivity with respect to our own understanding, we may bypass many moments of panna that correspond to a kind of interest or investigation or creative moment that would otherwise be put forth. So while we may defer to the teachings themselves, I think we should engage with them actively and milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves, rather than take them as already whole and complete. To me, a sutra is a living document and also a blueprint, not fully actualized until it is ingested by a human being and turned into their way of seeing and understanding. I think it is equally dangerous as ignoring the sutras to assume we know what they mean by adopting the meanings that occur to us simply by reading [and even re-reading and re-reading] without challenging our view of that meaning over time and going through our own process of discovery. Anyway, I may prove to be off base, but that is the way it appears to me. Hope I'm not coming on too strong, considering I may not know what I'm talking about. Best Regards, Robert E. ========================= --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > When I speak of instinct, I actually give it strong weight. > > > Chogyam > > Trungpa, a Tibetan Rinpoche in the Kagyu/Nyingma lineages, said > > something to the > > affect that when the deluded mind takes over, enlightenment takes on the > > characteristic of an underlying instinct. Although you may not agree > > with the > > premise, I think you would agree that the delusory mind is deluded, > > however, those > > of us trying to reach an more enlightened state have some sort of > > 'instinct' that > > such a thing exists. Otherwise, I don't think the scriptures and sutras > > would > > particularly excite us….. > > Instinct can be based on understanding, or it can be based on ignorance or > wrong view. Is there a solid reason for presuming that our instinct is > based on understanding? What weight should we give to the assurances of > modern-day commentators, if nothing to the same effect is found in the > texts or commentaries? > > If the suttas are of interest to us in this lifetime, there is a > relatively simple and straightforward explanation for that, namely an > interest in the suttas in previous existences. But this is not an > indicator of the degree of wisdom that has been developed, or the lack of > accumulated strong wrong view -- simply an indicator of a previous > interest in the teachings. > > > …. We sense that what is spoken of is a reality. > > Personally, I feel that if one does not consult that reality in whatever > > way one > > has present access to it, then the sutras alone will not carry one. > > Each stage of > > the path must be experienced, must it not, to take root in the > > understanding, not > > just read about? > > I am with you as regards the need to clearly distinguish between the study > and understanding of the teachings as given in the suttas, on the one > hand, and the understanding by direct experience that is the practice > being described in the suttas, on the other hand. But I don’t see where > the 'sense of reality' (aka instinct) fits in, in terms of anything found > in the teachings. What is this other factor that you are referring to, > and why isn't it mentioned in the teachings? > > > My sense that enlightenment is one's true nature comes from glimpses and > > experiences I've had in meditation as well. If I had no experiential > > sense of > > this, I probably wouldn't even have a concept of it. I would think > > there is also > > a guiding set of experiences that you have cultivated through > > understanding or > > practice that makes the sutras 'real' to you. Is that not so? > > It is tempting to ascribe significance to experiences one has had, but > this is I believe an unhelpful and potentially misleading practice to > develop. > > > Certainly the scriptures are a guide to what is to be understood, > > practiced and > > experienced. But I feel that without cultivating the experiences, the > > scriptures > > cannot really be understood, except as general indications. As specific > > as the > > words may be, they indicate something that is to be understood, if not > > practiced, > > something to be realized. I understand that there has been quite a bit > > of > > discussion about not taking the Buddha's words as calls to 'actions'. > > But I would > > think that practice, whether in meditation or contemplation of reality, > > would be a > > focus on understanding, rather than an attempt to change behavior or > > perception > > through some sort of gross activity. > > Again, if I read you correctly (and I hope I am not putting words in your > mouth here, Rob), what you are saying implies that a material aspect of > the development of the path is not to be found in the teachings as they > come to us, but has been left unsaid. I think we should be very careful > about developing an understanding of the teachings that requires or > encourages any such interpretation. > > Jon 8278 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 2:01pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality Larry, Conratulations! One obviously needs quite a bit of patience and knowledge to follow W.Rahula’s refs! --- Larry wrote: > > M III (PTS), p.19 is correct. I think it refers to the PTS english > script pali edition. In the Wisdom edition it is Mahapunnama Sutta > 109.14. There the line is translated, "Now bhikkhus, you have been > trained by me through interrogation on various occasions in regard to > various things." > > The footnote says, "The readings of this sentence are highly divergent > in different editions..." My guess is the quotation from "What The > Buddha Taught" is Walpola Rahula's translation. OK I’m with you or rather with B.bodhi’s translation. In the same footnote (for those who don’t have this translation) he goes on to say that Nanamoli’s translation (based on PTS Majjhima text) reads: ‘Now, bhikkhus, you hve been trained by me in dependent (conditionality) in various instances.’ He mentions the Pali, pa.ticca viniitaa, which I would expect to mean ‘trained to look for causality/conditionality’. I think we need to read the line in context of the sutta in which the Buddha admonishes a monk who seems to appreciate the 5 khandhas are not self but still wonders what self will receive the results of these non-self khandhas: ‘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...consciousness is not self. What self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?’ Now bhikkhus, you have been trained by me.......’ In summary, B.Bodhi’s translation doesn’t say much to me, whereas the emphasis on conditionality in Nanamoli’s and Rahula’s would seem right. I’d be interested to see the full Pali for the original phrase quoted and better still to have any further explanation/translation from one of our many Pali scholars here. (Larry, you must be one yourself to have tracked it down I think;-)) > re: "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in > all things." > > p.s. "conditionality" here seems to refer to dependent arising rather > than compoundedness (sankhata) though for me sankhata is more > experientially accessible. > Just seen this interesting note of yours, Larry. I’m wondering what the difference would be here. As I understand it, sankhata refers any reality that is formed or conditioned (ie all realities except nibbana) and pa.ticca refers to conditionality and dependent nature of the same realities (i.e. no self to be found anywhere as stressed in the sutta). Thanks very much, Larry and again I’m impressed and delighted to read your recent contributions. I’d like to hear anymore about your studies and dhamma interest too;-) Sarah 8279 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:19pm Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Robert E., If you are attracted to the breath it may be that you had practice in past lives with this object (or it could be just some mundane desire). Anyway it is useful to know the difficulties one may face and how one might confuse miccha-samadhi(wrong concentration) with samma-samadhi (right concentration). In ancient times teachers of samatha were aware of all 40 objects. In the sammohavinodani (1153) p310 of vol 1 translation It explains the case of a monk who is trying to develop the meditation on parts of the body. In this example the monk gets colour appearing. The teacher realises that this monk must have developed meditation on kasina in past lives and so directs him to leave the body meditation and go onto kasina. If a teacher only knows anapanasati he might not be able to do this.. Thus I think we have to study carefully for ourselves at this time; and in that way be in a better position to judge what suits us. Now about Buddhanusati and Dhammusati and sanghanusati.. A comprehensive description of these ways of samatha is given in chapter VII of the Visuddhimagga. How do we develop Buddhanusati? There are so many ways. Basically whenever we reflect with kusala citta(wholesome mind ) about the merits of the Buddha and what he discovered we are doing this. In section VII 10-22 it gives as one example the dependent origination and how the Buddha understood it and so brought it to an end "Mentality-materiality is a condition for the sixfold base in sensual becoming.....the six kinds of contact in sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of feeling in sensual becoming...Now the Blessed one knew, saw and understood this and penetrated it in all aspects.." So there are inumerable ways one can reflect with understanding and detachment in this way. In a sense while reflecting we are also teaching ourself and making conditions for future reflection. It can't reach the deep stages of concentration that breath can (because it relies on reflection) but can be done at any time in any posture. The deeper ones understanding of the Dhamma the easier, deeper, and more diverse this type of samatha is. For myself when/if I reflect: "the six kinds of contact in sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of feeling in sensual becoming" it reminds me almost automatically of the feelings that are arising now. Am I taking these feelings now as "my" feelings - if so then the nature of micchaditthi (self view) is apparent. If they are perceived as "not mine", as only phenomena, that is well and good but I know that understanding is not yet enough to properly penetrate their nature. I add this to show how samatha and satipatthana(at some level) can alternate and support each other. Personally I don't think too much about having one or the other, this is just the way it works for me. robert Thanks, Robert, I think this is interesting. Thanks for your message on the breath, which does clarify things to some extent. I am very attracted to working with breath myself, although as I've emphasized, I haven't been able to meditate much in this phase. Could you give a brief rundown on Dhammanusati and Buddhanusati, or URLs to look at? I have some views I'd like to interfere with. :-) Best, Robert E. ======================== --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- > Dear Robert E., > I think there are many reasons why the breath is so popular. For one > thing it is the basis from which all Buddhas attain enlightenment. > For another it is highly praised by the Buddha.The breath is in many > ways a neutral object, hence it can be said to be suitable for all > personality types. However, as we see it is not recommended for all. > > Breath as an object of samatha is difficult. If it is being > developed correctly the citta that knows breath is associated with > panna(wisdom ) and alobha(detachment)- Sometimes we can know breath > BUT with lobha (attachment).However, even if it is an object of > attachment it may still have benefits (in a conventional way)- it can > be good for health or help to reduce the amount of thinking one does > (hence less worries). It can help concentration too. It doesn't > interfere with one's views when it is used in this way. Even > fanatical terrorists could profitably develop it (in the attachment > way - not as true samatha) as a way to relax themselves and focus the > mind. Whereas such objects as Dhammanusati or Buddhanusati (ones that > don't need special posture and that the Buddha specifically > recommended to laypeople) will have an impact on view- and hence may > not seem so appealing. > You wrote "Can someone who does > > not have an intellectual bent really follow the sutras of the > abhidhamma? I doubt > > it. "" > Well I have some very good friends in Thailand who have been > listening to T. A. Sujin's radio program for more than 20 years. They > are very poor and completely illiterate. And the details in Thai are > much more than we write here in English. I think the reasons one is > interested in Abhidhamma go back over lifetimes and even aeons. I > agree that only an intellectual would be interested in abhidhamma as > an academic subject - but it is different once we see that > Abhidhamma is about life here and now. I sometimes wonder why anyone > wouldn't be interested in Abhidhamma. > look fwd to your further comments. > best wishes > robert > 8280 From: Robert Eddison Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 4:26pm Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Anders: SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." Howard: Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I have no idea of where to look. Anders: I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. Howard: I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read the Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta Nipata, the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come across this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is unacceptable. Robert: There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent" (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being referred to. When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and the latter is not impermanent). As the Samyutta Commentary states: 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels are impermanent. 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not self. (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the three already mentioned together with the supramundane level (lokuttarabhuumi)] Best wishes, Robert Eddison P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a backlog of letters. 8281 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 5:02pm Subject: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Mike & Howard, Sorry to butt in here a bit late .. --- "m. nease" wrote: > > > If I remember this correctly, this referred to > > > bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise > > after > > > parinibbaana, by my understanding of the canon. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > No, I think it was a reference something to > > the effect of the mind > > being originally luminous, but covered by > > adventitious defilements that is > > sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga. ---------------------------------------------------- > Mike > Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what > commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd be > very interested in finding this idea (an originally > luminous mind, covered by adventitious defilements) > anywhere in the Pali canon. ------------------------------------------------- Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to com notes on AN1 10): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) .............................................. Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The commentary to this text explains the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life continuum (bhavanga), which is ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by defilements. The defilements arise only in the active thought process, not in the subliminal flow of consciousness’. .............................................. Nyanaponika’s footnote was his ‘summary’ of the ancient commentary to AN (not published in English I think). The Pali for the ‘essential’ phrase in the commentary is: ‘navame pabhassaranti pa.n.dara.m parisuddha.m. cittanti bhava"ngacitta.m.’ Jim indicated the meaning: "In the ninth : 'luminous' is clear, pure. 'mind' is bhava"ngacitta.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In post no 7296 (to Anders) I give many more of Nina’s translation notes and K.Sujin’s discussion on this point which may be of more interest now. ------------------------------------------------- > Howard > > (BTW, I'm not sure > > whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in the > > suttas.) > -------------------------------------------------- >Mike > I'm not sure either, not at all sure. ------------------------------------------------------ I also think most (all) the refs to bhavanga cittas are in the abhidhamma and commentaries such as the Vism. Do Questions of K. Milinda qualify? I came across this reference sometime ago, but it’s taken me a while to re-trace it: Qs of K.Milinda, 1V,8,36, Max Muller’s transl: ‘Ven Nagasena, when a man dreams a dream, is he awake or asleep?’ ‘Neither the one, O king, nor yet the other. But when his sleep has become light, and he is not yet fully conscious, in that interval it is that dreams are dreamt. When a man is in deep sleep, O king, his mind has returned home (has entered again into Bhavanga), and a mind thus shut in does not act, and a mind hindered in its action knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows not has no dreams. It is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. Just, O king, as in the darkness and gloom, where no light is, no shadow will fall even on the most burnished mirror, so when a man is in deep sleep his mind has returned into itself, and a mind shut in does not act, and a mind inactive knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows not does not dream. For it is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. As the miror, O king, are you to regard the body, as the darkness sleep, as the light the mind.’ This reminds me that Khun Sujin told me once that the arahat does not dream because there are no kilesa (defilements) which makes sense, I think. In the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (111, 8) we read that: ‘Bhavanga cittas arise and pass away every moment during life whenever there is no active cognitive process taking place. This type of consciousness is most evident during deep dreamless sleep, but it also occurs momentarily during waking life countless times between occasions of active cognition.’ I don’t begin to pretend to understand anything about bhavanga cittas except just a little in theory. Sarah 8282 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 5:18pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E Dear Rob E, We seem to have come to a useful and pleasant conclusion to the sabhava thread and I'd like to thank you very much for your careful consideration and helpful feedback. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks Sarah, > That actually clarifies a lot. I'm starting to get a better sense of some of > these breakdowns and how they coordinate through hitting it at different > angles > this way. But as you stress, the direct apprehension of realities to the > extent > one is capable is where the classifications find their real expression in > life. > If we take what is happening in the moment, then the classifications are not > as > important. Yes, you've really appreciated what I've been (often clumsily) trying to express very well. >They will sort themselves out as they become useful in looking at > real > experiences. This is my thought anyway, after these exchanges. However, I'm > happy to be getting a little better picture of where and how the Buddha > breaks > down these realities. Yes, perhaps we can say that we may look at different maps to drive to our destination. Some are simple and some are very detailed. Different maps give us different indications or landmarks which help us find the way. We need to have a look at some of the maps before we start off, but as we start travelling we will need to look again and perhaps check the more detailed maps as we move along. However, we don't have to remember all the details of all the maps and it may be that different maps make more 'sense' to different people. However, with no maps and no directions, it's not possible to find the way. > > Thanks again. Likewise, Sarah 8283 From: Sarah Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 5:41pm Subject: Welcome & (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Dear Rob Ed, (Rob K, Rob Ep) Thank you very much indeed for your extremely helpful comments below, which I look forward to reading more carefully later. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that I'm really delighted that you've joined us here and really look forward to more of your very 'enlightened' contributions;-) I hope you're fully recovered now and when you've 'caught up' , I think we'd all be very interested to hear anything you wish to share about how your serious interest in the Tipitaka and Pali developed (or anything else mundane such as where you live and so on). We now have 3 Roberts and 2 Robert Es and not a Bob between you!! What to do? I think you'll have to be Rob, Rob E and Rob Ed, unless anyone has any other ideas;-)) Or maybe Rob K, Rob Ep and Rob Ed would confuse newcomers less .. Welcome again, Sarah --- Robert Eddison wrote: > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent" > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being > referred to. > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and > the latter is not impermanent). > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels > are impermanent. > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not > self. > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > (lokuttarabhuumi)] 8284 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Sarah, Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely mistaken, on all counts. Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise. What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence which was subsequently covered by defilements (but continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction. I admit that Jim's translation might be read this way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga at the moment to be covered, as I understand it. I obviously don't understand all of this well at all, even theoretically. But it does remind me of something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like the purest water? If I understand this correctly, citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems something like 'luminous but covered by defilements' maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those who know. Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my inane comments, Howard. I should have backtracked more before posting my response. Even when we disagree I value your correspondence very highly. Thanks again, Sarah. mike --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Mike & Howard, > > Sorry to butt in here a bit late .. > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > > > If I remember this correctly, this referred to > > > > bhavanga(?), which certainly ceases to rearise > > > after > > > > parinibbaana, by my understanding of the > canon. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > No, I think it was a reference something > to > > > the effect of the mind > > > being originally luminous, but covered by > > > adventitious defilements that is > > > sometimes associated in commentaries with > bhavanga. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Mike > > Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what > > commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd > be > > very interested in finding this idea (an > originally > > luminous mind, covered by adventitious > defilements) > > anywhere in the Pali canon. > ------------------------------------------------- > Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts > of mine, (referring to com > notes on AN1 10): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it > is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, > and it is freed from > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) > .............................................. > Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The > commentary to this text explains > the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life > continuum (bhavanga), which is > ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by > defilements. The > defilements arise only in the active thought > process, not in the subliminal > flow of consciousness’. > .............................................. > Nyanaponika’s footnote was his ‘summary’ of the > ancient commentary to AN (not > published in English I think). > > The Pali for the ‘essential’ phrase in the > commentary is: ‘navame pabhassaranti > pa.n.dara.m parisuddha.m. cittanti > bhava"ngacitta.m.’ > > Jim indicated the meaning: "In the ninth : > 'luminous' is clear, pure. > 'mind' is bhava"ngacitta.” > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > In post no 7296 (to Anders) I give many more of > Nina’s translation notes and > K.Sujin’s discussion on this point which may be of > more interest now. > ------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard > > > (BTW, I'm not sure > > > whether the notion of bhavanga citta occurs in > the > > > suttas.) > > -------------------------------------------------- > >Mike > > I'm not sure either, not at all sure. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > I also think most (all) the refs to bhavanga cittas > are in the abhidhamma and > commentaries such as the Vism. > > Do Questions of K. Milinda qualify? I came across > this reference sometime ago, > but it’s taken me a while to re-trace it: > > Qs of K.Milinda, 1V,8,36, Max Muller’s transl: > > ‘Ven Nagasena, when a man dreams a dream, is he > awake or asleep?’ > ‘Neither the one, O king, nor yet the other. But > when his sleep has become > light, and he is not yet fully conscious, in that > interval it is that dreams > are dreamt. When a man is in deep sleep, O king, > his mind has returned home > (has entered again into Bhavanga), and a mind thus > shut in does not act, and a > mind hindered in its action knows not the evil and > the good, and he who knows > not has no dreams. It is when the mind is active > that dreams are dreamt. Just, > O king, as in the darkness and gloom, where no light > is, no shadow will fall > even on the most burnished mirror, so when a man is > in deep sleep his mind has > returned into itself, and a mind shut in does not > act, and a mind inactive > knows not the evil and the good, and he who knows > not does not dream. For it > is when the mind is active that dreams are dreamt. > As the miror, O king, are > you to regard the body, as the darkness sleep, as > the light the mind.’ > > This reminds me that Khun Sujin told me once that > the arahat does not dream > because there are no kilesa (defilements) which > makes sense, I think. > > In the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (111, 8) we read that: > > ‘Bhavanga cittas arise and pass away every moment > during life whenever there > is no active cognitive process taking place. This > type of consciousness is > most evident during deep dreamless sleep, but it > also occurs momentarily during > waking life countless times between occasions of > active cognition.’ > > I don’t begin to pretend to understand anything > about bhavanga cittas except > just a little in theory. > > Sarah 8285 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:36pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment Rob E Thanks for your carefully thought-out comments. I will do my best to respond in kind. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Thanks, Jon, for your reply to my questions. I take it by your > description that > you believe that all arisings of kusala and akusala are the result of > pre-existing > or dependently arising causes and effects, and that there is no volition > involved > in whether a kusala or akusala moments. I suppose it depends on what you mean by volition. If you mean the intention, say, to have kusala at a subsequent moment, then I would say that experience tells us that such intention may or may not bring the desired outcome. The arising of kusala is conditioned by many factors but principally, I believe, by one's accumulated tendencies for the various forms of wholesome conduct (and also by the 'suitability' of the occasion). For example, no matter how much we may resolve to respond better next time in a particular situation, if we lack the understanding and the particular accumulated tendencies to do so, it will not happen. The intention to have kusala is in essence a kind of mental activity, similar to thinking and not necessarily different in nature from other kinds of intention, for example, to get something to eat or drink. It may *seem* more lofty, but perhaps that's because we are not able to discriminate kusala from akusala moments to any significant degree, other than by inference. > However, I take it by your indication that one can become more aware of > the kusala > and akusala moments, and that this awareness or understanding has an > effect on > cultivation of kusala, that these factors are more subject to an intent > or effort > to be more aware or understanding? Or are these factors as well just > the outcome > of arising conditions and causes? Rob, I'm afraid you've lost me here, but let me say that if the aim is the cultivation of more moments of kusala mind-states (which means the development of samatha rather than satipatthana/vipassana), then understanding directly the kusala or akusala nature of the presently arising mind-states is how that can be achieved in time. There is, however, a higher aim which is the development of the understanding of the true nature of realities, and this is the teaching that is unique to a Buddha. Under this form of development (bhavana), it is all realities, not just mind-states, that are to be known and understood as they are and, accordingly, there is no selecting of the reality that is to be the object of attention or awareness -- the object may be a rupa, or one of the moments of experience through a sense-door; but one is not concerned *in particular* with understanding the nature of the present mind-state. This of course does not mean one has any less interest in developing more kusala; rather it means that the path can be developed regardless of the nature of the present mind-state or one's awareness of it. > I am just trying to see if you would believe one to be completely > passive to this > process [since in fact there is no self, but only the shifting > conditions of the > kandhas] or whether there is a moment of volition there if one notices > the > arisings. I hope what I have said above answers this last part; but if not, please let me know. I do not myself think in terms of 'active' or 'passive', but perhaps by some terms of reference these descriptions could be appropriate. Thanks again for the chance to discuss these important aspects. Jon > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Sila, and all forms of kusala, play a very important role in the path. > > > Wholesomeness of all kinds can and does arise from time to time, > > naturally, without being 'made' to happen. A such moments the effort > is > > 'right' by nature. If there is some level of awareness of the > > wholesomeness, this is the development or cultivation of kusala/sila. > > > > Awareness and understanding are the kinds of kusala that are of > greatest > > benefit to the development of sila and all other kinds of kusala. > > > > We should know more about both the kusala and the akusala that arise > in > > our lives, just as we should also know more about the > non-kusala/akusala > > moments, too. 8286 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:39pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Practise Herman Great to have you back, and in one piece, too. Glad to hear you had a good time. --- Herman wrote: > Hi all, > > I am not selective in the suttas I read, and most of them desribe the > Buddha in a sitting meditation position, prior to him speaking. > > The introductions to the suttas I have read, and these introductions > are as much a part of the suttas as what others may consider > the "meat" of the suttas, leave no doubt in this little mind that the > method of the Buddha was seated meditation. The Buddha's method of what? Of sitting, yes (sorry, Herman, couldn't resist that one!). I do have a comment to make, though. > There has been discussion previously as to whether or not seated > meditation is explicitly prescribed in the suttas. > > Is it possible that seated meditation is so implicit in everything > the Buddha did, that it was considered labouring an obvious point to > have mentioned it the discursive sections of the Tipitaka?? If it was implicit in everything he said or did (in much the same way as the suttas are to be read as referring to the realities of the present moment), then one might expect to find this brought out in the commentaries and other ancient texts, wouldn't you think? Just a thought. Jon 8287 From: m. nease Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 8:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Robert, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Well, if you ever see an Arahanta advertising for a > roomate, I would jump at it. Hey--get in line. > This also reminds me of the Platform Sutra of Hui > Neng in Chinese Ch'an Buddhism. > After many of the lectures, the last sentence is > something like: "After Hui Neng > finished speaking, the entire assembly was > enlightened". Well, I would have liked > to have been there! This was a favorite of mine, too. Well, I'm even less competent to comment on Mahayana texts than on Theravada texts. So I think I'll leave this one alone. Best wishes, mike 8288 From: Ken Howard Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 9:50pm Subject: Re: conditionality- KEN from OZ Dear Sarah > > > I'm not able to help, but I've just found Ken's original post (by doing a > search for 'mantra' in escribe!) and I'll re-post it below in case it helps. > this is actually a test to see how carefully Ken is following dsg.....;-)) > Sometimes, as now, I'm a day or two behind, but I read every message in full. What a day to miss though! I was dsg's most wanted! Get Ken! Or, as Larry put it, "track down this Ken guy." Just as I was about to surface with the vital information, I saw that Jon had beaten me to it. He revealed the `second reference' hidden in Walpola Rahula's footnotes. I was encouraged to see that Nina shared my liking for the quote in question and I also enjoyed your conversation with Larry about the alternative translations. The Wisdom rendition lacked a certain something, so it was nice to know that Rahula's version was acceptable. Although I was joking when I said I used it as a mantra, I do bring it to mind several times a day; it's suitable for all occasions. I'm glad you have raised the subject of whether I am `following dsg.' If you knew how big a part of my daily routine it was, you'd probably tell me to `get a life.' I would like be to more of a contributor by nature, but as things are, I'm all too content to follow the discussions from the sidelines. Kind regards Ken Howard "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things." (M III (PTS), p. 19; S III, p. 103) 8289 From: Howard Date: Wed Sep 26, 2001 6:43pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Mike (and Sarah) - In a message dated 9/26/01 8:31:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely > mistaken, on all counts. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I second your thanks for Sarah's post. ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise. > What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as > though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence > which was subsequently covered by defilements (but > continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction. > I admit that Jim's translation might be read this > way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent > defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga > at the moment to be covered, as I understand it. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You being worried about my use of the term 'originally' is not unjustified. There may very well have been a Mahayana influence in my using it. ------------------------------------------------------- > > I obviously don't understand all of this well at all, > even theoretically. But it does remind me of > something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like > the purest water? If I understand this correctly, > citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems > something like 'luminous but covered by defilements' > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those > who know. > > Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my > inane comments, Howard. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not in the slightest - and I don't accept your negative characterization of your comments. ------------------------------------------------------- I should have backtracked > more before posting my response. Even when we > disagree I value your correspondence very highly. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Mike. Likewise. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks again, Sarah. > > mike > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8290 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 1:01am Subject: Ken's Mantra, conditionality Dear Jina, thank you very much for your kind help, I found the text: You, monks, have been trained by me (to look for conditions, paticca-vinita) now here, now there, in these things and in those.(M.N. no. 109, 19) I find that the translation used by Ken has more impact, it is more direct. I do not have the Pali. Many thanks, Nina. 8291 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 6:40am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS -- Welcome Robert ED., Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here. best wishes robert - Robert Eddison wrote: > Anders: > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > Howard: > > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I have no > idea of where to look. > > Anders: > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > Howard: > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read the > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta Nipata, > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come across > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think > this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is > unacceptable. > > Robert: > > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent" > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being > referred to. > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and > the latter is not impermanent). > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels > are impermanent. > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not > self. > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > (lokuttarabhuumi)] > > > Best wishes, > > Robert Eddison > > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a > fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a backlog of letters. 8292 From: KennethOng Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hi all, All the Roberts are very good in their presentation and debating of views. Maybe I should consider naming my son as Robert. Three cheers for the three Roberts :) Warmest regards Kenneth Ong robertkirkpatrick wrote: -- Welcome Robert ED., Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here. best wishes robert - Robert Eddison wrote: > Anders: > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > Howard: > > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I have no > idea of where to look. > > Anders: > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > Howard: > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read the > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta Nipata, > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come across > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I think > this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) Nibbana > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is > unacceptable. > > Robert: > > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent" > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being > referred to. > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and > the latter is not impermanent). > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels > are impermanent. > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not > self. > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > (lokuttarabhuumi)] > > > Best wishes, > > Robert Eddison > > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a > fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a backlog of letters. 8293 From: m. nease Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:50am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS Hear, hear! mn --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi all, > All the Roberts are very good in their presentation > and debating of views. Maybe I should consider > naming my son as Robert. > Three cheers for the three Roberts :) > Warmest regards > Kenneth Ong > robertkirkpatrick wrote: -- > > Welcome Robert ED., > Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here. > best wishes > robert > - Robert Eddison wrote: > > Anders: > > > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > > > Howard: > > > > Could you please be more detailed in this > reference? From "SN 4" I > have no > > idea of where to look. > > > > Anders: > > > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > > > Howard: > > > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, > and I have read > the > > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta > Nikaya, the Sutta > Nipata, > > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very > surprising to come > across > > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a > clearer signpost. I > think > > this is an important matter. It would imply one of > two things: (1) > Nibbana > > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of > which the first is > > unacceptable. > > > > Robert: > > > > There are a small number of texts in which > impermanence is > predicated of > > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is > always some term > or > > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of > dhamma. For example, > the > > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* > dhammas are > impermanent" > > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of > the Abhidhamma > Pi.taka > > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa > aniccaa), but the > context > > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and > sense objects that > are being > > referred to. > > > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such > limiting terms or > phrases > > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is > predicated of them. > The > > reason for this according to the Commentaries is > that "dhammas" in > such > > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the > unconditioned > dhamma (and > > the latter is not impermanent). > > > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe > tebhuumakasan.khaaraa > aniccaa. > > > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all > formations on the > three levels > > are impermanent. > > > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe > catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on > the four levels > are not > > self. > > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), > the refined > material > > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). > "Four levels" > means the > > three already mentioned together with the > supramundane level > > (lokuttarabhuumi)] > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Robert Eddison > > > > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the > e-mails sent to me by > > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was > sick for about a > > fortnight and am just beginning to read and > prepare replies to a > backlog of letters. > 8294 From: Larry Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 11:56am Subject: Re: conditionality Hello Sarah, I can't comment on the pali, unfortunately, but I agree this is an "answer" that should be considered in the context of the question: "What self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?" Whatever "conditionality" may mean, I think the general idea is that actions don't affect or effect a self but rather action conditions or perpetuates action and this is, in itself, suffering. Or something like that ;) This brings to mind the dualism of conditioned and unconditioned, another imponderable which may possibly be resolved "in the moment" a la mahayana. I guess it depends on whether you think the unconditioned... [sorry, I couldn't finish this sentence]. Getting in way over my head. Nice to meet you, and you too Ken. Larry 8295 From: Binh A Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 2:28pm Subject: Question on Arahant G'day all, I have received a message from a Dhamma friend asking about the definition of Arahatship (as attached below, slightly edited). I hope you could assist in answering his enquiry . Metta, Binh PS. I also posted this message to the <> list. ************************************ [...] During my studies I came up with a question that I am not able to resolve myself and hope you could help me or ask someone nearby that could help. One of my field of interests in Buddhism, besides practice of course, is the distinction Mahayana-Hinayana, how it came about and the issues around it. Today, while I was reading through the third volume of Anguttara I came across a passage at Pa.thamahita Sutta, A.iii.12 (I inserted the Pali passage in Vri font). PTS translation runs like: 'Herein, monks, a monk is accomplished in virtue himself, but does not strive to perfect virtue in another'... (the same is repeated for concentration, wisdom, release (vimutti) and vision and knowledge of release). Now, I find that this passage, and many similar I found in Samyutta and Anguttara is a strong support that the Canon Pali emphasizes to search for liberation and all the rest for oneself and the others, placing itself above the later criticism of Mahayana proponents that accused Hinayana folowers as of searching for liberation only for themselves. The other passages I found make it clear that one should strive for the good of the both. Now, this particular passage in particular different from the others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those factors, including release, while, at the same time does not strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in release) and at the same time not strive for the release of others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that there was a kind of Arahant. (...) Could it be possible to interpret 'sampanno' in another way so that the meaning would be different. Or is that that the Buddha really makes a criticism of the Arahant? Would there be two kinds of Arahant, one the was accomplished only for himself and another *more complete*? -------------- Paµhamahitasutta½ (A.iii.12) 17. "Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±ya. Katamehi pañcahi? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu attan± s²lasampanno hoti, no para½ s²lasampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± sam±dhisampanno hoti, no para½ sam±dhisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± paññ±sampanno hoti, no para½ paññ±sampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttisampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampad±ya sam±dapeti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahi aªgehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±y±"ti. Sattama½. ******************************************* 8296 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 9:35pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Howard Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective on a couple of the areas where we differ. --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks > about > > it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily 'right' > > effort. > > > > Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the > letting > > go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice that > we > > are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could also > > itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an > unwelcome > > interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make > > awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it > showed > > us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other reasons > > shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of obvious > > akusala could not be 'right effort'. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that > there be) > no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of > the > event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until > that > object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for > attention to > return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter > of > *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing > it > or tearing the mind away. I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the object is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing') the akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to return to the chosen object. I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana in passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking is in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you see the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or is it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana? Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of applying attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way, Howard? > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just anger, > or of > > the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if it > > didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional > sense*. > > As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever > (including > > the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness can > > arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yep! > --------------------------------------------------- > > > Or there might > > be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for > example, > > that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different > reality > > altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different Foundation > in > > the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of this > > difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or visible > object > > arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from the > mind > > with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time (and > are > > themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger). > > > > When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is > > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously > 'letting go > > of' the akusala. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard. I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to have effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta chain. I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but the Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So while 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable thought you have put into these matters, Howard. Jon > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I know this was intended to be implicit in what you say above, but it > is > > easy to fall into the trap of looking at things in a 'situational' > light > > -- eg, anger is akusala so I need to do something about it, if I had > less > > anger/attachment I could be having more awareness, I'm letting go of > the > > anger so it must be kusala. > > > > Because we all have the ingrained tendency to think in these terms, we > > need to be reminded frequently and in detail of the fact that there > need > > not be any idea of 'letting go' of the anger in order for kusala of > some > > level to occur. When kusala does arise at such moments the effort is > > 'right' by nature and the anger is indeed let go of for just those > > moments. In the longer term, it is the accumulation of these moments > of > > kusala that leads to more sustained moments/periods of kusala of > whatever > > level or, to put it another way, that the mind becomes more focussed > on > > kusala. But this development can only come slowly and gradually, by > > natural accretion rather than by deliberate accumulation (in that > sense of > > the word). > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > We should "let go" of all dhammas, kusala, akusala, whatever, > neither > pushing away nor grasping, but being mindful of them, without reaction, > merely noting them, their nature, their inception, continuation, > diminution, > and cessation. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > 'Right effort' is the effort *of* kusala, rather than the effort *to > have* > > kusala. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > But it *is* effort. In one well along the way, applying > mindfulness, > focussed attention, and clear comprehension may frequently occur rather > automatically, but, for most of us, most of the time, this requires the > conscious application of volition and constant remembering. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- 8297 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 9:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > I suppose saññaa > > > is largely latent too (like anusaya), or wouldn't > > > recognition of everything experienced be occurring > > > all > > > the time? > > > > I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that 'latent' > > is the right word for > > sanna since, as you know, sanna actually arises with > > every citta. > > Understood. The Atthasaalinii says "It has the > characteristic of noting and of recognizing what has > been previously noted." When I spectulated that it's > 'largely latent', I meant in the sense of having the > latent ability to recognize what is not being noted > (cognized) at the moment--an infinitessimally small > part of what it can recognize from having noted it in > the past...(?) I get your point. A lot of unrealised potential there! Thanks, Mike. Jon > > > So that this 'history' is the condition > > > that makes it possible for latent perception, or > > > kusala or akusala citta to (re)arise when > > > conditions > > > are right. Still, it seems somehow to carry a lot > > > of > > > 'information'. I still don't get it--maybe > > > someday... > > > > Certainly as far as latent kusala or akusala is > > concerned, it is all > > accumulated and lies there latent, ready to arise > > when, as you say, > > conditions are right. Difficult concepts to grasp, > > Actually easier to grasp than any other explanation > I'm aware of... > > > but we can see in our > > lives how the kilesas do pop up without the > > slightest provocation and > > despite our best resolutions to the contrary ie. for > > no reason other than > > that we have that particular accumulation of > > unwholesomeness (this is > > easier to see in others than in ourselves, of > > course!). > > To be sure. > > mike > 8298 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 1:10am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Question on Arahant Hi Binh, "Now, this particular passage in particular different from the others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those factors, including release, while, at the same time does not strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in release) and at the same time not strive for the release of others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that there was a kind of Arahant." I could only answer this paragrah only These are my humble opinions. Mahayana principle is to follow the Bodhisattva path to Buddha accomplishment of enlightment. The most difficult part for Theravadas is the difference of Mahayana view of enlightment between Arahat and Buddha. The enlightment of Arahant in Mahayana views is not the same as Buddha's enlightment because to attain Arahat enlightment, it is to let go of a self. In Mahayana teachings, Arahat still attached to an idea of a non self as a self is condition by a non self. In order to reach Buddha enlightment there is a need to let go of a non self which is much harder than letting go of a self. That is, I think partly the reasons why there are ten stages of a Bodhisattvas. Furthermore, in Mahayana view, to accomplish the Buddha's enlightment, there is a need to accomplished their vows they made when they are Bodhisattvas. Most of the vows are of compassionate grounds. Only when the vows are accomplished, and they reach emptiness, then would a Bodhisttva become a Buddha. This means we need to liberate ourselves before we need to liberate others. But the problem with most Mahayanist now are that they forget that in order to be Bodhisattva, there is a need to liberate oneself first. Please excuse my bluntness, if we do not know how to swim, how do we teach pple to swim. To be frank and honest and not against anyone here, Mahayanist practises only the spirit of Bodhisattva not the actual Bodhisattva first. Why? Because in the first place in order to be Bodhisattva we first got to let go of our self ego . A Bodhisattva has a mind that is not dwell anywhere or anything. In Mahayana word, it is emptiness. I am also practise Mahayanist path, but my humble conclusions is that most of us are following the spirit and not the actual Bodhisattva path. This is not a self defeating thought because unless we are able to cross the wheel of cycle of life, then we could really help beings on their liberation. In addition, in order to show boundless compassion towards others, we must first learn to shed our attachment to a self. Or not our compassion will still be cling on to a self. But please do not misunderstood that compassion is not impt practise, it is definitely impt even if we still have many self ego views as it help us to lessen the attach to a self. Furthermore, it is a misconception of present day Mahayanists that Thervadas only liberate themselves. Buddhas ten highly accomplished human disciples are all thervadas practitioners. They teach Buddhism to other monks, to other layman who ask them, who other pple who happen to chance on them. We could see in the Pali Cannon that there are many stories about these Nobles ones conversations with layman and others. The first council of Buddha teachings (which mostly comprises of Thervadas) is convene partly due to have a proper recollection of Buddha teachings so that future generations like us able to benefit it. Please forgive me if I am too direct and hurt anyone feeling here. With kindest regards Kenneth Ong Binh A wrote: G'day all, I have received a message from a Dhamma friend asking about the definition of Arahatship (as attached below, slightly edited). I hope you could assist in answering his enquiry . Metta, Binh [...] During my studies I came up with a question that I am not able to resolve myself and hope you could help me or ask someone nearby that could help. One of my field of interests in Buddhism, besides practice of course, is the distinction Mahayana-Hinayana, how it came about and the issues around it. Today, while I was reading through the third volume of Anguttara I came across a passage at Pa.thamahita Sutta, A.iii.12 (I inserted the Pali passage in Vri font). PTS translation runs like: 'Herein, monks, a monk is accomplished in virtue himself, but does not strive to perfect virtue in another'... (the same is repeated for concentration, wisdom, release (vimutti) and vision and knowledge of release). Now, I find that this passage, and many similar I found in Samyutta and Anguttara is a strong support that the Canon Pali emphasizes to search for liberation and all the rest for oneself and the others, placing itself above the later criticism of Mahayana proponents that accused Hinayana folowers as of searching for liberation only for themselves. The other passages I found make it clear that one should strive for the good of the both. Now, this particular passage in particular different from the others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those factors, including release, while, at the same time does not strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in release) and at the same time not strive for the release of others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that there was a kind of Arahant. (...) Could it be possible to interpret 'sampanno' in another way so that the meaning would be different. Or is that that the Buddha really makes a criticism of the Arahant? Would there be two kinds of Arahant, one the was accomplished only for himself and another *more complete*? -------------- Paµhamahitasutta½ (A.iii.12) 17. "Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±ya. Katamehi pañcahi? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu attan± s²lasampanno hoti, no para½ s²lasampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± sam±dhisampanno hoti, no para½ sam±dhisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± paññ±sampanno hoti, no para½ paññ±sampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttisampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampad±ya sam±dapeti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahi aªgehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±y±"ti. Sattama½. ******************************************* 8299 From: Howard Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 9:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/27/01 9:41:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > > Howard > > Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective on a > couple of the areas where we differ. > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks > > about > > > it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily 'right' > > > effort. > > > > > > Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the > > letting > > > go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice that > > we > > > are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could also > > > itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an > > unwelcome > > > interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make > > > awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it > > showed > > > us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other reasons > > > shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of obvious > > > akusala could not be 'right effort'. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that > > there be) > > no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of > > the > > event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until > > that > > object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for > > attention to > > return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter > > of > > *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing > > it > > or tearing the mind away. > > I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular > object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the object > is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing') the > akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to > return to the chosen object. > > I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana in > passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking is > in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you see > the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or is > it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana? > --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: My statement here pertained to an early stage of meditation, in which concentration is still weak, a stage in which one uses a primary object, say the breath, as kind of an anchor for the meditation. In that stage, focus is on the "anchor". When other objects arise, one sees them clearly (and this is to be done for kusala as well as akusala), but observes them "lightly", without clinging or aversion, letting the objects come and go, duely noting their nature in the process, and then returning to the anchor. At a later stage of meditation, when concentration has become stronger and more stable, one "opens" up the field of awareness. At that point, the principle of non-clinging and non-aversion remains the same, but there is no returning to a primary meditation object or anchor - there is simply the awareness of the next object of discernment in the now-broad field of awareness. It is this later stage it is most aptly called a setting up of mindfulness. ---------------------------------------------------- > Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of applying > attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of > control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way, Howard? > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just anger, > > or of > > > the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if it > > > didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional > > sense*. > > > As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever > > (including > > > the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness can > > > arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture. > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Yep! > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Or there might > > > be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for > > example, > > > that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different > > reality > > > altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different Foundation > > in > > > the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of this > > > difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or visible > > object > > > arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from the > > mind > > > with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time (and > > are > > > themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger). > > > > > > When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is > > > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously > > 'letting go > > > of' the akusala. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard. > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to have > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta chain. > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but the > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So while > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. > --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: In the actual practice of meditation, until a certain stage, intentional effort is exercised. C'han/Zen, for example, doesn't *speak* that way. I speaks the way *you* do. But the actual *practice* of C'han/Zen meditation, of all varieties, just as the actually practiced meditation in the various schools of Theravada, involves intentional effort at the early stages. --------------------------------------------------------------- > > I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable > thought you have put into these matters, Howard. > > 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) 8300 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 1:51am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Jon and Howard, This pinpoints a question I've had in a vague sort of way for some time: --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is > > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously > 'letting go > > of' the akusala. > > Howard: > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms > > large in this regard. > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by > the intention to have > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, > effort, kusala citta chain. > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally > conceived of, but the > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions > for things. So while > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of > kusala, in the sense > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala > moment, it is not > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala > moment. If I understand you correctly, Jon, you're saying that right effort is a co-arising factor but not a precursor or prerequiste of satipathaana, which concurs with my understanding. What about intention (cetanaa)? I know it isn't a path-factor, but a universal cetasika arising with every citta, with the function of 'willing' only in kusala and akusala moments. We all know (theoretically, though I constantly forget) that it's impersonal, but is kusala cetanaa a precursor of a moment of right effort, as well as a present factor? I'm inclined to think not, that a moment of right effort will occur when the conditions for it are present regardless of the cetanaa preceding it (for example a moment of akusala followed by a moment of understanding of the previous moment--here no kusala cetanaa preceding, at least not immediately). If so, then kusala intention-kusala effort-kusala vitakka(?) might arise sequentially, but without each being dependent on the previous. Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'? Thanks in advance, mike 8301 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 2:02am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: [mike]: > > When I spectulated that > it[saññaa]'s > > 'largely latent', I meant in the sense of having > the > > latent ability to recognize what is not being > noted > > (cognized) at the moment--an infinitessimally > small > > part of what it can recognize from having noted it > in > > the past...(?) > > I get your point. A lot of unrealised potential > there! So is 'latency' a characteristic shared in common with, e.g., paññaa (since it only understands one object at a time, of all the objects it could understand), and with anusaya? Where does it fit into abhidhamma? (I found it in Pali as 'apaakatataa' or 'paticchannataa', but don't think I've run across either of these before). mike 8302 From: Howard Date: Thu Sep 27, 2001 10:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi again, Jon - I'd like to add just a couple points to my post copied below. One thing is that the Buddha taught anapanasati as a method of implementing satipatthana (please see the Anapanasati Sutta). The breath is the "anchor" there. The other point is with regard to intentional effort during meditation. When sitting for meditation on the breath, why is it that it is the *breath* that one is attending to rather than, for example, sounds? The answer is that one intentionally directs attention to the breath. If one did not, then, most likely, one would not be attending to it. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/27/01 1:29:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Howard writes: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/27/01 9:41:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > > > Howard > > > > Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective on a > > couple of the areas where we differ. > > > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > > > Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks > > > about > > > > it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily 'right' > > > > effort. > > > > > > > > Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the > > > letting > > > > go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice that > > > we > > > > are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could also > > > > itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an > > > unwelcome > > > > interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make > > > > awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it > > > showed > > > > us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other reasons > > > > shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of obvious > > > > akusala could not be 'right effort'. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that > > > there be) > > > no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing of > > > the > > > event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained until > > > that > > > object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for > > > attention to > > > return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a matter > > > of > > > *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in removing > > > it > > > or tearing the mind away. > > > > I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular > > object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the object > > is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing') the > > akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to > > return to the chosen object. > > > > I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana in > > passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking is > > in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you see > > the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or is > > it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > My statement here pertained to an early stage of meditation, in which > concentration is still weak, a stage in which one uses a primary object, > say > the breath, as kind of an anchor for the meditation. In that stage, focus > is > on the "anchor". When other objects arise, one sees them clearly (and this > is > to be done for kusala as well as akusala), but observes them "lightly", > without clinging or aversion, letting the objects come and go, duely noting > their nature in the process, and then returning to the anchor. > At a later stage of meditation, when concentration has become > stronger > and more stable, one "opens" up the field of awareness. At that point, the > principle of non-clinging and non-aversion remains the same, but there is > no > returning to a primary meditation object or anchor - there is simply the > awareness of the next object of discernment in the now-broad field of > awareness. It is this later stage it is most aptly called a setting up of > mindfulness. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of applying > > attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of > > control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way, Howard? > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just anger, > > > or of > > > > the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if it > > > > didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional > > > sense*. > > > > As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever > > > (including > > > > the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness can > > > > arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Yep! > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > Or there might > > > > be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for > > > example, > > > > that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different > > > reality > > > > altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different Foundation > > > in > > > > the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of this > > > > difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or visible > > > object > > > > arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from the > > > mind > > > > with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time (and > > > are > > > > themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger). > > > > > > > > When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta is > > > > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously > > > 'letting go > > > > of' the akusala. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this regard. > > > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to have > > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta chain. > > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but the > > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So while > > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense > > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not > > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > In the actual practice of meditation, until a certain stage, > intentional effort is exercised. C'han/Zen, for example, doesn't *speak* > that > way. I speaks the way *you* do. But the actual *practice* of C'han/Zen > meditation, of all varieties, just as the actually practiced meditation in > the various schools of Theravada, involves intentional effort at the early > stages. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable > > thought you have put into these matters, Howard. > > > > 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) 8303 From: m. nease Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 2:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Howard, Hope you don't mind my butting in again. --- Howard wrote: > The other point is with regard to intentional > effort during > meditation. When sitting for meditation on the > breath, why is it that it is > the *breath* that one is attending to rather than, > for example, sounds? The > answer is that one intentionally directs attention > to the breath. I know this is the way it 'feels', to me, anyway (I've done thousands of hours of this, by the way), but I think it's much more accurate to say that the hearing of the words of the Buddha and the recollection and understanding of them in a particular way (among other things) conditions attention to the breath. No one attending or directing. > If one did > not, then, most likely, one would not be attending > to it. If this hearing, recollection and understanding had not occurred, the subsequent attention would also not occur. I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way fit to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing notes. In this context, I think the distinction between conventional and technical(?) speech is important. mike 8304 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 5:13am Subject: Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS -- On behalf of all us Roberts, Thanks very much Kenneth robert K. - KennethOng wrote: > > Hi all, > All the Roberts are very good in their presentation and debating of views. Maybe I should consider naming my son as Robert. > Three cheers for the three Roberts :) > Warmest regards > Kenneth Ong > robertkirkpatrick wrote: -- > > Welcome Robert ED., > Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here. > best wishes > robert > - Robert Eddison wrote: > > Anders: > > > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > > > Howard: > > > > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I > have no > > idea of where to look. > > > > Anders: > > > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > > > Howard: > > > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read > the > > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta > Nipata, > > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come > across > > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I > think > > this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) > Nibbana > > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is > > unacceptable. > > > > Robert: > > > > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is > predicated of > > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term > or > > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, > the > > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are > impermanent" > > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma > Pi.taka > > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the > context > > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that > are being > > referred to. > > > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or > phrases > > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. > The > > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in > such > > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned > dhamma (and > > the latter is not impermanent). > > > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa > aniccaa. > > > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the > three levels > > are impermanent. > > > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels > are not > > self. > > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined > material > > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" > means the > > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > > (lokuttarabhuumi)] > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Robert Eddison > > > > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by > > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a > > fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a > backlog of letters. > 8305 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 10:03am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Question on Arahant Dear Binh, Further to my earlier email, the distinction with Mahayana and Thervada is that both has different emphasis. The Mahayana is more interested in bigger goals whereas in Thervada, the emphasis was liberation of self first. But by all means, such liberation of a self first should not be construed as selfish which proponent of Mahayanists claim is because, as I said earlier, we got to learn how to swim before we teach others. Hence Buddha was enlighted before he teach others about the Middle path. This misconceptions of Thervada is selfish mainly lies on the problem with the way it was put in the Sutra. In many Mahayana sutras, Buddha always emphasis on Bodhisattva path as they are the true sons of Buddha. They are the ones who labour long and hard for the benefits for all beings, hence resulting a mistaken view that therevada is selfish. From another perspective, the sutras has actually exhorting those Noble ones (Thervadas) to reach for bigger goals (i.e. vows esp compassion vows). In addition, mostly the emphasis of Mahayana sutras, its targetted audience are those accomplished ones. There may be layman and laywoman but all these have already certain level of accomplishment. In one Mahayana Sutra, Buddha would have to wait for those not ready to listen to leave the assembly before he speaks. This also indicated that Buddha knows that he could only help those whose mind is ripe for certain level of teachings. Hence he could convince a blood thirsty butcher to become a monk. The butcher mind is just happen to be ripe at that time for this certain teachings. I hope this should not view as putting down Thervada, this is to explain the Mahayana mindset. In Mahayana, Arahats are considered from the smaller vehicle. But Mahayanist got to firstly understand that to be a Bodhisattvas, we need to be an Arahat first. (there are shortcuts but this are very rare or very difficult to believe and to accept). In one Mahayana sutra, it was stated clearly that both Thervada and Mahayana are of the same vehicle. the separation of the vehicle is because due to the different accomplishment of beings. That is why Buddha teaches the Thervada before the Mahayana, this is to slowly prepare the beings for more bigger goals (to be a Buddha). To reach Buddhahood is different from reaching Arahat, we could get the hint from the Jakata stories where Buddha was accomplishing a lot of great deeds as a Bodhisattvas. To me, we cannot totally brush off the Mahayana path because there is evidence of this path or not there would not be so many sutras about it also. The Mahayanist concept of enlightment is different from Thervada as Mahayanist view enlightment of an Arahat is not the final liberation but a stepping stone to the bigger goal, to be a Bodhisattvas and reach Buddhahood. Kind regards Kenneth Ong Binh A wrote: G'day all, I have received a message from a Dhamma friend asking about the definition of Arahatship (as attached below, slightly edited). I hope you could assist in answering his enquiry . Metta, Binh PS. I also posted this message to the <> list. ************************************ [...] During my studies I came up with a question that I am not able to resolve myself and hope you could help me or ask someone nearby that could help. One of my field of interests in Buddhism, besides practice of course, is the distinction Mahayana-Hinayana, how it came about and the issues around it. Today, while I was reading through the third volume of Anguttara I came across a passage at Pa.thamahita Sutta, A.iii.12 (I inserted the Pali passage in Vri font). PTS translation runs like: 'Herein, monks, a monk is accomplished in virtue himself, but does not strive to perfect virtue in another'... (the same is repeated for concentration, wisdom, release (vimutti) and vision and knowledge of release). Now, I find that this passage, and many similar I found in Samyutta and Anguttara is a strong support that the Canon Pali emphasizes to search for liberation and all the rest for oneself and the others, placing itself above the later criticism of Mahayana proponents that accused Hinayana folowers as of searching for liberation only for themselves. The other passages I found make it clear that one should strive for the good of the both. Now, this particular passage in particular different from the others, say that the monk is *already* accomplished in all those factors, including release, while, at the same time does not strive for the other's release. Now, I find that this particular passage opens the way for Mahayana criticism as it seems to be saying that it's possible to be an Arahant (accomplished in release) and at the same time not strive for the release of others. In other words, Buddha criticizes a particular kind of Arahant that does so. And that was the Mahayana criticism, that there was a kind of Arahant. (...) Could it be possible to interpret 'sampanno' in another way so that the meaning would be different. Or is that that the Buddha really makes a criticism of the Arahant? Would there be two kinds of Arahant, one the was accomplished only for himself and another *more complete*? -------------- Paµhamahitasutta½ (A.iii.12) 17. "Pañcahi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±ya. Katamehi pañcahi? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu attan± s²lasampanno hoti, no para½ s²lasampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± sam±dhisampanno hoti, no para½ sam±dhisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± paññ±sampanno hoti, no para½ paññ±sampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttisampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttisampad±ya sam±dapeti; attan± vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampanno hoti, no para½ vimuttiñ±ºadassanasampad±ya sam±dapeti. Imehi kho, bhikkhave, pañcahi aªgehi samann±gato bhikkhu attahit±ya paµipanno hoti, no parahit±y±"ti. Sattama½. ******************************************* 8306 From: Binh A Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 10:52am Subject: (2) Question on Arahant - Pali sources? --- KennethOng wrote: > > Dear Binh, > Further to my earlier email, the distinction with Mahayana and Thervada is that both has different emphasis. [...] ================================================================== BA: G'day Kenneth, Thanks for your informative comments. Much appreciated. In my humble opinion, concepts of Bodhisatva's ideal in Mahayana and its relation to original Buddhism (Theravada) were well explained in the book: Nalinaksha Dutt, "Aspects of Mahayana Buddhism and its Relation to Hinayana", London, 1930 Here, regarding to my original question (from the message of my Dhamma friend), I'm looking for answers based on the Pali sources, on possible types (or grades) of Arahant. I remember (very vaguely) that I did come across some passages in the Pali Suttas which gave classification of different types of Arahant. However, due to my busy work lately, I haven't been able to locate the sources. Any help from my Pali scholars and/or Sutta readers? Metta, Binh 8307 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 9:17am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Mike - In a message dated 9/27/01 2:52:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > Dear Howard, > > Hope you don't mind my butting in again. > > --- Howard wrote: > > > The other point is with regard to intentional > > effort during > > meditation. When sitting for meditation on the > > breath, why is it that it is > > the *breath* that one is attending to rather than, > > for example, sounds? The > > answer is that one intentionally directs attention > > to the breath. > > I know this is the way it 'feels', to me, anyway (I've > done thousands of hours of this, by the way), but I > think it's much more accurate to say that the hearing > of the words of the Buddha and the recollection and > understanding of them in a particular way (among other > things) conditions attention to the breath. No one > attending or directing. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: If what you mean by this is that I would be unlikely to sit for mindfulness on the breath had I not heard about that being useful, I would agree. -------------------------------------------------- > > If one did > > not, then, most likely, one would not be attending > > to it. > > If this hearing, recollection and understanding had > not occurred, the subsequent attention would also not > occur. > > I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way fit > to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing > notes. In this context, I think the distinction > between conventional and technical(?) speech is > important. > > mike > =========================== I am not such an advanced practitioner as to be directly in touch with most of the referents of "techncal" speech, and that being the case, I personally find most technical speech to constitute little more than a morass of views in which I would best not become ensnared. I'm afraid that for a long, long time I shall have to depend on the somewhat conventional speech of the sutta pitaka and of the majority of Theravadin (and Mahayana) teachers, along with whatever fruits can be directly derived from my practice. Again, with regard to your intentions, I have nothing but good will towards you, and I feel nothing but good will coming from you, my friend. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8308 From: Sarah Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: conditionality Hi Larry, --- Larry wrote: > > Hello Sarah, > > I can't comment on the pali, unfortunately, but I agree this is an > "answer" that should be considered in the context of the question: "What > self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?" > > Whatever "conditionality" may mean, I think the general idea is that > actions don't affect or effect a self but rather action conditions or > perpetuates action and this is, in itself, suffering. Or something like > that ;) I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘action’, especially in the 2nd ‘conditions or perpetuates action’. I understand the general idea to be that there is no self in the 5khandhas ‘affected’ by ‘action’, just as there isn’t any self in the 5khanhdhas ‘performing action’ or anything else. For example, seeing consciousness now is the result of kamma and is not self. Both the cetana (intention) that produced the kamma and the result of kamma, seeing, and all other (conditioned) realities are inherently unsatisfactory because of their conditioned and impermanent nature. Hence the quote: > > "I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in > > all things." > > > This brings to mind the dualism of conditioned and unconditioned, > another imponderable which may possibly be resolved "in the moment" a la > mahayana. I guess it depends on whether you think the unconditioned... > [sorry, I couldn't finish this sentence]. > > Getting in way over my head. Actually I’d be glad if you would get in ‘way over your head’ as the rest of us do;-)) >Nice to meet you, and you too Ken. You too and thanks Ken (or Ken’s khandhas;-))for conditioning so much lively discussion. Ken, very glad to read about the significance of dsg in your life....sorry, we were all too impatient to wait for you - a day or two can seem like a long time here;-)) Sarah 8309 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:47pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Thanks, Rob. Interesting and useful discussion. Robert E. ======= --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Robert E., > If you are attracted to the breath it may be that you had > practice in past lives with this object (or it could be just > some mundane desire). Anyway it is useful to know the > difficulties one may face and how one might confuse > miccha-samadhi(wrong concentration) with samma-samadhi (right > concentration). > > In ancient times teachers of samatha were aware of all 40 > objects. In the sammohavinodani (1153) p310 of vol 1 translation > It explains the case of a monk who is trying to develop the > meditation on parts of the body. In this example the monk gets > colour appearing. The teacher realises that this monk must have > developed meditation on kasina in past lives and so directs him > to leave the body meditation and go onto kasina. > If a teacher only knows anapanasati he might not be able to do > this.. > Thus I think we have to study carefully for ourselves at this > time; and in that way be in a better position to judge what > suits us. > Now about Buddhanusati and Dhammusati and sanghanusati.. > A comprehensive description of these ways of samatha is given in > chapter VII of the Visuddhimagga. > How do we develop Buddhanusati? There are so many ways. > Basically whenever we reflect with kusala citta(wholesome mind ) > about the merits of the Buddha and what he discovered we are > doing this. In section VII 10-22 it gives as one example the > dependent origination and how the Buddha understood it and so > brought it to an end "Mentality-materiality is a condition for > the sixfold base in sensual becoming.....the six kinds of > contact in sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of > feeling in sensual becoming...Now the Blessed one knew, saw and > understood this and penetrated it in all aspects.." > > So there are inumerable ways one can reflect with understanding > and detachment in this way. In a sense while reflecting we are > also teaching ourself and making conditions for future > reflection. It can't reach the deep stages of concentration that > breath can (because it relies on reflection) but can be done at > any time in any posture. The deeper ones understanding of the > Dhamma the easier, deeper, and more diverse this type of samatha > is. > For myself when/if I reflect: "the six kinds of contact in > sensual becoming are conditions for the six kinds of feeling in > sensual becoming" it reminds me almost automatically of the > feelings that are arising now. Am I taking these feelings now as > "my" feelings - if so then the nature of micchaditthi (self > view) is apparent. If they are perceived as "not mine", as only > phenomena, that is well and good but I know that understanding > is not yet enough to properly penetrate their nature. > > I add this to show how samatha and satipatthana(at some level) > can alternate and support each other. Personally I don't think > too much about having one or the other, this is just the way it > works for me. > robert 8310 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 3:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- Sarah wrote: > > > Howard: > > > No, I think it was a reference something to > > > the effect of the mind > > > being originally luminous, but covered by > > > adventitious defilements that is > > > sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Mike > > Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what > > commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd be > > very interested in finding this idea (an originally > > luminous mind, covered by adventitious defilements) > > anywhere in the Pali canon. > ------------------------------------------------- > Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to com > notes on AN1 10): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) > .............................................. > Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The commentary to this text explains > the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life continuum (bhavanga), which is > ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by defilements. The > defilements arise only in the active thought process, not in the subliminal > flow of consciousness’. > .............................................. Dear Sarah, Hope I'm not being too presumptuous, but this commentary does not seem to explain the original statement about the luminous mind. If the 'luminous mind' referred to a mind [subconscious] that is untouched by defilements, the sutra would not say: "...this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi) defilements." The idea that this mind is out of the stream of conscious life, and thus remains in its pristine undefiled state is a direct contradiction to the statement of the sutra. It is clear from the sutra, at least to me, that it refers to the mind itself, and says that it is currently in a defiled state, but is pure in its true nature, and becomes freed from defilements which process then reveals its inherent luminosity. Furthermore, even if the sutra was referring to the subconscious mind which is kept pristine by being kept out of the flow of life, it would still be difficult to escape the idea that there is this pure, undefiled, luminous mind, which would still be setting up an 'essential nature' of luminosity to be discovered, uncovered or freed from apparent defilements, would it not? Robert E. 8311 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Sabhava or 'essence'- Rob E --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob E, > > We seem to have come to a useful and pleasant conclusion to the sabhava thread > and I'd like to thank you very much for your careful consideration and helpful > feedback. I agree. Thanks for your help in this area. I also like your 'map' analogy. We can certainly agree that with *no* map it is awfully difficult to find one's way! Having several maps is probably also a useful thing to have, as long as you don't try to read all of them at once! Robert E. =================== > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks Sarah, > > That actually clarifies a lot. I'm starting to get a better sense of some of > > these breakdowns and how they coordinate through hitting it at different > > angles > > this way. But as you stress, the direct apprehension of realities to the > > extent > > one is capable is where the classifications find their real expression in > > life. > > If we take what is happening in the moment, then the classifications are not > > as > > important. > > Yes, you've really appreciated what I've been (often clumsily) trying to > express very well. > > >They will sort themselves out as they become useful in looking at > > real > > experiences. This is my thought anyway, after these exchanges. However, I'm > > happy to be getting a little better picture of where and how the Buddha > > breaks > > down these realities. > > Yes, perhaps we can say that we may look at different maps to drive to our > destination. Some are simple and some are very detailed. Different maps give us > different indications or landmarks which help us find the way. We need to have > a look at some of the maps before we start off, but as we start travelling we > will need to look again and perhaps check the more detailed maps as we move > along. > > However, we don't have to remember all the details of all the maps and it may > be that different maps make more 'sense' to different people. However, with no > maps and no directions, it's not possible to find the way. > > > > Thanks again. > > Likewise, > > Sarah 8312 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Welcome & (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS I guess I'll go with your 'Rob Ep' idea. Seems like the easiest. Hmnnn..... Rob Ep. [sounds like a name from a superman comic]. =============== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ed, (Rob K, Rob Ep) > > Thank you very much indeed for your extremely helpful comments below, which I > look forward to reading more carefully later. I'm sure I speak for everyone > when I say that I'm really delighted that you've joined us here and really look > forward to more of your very 'enlightened' contributions;-) > > I hope you're fully recovered now and when you've 'caught up' , I think we'd > all be very interested to hear anything you wish to share about how your > serious interest in the Tipitaka and Pali developed (or anything else mundane > such as where you live and so on). > > We now have 3 Roberts and 2 Robert Es and not a Bob between you!! What to do? I > think you'll have to be Rob, Rob E and Rob Ed, unless anyone has any other > ideas;-)) Or maybe Rob K, Rob Ep and Rob Ed would confuse newcomers less .. > > Welcome again, > > Sarah > > --- Robert Eddison wrote: > > > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of > > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or > > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the > > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent" > > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka > > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context > > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being > > referred to. > > > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases > > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The > > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such > > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma (and > > the latter is not impermanent). > > > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa. > > > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels > > are impermanent. > > > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not > > self. > > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material > > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the > > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > > (lokuttarabhuumi)] 8313 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment Dear Jon, I think my question is basically answered. The way I interpret your answer is that, one may have an effect on the outcome of kusala by intending it, but only if the complete balance of pre-existing factors leans in that direction. That makes sense. I guess that one's effort is one factor among others in the gradual movement towards kusala and wisdom. Robert E. ============================== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob E > > Thanks for your carefully thought-out comments. I will do my best to > respond in kind. > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Thanks, Jon, for your reply to my questions. I take it by your > > description that > > you believe that all arisings of kusala and akusala are the result of > > pre-existing > > or dependently arising causes and effects, and that there is no volition > > involved > > in whether a kusala or akusala moments. > > I suppose it depends on what you mean by volition. If you mean the > intention, say, to have kusala at a subsequent moment, then I would say > that experience tells us that such intention may or may not bring the > desired outcome. The arising of kusala is conditioned by many factors but > principally, I believe, by one's accumulated tendencies for the various > forms of wholesome conduct (and also by the 'suitability' of the > occasion). For example, no matter how much we may resolve to respond > better next time in a particular situation, if we lack the understanding > and the particular accumulated tendencies to do so, it will not happen. > > The intention to have kusala is in essence a kind of mental activity, > similar to thinking and not necessarily different in nature from other > kinds of intention, for example, to get something to eat or drink. It may > *seem* more lofty, but perhaps that's because we are not able to > discriminate kusala from akusala moments to any significant degree, other > than by inference. > > > However, I take it by your indication that one can become more aware of > > the kusala > > and akusala moments, and that this awareness or understanding has an > > effect on > > cultivation of kusala, that these factors are more subject to an intent > > or effort > > to be more aware or understanding? Or are these factors as well just > > the outcome > > of arising conditions and causes? > > Rob, I'm afraid you've lost me here, but let me say that if the aim is the > cultivation of more moments of kusala mind-states (which means the > development of samatha rather than satipatthana/vipassana), then > understanding directly the kusala or akusala nature of the presently > arising mind-states is how that can be achieved in time. > > There is, however, a higher aim which is the development of the > understanding of the true nature of realities, and this is the teaching > that is unique to a Buddha. Under this form of development (bhavana), it > is all realities, not just mind-states, that are to be known and > understood as they are and, accordingly, there is no selecting of the > reality that is to be the object of attention or awareness -- the object > may be a rupa, or one of the moments of experience through a sense-door; > but one is not concerned *in particular* with understanding the nature of > the present mind-state. This of course does not mean one has any less > interest in developing more kusala; rather it means that the path can be > developed regardless of the nature of the present mind-state or one's > awareness of it. > > > I am just trying to see if you would believe one to be completely > > passive to this > > process [since in fact there is no self, but only the shifting > > conditions of the > > kandhas] or whether there is a moment of volition there if one notices > > the > > arisings. > > I hope what I have said above answers this last part; but if not, please > let me know. I do not myself think in terms of 'active' or 'passive', but > perhaps by some terms of reference these descriptions could be > appropriate. > > Thanks again for the chance to discuss these important aspects. > > Jon > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > Sila, and all forms of kusala, play a very important role in the path. > > > > > Wholesomeness of all kinds can and does arise from time to time, > > > naturally, without being 'made' to happen. A such moments the effort > > is > > > 'right' by nature. If there is some level of awareness of the > > > wholesomeness, this is the development or cultivation of kusala/sila. > > > > > > Awareness and understanding are the kinds of kusala that are of > > greatest > > > benefit to the development of sila and all other kinds of kusala. > > > > > > We should know more about both the kusala and the akusala that arise > > in > > > our lives, just as we should also know more about the > > non-kusala/akusala > > > moments, too. > > 8314 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say that the mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that sometimes it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements. I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the luminous mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to be very similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a canonical basis for those sutras. Robert Ep. ================ --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Mike (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 9/26/01 8:31:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > mike writes: > > > > > > Dear Sarah, > > > > Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely > > mistaken, on all counts. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I second your thanks for Sarah's post. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise. > > What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as > > though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence > > which was subsequently covered by defilements (but > > continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction. > > I admit that Jim's translation might be read this > > way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no > > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At > > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent > > defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga > > at the moment to be covered, as I understand it. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > You being worried about my use of the term 'originally' is not > unjustified. There may very well have been a Mahayana influence in my using > it. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I obviously don't understand all of this well at all, > > even theoretically. But it does remind me of > > something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA > > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like > > the purest water? If I understand this correctly, > > citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense > > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of > > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't > > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala > > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be > > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems > > something like 'luminous but covered by defilements' > > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those > > who know. > > > > Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my > > inane comments, Howard. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Not in the slightest - and I don't accept your negative > characterization of your comments. > ------------------------------------------------------- > I should have backtracked > > more before posting my response. Even when we > > disagree I value your correspondence very highly. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Thanks, Mike. Likewise. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Thanks again, Sarah. > > > > mike > > > ============================= > With metta, > Howard > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) > > > 8315 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS ha ha, thanks Kenneth. Well I'm happy to be a Robert at this time, even if I have to be an 'Ep'. Robert Ep. ============== --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi all, > All the Roberts are very good in their presentation and debating of views. > Maybe I should consider naming my son as Robert. > Three cheers for the three Roberts :) > Warmest regards > Kenneth Ong > robertkirkpatrick wrote: -- > > Welcome Robert ED., > Great first post! I hope you'll be a regular here. > best wishes > robert > - Robert Eddison wrote: > > Anders: > > > > SN 4 specifically states: "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." > > > > Howard: > > > > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I > have no > > idea of where to look. > > > > Anders: > > > > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4. > > > > Howard: > > > > I have never seen "Sabbe Dhammá aniccá." anywhere, and I have read > the > > Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya, the Sutta > Nipata, > > the Dhammapada, and much else. It would be very surprising to come > across > > this, and, so, I would appreciate a bit of a clearer signpost. I > think > > this is an important matter. It would imply one of two things: (1) > Nibbana > > is impermanent, or (2) 'dhamma' = 'sankhara', of which the first is > > unacceptable. > > > > Robert: > > > > There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is > predicated of > > *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term > or > > phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, > the > > Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are > impermanent" > > (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma > Pi.taka > > has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the > context > > makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that > are being > > referred to. > > > > When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or > phrases > > it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. > The > > reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in > such > > contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned > dhamma (and > > the latter is not impermanent). > > > > As the Samyutta Commentary states: > > > > 'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa > aniccaa. > > > > 'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the > three levels > > are impermanent. > > > > 'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa. > > > > 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels > are not > > self. > > (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta) > > > > ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined > material > > (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" > means the > > three already mentioned together with the supramundane level > > (lokuttarabhuumi)] > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Robert Eddison > > > > P.S. I am sorry for not yet replying to the e-mails sent to me by > > subscribers on dhamma-list and other groups. I was sick for about a > > fortnight and am just beginning to read and prepare replies to a > backlog of letters. > > 8316 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 4:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: So while > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. Dear Jon, I'd like to challenge the above a bit, although I'm not sure if I have any secure footing to do it. If right effort is the property of a kusala moment, then what is it an effort towards? It would not make sense to speak of effort unless it was intending to do something, not merely accompanying something already accomplished. If it is an accompaniment of a kusala moment, then it would have to be aiding the accomplishment of that which the kusala moment is trying to accomplish. What is the accomplishment of a kusala moment? Panna? Would 'right effort' then be the correct effort of a kusala factor to accomplish panna? Or does this not make sense? Best, Robert Ep. 8317 From: Howard Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 2:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/28/01 4:22:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the > translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind' > which > is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say > that the > mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not > luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that > sometimes > it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements. > > I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the > luminous > mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to > be very > similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a > canonical > basis for those sutras. > > Robert Ep. > ============================== Well, I, for one, am basically in agreement with you. Somewhere in the Pali suttas I believe the mind is likened to gold ore; that is, pure gold with an admixture of foreign elements (the adventitious defilements). With the other metals mixed in, there is no shining evident. The removal of the "defiling" metals allows the shining to manifest. But the pure gold was there all the time! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8318 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 8:56pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can > > occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental > state, > > posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any > moment. > But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the practice > laid > out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking about > what > the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom > can > arise at any time - or, it may not. > ----------------------------------------------------------- I agree with you as regards the fact that mere listening/reading and thinking does not constitute the development of understanding as taught by the Buddha. The 'any time, any place, any situation, any reality' axiom is simply given as a reminder of the nature of the beast that is awareness, since it is all too easy to find ourselves thinking of 'practice' in terms that fail to acknowledge one or other of these attributes. > > However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do > with > > one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the > > teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of > > awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > So > > I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general > > mindfulness. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your practice > to be > that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually > lead > to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort to > > exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or > not, > independent of "personal" effort? > ------------------------------------------------------------ My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying that to the experience of the present moment. As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as being so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In other words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on the path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment of enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly developed the factor of effort. > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > ------------------------------------------------------------- I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. I am finding it a very interesting exchange. Jon 8319 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Sep 28, 2001 9:36pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui Sorry about the confusing sentence in my post of a few minutes ago. I meant to say-- As to "personal" effort, is this the effort that the Buddha described as being so essential to the development of the path? I do not believe it is. Apologies to Howard and all. Jon --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality > can > > > occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental > > state, > > > posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any > > moment. > > But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the > practice > > laid > > out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking > about > > what > > the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom > > can > > arise at any time - or, it may not. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I agree with you as regards the fact that mere listening/reading and > thinking does not constitute the development of understanding as taught > by > the Buddha. The 'any time, any place, any situation, any reality' axiom > is simply given as a reminder of the nature of the beast that is > awareness, since it is all too easy to find ourselves thinking of > 'practice' in terms that fail to acknowledge one or other of these > attributes. > > > > However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do > > with > > > one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the > > > teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development > of > > > awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general > mindfulness. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > So > > > I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a > general > > > mindfulness. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your > practice > > to be > > that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually > > lead > > to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort > to > > > > exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or > > not, > > independent of "personal" effort? > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > that > to the experience of the present moment. > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > being > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > other > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > the > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > of > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > developed the factor of effort. > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. I > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > > Jon > 8320 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 0:51am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/28/01 8:58:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > > Howard > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/23/01 9:36:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > As best I understand the teachings, awareness of a present reality can > > > occur at any moment regardless of time, place, quality of mental > > state, > > > posture or indeed any other aspect of the situation. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Well, sure, I suppose that most anything *can* occur at any > > moment. > > But leaving that to chance, and not intentionally following the practice > > laid > > out by the Buddha (by which I mean more than reading and thinking about > > what > > the Buddha said), is what many non-Buddhists do as well. Sure, wisdom > > can > > arise at any time - or, it may not. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I agree with you as regards the fact that mere listening/reading and > thinking does not constitute the development of understanding as taught by > the Buddha. The 'any time, any place, any situation, any reality' axiom > is simply given as a reminder of the nature of the beast that is > awareness, since it is all too easy to find ourselves thinking of > 'practice' in terms that fail to acknowledge one or other of these > attributes. > > > > However, the conditions for that awareness to arise have more to do > > with > > > one's accumulated understanding of, and frequent reflection on, the > > > teachings, and with seeing the value or urgency in the development of > > > awareness, than with any intention to maintain a general mindfulness. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > That is not my reading of what the Buddha taught. > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > So > > > I would not count myself among those who attempt to maintain a general > > > mindfulness. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > I admire your forthrightness here. So I understand your practice > > to be > > that of study and reflection, which condition the mind, and eventually > > lead > > to the arising of wisdom. In that regard, do you need to apply effort to > > > > exercise that study and reflection? Or does that also either arise or > > not, > > independent of "personal" effort? > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying that > to the experience of the present moment. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But what I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort must be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". ----------------------------------------------------------- > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as being > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In other > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on the > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment of > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > developed the factor of effort. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I expressed in a recent on-list post to Mike. ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. I > am finding it a very interesting exchange. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I as well! --------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 8321 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 11:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 9/28/01 4:22:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the > > translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind' > > which > > is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say > > that the > > mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not > > luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that > > sometimes > > it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements. > > > > I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the > > luminous > > mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to > > be very > > similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a > > canonical > > basis for those sutras. > > > > Robert Ep. > > > ============================== > Well, I, for one, am basically in agreement with you. Somewhere in the > Pali suttas I believe the mind is likened to gold ore; that is, pure gold > with an admixture of foreign elements (the adventitious defilements). With > the other metals mixed in, there is no shining evident. The removal of the > "defiling" metals allows the shining to manifest. But the pure gold was there > all the time! > > With metta, > Howard I think the reason Buddha was a little circumspect about this, is because of the danger of taking 'luminous mind' and turning it into a thing, like an image of a shining brain up in the sky somewhere [the Godhead revisited] or as a goal to be attained, as if there is this thing or state to be grasped. Even if there *is* an 'original luminosity' of Awareness that exists in Nibbana after the defilements are gone, it is neither a possession or a self. We can still get Buddha's basic message on that, even if we disagree on the 'original mind'. So then what are we talking about? We are talking about something that being 'already one's pre-existing nature' would not show up as a new possessions or self, but as something that would be 'nothing' by the self's standards. The transparent ground of being could not be personal or objectified. Anyway, we can still disagree, but at least it can be clear that we are not trying to create a soul, or a self, or a divine object, but rather an original state or status...very difficult to describe, even for the Buddha. Robert Ep. 8322 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 0:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach - Fa Hui) Howard I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise. When I said ... > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In other > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on the > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment of > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > developed the factor of effort. ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ for conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes less and less as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one attaining to enlightenment. Coming to your post to me-- --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > that > > to the experience of the present moment. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But > what > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort > must > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". > ----------------------------------------------------------- My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate what I mean. Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required? Surely not – yet such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to appreciate that act? Surely not. When someone asks for our assistance and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required. When dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute, they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of kusala are not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – this is an experience common to everyone. You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations is, more often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for what it is). This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’). The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) -- "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or others."[ends] All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2, the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker. The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the aim is for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie. without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we don’t learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so. Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right effort’, then, as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a kusala citta of the prompted (weaker) kind. I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things. Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier. Jon > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > being > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > other > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > the > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > of > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > developed the factor of effort. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I > expressed > in a recent on-list post to Mike. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. > I > > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I as well! > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Jon > > > > > =========================== > With metta, > Howard 8323 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 6:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard HI all, I think the luminious mind is the what we call attainment of Buddhahood mind. Buddha mind is definitely luminious. This is illustrated by Chan Master Hui Neng said that the difference between our mind and Buddha mind is that we have right and wrong, good and evil (chinese literal translation). Kind regards Kenneth Ong Robert Epstein wrote: --- Sarah wrote: > > > Howard: > > > No, I think it was a reference something to > > > the effect of the mind > > > being originally luminous, but covered by > > > adventitious defilements that is > > > sometimes associated in commentaries with bhavanga. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Mike > > Really! This is interesting. Any idea of what > > commentary (sorry again if I've missed it)? I'd be > > very interested in finding this idea (an originally > > luminous mind, covered by adventitious defilements) > > anywhere in the Pali canon. > ------------------------------------------------- > Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to com > notes on AN1 10): > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) > .............................................. > Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The commentary to this text explains > the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life continuum (bhavanga), which is > ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by defilements. The > defilements arise only in the active thought process, not in the subliminal > flow of consciousness’. > .............................................. Dear Sarah, Hope I'm not being too presumptuous, but this commentary does not seem to explain the original statement about the luminous mind. If the 'luminous mind' referred to a mind [subconscious] that is untouched by defilements, the sutra would not say: "...this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > (aagantukehi) defilements." The idea that this mind is out of the stream of conscious life, and thus remains in its pristine undefiled state is a direct contradiction to the statement of the sutra. It is clear from the sutra, at least to me, that it refers to the mind itself, and says that it is currently in a defiled state, but is pure in its true nature, and becomes freed from defilements which process then reveals its inherent luminosity. Furthermore, even if the sutra was referring to the subconscious mind which is kept pristine by being kept out of the flow of life, it would still be difficult to escape the idea that there is this pure, undefiled, luminous mind, which would still be setting up an 'essential nature' of luminosity to be discovered, uncovered or freed from apparent defilements, would it not? Robert E. 8324 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 6:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Rober Ep. I believe this is why Buddha said that we all have Buddha nature. I think in my opinion he is referring to our luminious mind. But now we are clouded by our defilements Kenneth Ong Robert Epstein wrote: well, with everyone agreeing here, I guess I'm in trouble. I still see the translation in all its forms as positing the existence of a 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed by defilements. It doesn't say that the mind is not luminous when defiled, and it doesn't say that the mind is not luminous when it's freed. It says it's luminous all the time and that sometimes it's covered by defilements and then it is freed from defilements. I think you have to twist the meaning of the sutra pretty hard to get the luminous mind, which is explicitly stated, out of the equation. It seems to me to be very similar to the 'original mind' of Mahayana, and if so, would provide a canonical basis for those sutras. Robert Ep. ================ --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Mike (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 9/26/01 8:31:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > mike writes: > > > > > > Dear Sarah, > > > > Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely > > mistaken, on all counts. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I second your thanks for Sarah's post. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise. > > What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as > > though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence > > which was subsequently covered by defilements (but > > continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction. > > I admit that Jim's translation might be read this > > way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no > > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At > > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent > > defilements?). When defilements manifest, no bhavanga > > at the moment to be covered, as I understand it. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > You being worried about my use of the term 'originally' is not > unjustified. There may very well have been a Mahayana influence in my using > it. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I obviously don't understand all of this well at all, > > even theoretically. But it does remind me of > > something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA > > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like > > the purest water? If I understand this correctly, > > citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense > > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of > > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't > > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala > > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be > > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems > > something like 'luminous but covered by defilements' > > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those > > who know. > > > > Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my > > inane comments, Howard. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Not in the slightest - and I don't accept your negative > characterization of your comments. > ------------------------------------------------------- > I should have backtracked > > more before posting my response. Even when we > > disagree I value your correspondence very highly. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Thanks, Mike. Likewise. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Thanks again, Sarah. > > > > mike > > > ============================= > With metta, > Howard > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) > > > 8325 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:18pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma Nina, Many thanks for this detailed and helpful explanation which really puts the earlier translated passage in its context. >Dear Jon and all, > > The teaching according to the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma > is > different, but each one of these methods points to the same goal: the > development of satipatthana which leads to the eradication of > defilements. > Satipatthana can only be taught by a Buddha and thus it is always > implied. > Satipatthana is the one way of practice leading to the goal. But by > these > three methods we are reminded of the goal under different aspects. Since > we > are by nature forgetful, we should be grateful to be reminded by way of > different aspects of the teachings. > The monk has to observe the rules of Patimokkha, he has to have > Patimokkha > samvara sila, but also indriya samvara sila, the guarding of the six > doors. > There are different degrees of guarding the six doors, but the highest > is > satipatthana. By mindfulness of nama and rupa the six doors are guarded, > there can be higher sila, adhisila. Someone may be inclined to rude > speech, > or to hurt an insect, but sati can arise and then he will not utter bad > speech or hurt a living being. Vinaya should not be separated from > satipatthana. And, as A. Sujin says, also layfollowers can apply rules > of > the Vinaya in their own situation. > In the Discourses the Buddha spoke about the dukkha in our life: the > loss of > family and friends, a grandmother who went around to the corners of the > streets, exclaiming, where is my granddaughter. When people were ready > for > it he would explain dukkha in change, how things are susceptible to > change, > and if their panna was developed enough he would explain that the five > khandhas that are impermanent are dukkha. As Robert said in his post > about > the three methods, also when reading suttas you have to know a lot about > khandhas, elements, ayatanas (sensefields). The Buddha gave a gradual > teaching to people, about the danger of akusala, the benefit of kusala, > and > if they were ready for it, he taught the four noble Truths, and then > people > could attain enlightenment. We study the suttas, but the study should > have > as purpose the understanding of the characteristics of realities > appearing > now: nama and rupa, the khandhas, the elements, the ayatanas. The study > should not stay on the level of theoretical knowledge. > As to the Abhidhamma method, as Robert said, Abhidhamma is synonymous > with > understanding life, with vipassana. Seeing, hearing, attachment, > aversion, > feeling, they are realities of life and they are elucidated in detail in > the > Abhidhamma. With what purpose? To understand this moment, because in > that > way the panna develops that can eventually erdicate wrong view and the > other > defilements. > Thus, the three parts of the teachings are one, all pointing to the same > goal. The practice is one: satipatthana, understanding this very moment. > > Someone was wondering who meditates and who does not. Meditation is a > word > that can create confusion, shall we use the word bhavana, mental > development? Samatha is bhavana but also vipassana is bhavana, and for > vipassana, this can be developed no matter what one is doing. I am so > glad > the Buddha speaks in the Vinaya about cleaning the dwellings, freeing > them > from dust, washing the robes. The monks are supposed to do such chores > with > mindfulness. I am cleaning, cooking, ironing, and I should not be > forgetful > either, but I am most of the time forgetful. > The word kammatthana is used in connection with bhavana, translated as > meditation subject. In the Commentary to the Gradual Sayings, Book of > the > Threes, Ch VII, § 5-8, elements have been explained in short and in > detail > as ayatanas, as khandhas and other dhammas. It is repeated that with > these > kammatthanas one can become an arahat. This means, they are not objects > of > mere concentration, they are objects of understanding. Understanding of > the > nama or rupa now. Otherwise arahatship could never be attained. > Someone was looking for the text: all dhammas are anatta, this is in > Dhammapada, vs. 279. Nibbana is included in all dhammas. > Best wishes, Nina. Two other instances of reference to 'dhammas' as being not-self, in apposition to 'sankharas' as being impermanent and suffering, are at A. I, xv and A. III, 134 (apologies if these references have already been given by others). Jon 8326 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 9:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka > > Atthakatha (published > > as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the > > Brahmajala Sutta) it is > > explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the > > practice of the other > > paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all > > the paramis". It is > > also described as being to the other paramis as life > > is to the bodily > > organism. I think that gives it a certain > > pre-eminence. > > Definitely (and thanks for correcting my > 'pre-immminence'). Hadn't noticed it, to be honest! > > Another passage from the same section is of > > relevance to one of the other > > current threads on our list. In dealing with the > > role of wisdom in the > > perfection of energy parami, it says: > > > > "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the > > purpose desired, since it > > is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse > > energy at all than to > > arouse it in the wrong way." > > > > Note that energy is better not aroused at all than > > wrongly aroused. > > Strong words indeed. > > Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be > true of the other paramis, too. Without > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can > be dangerous I think. Although not for true actual patience and friendliness, but for their near enemies, perhaps you mean? Energy is in a slightly different category, I think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and performs its function in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every kusala citta and performs its function in a kusala manner. > > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one > > that we probably > > associate with wisdom, is this: > > > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the > > wrongs of others, not > > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the > > wrongs of others only > > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his > > patience into play > > and make it grow even stronger." > > > > It might be interesting to consider the connection > > being made here. > > Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening > patience. Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being able to tolerate the wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had said, Mike. I just happened to come across it when answering your post. I am wondering if any of our long-time lurking members would like to make a reappearance on this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others? Jon 8327 From: m. nease Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 0:09am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Without > > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. > > can > > be dangerous I think. > > Although not for true actual patience and > friendliness, but for their near > enemies, perhaps you mean? I probably did mean this, without realizing it (have to refresh my memory on these). I meant e.g. friendliness with bad friends (as described by the Buddha) and patience--well, patience is different, maybe. Even with wrong view, nivaranas etc. it's hard to see danger in it. > Energy is in a slightly > different category, I > think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and > performs its function > in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every > kusala citta and > performs its function in a kusala manner. Yes, point taken (finally!) > > > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not > one > > > that we probably > > > associate with wisdom, is this: > > > > > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate > the > > > wrongs of others, not > > > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, > the > > > wrongs of others only > > > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call > his > > > patience into play > > > and make it grow even stronger." > > > > > > It might be interesting to consider the > connection > > > being made here. > > > > Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening > > patience. > > Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being > able to tolerate the > wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had > said, Mike. No, I didn't take it personally--just paraphrasing it (and depersonalizing it, as is my habit) to be sure I wasn't missing anything. > I just > happened to come across it when answering your post. > I am wondering if > any of our long-time lurking members would like to > make a reappearance on > this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others? Good point--besides simply missing them, I at least could surely use their help. mike 8328 From: Howard Date: Sat Sep 29, 2001 8:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous > post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise. > > When I said ... > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > other > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > the > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > of > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > developed the factor of effort. > > ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ for > conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for > understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would > need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I > was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for > conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes less and less > as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort > described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and > stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one > attaining to enlightenment. > -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to understand your position to be. --------------------------------------------------------------- > Coming to your post to me-- > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > > that > > > to the experience of the present moment. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But > > what > > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort > > must > > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been > > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional > volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate > what I mean. > > Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the > course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be chosen despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and conditions - it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily *teeth-gritting* volition. ---------------------------------------------------- Surely not – yet > > such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees > someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to > appreciate that act? Surely not. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Agreed. Automatic response there. -------------------------------------------------- When someone asks for our assistance > and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions. --------------------------------------------------- When > dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute, > they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise > without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of kusala are > not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – this is > an experience common to everyone. > > You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in > more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not > necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what > I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations is, more > often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with > me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of > wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for > what it is). > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be less useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more true the "further along" one is, I believe. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced > effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class > known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala > moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’). > > The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) -- > > "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or > recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such > merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when > ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or > urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this > sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or > others."[ends] > > All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following > prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2, > the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker. > > The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the aim is > for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more > developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know > more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of > kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie. > without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we don’t > learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it > won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior > effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so. > > Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are > accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right effort’, then, > as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the > ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a kusala > citta of the prompted (weaker) kind. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think you make good points here, Jon. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things. > Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier. > > Jon > > > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > > being > > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > other > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > the > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > of > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > developed the factor of effort. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I > > expressed > > in a recent on-list post to Mike. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Howard: > > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. > > I > > > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I as well! > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > =========================== > > With metta, > > Howard > ================================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8329 From: claudia harris Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 0:57am Subject: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 North America's response to terrorism-- metta for Bin Laden Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central, 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > How big is your heart? Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut down in pain or fear or anger? Will you be a vehicle for peace? > > We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for just one moment the cycle > of violence? Because in that one moment of peace, > something may shift in the human experience. And > the > world can be a safer place for all of us. Please help to spread the word about metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central, 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > Blessings, Claudia "The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate; hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das 8330 From: m. nease Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 1:52am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Howard, --- Howard wrote: > mike writes: > > I > > think it's much more accurate to say that the > > hearing of the words of the Buddha and the > > recollection and understanding of them in a > > particular way (among other things) conditions > > attention to the breath. No one attending or > > directing. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > If what you mean by this is that I would be > unlikely to sit for > mindfulness on the breath had I not heard about that > being useful, I would > agree. > -------------------------------------------------- I meant that the anapanasati couldn't occur without hearing, recollecting and understanding of the Dhamma having occurred first, and that the effort attending it (or any other moment) is impersonal. > > > If one did > > > not, then, most likely, one would not be > attending > > > to it. > > > > If this hearing, recollection and understanding > had > > not occurred, the subsequent attention would also > not > > occur. > > > > I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way > fit > > to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing > > notes. In this context, I think the distinction > > between conventional and technical(?) speech is > > important. > > > > mike > > > =========================== > I am not such an advanced practitioner as to > be directly in touch with > most of the referents of "techncal" speech, and that > being the case, I > personally find most technical speech to constitute > little more than a morass > of views in which I would best not become ensnared. > I'm afraid that for a > long, long time I shall have to depend on the > somewhat conventional speech of > the sutta pitaka and of the majority of Theravadin > (and Mahayana) teachers, > along with whatever fruits can be directly derived > from my practice. I think you're right about this, Howard. I was wrong to try to rephrase your comments in impersonal terms. The Buddha did speak of effort in conventional terms sometimes. The expression 'he puts forth effort' e.g. occurs fairly often in the sutta pitaka. When he speaks of paticcasamuppaada or the khandhas, for example, it's usually impersonal--that is, no 'one's contact' or 'one's materiality'. It was the latter manner of speaking I was aiming at. Still, I think it was out of place in the context of our discussion--my apologies. As for the morass of views, wrong view can surely be supported as well by conventional language as by 'technical' language--or by refraining from either, for that matter. It's the accompanying understanding (or lack thereof), I think, that determines the rightness or wrongness of any mode of speech (or abstinence from speech) more than anything else. I'm glad to have your company in the pursuit of that understanding. > Again, with regard to your intentions, I have > nothing but good will > towards you, and I feel nothing but good will coming > from you, my friend. Glad to hear it and back at you, Howard, mike 8331 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 2:17am Subject: Volition and Self [To Jon] Hi, Jon - With regard to volition/intention, I think there is a range of view in which we both occupy middle positions, with you slightly towards what I think of as the "left" extreme and with me slightly towards the "right" extreme, with both extremes constituting forms of wrong view. It seems to me that volition/intention is a phenomenon which, when wrongly understood, is a factor in the formation of the view of 'person' or 'self'. In fact, intention is a completely impersonal phenomenon arising automatically when the conditions for it to do so are in place. But when that intention or volition is seen, even subliminally, as personal, as the intervention of an alleged "self" in the causal flow, ignorance is active and growing. This is one extreme. It is the extreme I need to guard against. As I see it, the other extreme, the "left-hand" error, is to see intention, at least at a subliminal level of awareness, as almost illusory, as being a superfluous step in the chain of causality, so that it appears that there is no effective volition at all, with everything that occurs being either random, in one form of the error, or as fated, in another, but, in either case, leading to a kind of hopelessness, a sense of *total* lack of control, a kind of nihilistic despair. I think that you may need to guard against movement towards that extreme, though, of course, you are far, far away from it. If anything, I see you as quite possibly being closer to the "truthful center" than I. I talk only about tendencies here, tendencies to be closely watched. 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) 8332 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 2:57am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Mike - In a message dated 9/29/01 1:53:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > Hi, Howard, > > --- Howard wrote: > > > mike writes: > > > > I > > > think it's much more accurate to say that the > > > hearing of the words of the Buddha and the > > > recollection and understanding of them in a > > > particular way (among other things) conditions > > > attention to the breath. No one attending or > > > directing. > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > If what you mean by this is that I would be > > unlikely to sit for > > mindfulness on the breath had I not heard about that > > being useful, I would > > agree. > > -------------------------------------------------- > > I meant that the anapanasati couldn't occur without > hearing, recollecting and understanding of the Dhamma > having occurred first, and that the effort attending > it (or any other moment) is impersonal. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think we are disagreeing here. --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > If one did > > > > not, then, most likely, one would not be > > attending > > > > to it. > > > > > > If this hearing, recollection and understanding > > had > > > not occurred, the subsequent attention would also > > not > > > occur. > > > > > > I hope I don't need to add that I feel in now way > > fit > > > to instruct or correct you, Howard--just comparing > > > notes. In this context, I think the distinction > > > between conventional and technical(?) speech is > > > important. > > > > > > mike > > > > > =========================== > > I am not such an advanced practitioner as to > > be directly in touch with > > most of the referents of "techncal" speech, and that > > being the case, I > > personally find most technical speech to constitute > > little more than a morass > > of views in which I would best not become ensnared. > > I'm afraid that for a > > long, long time I shall have to depend on the > > somewhat conventional speech of > > the sutta pitaka and of the majority of Theravadin > > (and Mahayana) teachers, > > along with whatever fruits can be directly derived > > from my practice. > > I think you're right about this, Howard. I was wrong > to try to rephrase your comments in impersonal terms. > The Buddha did speak of effort in conventional terms > sometimes. The expression 'he puts forth effort' e.g. > occurs fairly often in the sutta pitaka. When he > speaks of paticcasamuppaada or the khandhas, for > example, it's usually impersonal--that is, no 'one's > contact' or 'one's materiality'. It was the latter > manner of speaking I was aiming at. Still, I think it > was out of place in the context of our discussion--my > apologies. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Don't give it a thought, Mike! --------------------------------------------------------- > > As for the morass of views, wrong view can surely be > supported as well by conventional language as by > 'technical' language--or by refraining from either, > for that matter. It's the accompanying understanding > (or lack thereof), I think, that determines the > rightness or wrongness of any mode of speech (or > abstinence from speech) more than anything else. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: For sure! --------------------------------------------------------- I'm > glad to have your company in the pursuit of that > understanding. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Likewise!! -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Again, with regard to your intentions, I have > > nothing but good will > > towards you, and I feel nothing but good will coming > > from you, my friend. > > Glad to hear it and back at you, Howard, > > mike > > ================================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8333 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 2:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging (ERIK) Hi Erik, I'm not really intending to start another big debate, but would just like to ask one or two (or three:-)) questions and make one or two comments on your post to Dan as he's on leave. --- rikpa21 wrote: > > serves it right back at me---maybe even harder! Erik's a good cyber- > > dhamma friend, and our gentle banter is in a healthy spirit of > > inquiry. > > Thanks for mentioning this, Dan, because this may not always be > obvious to those unfamiliar with my style, or yours. There is also a > very long tradition, at least in the Tibetan debating system, > of "challenger" (the role I've been playing with Sarah and Dan > recently) to shake and rattle the "witness", much like a lawyer cross- > examination a witness on the stand. Now in my book, if someone is shaken or rattled, it sounds like dosa (aversion) is pretty apparent. My question is this: if one has the intention (whether one is a good cyber-dhamma friend or an LA lawyer) to 'shake and rattle the 'witness' ' and thus be a condition for dosa, is this intention kusala or akusala? I'm not referring here to any tradition or system, but to your experience, Erik. > This long and noble tradition is enshrined in Tibetan debate because > it helps tease out key issues. It is also a great way to train in not > taking debates "personally", since any discomfort that arises in the > course of having views challenged and examined is an excellent > opportunity for satipatthana, noting the arising of clinging to self > in terms of how much of a "me" is there in the view under discussion. Of course any aversion, discomfort or taking any points 'personally' have many conditions, most of all the accumulations and wrong views at play. However, again I wonder whether hoping to cause discomfort can be skilful. Surely a good friend wishes to put others at ease and in comfort rather than the reverse. > > The Dhamma is much like cooking a soup. You need lots of heat and to > stir constantly. :) Or, another analogy I like. The Dhamma is about > turning ordinary carbon into the most refined diamond. There is only > one way I know of doing that: heat and pressure. What about skilful mental states and wisdom? > > In this we appear to agree again, Dan. Agreeing with you AND Jonothan > within the span of a week. This is nearly unprecedented! :) Herman once asked if it was OK to agree here (he was brought up in his family never to admit it if he agreed, or something like that). I think it's very OK to agree (and certainly not an admission of defeat;-)) and it's good to see some 'common sharing'. > > Sati > > can arise at any time, and a wide variety of phenomena are possible > > objects. When this is understood clearly, every moment becomes an > > opportunity for satipatthana, and the dedication to Dhamma and the > > diligence with which it is pursued increases markedly. > > > There was a point where I'd even seek out special conditions for > panic, by taking psychedelic drugs in a way sufficient to trigger a > massive, several-hour series of panic-moments where the panic was > deep enough to make me think I'd lose "my" mind at some points. The > degree of panic in these moments was infinitely greater than the > panic I felt peering over the edge of a bungee platform a few years > ago, for example, so this was excellent training. I was glad to read about the value of satipatthana during your panic attacks. I do wonder, however, Eric, whether you don't have some idea that there have to be extremely unpleasant and diffcult experiences, as in this example, for satipatthana to develop. I don't wish to re-open old threads but just to question whether there is any idea of experiencing more unpleasant feelings and dosa (isn’t that what panic is?) in order to learn or develop wisdom. > > In terms of daily life, training in seeing this panic (or any > unpleasant sensation) as not-self made it possible to stroll a mile > through what sure looked like the "Killing Fields" into a former > Khmer Rouge stronghold recently........ It's good to hear about your appreciation of the Teachings in your daily life experiences. I fully appreciate that in this example you were not going out of your way to have fearful experiences but that your daily life just happens to be a little different..;-)) > > That is an example of a real-world effect of satipatthana training > (though I do not pretend to have mastered this by any means). There > was no need for any false bravado. There was only the understanding > that there is uncontrollable vipaka arising moment to moment; and > that even if it were to cost me my life (or worse), that none of > these things are "self". It was a very interesting test of > understanding, and as concrete an example as I can think of for how > this applies in daily life, even in a rather unusual case. (By-the- > by, it was in this little village that it became clear that the woman > I was with would become my wife, and turned out to be one of the most > incredible moments of this short life!) there are some useful reflections and understanding here, Erik, and we're glad you came out alive. Of course a development of understanding doesn't mean one shouldn't take care and precautions, but as you've said, vipaka is uncontrollable and we never have any idea what is in store for us from moment to tmoment. > That has been the entire point of my line of inquiry in these posts. > Because let's face it, there are plent of people who don't train the > mind out there, and if sati simply arose spontaneously, without > training, we'd have a lot of arahats walking around. Not unless there was a lot of careful listening and considering over and over and more importantly not unless there was the full development of wisdom. >But in practical > terms, this is not the case. In practical terms, the fruits of the > noble path will have no conditions to arise without diligent practice > (even though the can't be forced or expecetd even a little bit, and > ripen in their own sweet time independent of any wishes). We have to > cultivate our little plot of land with urgency no matter what: Let's say the plot of land has to be cultivated...no 'we' to do it, of course. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-093.html > There was mistaking serious lobha for kusala on more than one > occasion. But that misunderstanding is always exposed once the source > of the pleasant sensation engendering clinging disappears and there > is only the aftermath of dukkha arising from, what else, lobha? Perhaps we tend to be more 'conscious' or concerned about the unpleasantness (or dukkha) because it is accompanied by unpleasant feeling. What about the clinging now? It may not be ‘serious’ lobha and it may not be mistaken for kusala (though I think this is very common), but i think that as panna and sati grow, they begin to know and be aware of more and more subtle shades of lobha. What seems subtle now will seem like ‘serious lobha’ with more wisdom. This is already much more than I planned to say, so I'll rest my case;-)) Sarah 8334 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 3:02am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 A good suggestion here: please go to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ and read the two works here on the proper practice of Metta. It seems there may be some confusion concerning Metta (Maitri) and Tonglen. Tonglen is a bit different a practice then Metta. It has some other requirements. This is a Theravada study group, and though many members are eclectic about Dhamma study, one thing is essential, and that is the practice of Metta does have a technique that should be respected and well followed. Asking everyone to practice Metta for Osama Bin Laden sounds easy enough, but if there is any anger or resentment and one tries to practice Metta without first removing such obscurations, then either frustration could ensue or the practice may not be potent and do what it is supposed to do. The other problem, of course, would be that the technique is not practiced correctly. May this be of help to many... With Karuna, Ven. Dr. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo ----- Original Message ----- From: "claudia harris" Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 12:57 PM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 > North America's response to terrorism-- > metta for Bin Laden > Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > How big is your heart? > > Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut > down in pain or fear or anger? > > Will you be a vehicle for peace? > > > > We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A > moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of > peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for > just one moment the cycle > > of violence? Because in that one moment of peace, > > something may shift in the human experience. And > > the > > world can be a safer place for all of us. > > Please help to spread the word about > metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2, > 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > Blessings, > Claudia > > "The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate; > hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield > is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want > peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all > do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to > deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and > disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das > > 8335 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 3:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Dear Jon, I was just thinking about your letter to Howard, the one addressing the 'right effort' issue, and was seriously considering sending you a post expressing my appreciation. I do not know if I have anything useful to say, even if I did, someone or the other always expresses what I have in mind much better than I can. But since you asked me to contribute, and since I have come to appreciate your own contributions more and more, I will say something. My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises only when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience. When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from fear of repercussions to cold indifference. And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are dealing purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the conceptual level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that everytime there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for example, knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements, and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be patient towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can arise. Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the other paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for patience to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the development of wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'. A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with regard to development of wisdom. I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments from anybody. Metta, Sukin. Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > > > In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka > > > Atthakatha (published > > > as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the > > > Brahmajala Sutta) it is > > > explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the > > > practice of the other > > > paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all > > > the paramis". It is > > > also described as being to the other paramis as life > > > is to the bodily > > > organism. I think that gives it a certain > > > pre-eminence. > > > > Definitely (and thanks for correcting my > > 'pre-immminence'). > > Hadn't noticed it, to be honest! > > > > Another passage from the same section is of > > > relevance to one of the other > > > current threads on our list. In dealing with the > > > role of wisdom in the > > > perfection of energy parami, it says: > > > > > > "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the > > > purpose desired, since it > > > is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse > > > energy at all than to > > > arouse it in the wrong way." > > > > > > Note that energy is better not aroused at all than > > > wrongly aroused. > > > Strong words indeed. > > > > Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be > > true of the other paramis, too. Without > > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can > > be dangerous I think. > > Although not for true actual patience and friendliness, but for their near > enemies, perhaps you mean? Energy is in a slightly different category, I > think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and performs its function > in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every kusala citta and > performs its function in a kusala manner. > > > > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one > > > that we probably > > > associate with wisdom, is this: > > > > > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the > > > wrongs of others, not > > > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the > > > wrongs of others only > > > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his > > > patience into play > > > and make it grow even stronger." > > > > > > It might be interesting to consider the connection > > > being made here. > > > > Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening > > patience. > > Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being able to tolerate the > wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had said, Mike. I just > happened to come across it when answering your post. I am wondering if > any of our long-time lurking members would like to make a reappearance on > this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others? > > Jon 8336 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 4:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for these corrections. My post was entirely > mistaken, on all counts. I didn't consider it that way at all, Mike. your posts are always a condition for useful reflection for me. > Howard, besides being wrong I also was very imprecise. > What worried me came from the word 'originally'--as > though this mind had a continuous 'luminous' existence > which was subsequently covered by defilements (but > continued to exist beneath them)--my own construction. > I admit that Jim's translation might be read this > way. However, bhavanga only occurs when there are no > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. At > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or latent > defilements?) Yes, there are latent defilements and all other ‘accumulated tendencies’ with each citta (moment of conciousness), including bhavanga cittas (life-continuum consciousness). Of course, as you imply, each citta, including each bhavanga citta is very fast and there is no continuous ‘luminous’ or any other existence. > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it > > is defiled by intrusive > > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, > > and it is freed from > > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) As we know, mind always refers to ‘citta’ and in this case to bhavanga cittas the Atthasalani also refers to this quote and says; “Mind also is said to be ‘clear’ in the sense of ‘exceedingly pure,’ with reference to the subconscious life-continuum. So the Buddha has said;- ‘bhikkhus, the mind is luminous, but is corrupted by adventitious corruptions.’ Though immoral, it is called ‘clear’ because it issues (from subconscious vital conditions) just as a tributary of the Ganges is like the Ganges and a tributary of the Godhaavarii is like the Godhaavarii” (Atth, 140, p.185 PTSed) >.. When defilements manifest, no bhavanga To be even more precise, the defilements only manifest with the akusala cittas during the javana process, there are the other cittas in the processes when there are no bhavanga cittas and yet no defilements manifesting. If we’re lucky, Kom or Num may add more details;-) I actually think 'sub-conscious' (life continuum) for bhavanga cittas in the above Atth. translation is rather confusing because it suggests bhavanga cittas are present all the time beneath the surface which of course is not correct. (but then I come from a psychology background so I may be particularly sensitive to these connotations;-) > > I obviously don't understand all of this well at all, > even theoretically. But it does remind me of > something about citta in general. Don't I remember TA > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, like > the purest water? If I understand this correctly, > citta and cetasika arise together and in that sense > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by virtue of > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to be > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems > something like 'luminous but covered by defilements' > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from those > who know. I can’t pretend to understand some of these details well myself. I haven’t heard this theory of citta as a pure slate, tarnished by defilements before (except about bhavanga cittas as discussed). On the contrary, I understand kusala citta to be very different from akusala citta and kusala vipaka citta to be very different from akusala vipaka citta and so on. To give a couple of examples, seeing consciousness now may be kusala or akusala vipaka citta. The actual seeing, regardless of the feelings and other mental factors accompanying it, is inherently good or bad result and of a different nature from any other moment of seeing in kind and quality as well as time. In the same way, a moment of skilful thinking (kusala citta) is quite different from a moment of unwholesome thinking (akusala citta) because of its inherent nature as well as because of the ‘good’ or ‘unwholesome’ mental factors accompanying each. There are many references to the variegated nature of the mind such as these ones in ‘The Leash’ (SN III 22.100BB translation): “Bhikkhus, I do not see any other order of living beings so diversified as those in the animal realm. Even those beings in the animal realm have been diversified by the mind (citta), yet the mind is even more diverse than those beings in the animal realm.” `"Bhikkhus, have you seen the picture called `Faring On'?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Even that picture called `Faring On' has been designed in its diversity by the mind, yet the mind is even more diverse than that picture called `Faring On'. …" The following quotes from the Atthasalani (Atth (68), p.91 ) also make it clear, I think, that the mind (citta) doesn’t just follow the mental states, but is instead the ‘leader’: ‘Not merely in the explanation of the Vinaya, but also in some other lay discourses has he shown mind to be the principal. Even as he said, ‘Bhikkhus, whatever states are immoral, pertain to the immoral, take sides with the immoral, all are led by mind; of these states mind arises first. ‘consciousness leads, rules, makes all mode of mind. And whoso speaks or acts with evil mind, Him evil follows as the wheel the ox. Consciousness leads, rules, makes all modes of mind, And whoso speaks or acts with a good mind, Bliss like a faithful shadow follows him. By mind the world is led, by mind is drawn: And all men own the sovereignty of mind,’ > Anyway, hope I haven't put you off too much with my > inane comments, Howard... Like Howard, I never find any of your comments in the slightest bit inane, Mike. Indeed they are a condition for some deep and useful reflection on my part. No need to apologise or backtrack at all, as far as I’m concerned. I think we all learn from your kind, modest and sincere contemplations here as elsewhere. Sarah 8337 From: Sarah Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 7:23pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Rob Ep, More on the ‘luminous mind' ;-) --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Sarah wrote: > > Mike, let me just re-quote from two or three posts of mine, (referring to > com > > notes on AN1 10): > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is luminous, and it is freed from > > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) > > .............................................. > > Nyanaponika’s footnote to this reads : ‘The commentary to this text > explains > > the ‘luminous mind’ as the subconscious life continuum (bhavanga), which is > > ‘naturally luminous’ in that it is never tainted by defilements. The > > defilements arise only in the active thought process, not in the subliminal > > flow of consciousness’. > > .............................................. > > Dear Sarah, > Hope I'm not being too presumptuous, but this commentary does not seem to > explain > the original statement about the luminous mind. > > If the 'luminous mind' referred to a mind [subconscious] that is untouched by > defilements, the sutra would not say: > > "...this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but it is defiled by intrusive > > (aagantukehi) defilements." > > The idea that this mind is out of the stream of conscious life, and thus > remains > in its pristine undefiled state is a direct contradiction to the statement of > the > sutra. Dear Rob Ep, you’re never presumptuous and I think these are tricky but important points, especially as this one sentence holds such significance for many and is so often referred to on dsg. I don’t know if my post just sent to Mike clarified or clouded the issue further for you (and others....be sure that many share your ‘concerns’). As I mentioned, mind refers to cittas - zillions of them ‘triggering’ each other off without any self or permanence from one to the next. As I suggested, I think ‘sub-conscious’ is very mis-leading when referring to the bhavanga cittas (life-continuum cittas) Literally, they mean ‘factors of life’ and they have the task of ensuring continuity of life when there are no sense-impressions or experiences, no thinking and no wholesome or unwholesome moments of consciousness. They are compared to the current of a river which is interrupted from time to time..They are considered ‘luminous’ or ‘pristine’ just in the sense that there are no defilements arising with them for those moments as I understand it. There is no sense of mind or citta remaining in this state for more than the instant that the bhavanga citta lasts. > It is clear from the sutra, at least to me, that it refers to the mind > itself, and > says that it is currently in a defiled state, but is pure in its true nature, > and > becomes freed from defilements which process then reveals its inherent > luminosity. I don’t think there are any references to ‘true nature’ in this context. As Jon and Sukin would say, it’s a descriptive passage explaining the inter-relationship between different cittas. > Furthermore, even if the sutra was referring to the subconscious mind which > is > kept pristine by being kept out of the flow of life, it would still be > difficult > to escape the idea that there is this pure, undefiled, luminous mind, which > would > still be setting up an 'essential nature' of luminosity to be discovered, > uncovered or freed from apparent defilements, would it not? The bhavanga cittas are the ‘flow of life’ or part of it anyway. They are not ‘kept pristine’ but this is their nature. They are vipaka cittas, the results of kamma (from the previous life), so nothing will change or affect their nature or characteristic. They have nothing to do with nibbana or realizing nibbana (except very indirectly) and I don’t believe their sabhava or nature can be known to us. Of course it was known in very precise detail to the Buddha who cared to share a ‘handful of leaves’ to help us understand how biref and anatta all moments of consciousness are. Nina writes in detail about bhavanga cittas in ‘Abhidhamma in Daily Life’, but I know that’s more homework, Rob;-)).... When it mentions (in Jim’s translation above) about the mind being ‘freed from intrusive defilements’, again I understand this to be descriptive and not a ‘thing-to-do’. It helps to understand that the defilements are also impermanent and not self. It may seem that attachment or anger last for a while but in fact they last for a split-second only and in between moments of defilements are many, many ‘undefiled’ or ‘luminous’ bhavanga cittas. In the 2 suttas in AN, reference is made to the speed of changing cittas and the importance of seeing the danger or unwholesome states and the value of skilful states even ‘if for just the lasting of a finger-snap’.I think it’s important to appreciate the context when we read the following: “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. This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that come from without.’ I’d be very interested to hear if this still isn’t clear to you or you still understand the passage in a different manner to me. The ancient commentary notes to these suttas, referring to the bhavanga cittas, had to be approved by the councils of arahats, so I doubt there could be any argument about their authenticity. I also wonder if there are any other (Pali canon) Tipitaka references which the understanding of a lasting, inherently luminous mind or awareness is based on. I’d be interested to discuss any of these as well. Thanks again for raising these useful points and considering my message so carefully. Sarah 8338 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 9:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Robert Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Jon, > Whatever the case may be, the Buddha still did sit in the full lotus > quite a bit, > as did his disciples. Therefore, it may not have any significance, but > on the > other hand, it is possible that it does. > > While the Buddha may not have emphasized the posture, I think that the > fact that > he used it means *something*. Full lotus has never been easy to get > into, it has > to be cultivated, usually for years. Why would everyone use a difficult > posture > if it had no significance? > > Many other meditative traditions, from yoga to the Taoists and Tibetans > consider > the cross-legged sitting position to allow the body's natural energies > to align > properly, and for energetic centers to be held in a particular relation > when > meditating. If the Buddha did not specifically emphasize such things, > it may be > that they do not matter to the path of understanding that is uniquely > his. But it > may also be, as some have suggested, that he took it for granted as a > proper way > of sitting for meditation or contemplation. > > I agree that we cannot decide in ignorance that this is the best way to > sit, but > should we then decide in equal ignorance that it is not? I don't think I've decided anything, at least, not in the sense of being closed to discussion on the subject. I do of course have a view, based partly on the assumption that if a particular posture had any special significance it would have been mentioned in the suttas, and partly on my reading of the Satipatthana Sutta which says that awareness is to be developed in whichever of the 4 postures one finds oneself at the time (I think you would be familiar with the passage in question). I am open to discussion, however, if you would like to put anything forward. ;-)) Jon 8339 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 9:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Howard In your post below you mention, I think, 2 different stages of development. In the first one relies on an 'anchor' as a focus for one's attention and on intentional effort, while the second can be developed without reliance on, or at least with reduced reliance on, these 2 factors. While I would of course question such an interpretation of the path, I am prepared to accept it for the purpose of this post, because I would like to focus on the nature of right effort vs. deliberate/intentional effort. There are I believe significant differences between the sort of intentional effort you refer to and the 'right effort' in the suttas. First, intentional effort as you describe it is exerted when the citta is not kusala in order to spur kusala to arise, and it is not itself kusala, or not necessarily so, (otherwise one wouldn't need to exert it!). Right effort, on the other hand, is kusala and arises only with a kusala citta. Secondly, under your description intentional effort is needed less and less, and therefore arises less and less, as understanding is developed, whereas right effort increases in strength as wisdom is developed, and is at its strongest as one of the factors present at the moment of enlightenment. Howard, I think you may have agreed with this analysis in a previous post, but I didn't follow up on it at the time. What I am suggesting is simply that conventional 'intentional effort', even if followed by moments of kusala, is not the same as right effort. Intentional effort is something that precedes the arising of kusala. Right effort is a co-arising factor associated with a kusala citta (or, as a mundane path factor, with the mundane path citta), and is developed by the development of the kusala (or path) citta it arises with. Just seeking to clarify. Jon --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/27/01 9:41:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > > > Howard > > > > Thanks for you detailed comments. I will try to give my perspective > on a > > couple of the areas where we differ. > > > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > In a message dated 9/23/01 1:58:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > > > Yes, these are examples of conventional effort. But if one thinks > > > about > > > > it for a moment, such conventional effort is not necessarily > 'right' > > > > effort. > > > > > > > > Let's take the 'not meditating' scenario above, in particular the > > > letting > > > > go of akusala thoughts when these are present. Suppose we notice > that > > > we > > > > are angry. 'Letting go' of this anger could be kusala but could > also > > > > itself be akusala; for example, if we viewed the anger as an > > > unwelcome > > > > interference with our practice, if we thought it was going to make > > > > awareness more difficult for us in the future (oh no!), or that it > > > showed > > > > us in a bad light to others, or for any of a number of other > reasons > > > > shouldn't be there. As I'm sure you'd agree, such moments of > obvious > > > > akusala could not be 'right effort'. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I agree completely. There should be (i.e., it is useful that > > > there be) > > > no running away and no suppression. There should be a clear seeing > of > > > the > > > event (of anger, or whatever), without further reaction, sustained > until > > > that > > > object of attention ceases or at least weakens sufficiently for > > > attention to > > > return to the originally intended object(s) of attention. It is a > matter > > > of > > > *letting* the thought go rather than attempting to use force in > removing > > > it > > > or tearing the mind away. > > > > I understand from this that your focus is on maintaining a particular > > object of attention to the extent that this is possible and, if the > object > > is interrupted by akusala, on paying attention to ('clearly seeing') > the > > akusala until it ceases or weakens sufficiently to allow the mind to > > return to the chosen object. > > > > I have difficulty squaring this with the description of satipatthana > in > > passage below which you seem quite happy with but which to my thinking > is > > in direct contradiction with the summary I have just given! Do you > see > > the Satipatthana Sutta as requiring a focus on a particular object, or > is > > it a kind of technique to aid satipatthana? > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > My statement here pertained to an early stage of meditation, in > which > concentration is still weak, a stage in which one uses a primary object, > say > the breath, as kind of an anchor for the meditation. In that stage, > focus is > on the "anchor". When other objects arise, one sees them clearly (and > this is > to be done for kusala as well as akusala), but observes them "lightly", > without clinging or aversion, letting the objects come and go, duely > noting > their nature in the process, and then returning to the anchor. > At a later stage of meditation, when concentration has become > stronger > and more stable, one "opens" up the field of awareness. At that point, > the > principle of non-clinging and non-aversion remains the same, but there > is no > returning to a primary meditation object or anchor - there is simply the > > awareness of the next object of discernment in the now-broad field of > awareness. It is this later stage it is most aptly called a setting up > of > mindfulness. > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > Also, to me, the ideas of focussing on a particular object and of > applying > > attention to akusala until it ceases or weakens both imply a degree of > > control over the mind. But you obviously don't see it this way, > Howard? > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, a moment of awareness of the anger as just > anger, > > > or of > > > > the unpleasant feeling as just feeling, would be kusala, *even if > it > > > > didn't result in the anger being 'let go of' in the conventional > > > sense*. > > > > As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, any reality whatsoever > > > (including > > > > the hindrances) can be the object of awareness and that awareness > can > > > > arise regardless of time, place, mental state or posture. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Yep! > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > Or there might > > > > be some moments of kusala at the level of useful reflection, for > > > example, > > > > that the unpleasant feeling accompanying the anger is a different > > > reality > > > > altogether from the anger itself [it is in fact a different > Foundation > > > in > > > > the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness -- but how often are we aware of > this > > > > difference in practice?], or that the moments of seeing or > visible > > > object > > > > arising at times one is angry are wholly different in nature from > the > > > mind > > > > with anger moments that otherwise appear to dominate at that time > (and > > > are > > > > themselves moments without anger in amongst the anger). > > > > > > > > When it comes down to it, effort can only be 'right' if the citta > is > > > > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are consciously > > > 'letting go > > > > of' the akusala. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms large in this > regard. > > > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by the intention to > have > > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, effort, kusala citta > chain. > > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally conceived of, but > the > > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions for things. So > while > > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense > > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not > > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > In the actual practice of meditation, until a certain stage, > intentional effort is exercised. C'han/Zen, for example, doesn't *speak* > that > way. I speaks the way *you* do. But the actual *practice* of C'han/Zen > meditation, of all varieties, just as the actually practiced meditation > in > the various schools of Theravada, involves intentional effort at the > early > stages. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I'll leave it at that for this post. I appreciate the considerable > > thought you have put into these matters, Howard. > > > > 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) 8340 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 9:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > So is 'latency' a characteristic shared in common > with, e.g., paññaa (since it only understands one > object at a time, of all the objects it could > understand), and with anusaya? Where does it fit into > abhidhamma? (I found it in Pali as 'apaakatataa' or > 'paticchannataa', but don't think I've run across > either of these before). I suppose we could say that anything that has been accumulated but is not manifesting at the present moment is latent. But I have only come across latency in the context of the anusaya. Nina may be able to add more on this. Thanks for the Pali terms. I'm not familiar with them, I'm afraid. Where did you get them from? I'd be interested to know more. Jon 8341 From: KennethOng Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 10:46pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... In my understanding, aren't whether our actions prompted or unprompted to do kusala still mingled or attached to kusala. Isn't not attached to an right extreme view. What do we mean by unprompted, are we so sure that it is not attached to a subtle (or subconscious self), as long as self ego is not let go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort still surrounds it. When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall into the two extreme? Please forgive me for the strong wording Kind regards. Kenneth Ong Howard wrote: Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous > post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise. > > When I said ... > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > other > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > the > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > of > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > developed the factor of effort. > > ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ for > conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for > understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would > need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I > was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for > conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes less and less > as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort > described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and > stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one > attaining to enlightenment. > -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to understand your position to be. --------------------------------------------------------------- > Coming to your post to me-- > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > > that > > > to the experience of the present moment. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But > > what > > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort > > must > > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been > > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional > volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate > what I mean. > > Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the > course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be chosen despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and conditions - it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily *teeth-gritting* volition. ---------------------------------------------------- Surely not – yet > > such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees > someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to > appreciate that act? Surely not. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Agreed. Automatic response there. -------------------------------------------------- When someone asks for our assistance > and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions. --------------------------------------------------- When > dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute, > they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise > without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of kusala are > not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – this is > an experience common to everyone. > > You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in > more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not > necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what > I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations is, more > often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with > me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of > wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for > what it is). > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be less useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more true the "further along" one is, I believe. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced > effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class > known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala > moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’). > > The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) -- > > "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or > recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such > merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when > ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or > urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this > sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or > others."[ends] > > All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following > prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2, > the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker. > > The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the aim is > for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more > developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know > more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of > kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie. > without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we don’t > learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it > won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior > effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so. > > Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are > accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right effort’, then, > as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the > ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a kusala > citta of the prompted (weaker) kind. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think you make good points here, Jon. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things. > Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier. > > Jon > > > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > > being > > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > other > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > the > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > of > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > developed the factor of effort. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I > > expressed > > in a recent on-list post to Mike. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Howard: > > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. > > I > > > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I as well! > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > =========================== > > With metta, > > Howard > ================================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8342 From: Howard Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 7:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Hi, Kenneth - In a message dated 9/30/01 10:47:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > In my understanding, aren't whether our actions prompted or unprompted to do > kusala still mingled or attached to kusala. Isn't not attached to an right > extreme view. What do we mean by unprompted, are we so sure that it is not > attached to a subtle (or subconscious self), as long as self ego is not let > go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the > self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we > give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self > effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort > still surrounds it. > When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not > attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall > into the two extreme? > Please forgive me for the strong wording > Kind regards. > Kenneth Ong > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Two comments, Kenneth. One is that I am having trouble understanding the content of the foregoing. I apologize that this difficulty on my part makes it impossible for me to respond intelligently. The other comment is that I am not clear as to who it is that you are writing to here, Jon or me. The post you are replying to was written by me, but the material, "when we give it willingly there is not volition", which you quote was not mine. ================================ With metta, Howard > > > Howard wrote: Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > Howard > > > > I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous > > post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise. > > > > When I said ... > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > other > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > the > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > of > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > developed the factor of effort. > > > > ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ > for > > conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for > > understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would > > need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I > > was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for > > conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes > less and less > > as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort > > described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and > > stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one > > attaining to enlightenment. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised > me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to > understand your position to be. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Coming to your post to me-- > > > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > > > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > > > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > > > that > > > > to the experience of the present moment. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But > > > what > > > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort > > > must > > > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been > > > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional > > volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate > > what I mean. > > > > Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the > > course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required? > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times > there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be > chosen > despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the > one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some > criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and > conditions > - it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily > *teeth-gritting* volition. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Surely not – yet > > > > such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees > > someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to > > appreciate that act? Surely not. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Agreed. Automatic response there. > -------------------------------------------------- > When someone asks for our assistance > > and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of > volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions. > --------------------------------------------------- > When > > dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute, > > they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise > > without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of > kusala are > > not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – > this is > > an experience common to everyone. > > > > You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in > > more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not > > necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what > > I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations > is, more > > often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with > > me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of > > wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for > > what it is). > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort > involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be > less > useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's > actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more > true the "further along" one is, I believe. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced > > effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class > > known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala > > moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’). > > > > The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) -- > > > > "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or > > recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such > > merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when > > ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or > > urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this > > sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or > > others."[ends] > > > > All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following > > prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2, > > the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker. > > > > The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the > aim is > > for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more > > developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know > > more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of > > kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie. > > without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we > don’t > > learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it > > won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior > > effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so. > > > > Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are > > accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right > effort’, then, > > as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the > > ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a > kusala > > citta of the prompted (weaker) kind. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think you make good points here, Jon. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things. > > Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier. > > > > Jon > > > > > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > > > being > > > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > > other > > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > > the > > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > > of > > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > > developed the factor of effort. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I > > > expressed > > > in a recent on-list post to Mike. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Howard: > > > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. > > > I > > > > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I as well! > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > =========================== > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > > ================================= > With metta, > Howard > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8343 From: rikpa21 Date: Sun Sep 30, 2001 11:42pm Subject: Re: Clinging (ERIK) --- Sarah wrote: > > Thanks for mentioning this, Dan, because this may not always be > > obvious to those unfamiliar with my style, or yours. There is also a > > very long tradition, at least in the Tibetan debating system, > > of "challenger" (the role I've been playing with Sarah and Dan > > recently) to shake and rattle the "witness", much like a lawyer cross- > > examination a witness on the stand. > > Now in my book, if someone is shaken or rattled, it sounds like dosa > (aversion) is pretty apparent. Right, therefore, when one notes aversion arising, one should know it for what it is and let it go. 8344 From: m. nease Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 1:48am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Sarah, Some great citations here! --- Sarah wrote: > > However, bhavanga only occurs when there are > no > > sense- or mind-door processes, as I understand it. > At > > these moments, no defilements (except subtle or > latent > > defilements?) > > Yes, there are latent defilements and all other > ‘accumulated tendencies’ with > each citta (moment of conciousness), including > bhavanga cittas (life-continuum > consciousness). Of course, as you imply, each citta, > including each bhavanga > citta is very fast and there is no continuous > ‘luminous’ or any other > existence. Understood... > > > ‘Monks, this mind is luminous (pabhassaram), but > it > > > is defiled by intrusive > > > (aagantukehi) defilements. This mind is > luminous, > > > and it is freed from > > > intrusive defilements’ (Jim’s transl.) > > As we know, mind always refers to ‘citta’ and in > this case to bhavanga cittas > the Atthasalani also refers to this quote and says; > > “Mind also is said to be ‘clear’ in the sense of > ‘exceedingly pure,’ with > reference to the subconscious life-continuum. So > the Buddha has said;- > ‘bhikkhus, the mind is luminous, but is corrupted by > adventitious corruptions.’ > Though immoral, it is called ‘clear’ because it > issues (from subconscious vital > conditions) just as a tributary of the Ganges is > like the Ganges and a > tributary of the Godhaavarii is like the > Godhaavarii” (Atth, 140, p.185 PTSed) My project for the day is to be sure to order a copy of Atthasaalinii. > >.. When defilements manifest, no bhavanga > > To be even more precise, the defilements only > manifest with the akusala cittas > during the javana process, there are the other > cittas in the processes when > there are no bhavanga cittas and yet no defilements > manifesting. If we’re > lucky, Kom or Num may add more details;-) Yes--thanks for filling in these details. > I actually think 'sub-conscious' (life continuum) > for bhavanga cittas in the > above Atth. translation is rather confusing because > it suggests bhavanga cittas > are present all the time beneath the surface which > of course is not correct. > (but then I come from a psychology background so I > may be particularly > sensitive to these connotations;-) Maybe not--I feel the same way and, as you know, find this particular point to be hugely important. > > > I obviously don't understand all of this well at > all, > > even theoretically. But it does remind me of > > something about citta in general. Don't I > remember TA > > Sujin saying once that citta (viññaana?) is pure, > like > > the purest water? If I understand this correctly, > > citta and cetasika arise together and in that > sense > > citta could be said to be pure or defiled by > virtue of > > the cetasikas arising with it--maybe. Doesn't > > 'akusala citta' just refer to citta with akusala > > cetasikas? If so, I think citta could be said to > be > > pure but 'colored(?)' by defilements, which seems > > something like 'luminous but covered by > defilements' > > maybe. I'd like to hear more about this from > those > > who know. > > I can’t pretend to understand some of these details > well myself. I haven’t > heard this theory of citta as a pure slate, > tarnished by defilements before > (except about bhavanga cittas as discussed). On the > contrary, I understand > kusala citta to be very different from akusala citta > and kusala vipaka citta to > be very different from akusala vipaka citta and so > on. To give a couple of > examples, seeing consciousness now may be kusala or > akusala vipaka citta. The > actual seeing, regardless of the feelings and other > mental factors accompanying > it, is inherently good or bad result and of a > different nature from any other > moment of seeing in kind and quality as well as > time. In the same way, a moment > of skilful thinking (kusala citta) is quite > different from a moment of > unwholesome thinking (akusala citta) because of its > inherent nature as well as > because of the ‘good’ or ‘unwholesome’ mental > factors accompanying each. > > There are many references to the variegated nature > of the mind such as these > ones in ‘The Leash’ (SN III 22.100BB translation): > > “Bhikkhus, I do not see any other order of living > beings so diversified as > those in the animal realm. Even those beings in the > animal realm have been > diversified by the mind (citta), yet the mind is > even more diverse than those > beings in the animal realm.” > > `"Bhikkhus, have you seen the picture called `Faring > On'?" > "Yes, venerable sir." > "Even that picture called `Faring On' has been > designed in its > diversity by the mind, yet the mind is even more > diverse than that picture > called `Faring On'. …" > > The following quotes from the Atthasalani (Atth > (68), p.91 ver1,2; Si,39>) also make it clear, I think, that > the mind (citta) doesn’t just > follow the mental states, but is instead the > ‘leader’: > > ‘Not merely in the explanation of the Vinaya, but > also in some other lay > discourses has he shown mind to be the principal. > Even as he said, ‘Bhikkhus, > whatever states are immoral, pertain to the immoral, > take sides with the > immoral, all are led by mind; of these states mind > arises first. > > ‘consciousness leads, rules, makes all mode of mind. > And whoso speaks or acts with evil mind, > Him evil follows as the wheel the ox. > Consciousness leads, rules, makes all modes of mind, > And whoso speaks or acts with a good mind, > Bliss like a faithful shadow follows him. > > By mind the world is led, by mind is drawn: > And all men own the sovereignty of mind,’ These are good points and great quotes. I must be mistaken in remembering citta as being essentially pure. I know that kusala and akusala cittas are the result of many conditions, but still don't understand what makes a citta kusala or akusala (in the moment) other than cetasikas, so must study some more--a lot more. Thanks again, mike 8345 From: m. nease Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 2:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Anusaya-latent tendencies-An Answer To Mike Jon, Thanks--the pali came from Ven. Buddhadatta's English - Pali Dictionary. mike --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > > So is 'latency' a characteristic shared in common > > with, e.g., paññaa (since it only understands one > > object at a time, of all the objects it could > > understand), and with anusaya? Where does it fit > into > > abhidhamma? (I found it in Pali as 'apaakatataa' > or > > 'paticchannataa', but don't think I've run across > > either of these before). > > > I suppose we could say that anything that has been > accumulated but is not > manifesting at the present moment is latent. But I > have only come across > latency in the context of the anusaya. Nina may be > able to add more on > this. > > Thanks for the Pali terms. I'm not familiar with > them, I'm afraid. Where > did you get them from? I'd be interested to know > more. > > Jon > 8346 From: Jinavamsa Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 6:02am Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 hello Claudia and the Ven. Dr. Dhammapiyo, and all, I thought it was an most unusual and inspiring idea, this proposal in the USA for a general time for sending out metta to Osama Bin Laden. That is hardly the approach that was heard after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This to me a (slight) indication of some (slight) shift in consciousness going on in the world, perhaps. In a way (a Buddhist way) of thinking about such things, the conditions here are allowing for this more careful understanding of violence to arise. What I mean is that here, unlike the situation back in December of '41, the attack was not done by the regular Armed Forces of a nation state. Had the highjackers pulled off their civilian clothing and changed into the military uniform of some recognized governmental army, I suspect the US would have declared war immediately (as it did the day after Pearl Harbor). Anyway, Dr. Dhammapiyo, thank you for pointing out that metta practice requires a certain clearing of the consciousness so to speak before it can be smooth flowing as a process. I would sense that if there is resentment or anger that arises in the process of doing a metta practice, that that would in a way replace the metta practice, or at least suspend it for a while, while the anger or pain or whatever would be investigated..... Would you be willing to give a guideline or two of what people might be alert to if they are to decide to go along with the Metta for Bin Laden suggestion? or point out the distinctions between metta and tonglen practice? (Do you think that tonglen practice would be more powerful here, for example, or more relevant?) in peace, jinavamsa ====== 8347 From: KennethOng Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 11:16am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Sorry Howard, i think it should be directed to Jon, I think I should rephrase my paragraph as I did it in the middle of the night. The mind is tired so the words become "tired" Our actions prompted or unprompted still attached to kusala and the attachment of kusala is an attachment to an extreme right view. What is umprompted, are we so sure it is also not attached to self. Our actions whether prompted or unprompted still attached to a self because our self is not let go. Hence all efforts are self attached effort be it prompted or unprompted. When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall into the two extreme? Kindest regards Kenneth Ong as long as self ego is not let > go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the > self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we > give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self > effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort > still surrounds it. Howard wrote: Hi, Kenneth - In a message dated 9/30/01 10:47:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > In my understanding, aren't whether our actions prompted or unprompted to do > kusala still mingled or attached to kusala. Isn't not attached to an right > extreme view. What do we mean by unprompted, are we so sure that it is not > attached to a subtle (or subconscious self), as long as self ego is not let > go, whether prompted or unprompted kusala, it will still stay around the > self similarly to akusala. I do not understand this statement, "when we > give it willingly there is not volition", aren't that also attach to a self > effort. To me really as long as the self is not let go, all our effort > still surrounds it. > When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not > attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall > into the two extreme? > Please forgive me for the strong wording > Kind regards. > Kenneth Ong > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Two comments, Kenneth. One is that I am having trouble understanding the content of the foregoing. I apologize that this difficulty on my part makes it impossible for me to respond intelligently. The other comment is that I am not clear as to who it is that you are writing to here, Jon or me. The post you are replying to was written by me, but the material, "when we give it willingly there is not volition", which you quote was not mine. ================================ With metta, Howard > > > Howard wrote: Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/29/01 12:04:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > Howard > > > > I am getting back right away on this, because I realise that my previous > > post may have been open to misinterpretation, for which I apologise. > > > > When I said ... > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > other > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > the > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > of > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > developed the factor of effort. > > > > ... I was referring to a perceived, rather than an actual, ‘need’ > for > > conventional effort. Sure, we *think* effort must be exerted in order for > > understanding to arise or be developed, and obviously this effort would > > need to be much greater in the beginning than at the advanced stages. I > > was trying to make the point that since, however, the perceived need for > > conventional (‘volitional’ or ‘deliberate’) effort becomes > less and less > > as understanding is developed, it does not conform to the right effort > > described in the teachings, which is something that becomes stronger and > > stronger as understanding grows, and is most highly developed in one > > attaining to enlightenment. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ahh! An important clarification, Jon. Indeed, what you wrote surprised > me, appearing, as it did, rather at variance with what I have come to > understand your position to be. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Coming to your post to me-- > > > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > > > > > My understanding of the teaching of the Buddha is that awareness and > > > > understanding are developed as a result of listening to/studying the > > > > teachings, reflecting on what has been heard/learnt and the applying > > > that > > > > to the experience of the present moment. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Yes, I realize that, though I don't share that understanding. But > > > what > > > I was getting at was whether or not you consider that volitional effort > > > must > > > be exerted to "listen to/study the teachings, reflect on what has been > > > heard/learnt and apply that to the experience of the present moment". > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > My understanding of the teachings on this point is that conventional > > volitional effort is not a required factor. I will try and illustrate > > what I mean. > > > > Let me ask you, Howard. When reflecting on the teachings during the > > course of this exchange, is deliberate effort required? > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't agree. There are choices open, and choices made. At times > there are several things that one can do at a given time - one may be > chosen > despite a strong desire for doing another, because it is believed that the > one which is adopted is the "better" or "more useful" one based on some > criteria or other. Certainly the choice is made due to causes and > conditions > - it isn't random - but volition comes into play, just not necesarily > *teeth-gritting* volition. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Surely not – yet > > > > such reflection is kusala I’m sure, at least in part. When one sees > > someone else act in an overtly wholesome way, is effort required to > > appreciate that act? Surely not. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Agreed. Automatic response there. > -------------------------------------------------- > When someone asks for our assistance > > and we give it willingly, again, no volitional effort required. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sometimes yes, sometimes no. At times a decision and the exercise of > volition come into play. At times not. Depends on the exact conditions. > --------------------------------------------------- > When > > dhamma thoughts come to mind during the day, at work or as we commute, > > they may come without deliberate effort. Any kind of kusala can arise > > without deliberate effort, and such ‘non-volitional’ moments of > kusala are > > not the exclusive province of those with highly developed kusala – > this is > > an experience common to everyone. > > > > You may then ask, but wouldn’t deliberate effort on our part result in > > more kusala than would otherwise be the case? The answer is, not > > necessarily. Speaking purely for myself, I have come to realise that what > > I may take to be kusala in those ‘self-induced effort’ situations > is, more > > often than not, not kusala at all, since it is inextricably tied up with > > me wanting to have kusala, and this means it is usually a manifestation of > > wrong view in one form or another (which can of course be recognised for > > what it is). > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I will "give" you this, Jon: When a deliberate putting forth of effort > involves a sense of "self", it is often true that one's actions will be > less > useful, less skillful, than if "self" were out of the picture, and one's > actions flowed forth automatically from a pure mind. This is all the more > true the "further along" one is, I believe. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > This is not to say that kusala absolutely cannot arise by self-induced > > effort. If it does arise, then in dhamma terms it is kusala of the class > > known as ‘prompted’ (Pali: sasankaarika-citta), as opposed to kusala > > moments that are unprompted (‘asankhaarika’). > > > > The Visuddhimagga gives the following example (at XIV, 84) -- > > > > "When a man ... on encountering an excellent gift to be given, or > > recipient, etc., ... unhesitatingly and unurged by others performs such > > merit as giving, etc., then his consciousness is ... unprompted. But when > > ... he does it hesitatingly through lack of free generosity, etc., or > > urged on by others, then his consciousness is ... prompted; for in this > > sense ‘prompting’ is a term for prior effort exerted by himself or > > others."[ends] > > > > All kusala moments are of either the prompted (i.e., arising following > > prior effort exerted by oneself or others) or unprompted kind. Of the 2, > > the unprompted is the stronger, the prompted the weaker. > > > > The aim is not to have more of the ‘prompted’ kind of kusala; the > aim is > > for more kusala moments, and for stronger and stronger (ie. more > > developed) moments of kusala. For this to happen, it is necessary to know > > more about the function and characteristics of the various kinds of > > kusala, and to recognise moments of kusala when they arise naturally (ie. > > without being prompted by self-induced effort) in our lives. If we > don’t > > learn to recognise by their characteristic the unprompted moments, it > > won’t be possible to know whether the moments that follow any ‘prior > > effort exerted by oneself’ are indeed kusala or just appear to be so. > > > > Note that both the prompted and the unprompted kinds of kusala are > > accompanied by effort/energy of the ‘right’ sort. ‘Right > effort’, then, > > as met in the suttas refers to the effort that accompanies kusala, not the > > ‘prior effort exerted by oneself’ that precedes the arising of a > kusala > > citta of the prompted (weaker) kind. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think you make good points here, Jon. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > I hope this answers more clearly your question on how I see things. > > Again, my apologies for my less-than-clear post earlier. > > > > Jon > > > > > > As to "personal" effort, is the effort that the Buddha described as > > > being > > > > so essential to the development of the path. I do not believe it is. > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > So then, does that answer the preceding question of mine? > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > Conventional effort is something that one 'needs' a lot of in the > > > > beginning but less and less of as understanding becomes more highly > > > > developed (we have discussed this aspect in an earlier message). In > > > other > > > > words, it is a factor of diminishing importance as progress is made on > > > the > > > > path. In contrast, the effort that is a path factor is something that > > > > develops along with understanding and reaches its zenith at the moment > > > of > > > > enlightenment. The higher the level of understanding, the more highly > > > > developed the factor of effort. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I completely agree with that! In fact, it was part of what I > > > expressed > > > in a recent on-list post to Mike. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just a personal perspective -- I can't speak for others. > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Howard: > > > > > I thank you for speaking very clearly and candidly. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > I appreciate your candid and clearly expressed thoughts also, Howard. > > > I > > > > am finding it a very interesting exchange. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I as well! > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > =========================== > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > > ================================= > With metta, > Howard > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8348 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 0:05pm Subject: More on the Luminosity of Mind (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard) --- Sarah wrote: > This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from > without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that come > from without.’ Hi Sarah! Thanks for your answers. I find this very interesting and I appreciate you going through these points with me. Well, here is where translation is important, because if the original really says 'this' mind, and then 'that' mind, as two different arising cittas, then it would point in the direction of saying that some cittas are defied and some undefiled, and that they arise and pass away, rather than being a continuous underlying 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed from them. However, I still have some questions: If the bhavanga cittas are luminous, and they are thus freed from defilements, why are they spoken of as being defiled? The idea that the underlying bhavanga cittas that give continuity to the flow of life are inherently luminous, but not continuous, is fine in itself, but it is the luminous mind that is said to be 'defiled by taints that come from without.' Why would the luminous mind, which you have said is 'freed from taints' because it is the result of a previous life, be spoken of as being defiled 'from without'? It seems to me that this is still different from your explanation. Please forgive me for being so blunt, but I am really interested in getting to the bottom of this. Hope you don't mind! Then the mind which is said to be 'cleansed' of taints from without, sounds like it is saying that it was previously defiled but is no longer defiled, as it has been 'cleansed', a process that takes place in time. If it was merely a momentary 'citta' rather than talking about a general structure of 'mind', how could it be defiled and then be cleansed of defilements. But it says: "that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that come from without. It is luminous, but has been cleansed of taints. Note that it doesn't say 'absent' of taints or 'doesn't have any' taints, but that it is cleansed. I don't see any way to interpret cleansed other than to say 'it was once dirty, but it has been made clean through a cleansing process'. That would have to refer to something that lasts longer than a moment, more than one citta in other words, either a structure of mind or a process of mind that continues beyond a moment or two. Putting these two statements together, it still seems more logical to me that they are referring to a process in which the process of mind which is inherently luminous takes on defilements from without, and then is cleansed by a process of purification. If I am right about this, which is highly doubtful , then my next question would be whether this interpretation can in any way reconciled with Abdhidhamma? Again, I speak as one who is only very gradually getting more familiar with this area, but I would initially and boldly say 'yes'. The reason I have some hope that this is possible is because I assume that the perceptual and thought process of a more advanced person on the path is indeed more 'pure' and freer of defilements than someone who has not had any insight into the true structure of realities. Since kusala and panna are accumulated [both?] and passed down through successive cittas, and since akusala is gradually eliminated, one could say that the path of wisdom is also a path of purifying defilements. What if Buddha is referring to this process of arisings, continuities and passing of accumulations of more pure and wise cittas as 'mind'? If this were so, the statement in the sutra would make sense as one of process, without every establishing an underlying 'mind' that is always there and stays the same. What is the 'luminosity' that might be revealed by the purification of 'defilements' from outside? As the cittas become more aware of the true nature of things, they gain more panna. So my question is: would it make sense to say that panna is luminous, in the same sense that the bhavanga cittas are said to be luminous in your explanation? If so, one can look at the luminosity of mind as the luminosity of panna. Every arising citta contains the seed of panna. It only needs to be looked at properly for vipassana and then panna to arise on any given occasion. Of course, it may not, but this potential for panna is inherent in every arising moment. I don't know if all this is going too far, from your point of view, but I think it may make more sense of the original statement in the sutra, if someone can fill in some of the holes for me. > I’d be very interested to hear if this still isn’t clear to you or you still > understand the passage in a different manner to me. The ancient commentary > notes to these suttas, referring to the bhavanga cittas, had to be approved by > the councils of arahats, so I doubt there could be any argument about their > authenticity. I also wonder if there are any other (Pali canon) Tipitaka > references which the understanding of a lasting, inherently luminous mind or > awareness is based on. I’d be interested to discuss any of these as well. > > Thanks again for raising these useful points and considering my message so > carefully. Thank you for being so patient! As you can see, I do still have a few ideas and questions that aren't quite settled yet! I would love to have a look at the commentaries on this particular passage. I am anxious to further confuse myself on this passage , which seems particularly ripe to me. I'll be very interested in what you think about this. Best Regards, Robert Ep. ============================ 8349 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 0:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I don't think I've decided anything, at least, not in the sense of being > closed to discussion on the subject. I do of course have a view, based > partly on the assumption that if a particular posture had any special > significance it would have been mentioned in the suttas, and partly on my > reading of the Satipatthana Sutta which says that awareness is to be > developed in whichever of the 4 postures one finds oneself at the time (I > think you would be familiar with the passage in question). > > I am open to discussion, however, if you would like to put anything > forward. ;-)) > > Jon Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at present, and I think you are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus posture being particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that it was prescribed for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless I'm remembering wrong [which is very possible]. I think it must be true in any case, that awareness should be developed in all of the positions one finds oneself in. This is a little different from 'meditation practice', but that doesn't assume tbat meditation is the only way to practice, either. Best Regards, Robert Ep. 8350 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 7:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) Robert Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > A few possible points for your consideration: > > If the Sutras contained all that we need to know, why the commentaries, > and why > the teachers? I hope this won't be taken the wrong way, but if Ajahn > Chah or K. > Sujin give teachings on how to work with the sutras and their > application, then we > can say that additional interpretations are actually necessary to put > the sutras > into practice. > > In other words, our understanding is not adequately fulfilled in many > cases by the > Buddha's words alone, or even by the Buddha's words and the traditional > commentaries alone. But there is a growing, living tradition of > understandings > and insights at any given time, and we avail ourselves of these rivulets > of wisdom > that come off the main stream, do we not? We have different ideas here, Rob. ;-)) I take the view that the suttas do indeed contain all that needs to be known but that, because of our ignorance (relative to those to whom the suttas were originally addressed), that information is not readily accessible to us. We have to rely on the abhidhamma, the commentaries and 'good friends' with a better understanding than our own for elucidation of the true meaning of the suttas. In terms of the dhamma, a good friend is a person who, like the commentaries, explains for us the teachings as found in the Tipitaka. A good friend does not try to supplant the teachings with his/her own views. I also beg to differ as regards your reference to a 'growing' tradition of understandings and insights. Regrettably, the store of extant knowledge about the teachings is diminishing rather than expanding (and will continue to do so until it disappears entirely -- a phenomenon anticipated by the Buddha before his death). Some commentaries go into considerable detail about the exact rate and extent of the decline of the teachings over the centuries/millennia. > Likewise, I may be more or less developed in my understanding, but I > have to > consult and develop my own sense of wisdom, as laughable as that may > start out, in > order to make the choices that I make from moment to moment. Is there > anything > inherently more desireable in considering oneself to be completely > unqualified to > discern the truth, than to promote one's own understanding through > cultivation and > referring back to it to see how it's coming along? I may have a very > different > view of things, but I don't see those on the path as being incapable of > discerning > anything apart from the sutras. I see the sutras as something to be > incorporated > and assimilated into one's own storehouse of wisdom. > > As I understand it [in the vaguest possible way] Abhidhamma teaches that > panna is > passed on and accumulated in successions of continuing moments, even > though they > arise and fall instantaneously one after the other. If one is growing > an ability > to see more and understand more of the true nature of things as one > progresses, I > would think that one's ability to discern what is true and false to > increase as > well. We will never reach spiritual maturity if we see ourselves as > nothing and > the Buddha as everything. I prefer to see us as potential Buddhas in > training. > Otherwise, by choosing a kind of passivity with respect to our own > understanding, > we may bypass many moments of panna that correspond to a kind of > interest or > investigation or creative moment that would otherwise be put forth. > > So while we may defer to the teachings themselves, I think we should > engage with > them actively and milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves, > rather > than take them as already whole and complete. To me, a sutra is a > living document > and also a blueprint, not fully actualized until it is ingested by a > human being > and turned into their way of seeing and understanding. > > I think it is equally dangerous as ignoring the sutras to assume we know > what they > mean by adopting the meanings that occur to us simply by reading [and > even > re-reading and re-reading] without challenging our view of that meaning > over time > and going through our own process of discovery. Again, differences between us. ;-)), ;-)). As I see it, the wisdom we are seeking to develop is the wisdom that was discovered by the Buddha and contained in the suttas which have come down to us today. It is not some wisdom that is innately 'ours' and that simply needs the right conditions to blossom. (What is innately 'ours', if you like, is the vast quantity of defilements accumulated over the aeons and the relatively meagre amount of wisdom similarly accumulated.) The only true source and guide we have for the accumulation of further wisdom is the suttas, as amplified by the abhidhamma and the commentaries. Once the Tipitaka and commentaries are gone, so will be all the knowledge they 'contain' (again, this was explained by the Buddha before his death). So if at any time we become aware of instances in which our 'sense of wisdom' is at odds with what is explained in the Tipitaka and commentaries, this should give us cause to consider very carefully whether our 'understanding' is indeed that and not our old friend wrong view. I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest (if I read you correctly) that the teachings are other than 'whole and complete', and so needing us to 'milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves'. I would be interested to hear examples of any areas where you see this as applying. > Anyway, I may prove to be off base, but that is the way it appears to > me. > Hope I'm not coming on too strong, considering I may not know what I'm > talking > about. Not at all, Rob (and anyway, who would I be to complain about someone coming on too strong?!). Members are welcome to float their views here (without fear of being jumped on, I hope); but they should be prepared to be asked to back up any assertion made! Jon 8351 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 8:27pm Subject: [Fwd: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis] 8352 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 8:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Thanks, Sukin, for coming in here. Since you invite comments from anybody, I would like to see if some of our (recently) more silent members would like to join this thread. Let's hear it, Kom, Num, Betty, Tadao, Alex ... or anyone else, of course. ;-)) --- Sukinderpal Narula wrote: > Dear Jon, > I was just thinking about your letter to Howard, the one addressing the > 'right effort' issue, and was seriously considering sending you a post > expressing my appreciation. > I do not know if I have anything useful to say, even if I did, someone > or > the other always expresses what I have in mind much better than I can. > But since you asked me to contribute, and since I have come to > appreciate > your own contributions more and more, I will say something. > My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises > only > when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience. > When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from > fear of repercussions to cold indifference. > And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it > to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are > dealing > purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the > conceptual > level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop > until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that > everytime > there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for example, > knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements, > and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be > patient > towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can > arise. > Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the other > paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for patience > to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the > development of > wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not > the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'. > A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with regard > to development of wisdom. > I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments from > anybody. > > Metta, > Sukin. > > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Mike > > > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > > > > > In the Treatise on the Paramis from the Cariyapitaka > > > > Atthakatha (published > > > > as part of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the > > > > Brahmajala Sutta) it is > > > > explained that wisdom is "the chief cause for the > > > > practice of the other > > > > paramis" and "the cause for the purification of all > > > > the paramis". It is > > > > also described as being to the other paramis as life > > > > is to the bodily > > > > organism. I think that gives it a certain > > > > pre-eminence. > > > > > > Definitely (and thanks for correcting my > > > 'pre-immminence'). > > > > Hadn't noticed it, to be honest! > > > > > > Another passage from the same section is of > > > > relevance to one of the other > > > > current threads on our list. In dealing with the > > > > role of wisdom in the > > > > perfection of energy parami, it says: > > > > > > > > "Energy devoid of wisdom does not accomplish the > > > > purpose desired, since it > > > > is wrongly aroused, and it is better not to arouse > > > > energy at all than to > > > > arouse it in the wrong way." > > > > > > > > Note that energy is better not aroused at all than > > > > wrongly aroused. > > > > Strong words indeed. > > > > > > Yes, of this I have no doubt. This seems to me to be > > > true of the other paramis, too. Without > > > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. can > > > be dangerous I think. > > > > Although not for true actual patience and friendliness, but for their > near > > enemies, perhaps you mean? Energy is in a slightly different > category, I > > think, since it accompanies every akusala citta and performs its > function > > in an akusala manner just as it accompanies every kusala citta and > > performs its function in a kusala manner. > > > > > > Yet another interesting aspect of wisdom, not one > > > > that we probably > > > > associate with wisdom, is this: > > > > > > > > "Only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the > > > > wrongs of others, not > > > > the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the > > > > wrongs of others only > > > > provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his > > > > patience into play > > > > and make it grow even stronger." > > > > > > > > It might be interesting to consider the connection > > > > being made here. > > > > > > Yes, it is--specifically wisdom strengthening > > > patience. > > > > Of course, this passage -- about only the wise being able to tolerate > the > > wrongs of others -- was not apropos anything you had said, Mike. I > just > > happened to come across it when answering your post. I am wondering > if > > any of our long-time lurking members would like to make a reappearance > on > > this point. Alex, Sukin? Any others? > > > > Jon > > > > > 8353 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 8:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Kenneth Hi! First, a belated welcome to the group from me, and my thanks for your many recent posts --- KennethOng wrote: > > Sorry Howard, i think it should be directed to Jon, > I think I should rephrase my paragraph as I did it in the middle of the > night. The mind is tired so the words become "tired" > Our actions prompted or unprompted still attached to kusala and the > attachment of kusala is an attachment to an extreme right view. What is > umprompted, are we so sure it is also not attached to self. Our actions > whether prompted or unprompted still attached to a self because our self > is not let go. Hence all efforts are self attached effort be it prompted > or unprompted. > > When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it > not attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we > fall into the two extreme? Let me see if I have understood. You are suggesting, I think, that developing kusala does not necessarily help to reduce our attachment to an idea of a self. Have I got it right? I think this is a very perceptive comment, and one I would entirely agree with. Would you like to say more about how the idea of self can be overcome (or, as you put it, 'let go of')? By the way, I think the distinction between prompted an unprompted kusala cittas is still a useful one. It helps us to understand the conditioned nature of these moments, and also the value of useful reminders given by ourselves or others. I would be interested to know whether this distinction is meaningful to you, the way it is described in the Visuddhimagga (in my earlier post). By that I mean, are you able to relate it to your own experience? Jon 8354 From: Howard Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 6:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Thanks, Kenneth. With metta, Howard In a message dated 9/30/01 11:17:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > > Sorry Howard, i think it should be directed to Jon, > I think I should rephrase my paragraph as I did it in the middle of the > night. The mind is tired so the words become "tired" > Our actions prompted or unprompted still attached to kusala and the > attachment of kusala is an attachment to an extreme right view. What is > umprompted, are we so sure it is also not attached to self. Our actions > whether prompted or unprompted still attached to a self because our self is > not let go. Hence all efforts are self attached effort be it prompted or > unprompted. > > When we let go of a self, the pure mind is there? Are we so sure, is it not > attached to a non-self as self is condition by non-self. Are not we fall > into the two extreme? > > Kindest regards > > Kenneth Ong > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8355 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 11:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Robert Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > > A few possible points for your consideration: > > > > If the Sutras contained all that we need to know, why the commentaries, > > and why > > the teachers? I hope this won't be taken the wrong way, but if Ajahn > > Chah or K. > > Sujin give teachings on how to work with the sutras and their > > application, then we > > can say that additional interpretations are actually necessary to put > > the sutras > > into practice. > > > > In other words, our understanding is not adequately fulfilled in many > > cases by the > > Buddha's words alone, or even by the Buddha's words and the traditional > > commentaries alone. But there is a growing, living tradition of > > understandings > > and insights at any given time, and we avail ourselves of these rivulets > > of wisdom > > that come off the main stream, do we not? > > We have different ideas here, Rob. ;-)) I take the view that the suttas > do indeed contain all that needs to be known but that, because of our > ignorance (relative to those to whom the suttas were originally > addressed), that information is not readily accessible to us. We have to > rely on the abhidhamma, the commentaries and 'good friends' with a better > understanding than our own for elucidation of the true meaning of the > suttas. In terms of the dhamma, a good friend is a person who, like the > commentaries, explains for us the teachings as found in the Tipitaka. A > good friend does not try to supplant the teachings with his/her own views. Hi Jon! My point is that if the Suttas are not readily accessible to us because of ignorance, then any 'good friend' who interprets the true meaning for us is giving us their interpretation. How do we know it is not 'their view' and is the original view of the Sutta? We have to trust our 'good friend' to have access to the original view, since we can't verify it ourselves. That's fine, as long as you feel that you can know with some certainty that the interpreters you are relying upon understand the original meaning. It is not, however, the same thing, as hearing the words of the Buddha directly. It is an explanation or interpretation that you are relying upon, one way or the other. This is only to say that if I rely on the wisdom of a Zen Master who also seeks to relay the true meaning of the Buddha's words to me, I don't believe that is very different from what you are relying on in the commentaries, or via the teachers who explain the Suttas. Or is it? > I also beg to differ as regards your reference to a 'growing' tradition of > understandings and insights. Regrettably, the store of extant knowledge > about the teachings is diminishing rather than expanding (and will > continue to do so until it disappears entirely -- a phenomenon anticipated > by the Buddha before his death). Some commentaries go into considerable > detail about the exact rate and extent of the decline of the teachings > over the centuries/millennia. If people are still using the Buddha's teachings to move towards enlightenment and if some are realizing Nibbana and carrying on the teachings, I don't understand how they can continue to devolve. Why would this be? Isn't the eventual destination that the Buddha laid out more and more people reaching Nibbana? Or is restricted to a very few in your understanding? > > Likewise, I may be more or less developed in my understanding, but I > > have to > > consult and develop my own sense of wisdom, as laughable as that may > > start out, in > > order to make the choices that I make from moment to moment. Is there > > anything > > inherently more desireable in considering oneself to be completely > > unqualified to > > discern the truth, than to promote one's own understanding through > > cultivation and > > referring back to it to see how it's coming along? I may have a very > > different > > view of things, but I don't see those on the path as being incapable of > > discerning > > anything apart from the sutras. I see the sutras as something to be > > incorporated > > and assimilated into one's own storehouse of wisdom. > > > > As I understand it [in the vaguest possible way] Abhidhamma teaches that > > panna is > > passed on and accumulated in successions of continuing moments, even > > though they > > arise and fall instantaneously one after the other. If one is growing > > an ability > > to see more and understand more of the true nature of things as one > > progresses, I > > would think that one's ability to discern what is true and false to > > increase as > > well. We will never reach spiritual maturity if we see ourselves as > > nothing and > > the Buddha as everything. I prefer to see us as potential Buddhas in > > training. > > Otherwise, by choosing a kind of passivity with respect to our own > > understanding, > > we may bypass many moments of panna that correspond to a kind of > > interest or > > investigation or creative moment that would otherwise be put forth. > > > > So while we may defer to the teachings themselves, I think we should > > engage with > > them actively and milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves, > > rather > > than take them as already whole and complete. To me, a sutra is a > > living document > > and also a blueprint, not fully actualized until it is ingested by a > > human being > > and turned into their way of seeing and understanding. > > > > I think it is equally dangerous as ignoring the sutras to assume we know > > what they > > mean by adopting the meanings that occur to us simply by reading [and > > even > > re-reading and re-reading] without challenging our view of that meaning > > over time > > and going through our own process of discovery. > > Again, differences between us. ;-)), ;-)). As I see it, the wisdom we > are seeking to develop is the wisdom that was discovered by the Buddha and > contained in the suttas which have come down to us today. It is not some > wisdom that is innately 'ours' and that simply needs the right conditions > to blossom. (What is innately 'ours', if you like, is the vast quantity > of defilements accumulated over the aeons and the relatively meagre amount > of wisdom similarly accumulated.) We still have to develop the wisdom ourselves, do we not? We can't take a photocopy of the Buddha's wisdom and make it our own. Even if there is no 'self', we still have to have generated the cittas that will carry panna [if I'm using these ideas correctly...]...? > The only true source and guide we have for the accumulation of further > wisdom is the suttas, as amplified by the abhidhamma and the commentaries. > Once the Tipitaka and commentaries are gone, so will be all the knowledge > they 'contain' (again, this was explained by the Buddha before his death). I still don't understand how the Tipitaka will disappear. It seems to be available quite freely. Have parts already been lost? How would this occur? I don't mean to be dense, but it seems a lot of people have copies..... Or do you mean it in another way, that our understanding will diminish, even though the texts will continue to be there....? > So if at any time we become aware of instances in which our 'sense of > wisdom' is at odds with what is explained in the Tipitaka and > commentaries, this should give us cause to consider very carefully whether > our 'understanding' is indeed that and not our old friend wrong view. I only question whether our reading of the Tipitaka is correct. If we compare our view to a wrong view of the Suttas, which are not always easy to understand, then we will have a wrong view to compare our view to. We have to have panna to understand the Suttas and we have to have the Suttas to develop panna, this is a vicious cycle. Which is why I think that the direct seeing into realities, which all must practice in any case, must be a basis for reading the Suttas as well. The Suttas, read from the point of view of Ignorance, can be misleading, may they not? So we must have some independent insight through our own process of mindfulness and understanding, no? > I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest (if I read you correctly) that > the teachings are other than 'whole and complete', and so needing us to > 'milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves'. I would be > interested to hear examples of any areas where you see this as applying. My understanding, perhaps from the studies of philosophy I have done in the past, is that we never read anything directly. Our understanding of what we read is colored by our presuppositions and understandings that we bring to it. I see understanding Suttas as a process rather than a given. We may look back at a Sutta ten years from now, with more panna, and say 'Oh my God, I didn't understand this at all, it really meant *this*.' Without insight, reading in itself has no certainty. It is part of a process of growth in understanding in knowledge, which is the case in studying anything, not just the Suttas. We are human beings, and our pre-existing kandhas shape the impressions we get of everything. So the Suttas come in not seen directly, but distorted by defilements as well. So one has to come to wisdom in regard to the suttas just as much as regards any dharma. In my view, anyway. > > Anyway, I may prove to be off base, but that is the way it appears to > > me. > > Hope I'm not coming on too strong, considering I may not know what I'm > > talking > > about. > > Not at all, Rob (and anyway, who would I be to complain about someone > coming on too strong?!). Members are welcome to float their views here > (without fear of being jumped on, I hope); but they should be prepared to > be asked to back up any assertion made! Oh well, if I weren't challenged in turn, it wouldn't be any fun, would it? I hope my answers above at least clarify my view a bit more. I'll be happy to hear your response. Shall I brace myself?? :] Regards, Robert Ep. 8356 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 1:27am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis op 30-09-2001 09:16 schreef Sukinderpal Narula op : > My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises only > when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience. > When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from > fear of repercussions to cold indifference. > And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it > to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are dealing > purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the conceptual > level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop > until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that everytime > there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for example, > knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements, > and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be patient > towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can arise. > Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the other > paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for patience > to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the development of > wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not > the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'. > A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with regard > to development of wisdom. > I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments from > anybody. > Dear Sukin, I appreciate your post on patience being conditioned and non-self, very much. We are inclined to think, I should be patient, and this is often not successful. I especially like your reminder that A. sujin encourages patience, bravery and cheerfulness, when developing satipatthana. Yes, I have often heard this from her (athaan rarung) and it is good to be reminded again. When people do not see any result in being aware of seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and all objects appearing through the six doors they become disheartened, they give up. But as I learnt from a text of the Mahaniddesa given by Jim about jhaayati, reflection, we have to examine realities closely, often, frequently, in various ways, continuously. Pa~n~naa has to go on discriminating nama and rupa, not once or twice. We also read in the teachings, that the Buddha inspired the monks, encouraged them, delighted them with Dhamma talk. I like the good cheer element, because if there is discouragement it shows our clinging to result. Why don't we live from moment to moment and forget about result, such as attaining vipassana ~n~nas. There is enough to be done right now, but it is not a self who develops. Sukin, if you and Amara can sometimes give us reminders you heard at the Foundation sessions, many people will be very grateful. Thank you again, Nina. 8357 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 7:40am Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Hi there, While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in the newspaper, radio and tv. And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is really quite absurd. With metta Herman --- claudia harris wrote: > North America's response to terrorism-- > metta for Bin Laden > Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > How big is your heart? > > Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut > down in pain or fear or anger? > > Will you be a vehicle for peace? > > > > We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A > moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of > peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for > just one moment the cycle > > of violence? Because in that one moment of peace, > > something may shift in the human experience. And > > the > > world can be a safer place for all of us. > > Please help to spread the word about > metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2, > 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > Blessings, > Claudia > > "The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate; > hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield > is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want > peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all > do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to > deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and > disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das > 8358 From: Jinavamsa Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 8:46am Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 hello Herman and all, yes, may all living beings in all worlds be happy, healthy, secure, and at peace. all. indeed. I have been thinking about some of the issues you raise in your suggestion about metta practice of US Gov't Foreign Policy (there is one?). Please give me one example of a country which does not see itself in the right in its thinking. I think that would be terrific to have to get us all clearer about what the alternative could be for governments. And may that example be an inspiration to all gov't types, so to speak. Still, to continue, I am not sure that this sort of issue is going to be solved on a nationalistic level of process/ consciousness. just a hunch. what do you think? in peace, jinavamsa ============= --- Herman wrote: > Hi there, > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > really quite absurd. > > With metta > > Herman > > --- claudia harris > wrote: > > North America's response to terrorism-- > > metta for Bin Laden > > Tuesday, October 2, 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > > > How big is your heart? > > > > Will you choose an open hearted response and not shut > > down in pain or fear or anger? > > > > Will you be a vehicle for peace? > > > > > > We're asking only for a few minutes of your time. A > > moment to breathe. A moment to plant some seeds of > > peace. Will you help to slow or maybe even stop for > > just one moment the cycle > > > of violence? Because in that one moment of peace, > > > something may shift in the human experience. And > > > the > > > world can be a safer place for all of us. > > > > Please help to spread the word about > > metta for Bin Laden, Tuesday, Oct 2, > > 9pm eastern, 8pm central, > > 7pm mountain, 6pm pacific > > > > > Blessings, > > Claudia > > > > "The Buddha said that hate is never overcome by hate; > > hatred is only overcome by love. The true battlefield > > is the heart of man, as Dostoevsky says. If we want > > peace in the world -- and I firmly believe that we all > > do -- we need to face this fact. We must learn how to > > deal with anger and hatred, and to soften up and > > disarm our own hearts." --Surya Das > > > > > > > > 8359 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 8:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 --- Herman wrote: > Hi there, > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in > the newspaper, radio and tv. Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who were killed in one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts and wants to destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has stated his objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, which of course, has some horrible aspects to it. 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land to have U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow the Palestinians to claim Palestine as their own. He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of terrorism and intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and withdraw from the peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. foreign policy by killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, but that doesn't mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing suffering to countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. policies? Please answer. > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > really quite absurd. > > With metta > > Herman Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as anyone. Robert 8360 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:22am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Hi, Rob - In a message dated 10/1/01 12:10:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at present, and I > think you > are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus posture being > particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that it was > prescribed > for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless I'm > remembering > wrong [which is very possible]. > ======================== I don't think it was I who said it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8361 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 9:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Rob - > > In a message dated 10/1/01 12:10:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at present, and I > > think you > > are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus posture being > > particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that it was > > prescribed > > for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless I'm > > remembering > > wrong [which is very possible]. > > > ======================== > I don't think it was I who said it. No, now that I think of it, I think it was Robert. Robert Ep. 8362 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 10:10am Subject: Re: Jhanas Are Within Our Reach Dear Rob Ep., Yep, it was me who said that anapanasati requires special conditions including posture . This is indicated in the suttas and commentaries. robert k.--- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Rob - > > > > In a message dated 10/1/01 12:10:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > <> writes: > > > > > > > Very kind of you, Jon. I don't have anything to quote at present, and I > > > think you > > > are probably right that there was nothing said about the lotus posture being > > > particularly expedient, although I think Howard mentioned that it was > > > prescribed > > > for meditating on the breath in the Anapanasati Sutra, unless I'm > > > remembering > > > wrong [which is very possible]. > > > > > ======================== > > I don't think it was I who said it. > > No, now that I think of it, I think it was Robert. > > Robert Ep. > 8363 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 6:11am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Geez, Robert! are we *ever* going to disagree on *anything*?!! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/1/01 9:00:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > > --- Herman wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in > > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who were > killed in > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. > > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts and wants > to > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has stated his > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, which of > course, > has some horrible aspects to it. > > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land to have > U.S. > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. > > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow the > Palestinians > to claim Palestine as their own. > > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of terrorism and > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and withdraw from > the > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. foreign > policy by > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, but that > doesn't > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing suffering to > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. policies? > Please answer. > > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > > really quite absurd. > > > > With metta > > > > Herman > > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as anyone. > > Robert > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8364 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 10:26am Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Robert, So Mr bin Laden is guilty then? I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US media does, obviously. I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your sweeping statements, Robert. The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It is built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US as well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the dominant world power by being very nice to everybody. Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not go without consequences. Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of 7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am not selective about where I see these things happening. While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on these systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed as tacit approval? All the best Herman --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Herman wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in > > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who were killed in > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. > > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts and wants to > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has stated his > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, which of course, > has some horrible aspects to it. > > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land to have U.S. > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. > > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow the Palestinians > to claim Palestine as their own. > > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of terrorism and > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and withdraw from the > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. foreign policy by > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, but that doesn't > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing suffering to > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. policies? > Please answer. > > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > > really quite absurd. > > > > With metta > > > > Herman > > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as anyone. > > Robert > 8365 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 10:38am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 --- Howard wrote: > Geez, Robert! are we *ever* going to disagree on *anything*?!! ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard I doubt it! We're obviously in touch with the truth!!! :] Robert Ep. ==================== > In a message dated 10/1/01 9:00:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > > > --- Herman wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should perhaps > > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty for > > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said so in > > > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > > > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! > > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who were > > killed in > > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. > > > > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts and wants > > to > > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has stated his > > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, which of > > course, > > has some horrible aspects to it. > > > > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land to have > > U.S. > > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. > > > > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow the > > Palestinians > > to claim Palestine as their own. > > > > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of terrorism and > > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and withdraw from > > the > > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. foreign > > policy by > > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, but that > > doesn't > > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing suffering to > > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. policies? > > Please answer. > > > > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters of > > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus evil, > > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > > > > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > > > really quite absurd. > > > > > > With metta > > > > > > Herman > > > > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as anyone. > > > > Robert > > > > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) > 8366 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 11:03am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 --- Herman wrote: > Robert, > > So Mr bin Laden is guilty then? > > I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US media > does, obviously. > > I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your sweeping > statements, Robert. > > The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It is > built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US as > well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the dominant > world power by being very nice to everybody. > > Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not go > without consequences. > > Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of > 7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am not > selective about where I see these things happening. > > While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are > murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on these > systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed as > tacit approval? > > All the best > > > Herman Dear Herman, I am one of the people who care about people all around the world. I care about the teenagers forced into prostitution in Southeast Asia, Latin America and all around the world, the ten year olds working in shoe factories in Guatemala, and I care about the women who are beaten and killed and raped by their husbands legally under the Taliban, a Taliban that does not allow medical treatment for women, or a widow to work to get food for her children, a Taliban that can beat or kill someone if the 'police' suspect that they have trimmed their beard. I also care at this particular moment about something that happened just the other day: 7,000 people were killed in a holocaust, a single horrible act that left 7,000 families from 80 countries around the world in a sudden state of horrific grief. I don't just care about the Americans that were in that building, I care about all of them. I also care about the 300 some-odd firefighters and policemen who willingly ran into that building to save people and lost their own lives. Do I care about the people who were killed in that blaze, the hundreds who jumped out of 100 story windows to their death to avoid being burned up in superheated airplane fuel more than I care about the insanely fanatical hijackers who slit passengers throats and then propelled them to a fiery death? Yes, in fact I do care more about those victims. Does that make me less evolved on the path? If so, I don't mind waiting a bit to evolve further. When I turn into a mechanical path-dweller who can only wax philosophically about how all things are the same and that they are all empty, I will know I have gone down the wrong path and gone too far. There is a dual nature to human beings, they are inherently empty and fleeting beings, yet there is also suffering, happiness and beauty in our lives. There is also the arising of compassion. I think that it is appropriate when something horrifying is done to innocent people, without speculating on their karmic deserts, to say first how sad and mortified we are that this horror has taken place. Then you can go into your lecture about all the reasons why the U.S. is wrong and bad and evil. Why don't you save it for after you express your compassion for those burned and smashed and killed and turned into a mass of body parts mixed with steel and blood? To me, that would be a moment of real compassion, not a political statement, but a moment of being human, which is allowable and also necessary. As I have said one time before, if you do not mention how you feel about all the people who were killed, but just go straight into a political speech, I have no way of knowing that you care about these people. You actually need to say it, and express some feeling for them. They weren't 'Americans', they didn't represent a poitical structure or a country. They were people who suffered horribly and left behind more people who are suffering miserably. So give metta to them first. Let them have a bit of metta please, before you lecture their recently-departed kandhas. Yes, as I said, I know bin Laden is guilty because he has admitted it. There is also strong evidence from other sources in both the original World Trade Center bombing and the two U.S. embassies in Africa that were bombed. But that is besides the point. There is no doubt that there are terrorist camps in Afganistan, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq. There is no doubt that the Taliban has committed thousands upon thousands of crimes against humanity against its own people. There is no doubt that the Taliban's single greatest supporter is bin Laden, who personally gave them three million to jump start them at their inception, and has supported them ever since as they support him. There is no doubt that Sudan and Pakistan has also formerly supported the Taliban. They have both now severed ties in the wake of this tragedy. To compare the current tragedy and the horrors of the Taliban to U.S. auto accidents seems very strange to me. The 'American way of Life' is represented by automobiles, which are the killers you want to attack? Personally I would rather die in an auto accident, than be beaten to death or have my throat cut in the public square, as happens in Afganistan every day. Now that I have said all that, let me say two things to give you an idea of how I feel about people. I am not a nationalist. I just think that Americans have a right to be considered people as much as anyone else. I have been writing to all my email groups and friends where anti-Arab sentiments are expressed, saying that anyone who harms an Islamic-American, as has happened several times, because of their beliefs or appearance, are as bad as the terrorists, and I mean that. I have nothing but respect for Muslims, and most Muslims are peace-loving people. I also wish I lived in a world where we cared as much about the million Rwandans killed in their holocaust as we do about those killed in Western countries, and I have said that as well. I do care about all people equally. But I will shed my tears for the victims first, and then the killers second. Robert Ep. =============================== > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- Herman wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should > perhaps > > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty > for > > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said > so in > > > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > > > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! > > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who > were killed in > > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. > > > > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts > and wants to > > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has > stated his > > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, > which of course, > > has some horrible aspects to it. > > > > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land > to have U.S. > > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. > > > > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow > the Palestinians > > to claim Palestine as their own. > > > > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of > terrorism and > > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and > withdraw from the > > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. > foreign policy by > > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, > but that doesn't > > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing > suffering to > > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. > policies? > > Please answer. > > > > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters > of > > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus > evil, > > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > > > > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > > > really quite absurd. > > > > > > With metta > > > > > > Herman > > > > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as > anyone. > > > > Robert > > > 8367 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 8:25am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/1/01 10:29:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Herman writes: > The laws of karma apply to the US as > ========================= It's my understanding that kamma is an individual matter, as are the fruits of kamma. If people acted in similar volitional manners, then they may have similar kammic fruit. But nations having kamma is not a Buddhist notion to the best of my knowledge. 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) 8368 From: Moderators Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 1:17pm Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Dear All, May we ask everyone to keep comments on dsg to strictly dhamma ones rather than political ones. If you find it difficult to discuss this topic without getting political, may we suggest you continue the discussion off-list. Jon & Sarah --- Herman wrote: > Robert, > > So Mr bin Laden is guilty then? > > I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US media > does, obviously. 8371 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 7:29am Subject: Samma-sambuddha Hi all, In any explanation of what a samma-sambuddha is, I have only ever seen it stated that such a person is self-realised, or that they become so by their own efforts. And you know what, like most other things, I have no idea what that means :-) How do self-realisation and annatta co-exist? All the best Herman 8372 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 3:46pm Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Howard, There being no self , what does kamma apply to? Namas and rupas, and so do the fruits. Volition applies to cittas only, as far as I know. Happy to be corrected, of course :-) All the best Herman --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 10/1/01 10:29:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Herman writes: > > > > The laws of karma apply to the US as > > > ========================= > It's my understanding that kamma is an individual matter, as are the > fruits of kamma. If people acted in similar volitional manners, then they may > have similar kammic fruit. But nations having kamma is not a Buddhist notion > to the best of my knowledge. > > 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) > > > > > 8373 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 3:55pm Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Robert, I will never make the diplomatic corps, I know, but you have written some things to a monster. And that monster is not me, but a projection of yours. So once you become aware of the high horse you are riding, and it looks as though you are responding to things I am actually writing, then we can perhaps keep communicating. All the best Herman --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Herman wrote: > > Robert, > > > > So Mr bin Laden is guilty then? > > > > I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US media > > does, obviously. > > > > I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your sweeping > > statements, Robert. > > > > The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It is > > built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US as > > well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the dominant > > world power by being very nice to everybody. > > > > Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not go > > without consequences. > > > > Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of > > 7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am not > > selective about where I see these things happening. > > > > While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are > > murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on these > > systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed as > > tacit approval? > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman > > Dear Herman, > I am one of the people who care about people all around the world. I care about > the teenagers forced into prostitution in Southeast Asia, Latin America and all > around the world, the ten year olds working in shoe factories in Guatemala, and I > care about the women who are beaten and killed and raped by their husbands legally > under the Taliban, a Taliban that does not allow medical treatment for women, or a > widow to work to get food for her children, a Taliban that can beat or kill > someone if the 'police' suspect that they have trimmed their beard. I also care > at this particular moment about something that happened just the other day: 7,000 > people were killed in a holocaust, a single horrible act that left 7,000 families > from 80 countries around the world in a sudden state of horrific grief. I don't > just care about the Americans that were in that building, I care about all of > them. I also care about the 300 some-odd firefighters and policemen who willingly > ran into that building to save people and lost their own lives. > > Do I care about the people who were killed in that blaze, the hundreds who jumped > out of 100 story windows to their death to avoid being burned up in superheated > airplane fuel more than I care about the insanely fanatical hijackers who slit > passengers throats and then propelled them to a fiery death? Yes, in fact I do > care more about those victims. Does that make me less evolved on the path? If > so, I don't mind waiting a bit to evolve further. When I turn into a mechanical > path-dweller who can only wax philosophically about how all things are the same > and that they are all empty, I will know I have gone down the wrong path and gone > too far. There is a dual nature to human beings, they are inherently empty and > fleeting beings, yet there is also suffering, happiness and beauty in our lives. > > There is also the arising of compassion. I think that it is appropriate when > something horrifying is done to innocent people, without speculating on their > karmic deserts, to say first how sad and mortified we are that this horror has > taken place. Then you can go into your lecture about all the reasons why the U.S. > is wrong and bad and evil. Why don't you save it for after you express your > compassion for those burned and smashed and killed and turned into a mass of body > parts mixed with steel and blood? To me, that would be a moment of real > compassion, not a political statement, but a moment of being human, which is > allowable and also necessary. > > As I have said one time before, if you do not mention how you feel about all the > people who were killed, but just go straight into a political speech, I have no > way of knowing that you care about these people. You actually need to say it, and > express some feeling for them. They weren't 'Americans', they didn't represent a > poitical structure or a country. They were people who suffered horribly and left > behind more people who are suffering miserably. So give metta to them first. Let > them have a bit of metta please, before you lecture their recently- departed > kandhas. > > Yes, as I said, I know bin Laden is guilty because he has admitted it. There is > also strong evidence from other sources in both the original World Trade Center > bombing and the two U.S. embassies in Africa that were bombed. But that is > besides the point. There is no doubt that there are terrorist camps in > Afganistan, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq. There is no doubt that the Taliban has committed > thousands upon thousands of crimes against humanity against its own people. There > is no doubt that the Taliban's single greatest supporter is bin Laden, who > personally gave them three million to jump start them at their inception, and has > supported them ever since as they support him. There is no doubt that Sudan and > Pakistan has also formerly supported the Taliban. They have both now severed ties > in the wake of this tragedy. > > To compare the current tragedy and the horrors of the Taliban to U.S. auto > accidents seems very strange to me. The 'American way of Life' is represented by > automobiles, which are the killers you want to attack? Personally I would rather > die in an auto accident, than be beaten to death or have my throat cut in the > public square, as happens in Afganistan every day. > > Now that I have said all that, let me say two things to give you an idea of how I > feel about people. I am not a nationalist. I just think that Americans have a > right to be considered people as much as anyone else. I have been writing to all > my email groups and friends where anti-Arab sentiments are expressed, saying that > anyone who harms an Islamic-American, as has happened several times, because of > their beliefs or appearance, are as bad as the terrorists, and I mean that. I > have nothing but respect for Muslims, and most Muslims are peace- loving people. > > I also wish I lived in a world where we cared as much about the million Rwandans > killed in their holocaust as we do about those killed in Western countries, and I > have said that as well. I do care about all people equally. But I will shed my > tears for the victims first, and then the killers second. > > Robert Ep. > > =============================== > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > > --- Herman wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > > > > > > > While we are distributing metta to Mr bin Laden, we should > > perhaps > > > > also send some to all those who already have branded him guilty > > for > > > > whatever they believe him to be guilty of, just because it said > > so in > > > > the newspaper, radio and tv. > > > > > > Nothing personal, herman, but give me a break! > > > Giving metta is one thing, being casual about the 7,000 people who > > were killed in > > > one stroke, is another. Nothing compassionate about that. > > > > > > bin Laden has made it plain that he is involved in terrorist acts > > and wants to > > > destroy the U.S. You don't need to go to court for that. He has > > stated his > > > objections too, and they are not about overall foreign policy, > > which of course, > > > has some horrible aspects to it. > > > > > > 1/ He believes it is an unholy desecration of the Muslim holy land > > to have U.S. > > > troops in Saudi Arabia, which contains the holy city of Mecca. > > > > > > 2/ He believes the U.S. should stop supporting Israel, and allow > > the Palestinians > > > to claim Palestine as their own. > > > > > > He issued a statement saying that if the U.S. wanted 'acts of > > terrorism and > > > intimidation' to stop, the U.S. should leave Saudi Arabia and > > withdraw from the > > > peace negotiations. In other words, he is going to dictate U.S. > > foreign policy by > > > killing large numbers of civilians. He can use plenty of metta, > > but that doesn't > > > mean what he does is okay in any way, shape or form, causing > > suffering to > > > countless thousands. Does that matter, or only the evils of U.S. > > policies? > > > Please answer. > > > > > > > And then some metta to the designers, executioners and supporters > > of > > > > US foreign policy which is always dualistic, always good versus > > evil, > > > > with US always the goodie, and therefore always quite illusory. > > > > > > > > And then some metta to the rest of us, because selective metta is > > > > really quite absurd. > > > > > > > > With metta > > > > > > > > Herman > > > > > > Yes, and metta to you too, Herman. You deserve it as much as > > anyone. > > > > > > Robert > > > > > 8374 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 4:16pm Subject: Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep Dear Rob Ep, Thank you for all your excellent comments and questions. I’m also finding it interesting and helpful to consider these lines in depth. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from > > without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that > come > > from without.’ > > Well, here is where translation is important, because if the original really > says > 'this' mind, and then 'that' mind, as two different arising cittas, then it > would > point in the direction of saying that some cittas are defied and some > undefiled, > and that they arise and pass away, rather than being a continuous underlying > 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed from them. > > However, I still have some questions: > > If the bhavanga cittas are luminous, and they are thus freed from > defilements, why > are they spoken of as being defiled? -------------------- Good question. I understand the stanza to mean that the bhavanga cittas are luminous in the sense of undefiled and the following cittas (as soon as there are experiences through the sense doors and mind door) to be defiled, i.e. akusala cittas, accompanied by akusala mental factors during the javana process. (Of course even when the bhavanga cittas are considered luminous or pure, it doesn’t mean there are not the latent tendencies or anusayas which lie dormant with each citta). This interpretation is not only supported by the abhidhamma, but also by this extract from the Commentary to the Sutta: -------------------- 'dampi nirupakkilesataaya parisuddhanti pabhassara.m. ta~nca khoti ta.m bhava"ngacitta.m. Jim: "It is also pure because it is unsoiled (by defilements); thus 'luminous'." Nirupakkilesataa is lit. 'a state of without defilement(s)'. ' 'aagantukehiiti asahajaatehi pacchaa javanakkha.ne uppajjanakehi. Jim: 'by the oncoming ': by the non-conascent, by the arising at the moment of impulsion (javana) afterwards.' 'upakkilesehiiti raagaadiihi upakkili.t.thattaa upakkili.t.tha.m naamaati vuccati. Nina: by defilements. By being soiled by desire etc. it is indeed called defiled.' --------------------- Rob, I don’t have a full translation of the commentary and sub-comentary and don’t believe there is a published one in English. Nina and Jim have been working on it out of personal interest and I hope they will kindly post a copy here when they have finished all or part. In the extract I’ve quoted , please note the ‘non-conascent’, i.e.the defilements are not arising at the same time as the luminous cittas, but during the javana process afterwards during the sense door or mind door ‘activity’. -------------------- > > The idea that the underlying bhavanga cittas that give continuity to the flow > of > life are inherently luminous, but not continuous, is fine in itself, but it > is the > luminous mind that is said to be 'defiled by taints that come from without.' > Why > would the luminous mind, which you have said is 'freed from taints' because > it is > the result of a previous life, be spoken of as being defiled 'from without'? -------------------- This is the same question. Let me put it this way from an abhidhamma perspective: The bhavanga cittas are vipaka cittas (result of kamma). In a sesnse-door process, they are followed by 1) sense-door adverting consciousness 2) sense-consciousness, e.g seeing or hearing 3) receiving-cnsciousness 4) investigating consciousness 5) determining consciousness 6) 7 javana cittas which in the case of the non-arahat are kusala or akusala cittas; 7) 2 registering consciousness When it mentions ‘defiled from without’, it is referring, as indicated in the Com notes to the javana cittas. -------------------- > > It seems to me that this is still different from your explanation. Please > forgive > me for being so blunt, but I am really interested in getting to the bottom of > this. Hope you don't mind! -------------------- If it still seems different, please be even blunter;-)) I’m equally interested in trying to clarify (and learn). -------------------- >.....It is luminous, but has been cleansed of taints. Note that it doesn't say > 'absent' of taints or 'doesn't have any' taints, but that it is cleansed. I > don't > see any way to interpret cleansed other than to say 'it was once dirty, but > it has > been made clean through a cleansing process'. That would have to refer to > something that lasts longer than a moment, more than one citta in other > words, > either a structure of mind or a process of mind that continues beyond a > moment or > two. -------------------- Again, by ‘cleansed’ it is referring to the kusala cittas and cetasikas which arise in the javana process following the bhavanga cittas. As discussed, I believe the sutta is referring to the importance of understanding the nature of unwholsesome states and of skilful states: ‘The learned noble disciple (ariyasaavakassa) understands it (citta) as it really is (yathaabhuutam). Therefore I say that the learned, noble disciple has developed the mind (cittabhaavanaa atthiiti vadaamiiti).’ The stress in this sutta is on the fact that the noble disciple has to know cittas as they are, both wholesome and unwholesome cittas. Isn’t it true that as soon objects are experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense and mind, that attachment and aversion, impatience, jealousy and all the other defilements arise? When we are asleep (without dreaming) where are the stories about terrorists, New York and all the other concepts we find so important? We can see that most of the time we live in a world of concepts and there is very little understanding of the realities appearing through the senses and mind. -------------------- > > Putting these two statements together, it still seems more logical to me that > they > are referring to a process in which the process of mind which is inherently > luminous takes on defilements from without, and then is cleansed by a process > of > purification. > If I am right about this, which is highly doubtful , then my next question > would be whether this interpretation can in any way reconciled with > Abdhidhamma? > Again, I speak as one who is only very gradually getting more familiar with > this > area, but I would initially and boldly say 'yes'. > > The reason I have some hope that this is possible is because I assume that > the > perceptual and thought process of a more advanced person on the path is > indeed > more 'pure' and freer of defilements than someone who has not had any insight > into > the true structure of realities. Since kusala and panna are accumulated > [both?] > and passed down through successive cittas, and since akusala is gradually > eliminated, one could say that the path of wisdom is also a path of purifying > defilements. ------------------- I think I’ve answered the first part. Certainly it’s true that the more pa~n~na is developed and accumulated, the more ‘pure’ and freer of defilements the cittas will be. I also agree with your last statement about the gradual elimination of defilements. It is not so much that these are purified as that there are fewer and fewer conditions for them to arise during those javana processes. Remember each citta falls away completely. An unwholesome citta can never be purified and vice versa. However wholesome cittas can arise in a process following unwholesome cittas. Indeed it is only pa~n~na that can see the realities as they are (yathaabhuuta) and only the development of this panna that can lead to enlightenment. -------------------- > > What if Buddha is referring to this process of arisings, continuities and > passing > of accumulations of more pure and wise cittas as 'mind'? If this were so, > the > statement in the sutra would make sense as one of process, without every > establishing an underlying 'mind' that is always there and stays the same. > What > is the 'luminosity' that might be revealed by the purification of > 'defilements' > from outside? > > As the cittas become more aware of the true nature of things, they gain more > panna. So my question is: would it make sense to say that panna is > luminous, in > the same sense that the bhavanga cittas are said to be luminous in your > explanation? -------------------- It is true that similar words are sometimes used to describe panna.(I’m not sure if ‘pabhassaramidam-luminous’ is itself ever used, though) I do remember panna being described as ‘illuminating’ like a light in darkness and in the Atthasalani it says ‘there is no illumination equal to the illumination of understanding’ and so on. Jim or Nina may give more detail on the different pali words, but I’ll try not to further sidetrack now. The reasons why I’m pretty sure the sutta is referring to bhavanga cittas and not panna when it mentions ‘luminous’ are: 1) the Ang nik com unequivocally states this and who am I to argue with the ancient com of the arahats (as I understand)? 2) the Atthasalani supports the com in this. 3) The explanation as I’ve discussed in detail is fully supported by the Abhidhamma 4) the theory of an inherent panna arising to be revealed with the removal of defilements is not supported anywhere in the (Pali canon) Tipitaka as far as I’m aware. I’ll glad look at any other references to this. The common state is rather one of ignorance. Even when there are no defilements, there are not necessarily moments of panna at all. At moments of seeing and hearing , for example, there can never be panna. Unless panna is being developed, there may be moments of wholesomeness such as when we give or are friendly to others, but not necessarily at all with panna. -------------------- I think this is a very interesting discussion and I’ll look forward to hearing back from you too. I know many others share your interpretations and will be following with keen attention. Jim or Nina (who have studied these passages in far more detail than I have) may also add any other helpful notes. Sarah 8375 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 4:57pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Volition and Self [To Jon] Howard Many thanks for this interesting overview of our discussions to date on this very important aspect of the teachings. I appreciate your sincere and constructive comments. At last I know where I stand on the subject! (And I am relieved to know you think, as I do, that we are not at opposite extremes.) Your post is in the queue for a reply, and hope to get back to you a bit later with a proper response. Jon --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > With regard to volition/intention, I think there is a range of > view in > which we both occupy middle positions, with you slightly towards what I > think > of as the "left" extreme and with me slightly towards the "right" > extreme, > with both extremes constituting forms of wrong view. > It seems to me that volition/intention is a phenomenon which, > when > wrongly understood, is a factor in the formation of the view of 'person' > or > 'self'. In fact, intention is a completely impersonal phenomenon arising > > automatically when the conditions for it to do so are in place. But when > that > intention or volition is seen, even subliminally, as personal, as the > intervention of an alleged "self" in the causal flow, ignorance is > active and > growing. This is one extreme. It is the extreme I need to guard against. > > As I see it, the other extreme, the "left-hand" error, is to see > intention, at least at a subliminal level of awareness, as almost > illusory, > as being a superfluous step in the chain of causality, so that it > appears > that there is no effective volition at all, with everything that occurs > being > either random, in one form of the error, or as fated, in another, but, > in > either case, leading to a kind of hopelessness, a sense of *total* lack > of > control, a kind of nihilistic despair. I think that you may need to > guard > against movement towards that extreme, though, of course, you are far, > far > away from it. If anything, I see you as quite possibly being closer to > the > "truthful center" than I. I talk only about tendencies here, tendencies > to be > closely watched. > > 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) > > > 8376 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:36pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Mike (and Howard) (This is a re-post of a message I sent before but which has not shown up on the list. Apologies if it results in any duplication.) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon and Howard, > > This pinpoints a question I've had in a vague sort of > way for some time: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: Howard > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by > > the intention to have > > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, > > effort, kusala citta chain. > > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally > > conceived of, but the > > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions > > for things. So while > > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of > > kusala, in the sense > > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala > > moment, it is not > > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala > > moment. > > If I understand you correctly, Jon, you're saying that > right effort is a co-arising factor but not a > precursor or prerequiste of satipathaana, which > concurs with my understanding. Yes, that is my reading of the texts. > What about intention (cetanaa)? I know it isn't a > path-factor, but a universal cetasika arising with > every citta, with the function of 'willing' only in > kusala and akusala moments. We all know > (theoretically, though I constantly forget) that it's > impersonal, but is kusala cetanaa a precursor of a > moment of right effort, as well as a present factor? > > I'm inclined to think not, that a moment of right > effort will occur when the conditions for it are > present regardless of the cetanaa preceding it (for > example a moment of akusala followed by a moment of > understanding of the previous moment--here no kusala > cetanaa preceding, at least not immediately). This is how I would understand it, too. I'm sure we can all bring to mind from our own experience instances when kusala has arisen spontaneously and without any 'intention' on our part, or when kusala and akusala moments have arisen intermingled (eg. 'mixed' feelings of wanting to help/hesitating to do so, gladness for another's success/envy at that person) > If so, > then kusala intention-kusala effort-kusala vitakka(?) > might arise sequentially, but without each being > dependent on the previous. The intention -> effort -> kusala citta sequence that I gave in an earlier post was meant to be a summary, in conventional terms, of one particular view of the 'practice' of the teachings. It is said that if the mind-state is, for example, akusala then by means of deliberate intention and effort the mind-state can become kusala. It seems to me that, in terms of moments of consciousness, any such intention and effort are simply aspects of thinking of one kind or other and likely, by our nature, to be motivated by a subtle desire for more kusala. Certainly they could not themselves necessarily be kusala moments, since that would mean that kusala was simply a matter of being 'willed' up. Nor does the context suggest that they are particularly likely to be kusala (as has been noted before, sincerity of intentions does not a kusala citta make). When we read in the suttas about the Buddha urging his listeners to exert effort, he must be taken as referring to moments of kusala citta -- it would make a mockery of the teachings to read these passages as otherwise. As we have seen, however, intention/effort to arouse kusala is not itself necessarily kusala and, I would suggest (but speaking here purely from my own experience), is unlikely to be so in practice. That's why I have been at some pains lately to stress the difference between the two. > Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think > of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and > subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there > a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'? You have raised another aspect of this approach to the 'practice' that could be discussed further. The moments of thinking that direct the mind to observe, note, let go, return to the chosen object etc are, in terms of individual mind-moments, by no means single moments or anything like it but in fact substantial periods of thinking. I'm sure the idea that realities should be let go of is intended to be a reminder that any kind of clinging or grasping is akusala. This of course is true but, to my understanding, the idea that such reminders will make any real difference in this respect is misconceived. > Thanks in advance, > > mike And thanks to you, Mike, for bringing these points up. Jon PS I notice on reading through this post that I have been quite direct (perhaps even more so than usual!), so I suppose I should expect some pretty direct responses from others ….. 8377 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Howard --- Howard wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > > I'd like to add just a couple points to my post copied below. One > > thing is that the Buddha taught anapanasati as a method of implementing > satipatthana (please see the Anapanasati Sutta). The breath is the > "anchor" > there. The other point is with regard to intentional effort during > meditation. When sitting for meditation on the breath, why is it that it > is > the *breath* that one is attending to rather than, for example, sounds? > The > answer is that one intentionally directs attention to the breath. If one > did > not, then, most likely, one would not be attending to it. I'd like to suggest a somewhat different perspective on suttas that deal with mindfulness of breathing. Breath is an aspect of our body. As with everything else about the body it is, in the ultimate analysis, an assemblage of different rupas. For this reason breathing is given in the Body section of the Satipatthana Sutta as one of the possible objects of attention. Whenever there is a moment of awareness of a rupa that we take for breath, this is a moment of awareness of breathing (anapanasati -- satipatthana with breath as object). So anapanasati is, I would say, an *aspect of* satipatthana, rather than being a *method of implementing* satipatthana. Breath can also be an object of samatha bhavana (samatha is the development of tranquillity by suppression of akusala). Somewhat confusingly, such development is also called anapanasati. Now at the advanced levels of samatha bhavana, a single object (in this case, the breath) becomes the object of citta for an extended period. This is not, however, a particular feature of satipatthana. The context of a sutta has of course a considerable bearing on it's true meaning. If the audience of a particular sutta is a group of monks all of whom have attained high levels of samatha with breath as object, then there would be no particular significance for us in the fact that the Buddha chose to talk about breath in particular as an object of satipatthana. Jon 8378 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 6:24pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Dear Nina, I am so happy that you appreciated my post, eventhough( was kindly reminded by Mike in a private letter), I misquoted Jonothan in 'patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the other paramis"' when it should have been 'wisdom' and not 'patience'. Regarding reminders from A. Sujin, I am one of those persons who never take notes and have a rather bad memory too. But in the future I will remember you and I hope this will condition more attentiveness and memory would function better. Personally I too have come to see the value of reminders more and more, infact I think being reminded of the teachings is key to patipatti. Than Acharn has a way of reminding us, I guess that is because she really *knows* what she is talking about, the rest of us are only talking *about* things. This is not to undervalue what I read here and your books, everyday I look forward to opening my mailbox and I read the mails as if it was 'tonic'. I think I am gaining much from having you all as my kalyanamitr and I hope things remain this way till the day my vipaka for this lifetime runs out. Metta, Sukin. > Dear Sukin, I appreciate your post on patience being conditioned and > non-self, very much. We are inclined to think, I should be patient, and this > is often not successful. I especially like your reminder that A. sujin > encourages patience, bravery and cheerfulness, when developing satipatthana. > Yes, I have often heard this from her (athaan rarung) and it is good to be > reminded again. When people do not see any result in being aware of seeing, > visible object, hearing, sound and all objects appearing through the six > doors they become disheartened, they give up. But as I learnt from a text of > the Mahaniddesa given by Jim about jhaayati, reflection, we have to examine > realities closely, often, frequently, in various ways, continuously. > Pa~n~naa has to go on discriminating nama and rupa, not once or twice. We > also read in the teachings, that the Buddha inspired the monks, encouraged > them, delighted them with Dhamma talk. I like the good cheer element, > because if there is discouragement it shows our clinging to result. Why > don't we live from moment to moment and forget about result, such as > attaining vipassana ~n~nas. There is enough to be done right now, but it is > not a self who develops. > Sukin, if you and Amara can sometimes give us reminders you heard at the > Foundation sessions, many people will be very grateful. Thank you again, > Nina. > > > 8379 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 7:22pm Subject: Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2/Herman Hi Herman, You may be interested in reading the article that this excerpt is from: http://www.buddhistnews.tv/ "If I were given the opportunity to be face to face with Osama bin Laden, the first thing I would do is listen. I would try to understand why he had acted in that cruel way. I would try to understand all of the suffering that had led him to violence. It might not be easy to listen in that way, so I would have to remain calm and lucid. I would need several friends with me, who are strong in the practice of deep listening, listening without reacting, without judging and blaming. In this way, an atmosphere of support would be created for this person and those connected so that they could share completely, trust that they are really being heard." -- Thich Nhat Hahn metta, May all be safe and protected, May all be healthy and strong, May all be happy of heart and mind, May all live with ease and wellbeing. Christine 8380 From: KennethOng Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 9:11pm Subject: Vipassanã Hi all, As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am not sure about vipassana meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with me on this please? Please also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like to learn more abt it. I like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and where did Buddha say about this and to who did he say this. Many thanks and kind regards Kenneth Ong 8381 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samma-sambuddha Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/2/01 2:31:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Herman writes: > Hi all, > > In any explanation of what a samma-sambuddha is, I have only ever > seen it stated that such a person is self-realised, or that they > become so by their own efforts. > > And you know what, like most other things, I have no idea what that > means :-) > > How do self-realisation and annatta co-exist? > > All the best > > > Herman > ============================ Here's my understanding on this. A person becomes fully enlightened at a time at which the Dhamma is unknown. Moreover, over countless aeons that person has mastered the perfections and myriads of skillful means so that he (or she - I won't debate that point) is in a position to reintroduce the Dhamma to the world as its perfect teacher. Such a person has become a Buddha. Now, I understand a Buddha to be "self-enlightened" only in the sense that the Dhamma was unknown in his/her lifetime prior to his enlightenment. However, this does not imply that a Buddha did not learn Dhamma in a previous life. In fact, it is said that the Buddha of the current dispensation *had* learned the Dhamma in a previous life, and, thus, his "self-enlightenment" is a fact only in a limited sense. Now, all the foregoing discussion involves conventional notions. As far as the relation between self-realization and anatta, there really is none. The notions of 'self-realization' and 'anatta' are conventional and ultimate notions, respectively. Being self-realized is a conventional notion. It is a mere manner of speaking. No one can enlighten another. This is true. It is *conventionally* true. The reality is that there *is* no "one" to become enlightened and no "one" to be a giver of enlightenment. The statement "No one can enlighten another.", in its conventional meaning, when properly understood, is merely a fa'con de parler, which calls for "unpacking" and explanation. It is metaphorical. If taken *literally*, which would be the incorrect way of understanding it, the statement would be false. That is, from the perspective of ultimate truth (paramattha sacca), it is a falsity in that there is no self at all. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8382 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 5:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/2/01 3:47:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Herman writes: > Howard, > > There being no self , what does kamma apply to? Namas and rupas, and > so do the fruits. Volition applies to cittas only, as far as I know. > > Happy to be corrected, of course :-) > > All the best > > Herman > ============================= It seems you have answered your own question. Intention is a mental concomitant arising along with cittas, and kammic fruit is passed along. No real person involved at all, just a conditioned flow of discernment. 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) 8383 From: KennethOng Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 9:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Hi Jon "Let me see if I have understood. You are suggesting, I think, that developing kusala does not necessarily help to reduce our attachment to an idea of a self. Have I got it right?" (In my personal experience we should be more aware of kusala because they make us feel good abt it and this is also attachment. Good attachments are harder to notice than aversive ones) "Would you like to say more about how the idea of self can be overcome (or, as you put it, 'let go of')?" (let go could be equated to the opposite of attachment (to be detach). All dharmas are of the same essence and without difference. It is only our self view that thinks that all they are different. In Mahayana philisophy, there is nothing to destroy or created because if there is a creation, there will be a destruction as they are condition by each other. Since we cannot destroy anything, we could only let go. Similarly self cannot be eliminated, it can only be let go. In the Thervada tradition, when Buddha talk about the five aggregates and the mindfulness method, he was teaching us to be detach to a self or let go of our view of a self. That is why the last few remarks are "there is a body", "there is a feeling".... Personally, this method has assisted me to be more detach, less attached to a self. ) "By the way, I think the distinction between prompted an unprompted kusala cittas is still a useful one. It helps us to understand the conditioned nature of these moments, and also the value of useful reminders given by ourselves or others. I would be interested to know whether this distinction is meaningful to you, the way it is described in the Visuddhimagga (in my earlier post). By that I mean, are you able to relate it to your own experience?" (The distinction between prompted and unprompted kusala is not the significance, it is the origination of such prompting action (or intentions) is the impt factor. It is definitely good to have such a difference and I personally think that unprompted kusala is better than prompted. Why? Because unprompted means that we have the habit inbuilt in us of doing kusala. It has become a "natural" process. There is no need to prompt. Kusala definitely needs prompted because only through continuous prompting, it will slowly becomes more and more unprompted) Jon With kind regards Kenneth Ong 8384 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 1:59am Subject: sanna and accumulations Dear Mike, last week I took up Ven. Nyanaponika's Abhdiamma Studies and read about sa~n~na. I thought of you and meant to write to you but I am so busy finishing a wrok load before India. You are always interested in sa~n~naa, I quote now. Ven. Nyanaponika explains about sa~n~naa , that it makes marks in order to remember and recognizes. I quote: End quote. A great deal more is explained, but I leave it at that. This is theory, pariyatti, it is important that there also be understanding of the level of patipatti, practice, namely, satipatthana. Then the understanding will be so much clearer. We, and while writing I also have to remind myself, should consider and investigate sa~n~naa now. It is translated by perception or remembrance, but the word we use does not matter, we should not cling to words and terms. We should know the reality. When we close our eyes and then open them, we see, and immediately sa~n~naa performs its function, we recognize colours, shape and form. We hear, and recognize. We listen to Bach¹s music and remember that this is Bach, not Beethoven. But, this is important, we have to realize that it is not self who recognizes. Not a self recognizes Bach, only a kind of naama. Understanding of the level of patipatti can very gradually develop so that we do not get stuck at the level of theory. While typing letters, we remember immediately the different letters and words, and the way of forming sentences, drawing conclusions. Sa~n~naa, not me or you. When taking a step, left or right, going somewhere, not self, sa~n~naa remembers. We should not try to make it into an object of awareness, but understanding more does help. You are also interested in accumulations. We can use it in a very wide sense, then we do not only think of the seven anusayas, latent tendencies that are akusala. Also good inclinations are accumulated in each citta, and actually all your experiences, but not all is remembered. It is not so that accumulations pass on by way of anusaya, they pass on because each citta conditions the next one by way of contiguity-condition, anantara paccaya. I was also surprised when I heard about the endless amount of accumulations in one citta, also from past lives. A.Sujin said, it is citta, mentality, it is not like a room that is limited in what it can contain. Now here also, if we get stuck in theory it is not so helpful. We should consider our own life. We all have accumulated lobha, but why is there lobha for this particular object, like Bach¹s music? Experiences of the past that have been accumulated. Sa~n~naa plays its part, but it is not only sa~n~naa, it is more complex than that. But it is best to understand our life right now. In Amara¹s post on the foundation session, we read about the bhikkhu who was not successful with the foulness meditation subject. The Buddha gave him a golden lotus, and then he attained jhana and enlightenment. He had been a goldsmith in a past life. Thus we see how experiences of particular objects are all accumulated from citta to citta, from the past to the present life. You will become a monk, that is also conditioned by past accumulations, it is not a self. Tadao mentioned that it is a very lonely life, and that is what I noticed from Alan Driver when he was a bhikkhu. it was most difficult for him to find the right temple with pure Vinaya and satipatthana, because these two should not be separated. Lonely life? But when there are only nama and rupa we are alone with nama and rupa, no people around. Only when a monk has becaome a sotapanna he will never leave the order anymore. That is because of satipatthana which has been developed and become firmly established, so that enlightenment could be attained. Finally, all my good wishes to you for your new life as a bhikkhu, and I wish that you will be near good friends in the Dhamma. Anumodana to you, and also anumodana to Sukin who sponsors you, he is so kind. Best wishes, Nina. 8385 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 7:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Mike (and Howard) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon and Howard, > > This pinpoints a question I've had in a vague sort of > way for some time: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > When it comes down to it, effort can only be > 'right' if the citta is > > > kusala -- it cannot be right simply because we are > > consciously > > 'letting go > > > of' the akusala. > > > > Howard: > > > Well, I would suppose that intention looms > > > large in this regard. > > > > I think you are saying that effort is preceded by > > the intention to have > > effort, so that there is a sort of intention, > > effort, kusala citta chain. > > I appreciate that this is how it is conventionally > > conceived of, but the > > Buddha pointed out the real causes and conditions > > for things. So while > > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of > > kusala, in the sense > > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala > > moment, it is not > > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala > > moment. > > If I understand you correctly, Jon, you're saying that > right effort is a co-arising factor but not a > precursor or prerequiste of satipathaana, which > concurs with my understanding. Yes, that is my reading of the texts. > What about intention (cetanaa)? I know it isn't a > path-factor, but a universal cetasika arising with > every citta, with the function of 'willing' only in > kusala and akusala moments. We all know > (theoretically, though I constantly forget) that it's > impersonal, but is kusala cetanaa a precursor of a > moment of right effort, as well as a present factor? > > I'm inclined to think not, that a moment of right > effort will occur when the conditions for it are > present regardless of the cetanaa preceding it (for > example a moment of akusala followed by a moment of > understanding of the previous moment--here no kusala > cetanaa preceding, at least not immediately). This is how I would understand it, too. I'm sure we can all bring to mind from our own experience instances when kusala has arisen spontaneously and without any 'intention' on our part, or when kusala and akusala moments have arisen intermingled (eg. 'mixed' feelings of wanting to help/wondering if we should, gladness for another's success/envy at that person) > If so, > then kusala intention-kusala effort-kusala vitakka(?) > might arise sequentially, but without each being > dependent on the previous. The intention -> effort -> kusala citta sequence that I gave in an earlier post was meant as a summary, in conventional terms, of one particular view of the 'practice' of the teachings. It is said that if, for example, the mind-state is akusala then by means of deliberate intention and effort the mind-state can become kusala. In terms of moments of consciousness, it seems to me that any such moments of intention and effort are simply aspects of thinking of some kind or other and likely, by our nature, to be motivated by a subtle desire for more kusala. They certainly are not necessarily kusala moments since, as has been noted before, sincerity of intentions does not a kusala citta make. When we read in the suttas about the Buddha urging his listeners to exert effort, he must be taken as referring to moments of kusala citta -- it would make a mockery of the teachings to read these passages as otherwise. As we have seen, however, intention/effort to arouse kusala is not itself necessarily kusala and, I would suggest (but speaking here purely from my own experience), is unlikely to be so in practice. So the 'effort' to be exerted which the Buddha refers to is the effort (ie. energy mental factor -- viriya) that arises with kusala citta. > Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think > of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and > subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there > a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'? You have raised another aspect of this approach to the 'practice' that could be discussed further. The moments of thinking that direct the mind to observe, note, let go, return to the chosen object etc are, in terms of individual mind-moments, by no means single moments or anything like it but in fact substantial periods of thinking. I'm sure the idea that realities should be let go of is intended to be a reminder that any kind of clinging or grasping is akusala. This of course is true. To my understanding, however, the idea that such reminders will make any real difference in this respect is misconceived. > Thanks in advance, > > mike And thanks to you, Mike, for bringing these points up. Jon PS I notice on reading through this post that I have been quite direct (perhaps even more so than usual!), so I suppose I should expect some pretty direct responses from others ….. 8386 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:42am Subject: bhavangacitta Dear Sarah and Robert Ep, I am translating the commentary about the bhavangacitta with Jim, but I shall send part now, because the rest has not been corrected. 49. navame pabhassaranti pa.n.dara.m parisuddha.m. cittanti bhava"ngacitta.m. ki.m pana cittassa va.n.no naama atthiiti? natthi. N: As to the ninth (?),² luminous². Luminous is clear, pure. citta is the life-continuum. But how does there exist indeed a colour of citta? No, it does not. niilaadiina~nhi a~n~natarava.n.na.m vaa hotu ava.n.na.m vaa ya.mki~nci parisuddhataaya ``pabhassara''nti vuccati. N: For anything which may be a certain colour, beginning with blue, or without colour, is called luminous because of its purity. idampi nirupakkilesataaya parisuddhanti pabhassara.m. ta~nca khoti ta.m bhava"ngacitta.m. N: It is also pure, because it is unsoiled (by defilements); thus luminous. That indeed, meaning, that life-continuum. aagantukehiiti asahajaatehi pacchaa javanakkha.ne uppajjanakehi. N: ³ by oncoming ³(defilements). by those that are not conascent with it, but arise later at the moment of impulsion (javana). upakkilesehiiti raagaadiihi upakkili.t.thattaa upakkili.t.tha.m naamaati vuccati. N: ³by defilements². By being soiled by desire etc. it is indeed called defiled. katha.m? yathaa hi siilavantaa aacaarasampannaa maataapitaro vaa aacariyupajjhaayaa vaa dussiilaana.m duraacaaraana.m avattasampannaana.m puttaana~nceva antevaasikasaddhivihaarikaana~nca vasena ``attano putte vaa antevaasikasaddhivihaarike vaa na tajjenti na sikkhaapenti na ovadanti naanusaasantii''ti ava.n.na.m akitti.m labhanti, eva.msampadamida.m veditabba.m. N: How is that so? For, as parents, teachers or preceptors, of good conduct, possessed of good behaviour, because of the children, pupils or co-residents of bad conduct, misbehhaved, disobedient, receive dispraise or disapproval thus, ³ they neither instill awe to, nor discipline, admonish or exhort their own children, their pupils, their co-residents², evenso should this (bhavangacitta) having a similar consequence be understood. aacaarasampannaa maataapitaro viya ca aacariyupajjhaayaa viya ca bhava"ngacitta.m da.t.thabba.m, N: Just as parents, teachers, preceptors, who are of good conduct, evenso the life-continuum should be seen, puttaadiina.m vasena tesa.m akittilaabho viya javanakkha.ne rajjanadussanamuyhanasabhaavaana.m lobhasahagataadiina.m cittaana.m vasena uppannehi aagantukehi upakkilesehi pakatiparisuddhampi bhava"ngacitta.m upakkili.t.tha.m naama hotiiti. N: Just as the acquirement of a bad name for them, through the children etc., evenso, because of the cittas that are of a nature of being passionate, hateful, or deluded, accompanied by desire and so on, arising at the moments of impulsion, evenso is also the life-continuum, that is by nature pure, indeed soiled, by the oncoming defilements that have arisen. ***** 50. dasamepi bhava"ngacittameva citta.m. N: With reference to the tenth, consciousness is also the life-continuum. vippamuttanti javanakkha.ne arajjamaana.m adussamaana.m amuyhamaana.m tihetuka~naa.nasampayuttaadikusalavasena uppajjamaana.m aagantukehi upakkilesehi vippamutta.m naama hoti. N: ³Freed²: because of wholesomeness arising at the time of impulsion, without being passionate, hateful or deluded, and because consciousness is accompanied by three wholesome roots, accompanied by wisdom, and thus it is indeed freed of the arising of oncoming defilements. idhaapi yathaa siilavantaana.m aacaarasampannaana.m puttaadiina.m vasena maataadayo ``sobhanaa eteyeva attano puttakaadayo sikkhaapenti ovadanti anusaasantii''ti va.n.nakittilaabhino honti, eva.m javanakkha.ne uppannakusalacittavasena ida.m bhava"ngacitta.m aagantukehi upakkilesehi vippamuttanti vuccatiiti. N: Here also, just as parents etc., with virtuous conduct, possessed with good behaviour, because of their children, etc. , acquire praise and approval, thus, ² they train, encourage, admonish their own children that these things are indeed wholesome ³, evenso because of the arising of wholesome consciousness at the time of impulsion, that life-continuum is said to be freed of oncoming defilements. ******* The last two par. are not yet corrected by Jim. Nina. 8387 From: Num Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 1:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sanna and accumulations Dear Nina, Mike and everyone, First of all let me express my appreciation and anumodhana with Mike for entering Bhikkhu life. > You are also interested in accumulations. We can use it in a very wide > sense, then we do not only think of the seven anusayas, latent tendencies > that are akusala. Also good inclinations are accumulated in each citta, and > actually all your experiences, but not all is remembered. It is not so that > accumulations pass on by way of anusaya, they pass on because each citta > conditions the next one by way of contiguity-condition, anantara paccaya. I > was also surprised when I heard about the endless amount of accumulations in > one citta, also from past lives. A.Sujin said, it is citta, mentality, it is > not like a room that is limited in what it can contain. Now here also, if we > get stuck in theory it is not so helpful. We should consider our own life. > We all have accumulated lobha, but why is there lobha for this particular > object, like Bach¹s music? Experiences of the past that have been > accumulated. Sa~n~naa plays its part, but it is not only sa~n~naa, it is > more complex than that. But it is best to understand our life right now. In > Amara¹s post on the foundation session, we read about the bhikkhu who was > not successful with the foulness meditation subject. The Buddha gave him a > golden lotus, and then he attained jhana and enlightenment. He had been a > goldsmith in a past life. Thus we see how experiences of particular objects > are all accumulated from citta to citta, from the past to the present life. > You will become a monk, that is also conditioned by past accumulations, it > is not a self. Tadao mentioned that it is a very lonely life, and that is > what I noticed from Alan Driver when he was a bhikkhu. it was most difficult > for him to find the right temple with pure Vinaya and satipatthana, because > these two should not be separated. Lonely life? But when there are only nama > and rupa we are alone with nama and rupa, no people around. Only when a monk > has becaome a sotapanna he will never leave the order anymore. That is > because of satipatthana which has been developed and become firmly > established, so that enlightenment could be attained. Finally, all my good > wishes to you for your new life as a bhikkhu, and I wish that you will be > near good friends in the Dhamma. Anumodana to you, and also anumodana to > Sukin who sponsors you, he is so kind. Best wishes, Nina. > Nina, let me ask you about Pakatupanissaya paccaya a little bit. I have been very busy lately. I listen to A.Santi CD. Couple things I would like to clarify. If you can give some comments, I would be greatly appreciate. 1st. He mentioned about paccaya for seeing: 1.cakkhupasada, 2.ruparammana, 3. light and 4.dvaravajjana-citta. He said that light is a pakatupanissaya paccaya for cakkhu-vinnanna to being able to see rupa. 2nd. Someone asked him about how alcohol affects the mind and behavior as well some people need to be on psychotropic medication for treatment of psychiatric disorder otherwise they cannot acting or thinking right. He also said that both are pakatupanissaya paccaya. We can do reckless and stupid things under influence of alcohol. He also mentioned that if someone drinks and then drives or rides a motorcycle, that will facilitate vipakka paccaya, interesting. As in your post, accumulation both good and bad, depends on multiple paccaya e.g. sanna cetasika, anantara, asevana, pakatupanissaya, adhipati, kamma, arammana paccaya..... and a whole lot more paccaya directly and indirectly. Hope you and everyone on India trip have a good time and great opportunity to study and discuss Dhamma. Bon voyager, Num 8388 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Tue Oct 2, 2001 11:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã Vipasana is found in the Mahayana tradition as well. As a word it sounds the same in Skt. as well as Pali. Vipasana requires Samatha, too, i.e., "insight" requires that we master "concentration". Check these out: http://www.flamingjewel.org/teachings/shine-lathong.html http://www.people.virginia.edu/~am2zb/tibet/programa/intro/intro_vip.htm http://www.rinpoche.com/tapes.htm http://www.tibethouse.org/programs/meditation.html http://www.philashambhala.org/public_html/initialmed.shtml Good luck! With Metta, Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo ----- Original Message ----- From: "KennethOng" Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:11 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã > > Hi all, > As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am not sure about vipassana meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with me on this please? Please also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like to learn more abt it. I like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and where did Buddha say about this and to who did he say this. > Many thanks and kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > > 8389 From: m. nease Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 6:04am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sanna and accumulations Dear Nina, Thanks for taking the time out of your busy preparations for this really useful response. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Mike, last week I took up Ven. Nyanaponika's > Abhdiamma Studies and read > about sa~n~na. I thought of you and meant to write > to you but I am so busy > finishing a wrok load before India. You are always > interested in sa~n~naa, I > quote now. > > Ven. Nyanaponika explains about sa~n~naa , that it > makes marks in order to > remember and recognizes. I quote: > > is that some features of > the object (sometimes only a single striking one) > are selected. The mental > note made of that perception is closely associated > with those selected > features, that is, we attach, as it were, a tag to > the object, or make a > mark on it as woodcutters do on trees. So far, every > perception is ³a making > of marks² (nimitta-kara.na). I had read about sa~n~naa 'marking' before, and had sort of written it off as a synonym of 'remarking' (in its transitive sense, 'to take notice of : OBSERVE'. This was because I couldn't think what sa~n~naa could be 'marking' in the sense of 'tagging'--obviously I was wrong. > In order to understand > how ³remembering² or > ³recognizing², too, is implied in every act of > perception we should mention > that according to the deeply penetrative analysis of > the Abhidhamma the > apparently simple act, for example, of seeing a > rose, is in reality a very > complex process composed of different phases, each > consisting of numerous > smaller combinations of conscious processes > (citta-viithi) which again are > made up of several single moments of consciousness > (citta-kkha.na) following > each other in a definite sequence of diverse > functions. Among these phases > there is one that connects the present perception of > a rose with a previous > one, and there is another that attaches to the > present perception the name > ³rose², remembered from previous experience. Not > only in relation to similar > experiences in a relatively distant past, but also > in between those > infinitesimal brief single phases and successive > processes the connecting > function of rudimentary ³memory² must be assumed to > operate, because each > phase and each lesser successive state has to > ³remember² the previous one- a > process called by the later Abhidhammikas ³grasping > the past² This I understand, though crudely no doubt. > (atiita-gghahana). Finally, the individual > contributions of all those > different perceptual processes have to be remembered > and co-cordinated in > order to form the final and complete perception of a > rose. > Understood also. > End quote. > A great deal more is explained, but I leave it at > that. This is theory, > pariyatti, it is important that there also be > understanding of the level of > patipatti, practice, namely, satipatthana. Then the > understanding will be so > much clearer. We, and while writing I also have to > remind myself, should > consider and investigate sa~n~naa now. Yes, a kind of dhammanusati, I think? It does seem possible to know that recognition doesn't always occur immediately with a sense impression, or that some aspects of a familiar concept are recognized more quickly than others (a face before a name, e.g.). Not satipatthaana, I suppose, but maybe leading in that direction? > It is > translated by perception or > remembrance, but the word we use does not matter, we > should not cling to > words and terms. We should know the reality. When we > close our eyes and then > open them, we see, and immediately sa~n~naa performs > its function, we > recognize colours, shape and form. We hear, and > recognize. We listen to > Bach¹s music and remember that this is Bach, not > Beethoven. But, this is > important, we have to realize that it is not self > who recognizes. Not a self > recognizes Bach, only a kind of naama. Understanding > of the level of > patipatti can very gradually develop so that we do > not get stuck at the > level of theory. While typing letters, we remember > immediately the different > letters and words, and the way of forming sentences, > drawing conclusions. > Sa~n~naa, not me or you. When taking a step, left or > right, going somewhere, > not self, sa~n~naa remembers. We should not try to > make it into an object of > awareness, but understanding more does help. I'm afraid I can't help it, nearly anything I can remember the Buddha having described as an object of awareness seems to condition this kind of effort, from time to time, when it's present (or recently past). I suppose trying NOT to wouldn't be much better. Anatta seems natural to this kind of reflection, but I do understand that it's key to remember that it's just sa~n~naa, not your or me. Thank you so much again, more later...mike > You are also interested in accumulations. We can use > it in a very wide > sense, then we do not only think of the seven > anusayas, latent tendencies > that are akusala. Also good inclinations are > accumulated in each citta, and > actually all your experiences, but not all is > remembered. It is not so that > accumulations pass on by way of anusaya, they pass > on because each citta > conditions the next one by way of > contiguity-condition, anantara paccaya. I > was also surprised when I heard about the endless > amount of accumulations in > one citta, also from past lives. A.Sujin said, it is > citta, mentality, it is > not like a room that is limited in what it can > contain. Now here also, if we > get stuck in theory it is not so helpful. We should > consider our own life. > We all have accumulated lobha, but why is there > lobha for this particular > object, like Bach¹s music? Experiences of the past > that have been > accumulated. Sa~n~naa plays its part, but it is not > only sa~n~naa, it is > more complex than that. But it is best to understand > our life right now. In > Amara¹s post on the foundation session, we read > about the bhikkhu who was > not successful with the foulness meditation subject. > The Buddha gave him a > golden lotus, and then he attained jhana and > enlightenment. He had been a > goldsmith in a past life. Thus we see how > experiences of particular objects > are all accumulated from citta to citta, from the > past to the present life. > You will become a monk, that is also conditioned by > past accumulations, it > is not a self. Tadao mentioned that it is a very > lonely life, and that is > what I noticed from Alan Driver when he was a > bhikkhu. it was most difficult > for him to find the right temple with pure Vinaya > and satipatthana, because > these two should not be separated. Lonely life? But > when there are only nama > and rupa we are alone with nama and rupa, no people > around. Only when a monk > has becaome a sotapanna he will never leave the > order anymore. That is > because of satipatthana which has been developed and > become firmly > established, so that enlightenment could be > attained. Finally, all my good > wishes to you for your new life as a bhikkhu, and I > wish that you will be > near good friends in the Dhamma. Anumodana to you, > and also anumodana to > Sukin who sponsors you, he is so kind. Best wishes, > Nina. > > 8390 From: KennethOng Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 8:22am Subject: Re:_[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Sorry this is not what I looking for. Because I need to know whether Vipasana is infer or interpreted by later practitioners or Buddha has spoken about it in his sutra. Just like Abidharma, I believe it was interpreted, infer and compiled by practitioners and Buddha did not say a sutra about it. Sincerely no offence here, I really need to know. Kind regards Kenneth Ong "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" wrote: Vipasana is found in the Mahayana tradition as well. As a word it sounds the same in Skt. as well as Pali. Vipasana requires Samatha, too, i.e., "insight" requires that we master "concentration". Check these out: http://www.flamingjewel.org/teachings/shine-lathong.html http://www.people.virginia.edu/~am2zb/tibet/programa/intro/intro_vip.htm http://www.rinpoche.com/tapes.htm http://www.tibethouse.org/programs/meditation.html http://www.philashambhala.org/public_html/initialmed.shtml Good luck! With Metta, Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo ----- Original Message ----- From: "KennethOng" To: Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 9:11 AM Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã > > Hi all, > As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am not sure about vipassana meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with me on this please? Please also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like to learn more abt it. I like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and where did Buddha say about this and to who did he say this. > Many thanks and kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > 8391 From: Howard Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 4:49am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/2/01 8:25:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Sorry this is not what I looking for. Because I need to know whether > Vipasana is infer or interpreted by later practitioners or Buddha has > spoken about it in his sutra. Just like Abidharma, I believe it was > interpreted, infer and compiled by practitioners and Buddha did not say a > sutra about it. Sincerely no offence here, I really need to know. > Kind regards > =========================== Generally, the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta are taken to be the canionical presentations of vipassana bhavana to the best of my knowledge. Of course, detailed instruction is optimally given person to person. 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) 8392 From: KennethOng Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 10:07am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Howard, thanks, does this mean that vipasana meditation has inferred and interpreted by pactitioners and not said by Budha. When you said that detail instructions was from person to person, why is it so, why was not it say by Buddha. Why keep it confidential. Did Buddha said these instructions. Kind regards Kenneth Ong Howard wrote: Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/2/01 8:25:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Sorry this is not what I looking for. Because I need to know whether > Vipasana is infer or interpreted by later practitioners or Buddha has > spoken about it in his sutra. Just like Abidharma, I believe it was > interpreted, infer and compiled by practitioners and Buddha did not say a > sutra about it. Sincerely no offence here, I really need to know. > Kind regards > =========================== Generally, the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta are taken to be the canionical presentations of vipassana bhavana to the best of my knowledge. Of course, detailed instruction is optimally given person to person. 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) 8393 From: Howard Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 6:48am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/2/01 10:09:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Howard, > thanks, does this mean that vipasana meditation has inferred and > interpreted by pactitioners and not said by Budha. When you said that > detail instructions was from person to person, why is it so, why was not it > say by Buddha. Why keep it confidential. Did Buddha said these > instructions. > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > ========================= From my reading, what was recorded in the tipitaka with regard to meditation instructions was somewhat general, even to some extent in the two suttas I mentioned, although if one searches with sufficient effort, and collects material from a wide varity of suttas, I suppose that a good deal of information on the details of meditating, of both the samatha and vipassana variety, can be obtained. I imagine that the reason that there are not detailed meditation manuals to be found within the tipitaka is that the suttas spoken by the Buddha and his chief disciples were, by in large, public lectures on major topics, the detailed meditation instruction being given directly and personally (by the Buddha and senior monks and nuns), and tailored to the needs of the individual bhikkhus and bhikkhunis being instructed. By the time the tipitaka was recorded, there were already well established schools teaching various methods of meditative technique. These techniques were described in some detail in the Theravadin commentaries, and especially in the Vimuttimagga and the Visudhimagga. But even there only a modicum of detail really had to be recorded, because the precise details were still provided by direct person-to-person instruction tailored to the needs of the student. Or so it seems to me. Having said this, let me also say that there are others on this list who could give a *far* more definitive response than I, and I welcome their corrections. 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) 8394 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 11:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Nina (and Sukin) I agree with your observations about discouragement. And there are other kinds of aversion that may arise in connection with 'our practice' -- annoyance at our views being questioned, at being disturbed or interrupted etc (in one who follows a formal practice) -- that likewise are indicators of clinging in one aspect or another. If the practice is correct, it should not be a condition for aversion to arise in any respect. Very useful reminders, thank you. Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)? Thanks. Jon --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 30-09-2001 09:16 schreef Sukinderpal Narula op : > > > My view is that patience, just like anything else being anatta arises > only > > when conditions are right. This means that we cannot 'will' patience. > > When we do not react to unwanted situations this can be anything from > > fear of repercussions to cold indifference. > > And when we talk ourselves into having patience because we believe it > > to be useful to the situation and/or 'self- development', we are > dealing > > purely on the conceptual level. This is not to say that on the > conceptual > > level there cannot be a more genuine patience or that it can't develop > > until and unless panna of a very high level arises. I think that > everytime > > there is some reflection about paramatthadhammas or khandas for > example, > > knowing that what appears can be reduced to these impersonal elements, > > and that there is in the ultimate sense no person or situation to be > patient > > towards and no one to be patient, then I think that 'patience' can > arise. > > Regarding patience being "the chief cause for the practice of the > other > > paramis", I want to add that eventhough wisdom is required for > patience > > to be 'true patience'; patience is a necessary factor for the > development of > > wisdom. Willing and wishing and wanting to have panna sounds like not > > the way to having it and can lead to 'impatience'. > > A. Sujin always encourages patience, bravery and good-cheer with > regard > > to development of wisdom. > > I guess this is all I have to say for now. Will appreciate comments > from > > anybody. > > > Dear Sukin, I appreciate your post on patience being conditioned and > non-self, very much. We are inclined to think, I should be patient, and > this > is often not successful. I especially like your reminder that A. sujin > encourages patience, bravery and cheerfulness, when developing > satipatthana. > Yes, I have often heard this from her (athaan rarung) and it is good to > be > reminded again. When people do not see any result in being aware of > seeing, > visible object, hearing, sound and all objects appearing through the six > doors they become disheartened, they give up. But as I learnt from a > text of > the Mahaniddesa given by Jim about jhaayati, reflection, we have to > examine > realities closely, often, frequently, in various ways, continuously. > Pa~n~naa has to go on discriminating nama and rupa, not once or twice. > We > also read in the teachings, that the Buddha inspired the monks, > encouraged > them, delighted them with Dhamma talk. I like the good cheer element, > because if there is discouragement it shows our clinging to result. Why > don't we live from moment to moment and forget about result, such as > attaining vipassana ~n~nas. There is enough to be done right now, but it > is > not a self who develops. > Sukin, if you and Amara can sometimes give us reminders you heard at the > Foundation sessions, many people will be very grateful. Thank you again, > Nina. 8395 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > When we read in the suttas about the Buddha urging his listeners to exert > effort, he must be taken as referring to moments of kusala citta -- it > would make a mockery of the teachings to read these passages as otherwise. > As we have seen, however, intention/effort to arouse kusala is not itself > necessarily kusala and, I would suggest (but speaking here purely from my > own experience), is unlikely to be so in practice. So the 'effort' to be > exerted which the Buddha refers to is the effort (ie. energy mental factor > -- viriya) that arises with kusala citta. Dear Jon, I take your words at the end of your post as an invitation to be direct. I have to state once again that I am not conversant enough with Abhidhamma to make any claims about it at all, so I will be happy to have your corrections on that score, if there are some factors I am not taking into account. However, with that said, I want to recall that you said in recent posts that the Suttas were complete and should not be subject to undue interpretation. Correct me if I don't understand your point of view here adequately. Yet we see a number of different types of interpretation taking place to give the Buddha's words an appropriate context for understanding. For instance, we are to take it that his words to ordinary people about developing ethics and virtues and about the eightfold path were told in a way that was not totally accurate, but was geared to their level of understanding. So the Buddha leaves the impression that there is volition, that we should strive to do virtuous and spiritual actions and efforts, and that we should avoid actions and internal states that produce further negative kamma and suffering. But in truth, none of these is volitional, they are dependent upon the concordance of favorable conditions, which are accumulated in a snowball sort of effect from other positive causes. Next, although I do not understand it thoroughly, we have the view of the Abhidhamma that the eightfold path is not a sequence of separate factors to be practiced, which will lead to wisdom and ultimately to Nibbana, but that there is a mundane path leading to super-mundane path factors arising spontaneously and simeoltaneously, and that this is the true meaning of the eightfold path. I have heard some discussions of this on this list, but have not seen suttas in which the Buddha explains it to be the case. Are there sections of the Abhidhamma in which the Buddha himself makes clear that the eightfold path refers to an advanced state in which these factors arise in quick succession just prior to Nibbana? If not, I would propose that this interpretation of the eightfold path is not based directly on the Buddha's words, and in fact contradicts his words in other suttas. But I will be happy to see direct references to what the Buddha said on this matter. Finally, you interpret the Buddha's teachings on Right Effort and Letting Go as factors that are not volitional and not dependent on any exertion of will. Are there direct statements on the part of the Buddha which supports this interpretation, or are you taking the Buddha's statements in the light of the philosophy of Abhidhamma, and thus giving them a particular slant not obvious in the words themselves? If this is the case, I would say that there is a particular act of interpretation taking place to make the argument that these factors arise merely as the result of the appropriate factors being in place. It seems to me that the Buddha would not have used the term 'Right Effort' if in fact there was no effort involved. He would not have used the word 'Intention' if in fact no intention was necessary, and he would not have referred to 'Letting Go' if no letting go was necessary. You say that the idea of letting go is probably a 'reminder' that clinging is akusala. In other words, it is not a call to a kind of action of letting go, but is just another prompt to understanding. I am not aware of the Buddha saying anything of this kind, and I assume this is your interpretation of the idea of letting go, which the Buddha has placed at the very end of the path of liberation, a most advanced factor. To say that Right Effort is in fact not Right Effort but is non-Effort, seems to me to flatly contradict the Buddha's teaching on Right Effort. Again, I apologize for being so blunt, but I want to reach some understanding on this view. So I would be grateful if you can quote the Buddha himself on this interpretation of Right Effort. I can theoretically understand the possibility that Right Thinking or Right Concentration could be the result of arising factors of insight and wisdom, but I find it impossible to define Effort of any kind as a factor that actually arises by itself, and actually involves no effort at all. If this interpretation of Right Effort is not a contradiction of the Buddha's words, I will be very happy to hear how this can be so. > > Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to think > > of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise and > > subside with a single citta. Is this true or is there > > a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'? > > You have raised another aspect of this approach to the 'practice' that > could be discussed further. The moments of thinking that direct the mind > to observe, note, let go, return to the chosen object etc are, in terms of > individual mind-moments, by no means single moments or anything like it > but in fact substantial periods of thinking. > > I'm sure the idea that realities should be let go of is intended to be a > reminder that any kind of clinging or grasping is akusala. This of course > is true. To my understanding, however, the idea that such reminders will > make any real difference in this respect is misconceived. Buddha never referred to letting go as a reminder that grasping is akusala. He referred to it as one of the advanced factors of awakening. After Liberation, one lets go of all illusory objects to enter the state of Equanimity. This is I think a fairly straightforward rendering of this idea from the Anapanasati Sutta. > > Thanks in advance, > > > > mike > > And thanks to you, Mike, for bringing these points up. > > Jon > > PS I notice on reading through this post that I have been quite direct > (perhaps even more so than usual!), so I suppose I should expect some > pretty direct responses from others ….. I think I've been even more direct than you, Jon. Considering my spotty knowledge of the Suttas, I apologize for seeming like I'm more sure of my views than I am. My intention is to confront some important issues, and if my ideas are refuted in the process, that's okay with me. : ) Best Regards, Robert Ep. 8396 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:30pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samma-sambuddha --- Herman wrote: > Hi all, > > In any explanation of what a samma-sambuddha is, I have only ever > seen it stated that such a person is self-realised, or that they > become so by their own efforts. > > And you know what, like most other things, I have no idea what that > means :-) > > How do self-realisation and annatta co-exist? > > All the best > > > Herman That is a very good question Herman. I'd like to sign on to that one myself. Robert 8397 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 --- Herman wrote: > Howard, > > There being no self , what does kamma apply to? Namas and rupas, and > so do the fruits. Volition applies to cittas only, as far as I know. > > Happy to be corrected, of course :-) > > All the best > > Herman On the other hand, Buddha spoke of liberating 'sentient beings', not countries or dharmas. Why would he speak of beings if there were no beings to liberate? Why would he not grant equal status to 'dharmas' and living beings if these beings were really nothing but 'kandhas' and of the same status as objects? In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha says something to the effect that the correct understanding should be that 'when all sentient beings are thus liberated, no beings have actually been liberated'. so how does this contradiction work? My sense of this is that while there are no beings ultimately, the provisional minds and bodies which engage the concepts of being an entity or self, do experience suffering and various thoughts and feelings that impinge on that sense of self. That sense of self is illusory, but while that illusion is being held it is a source of suffering. So to 'liberate all sentient beings' is to remove the illusion of self from these bodies and minds. Countries don't exist. A country is a concept. It cannot entertain a concept of self or experience suffering. Neither can objects. Cittas are the only thing capable of experiencing suffering and while cittas are carrying the idea of self, they carry experiences of fear, anxiety, anger and hatred, and the sense of protecting and promoting the desires of that seeming self. It is thus those cittas, the consciousness that is related to the body and mind, that must be liberated from the false idea of self, and all the attendant akusala experiences that accompany the concept of self-entity. It is this sense, I think, that kamma applies to individuals. The body and mind within which the cittas of self and suffering arise are the individuals that must be liberated. No other factors of the manifest universe require awakening and liberation. Only consciousness. Robert Ep. ================================ > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Herman - > > > > In a message dated 10/1/01 10:29:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Herman writes: > > > > > > > The laws of karma apply to the US as > > > > > ========================= > > It's my understanding that kamma is an individual matter, as > are the > > fruits of kamma. If people acted in similar volitional manners, > then they may > > have similar kammic fruit. But nations having kamma is not a > Buddhist notion > > to the best of my knowledge. > > > > 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) > > 8398 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2 --- Herman wrote: > Robert, > > I will never make the diplomatic corps, I know, but you have written > some things to a monster. And that monster is not me, but a > projection of yours. > > So once you become aware of the high horse you are riding, and it > looks as though you are responding to things I am actually writing, > then we can perhaps keep communicating. > > All the best > > Herman Dear Herman, If you wish to respond to any of the specific things I said, I will be happy to correspond with you on these subjects off-list. It took some effort to make all of my points, so I don't really envision trying to start from scratch and revising my statement. I don't see you as a monster by any means, and you are putting words in my mouth by saying so. However, I do think some of what you said was insensitive in light of current circumstances, but that's as far as I would go. If you prefer not to continue the discussion in response to my answer, as mine was in response to your statement, I will be happy to drop the subject and go back to talking about the Dhamma as we know and understand it. Or in my case, misunderstand it......just my feeble attempt at a joke....... Regards, Robert Ep. ========================== > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > --- Herman wrote: > > > Robert, > > > > > > So Mr bin Laden is guilty then? > > > > > > I don't have the same privileged access to the truth as the US > media > > > does, obviously. > > > > > > I am not casual about the 7000 killed. Be careful with your > sweeping > > > statements, Robert. > > > > > > The US has killed more innocents than you may care to admit. It > is > > > built on the back of slavery. The laws of karma apply to the US > as > > > well, you know. Or did you imagine that the US became the > dominant > > > world power by being very nice to everybody. > > > > > > Two billion $US a year to help Israel suppress Palestine does not > go > > > without consequences. > > > > > > Stating facts does not condone the facts. I deplore the deaths of > > > 7,000 innocent people. I abhor violence and terorism. But I am > not > > > selective about where I see these things happening. > > > > > > While we are it, how many die each day on US roads, how many are > > > murdered , how many commit suicide? Is the deafening silence on > these > > > systematic casualties of the American way of life to be construed > as > > > tacit approval? > > > > > > All the best > > > > > > > > > Herman > > > > Dear Herman, > > I am one of the people who care about people all around the world. > I care about > > the teenagers forced into prostitution in Southeast Asia, Latin > America and all > > around the world, the ten year olds working in shoe factories in > Guatemala, and I > > care about the women who are beaten and killed and raped by their > husbands legally > > under the Taliban, a Taliban that does not allow medical treatment > for women, or a > > widow to work to get food for her children, a Taliban that can beat > or kill > > someone if the 'police' suspect that they have trimmed their > beard. I also care > > at this particular moment about something that happened just the > other day: 7,000 > > people were killed in a holocaust, a single horrible act that left > 7,000 families > > from 80 countries around the world in a sudden state of horrific > grief. I don't > > just care about the Americans that were in that building, I care > about all of > > them. I also care about the 300 some-odd firefighters and > policemen who willingly > > ran into that building to save people and lost their own lives. > > > > Do I care about the people who were killed in that blaze, the > hundreds who jumped > > out of 100 story windows to their death to avoid being burned up in > superheated > > airplane fuel more than I care about the insanely fanatical > hijackers who slit > > passengers throats and then propelled them to a fiery death? Yes, > in fact I do > > care more about those victims. Does that make me less evolved on > the path? If > > so, I don't mind waiting a bit to evolve further. When I turn into > a mechanical > > path-dweller who can only wax philosophically about how all things > are the same > > and that they are all empty, I will know I have gone down the wrong > path and gone > > too far. There is a dual nature to human beings, they are > inherently empty and > > fleeting beings, yet there is also suffering, happiness and beauty > in our lives. > > > > There is also the arising of compassion. I think that it is > appropriate when > > something horrifying is done to innocent people, without > speculating on their > > karmic deserts, to say first how sad and mortified we are that this > horror has > > taken place. Then you can go into your lecture about all the > reasons why the U.S. > > is wrong and bad and evil. Why don't you save it for after you > express your > > compassion for those burned and smashed and killed and turned into > a mass of body > > parts mixed with steel and blood? To me, that would be a moment of > real > > compassion, not a political statement, but a moment of being human, > which is > > allowable and also necessary. > > > > As I have said one time before, if you do not mention how you feel > about all the > > people who were killed, but just go straight into a political > speech, I have no > > way of knowing that you care about these people. You actually need > to say it, and > > express some feeling for them. They weren't 'Americans', they > didn't represent a > > poitical structure or a country. They were people who suffered > horribly and left > > behind more people who are suffering miserably. So give metta to > them first. Let > > them have a bit of metta please, before you lecture their recently- > departed > > kandhas. > > > > Yes, as I said, I know bin Laden is guilty because he has admitted > it. There is > > also strong evidence from other sources in both the original World > Trade Center > > bombing and the two U.S. embassies in Africa that were bombed. But > that is > > besides the point. There is no doubt that there are terrorist > camps in > > Afganistan, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq. There is no doubt that the > Taliban has committed > > thousands upon thousands of crimes against humanity against its own > people. There > > is no doubt that the Taliban's single greatest supporter is bin > Laden, who > > personally gave them three million to jump start them at their > inception, and has > > supported them ever since as they support him. There is no doubt > that Sudan and > > Pakistan has also formerly supported the Taliban. They have both > now severed ties > > in the wake of this tragedy. > > > > To compare the current tragedy and the horrors of the Taliban to > U.S. auto > > accidents seems very strange to me. The 'American way of Life' is > represented by > > automobiles, which are the killers you want to attack? Personally > I would rather > > die in an auto accident, than be beaten to death or have my throat > cut in the > > public square, as happens in Afganistan every day. > > > > Now that I have said all that, let me say two things to give you an > idea of how I > > feel about people. I am not a nationalist. I just think that > Americans have a > > right to be considered people as much as anyone else. I have been > writing to all > > my email groups and friends where anti-Arab sentiments are > expressed, saying that > > anyone who harms an Islamic-American, as has happened several > times, because of > > their beliefs or appearance, are as bad as the terrorists, and I > mean that. I > > have nothing but respect for Muslims, and most Muslims are peace- > loving people. > > > > I also wish I lived in a world where we cared as much about the > million Rwandans > > killed in their holocaust as we do about those killed in Western > countries, and I > > have said that as well. I do care about all people equally. But I > will shed my > > tears for the victims first, and then the killers second. > > > > Robert Ep. > > > > =============================== > > > > 8399 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 0:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep Dear Sarah, Thanks for your responses. I will have to re-read some of this before I can answer intelligently. It's very interesting in any case. There are two areas where you might help my understanding along a little bit. I am fascinated with the idea of the bhavanga cittas, and especially the idea that these are 'subconscious'. Where and how does 'subconscious continuity' come into the scheme of things? This seems quite modern in a way, and makes sense of the statement I have often heard that Buddhism provided the earliest and most thorough psychological science. I believe you have mentioned that you have a psychology background and I wonder if you find this as fascinating as I do? I was also fascinated by your quick list of the consciousnesses or mental factors that intercede between a moment of contact with sense-object and its 'processing' into a percept and concept. How those factors of consciousness arise and coordinate would be very interesting, but I'm sure it's a complicated discussion..... It may be that I need to understand the nature and relative status of the bhavanga cittas and the arising of kusala and panna before I can really add a lot more to this discussion. But I will look over your very interesting responses and see what I can come up with in the way of understanding. Best Regards, Robert ========================= --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > Thank you for all your excellent comments and questions. I’m also finding it > interesting and helpful to consider these lines in depth. > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > > This mind, monks is luminous, but it is defiled by taints that come from > > > without; that mind, monks, is luminous, but it is cleansed of taints that > > come > > > from without.’ > > > > Well, here is where translation is important, because if the original really > > says > > 'this' mind, and then 'that' mind, as two different arising cittas, then it > > would > > point in the direction of saying that some cittas are defied and some > > undefiled, > > and that they arise and pass away, rather than being a continuous underlying > > 'luminous mind' which is covered by defilements and then freed from them. > > > > However, I still have some questions: > > > > If the bhavanga cittas are luminous, and they are thus freed from > > defilements, why > > are they spoken of as being defiled? > -------------------- > > Good question. I understand the stanza to mean that the bhavanga cittas are > luminous in the sense of undefiled and the following cittas (as soon as there > are experiences through the sense doors and mind door) to be defiled, i.e. > akusala cittas, accompanied by akusala mental factors during the javana > process. (Of course even when the bhavanga cittas are considered luminous or > pure, it doesn’t mean there are not the latent tendencies or anusayas which lie > dormant with each citta). > > This interpretation is not only supported by the abhidhamma, but also by this > extract from the Commentary to the Sutta: > -------------------- > > 'dampi nirupakkilesataaya parisuddhanti pabhassara.m. ta~nca khoti ta.m > bhava"ngacitta.m. > > Jim: "It is also pure because it is > unsoiled (by defilements); thus 'luminous'." Nirupakkilesataa is lit. 'a > state of without defilement(s)'. ' > > 'aagantukehiiti asahajaatehi pacchaa javanakkha.ne uppajjanakehi. > > Jim: 'by the oncoming ': by the non-conascent, by the arising at > the moment of impulsion (javana) afterwards.' > > 'upakkilesehiiti raagaadiihi upakkili.t.thattaa upakkili.t.tha.m naamaati > vuccati. > > Nina: by defilements. By being soiled by desire etc. it is indeed called > defiled.' > --------------------- > > Rob, I don’t have a full translation of the commentary and sub-comentary and > don’t believe there is a published one in English. Nina and Jim have been > working on it out of personal interest and I hope they will kindly post a copy > here when they have finished all or part. In the extract I’ve quoted , please > note the ‘non-conascent’, i.e.the defilements are not arising at the same time > as the luminous cittas, but during the javana process afterwards during the > sense door or mind door ‘activity’. > -------------------- > > > > The idea that the underlying bhavanga cittas that give continuity to the flow > > of > > life are inherently luminous, but not continuous, is fine in itself, but it > > is the > > luminous mind that is said to be 'defiled by taints that come from without.' > > Why > > would the luminous mind, which you have said is 'freed from taints' because > > it is > > the result of a previous life, be spoken of as being defiled 'from without'? > -------------------- > > This is the same question. Let me put it this way from an abhidhamma > perspective: > > The bhavanga cittas are vipaka cittas (result of kamma). In a sesnse-door > process, they are followed by 1) sense-door adverting consciousness 2) > sense-consciousness, e.g seeing or hearing 3) receiving-cnsciousness 4) > investigating consciousness 5) determining consciousness 6) 7 javana cittas > which in the case of the non-arahat are kusala or akusala cittas; 7) 2 > registering consciousness > > When it mentions ‘defiled from without’, it is referring, as indicated in the > Com notes to the javana cittas. > -------------------- > > > > It seems to me that this is still different from your explanation. Please > > forgive > > me for being so blunt, but I am really interested in getting to the bottom of > > this. Hope you don't mind! > -------------------- > > If it still seems different, please be even blunter;-)) I’m equally interested > in trying to clarify (and learn). > -------------------- > > >.....It is luminous, but has been cleansed of taints. Note that it doesn't > say > > 'absent' of taints or 'doesn't have any' taints, but that it is cleansed. I > > don't > > see any way to interpret cleansed other than to say 'it was once dirty, but > > it has > > been made clean through a cleansing process'. That would have to refer to > > something that lasts longer than a moment, more than one citta in other > > words, > > either a structure of mind or a process of mind that continues beyond a > > moment or > > two. > -------------------- > > Again, by ‘cleansed’ it is referring to the kusala cittas and cetasikas which > arise in the javana process following the bhavanga cittas. As discussed, I > believe the sutta is referring to the importance of understanding the nature of > unwholsesome states and of skilful states: > > ‘The learned noble disciple (ariyasaavakassa) understands it (citta) as it > really is (yathaabhuutam). Therefore I say that the learned, noble disciple has > developed the mind (cittabhaavanaa atthiiti vadaamiiti).’ > > The stress in this sutta is on the fact that the noble disciple has to know > cittas as they are, both wholesome and unwholesome cittas. Isn’t it true that > as soon objects are experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense > and mind, that attachment and aversion, impatience, jealousy and all the other > defilements arise? When we are asleep (without dreaming) where are the stories > about terrorists, New York and all the other concepts we find so important? We > can see that most of the time we live in a world of concepts and there is very > little understanding of the realities appearing through the senses and mind. > -------------------- > > > > Putting these two statements together, it still seems more logical to me that > > they > > are referring to a process in which the process of mind which is inherently > > luminous takes on defilements from without, and then is cleansed by a process > > of > > purification. > > > If I am right about this, which is highly doubtful , then my next question > > would be whether this interpretation can in any way reconciled with > > Abdhidhamma? > > Again, I speak as one who is only very gradually getting more familiar with > > this > > area, but I would initially and boldly say 'yes'. > > > > The reason I have some hope that this is possible is because I assume that > > the > > perceptual and thought process of a more advanced person on the path is > > indeed > > more 'pure' and freer of defilements than someone who has not had any insight > > into > > the true structure of realities. Since kusala and panna are accumulated > > [both?] > > and passed down through successive cittas, and since akusala is gradually > > eliminated, one could say that the path of wisdom is also a path of purifying > > defilements. > ------------------- > > I think I’ve answered the first part. Certainly it’s true that the more pa~n~na > is developed and accumulated, the more ‘pure’ and freer of defilements the > cittas will be. I also agree with your last statement about the gradual > elimination of defilements. It is not so much that these are purified as that > there are fewer and fewer conditions for them to arise during those javana > processes. Remember each citta falls away completely. An unwholesome citta can > never be purified and vice versa. However wholesome cittas can arise in a > process following unwholesome cittas. Indeed it is only pa~n~na that can see > the realities as they are (yathaabhuuta) and only the development of this panna > that can lead to enlightenment. > -------------------- > > > > What if Buddha is referring to this process of arisings, continuities and > > passing > > of accumulations of more pure and wise cittas as 'mind'? If this were so, > > the > > statement in the sutra would make sense as one of process, without every > > establishing an underlying 'mind' that is always there and stays the same. > > What > > is the 'luminosity' that might be revealed by the purification of > > 'defilements' > > from outside? > > > > As the cittas become more aware of the true nature of things, they gain more > > panna. So my question is: would it make sense to say that panna is > > luminous, in > > the same sense that the bhavanga cittas are said to be luminous in your > > explanation? > -------------------- > > It is true that similar words are sometimes used to describe panna.(I’m not > sure if ‘pabhassaramidam-luminous’ is itself ever used, though) I do remember > panna being described as ‘illuminating’ like a light in darkness and in the > Atthasalani it says ‘there is no illumination equal to the illumination of > understanding’ and so on. > > Jim or Nina may give more detail on the different pali words, but I’ll try not > to further sidetrack now. > > The reasons why I’m pretty sure the sutta is referring to bhavanga cittas and > not panna when it mentions ‘luminous’ are: > > 1) the Ang nik com unequivocally states this and who am I to argue with the > ancient com of the arahats (as I understand)? > > 2) the Atthasalani supports the com in this. > > 3) The explanation as I’ve discussed in detail is fully supported by the > Abhidhamma > > 4) the theory of an inherent panna arising to be revealed with the removal of > defilements is not supported anywhere in the (Pali canon) Tipitaka as far as > I’m aware. I’ll glad look at any other references to this. The common state is > rather one of ignorance. Even when there are no defilements, there are not > necessarily moments of panna at all. At moments of seeing and hearing , for > example, there can never be panna. Unless panna is being developed, there may > be moments of wholesomeness such as when we give or are friendly to others, but > not necessarily at all with panna. > -------------------- > > I think this is a very interesting discussion and I’ll look forward to hearing > back from you too. I know many others share your interpretations and will be > following with keen attention. Jim or Nina (who have studied these passages in > far more detail than I have) may also add any other helpful notes. > > Sarah 8400 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 1:10pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: metta for Bin Laden: Oct 2/Herman Dear Christine, I read the whole article and found it very interesting and worthwhile. Deep listening to the world is most certainly something that Americans have been lacking, as well as many citizens from other countries....perhaps everywhere. A very potent Buddhist message from one of my favorite teachers.... Best, Robert Ep. ============= --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Hi Herman, > > You may be interested in reading the article that this excerpt is > from: > > http://www.buddhistnews.tv/ > > "If I were given the opportunity to be face to face with Osama bin > Laden, the first thing I would do is listen. I would try to > understand why he had acted in that cruel way. I would try to > understand all of the suffering that had led him to violence. It > might not be easy to listen in that way, so I would have to remain > calm and lucid. I would need several friends with me, who are strong > in the practice of deep listening, listening without reacting, > without judging and blaming. In this way, an atmosphere of support > would be created for this person and those connected so that they > could share completely, trust that they are really being heard." -- > Thich Nhat Hahn > > metta, > May all be safe and protected, > May all be healthy and strong, > May all be happy of heart and mind, > May all live with ease and wellbeing. > Christine > > 8401 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Samma-sambuddha Hi Howard, I've really appreciated some of your responses recently, including this very neat summary to Herman and your other responses to him and others as well. I think it's clear in the Tipitaka that all Buddhas are male, but someone like Rob K is much better on these details than I am. I've also greatly appreciated your correspondence with Jon on effort and intention and your careful consideration as always. Please continue to 'challenge' him before he jets off to India.....;-)) Sarah --- Howard wrote > ============================ > Here's my understanding on this. A person becomes fully enlightened at > > a time at which the Dhamma is unknown. Moreover, over countless aeons that > person has mastered the perfections and myriads of skillful means so that he > (or she - I won't debate that point) is in a position to reintroduce the > Dhamma to the world as its perfect teacher. Such a person has become a > Buddha. Now, I understand a Buddha to be "self-enlightened" only in the sense > > that the Dhamma was unknown in his/her lifetime prior to his enlightenment. > However, this does not imply that a Buddha did not learn Dhamma in a previous > > life. In fact, it is said that the Buddha of the current dispensation *had* > learned the Dhamma in a previous life, and, thus, his "self-enlightenment" is > > a fact only in a limited sense. > Now, all the foregoing discussion involves conventional notions. As > far as the relation between self-realization and anatta, there really is > none. The notions of 'self-realization' and 'anatta' are conventional and > ultimate notions, respectively. Being self-realized is a conventional notion. > > It is a mere manner of speaking. No one can enlighten another. This is true. > It is *conventionally* true. The reality is that there *is* no "one" to > become enlightened and no "one" to be a giver of enlightenment. The statement > > "No one can enlighten another.", in its conventional meaning, when properly > understood, is merely a fa'con de parler, which calls for "unpacking" and > explanation. It is metaphorical. If taken *literally*, which would be the > incorrect way of understanding it, the statement would be false. That is, > from the perspective of ultimate truth (paramattha sacca), it is a falsity in > > that there is no self at all. > > With metta, > Howard > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) > 8402 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavangacitta - Nina Dear Nina, Thank you for this helpful translation 'in one piece'. There is a lot of interest in these 2 Ang Nik suttas and it's very helpful to be able to refer to the commentary and sub-commentary. I know that you and Lodevick (yr husband) will be leaving in just a few days, so may I wish you safe flights and many opportunities in India for wise reflection and sati. We'll look forward to welcoming you back on your return. Best wishes as always, Sarah --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah and Robert Ep, I am translating the commentary about the > bhavangacitta with Jim, but I shall send part now, because the rest has not > been corrected. 8403 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 2:55pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã - Kenneth Dear Kenneth, --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi all, > As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am not sure about vipassana > meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with me on this please? Please > also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like to learn more abt it. I > like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and where did Buddha say about > this and to who did he say this. > Many thanks and kind regards .................... I understand all the suttas to be talking about bhavana (mental development), either samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana or both. Vipassana means insight and refers to the development of panna (wisdom). So whenever we read about the development of understanding or about the realities which are to be known, we are considering about vipassana. With regard to stages of vipassana and many, many details, these can be read in the Visuddhimagga. If you want specific references mentioning vipassana (as opposed to similar words like panna) in the suttas, there are some I can think of in the Samyutta Nikaya. I don't have the Pali but I'm pretty sure that it's vipassana referred to in this Sutta description at SN 1V, Salayatanavagga, 194: 'Suppose, bhikkhu, a king had a frontier city with strong ramparts, walls, and arches, and with six gates. The gatekeeper posted there would be wise, competent, and intelligent; one who keeps out strangers and admits acquaintances. A swift pair of messengers would come from the east and ask the gatekeeper: 'Where, good man, is the lord of this city?' He would reply: 'He is sitting in the central square.' Then the swift pair of messengers would deliver a message of reality to the lord of the city and leave by the route by which they had arrived. Similarly, messengers would come from the west, from the north, from the south, deliver their message, and leave by the route by which they had arrived. “I have made up this simile, bhikkkhu, in order to convey a meaning. This is the meaning here: ‘The city’: this is a designation for this body consisting of the four great elements....’The six gates’: this is a designation for the six internal bases. “The gatekeeper’: this is a designation for mindfulness. ‘The swift pair of messengers’: this is a designation for serenity and insight (vipassana). ‘The lord of the city’: this is a designation for consciousness. ‘The cenral square’: this is a designation for the four great elements .....’A message of reality’: this is a designation for Nibbana. ‘The route by which they had arrived’: this is a designation for the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view....right concentration.” Hope this helps and thanks for your helpful questions and comments. Sarah 8404 From: KennethOng Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 3:19pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Howard, Thanks. How then one differentiate between samatha and vipassana meditation. What criterias are used to differentiate them? Are the criteria set up by us or by Buddha. To me if the method is beneficial to all beings, Buddha would have spoken about it and will not keep in confidential. Since Vipassana is a major practise of attaining insight, why didn't Buddha speaks abt it in a sutra and emphasis it again and again just like non-self concept and mindfullness. Sorry no offence here. I really like to know the origination of vipassana meditation and why was it not said directly to everybody as in a sutra. Just like when I look at Abidharma, I was thinking why Buddha did not develop this? To me one the the weaknesses in Abidharma is because it will become very conceptual. In my understanding, Buddha likes to keep things simple, for eg breathing sutra and mindfullness sutra. I think the best is the Four Noble Truth, simple yet full of wisdom. When we talk abt kusala or askusala , or sanna, I only have one interpretation, it all surrounds a self. All these are just different segregation of self. Another interpretation that I read about citta, is that citta a series of cittas and occuring in such a rapid pace that we cannot detect the discrete occassions which are of diverse types. Assuming we are able to detect all these discrete cittas, we are like jig saw puzzles pieces. If all these pieces eventually are know, then what are we. Since all are in pieces, how are bhavanga citta going to brought forward our karma to our next life. Just as Mike said that volition is impersonal or just momentary, then how does such momentary going to decide our karma in our next life. Again since it is momentary, how does bhavanga citta going to bring forward all such momentary volitions into next life since bhavanga citta is also momentary. Maybe we could assume that bhavanga citta is like the black hole, able to carry on all such momentary volitions, but this is also wrong because citta is a series of cittas. Then how does citta going to decide our future karma since citta is momentary. There must be something all this depend on. It cannot be citta as defined above. It must be a consciouness that is not defined in Abidharma. These are all my assumptions and reservations and sincerely no offence. Kind regards. Kenneth Ong 8405 From: m. nease Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 8:22pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] sanna and accumulations Dear Nina, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote > Understanding > of the level of > patipatti can very gradually develop so that we do > not get stuck at the > level of theory. Thanks again for Ven. Nyanaponika's words and your own comments. Thanks also for the reminder not to get too caught up in theory. The little bit that's sunk in from this exchange is that saññaa and what it 'marks' are not the same thing--interesting. More puzzle pieces to come yet, I guess. > You are also interested in accumulations. We can use > it in a very wide > sense, then we do not only think of the seven > anusayas, latent tendencies > that are akusala. Also good inclinations are > accumulated in each citta, and > actually all your experiences, but not all is > remembered. It is not so that > accumulations pass on by way of anusaya, they pass > on because each citta > conditions the next one by way of > contiguity-condition, anantara paccaya. Thanks--this is an important distintion I've continually failed to make (by misinterpreting 'anusaya' AS accumulation, I think). > I > was also surprised when I heard about the endless > amount of accumulations in > one citta, also from past lives. A.Sujin said, it is > citta, mentality, it is > not like a room that is limited in what it can > contain. Now here also, if we > get stuck in theory it is not so helpful. Another valuable reminder, thanks--I probably can't hear this one often enough. > We should > consider our own life. > We all have accumulated lobha, but why is there > lobha for this particular > object, like Bach¹s music? Experiences of the past > that have been > accumulated. Yes! > Sa~n~naa plays its part, but it is not > only sa~n~naa, it is > more complex than that. But it is best to understand > our life right now. In > Amara¹s post on the foundation session, we read > about the bhikkhu who was > not successful with the foulness meditation subject. > The Buddha gave him a > golden lotus, and then he attained jhana and > enlightenment. He had been a > goldsmith in a past life. Thus we see how > experiences of particular objects > are all accumulated from citta to citta, from the > past to the present life. Yes--this sounds like memory, of a kind. It is clearly accumulated, but is not either saññaa or anusaya, correct? Thanks again, Nina, mike 8406 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 10:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Right Effort as a co-arising factor? Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > So while > > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense > > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not > > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. > > Dear Jon, > I'd like to challenge the above a bit, although I'm not sure if I have > any secure > footing to do it. > > If right effort is the property of a kusala moment, then what is it an > effort towards? > > It would not make sense to speak of effort unless it was intending to do > something, not merely accompanying something already accomplished. If > it is an > accompaniment of a kusala moment, then it would have to be aiding the > accomplishment of that which the kusala moment is trying to accomplish. > What is > the accomplishment of a kusala moment? Panna? Would 'right effort' > then be the > correct effort of a kusala factor to accomplish panna? Or does this not > make sense? I am impressed with the perceptive questions you have come up with. I will do my best to explain the position according to the texts, as I understand them. When talking about the realities of existence as found in the teachings, we need to bear in mind that the terms used to denote those realities do not of course carry the same meaning and implications as their conventional counterparts. We have to learn about each reality pretty much from scratch, if we are to avoid having a mistaken view of it. And there is much to be learnt. Every mental factor (cetasika) that arises with a mind-moment (citta) has its own particular characteristic, performs a very specific function at the moment of its arising, and has a particular manifestation and proximate cause. (These of course should be taken in the context of a mental factor arising together with a moment of consciousness, despite what may sometimes appear to be reference to a situation existing over a period of time as, for example, the reference to 'state' in the description below.) In the case of the mental factor that is viriya (energy, effort), these attributes are as follows (from the Visuddhimagga ( XIV, 137)-- Description: Energy (viriya) is the state of one who, is vigorous (vira). Characteristic: Its characteristic is marshalling (driving). Function: Its function is to consolidate conascent states (the accompanying citta and cetasikas). Manifestation: It is manifested as non-collapse. Proximate cause: Its proximate cause is a sense of urgency; or its proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. We see from this that the function of viriya is to consolidate the citta and cetasikas that it arises together with. So it is not energy 'towards something', or 'to do something', in the sense that we associate with the conventional concept of energy. Its proximate cause is a 'sense of urgency'. This refers, in the case of kusala energy, to the urgency of the need to develop kusala. If we see the value in kusala, that can be the condition (proximate cause) for the arising of kusala energy, ie. the energy that accompanies kusala citta. This is just a brief indication of the manner in which each of the various mental factors needs to be considered. Without this sort of detailed study, it is too easy to make assumptions about realities, based on our conventional knowledge, that are not accurate. There is of course much more to be known than is indicated above, and I would strongly recommend Nina's 'Cetasikas' for further reading. The section on viriya is quite short and well worth a quick glance even for someone with as much homework as you to catch up on, Rob (!). This can be found in the second half of Chapter 9, at the following link-- http://www.dhammastudy.com/cetasikas11.html This is not to say that I mind giving the information myself, in fact I am delighted to, and to give references from the texts wherever possible, too. But, quite apart from the fact that Nina has already covered the ground so excellently and with far better understanding of the detail than I, the fact is I will be away for 2 weeks as from the end of next week, and will have limited time before then to spend on the list. (Looking ahead to your blockbuster received earlier today, Rob, I may have to give you some references to previous posts where these topics have been discussed, although I will of course try to give a personal reply on each point as far as I am able. It's in the queue!) Jon 8407 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 3, 2001 11:40pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike Dear Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Some great citations here! Hope they were helpful. > > > I actually think 'sub-conscious' (life continuum) > > for bhavanga cittas in the > > above Atth. translation is rather confusing because > > it suggests bhavanga cittas > > are present all the time beneath the surface which > > of course is not correct. > > (but then I come from a psychology background so I > > may be particularly > > sensitive to these connotations;-) > > Maybe not--I feel the same way and, as you know, find > this particular point to be hugely important. Rob Ep, please note;-)) > > These are good points and great quotes. I must be > mistaken in remembering citta as being essentially > pure. I know that kusala and akusala cittas are the > result of many conditions, but still don't understand > what makes a citta kusala or akusala (in the moment) > other than cetasikas, so must study some more--a lot > more. So very many different conditions which help 'form up' the present citta - accumulations, objects, preceding cittas, repetition, supports and so on and so on.....It's useful to read and consider more about conditions because it helps one understand how citta now could not be any other way and how very anatta it is. Most valuable is a moment of awareness of this conditioned reality, awareness of seeing or thinking or like or dislike, for example. Anyway, I know you know all this, Mike. If there is something else in your question I'm missing, please ask again and someone else (like Rob K or Kom ) may give a 'meatier' response or I'll try a less meaty one if they're too busy;-)) Best wishes for all your arrangements too.....seems like many dsg key members are on the move these days....just hope I don't end up talking to myself;-(( Sarah 8408 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 1:14am Subject: luminous mind Dear Sarah and Rob Ep and all, I gave the co. to the AN but not the sutta and what I added, since Sarah had posted this before. In case you need it again, I shall paste it now. First a correction to be made on what I wrote about jhaayati, pajjhaayati, I interpreted this as reflecting in a positive sense, but just now Jim gave me the references so that I could look up the text, and it is used in a negative sense, as brooding over, here: over methuna dhamma. It shows again how careful we have to be, and I can imagine the sutta on the luminous mind can mislead us if we are not careful. As Suan said: read the sutta, read the commentary, read the subcommentary. I cannot add anything more now, since I am busy before my departure to India. The bhavanga-citta is compared to the moments of javana-cittas experiencing objects that impinge on the six doors. We get so entangled as soon as we experience objects. Only the arahat is no longer entangled. The sutta shows actually the extent we are entangled in the objects that impinge on the doorways. > 1. 6. 1. > pabhassaramida.m bhikkhave citta.m ta~nca kho aagantukehi upakkilesehi > upakkili.t.tha.m. N: This consciousness, monks, is luminous, and it is indeed corrupted by oncoming defilements. >ta.m assutavaa puthujjano yathaabhuuta.m nappajaanaati. N:The ordinary person who has not learned (the Dhamma, not listened to it) does not understand it as it really is. > tasmaa assutavato puthujjanassa cittabhaavanaa natthiiti vadaamiiti. N:Therefore I say that for the ordinary person who has not listened there is no mental development (literally. free: the ordinary person who has not listened to the Dhamma has not developed the mind.) > 1. 6. 2. > pabhassaramida.m bhikkhave citta.m ta~nca kho aagantukehi upakkilesehi > vippamutta.m. N: This consciousness, monks, is luminous, and it is indeed released from oncoming defilements. >ta.m sutavaa ariyasaavako yathaabhuuta.m pajaanaati. N: The learned noble disciple understand it as it really is. >tasma sutavato ariyasaavakassa cittabhaavanaa atthiiti vadaamiiti. N: Therefore I say that the learned, noble disciple has developed the mind. Remarks:The upakilesas, defilements arising with the citta (different from the anusayas, latent tendencies who do not arise with the akusala citta but can condition akusala), are like visitors from outside. It seems disturbing, but we have to note: the ariyan knows the citta as it really is: yathaabutta. One has to know also akusala citta as it is, otherwise one cannot become an ariyan, this is stressed in this short sutta. Yathaabhuuta: bhuuta: that which has grown, is, exists, the truth. yathaabhuuta: in its real essence, according to the truth. vippamutta: pamu~ncati: to release. The Atthasalini speaks about the bhavangacitta as being pure, using the word pa.n.dara (I, Book I, Part IV, Ch II, 140) : "Mind also is said to be clear in the sense of exceedingly pure with reference to the Bhavanga-citta." Now I like to quote from Acharn's Survey of Paramattha dhammas where she explains about the bhavanga-citta which is different from the cittas experiencing objects impinging on the six doors. She explains that when one is fast asleep one does not know who one is or where one is, one does not experience the world. When one wakes up the world appears, one experiences all the objects impinging on the six doors and then these objects give rise to defilements. The bhavanga-citta, life-continuum, that has the function of keeping continuity in the life of an individual, arises when fast asleep and also in between the processes of cittas. Thus our life, consisting of an uninterrupted series of cittas, goes on. The bhavanga-citta experiences the same object as the rebirth-consciousness, and this object is like an echo of the object experienced shortly before the dying-consciousness of the previous life. This citta is pure, but it does not mean that there are no latent tendencies of defilements, anusayas, which lie dormant in the citta. It is called pure or luminous, because at that moment no defilements arise. I quote: < The citta is pure only at the moment it does not experience an object through the doors of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense or mind. Everybody who is fast asleep looks innocent, pure, he does not experience like or dislike, he is not jealous, stingy, conceited, he has no lovingkindness nor compassion; thus, unwholesome or wholesome qualities do not arise because he does not see, hear, experience tangible object or think. However, it should be known that whenever the citta which arises experiences an object through one of the six doors, citta is not pure. The reason is that many different defilements have been accumulated in the citta and these condition the arising of pleasure and attachment when one sees something pleasant, and the arising of displeasure and annoyance when one sees something unpleasant.> The person who is enlightened, the ariyasaavako, has eradicated anusayas by the development of pa~n~naa of the eightfold Path. It is pa~n~naa which knows realities as they are, yathaabhuuta, no other way. Anusayas are eradicated at the different stages of enlightenment, and only the arahat is freed from all defilements, he has no more latent tendencies of defilements, no conditions for their arising. Nina. 8409 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 1:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep Dear Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Thanks for your responses. I will have to re-read some of this before I can > answer intelligently. It's very interesting in any case. I think so...hope I wasn’t too obtuse...;-)) > There are two areas where you might help my understanding along a little bit. > I > am fascinated with the idea of the bhavanga cittas, and especially the idea > that > these are 'subconscious'. Where and how does 'subconscious continuity' come > into > the scheme of things? I wouldn’t use ‘sub-conscious’ to describe bhavanga. Actually I don’t use it at all except when I’m quoting a translator. Either there is a bhavanga citta or there isn’t. No lurking bhavangas.....;-) This seems quite modern in a way, and makes sense of > the > statement I have often heard that Buddhism provided the earliest and most > thorough > psychological science. I believe you have mentioned that you have a > psychology > background and I wonder if you find this as fascinating as I do? When I first started studying Buddhism and the abhidhamma in particular, it provided all the answers to all the questions that western psychology had failed (and still fails) to answer for me. Really for the last 25yrs or so, everything I’ve learnt about people, the mind, memory, perception and so on, has been gleened from Buddhism. As I mentioned to someone else, I don’t attempt to compare it to other systems, teachings or philosophies because I find it so all-encompassing in itself (if that makes sense). This doesn’t mean that the tools I’ve learnt from say, psycholinguistics or educational psychology, are not of great benefit in my work, but this is in the way that knowing how to drive and a little about mechanics helps one on the road (but not the road to nibbana;-) In other words, lots of helpful conceptual truths, but we need the Buddha’s teachings to learn about absolute truths or realities. Funnily enough, I think this perspective and 'healthy scepticism' about much of my original training, helps me do my job a lot better. I also think any Buddhist understanding should help make any aspect of our lives simpler and easier. > > I was also fascinated by your quick list of the consciousnesses or mental > factors > that intercede between a moment of contact with sense-object and its > 'processing' > into a percept and concept. How those factors of consciousness arise and > coordinate would be very interesting, but I'm sure it's a complicated > discussion..... Yes it is fascinating and complicated!....Nina explains these details much more carefully and precisely in that book I recommended for homework * After that, there are the books of the Abhidhamma themselves, but some of the commentaries, like the Atthasalani which I was quoting from to Mike before, are much more readable (imho). Actually, it’s a very individual matter as to how much detail is helpful and at what time. I’ve never been able to absorb too many technical details at a time and I’ve appreciated that friends and teachers like K.Sujin and Nina have always stressed the importance of understanding realities now.The details are only for this purpose and not for the sake of mere book-learning, as we all agree here. If you do start reading any of the details in these books, pls keep asking questions or sharing your insights along the way. > > It may be that I need to understand the nature and relative status of the > bhavanga > cittas and the arising of kusala and panna before I can really add a lot more > to > this discussion. I think it can be pretty hard to bravely question some of our deep-held beliefs of an underlying soul, being, awareness, wisdom, consciousness, nibbana, luminosity, small self, god or enlightened status. I have the greatest respect for those like yourself who are prepared to listen, consider, question, challenge and review any of these. I’ve also found this to be one of the most useful and pleasant exchanges I have had here. But I will look over your very interesting responses and > see > what I can come up with in the way of understanding. Take your time...I’ll be around....;-)) this has been a bit of a rave (midnight which is v.late for me). Sarah 8410 From: Howard Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 6:05am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/3/01 3:20:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > > Howard, > Thanks. How then one differentiate between samatha and vipassana > meditation. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, often a mental one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various details of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly examine all aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, with an eye to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, unworthiness, impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and ceasing) phenomena. ----------------------------------------------------- > What criterias are used to differentiate them? Are the criteria set up by us or by > Buddha. To me if the method is beneficial to all beings, Buddha would have > about it and will not keep in confidential. Since Vipassana is a > major practise of attaining insight, why didn't Buddha speaks abt it in a > sutra and emphasis it again and again just like non-self concept and > mindfullness. Sorry no offence here. I really like to know the > origination of vipassana meditation and why was it not said directly to > everybody as in a sutra. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The Buddha *did* teach vipassana bhavana, especially in the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. But only so much can be done in a general way. Direct meditation instruction, such as was given by the Buddha and his followers in the Sangha to both monks, nuns,and laypersons, is the best way to go. This remains the case in all branches of Buddhism. One cannot adequately learn meditating from book, sutta, or sutra. ---------------------------------------------------------- > Just like when I look at Abidharma, I was thinking why Buddha did not > develop this? > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, "orthodox" Theravadins do maintain that the Abhidhamma is a creation of the Buddha, whereas many other Theravadins do not claim this. Inasmuch as I am notan Abhidhammika, I will refrain from saying any more on this issue. -------------------------------------------------------- To me one the the weaknesses in Abidharma is because it will become very > conceptual. In my understanding, Buddha likes to keep things simple, for eg > breathing sutra and mindfullness sutra. I think the best is the Four Noble > Truth, simple yet full of wisdom. > When we talk abt kusala or askusala , or sanna, I only have one > interpretation, it all surrounds a self. All these are just different > segregation of self. Another interpretation that I read about citta, is > that citta a series of cittas and occuring in such a rapid pace that we > cannot detect the discrete occassions which are of diverse types. Assuming > we are able to detect all these discrete cittas, we are like jig saw > puzzles pieces. If all these pieces eventually are know, then what are we. > > Since all are in pieces, how are bhavanga citta going to brought forward > our karma to our next life. Just as Mike said that volition is impersonal > or just momentary, then how does such momentary going to decide our karma > in our next life. Again since it is momentary, how does bhavanga citta > going to bring forward all such momentary volitions into next life since > bhavanga citta is also momentary. > Maybe we could assume that bhavanga citta is like the black hole, able to > carry on all such momentary volitions, but this is also wrong because citta > is a series of cittas. Then how does citta going to decide our future > karma since citta is momentary. > There must be something all this depend on. It cannot be citta as defined > above. It must be a consciouness that is not defined in Abidharma. > These are all my assumptions and reservations and sincerely no offence. > Kind regards. > Kenneth Ong > > ============================= 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) 8411 From: KennethOng Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 11:04am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Howard, Many thousand thanks and I sincerely appreciate your patience and kindness in replying my difficult questions. =================================================== Howard: I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, often a mental one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various details of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly examine all aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, with an eye to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, unworthiness, impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and ceasing) phenomena. ================================================= Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is actually a vipassana meditation. This means Vipassana should be practise all through our waking moments be it when we are eating or sitting and not just when we are sitting down and meditate. Another question, when we observe the phenomena, is there a citta involved during this observation. Since citta is temporal, how could a temporal observe another temporal. Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved. Does this means that there is an intention to observe or this implies that thoughts are use as labels or objects of meditation. What happens if there are no thoughts, where is the concentration hedge on. We cannot practise meditation without hedging on something. In my interpretation, Vipassana is hedging on thoughts as labels or objects for discernment. Hence we could say that meditation on the breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is use as an object, and breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we seldom notice it thats all. To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation but to me just because we have been practise this for many generations, we take it as it is. Simply speaking, Vipassana is just our reflections of thoughts and such practise should not confine to just meditation. it should be practise in every moments of our lifes. The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and other religious practise is that we learn to be detach from such reflections. We reflect feelings as feelings, consciouness as consciouness, no more or no less. My interpretation in mindfullness sutra is that eventually those difference in pleasant and unpleasand feelings is just know as feelings (this is also written in the sutra). there is no differentiating thoughts. See things as it is. With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go. there is no longer a you or me. But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on its own right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands years and benefitted countless human beings. Once again Howard, many thanks for your patience and kindness in answering my questions. Kind regards Kenneth Ong P.S. Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous email about citta. Thanks Howard wrote: Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/3/01 3:20:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > > Howard, > Thanks. How then one differentiate between samatha and vipassana > meditation. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, often a mental one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various details of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly examine all aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, with an eye to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, unworthiness, impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and ceasing) phenomena. ----------------------------------------------------- > What criterias are used to differentiate them? Are the criteria set up by us or by > Buddha. To me if the method is beneficial to all beings, Buddha would have > about it and will not keep in confidential. Since Vipassana is a > major practise of attaining insight, why didn't Buddha speaks abt it in a > sutra and emphasis it again and again just like non-self concept and > mindfullness. Sorry no offence here. I really like to know the > origination of vipassana meditation and why was it not said directly to > everybody as in a sutra. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The Buddha *did* teach vipassana bhavana, especially in the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. But only so much can be done in a general way. Direct meditation instruction, such as was given by the Buddha and his followers in the Sangha to both monks, nuns,and laypersons, is the best way to go. This remains the case in all branches of Buddhism. One cannot adequately learn meditating from book, sutta, or sutra. ---------------------------------------------------------- > Just like when I look at Abidharma, I was thinking why Buddha did not > develop this? > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, "orthodox" Theravadins do maintain that the Abhidhamma is a creation of the Buddha, whereas many other Theravadins do not claim this. Inasmuch as I am notan Abhidhammika, I will refrain from saying any more on this issue. -------------------------------------------------------- To me one the the weaknesses in Abidharma is because it will become very > conceptual. In my understanding, Buddha likes to keep things simple, for eg > breathing sutra and mindfullness sutra. I think the best is the Four Noble > Truth, simple yet full of wisdom. > When we talk abt kusala or askusala , or sanna, I only have one > interpretation, it all surrounds a self. All these are just different > segregation of self. Another interpretation that I read about citta, is > that citta a series of cittas and occuring in such a rapid pace that we > cannot detect the discrete occassions which are of diverse types. Assuming > we are able to detect all these discrete cittas, we are like jig saw > puzzles pieces. If all these pieces eventually are know, then what are we. > > Since all are in pieces, how are bhavanga citta going to brought forward > our karma to our next life. Just as Mike said that volition is impersonal > or just momentary, then how does such momentary going to decide our karma > in our next life. Again since it is momentary, how does bhavanga citta > going to bring forward all such momentary volitions into next life since > bhavanga citta is also momentary. > Maybe we could assume that bhavanga citta is like the black hole, able to > carry on all such momentary volitions, but this is also wrong because citta > is a series of cittas. Then how does citta going to decide our future > karma since citta is momentary. > There must be something all this depend on. It cannot be citta as defined > above. It must be a consciouness that is not defined in Abidharma. > These are all my assumptions and reservations and sincerely no offence. > Kind regards. > Kenneth Ong > > ============================= 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) 8412 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 11:57am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Right Effort as a co-arising factor? --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > So while > > > 'right' effort is given a *factor* of a moment of kusala, in the sense > > > that it is a necessary accompaniment of each kusala moment, it is not > > > given as a *cause* for the arising of the kusala moment. > > > > Dear Jon, > > I'd like to challenge the above a bit, although I'm not sure if I have > > any secure > > footing to do it. > > > > If right effort is the property of a kusala moment, then what is it an > > effort towards? > > > > It would not make sense to speak of effort unless it was intending to do > > something, not merely accompanying something already accomplished. If > > it is an > > accompaniment of a kusala moment, then it would have to be aiding the > > accomplishment of that which the kusala moment is trying to accomplish. > > What is > > the accomplishment of a kusala moment? Panna? Would 'right effort' > > then be the > > correct effort of a kusala factor to accomplish panna? Or does this not > > make sense? > > I am impressed with the perceptive questions you have come up with. I > will do my best to explain the position according to the texts, as I > understand them. > > When talking about the realities of existence as found in the teachings, > we need to bear in mind that the terms used to denote those realities do > not of course carry the same meaning and implications as their > conventional counterparts. We have to learn about each reality pretty > much from scratch, if we are to avoid having a mistaken view of it. > > And there is much to be learnt. Every mental factor (cetasika) that > arises with a mind-moment (citta) has its own particular characteristic, > performs a very specific function at the moment of its arising, and has a > particular manifestation and proximate cause. (These of course should be > taken in the context of a mental factor arising together with a moment of > consciousness, despite what may sometimes appear to be reference to a > situation existing over a period of time as, for example, the reference to > 'state' in the description below.) > > In the case of the mental factor that is viriya (energy, effort), these > attributes are as follows (from the Visuddhimagga ( XIV, 137)-- > > Description: Energy (viriya) is the state of one who, is vigorous (vira). > Characteristic: Its characteristic is marshalling (driving). > Function: Its function is to consolidate conascent states (the > accompanying citta and cetasikas). > Manifestation: It is manifested as non-collapse. > Proximate cause: Its proximate cause is a sense of urgency; or its > proximate cause is grounds for the initiation of energy. > > We see from this that the function of viriya is to consolidate the citta > and cetasikas that it arises together with. So it is not energy 'towards > something', or 'to do something', in the sense that we associate with the > conventional concept of energy. > > Its proximate cause is a 'sense of urgency'. This refers, in the case of > kusala energy, to the urgency of the need to develop kusala. If we see > the value in kusala, that can be the condition (proximate cause) for the > arising of kusala energy, ie. the energy that accompanies kusala citta. > > This is just a brief indication of the manner in which each of the various > mental factors needs to be considered. Without this sort of detailed > study, it is too easy to make assumptions about realities, based on our > conventional knowledge, that are not accurate. There is of course much > more to be known than is indicated above, and I would strongly recommend > Nina's 'Cetasikas' for further reading. The section on viriya is quite > short and well worth a quick glance even for someone with as much homework > as you to catch up on, Rob (!). This can be found in the second half of > Chapter 9, at the following link-- > http://www.dhammastudy.com/cetasikas11.html > > This is not to say that I mind giving the information myself, in fact I am > delighted to, and to give references from the texts wherever possible, > too. But, quite apart from the fact that Nina has already covered the > ground so excellently and with far better understanding of the detail than > I, the fact is I will be away for 2 weeks as from the end of next week, > and will have limited time before then to spend on the list. (Looking > ahead to your blockbuster received earlier today, Rob, I may have to give > you some references to previous posts where these topics have been > discussed, although I will of course try to give a personal reply on each > point as far as I am able. It's in the queue!) > > Jon Thanks for the link, Jon, and your detailed example of 'Energy'. I hope you have a great trip. If you do have a chance to respond to my other post, that will be great. If not, well, I have to admit I will be slightly relieved! But of course, I am looking forward to your comments. Robert Ep 8413 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 0:39pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Thanks for your responses. I will have to re-read some of this before I can > > answer intelligently. It's very interesting in any case. > > I think so...hope I wasn’t too obtuse...;-)) > > > There are two areas where you might help my understanding along a little > bit. > > I > > am fascinated with the idea of the bhavanga cittas, and especially the idea > > that > > these are 'subconscious'. Where and how does 'subconscious continuity' come > > into > > the scheme of things? > > I wouldn’t use ‘sub-conscious’ to describe bhavanga. Actually I don’t use it at > all except when I’m quoting a translator. Either there is a bhavanga citta or > there isn’t. No lurking bhavangas.....;-) > > This seems quite modern in a way, and makes sense of > > the > > statement I have often heard that Buddhism provided the earliest and most > > thorough > > psychological science. I believe you have mentioned that you have a > > psychology > > background and I wonder if you find this as fascinating as I do? > > When I first started studying Buddhism and the abhidhamma in particular, it > provided all the answers to all the questions that western psychology had > failed (and still fails) to answer for me. Really for the last 25yrs or so, > everything I’ve learnt about people, the mind, memory, perception and so on, > has been gleened from Buddhism. > > As I mentioned to someone else, I don’t attempt to compare it to other systems, > teachings or philosophies because I find it so all-encompassing in itself (if > that makes sense). This doesn’t mean that the tools I’ve learnt from say, > psycholinguistics or educational psychology, are not of great benefit in my > work, but this is in the way that knowing how to drive and a little about > mechanics helps one on the road (but not the road to nibbana;-) In other words, > lots of helpful conceptual truths, but we need the Buddha’s teachings to learn > about absolute truths or realities. Funnily enough, I think this perspective > and 'healthy scepticism' about much of my original training, helps me do my job > a lot better. I also think any Buddhist understanding should help make any > aspect of our lives simpler and easier. > > > > > I was also fascinated by your quick list of the consciousnesses or mental > > factors > > that intercede between a moment of contact with sense-object and its > > 'processing' > > into a percept and concept. How those factors of consciousness arise and > > coordinate would be very interesting, but I'm sure it's a complicated > > discussion..... > > Yes it is fascinating and complicated!....Nina explains these details much more > carefully and precisely in that book I recommended for homework * After that, > there are the books of the Abhidhamma themselves, but some of the commentaries, > like the Atthasalani which I was quoting from to Mike before, are much more > readable (imho). Actually, it’s a very individual matter as to how much detail > is helpful and at what time. I’ve never been able to absorb too many technical > details at a time and I’ve appreciated that friends and teachers like K.Sujin > and Nina have always stressed the importance of understanding realities now.The > details are only for this purpose and not for the sake of mere book-learning, > as we all agree here. > > If you do start reading any of the details in these books, pls keep asking > questions or sharing your insights along the way. > > > > > It may be that I need to understand the nature and relative status of the > > bhavanga > > cittas and the arising of kusala and panna before I can really add a lot more > > to > > this discussion. > > I think it can be pretty hard to bravely question some of our deep-held beliefs > of an underlying soul, being, awareness, wisdom, consciousness, nibbana, > luminosity, small self, god or enlightened status. I have the greatest > respect for those like yourself who are prepared to listen, consider, question, > challenge and review any of these. I’ve also found this to be one of the most > useful and pleasant exchanges I have had here. > > But I will look over your very interesting responses and > > see > > what I can come up with in the way of understanding. > > Take your time...I’ll be around....;-)) > > this has been a bit of a rave (midnight which is v.late for me). > > Sarah Dear Sarah, Thanks for your reply. I have admire those of you have settled in for the long haul and made this your 'vehicle'. It is a long trip, is it not? But it must be nice to feel that you have set out in the right direction and can keep enjoying the unfolding of understanding. It is certainly fascinating looking at how realities unfold. Whatever part of Buddhism we are most drawn to, the essential teachings of anatta, anicca and dukkha really give one a perspective that gradually allows the letting go of the idea that there is a self or an object to hold onto. That in itself is a bit of a relief, after all the clinging and disappointment when treasured objects are relinquished, as they must be. To know that this is the true nature of things erases a lot of regret, and points one in a different direction. Thanks for your kind personal notes. I have been enjoying this exchange very much, and I learn a little bit more about how things are put together every time. Your response to my questions was quite clear and helpful. The idea that bhavanga cittas are also momentary and do not form an underlying continuum, but arise when they do as part of the pattern of arising cittas and cetasikas is consistent and makes sense. Although I was secretly hoping for a subconscious field of awareness somewhere in there, it would have been contradictory if it had turned out to be that way. It is a science in a way, isn't it? And gradually becomes a little clearer. I have bookmarked Nina's Cetasikas book and will try to look at it soon. If I get in trouble by not completing my homeworks, I'm sure you'll forgive me, but I will try to do it. I've been very bad about my reading list. I think my wife is going to make it a choice between me and my unread books any day now. Or perhaps she'll throw out my computer. Anyway, that's enough frivolity for now. Again, I appreciate the exchanges and I'm very glad that you find them worthwhile as well. That is very kind of you. Take care, Robert Ep. 8415 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 2:03pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã --- I dear kenneth, I think you realise the extreme profundity of the buddha's Dhamma. It is not easily grasped and the longer we learn the deeper it appears. There are 84,000 teachings and 60,000 ways by which beings penetrate nibbana - this is in the Theravada. Hence it is unwise to take just a few suttas and base our understanding on this. Vipassana is not a technique - it is understanding itself, advanced wisdom. As you say this type of wisdom can be developed anytime, anywhere. The objects for vipassana are ANY paramattha dhammas (absolute realities - which are divided in to either nama or rupa (mentality and materiality). Vipassana sees that what we have taken to be beings, people, man, woman, self are just concepts with no reality. The development of vipassana breaks down the "whole" and thus the evanescent, conditioned nature of namas and rupas is understood. this insight - by its nature- leads to ever increasing detachment from all these dhammas - from samsara, from dukkha, from life. When we first learn the Dhamma it appeals at whatever level is appopriate. As insight increases we see more. Some suttas have extremely deep meaning but all suttas are deep. even the Jataka stories show us the way conditions and kamma reveal themselves in the world of concepts. they too show anatta, and support vipassana insight. The netti-ppakaranam (170) notes that "when one dhamma is mentioned, all dhammas of like characteristic are mentioned too...when certain ideas have a single common characteristic, then when one of those ideas is stated, the rest of those ideas is stated" for example (174) "so when mindfulness occupied with the body is stated [eg. 'they whose mindfulness of body is constantly well instigated ..ever do what should be done -Dh 293;pe91], the mindfulness of feeling and that occupied with citta and that occupied with mindobjects is stated." end quote. This all means that when the Buddha promoted mindfulness of the body he is referring to all the foundations of mindfulness (in this example). The correct development of mindfulness is not easy and is not to be had just by directing attention to the body or feelings or thoughts or mindstates. It is only mindfulness - in the buddhist sense- if it is substituting wrong ideas (such as this is my body, my feelings, my thoughts, etc) with right understanding of the way things really are (that is just conditioned fleeting, insignificant, alien phenomemena). Cittas change rapidly. For example, one series of cittas may be genuinely insighting some object (a paramattha dhamma); the next series may have the same object (or seem to be the same), the feeling may seem the same but the cittas may be rooted in attachment or subtle wrongview. if you would like to follow this up more I will reply. best wishes robert KennethOng wrote: > > Howard, > Many thousand thanks and I sincerely appreciate your patience and kindness in replying my difficult questions. > =================================================== > Howard: > I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha > bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, often a mental > one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various details > of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly examine all > aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, with an eye > to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, unworthiness, > impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and ceasing) > phenomena. > ================================================= > Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is actually a vipassana meditation. This means Vipassana should be practise all through our waking moments be it when we are eating or sitting and not just when we are sitting down and meditate. > Another question, when we observe the phenomena, is there a citta involved during this observation. Since citta is temporal, how could a temporal observe another temporal. > Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved. Does this means that there is an intention to observe or this implies that thoughts are use as labels or objects of meditation. What happens if there are no thoughts, where is the concentration hedge on. We cannot practise meditation without hedging on something. In my interpretation, Vipassana is hedging on thoughts as labels or objects for discernment. Hence we could say that meditation on the breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is use as an object, and breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we seldom notice it thats all. > To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation but to me just because we have been practise this for many generations, we take it as it is. Simply speaking, Vipassana is just our reflections of thoughts and such practise should not confine to just meditation. it should be practise in every moments of our lifes. > The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and other religious practise is that we learn to be detach from such reflections. We reflect feelings as feelings, consciouness as consciouness, no more or no less. My interpretation in mindfullness sutra is that eventually those difference in pleasant and unpleasand feelings is just know as feelings (this is also written in the sutra). there is no differentiating thoughts. See things as it is. With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go. there is no longer a you or me. > But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on its own right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands years and benefitted countless human beings. Once again Howard, many thanks for your patience and kindness in answering my questions. > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > P.S. Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous email about citta. Thanks > > 8416 From: KennethOng Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 5:16pm Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi Robert, I definitely agreed with Dhamma is profound and there are many methods. And by no means I am not here to discourage anyone to stop any method of practise or say any method of practise is wrong. I just here to point my reservation and I ever willing to be corrected by anyone. Sincerely I am very glad that I got this opportunity to ask here, as pple here are objective and more willingly to accept radical ideas. If it is on another list, i would have not ask such questions. Really thanks for this opportunity and I promise not to misuse it (the scout salute, iIi ) In the Chinese thoughts (I hope i dont sound racial here). there are 84, 000 methods. The chinese Mahayana prefer simplicity. If you understand one, you understand all (chinese literal translation). Hence sometimes simplicty has its advantages but there is nothing wrong with complexity as some pple would prefer this method. Robert, if Vipassana is an advance wisdom Buddha would have talk abt it again and again, just like the emptiness concept which is considered advanced wisdom in Mahayana Sutra is said again and again by Buddha in Mahayana Sutras. I more incline to believe, it is us that put it under advance wisdom and classified it as Vipassana. This is why I ask, why Buddha did not say about Vipassana meditation if it is so impt again and again like non self, impermanent and mindfullness. I more incline to believe again that it is us who infer and interpreted it. (absolute realities - which are divided in to either nama or rupa (mentality and materiality)), On what ground are we saying these are absolute realities. As I said before, just because it was written for many generations, it does not mean that we got to believe in it. We got to ask and be corrected and honestly speaking I am very willingly to be corrected. As I said earlier mindfullness is a very straight forward method. to me mindfullness is very fundamental to Buddhist practise as it is the middle way. It is not nihilist because it knows there is an existence, hence the words, there is feeling. it is not eternalist, because it understands there is feeling as feeling. No more and no less. Mindfullness method lead us to understand things as it is. That is the beautiful part, able to observe thoughts detachly. When we practise the mindfullness to let go of self, its idea is to realise that the self is just make up of the five aggregates but it does not disacknowledge these existences of this five aggregates. To aim is to see self as five different parts and not to reject existence. We can never reject existence because we are infact exist, just that now our view of our existence are only being clouded. Hence Vipassana from what you written is similiar to Mindfullness the goal is to observe things detachly, letting go of our attachement to ideas, feelings etc.. . Seeing things as it is. this is my understanding of mindfullness. Furthermore, from my own experience, when we become more mindful of our thoughts, we become sharper and sharper at our thoughts, esp subtle thoughts. What I more inclined to think is that if we break down into smaller and smaller parts, we become obesse into breaking, attaching to minutes details. Such is also attachments. it could lead to attachment to investigation. We are no longer detach. There is desire to investigate as we investigate more and more. Furthermore, in a sense such investigation would make the mind noisy. When the dharma list talking abt citta, I would like to ask how do citta who is itself temporal knows another citta who is also temporal. If it is temporal, how is it going to bring our karma to our next life. how is this cittas going to determine the other cittas next time in our next rebirth. If cittas is temporal, how we are going to practise since cittas are inherent temporal. Robert honestly thanks for the explaining. I sincerely welcome you or anyone in the list to correct me and I feel good to be corrected. Sometimes, I think I am a radical. :) Cheers. Kind regards Kenneth Ong <> wrote: --- I dear kenneth, I think you realise the extreme profundity of the buddha's Dhamma. It is not easily grasped and the longer we learn the deeper it appears. There are 84,000 teachings and 60,000 ways by which beings penetrate nibbana - this is in the Theravada. Hence it is unwise to take just a few suttas and base our understanding on this. Vipassana is not a technique - it is understanding itself, advanced wisdom. As you say this type of wisdom can be developed anytime, anywhere. The objects for vipassana are ANY paramattha dhammas (absolute realities - which are divided in to either nama or rupa (mentality and materiality). Vipassana sees that what we have taken to be beings, people, man, woman, self are just concepts with no reality. The development of vipassana breaks down the "whole" and thus the evanescent, conditioned nature of namas and rupas is understood. this insight - by its nature- leads to ever increasing detachment from all these dhammas - from samsara, from dukkha, from life. When we first learn the Dhamma it appeals at whatever level is appopriate. As insight increases we see more. Some suttas have extremely deep meaning but all suttas are deep. even the Jataka stories show us the way conditions and kamma reveal themselves in the world of concepts. they too show anatta, and support vipassana insight. The netti-ppakaranam (170) notes that "when one dhamma is mentioned, all dhammas of like characteristic are mentioned too...when certain ideas have a single common characteristic, then when one of those ideas is stated, the rest of those ideas is stated" for example (174) "so when mindfulness occupied with the body is stated [eg. 'they whose mindfulness of body is constantly well instigated ..ever do what should be done -Dh 293;pe91], the mindfulness of feeling and that occupied with citta and that occupied with mindobjects is stated." end quote. This all means that when the Buddha promoted mindfulness of the body he is referring to all the foundations of mindfulness (in this example). The correct development of mindfulness is not easy and is not to be had just by directing attention to the body or feelings or thoughts or mindstates. It is only mindfulness - in the buddhist sense- if it is substituting wrong ideas (such as this is my body, my feelings, my thoughts, etc) with right understanding of the way things really are (that is just conditioned fleeting, insignificant, alien phenomemena). Cittas change rapidly. For example, one series of cittas may be genuinely insighting some object (a paramattha dhamma); the next series may have the same object (or seem to be the same), the feeling may seem the same but the cittas may be rooted in attachment or subtle wrongview. if you would like to follow this up more I will reply. best wishes robert KennethOng wrote: > > Howard, > Many thousand thanks and I sincerely appreciate your patience and kindness in replying my difficult questions. > =================================================== > Howard: > I would suppose the simplest distinguishing would be that samatha > bhavana involves focusing on a fixed (or repeated) phenomenon, often a mental > one, to the exclusion of all others, and without looking at various details > of it, whereas vipassana bhavana allows the attention to directly examine all > aspects of the flow of phenomena clearly, and without reaction, with an eye > to observing all the details, and especially the impermanence, unworthiness, > impersonality, and insubstantiality of all the arising (and ceasing) > phenomena. > ================================================= > Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is actually a vipassana meditation. This means Vipassana should be practise all through our waking moments be it when we are eating or sitting and not just when we are sitting down and meditate. > Another question, when we observe the phenomena, is there a citta involved during this observation. Since citta is temporal, how could a temporal observe another temporal. > Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved. Does this means that there is an intention to observe or this implies that thoughts are use as labels or objects of meditation. What happens if there are no thoughts, where is the concentration hedge on. We cannot practise meditation without hedging on something. In my interpretation, Vipassana is hedging on thoughts as labels or objects for discernment. Hence we could say that meditation on the breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is use as an object, and breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we seldom notice it thats all. > To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation but to me just because we have been practise this for many generations, we take it as it is. Simply speaking, Vipassana is just our reflections of thoughts and such practise should not confine to just meditation. it should be practise in every moments of our lifes. > The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and other religious practise is that we learn to be detach from such reflections. We reflect feelings as feelings, consciouness as consciouness, no more or no less. My interpretation in mindfullness sutra is that eventually those difference in pleasant and unpleasand feelings is just know as feelings (this is also written in the sutra). there is no differentiating thoughts. See things as it is. With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go. there is no longer a you or me. > But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on its own right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands years and benefitted countless human beings. Once again Howard, many thanks for your patience and kindness in answering my questions. > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > P.S. Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous email about citta. Thanks > > 8417 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 7:54pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Dear Jonothan, > Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the > positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)? Thanks. I am not confident about my understading here, I have a feeling that I do not understand the real meaning behind this reminder (athaan rarueng). But I will relay my experience of this morning and wait for you or anyone to comment. This morning I was feeling dosa towards myself and my particular circumstance. I was lamenting the fact that I allow weeks to go by without ever considering the teachings in daily life, that I was stuck only on the theoretical level and that too, I have very little knowledge of. I started blaming my kids, wife, work and monetary status and this made things even worse. I then remembered 'athaan rarueng' and the fact that all realities arise because of conditions. I was reminded that even in the midst of what seems like a long stretch of dosa, there can be moments of patience and acceptance. I noticed that thinking each time about 'athaan rarueng' there follows a degree of 'letting go'. I also reflected later that my dosa comes much in part from expectations I have about my progress. Eventhough I ended up still explaining my way out of the situation, but I was also left with some breathing space and this itself was condition for some good cheer. Hope I go it correct, if not let me know. Sukin. 8418 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 9:06pm Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã --Dear kenneth, I have no doubt about your sincerity to learn- that is why I find it worthwhile replying to your earlier posts and this one. if you have time I'd like to exchange several posts on this. I am a still a little uncertain about your doubts and so, if you don't mind, I would ask some questions. KennethOng wrote: > In the Chinese thoughts (I hope i dont sound racial here). there are 84, 000 methods. The chinese Mahayana prefer simplicity. If you understand one, you understand all (chinese literal translation). Hence sometimes simplicty has its advantages but there is nothing wrong with complexity as some pple would prefer this method. _______ So this all agrees with Theravada. ______ > Robert, if Vipassana is an advance wisdom Buddha would have talk abt it again and again, just like the emptiness concept which is considered advanced wisdom in Mahayana Sutra is said again and again by Buddha in Mahayana Sutras. I more incline to believe, it is us that put it under advance wisdom and classified it as Vipassana. This is why I ask, why Buddha did not say about Vipassana meditation if it is so impt again and again like non self, impermanent and mindfullness. I more incline to believe again that it is us who infer and interpreted it. _________ Robert k.:Vipassana means nothing other than insight into nonself and impermanent (and dukkha). This is the way it is always explained in the texts. If you don't like the word "vipassana" we can say 'understanding anatta"- would that be more suitable? It really makes no difference. > ___________________________ > (absolute realities - which are divided in to either nama or rupa (mentality and materiality)), On what ground are we saying these are absolute realities. As I said before, just because it was written for many generations, it does not mean that we got to believe in it. We got to ask and be corrected and honestly speaking I am very willingly to be corrected. ______ Robert k.:Before I answer. Could you describe what these realities are? You have doubts about nama and rupa but I am not sure if you really know what it is you are doubting. _______ > > As I said earlier mindfullness is a very straight forward method. to me mindfullness is very fundamental to Buddhist practise as it is the middle way. It is not nihilist because it knows there is an existence, hence the words, there is feeling. it is not eternalist, because it understands there is feeling as feeling. No more and no less. Mindfullness method lead us to understand things as it is. That is the beautiful part, able to observe thoughts detachly. When we practise the mindfullness to let go of self, its idea is to realise that the self is just make up of the five aggregates but it does not disacknowledge these existences of this five aggregates. To aim is to see self as five different parts and not to reject existence. We can never reject existence because we are infact exist, just that now our view of our existence are only being clouded. Hence Vipassana from what you written is similiar to Mindfullness the goal is to observe things detachly, letting go of our attachement to ideas, feelings etc.. . Seeing things as it is. this is my understanding of mindfullness. _______ Ok this sounds along the right lines. _______ Furthermore, from my own experience, when we become more mindful of our thoughts, we become sharper and sharper at our thoughts, esp subtle thoughts. > What I more inclined to think is that if we break down into smaller and smaller parts, we become obesse into breaking, attaching to minutes details. Such is also attachments. it could lead to attachment to investigation. We are no longer detach. There is desire to investigate as we investigate more and more. Furthermore, in a sense such investigation would make the mind noisy. _______ You are pointing out an extreme that one can slip into. whenever there is attachment there is no mindfulness - it is as simple as that. Attachment can come in at any time. Thus we have to know , by experience, what sati (mindfulness) really is. ______ ________ > > When the dharma list talking abt citta, I would like to ask how do citta who is itself temporal knows another citta who is also temporal. If it is temporal, how is it going to bring our karma to our next life. how is this cittas going to determine the other cittas next time in our next rebirth. If cittas is temporal, how we are going to practise since cittas are inherent temporal. --_______ We have written so much about these matters on dsg and you will find much in the archives. Start with these at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts I feel you are defintely headed in the right direction kenneth. both you and Robert Ep. ask intelligent questions and make useful comments please keep it up. best wishes robert k. 8419 From: Howard Date: Thu Oct 4, 2001 7:33pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/3/01 11:10:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Since Vipassana is what you have defined, then mindfullness is actually a > vipassana meditation. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Some people use the terms 'vipassana meditation'/'insight meditation' and 'mindfulness meditation' interchangeably, but I think that to use 'mindfulness' as a name for it isn't good. Mindfulness certainly is a leading factor in the cultivation of insight, but not the only one. -------------------------------------------------------- This means Vipassana should be practise all through our waking moments be it > when we are eating or sitting and not just when we are sitting down and > meditate. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that what you mean here is correct. Literally, one shouldn't speak of vipassana being practiced, but of it being cultivated. It is a goal. And, yes, mindfulness, concentration, and clear comprehension should be in place, optimally, at all times and in all positions. As far as *this* list is concerned, I think that more important than pointing *this* out, which I think is well undrstood here, is to point out the importance of not excluding *formal* meditation (in the traditional walking and sitting positions) from one's practice, because in formal meditation, by restricting the range of observed phenomena, it is possible to increase the level and intensity of concentration and calm, as well as the other factors. ---------------------------------------------------- > Another question, when we observe the phenomena, is there a citta involved > during this observation. Since citta is temporal, how could a temporal > observe another temporal. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: To the extent that I understand Abhidhamma, which is close to nil, a citta is nothing more than a mind-moment, a moment of discerning a visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, or mental phenomenon (accompanied by a large variety of other functions as well). Discernment and its namarupic object co-occur. There is no object of discernment without the discerning, and there is no discernment without its object. The relation between vi~n~nana/citta and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles of reeds (I think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting each other. If either bundle falls, so does the other. Likewise, with the advent of nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the mind is freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an infinite illumination encountering no obstacles. ------------------------------------------------------------- > Furthermore, during such meditation, there is an effort involved. Does this > means that there is an intention to observe or this implies that thoughts > are use as labels or objects of meditation. What happens if there are no > thoughts, where is the concentration hedge on. We cannot practise > meditation without hedging on something. In my interpretation, Vipassana is > hedging on thoughts as labels or objects for discernment. Hence we could > say that meditation on the breath is the same as Vipassana where breath is > use as an object, and breath is definitely very impermanent is just that we > seldom notice it thats all. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Meditation on the breath can be used as samatha bhavana, as vipassana bhavana, or as both. ----------------------------------------------------------- > To me, it is definitely beneficial to practise vipassana meditation but to > me just because we have been practise this for many generations, we take it > as it is. Simply speaking, Vipassana is just our reflections of thoughts > and such practise should not confine to just meditation. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, this depends on what you mean by "thoughts". During vipassana meditation, attention is paid to all arising (and ceasing) dhammas. It primarily involves direct observation, not reflective contemplation, not engaging in "thinking about". ---------------------------------------------------------- > it should be practise in every moments of our lifes. > The difference between the reflection of thoughts between us and other religious > practise is that we learn to be detach from such reflections. We reflect > feelings as feelings, consciouness as consciouness, no more or no less. My > interpretation in mindfullness sutra is that eventually those difference in > pleasant and unpleasand feelings is just know as feelings (this is also > written in the sutra). there is no differentiating thoughts. See things > as it is. > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. We agree. ------------------------------------------------------------- With such detachment, self concept could slowly be let go. there is no longer a > you or me. > But no matter what Vipassana definitely is an excellent method on its own > right, or not it would not have survive over two thousands years and > benefitted countless human beings. Once again Howard, many thanks for your > patience and kindness in answering my questions. > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > P.S. Hmm could you or anyone kindly reply the rest of my previous email > about citta. Thanks > > ================================ 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) 8420 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 1:08am Subject: cheerfulness of Dhamma Dear Jon, I meant to be lurking these days, but cannot resist this one: adding something to the cheerful aspect of Dhamma. You always stimulate others and bring up good points. A. Sujin said that we have to be glad and courageous as regards satipatthana. We begin to be mindful of nama and rupa, such as hardness, visible object, sound. At that very short moment: no worry in the world, there is no world, only that characteristic. There is no anxiety about the weakness of panna, the lack of sati. But of course, the moments of sati are brief, and rare, and then there can be worry about ourselves, this or that person, this or that situation. The courage comes in when there is a sense of urgency to be mindful again and again, because life is too short, and now is the time that we still have the opportunity to hear Dhamma and practise it. I am glad you brought this up, because I shall need to be reminded by you of what I am saying now, during our trip. The endless busrides, especially to Kosambi, the hardship, the very large group, and my worry: will there be enough occasions to hear A.Sujin? But we can learn to accept that whatever happens is conditioned, always and everywhere, see Ken's mantra. Nina. 8421 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 1:08am Subject: upanissaya paccaya Dear Num, I have to put off answering you until after India. I am always glad to hear from you, missed you when you were so busy. Nina. 8422 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 6:59am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] vinaya, suttanta, abhidhamma Dear Nina, I particularly liked this post and thought I might wait till after India to respond. Please don't feel pressed to reply before your trip. I was particularly interested in the phrase, 'indriya samvara sila, the guarding of the six doors'. Indriya (controlling factor?), samvara (restraint) and sila (moral practice). I've often heard the phrase, 'guarding the sense doors' before and have always taken it to refer to awareness of the six sixes as explained in the Chachakka Sutta. Is this correct and, if so, how does it relate to the words indriya, samvara and sila? Thanks in advance and have a great trip (conditions permitting). mike --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > op 23-09-2001 15:25 schreef Jonothan Abbott op > Jonothan Abbott: > > > > I was interested to read the passage below, which > seems to suggest there > > are different 'methods' of practice -- sutta, > vinaya and abhidhamma -- > > whereas I would have expected to hear the opposite > coming from Khun Sujin. > > I would be interested to hear what you make of > this. Do the 'methods' > > refer to practice or to the manner of teaching? > > > > --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, many times > > we discussed the methods of Sutta and > >> Abhidhamma. > >> We know that there is also Abhidhamma in the > suttas, and Suan explained > >> this > >> very well recently. Now I would like to quote > from A.Sujin's Cambodian > >> talks > >> about this subject. Her approach is directed > towards the practice. She > >> stresses all the time that right understanding > should be developed of > >> the > >> characteristics of realities appearing now, > through six doors, otherwise > >> we > >> shall only have theoretical understanding. Then > we shall also understand > >> the > >> deep meaning of the methods of Vinaya, Suttanta > and Abhidhamma. The > >> method > >> of the Vinaya is important, also for laypeople. > When you are used to the > >> idea of the Suttanta method as being the Dhamma > explained in > >> conventional > >> terms, you may wonder why A.Sujin says that the > Buddha in the suttas > >> explained about confidence, moral shame and fear > of blame. These > >> accompany > >> kusala citta, and the Suttanta method teaches us > to see thd benefit of > >> kusala and the disadvantage of akusala. Moral > shame, hiri, and fear of > >> blame, ottappa, perform their functions when one > sees the disadvantage > >> of > >> akusala. Again, the purpose is not the theory, > but the practice. Now I > >> quote: > >> > >> not merely be theoretical > >> understanding of realities, but it should be the > practice, that is the > >> development of paññå according to the method of > the Suttanta, of the > >> Abhidhamma and of the Vinaya, the Book of > Discipline for the monks . > >> > >> Question: In which way is the practice according > to those three methods > >> different? > >> > >> Sujin: They are different methods. The Vinaya > deals with conduct through > >> body and speech. When we study the Vinaya we know > that wholesome conduct > >> through body and speech is developed by kusala > citta. An example of this > >> is > >> the case of a monk who entered a house and sat > down without having been > >> invited by the owner of the house. When the > Buddha heard of this he laid > >> down a rule that only when the owner of a place > had invited the monk he > >> could sit down. Thus, when the monk goes to > someone's house, but the > >> owner > >> has not yet invited him, should he sit down? Even > small matters, matters > >> that concern etiquette and manners, such as while > one is eating, are all > >> explained in the Vinaya, and everybody can apply > these. We do not need > >> to > >> sit down and consider how many more sílas in > addition to the five > >> precepts > >> we shall observe. Síla concerns our conduct > through body and speech. > >> As to the method of the Suttanta, this is very > subtle and detailed, such > >> as > >> the teaching of dukkha-dukkha (intrinsic dukkha, > bodily pain and unhappy > >> feeling), viparinama-dukkha (dukkha because of > change) and > >> sankhåra-dukkha > >> (dukkha inherent in all conditioned realities). > We should study the > >> Suttanta > >> so that we acquire a more detailed understanding > of confidence, saddhå, > >> moral shame, hiri, and fear of blame, ottappa. > When we listen to the > >> Dhamma > >> there is confidence, sati, hiri and ottappa. We > do not realize that > >> there > >> are hiri and ottappa, even though they are there > in reality. Whenever > >> kusala > >> citta arises it is accompanied by hiri and > ottappa, without the need to > >> think that we are ashamed of akusala. We do not > need to think first of > >> moral > >> shame in order that it arises and that we shall > listen to the Dhamma. > >> Whenever the reality of moral shame arises there > is kusala citta at that > >> moment. Thus, we should have more understanding > of realities in detail. > >> With regard to the Abhidhamma method, this is in > accordance with the > >> characteristics of each and every one of the > realities. The practice > >> according to the Abhidhamma method is not merely > knowledge of the > >> concepts > >> nåma and rúpa, but it is the realization of the > characteristics of nåma > >> and > >> rúpa that are appearing. When satipatthåna arises > there is awareness and > >> understanding of the characteristics of > realities, one at a time. When > >> anger > >> arises, is there anybody who does not know this, > even if he does not > >> study > >> the Abhidhamma. When jealousy or stinginess > arises, is it necessary to > >> study > >> the Abhidhamma so that one knows it? People know > it without study, but > >> they > >> take these realities for self, and they do not > know that these are only > >> different dhammas. If one practises according to > the Abhidhamma method > >> one > >> understands that all realities are non-self. When > attachment, aversion > >> or > >> conceit arise, or when we enjoy ourselves, there > is no person, no self. > >> When > >> there is the firm remembrance of the truth of > anattå, a person will not > >> have > >> misunderstandings about it and believe that he > can do whatever he likes > >> because everything is anattå anyway. Then he uses > anattå as a trick to > >> excuse his behaviour and he gives his own > interpretation of this term. > >> As > >> regards the truth of anattå, does paññå grasp > already its meaning? Or do > >> we > >> just repeat that everything is anattå? There is a > considerable > >> difference in > >> the understanding of someone who merely studies > the theory of the Dhamma > >> and > >> of someone who develops pañña and knows the > characteristics of realities > >> as > >> they are. We should understand this correctly: if > we know only terms and > >> names of dhammas, we shall remain only at that > level, and we shall > >> continue > >> to know only terms. We should develop pañña so > that the truth of anattå > >> can > >> be realized, in accordance with the teaching that > all dhammas are > >> anattå. > >> Otherwise, to use a simile, we are like the > ladle that serves the curry > >> but > >> does not know the taste of it. If we study but we > do not realize the > >> true > >> nature of realities, how many lives shall we be > only at that level, and > >> this > >> means that we study and then forget what we > learnt. > >> > >> If we know that we study with the purpose of > understanding realities at > >> this > >> very moment, then our understanding will be in > accordance with our > >> ability. > >> We can understand, for example, what årammana, > object, is. It is > >> impossible > >> that citta does not experience an object. Citta > is the reality that > >> experiences and thus there must be something > that is experienced. That > >> which is experienced can be anything, it can be > citta, cetasika, rúpa or > >> nibbåna. A concept, paññatti , is the object of > citta that thinks. We > >> can > >> know when the citta knows a concept and when an > ultimate reality, > >> paramattha > >> dhamma. When a paramattha dhamma is the object of > citta, it must have > >> the > >> characteristic of arising and falling away, it > has a true > >> characteristic. > >> When the object is not a paramattha dhamma with > its true characteristic, > >> the > >> object is a concept. If we understand this, sati > can be aware of the > >> characteristics of paramattha dhammas, because > satipaììhåna must know > >> paramattha dhammas. The study can support correct > understanding of the > >> way > >> of development of paññå. Everything we learn from > the beginning is > >> accumulated as the khandha of formations, > sankhårakkhandha, and this is > >> a > >> condition for the growth of pañña.> > >> > >> End quote. > > Nina: Dear Jon and all, > > The teaching according to the methods of Vinaya, > Suttanta and Abhidhamma is > different, but each one of these methods points to > the same goal: the > development of satipatthana which leads to the > eradication of defilements. > Satipatthana can only be taught by a Buddha and thus > it is always implied. > Satipatthana is the one way of practice leading to > the goal. But by these > three methods we are reminded of the goal under > different aspects. Since we > are by nature forgetful, we should be grateful to be > reminded by way of > different aspects of the teachings. > The monk has to observe the rules of Patimokkha, he > has to have Patimokkha > samvara sila, but also indriya samvara sila, the > guarding of the six doors. > There are different degrees of guarding the six > doors, but the highest is > satipatthana. By mindfulness of nama and rupa the > six doors are guarded, > there can be higher sila, adhisila. Someone may be > inclined to rude speech, > or to hurt an insect, but sati can arise and then he > will not utter bad > speech or hurt a living being. Vinaya should not be > separated from > satipatthana. And, as A. Sujin says, also > layfollowers can apply rules of > the Vinaya in their own situation. > In the Discourses the Buddha spoke about the dukkha > in our life: the loss of > family and friends, a grandmother who went around to > the corners of the > streets, exclaiming, where is my granddaughter. When > people were ready for > it he would explain dukkha in change, how things are > susceptible to change, > and if their panna was developed enough he would > explain that the five > khandhas that are impermanent are dukkha. As Robert > said in his post about > the three methods, also when reading suttas you have > to know a lot about > khandhas, elements, ayatanas (sensefields). The > Buddha gave a gradual > teaching to people, about the danger of akusala, the > benefit of kusala, and > if they were ready for it, he taught the four noble > Truths, and then people > could attain enlightenment. We study the suttas, but > the study should have > as purpose the understanding of the characteristics > of realities appearing > now: nama and rupa, the khandhas, the elements, the > ayatanas. The study > should not stay on the level of theoretical > knowledge. > As to the Abhidhamma method, as Robert said, > Abhidhamma is synonymous with > understanding life, with vipassana. Seeing, hearing, > attachment, aversion, > feeling, they are realities of life and they are > elucidated in detail in the > Abhidhamma. With what purpose? To understand this > moment, because in that > way the panna develops that can eventually erdicate > wrong view and the other > defilements. > Thus, the three parts of the teachings are one, all > pointing to the same > goal. The practice is one: satipatthana, > understanding this very moment. > > Someone was wondering who meditates and who does > not. Meditation is a word > that can create confusion, shall we use the word > bhavana, mental > development? Samatha is bhavana but also vipassana > is bhavana, and for > vipassana, this can be developed no matter what one > is doing. I am so glad > the Buddha speaks in the Vinaya about cleaning the > dwellings, freeing them > from dust, washing the robes. The monks are supposed > to do such chores with > mindfulness. I am cleaning, cooking, ironing, and I > should not be forgetful > either, but I am most of the time forgetful. > The word kammatthana is used in connection with > bhavana, translated as > meditation subject. In the Commentary to the Gradual > Sayings, Book of the > Threes, Ch VII, § 5-8, elements have been explained > in short and in detail > as ayatanas, as khandhas and other dhammas. It is > repeated that with these > kammatthanas one can become an arahat. This means, > they are not objects of > mere concentration, they are objects of > understanding. Understanding of the > nama or rupa now. Otherwise arahatship could never > be attained. > Someone was looking for the text: all dhammas are > anatta, this is in > Dhammapada, vs. 279. Nibbana is included in all > dhammas. > Best wishes, Nina. 8423 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 7:45am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi Robert, Sorry I'm so far behind in my replies. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Even if there *is* an 'original luminosity' of > Awareness that exists in Nibbana > after the defilements are gone, Do you mean after parinibbaana? I don't have a problem with luminous cittas arising after nibbaana--just after parinibbaana. > it is neither a > possession or a self. Of course. > We can > still get Buddha's basic message on that, even if we > disagree on the 'original > mind'. So then what are we talking about? We are > talking about something that > being 'already one's pre-existing nature' would not > show up as a new possessions > or self, but as something that would be 'nothing' by > the self's standards. Even if the quotation in question may be read as an exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of other possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of 'one's pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find elsewhere in the Pali canon? I think this is true. I don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it with me. The idea just isn't there, by my reading. If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana (and found evidence of it in your own experience), do you think you would have found it (or even looked for it) in the Theravada? > The > transparent ground of being could not be personal or > objectified. As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if the Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware of it. > Anyway, we can > still disagree, but at least it can be clear that we > are not trying to create a > soul, or a self, or a divine object, but rather an > original state or status... Yes, I think I know what you're getting at. > very > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha. I think that to impute the absence of this idea from the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't difficult even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if we can't describe it. Surely it would have been child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of his understanding. mike 8424 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 8:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hello Again, Howard, --- Howard wrote: > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > If what you mean by this is that I would > be > > > unlikely to sit for > > > mindfulness on the breath had I not heard about > that > > > being useful, I would > > > agree. > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > I meant that the anapanasati couldn't occur > without > > hearing, recollecting and understanding of the > Dhamma > > having occurred first, and that the effort > attending > > it (or any other moment) is impersonal. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't think we are disagreeing here. > --------------------------------------------------------- I don't think so either. In fact, near as I can tell, the main difference between us on the subject of effort is our way of speaking of it. You don't think it's personal any more than I do. I don't feel I'm disagreeing either with you or with Jon--though maybe I'm missing something. Best wishes, sir... mike 8425 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 9:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > If I understand you correctly, Jon, you're saying > > that > > right effort is a co-arising factor but not a > > precursor or prerequiste of satipathaana, which > > concurs with my understanding. > > Yes, that is my reading of the texts. > > > What about intention (cetanaa)? I know it isn't a > > path-factor, but a universal cetasika arising with > > every citta, with the function of 'willing' only > > in > > kusala and akusala moments. We all know > > (theoretically, though I constantly forget) that > > it's > > impersonal, but is kusala cetanaa a precursor of a > > moment of right effort, as well as a present > > factor? > > > > I'm inclined to think not, that a moment of right > > effort will occur when the conditions for it are > > present regardless of the cetanaa preceding it > > (for > > example a moment of akusala followed by a moment > > of > > understanding of the previous moment--here no > > kusala > > cetanaa preceding, at least not immediately). > > This is how I would understand it, too. I'm sure we > can all bring to mind > from our own experience instances when kusala has > arisen spontaneously and > without any 'intention' on our part, or when kusala > and akusala moments > have arisen intermingled (eg. 'mixed' feelings of > wanting to > help/wondering if we should, gladness for another's > success/envy at that > person) > It is said that > if, for example, the > mind-state is akusala then by means of deliberate > intention and effort the > mind-state can become kusala. In terms of moments > of consciousness, it > seems to me that any such moments of intention and > effort are simply > aspects of thinking of some kind or other and > likely, by our nature, to be > motivated by a subtle desire for more kusala. They > certainly are not > necessarily kusala moments since, as has been noted > before, sincerity of > intentions does not a kusala citta make. I do understand and agree. There are instances in the Suttas, though, in which the Buddha plainly encourages effort in the conventional sense we've talked about recently, e.g. "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. I think the 'He should' establishes this as 'prescriptive' rather than 'descriptive' (assuming Ven T.'s translation is sound). What's significant about this to me is this: In all the instances that come to mind of the Buddha expressly encouraging conventional effort, he's either encouraging conventional morality, jhaana cultivation (as in this example) or heedfulness (as in his final words). This seems to me to suggest that the Buddha did find a place for conventional effort in most aspects of the teaching. If this is true then some of the differences between some of us on the list may have more to do with altitude than with attitude. If 'one' can strive for mere morality, jhaana or heedfulness even though there's no 'one' to strive, then isn't conventional effort a sort of ground-level entry to the Dhamma with 'one' discarded as the elevator (understanding?!) reaches the abhidhamma floors? Please excuse a terribly strained metaphor and a weird flight of fancy. mike > When we read in the suttas about the Buddha urging > his listeners to exert > effort, he must be taken as referring to moments of > kusala citta -- it > would make a mockery of the teachings to read these > passages as otherwise. > As we have seen, however, intention/effort to > arouse kusala is not itself > necessarily kusala and, I would suggest (but > speaking here purely from my > own experience), is unlikely to be so in practice. > So the 'effort' to be > exerted which the Buddha refers to is the effort > (ie. energy mental factor > -- viriya) that arises with kusala citta. > > > Also, what about 'letting go'? I'm inclined to > think > > of this as a concept of too-long duration to arise > and > > subside with a single citta. Is this true or is > there > > a cetasika corresponding to 'letting go'? > > You have raised another aspect of this approach to > the 'practice' that > could be discussed further. The moments of thinking > that direct the mind > to observe, note, let go, return to the chosen > object etc are, in terms of > individual mind-moments, by no means single moments > or anything like it > but in fact substantial periods of thinking. > > I'm sure the idea that realities should be let go of > is intended to be a > reminder that any kind of clinging or grasping is > akusala. This of course > is true. To my understanding, however, the idea > that such reminders will > make any real difference in this respect is > misconceived. I have to agree. As long as mind is 'darting among unrealities', what can be accomplished? On the other hand, when mind is said to 'turn away' from > > Thanks in advance, > > > > mike > > And thanks to you, Mike, for bringing these points > up. > > Jon > > PS I notice on reading through this post that I > have been quite direct > (perhaps even more so than usual!), so I suppose I > should expect some > pretty direct responses from others ….. 8426 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 11:50am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Robert and Mike, "m. nease" wrote: Hi Robert, Sorry I'm so far behind in my replies. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Even if there *is* an 'original luminosity' of > Awareness that exists in Nibbana > after the defilements are gone, Do you mean after parinibbaana? I don't have a problem with luminous cittas arising after nibbaana--just after parinibbaana. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Robert, Defilements are never gone, it is still there. Buddha nature is the same essence as defilements as described in Mahayana doctrines. If defilements are gone, it will be an extreme left view. > it is neither a > possession or a self. Of course. ++++++++++ Definitely how do we possess something that is inherent the same as us. It is already inside us, we do not need to possess it. ++++++++++ > We can > still get Buddha's basic message on that, even if we > disagree on the 'original > mind'. So then what are we talking about? We are > talking about something that > being 'already one's pre-existing nature' would not > show up as a new possessions > or self, but as something that would be 'nothing' by > the self's standards. Even if the quotation in question may be read as an exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of other possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of 'one's pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find elsewhere in the Pali canon? I think this is true. I don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it with me. The idea just isn't there, by my reading. If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana (and found evidence of it in your own experience), do you think you would have found it (or even looked for it) in the Theravada? +++++++++++++++++++ Luminious mind is the Buddha Nature, is the same essence of all dharmas. it would only be show by the manifestation of kusala or askusala cittas or in fact any cittas. Just like wind is manifestated by its "blowing" but we cannot see wind. Furthermore this essence is not defile by such manfestation of cittas. it is the same as the sun rays that shine on every things but it is not affected by whether comes into its way, for eg dust particles in the sun rays. The particles showed the rays but the ray is not defile by the dust particles. Luminious mind is all emcompassing and all embracing as it is the same essence in all dharmas. All our cittas (be it good or bad) since countless lives are all emcompass inside, in fact all future countless lives cittas are also emcompassed inside it. Luminious mind is only realized not by removal of delifements or practising good virtues (technical speaking as such removal is extreme left view). It is by settling down all our kusala or akusala or all kinds of cittas, then it could be seen. It is the calm after the storm. > The > transparent ground of being could not be personal or > objectified. As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if the Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware of it. > Anyway, we can > still disagree, but at least it can be clear that we > are not trying to create a > soul, or a self, or a divine object, but rather an > original state or status... Yes, I think I know what you're getting at. > very > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha. I think that to impute the absence of this idea from the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't difficult even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if we can't describe it. Surely it would have been child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of his understanding. +++++++++++++++++ Robert I agree with you that it is difficult for Buddha to describe luminious mind as words could not adequately descibe the luminious mind. It could only be experience and not describe. Just like watching the sunset, it is difficult to describe the sunset in words. Dear Mike, honestly speaking poems cannot describe it adequately. Kind regards Kenneth Ong 8427 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 0:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi Kenneth, --- KennethOng wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Defilements are never gone, it is still there. > Buddha nature is the same essence as defilements as > described in Mahayana doctrines. If defilements are > gone, it will be an extreme left view. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think you're responding to my comments? > > it is neither a > > possession or a self. > > Of course. ++++++++++ > > Definitely how do we possess something that is > inherent the same as us. It is already inside us, > we do not need to possess it. > > ++++++++++ What is the 'us' that it's inside? In which khandha is this 'us'? > > We can > > still get Buddha's basic message on that, even if > we > > disagree on the 'original > > mind'. So then what are we talking about? We are > > talking about something that > > being 'already one's pre-existing nature' would > not > > show up as a new possessions > > or self, but as something that would be 'nothing' > by > > the self's standards. > > Even if the quotation in question may be read as an > exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of > other > possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of > 'one's > pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find > elsewhere in the Pali canon? I think this is true. I > don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though > I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could > possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's > pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it > with me. The idea just isn't there, by my reading. > If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana > (and > found evidence of it in your own experience), do you > think you would have found it (or even looked for > it) > in the Theravada? > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > Luminious mind is the Buddha Nature, is the same > essence of all dharmas. it would only be show by > the manifestation of kusala or askusala cittas or in > fact any cittas. Just like wind is manifestated by > its "blowing" but we cannot see wind. Furthermore > this essence is not defile by such manfestation of > cittas. it is the same as the sun rays that shine > on every things but it is not affected by whether > comes into its way, for eg dust particles in the sun > rays. The particles showed the rays but the ray is > not defile by the dust particles. > > Luminious mind is all emcompassing and all embracing > as it is the same essence in all dharmas. All our > cittas (be it good or bad) since countless lives are > all emcompass inside, in fact all future countless > lives cittas are also emcompassed inside it. > Luminious mind is only realized not by removal of > delifements or practising good virtues (technical > speaking as such removal is extreme left view). It > is by settling down all our kusala or akusala or all > kinds of cittas, then it could be seen. It is the > calm after the storm. Kenneth, I do understand what you're talking about. I was quite devoted to this view for decades. I'm not questioning the nature of 'original mind'. What I'm questioning is whether or not the 'original mind' concept existed in the Theravada, before the Mahayana. > > The > > transparent ground of being could not be personal > or > > objectified. > > As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if > the > Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware > of > it. > > > Anyway, we can > > still disagree, but at least it can be clear that > we > > are not trying to create a > > soul, or a self, or a divine object, but rather an > > original state or status... > > Yes, I think I know what you're getting at. > > > very > > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha. > > I think that to impute the absence of this idea from > the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe > it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The > Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic > and > delicate non-descriptions, evocations, > circumlocutions > of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the > brilliant philosophers of North India and the > geniuses > of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't > difficult > even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if > we can't describe it. Surely it would have been > child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of > his understanding. > > +++++++++++++++++ > > Robert I agree with you that it is difficult for > Buddha to describe luminious mind as words could not > adequately descibe the luminious mind. It could only > be experience and not describe. Just like watching > the sunset, it is difficult to describe the sunset > in words. > > Dear Mike, honestly speaking poems cannot describe > it adequately. Well, maybe not, Kenneth. But you just used a fairly commonplace simile--could not the Buddha have done likewise? So far as I know he did not, in the Pali canon. Best wishes, Sir, mike 8428 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 1:45pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike Hi Mike Regarding whether luminious mind is found in Pali, is a very good and beneficial question and I think I could understand your intention. I could not comment at present because I am not good in Thervada. It starts to interest me when pple talk abt Vipassana and Abidharma. Actually my initial interest to learn Vipassana and Abidharma is embarassing because it started when somebody keep insisting that other type of methods are wrong only Vipassana is correct. Hehe, that makes me angry (gosh akusala citta). One of the area that I would like to study is the similarity between Abidharma and Mahayana doctrines esp the Surangama Sutra. But now I am limited by the availability of resources in the country I am staying now. Maybe when I back to Singapore, presently I have only one book of Abidharama without commentaries but I would buy more books on Abidharama and the Path to liberation (Visuddhimagga). Do you or anyone here have any good recommendation of books or websites that I could access. Mike, sorry, 'us' is used as a technical speech. All the khandas are the same in essence same as luminious mind. There is why in Mahayana doctrine there is always these words, Buddha is found in defilements, and they are of the same essence. Words do have limitation to express luminious mind. Take another example, when we tell a computer sugar taste sweet. The computer does not know the actual experience of "sweet" but it will know the description of sweets. Similar to luminious mind, it can only be experience and not decribed fully. Kind regards Kenneth Ong "m. nease" wrote: Hi Kenneth, --- KennethOng wrote: > Dear Robert, > > Defilements are never gone, it is still there. > Buddha nature is the same essence as defilements as > described in Mahayana doctrines. If defilements are > gone, it will be an extreme left view. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think you're responding to my comments? > > it is neither a > > possession or a self. > > Of course. ++++++++++ > > Definitely how do we possess something that is > inherent the same as us. It is already inside us, > we do not need to possess it. > > ++++++++++ What is the 'us' that it's inside? In which khandha is this 'us'? > > We can > > still get Buddha's basic message on that, even if > we > > disagree on the 'original > > mind'. So then what are we talking about? We are > > talking about something that > > being 'already one's pre-existing nature' would > not > > show up as a new possessions > > or self, but as something that would be 'nothing' > by > > the self's standards. > > Even if the quotation in question may be read as an > exception (and Howard has mentioned a couple of > other > possibles), wouldn't you agree that the idea of > 'one's > pre-existing nature' is an idea difficult to find > elsewhere in the Pali canon? I think this is true. I > don't think that I, reading the Pali canon (though > I've only read the sutta- and vinaya-pitakas) could > possibly have come up with the idea of 'one's > pre-existing nature' from it--unless I'd brought it > with me. The idea just isn't there, by my reading. > If you hadn't learned this idea from the Mahayana > (and > found evidence of it in your own experience), do you > think you would have found it (or even looked for > it) > in the Theravada? > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > Luminious mind is the Buddha Nature, is the same > essence of all dharmas. it would only be show by > the manifestation of kusala or askusala cittas or in > fact any cittas. Just like wind is manifestated by > its "blowing" but we cannot see wind. Furthermore > this essence is not defile by such manfestation of > cittas. it is the same as the sun rays that shine > on every things but it is not affected by whether > comes into its way, for eg dust particles in the sun > rays. The particles showed the rays but the ray is > not defile by the dust particles. > > Luminious mind is all emcompassing and all embracing > as it is the same essence in all dharmas. All our > cittas (be it good or bad) since countless lives are > all emcompass inside, in fact all future countless > lives cittas are also emcompassed inside it. > Luminious mind is only realized not by removal of > delifements or practising good virtues (technical > speaking as such removal is extreme left view). It > is by settling down all our kusala or akusala or all > kinds of cittas, then it could be seen. It is the > calm after the storm. Kenneth, I do understand what you're talking about. I was quite devoted to this view for decades. I'm not questioning the nature of 'original mind'. What I'm questioning is whether or not the 'original mind' concept existed in the Theravada, before the Mahayana. > > The > > transparent ground of being could not be personal > or > > objectified. > > As above for 'the transparent ground of being'--if > the > Buddha spoke of this in the Pali canon, I'm unaware > of > it. > > > Anyway, we can > > still disagree, but at least it can be clear that > we > > are not trying to create a > > soul, or a self, or a divine object, but rather an > > original state or status... > > Yes, I think I know what you're getting at. > > > very > > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha. > > I think that to impute the absence of this idea from > the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe > it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The > Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic > and > delicate non-descriptions, evocations, > circumlocutions > of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the > brilliant philosophers of North India and the > geniuses > of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't > difficult > even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if > we can't describe it. Surely it would have been > child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of > his understanding. > > +++++++++++++++++ > > Robert I agree with you that it is difficult for > Buddha to describe luminious mind as words could not > adequately descibe the luminious mind. It could only > be experience and not describe. Just like watching > the sunset, it is difficult to describe the sunset > in words. > > Dear Mike, honestly speaking poems cannot describe > it adequately. Well, maybe not, Kenneth. But you just used a fairly commonplace simile--could not the Buddha have done likewise? So far as I know he did not, in the Pali canon. Best wishes, Sir, mike 8429 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 2:42pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- "m. nease" wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > very > > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha. > > I think that to impute the absence of this idea from > the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe > it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The > Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and > delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions > of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the > brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses > of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't difficult > even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if > we can't describe it. Surely it would have been > child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of > his understanding. Well, Mike, I'm slightly speechless. You may be right that Buddha didn't speak explicitly about a primordial mind or luminous awareness because there is no such thing. I tend to suspect that it is part of the great care he took not to establish any concept of a self or soul. When he does from time to time say something like the sutra we've been discussing: 'This mind is luminous and it is defiled by defilements from without' I accept the possibility, as Sarah has very helpfully described, that this is referring to arising cittas rather than a stable continuous awareness of any kind. But I don't think you can say that this is 'settled' and that there is a definitive interpretation that eliminates the possibility that the Buddha meant what those words sound like they are saying. It is, in other words, in my opinion, subject to interpretation. Are there other passages where the Buddha makes this kind of statement? I don't know the Pali canon well enough to have examples of this at my disposal. I do know that the 'luminous mind' is the subject of some controversy. Here is one example of a review of a book on Buddhism: <<...Now this is one point concerning which I am not entirely happy with the author's presentation. He refers to this process as the elimination of the stains that "corrupt the mind's natural luminosity" (102). Not that this is factually incorrect, but the meaning of "luminous mind" has so often been misunderstood and misused that I think it is best avoided except in strictly technical discussions of psychological processes as explained by the Buddha. The problem, briefly, is that the Buddha's original matter?of?fact reference to pabhassara citta (bright, or shining mind) was made in a simply practical context,1 when he was explaining the continual arising and passing away of mind factors and the need to clean the mind of impurities in order to make progress in meditation. This, however, was blown up by later Buddhist thinkers (more concerned, one fears, with speculation than with meditation) into a sort of transcendent entity. So that using the term "luminous mind" can easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in our Western culture, still haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into equating it with an immortal soul, thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory conception of "self." >> Just to be nice, I've given a quote that falls on your side of the argument, but it shows that there are differences of interpretation of this passage. Now, outside of the Abhidhamma, Buddha does often speak of mind as if it is 'real'. He doesn't speak of it as if it is merely a series of rapidly arising and dissolving thoughts. From the Dhammapada: Chapter Three - The Mind Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft, even so the discerning man straightens his mind so fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard. As a fish when pulled out of water and cast on land throbs and quivers, even so is this mind agitated. Hence should one abandon the realm of Mara. Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue the mind, so difficult to subdue, ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires. A tamed mind brings happiness. Let the discerning man guard the mind, so difficult to detect and extremely subtle, seizing whatever it desires. A guarded mind brings happiness. Buddha talks about the subtlety of the mind and the difficulty in detecting it. He doesn't speak of individual thoughts or mind-moments. now I have no doubt that he does speak this way in other suttas, as he does speak in a more specific way in many Mahayana texts, such as the Lankavatara Sutra. But if he speaks more specifically in one part of the Pali Canon, and less specifically in another part, does that make the more specific part invalid because it seems to be contradicted by a more general description somewhere else? Of course not. Neither should we dismiss the Mahayana assertions as invalid merely on the basis that they are not mentioned clearly or repeatedly in the Pali Canon. Nor should we assume that we *know* that when he speaks of 'luminosity of mind' that he is really talking about individual thought-moments. By your argument, in which you argue strongly that if the Buddha wanted us to know that there was an 'original nature' or 'primordial awareness' he would have mentioned it explicitly, I wonder why he was not more specific about what he meant by 'this mind is luminous'. Wouldn't he, by your argument, have said 'a particular citta may be luminous, while a succeeding one may be defiled by defilements from without.' But it doesn't seem to trouble you to assume that this is what he is referring to, even though this is not what he says in the sutta. I am just trying to point out that we are all inclined to read into a sutta what we believe is there, and it must take an awful lot of discernment to resist this. If we hold onto the view that the Buddha must have meant this, or must have meant that, I think it interferes on both sides with an honest reading of the sutta. Since all of our views are provisional and deluded views, it would be better to let them go. I need a does of this as well, because I do not want to form an image of some sort of primordial field of awareness which is not directly experienced, but is in my mind's eye, and substitute this for an understanding of what is really there. But neither will I assume that there is nothing but a succession of moments without any binding thread [other than cittas that are specifically designed to maintain the sense of continuity from citta to citta] unless I experience that directly as well. We can't afford to settle for images, which are the opposite of mindfulness. Each of us is stuck with our own level of discernment, as we head a little closer, rather gradually from experience, towards understanding. Anyway, I hope this didn't turn into too vague a rumination. I'll look foward to your response when you have a spare moment or two. Or three. Best Regards, Robert Ep. 8430 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 2:49pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon, > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > If I understand you correctly, Jon, you're saying > > > that > > > right effort is a co-arising factor but not a > > > precursor or prerequiste of satipathaana, which > > > concurs with my understanding. > > > > Yes, that is my reading of the texts. > > > > > What about intention (cetanaa)? I know it isn't a > > > path-factor, but a universal cetasika arising with > > > every citta, with the function of 'willing' only > > > in > > > kusala and akusala moments. We all know > > > (theoretically, though I constantly forget) that > > > it's > > > impersonal, but is kusala cetanaa a precursor of a > > > moment of right effort, as well as a present > > > factor? > > > > > > I'm inclined to think not, that a moment of right > > > effort will occur when the conditions for it are > > > present regardless of the cetanaa preceding it > > > (for > > > example a moment of akusala followed by a moment > > > of > > > understanding of the previous moment--here no > > > kusala > > > cetanaa preceding, at least not immediately). > > > > This is how I would understand it, too. I'm sure we > > can all bring to mind > > from our own experience instances when kusala has > > arisen spontaneously and > > without any 'intention' on our part, or when kusala > > and akusala moments > > have arisen intermingled (eg. 'mixed' feelings of > > wanting to > > help/wondering if we should, gladness for another's > > success/envy at that > > person) > > > It is said that > > if, for example, the > > mind-state is akusala then by means of deliberate > > intention and effort the > > mind-state can become kusala. In terms of moments > > of consciousness, it > > seems to me that any such moments of intention and > > effort are simply > > aspects of thinking of some kind or other and > > likely, by our nature, to be > > motivated by a subtle desire for more kusala. They > > certainly are not > > necessarily kusala moments since, as has been noted > > before, sincerity of > > intentions does not a kusala citta make. > > I do understand and agree. There are instances in the > Suttas, though, in which the Buddha plainly encourages > effort in the conventional sense we've talked about > recently, e.g. > > "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. > > I think the 'He should' establishes this as > 'prescriptive' rather than 'descriptive' (assuming Ven > T.'s translation is sound). What's significant about > this to me is this: In all the instances that come to > mind of the Buddha expressly encouraging conventional > effort, he's either encouraging conventional morality, > jhaana cultivation (as in this example) or heedfulness > (as in his final words). This seems to me to suggest > that the Buddha did find a place for conventional > effort in most aspects of the teaching. If this is > true then some of the differences between some of us > on the list may have more to do with altitude than > with attitude. If 'one' can strive for mere morality, > jhaana or heedfulness even though there's no 'one' to > strive, then isn't conventional effort a sort of > ground-level entry to the Dhamma with 'one' discarded > as the elevator (understanding?!) reaches the > abhidhamma floors? > > Please excuse a terribly strained metaphor and a weird > flight of fancy. > > mike Dear Mike, I think you are very right about this, and your quote is quite relevant. I think it should remind us that the Buddha's teaching functions on various levels and in various stages. Rather than thinking in black and white terms, that if a word is used in a certain context in one place, it must mean that another usage is incorrect, we should look at what is required by that context. In making efforts at cultivating mindfulness and disciplining action, a kind of conventional effort may be called for, while the Right Effort that Jon has described as occuring as a spontaneous accompaniment of a very high level of refinement, may be a very different effort for a very different refined purpose. But it seems to make clear that conventional Effort and other conventional terms may be very possible to engage in, even though there is actually no central 'self' to do these things. Very interesting and should stimulate an interesting discussion. Best, Robert Ep. 8431 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 2:49pm Subject: [DhammaStudyGroup] Citta Hi Robert K, Thanks for you patience in explaining. Abidharma speaks about four ultimate realities. Three are conditions. My questions is if there are conditions, why should they be ultimate realities. On what grounds they are consider ultimate reality. If cittas are temporal, how does it going to accumulate. Take for example, a citta is like a RAM in the computer, once you power is off, the memory in the RAM is gone. How is such cittas in nature temporal going to accumulate all our volitions and then these cittas in turn going to decide our future karma. If they could accumulate, then it should not be transient or not how is it going to store these information of volitions similiarly like a hard disk in a computer. We could say that they are a seamless stream of cittas, but the problem is how is these stream of cittas going to determine the next rebirth. Who is the boss of these cittas that decided for next rebirth or they co-arise or cooperate with each other. If they co-operate with each other, their co-operation cannot be substantiate as all these cittas are temporal in the first place. If our citta is a stream of citta, what is it when we reach Nibbana (be it using supramundane path). If it is a stream of cittas, then it is condition as cittas themselves are conditions. If cittas have stop or gather like a sea. This means it is also conditional by cittas. If they are completely not to be found, then it is attached to a extreme left view because the cittas have been removed or "destroyed" Kind regards Kenneth Ong 8432 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 2:52pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- KennethOng wrote: > Robert I agree with you that it is difficult for Buddha to describe luminious > mind as words could not adequately descibe the luminious mind. It could only be > experience and not describe. Just like watching the sunset, it is difficult to > describe the sunset in words. > > > Dear Mike, honestly speaking poems cannot describe it adequately. > > Kind regards > > Kenneth Ong Thanks Kenneth, for helping clarify that a bit. I certainly didn't mean to say that the Buddha was at a loss for words, Maybe just that words themselves were at a loss. Best, Robert Ep. 8433 From: KennethOng Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 3:04pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi Robert Ep . I agree with you on the points that Buddha did speaks abt this luminious mind. In my understanding The Buddha in the Mahayana sutra always infer this luminious mind especially those related to "wisdom Mahayana Sutras" for eg Daimond Sutra, Surangama Sutra, Lotus Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra. He has explicited said it many times in the Mahayana Sutra esp wisdoms ones just that the words use to describe it may be different at times. Kind regards Kenneth Ong Robert Epstein wrote: --- "m. nease" wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > very > > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha. > > I think that to impute the absence of this idea from > the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe > it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The > Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and > delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions > of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the > brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses > of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't difficult > even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if > we can't describe it. Surely it would have been > child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of > his understanding. Well, Mike, I'm slightly speechless. You may be right that Buddha didn't speak explicitly about a primordial mind or luminous awareness because there is no such thing. I tend to suspect that it is part of the great care he took not to establish any concept of a self or soul. When he does from time to time say something like the sutra we've been discussing: 'This mind is luminous and it is defiled by defilements from without' I accept the possibility, as Sarah has very helpfully described, that this is referring to arising cittas rather than a stable continuous awareness of any kind. But I don't think you can say that this is 'settled' and that there is a definitive interpretation that eliminates the possibility that the Buddha meant what those words sound like they are saying. It is, in other words, in my opinion, subject to interpretation. Are there other passages where the Buddha makes this kind of statement? I don't know the Pali canon well enough to have examples of this at my disposal. I do know that the 'luminous mind' is the subject of some controversy. Here is one example of a review of a book on Buddhism: <<...Now this is one point concerning which I am not entirely happy with the author's presentation. He refers to this process as the elimination of the stains that "corrupt the mind's natural luminosity" (102). Not that this is factually incorrect, but the meaning of "luminous mind" has so often been misunderstood and misused that I think it is best avoided except in strictly technical discussions of psychological processes as explained by the Buddha. The problem, briefly, is that the Buddha's original matter?of?fact reference to pabhassara citta (bright, or shining mind) was made in a simply practical context,1 when he was explaining the continual arising and passing away of mind factors and the need to clean the mind of impurities in order to make progress in meditation. This, however, was blown up by later Buddhist thinkers (more concerned, one fears, with speculation than with meditation) into a sort of transcendent entity. So that using the term "luminous mind" can easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in our Western culture, still haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into equating it with an immortal soul, thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory conception of "self." >> Just to be nice, I've given a quote that falls on your side of the argument, but it shows that there are differences of interpretation of this passage. Now, outside of the Abhidhamma, Buddha does often speak of mind as if it is 'real'. He doesn't speak of it as if it is merely a series of rapidly arising and dissolving thoughts. From the Dhammapada: Chapter Three - The Mind Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft, even so the discerning man straightens his mind so fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard. As a fish when pulled out of water and cast on land throbs and quivers, even so is this mind agitated. Hence should one abandon the realm of Mara. Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue the mind, so difficult to subdue, ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires. A tamed mind brings happiness. Let the discerning man guard the mind, so difficult to detect and extremely subtle, seizing whatever it desires. A guarded mind brings happiness. Buddha talks about the subtlety of the mind and the difficulty in detecting it. He doesn't speak of individual thoughts or mind-moments. now I have no doubt that he does speak this way in other suttas, as he does speak in a more specific way in many Mahayana texts, such as the Lankavatara Sutra. But if he speaks more specifically in one part of the Pali Canon, and less specifically in another part, does that make the more specific part invalid because it seems to be contradicted by a more general description somewhere else? Of course not. Neither should we dismiss the Mahayana assertions as invalid merely on the basis that they are not mentioned clearly or repeatedly in the Pali Canon. Nor should we assume that we *know* that when he speaks of 'luminosity of mind' that he is really talking about individual thought-moments. By your argument, in which you argue strongly that if the Buddha wanted us to know that there was an 'original nature' or 'primordial awareness' he would have mentioned it explicitly, I wonder why he was not more specific about what he meant by 'this mind is luminous'. Wouldn't he, by your argument, have said 'a particular citta may be luminous, while a succeeding one may be defiled by defilements from without.' But it doesn't seem to trouble you to assume that this is what he is referring to, even though this is not what he says in the sutta. I am just trying to point out that we are all inclined to read into a sutta what we believe is there, and it must take an awful lot of discernment to resist this. If we hold onto the view that the Buddha must have meant this, or must have meant that, I think it interferes on both sides with an honest reading of the sutta. Since all of our views are provisional and deluded views, it would be better to let them go. I need a does of this as well, because I do not want to form an image of some sort of primordial field of awareness which is not directly experienced, but is in my mind's eye, and substitute this for an understanding of what is really there. But neither will I assume that there is nothing but a succession of moments without any binding thread [other than cittas that are specifically designed to maintain the sense of continuity from citta to citta] unless I experience that directly as well. We can't afford to settle for images, which are the opposite of mindfulness. Each of us is stuck with our own level of discernment, as we head a little closer, rather gradually from experience, towards understanding. Anyway, I hope this didn't turn into too vague a rumination. I'll look foward to your response when you have a spare moment or two. Or three. Best Regards, Robert Ep. 8434 From: Sarah Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 3:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: More on the Luminosity of Mind -Rob Ep Dear Rob Ep. --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > I have bookmarked Nina's Cetasikas book and will try to look at it soon. If > I get > in trouble by not completing my homeworks, I'm sure you'll forgive me, but I > will > try to do it. Just take your time.....I think this the homework Jon gave you was in this and the homework I gave was in Abhid. in Daily Life (ADL)* on bhavangas and sense and mind door processes....anyway it's all very helpful. ADL is available on the websites at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/links I've been very bad about my reading list. I think my wife is > going > to make it a choice between me and my unread books any day now. Or perhaps > she'll > throw out my computer. Please give your wife top priority.....there can be awareness and many kusala cittas whilst taking care of her and your daughter..let the books 'fit' in.......Believe me, I have texts I started decades ago and still haven't finished....I just dip in here and there when I have a little time and I don't begrudge it when I have no time (most the time);-) Maybe you can even print out one or two posts a day which may be of interest to your wife.... Before the computer gets thrown out, a useful exercise or 'test' on what we've been discussing would be to summarise it (from a Theravada point of view) for Kenneth (or Ken O as we have 2 Kens) ;-)) > > Anyway, that's enough frivolity for now. Again, I appreciate the exchanges > and > I'm very glad that you find them worthwhile as well. That is very kind of > you. We're allowed a little frivolity too ;-)...speak soon, Sarah *We have a spare 'hard' copy of ADL (quite small;-) and I'll gladly send it by snailmail if you wish to give me yr add off-list. If anyone else wishes to obtain a copy, I know Sukin is always happy to help or else just send an email to the Foundation at the adds I put in a post under Books (Free) or similar at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts 8435 From: Sarah Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 4:00pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi Howard, --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Ken - > To the extent that I understand Abhidhamma, which is close to nil, a > citta is nothing more than a mind-moment, a moment of discerning a visual, > auditory, tactile, gustatory, or mental phenomenon (accompanied by a large > variety of other functions as well). Discernment and its namarupic object > co-occur. There is no object of discernment without the discerning, and there > > is no discernment without its object. The relation between vi~n~nana/citta > and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles of reeds (I > > think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting each other. > If either bundle falls, so does the other. ..................... Firstly, I think you are being far too modest ! I’m puzzled, however, by the analogy of the 2 sheaves or bundles of reeds here as referring to ‘vi~n~nana/citta and namarupa’. Someone else wrote the same (Eric?) and I meant to ask more then. The reason I’m puzzled is because of course vinnana/citta is a kind of nama (along with the cetasikas -mental factors-). Surely the 2 sheaves should be nama and rupa? Would you kindly give me the sutta refs (never any hurry for me;-)) .................... >Likewise, with the advent of > nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the mind is > freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an infinite > illumination encountering no obstacles. .................... I’m a little unclear here as well. Do you mean when nibbana is first experienced (as for a sotapanna)or for an arahat or are your referring to parinibbana? In the first two cases, there is still citta (magga and phala cittas) experiencing or discerning an object (in this case the nama, nibbana), but as you are suggesting (I think) at parinibbana, no more experiencing or discerning ever.But then at parinibbana there is no ‘infinite illumination encountering no obstacles’ that I’m aware of...Again I’d appreciate any sutta ref. You also mentioned when discussing about the luminous mind (with Ken O or Rob Ep) the simile of gold in a sutta to show purity or luminosity is the inherent or natural state of the mind. Again I’d appreciate a ref. from you or anyone. I have a recollection of the sutta you’re referring to and would like to check it, but I’m hopeless at locating them. (Apologies if I haven’t rephrased you accurately as I don’t have that post in front of me). Howard, I appreciate your participation and contributions greatly and I’m enjoying your discussion (and the others) with Ken O very much;-) Sarah 8436 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 5:11pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > > To the extent that I understand Abhidhamma, which is close to nil, a > > citta is nothing more than a mind-moment, a moment of discerning a visual, > > auditory, tactile, gustatory, or mental phenomenon (accompanied by a large > > variety of other functions as well). Discernment and its namarupic object > > co-occur. There is no object of discernment without the discerning, and there > > > > is no discernment without its object. The relation between vi~n~nana/citta > > and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles of reeds (I > > > > think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting each other. > > If either bundle falls, so does the other. > ..................... > > Firstly, I think you are being far too modest ! > > I'm puzzled, however, by the analogy of the 2 sheaves or bundles of reeds here > as referring to `vi~n~nana/citta and namarupa'. Someone else wrote the same > (Eric?) and I meant to ask more then. The reason I'm puzzled is because of > course vinnana/citta is a kind of nama (along with the cetasikas - mental > factors-). Surely the 2 sheaves should be nama and rupa? Would you kindly give > me the sutta refs (never any hurry for me;-)) > .................... > > Dear Sarah, Howard may be refferring to the special case given for the Paticasamupada where consciousness is explicity noted as a condition for nama-rupa. While, of course consciousness is a nama it is sometimes given this special distinction - and in this case (of the paticasamupada)nama refers only to sanna, sankhara and vedana. (see for example visuddhimagga xvii187). robert k. 8437 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 5:32pm Subject: Re: Citta --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > Thanks for you patience in explaining. > Abidharma speaks about four ultimate realities. Three are conditions. My questions is if there are conditions, why should they be ultimate realities. On what grounds they are consider ultimate reality. ________ They are real in the sense that there is nothing other than these conditions. Think of your father or sister. the thinking process during this consists of billions of changing cittas and cetasikas which are conditioned and ephemeral - but not non-existant at the time they 'exist'. But the object of thought- father or sister- is simply concept, idea: not real. ________ > If cittas are temporal, how does it going to accumulate. Take for example, a citta is like a RAM in the computer, once you power is off, the memory in the RAM is gone. ______ Robert k.:When you turn the computer on again it comes back? I think it may not be helpful to use that analogy in any event. ______ How is such cittas in nature temporal going to accumulate all our volitions and then these cittas in turn going to decide our future karma. If they could accumulate, then it should not be transient or not how is it going to store these information of volitions similiarly like a hard disk in a computer. ______ Robert K.;It is nothing like the hard disc in a computer because it is nama(mentality ) something utterly different. If it was rupa it would get filled up in one life let alone the countless billions in samsara\ _______ > We could say that they are a seamless stream of cittas, but the problem is how is these stream of cittas going to determine the next rebirth. Who is the boss of these cittas that decided for next rebirth or they co-arise or cooperate with each other. If they co- operate with each other, their co-operation cannot be substantiate as all these cittas are temporal in the first place. _____ there is no boss, neither do they have any wish to cooperate or get reborn or do anything. But they are conditioned, uncontrollable and henece whatver conditions arise condition the rebirth. ________ > If our citta is a stream of citta, what is it when we reach Nibbana (be it using supramundane path). If it is a stream of cittas, then it is condition as cittas themselves are conditions. If cittas have stop or gather like a sea. This means it is also conditional by cittas. If they are completely not to be found, then it is attached to a extreme left view because the cittas have been removed or "destroyed" ______ nibbana is not conditioned but the cittas that cognise nibbana are conditioned (by right view and the factors of the eightfold path). Just a word now on the translation of paramattha dhammas as realities. The word reality may have connotations of something substantial whereas dhammas , are too evanescent to imagine. Any words we use to describe the nature of realities –impermanent, momentary, temporary, instant by instant- cannot convey the rapidity of the arising and passing away. Take a moment of seeing consciousness: For seeing to arise there must be cakkhu pasada (seeing base). This is the extremely refined rupa that arises in the center of the eye. This special rupa is the result of kamma. But it only lasts for the briefest moment before falling away . The reason we can keep seeing is that at this moment the force of the kamma is still working to continue replacing the cakkhu pasada. The visible eye, the eyeball, and the surrounding matter, the rest of the body, are also conditioned by different conditions - not only kamma- and these rupas also only last for a moment before vanishing forever. Every conditioning factor is simarly evanescent as is every conditioned moment. The reason I added this is to highlight the Theravada understanding of dhammas. I think this needs consideration as we(I mean Theravada people) are prone to talk about "moments" of mind, and so on. However what we mean by moments is rather open to interpretation. Some might have an idea of a moment as a self-contained unit- sort of like a box that contains things but that is prone to disappear rather quickly. However from the Patthana - the last book of the abhidhamma - we learn that "moments" are highly dynamic with influences from past and present factors. The dhammas themselevs are not different from the quality they posses. In fact the subcommentary to the Dhammasangani says that "there is no other thing than the quality born by it" . And no moment is identical with another-It is true that such dhammas as sanna or vedana are classified under the same heading but the actual quality is influenced by so many diverse factiors that not even one moment of feeling is exactly the same. best wishes robert k. 8438 From: Ken Howard Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 7:02pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Mike You are way ahead of me in this Dhamma-study business, so the following is not presumed to be telling you anything that is, in the least bit, new to you. I'm just verbalising my shaky understanding and proving to Sarah that I'm still awake. You wrote: "I do understand and agree. There are instances in the Suttas, though, in which the Buddha plainly encourages effort in the conventional sense we've talked about recently, e.g. "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." My point would simply be that the Buddha discovered and taught the Middle Way, the way of satipatthana, the absolutely real way, not the conventionally real way. When he describes conventional wisdom, we are to see it in terms of parramatta dhammas. Even if he were to say, "Eat food or you will starve," we shouldn't think for a moment that the conventional meaning of those conventional terms, forms a part of the Dhamma. Is that the way you see it? While I'm at it; You also wrote: "If 'one' can strive for mere morality, jhaana or heedfulness even though there's no 'one' to strive, then isn't conventional effort a sort of ground-level entry to the Dhamma with 'one' discarded as the elevator (understanding?!) reaches the abhidhamma floors?" I wonder if this is what is meant by, "With the Ego I perceive that which is no Ego," -- one of the wrong views referred to in Robert K's message # 8019. (?) Kind regards Ken Howard 8439 From: Howard Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 4:20pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Robert and Sarah - In a message dated 10/5/01 5:15:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, robertkirkpatrick writes: > > --- Sarah wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > > > > To the extent that I understand Abhidhamma, which is close > to nil, a > > > citta is nothing more than a mind-moment, a moment of discerning > a visual, > > > auditory, tactile, gustatory, or mental phenomenon (accompanied > by a large > > > variety of other functions as well). Discernment and its > namarupic object > > > co-occur. There is no object of discernment without the > discerning, and there > > > > > > is no discernment without its object. The relation between > vi~n~nana/citta > > > and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles > of reeds (I > > > > > > think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting > each other. > > > If either bundle falls, so does the other. > > ..................... > > > > Firstly, I think you are being far too modest ! > > > > I'm puzzled, however, by the analogy of the 2 sheaves or bundles of > reeds here > > as referring to `vi~n~nana/citta and namarupa'. Someone else wrote > the same > > (Eric?) and I meant to ask more then. The reason I'm puzzled is > because of > > course vinnana/citta is a kind of nama (along with the cetasikas - > mental > > factors-). Surely the 2 sheaves should be nama and rupa? Would you > kindly give > > me the sutta refs (never any hurry for me;-)) > > .................... > > > > Dear Sarah, > Howard may be refferring to the special case given for the > Paticasamupada where consciousness is explicity noted as a condition > for nama-rupa. While, of course consciousness is a nama it is > sometimes given this special distinction - and in this case (of the > paticasamupada)nama refers only to sanna, sankhara and vedana. (see > for example visuddhimagga xvii187). > > robert k. > > ========================== Exacly so. The particular sutta about dependent origination I'm thinking of gives vi~n~nana as condition for namarupa, and it gives namarupa as condition for vi~n~nana. 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) 8440 From: Howard Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 4:47pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/5/01 4:01:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sarah writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > > To the extent that I understand Abhidhamma, which is close to nil, > a > > citta is nothing more than a mind-moment, a moment of discerning a > visual, > > auditory, tactile, gustatory, or mental phenomenon (accompanied by a > large > > variety of other functions as well). Discernment and its namarupic object > > co-occur. There is no object of discernment without the discerning, and > there > > > > is no discernment without its object. The relation between > vi~n~nana/citta > > and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles of > reeds (I > > > > think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting each > other. > > If either bundle falls, so does the other. > ..................... > > Firstly, I think you are being far too modest ! > > I’m puzzled, however, by the analogy of the 2 sheaves or bundles of reeds > here > as referring to ‘vi~n~nana/citta and namarupa’. Someone else wrote the same > (Eric?) and I meant to ask more then. The reason I’m puzzled is because of > course vinnana/citta is a kind of nama (along with the cetasikas -mental > factors-). Surely the 2 sheaves should be nama and rupa? Would you kindly > give > me the sutta refs (never any hurry for me;-)) > .................... > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry, I don't recall. (I'm not much good at that.) But please see my reply to Robert's post on this. ----------------------------------------------------- > > >Likewise, with the advent of > > nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the mind > is > > freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an infinite > > illumination encountering no obstacles. > .................... > > I’m a little unclear here as well. Do you mean when nibbana is first > experienced (as for a sotapanna)or for an arahat or are your referring to > parinibbana? In the first two cases, there is still citta (magga and phala > cittas) experiencing or discerning an object (in this case the nama, > nibbana), > but as you are suggesting (I think) at parinibbana, no more experiencing or > discerning ever.But then at parinibbana there is no ‘infinite illumination > encountering no obstacles’ that I’m aware of...Again I’d appreciate any > sutta > ref. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: From my reading, I understand a sotapanna's apprehension of nibbana to be "at a distance", and as an object. I was referring to an arahant's experience of nibbana. And in that case, I'm not distinguishing between the nibbanic experience during life or beyond life. When you say that at parinibbana there is no experiencing ever, do you mean of any sort? I understand that there is no discerning of objects. But are you suggesting that beyond the death of an arahant is absolute nothingness, that entry to final nibbana = annihilation? Obviously there is no entity to be annihilated. That is not what I mean. What I question is whether after entry to final nibbana there is no more awareness than the awareness of a rock, and that nibbana itself is a dark nothingness - and please note, here I am *not* equating 'nothingness' with 'emptiness'. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > You also mentioned when discussing about the luminous mind (with Ken O or > Rob > Ep) the simile of gold in a sutta to show purity or luminosity is the > inherent > or natural state of the mind. Again I’d appreciate a ref. from you or > anyone. I > have a recollection of the sutta you’re referring to and would like to check > it, but I’m hopeless at locating them. (Apologies if I haven’t rephrased > you > accurately as I don’t have that post in front of me). --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Again, I apologize for not being a sutta quoter! As I recall, the simile in the Pali suttas is that the mind is not like pure gold, but rather like gold ore, with an admixture of "defilements", and that refinement of that ore is required for the brilliance of the gold to manifest. But, of course, it is understood in that simile that the pure gold is present from the outset. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard, I appreciate your participation and contributions greatly and I’m > enjoying your discussion (and the others) with Ken O very much;-) ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you, Sarah. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Sarah > > ============================ 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) 8441 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 9:37pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Kenneth, Mike and all, Since we've been talking about the Mahayana view a little bit, I thought I would throw in a quote from Huang Po, one of the greatest of the zen masters: "People believe that what they see, hear, feel, or think is mind. They are blocked by (these things), so they don't see the brilliant spirit of their original mind." This is similar to what I have heard said many times in this group, that we are blocked by the sense that dharmas are 'real', and thus only see the results of the sense-moments and don't notice the mind-moments that are devising our image of what objects are. The only difference is that Huang Po invokes the 'brilliant spirit of their original mind' rather than saying that all one finds when objects are out of the way are the anatta and anicca that the raw skandhas reveal. I can't escape the feeling, however, that Huang Po's statement about the 'brilliant spirit of the original mind' being blocked [or defiled I would say] by sense objects, is enormously similar both in form and content to the disputed phrase of the Buddha's: "This mind is luminous, but it is defiled by defilements from without." If we cannot conclude that Buddha is talking about the same 'luminous mind' as Huang Po's 'brilliant spirit of original mind', perhaps we may conclude that Huang Po, an enlightened master by anyone's standards, is talking about the same 'luminous mind' as the Buddha. Best Regards, Robert Ep. ===================================== --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi Robert Ep . > > I agree with you on the points that Buddha did speaks abt this luminious mind. > In my understanding The Buddha in the Mahayana sutra always infer this luminious > mind especially those related to "wisdom Mahayana Sutras" for eg Daimond Sutra, > Surangama Sutra, Lotus Sutra, Lankavatara Sutra. He has explicited said it many > times in the Mahayana Sutra esp wisdoms ones just that the words use to describe > it may be different at times. > > Kind regards > > Kenneth Ong > > > > > Robert Epstein wrote: --- "m. nease" wrote: > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > very > > > difficult to describe, even for the Buddha. > > > > I think that to impute the absence of this idea from > > the Pali canon to the Buddha's inability to describe > > it is an error (please pardon my bluntness). The > > Mayahana is filled with the most beautiful, poetic and > > delicate non-descriptions, evocations, circumlocutions > > of this, composed (if I'm not mistaken) by the > > brilliant philosophers of North India and the geniuses > > of Ch'an and Zen, and so on. The idea isn't difficult > > even for the likes of you and me to discuss, even if > > we can't describe it. Surely it would have been > > child's play for the Buddha--had this been a part of > > his understanding. > > Well, Mike, I'm slightly speechless. You may be right that Buddha didn't speak > explicitly about a primordial mind or luminous awareness because there is no > such > thing. I tend to suspect that it is part of the great care he took not to > establish any concept of a self or soul. > > When he does from time to time say something like the sutra we've been > discussing: > 'This mind is luminous and it is defiled by defilements from without' I accept > the possibility, as Sarah has very helpfully described, that this is referring > to > arising cittas rather than a stable continuous awareness of any kind. But I > don't > think you can say that this is 'settled' and that there is a definitive > interpretation that eliminates the possibility that the Buddha meant what those > words sound like they are saying. It is, in other words, in my opinion, subject > to interpretation. > > Are there other passages where the Buddha makes this kind of statement? I don't > know the Pali canon well enough to have examples of this at my disposal. I do > know that the 'luminous mind' is the subject of some controversy. > > Here is one example of a review of a book on Buddhism: > > <<...Now this is one point concerning which I am not > entirely happy with the author's presentation. He refers to this process as the > elimination of the stains that "corrupt the mind's natural luminosity" (102). > Not that this is factually incorrect, but the meaning of "luminous mind" has so > often been misunderstood and misused that I think it is best avoided except > in strictly technical discussions of psychological processes as explained by the > Buddha. The problem, briefly, is that the Buddha's original matter?of?fact > reference to pabhassara citta (bright, or shining mind) was made in a simply > practical context,1 when he was explaining the continual arising and passing > away of mind factors and the need to clean the mind of impurities in order to > make > progress in meditation. This, however, was blown up by later Buddhist > thinkers (more concerned, one fears, with speculation than with meditation) into > a > sort of transcendent entity. So that using the term "luminous mind" can > easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in our Western culture, still > haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into equating it with an immortal soul, > thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory conception of "self." >> > > Just to be nice, I've given a quote that falls on your side of the argument, but > it shows that there are differences of interpretation of this passage. > > Now, outside of the Abhidhamma, Buddha does often speak of mind as if it is > 'real'. He doesn't speak of it as if it is merely a series of rapidly arising > and > dissolving thoughts. > > From the Dhammapada: > > > Chapter Three - The Mind > > Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft, > even so the discerning man straightens his mind > so fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard. > > As a fish when pulled out of water and cast > on land throbs and quivers, even so is > this mind agitated. Hence should > one abandon the realm of Mara. > > Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue > the mind, so difficult to subdue, > ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires. > A tamed mind brings happiness. > > Let the discerning man guard the mind, > so difficult to detect and extremely subtle, > seizing whatever it desires. > A guarded mind brings happiness. > > Buddha talks about the subtlety of the mind and the difficulty in detecting it. > He doesn't speak of individual thoughts or mind-moments. > > now I have no doubt that he does speak this way in other suttas, as he does > speak > in a more specific way in many Mahayana texts, such as the Lankavatara Sutra. > > But if he speaks more specifically in one part of the Pali Canon, and less > specifically in another part, does that make the more specific part invalid > because it seems to be contradicted by a more general description somewhere > else? > Of course not. > > Neither should we dismiss the Mahayana assertions as invalid merely on the basis > that they are not mentioned clearly or repeatedly in the Pali Canon. Nor should > we assume that we *know* that when he speaks of 'luminosity of mind' that he is > really talking about individual thought-moments. By your argument, in which you > argue strongly that if the Buddha wanted us to know that there was an 'original > nature' or 'primordial awareness' he would have mentioned it explicitly, I > wonder > why he was not more specific about what he meant by 'this mind is luminous'. > Wouldn't he, by your argument, have said 'a particular citta may be luminous, > while a succeeding one may be defiled by defilements from without.' But it > doesn't seem to trouble you to assume that this is what he is referring to, even > though this is not what he says in the sutta. > > I am just trying to point out that we are all inclined to read into a sutta what > we believe is there, and it must take an awful lot of discernment to resist > this. > If we hold onto the view that the Buddha must have meant this, or must have > meant > that, I think it interferes on both sides with an honest reading of the sutta. > > Since all of our views are provisional and deluded views, it would be better to > let them go. I need a does of this as well, because I do not want to form an > image of some sort of primordial field of awareness which is not directly > experienced, but is in my mind's eye, and substitute this for an understanding > of > what is really there. But neither will I assume that there is nothing but a > succession of moments without any binding thread [other than cittas that are > specifically designed to maintain the sense of continuity from citta to citta] > unless I experience that directly as well. > > We can't afford to settle for images, which are the opposite of mindfulness. > Each > of us is stuck with our own level of discernment, as we head a little closer, > rather gradually from experience, towards understanding. > > Anyway, I hope this didn't turn into too vague a rumination. I'll look foward to > your response when you have a spare moment or two. Or three. > > Best Regards, > Robert Ep. 8442 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 5, 2001 10:18pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi Robert, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I can't escape the feeling, however, that Huang Po's > statement about the > 'brilliant spirit of the original mind' being > blocked [or defiled I would say] by > sense objects, is enormously similar both in form > and content to the disputed > phrase of the Buddha's: > > "This mind is luminous, but it is defiled by > defilements from without." Huang Po was one of my favorites, too. I'm not questioning your understanding Ch'an or the Mahayana in general, at all. What I'm asking is, aside from this and one or two other translated passages, do you think that this 'original mind' concept is common to the rest of the Pali Canon? If not, this seems to me to be a kind of loophole for interpolating an alien concept into the Theravaada. Just my opinion as always, of course. Best wishes, Robert, mike 8443 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 5:34am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Robert, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > I can't escape the feeling, however, that Huang Po's > > statement about the > > 'brilliant spirit of the original mind' being > > blocked [or defiled I would say] by > > sense objects, is enormously similar both in form > > and content to the disputed > > phrase of the Buddha's: > > > > "This mind is luminous, but it is defiled by > > defilements from without." > > Huang Po was one of my favorites, too. I'm not > questioning your understanding Ch'an or the Mahayana > in general, at all. > > What I'm asking is, aside from this and one or two > other translated passages, do you think that this > 'original mind' concept is common to the rest of the > Pali Canon? If not, this seems to me to be a kind of > loophole for interpolating an alien concept into the > Theravaada. I wish I were qualified to answer that question. But since the Buddha did say this, I wonder if it's an alien concept, or just one he chose not to speak about a whole lot. Probably hard to say. Robert Ep. ================= > Just my opinion as always, of course. > > Best wishes, Robert, > > mike > 8444 From: m. nease Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 5:51am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike Hi Kenneth, --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi Mike > Regarding whether luminious mind is found in Pali, > is a very good and beneficial question and I think I > could understand your intention. I could not > comment at present because I am not good in > Thervada. It starts to interest me when pple talk > abt Vipassana and Abidharma. Actually my initial > interest to learn Vipassana and Abidharma is > embarassing because it started when somebody keep > insisting that other type of methods are wrong only > Vipassana is correct. Yes, one often hears this from the proponents of 'vipassanaa meditation'. Personally I think this is a mistake. > Hehe, that makes me angry > (gosh akusala citta). I'm glad to hear you say this--I like having company with my defilements(!). > One of the area that I would > like to study is the similarity between Abidharma > and Mahayana doctrines esp the Surangama Sutra. This sounds interesting. It's been a long time since I looked at the Surangama, though. > But now I am limited by the availability of > resources in the country I am staying now. Maybe > when I back to Singapore, presently I have only one > book of Abidharama without commentaries but I would > buy more books on Abidharama and the Path to > liberation (Visuddhimagga). Do you or anyone here > have any good recommendation of books or websites > that I could access. Yes! Robert K's site, http://abhidhamma.org/ And Khun Amara's site, http://www.dhammastudy.com/ are both excellent sources of abhidhamma and links to other resources. > Mike, sorry, 'us' is used as a technical speech. All > the khandas are the same in essence same as > luminious mind. There is why in Mahayana doctrine > there is always these words, Buddha is found in > defilements, and they are of the same essence. I do understand this doctrine, thanks. I was a student of Mahayana (Ch'an/Zen) for quite some time--though not a particularly bright one, I'm afraid. > Words do have limitation to express luminious mind. > Take another example, when we tell a computer sugar > taste sweet. The computer does not know the actual > experience of "sweet" but it will know the > description of sweets. Similar to luminious mind, it > can only be experience and not decribed fully. Understood. The same can be said of any experience, of course. And, as you understood, my question is simply whether the 'original, luminous mind' is a teaching found with any significant degree of consistency in the Theravada. Always a pleasure talking with you, Kenneth. mike 8445 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:10am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta Hi Robert K. Many thanks for kind patience in explaining, below are my questions. Hope you are not offended as my questions are very direct and frank (sometimes without mercy :) ). "They are real in the sense that there is nothing other than these conditions. Think of your father or sister. the thinking process during this consists of billions of changing cittas and cetasikas which are conditioned and ephemeral - but not non-existant at the time they 'exist'. But the object of thought- father or sister- is simply concept, idea: not real." If you said they are condition, on what cause or on what ground it is condition. There must be something for it to be condition. "there is no boss, neither do they have any wish to cooperate or get reborn or do anything. But they are conditioned, uncontrollable and henece whatver conditions arise condition the rebirth." If they are uncontrollable, then what is the point of being aware of then. Furthermore, if there is no boss nor do they co-operate, how do they know our next karma. "Robert K.;It is nothing like the hard disc in a computer because it is nama(mentality ) something utterly different. If it was rupa it would get filled up in one life let alone the countless billions in samsara" Assume volitions as Citta A, does that mean everytime what we do is accumulated in Citta A even though if is dynamic. So could we assume that Citta A in a sense has a boundless capacity. How does it have the boundless capacity. On what nature that it has boundless capacity. If they are condition, they should not be boundless. "nibbana is not conditioned but the cittas that cognise nibbana are conditioned (by right view and the factors of the eightfold path)." Hmm citta cognise Nibbana, if citta cognise Nibbana, then Nibbana is condition as it need citta to recognise it. Furthermore, if citta itself is condition, so must be Nibbana. If we wish to say that Nibbana is not condition, how does it becomes uncondition. All of us need citta in order to attain Nibbana, but how is it going to attain sometimes that is uncondition when citta itself is condition. Even if you say using supramundane citta, isn't supramundane is condition by citta in the initial place. ""moments" are highly dynamic with influences from past and present factors. The dhammas themselevs are not different from the quality they posses. In fact the subcommentary to the Dhammasangani says that "there is no other thing than the quality born by it" " How do they being influence by past and present factor. If they are influence by past and presents, hence they are condition, if they are condition, they cannot be boundless, they could not have the capacity to accumulate so many countless of citta. Could you kindly explain moment/dynamic concept more in detail and reference with sutta if possible. Many thanks and kind regards Kenneth Ong 8446 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:20am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi Sarah Excuse me for butting in ">Likewise, with the advent of > > nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the mind > is > > freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an infinite > > illumination encountering no obstacles." Isn't a boundless mind still need discernment or are you implying that the mind or nibbana is a different kind of discernment. If there is no discernment, how do Buddha teach all the realms of beings after he attain enlightment. Kind regards Kenneth Ong 8447 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:50am Subject: Re: Citta --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi Robert K. > Many thanks for kind patience in explaining, below are my questions. Hope you are not offended as my questions are very direct and frank (sometimes without mercy :) ). > "They are real in the sense that there is nothing other than these > conditions. Think of your father or sister. the thinking process > during this consists of billions of changing cittas and cetasikas > which are conditioned and ephemeral - but not non-existant at the > time they 'exist'. But the object of thought- father or sister- is > simply concept, idea: not real." > > If you said they are condition, on what cause or on what ground it is condition. There must be something for it to be condition. _________________ dear kenneth, Yes indeed. There are 24 conditions elucidated in the texts. these are carefully explained in the Patthana - the great book - which is considered the most important part of the Tipitaka by the ancient theravada tradition. You can purchase a translation (by Venerable narada of Burma) of the first part from the Pali text society. ______ > > > "there is no boss, neither do they have any wish to cooperate or get > reborn or do anything. But they are conditioned, uncontrollable and > henece whatver conditions arise condition the rebirth." >_______ >Kenneth: If they are uncontrollable, then what is the point of being aware of then. _____ Robert K.:There is no one who is aware of them, nor can awareness by controlled. If there is awareness (which is conditioned by various factors) what it sees is this very fact - and that eliminates, at deeper and deeper levels, the idea of self and control. ____________ Furthermore, if there is no boss nor do they co-operate, how do they know our next karma. ________ Robert K:They don't know our next kamma - these phenomena arise and perform their function. If that function is to condition rebirth as a human (because of suitable conditions) then it does that. > "Robert K.;It is nothing like the hard disc in a computer because it > is nama(mentality ) something utterly different. If it was rupa it > would get filled up in one life let alone the countless billions in > samsara" > > > Assume volitions as Citta A, does that mean everytime what we do is accumulated in Citta A even though if is dynamic. So could we assume that Citta A in a sense has a boundless capacity. How does it have the boundless capacity. On what nature that it has boundless capacity. If they are condition, they should not be boundless. _____ Robert K; It is not explained how it has this. what can be seen though is that accumulations are carried over moment to moment. It is just the way things work. _____ > > "nibbana is not conditioned but the cittas that cognise nibbana are > conditioned (by right view and the factors of the eightfold path)." > > > Hmm citta cognise Nibbana, if citta cognise Nibbana, then Nibbana is condition as it need citta to recognise it. Furthermore, if citta itself is condition, so must be Nibbana. If we wish to say that Nibbana is not condition, how does it becomes uncondition. All of us need citta in order to attain Nibbana, but how is it going to attain sometimes that is uncondition when citta itself is condition. Even if you say using supramundane citta, isn't supramundane is condition by citta in the initial place. _____ Supramundane citta is conditioned but nibbana is not. Nibbana doesn't arise or pass away or exist in the way that conditioned dhammas do. > > > > ""moments" are highly dynamic with influences from past > and present factors. The dhammas themselevs are not > different from the quality they posses. In fact the > subcommentary to the Dhammasangani says that "there is > no other thing than the quality born by it" " > > How do they being influence by past and present factor. If they are influence by past and presents, hence they are condition, if they are condition, they cannot be boundless, they could not have the capacity to accumulate so many countless of citta. > > Could you kindly explain moment/dynamic concept more in detail and reference with sutta if possible. > > Many thanks and kind regards > > Kenneth Ong > ________ Thanks for your questions kenneth. It would be good if you study some of the Patthana - which has detailed answers to all these questions. i give you a taste now based on nina van gorkoms introduction to this section of the Tipitaka (available online at www.zolag.co.uk : "The Buddha's teaching on the conditions for the phenomena of our life has been laid down in the last of the seven books of the Abhidhamma, the "Paììhåna", or "Conditional Relations". The Buddha, in the night he attained enlightenment, penetrated all the different conditions for the phenomena which arise and he contemplated the "Dependant Origination" (Paticca Samuppåda), the conditions for being in the cycle of birth and death, and the way leading to the elimination of these causes. . Before we knew the Buddha's teachings we used to think of cause and effect in a speculative way. We may have reflected on the origin of life, on the origin of the world, we may have thought about causes and effects with regard to the events of life, but we did not penetrate the real conditions for the phenomena of life. The Buddha taught the way to develop understanding of what is true in the absolute or ultimate sense. We cannot understand the "Patthåna" if we do not know the difference between what is real in conventional sense and what is real in the ultimate sense. Body and mind are real in conventional sense, they are not real in the ultimate sense. What we call body and mind are temporary combinations of different realities which arise because of conditioning factors and then fall away immediately. They are succeeded by new realities which fall away again, and thus the flux of life goes on. Body, mind, person or being do not exist in the ultimate sense. Mental phenomena, nåma, and physical phenomena, rúpa, which constitute what we call a "person" are real in the ultimate sense, but they are merely passing phenomena. There are twentyfour classes of conditions enumerated in the "Paììhåna". In order to understand these it is essential to have a precise knowledge of the realities which are involved in these conditional relations. . Each conditioned reality can exist just for an extremely short moment. When we understand this it will be easier to see that there is no self who can exert control over realities. How could we control what falls away immediately? When we move our hands, when we walk, when we laugh or cry, when we are attached or worried, there are conditions for such moments. The Patthåna helps us to understand the deep underlying motives for our behaviour and the conditions for our defilements. It explains, for example, that kusala can be the object of akusala citta. For instance, on account of generosity which is wholesome, attachment, wrong view or conceit, which are unwholesome realities, can arise. The Patthåna also explains that akusala can be the object of kusala, for example, when akusala is considered with insight. This is an essential point which is often overlooked. If one thinks that akusala cannot be object of awareness and right understanding, the right Path cannot be developed. When we know that there isn't anything we can control, will that change our life? It is beneficial to have less ignorance about ourselves. Defilements cannot be eradicated immediately, there will still be sadness, worry and frustration. However, when it is more clearly understood that realities arise because of their own conditions there will be less inclination to try to do what is impossible: to change what has arisen because of conditions. When there is more understanding one will be less obsessed by one's experiences, there will be more patience. Doubt will only disappear if we thoroughly consider the different types of conditions, because then we can see for ourselves whether the contents of the "Patthåna" conform to the truth or not. Theoretical knowledge of conditions is not the purpose of the "Patthåna". Through mere intellectual understanding conditions cannot be thoroughly grasped. When understanding of nåma, mental phenomena, and rúpa, physical phenomena, has been developed to the degree of the second stage of insight there will be direct understanding of the conditionality of realities. When conditions are understood more clearly, there will be less clinging to a self who could control awareness of nåma and rúpa. Thus, the "Paììhåna" can help us to follow the right practice. It is above all the right practice of the eightfold Path that can promote the survival of the Buddha's teachings."Endquote robert > > 8448 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 0:09pm Subject: Sutras as Descriptive Experiences (was: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Kenneth, > > --- KennethOng wrote: > > Words do have limitation to express luminious mind. > > Take another example, when we tell a computer sugar > > taste sweet. The computer does not know the actual > > experience of "sweet" but it will know the > > description of sweets. Similar to luminious mind, it > > can only be experience and not decribed fully. > > Understood. The same can be said of any experience, > of course. There is one experience which can be fully experienced by being described, and that is the experience of experiencing the description. This is often what we have when we read sutras. We experience the experience of the description in the sutras. Because of this, I think it's fair to say, that Sutra-reading experiences fall into two categories: 1/ confirming descriptions; and 2/ pointing descriptions. They either confirm an experience we believe we've had by virtue of the description, or they point to a description of an experience we wish or expect to have via the experience of the description. I think it's important to note that no matter how profound the sutra, it is still in the realm of description. Does anyone seriously break down the reality of the dhammas and cetasikas encountered in the reading of Sutras, or do we normally just go back to our ordinary, non-discerning mode of assuming that we are reading something that is 'true'? If it is important to discern the true nature of realities at all times and of all sorts in order to develop panna, the act of encountering sutras should be the most important single place where we do not take for granted that we know what the object is, assuming that it is a *real* dhamma and not a sense-door/mind-door experience, and assuming that we are merely *reading what is there* and not interpreting through our level of panna, our specific kusala and akusala cittas and cetisikas in order to create what we *think* we are reading. If the action that takes place in the mental process is often obscured by the illusion of the solid object, how much more so must this take place when the illusion of the Sutta as an object interferes with our ability to discern how much we are interpreting what we read and thus creating its meaning. Many have said here that the Suttas say it all, and that it is most important to use the Suttas as our guide, and this is undoubtably true in a mundane sense. But for those attempting to practice mindfulness and discernment in daily life, this is not good enough, I think. I think it is necessary to examine what is taking place in detail when reading Suttas, and break down this reality as we would any other. Otherwise what we are swallowing whole is not actually the Buddha's teachings, but our objectification of them in print. Just as it has been said [by Robert or Jon, sorry for not being clear] that Samatha and Samadhi may not be kusala, because for instance one may be clinging to the calmness and concentration of those states, respectively, it is also possible that reading Sutras may not be kusala, as one may very well be grasping after the truth of the Sutras, depending upon them as a real external object, holding onto them and not realizing that they, as any object are anicca and anatta, and turning the Suttas into a substitute self. In other words not applying the teachings of the Suttas, which are meant to be applied to every object, to the Suttas themselves. Best, Robert Ep. 8449 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 1:41pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Sorry could i know the meaning of athaan rarueng :) Thanks and kind regards Kenneth Ong Sukinderpal Narula wrote: Dear Jonothan, > Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the > positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)? Thanks. I am not confident about my understading here, I have a feeling that I do not understand the real meaning behind this reminder (athaan rarueng). But I will relay my experience of this morning and wait for you or anyone to comment. This morning I was feeling dosa towards myself and my particular circumstance. I was lamenting the fact that I allow weeks to go by without ever considering the teachings in daily life, that I was stuck only on the theoretical level and that too, I have very little knowledge of. I started blaming my kids, wife, work and monetary status and this made things even worse. I then remembered 'athaan rarueng' and the fact that all realities arise because of conditions. I was reminded that even in the midst of what seems like a long stretch of dosa, there can be moments of patience and acceptance. I noticed that thinking each time about 'athaan rarueng' there follows a degree of 'letting go'. I also reflected later that my dosa comes much in part from expectations I have about my progress. Eventhough I ended up still explaining my way out of the situation, but I was also left with some breathing space and this itself was condition for some good cheer. Hope I go it correct, if not let me know. Sukin. 8450 From: Sarah Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 2:14pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi Ken O, Just looking in quickly in between my classes;-)) --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi Sarah > Excuse me for butting in anytime, I'm enjoying all your contributions- > ">Likewise, with the advent of > > > nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the mind > > is > > > freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an infinite > > > illumination encountering no obstacles." Sorry, this is Howard's quote not mine. I gave my comments in a post to him and plan to follow up when I have time (no chance today;-) > > Isn't a boundless mind still need discernment or are you implying that the > mind or nibbana is a different kind of discernment. If there is no > discernment, how do Buddha teach all the realms of beings after he attain > enlightment. You've quite lost me, Kenneth! From my studies of the pali canon, I have no idea of a boundless mind or a mind of nibbana. After his enlightenment, the Buddha taught during his lifetime only. Since his Parinibbana, we look to his Teachings, the dhamma, as encouraged by him. If you have any queeries about the quote above, you may wish to address these to Howard. Oops, I can hear students arriving... Sarah 8451 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:18pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Sukin Thanks for sharing this experience with us. It's a good reminder that reflection on the Dhamma can condition more moments of wholesomeness. Of course, only the person him/herself can know whether and to what extent the citta is wholesome. This is not as easy as we may think, but gradually one gets a clearer and clearer idea of it. As you say, even in the midst of what seems like a long stretch of dosa, there can be moments of patience and acceptance. And there are certainly at such times moments of seeing and visible object and the experiences through the other sense-doors proceeding along as normal. The reason the dosa seems so all-present is no doubt our strong idea of self and 'my anger' at those times. The reminder about the conditioned nature of things was the right 'medicine' for you at that moment. Not to be clung to as a 'way' for next time, of course! Jon --- Sukinderpal Narula wrote: > Dear Jonothan, > > > Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the > > positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)? Thanks. > > I am not confident about my understading here, I have a feeling that I > do not > understand > the real meaning behind this reminder (athaan rarueng). But I will relay > my > experience > of this morning and wait for you or anyone to comment. > This morning I was feeling dosa towards myself and my particular > circumstance. > I was > lamenting the fact that I allow weeks to go by without ever considering > the > teachings > in daily life, that I was stuck only on the theoretical level and that > too, I > have very little > knowledge of. I started blaming my kids, wife, work and monetary status > and > this made > things even worse. I then remembered 'athaan rarueng' and the fact that > all > realities arise > because of conditions. I was reminded that even in the midst of what > seems > like a long > stretch of dosa, there can be moments of patience and acceptance. I > noticed > that > thinking each time about 'athaan rarueng' there follows a degree of > 'letting > go'. > I also reflected later that my dosa comes much in part from expectations > I > have about > my progress. Eventhough I ended up still explaining my way out of the > situation, but I > was also left with some breathing space and this itself was condition > for > some good cheer. > Hope I go it correct, if not let me know. > > Sukin. 8452 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:28pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Volition and Self [To Jon] Howard I did appreciate your tactfully worded description of our respective positions on this topic. --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > With regard to volition/intention, I think there is a range of > view in > which we both occupy middle positions, with you slightly towards what I > think > of as the "left" extreme and with me slightly towards the "right" > extreme, > with both extremes constituting forms of wrong view. > > It seems to me that volition/intention is a phenomenon which, > when > wrongly understood, is a factor in the formation of the view of 'person' > or > 'self'. In fact, intention is a completely impersonal phenomenon arising > > automatically when the conditions for it to do so are in place. But when > that > intention or volition is seen, even subliminally, as personal, as the > intervention of an alleged "self" in the causal flow, ignorance is > active and > growing. This is one extreme. It is the extreme I need to guard against. Whenever I think I begin to understand your position on this area (intention and effort), I find something in your post that makes me wonder if I do understand it after all! So I hope you don't mind my asking you directly (below). We have discussed in our posts on this thread 2 kinds of intention-- 1. What you call volitional intention namely, if I understand you correctly, the positive, conscious intention to do something, in all its various guises and shades of deliberateness. 2. The mental concomitant that is 'cetana' ('intention') that arises with each moment of consciousness. What I am not clear on is whether you see these, as I do, as being 2 quite different things. For example, when we talk about the intention to do something (type 1 above), we usually mean the thought moments that precede (by a shorter or longer period) the doing of the thing in question. So intention here refers to a citta the object of which is the thought of doing a particular thing. On the other hand, the mental factor that is 'intention' (type 2 above) arises as one of several mental factors accompanying a citta and performs its function in the context of that particular moment of consciousness (in general terms, it has to do with 'willing' or coordinating the citta and the other mental factors with which it arises). To put it another way, when we refer to the intention to do something (type 1), it is not the mental factor of intention (type 2) that is being alluded to, although the type 1 intention moments are, like all other moments of consciousness, accompanied by the type 2 intention. Of course, both kinds, type 1 and type 2, can equally validly be referred to as intention. Coming to your description of my position ... > As I see it, the other extreme, the "left-hand" error, is to see > intention, at least at a subliminal level of awareness, as almost > illusory, > as being a superfluous step in the chain of causality, so that it > appears > that there is no effective volition at all, Just to clarify my understanding of the teachings on intention and dependent origination (if that's what you are referring to here). It is the mental factor cetana, the 'type 2' intention, that is the link in the chain of dependent origination, not the type 1. The type 1 has no place in the chain of causality, as I understand it. Likewise, in the context of kamma and vipaka, it is cetana (the type 2 intention) that is being referred to. Again, the type 1 intention is not being alluded to here. Was there any other context you had in mind here? > with everything that occurs being > either random, in one form of the error, or as fated, in another, but, > in > either case, leading to a kind of hopelessness, a sense of *total* lack > of > control, a kind of nihilistic despair. I am happy to say that I have never found the study of the conditioned nature of realities, or of the various kinds of conditioning relationships that exist between realities, to give rise to these kinds of thoughts or feelings in the slightest. (Perhaps I am fortunate in this regard, which no doubt explains my lack of sensitivity in discussing these areas with others!) > I think that you may need to guard > against movement towards that extreme, though, of course, you are far, > far > away from it. If anything, I see you as quite possibly being closer to > the > "truthful center" than I. I talk only about tendencies here, tendencies > to be > closely watched. I'm not sure whether what I have said above makes me more "left-hand" or less! Thanks again for you well chosen and, I am sure, well-meant words, Howard. And my apologies as usual for the time taken to respond. Jon 8453 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:32pm Subject: cheerfulness with Dhamma. Dear Sukin, your post about contrarieties in daily life and about perseverance and gladness of Dhamma was such a good reminder. We should not overlook seemingly unimportant events, they are Dhamma. Looking forward to having more examples from you. It is so good to have this forum where we can exchange our experiences. I appreciate that you are helping in many ways, also at the foundation, anumodana, Nina. 8454 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 10:51pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > I think my question is basically answered. > The way I interpret your answer is that, one may have an effect on the > outcome of > kusala by intending it, but only if the complete balance of pre-existing > factors > leans in that direction. That makes sense. > > I guess that one's effort is one factor among others in the gradual > movement > towards kusala and wisdom. > > Robert E. I may not have explained myself clearly. To my way of thinking, the fact that moments of 'intention to have kusala' may sometimes be followed by kusala and sometimes not tends to show a *lack of* connection between the two. But more importantly, I don’t think we really know the characteristic of kusala moments anyway, I mean by direct experience, so we have no way of knowing if the moments that follow the deliberate intention are actually kusala or just seem that way. Even when it comes to akusala, which you would think should be very easily 'known' because of its gross nature (speaking for myself, at least) we are liable to mistake, say, the unpleasant feeling for the aversion it arises together with. So no, I don’t see the kind of connection you are suggesting. > I guess that one's effort is one factor among others in the gradual > movement towards kusala and wisdom. You mention 'factors towards wisdom'. There is a short and pithy sutta on this very subject (Anguttara Nikaya IV, 246 -- NDB trans. p. 124): "These four things, O monks, are conducive to the growth of wisdom. What four? Association with superior persons, hearing the good Dhamma, proper attention and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. These four things are conducive to the growth of wisdom." These 4 'things' are described elsewhere as 'factors' (factors for stream-entry -- 'sotapattiyanga'). They are the same factors as are met in so many contexts elsewhere in the suttas. Having the chance to listen to and discuss the Dhamma with the help of one who can explain the teachings to us, wise reflection (yoniso manasikara) on what we have heard and understood, and applying that to our own experience of the present moment. This is the development of the path, vipassana (literally, 'seeing clearly', = wisdom). There is no factor of 'one's effort' here, because effort of the right kind is implicit in the moments of wholesomeness that draw us to listen and discuss, to consider and apply. It is worth noting that all 4 factors must continue to occur if wisdom is to continue to develop. In particular, some my think that first 3 are sort of 'once and for all' factors that one somehow gets beyond after a certain stage. This would not be correct, according to my understanding. The need for continuing association with the good friend, which is the only way to gain exposure to the listening and discussing that is also needed, is evident from this passage from Samyutta Nikaya XLV, 2 (CDB trans, p. 1524): "… by relying upon me as a good friend, Ananda, beings subject to birth are freed from birth …. By this method it may be understood how the entire holy life is good friendship" "The entire holy life (ie. development of the path) is good friendship". Without continued association with good friends (= listening to, discussion of Dhamma), progress cannot continue to be made. I emphasise this because it indicates how kusala can be developed without the need for the kind of deliberate intention or effort that you may think is essential, Rob. (By the way, these 2 sutta quotes I had collected to reply to an earlier discussion we were having about the need for reliance on a teacher. Any 'good friend' or 'superior person' as referred to in these passages is a 'teacher' to us while we are benefiting from association with him/her.) Jon > ============================== > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob E > > > > Thanks for your carefully thought-out comments. I will do my best to > > respond in kind. > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Thanks, Jon, for your reply to my questions. I take it by your > > > description that > > > you believe that all arisings of kusala and akusala are the result > of > > > pre-existing > > > or dependently arising causes and effects, and that there is no > volition > > > involved > > > in whether a kusala or akusala moments. > > > > I suppose it depends on what you mean by volition. If you mean the > > intention, say, to have kusala at a subsequent moment, then I would > say > > that experience tells us that such intention may or may not bring the > > desired outcome. The arising of kusala is conditioned by many factors > but > > principally, I believe, by one's accumulated tendencies for the > various > > forms of wholesome conduct (and also by the 'suitability' of the > > occasion). For example, no matter how much we may resolve to respond > > better next time in a particular situation, if we lack the > understanding > > and the particular accumulated tendencies to do so, it will not > happen. > > > > The intention to have kusala is in essence a kind of mental activity, > > similar to thinking and not necessarily different in nature from other > > kinds of intention, for example, to get something to eat or drink. It > may > > *seem* more lofty, but perhaps that's because we are not able to > > discriminate kusala from akusala moments to any significant degree, > other > > than by inference. > > > > > However, I take it by your indication that one can become more aware > of > > > the kusala > > > and akusala moments, and that this awareness or understanding has an > > > effect on > > > cultivation of kusala, that these factors are more subject to an > intent > > > or effort > > > to be more aware or understanding? Or are these factors as well > just > > > the outcome > > > of arising conditions and causes? > > > > Rob, I'm afraid you've lost me here, but let me say that if the aim is > the > > cultivation of more moments of kusala mind-states (which means the > > development of samatha rather than satipatthana/vipassana), then > > understanding directly the kusala or akusala nature of the presently > > arising mind-states is how that can be achieved in time. > > > > There is, however, a higher aim which is the development of the > > understanding of the true nature of realities, and this is the > teaching > > that is unique to a Buddha. Under this form of development > (bhavana), it > > is all realities, not just mind-states, that are to be known and > > understood as they are and, accordingly, there is no selecting of the > > reality that is to be the object of attention or awareness -- the > object > > may be a rupa, or one of the moments of experience through a > sense-door; > > but one is not concerned *in particular* with understanding the nature > of > > the present mind-state. This of course does not mean one has any less > > interest in developing more kusala; rather it means that the path can > be > > developed regardless of the nature of the present mind-state or one's > > awareness of it. > > > > > I am just trying to see if you would believe one to be completely > > > passive to this > > > process [since in fact there is no self, but only the shifting > > > conditions of the > > > kandhas] or whether there is a moment of volition there if one > notices > > > the > > > arisings. > > > > I hope what I have said above answers this last part; but if not, > please > > let me know. I do not myself think in terms of 'active' or 'passive', > but > > perhaps by some terms of reference these descriptions could be > > appropriate. > > > > Thanks again for the chance to discuss these important aspects. > > > > Jon 8455 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 11:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Sex, desire, attachment Hi Jon That is why I am here learning from you and everyone here :) Cheers Kenneth Ong Jonothan Abbott wrote: Rob Ep --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > I think my question is basically answered. > The way I interpret your answer is that, one may have an effect on the > outcome of > kusala by intending it, but only if the complete balance of pre-existing > factors > leans in that direction. That makes sense. > > I guess that one's effort is one factor among others in the gradual > movement > towards kusala and wisdom. > > Robert E. I may not have explained myself clearly. To my way of thinking, the fact that moments of 'intention to have kusala' may sometimes be followed by kusala and sometimes not tends to show a *lack of* connection between the two. But more importantly, I don’t think we really know the characteristic of kusala moments anyway, I mean by direct experience, so we have no way of knowing if the moments that follow the deliberate intention are actually kusala or just seem that way. Even when it comes to akusala, which you would think should be very easily 'known' because of its gross nature (speaking for myself, at least) we are liable to mistake, say, the unpleasant feeling for the aversion it arises together with. So no, I don’t see the kind of connection you are suggesting. > I guess that one's effort is one factor among others in the gradual > movement towards kusala and wisdom. You mention 'factors towards wisdom'. There is a short and pithy sutta on this very subject (Anguttara Nikaya IV, 246 -- NDB trans. p. 124): "These four things, O monks, are conducive to the growth of wisdom. What four? Association with superior persons, hearing the good Dhamma, proper attention and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. These four things are conducive to the growth of wisdom." These 4 'things' are described elsewhere as 'factors' (factors for stream-entry -- 'sotapattiyanga'). They are the same factors as are met in so many contexts elsewhere in the suttas. Having the chance to listen to and discuss the Dhamma with the help of one who can explain the teachings to us, wise reflection (yoniso manasikara) on what we have heard and understood, and applying that to our own experience of the present moment. This is the development of the path, vipassana (literally, 'seeing clearly', = wisdom). There is no factor of 'one's effort' here, because effort of the right kind is implicit in the moments of wholesomeness that draw us to listen and discuss, to consider and apply. It is worth noting that all 4 factors must continue to occur if wisdom is to continue to develop. In particular, some my think that first 3 are sort of 'once and for all' factors that one somehow gets beyond after a certain stage. This would not be correct, according to my understanding. The need for continuing association with the good friend, which is the only way to gain exposure to the listening and discussing that is also needed, is evident from this passage from Samyutta Nikaya XLV, 2 (CDB trans, p. 1524): "… by relying upon me as a good friend, Ananda, beings subject to birth are freed from birth …. By this method it may be understood how the entire holy life is good friendship" "The entire holy life (ie. development of the path) is good friendship". Without continued association with good friends (= listening to, discussion of Dhamma), progress cannot continue to be made. I emphasise this because it indicates how kusala can be developed without the need for the kind of deliberate intention or effort that you may think is essential, Rob. (By the way, these 2 sutta quotes I had collected to reply to an earlier discussion we were having about the need for reliance on a teacher. Any 'good friend' or 'superior person' as referred to in these passages is a 'teacher' to us while we are benefiting from association with him/her.) Jon 8456 From: KennethOng Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 11:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike Mike Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a difference between the enlightment of Buddha and the enlightment of Arahats. Is there a difference in Thervada terms. If it is the same, then luminious mind is just simply enlightment that is found in Pali (i.e. Nibbana) If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition cannot not be found in Pali, it could only found in Mahayana Doctrines. For comments please Kenneth Ong 8457 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 11:41pm Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike --- KennethOng wrote: > > Mike > Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a difference between the enlightment of Buddha and the enlightment of Arahats. Is there a difference in Thervada terms. > If it is the same, then luminious mind is just simply enlightment that is found in Pali (i.e. Nibbana) > If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition cannot not be found in Pali, it could only found in Mahayana Doctrines. > For comments please > Kenneth Ong > ________ Dear kenneth, The Cariyapitaka atthakatha (translation Bhikkhu Bodhi p.324 of net of views) "in regard to parinibbana all the disciples(arahants) and paccekabuddhas are completely equal to the Tathagatas (Buddhas); they are identical, without any distinction. Thence it is said "there is no diversity among them in regard to emancipation (see Samyutta nikaya iii 1.6.6)"endquote Asking good questions is one of the bases for the development of wisdom(nice to see you doing so): cariyapitaka atthakatha p305 notes that one of the causes for delusion is 'non-interrogation' i.e. not asking in various ways questions that should be asked of those suitable to ask. On p307 it says that one should first acquire "through study and interrogation a knowledge of the dhammas such as the five khandas [and dhatus, ayatanas etc] consituting the soil of wisdom". best wishes robert 8458 From: m. nease Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 11:44pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike Hi Kenneth, --- KennethOng wrote: > > Mike > Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a > difference between the enlightment of Buddha and the > enlightment of Arahats. Is there a difference in > Thervada terms. Yes, there is. Howard gave a good explanation of this in message 8381, better than I could've done. Simply put (if I understand this correctly), a Buddha 'discovers' the four noble truths at a time when no one else knows them. An arahanta only(!) has to fully awaken to them (after having been taught them). > If it is the same, then luminious mind is just > simply enlightment that is found in Pali (i.e. > Nibbana) > If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition > cannot not be found in Pali, it could only found in > Mahayana Doctrines. As I understand it, luminosity of mind certainly does occur according to the Theravada, but only very briefly (though many luminous cittas may occur in succession). It is in no way original, fundamental or continuous and certainly is not nibbaana. Just my opinions, Kenneth, and I'm no authority on the subject. mike > For comments please > Kenneth Ong 8459 From: KennethOng Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 0:06am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Mike and Robert Ep, "So that using the term "luminous mind" can easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in our Western culture, still haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into equating it with an immortal soul, thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory conception of "self." " Buddhist in my opinion should not be scare of this word self. I think the problem is the definition of self. Buddha never rejects self, it only says the self we are in is miscontrue and it is just the five aggregates. In fact all beings in the six realms, form by at least one of the five aggregates. Hence I think that why they could be also known as ultimate condition in Abidharma. The word realizing Nibbana already means there is something to grasp, to hold on (technically speaking). Nibbana could be equate to word like "god" or "soul" because it is the ultimate reality of Buddism in Thervada terms. Hence Nibbana is utlimate in Buddhism so is God is to christain. Nibbana in a sense the immortal soul of Buddhists. We should not be afraid of words like immortal soul or self. Because Buddha never rejects self, he only says this self is not as what we see. There is more than meets the eye. If Buddha rejects self, he would be in the extreme left view. Actually the term Thervada use on Nibbana could be misleading because it is a rightist view as it is the ultimate reality of Abidharma. Sorry no offence here, thats why I like the Mahayana coining of Nirvana, it is the same essence as defilements. This definition does not cling to left or right views. Kind regards Kenneth Ong 8460 From: Howard Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 8:31pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Sarah and Ken - I'll take up the reply inasmuch as it was I being quoted. In a message dated 10/6/01 2:14:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sarah writes: > > Hi Ken O, > > Just looking in quickly in between my classes;-)) > > --- KennethOng wrote: > > > Hi Sarah > > Excuse me for butting in > > anytime, I'm enjoying all your contributions- > > > ">Likewise, with the advent of > > > > nibbana, discernment ceases, and namarupa ceases (both fall) - the > mind > > > is > > > > freed, discernment unmanifestive, ranging without limit like an > infinite > > > > illumination encountering no obstacles." > > Sorry, this is Howard's quote not mine. I gave my comments in a post to him > and > plan to follow up when I have time (no chance today;-) > > > > > Isn't a boundless mind still need discernment or are you implying that the > > mind or nibbana is a different kind of discernment. If there is no > > discernment, how do Buddha teach all the realms of beings after he attain > > enlightment. > > You've quite lost me, Kenneth! From my studies of the pali canon, I have no > idea of a boundless mind or a mind of nibbana. After his enlightenment, the > Buddha taught during his lifetime only. Since his Parinibbana, we look to > his > Teachings, the dhamma, as encouraged by him. > > If you have any queeries about the quote above, you may wish to address > these > to Howard. > > Oops, I can hear students arriving... > > Sarah > ========================== Ken, you asked: "Isn't a boundless mind still need discernment or are you implying that the mind or nibbana is a different kind of discernment. If there is no discernment, how do Buddha teach all the realms of beings after he attain enlightment." A living arahant, including the Buddha, when not entered into cessation, does, indeed, discern objects, but "sees through them", reifying nothing, having no sense whatsoever of a personal self or of any self/core to be found anywhere. But when a living arahant has "stepped out" to timeless nibbana, there are no objects, no arising and no ceasing - the state/realm described in the Udana. The Theravadin understanding is that beyond death, an arahant has stepped out to timeless nibbana, and, from the perspective of the realm of time and phenomena, is gone, never to return. The Mahayana understanding is that an arahant, beyond death, can return, as a Buddha, to phenomenal realms, driven by compassion for sentient beings (i.e., worldlings). 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) 8461 From: KennethOng Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 0:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike Hi Mike, If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely difficult to find luminous mind in Pali Cannon. I think you know that Buddha makes great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in the Mahayana Sutra. Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then luminous find is found commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana) Kind regards Kenneth Ong "m. nease" wrote: Hi Kenneth, --- KennethOng wrote: > > Mike > Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a > difference between the enlightment of Buddha and the > enlightment of Arahats. Is there a difference in > Thervada terms. Yes, there is. Howard gave a good explanation of this in message 8381, better than I could've done. Simply put (if I understand this correctly), a Buddha 'discovers' the four noble truths at a time when no one else knows them. An arahanta only(!) has to fully awaken to them (after having been taught them). > If it is the same, then luminious mind is just > simply enlightment that is found in Pali (i.e. > Nibbana) > If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition > cannot not be found in Pali, it could only found in > Mahayana Doctrines. As I understand it, luminosity of mind certainly does occur according to the Theravada, but only very briefly (though many luminous cittas may occur in succession). It is in no way original, fundamental or continuous and certainly is not nibbaana. Just my opinions, Kenneth, and I'm no authority on the subject. mike > For comments please > Kenneth Ong 8462 From: KennethOng Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 0:47am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi Howard, "A living arahant, including the Buddha, when not entered into cessation, does, indeed, discern objects, but "sees through them", reifying nothing, having no sense whatsoever of a personal self or of any self/core to be found anywhere. But when a living arahant has "stepped out" to timeless nibbana, there are no objects, no arising and no ceasing - the state/realm described in the Udana. The Theravadin understanding is that beyond death, an arahant has stepped out to timeless nibbana, and, from the perspective of the realm of time and phenomena, is gone, never to return. The Mahayana understanding is that an arahant, beyond death, can return, as a Buddha, to phenomenal realms, driven by compassion for sentient beings (i.e., worldlings)." "If it is gone never to return" is an incorrect view because it is a very rightist view. It is never gone, it is there. Furthermore, if in Nibbana, we are cease to discern, is also incorrect, this is leftist view. Nibbana is the same essence as all defilements. this is Mahayana view of Nibbana. If Nibbana is the ceasation of discernment, then what is point of reaching Nibbana, it sounds like a rock stage to me. There is discernment in Nibbana. In fact this discernment is the discernment of the Buddha Nature.(i.e. Buddha's wisdoms ). Kind regards Kenneth Ong 8463 From: Howard Date: Sat Oct 6, 2001 9:11pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/6/01 12:49:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Hi Howard, > "A living arahant, including the Buddha, when not entered into > cessation, does, indeed, discern objects, but "sees through them", reifying > nothing, having no sense whatsoever of a personal self or of any self/core > to > be found anywhere. But when a living arahant has "stepped out" to timeless > nibbana, there are no objects, no arising and no ceasing - the state/realm > described in the Udana. The Theravadin understanding is that beyond death, > an > arahant has stepped out to timeless nibbana, and, from the perspective of > the > realm of time and phenomena, is gone, never to return. The Mahayana > understanding is that an arahant, beyond death, can return, as a Buddha, to > phenomenal realms, driven by compassion for sentient beings (i.e., > worldlings)." > > "If it is gone never to return" is an incorrect view because it is a very > rightist view. It is never gone, it is there. Furthermore, if in Nibbana, > we are cease to discern, is also incorrect, this is leftist view. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I thought I was being fairly clear when I distinguished the state of the living arahant when in cessation and when not, but evidently not. As far as "leftist" and "rightist" are concerned, I'll leave that to your own interpretations. ----------------------------------------------------------- > Nibbana is the same essence as all defilements. this is Mahayana view of > Nibbana. If Nibbana is the ceasation of discernment, then what is point of > reaching Nibbana, it sounds like a rock stage to me. There is discernment > in Nibbana. In fact this discernment is the discernment of the Buddha > Nature.(i.e. Buddha's wisdoms ). > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You are using 'nibbana' as synonymous with 'bodhi', it seems. I am not. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards > > Kenneth Ong > > ========================= 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) 8464 From: m. nease Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 1:11am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã - Kenneth Dear Sarah, What a great quotation--I'd forgotten all about this simile. Thanks for the reminder! By the way, I found it in the Kimsuka Sutta at SN XXXV.204. I believe it may occur elsewhere as well, but not certain. mike --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Kenneth, > > --- KennethOng wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am > not sure about vipassana > > meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with > me on this please? Please > > also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like > to learn more abt it. I > > like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and > where did Buddha say about > > this and to who did he say this. > > Many thanks and kind regards > .................... > > I understand all the suttas to be talking about > bhavana (mental development), > either samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana or both. > Vipassana means insight > and refers to the development of panna (wisdom). So > whenever we read about the > development of understanding or about the realities > which are to be known, we > are considering about vipassana. > > With regard to stages of vipassana and many, many > details, these can be read in > the Visuddhimagga. > > If you want specific references mentioning vipassana > (as opposed to similar > words like panna) in the suttas, there are some I > can think of in the Samyutta > Nikaya. I don't have the Pali but I'm pretty sure > that it's vipassana referred > to in this Sutta description at SN 1V, > Salayatanavagga, 194: > > 'Suppose, bhikkhu, a king had a frontier city with > strong ramparts, walls, and > arches, and with six gates. The gatekeeper posted > there would be wise, > competent, and intelligent; one who keeps out > strangers and admits > acquaintances. A swift pair of messengers would > come from the east and ask the > gatekeeper: 'Where, good man, is the lord of this > city?' He would reply: 'He is > sitting in the central square.' Then the swift pair > of messengers would > deliver a message of reality to the lord of the city > and leave by the route by > which they had arrived. Similarly, messengers would > come from the west, from > the north, from the south, deliver their message, > and leave by the route by > which they had arrived. > > “I have made up this simile, bhikkkhu, in order to > convey a meaning. This is > the meaning here: ‘The city’: this is a designation > for this body consisting of > the four great elements....’The six gates’: this is > a designation for the six > internal bases. “The gatekeeper’: this is a > designation for mindfulness. ‘The > swift pair of messengers’: this is a designation > for serenity and insight > (vipassana). ‘The lord of the city’: this is a > designation for consciousness. > ‘The cenral square’: this is a designation for the > four great elements .....’A > message of reality’: this is a designation for > Nibbana. ‘The route by which > they had arrived’: this is a designation for the > Noble Eightfold Path; that > is, right view....right concentration.” > > Hope this helps and thanks for your helpful > questions and comments. > > Sarah 8465 From: KennethOng Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 1:34am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi Howard, In the glossary that I have used Nibbana is the same as Bodhi, unless you are talking about Bodhicitta which has the same meaning as bodhi-mind (as according to the glossary I used). There is definitely discernment in Nibbana or not why did Buddha comes out from Nibbana and help the six realms of beings out of compassions. Compassions is arise because Buddha understand the sufferings of beings. Kind regards Kenneth Ong Howard wrote: Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/6/01 12:49:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Hi Howard, > "A living arahant, including the Buddha, when not entered into > cessation, does, indeed, discern objects, but "sees through them", reifying > nothing, having no sense whatsoever of a personal self or of any self/core > to > be found anywhere. But when a living arahant has "stepped out" to timeless > nibbana, there are no objects, no arising and no ceasing - the state/realm > described in the Udana. The Theravadin understanding is that beyond death, > an > arahant has stepped out to timeless nibbana, and, from the perspective of > the > realm of time and phenomena, is gone, never to return. The Mahayana > understanding is that an arahant, beyond death, can return, as a Buddha, to > phenomenal realms, driven by compassion for sentient beings (i.e., > worldlings)." > > "If it is gone never to return" is an incorrect view because it is a very > rightist view. It is never gone, it is there. Furthermore, if in Nibbana, > we are cease to discern, is also incorrect, this is leftist view. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I thought I was being fairly clear when I distinguished the state of the living arahant when in cessation and when not, but evidently not. As far as "leftist" and "rightist" are concerned, I'll leave that to your own interpretations. ----------------------------------------------------------- > Nibbana is the same essence as all defilements. this is Mahayana view of > Nibbana. If Nibbana is the ceasation of discernment, then what is point of > reaching Nibbana, it sounds like a rock stage to me. There is discernment > in Nibbana. In fact this discernment is the discernment of the Buddha > Nature.(i.e. Buddha's wisdoms ). > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You are using 'nibbana' as synonymous with 'bodhi', it seems. I am not. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards > > Kenneth Ong > > ========================= 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) 8466 From: Howard Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 3:39am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Ken - Well, rather than comparing glossaries, I think it may be most helpful if I indicate how *I* was using the terms 'nibbana' and 'bodhi'. I was using 'nibbana' to refer to the unconditioned (asankhata) dhamma, that which is free of all conditions and does not arise from any condition. I was using 'bodhi' to mean the awakened, enlightened state of the arahant, which *is* a result, the result of having fully entered into nibbana at some point. Bodhi, in the sense I use the term, and the apprehension of objects and conditions, are compatible, but nibbana, in the sense of asankhata dhamma, and the apprehension of objects and conditions are not. That cessation which is the entering into nibbana constitutes the moment "one" becomes an arahant. In Theravada, entry to the uncondititoned is final at the moment of death of an arahant. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/6/01 1:34:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Hi Howard, > In the glossary that I have used Nibbana is the same as Bodhi, unless you > are talking about Bodhicitta which has the same meaning as bodhi-mind (as > according to the glossary I used). > There is definitely discernment in Nibbana or not why did Buddha comes out > from Nibbana and help the six realms of beings out of compassions. > Compassions is arise because Buddha understand the sufferings of beings. > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > Howard wrote: Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 10/6/01 12:49:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Kenneth Ong writes: > > > > Hi Howard, > > "A living arahant, including the Buddha, when not entered into > > cessation, does, indeed, discern objects, but "sees through them", > reifying > > nothing, having no sense whatsoever of a personal self or of any > self/core > > to > > be found anywhere. But when a living arahant has "stepped out" to > timeless > > nibbana, there are no objects, no arising and no ceasing - the > state/realm > > described in the Udana. The Theravadin understanding is that beyond > death, > > an > > arahant has stepped out to timeless nibbana, and, from the perspective of > > the > > realm of time and phenomena, is gone, never to return. The Mahayana > > understanding is that an arahant, beyond death, can return, as a Buddha, > to > > phenomenal realms, driven by compassion for sentient beings (i.e., > > worldlings)." > > > > "If it is gone never to return" is an incorrect view because it is a very > > rightist view. It is never gone, it is there. Furthermore, if in Nibbana, > > we are cease to discern, is also incorrect, this is leftist view. > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I thought I was being fairly clear when I distinguished the state of > the living arahant when in cessation and when not, but evidently not. As > far > as "leftist" and "rightist" are concerned, I'll leave that to your own > interpretations. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > Nibbana is the same essence as all defilements. this is Mahayana view of > > Nibbana. If Nibbana is the ceasation of discernment, then what is point > of > > reaching Nibbana, it sounds like a rock stage to me. There is discernment > > in Nibbana. In fact this discernment is the discernment of the Buddha > > Nature.(i.e. Buddha's wisdoms ). > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > You are using 'nibbana' as synonymous with 'bodhi', it seems. I am not. > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Kind regards > > > > Kenneth Ong > > > > > ========================= > 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) 8467 From: Howard Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 4:00am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Volition and Self [To Jon] Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/6/01 10:31:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > I did appreciate your tactfully worded description of our respective > positions on this topic. > > --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > With regard to volition/intention, I think there is a range of > > view in > > which we both occupy middle positions, with you slightly towards what I > > think > > of as the "left" extreme and with me slightly towards the "right" > > extreme, > > with both extremes constituting forms of wrong view. > > > > It seems to me that volition/intention is a phenomenon which, > > when > > wrongly understood, is a factor in the formation of the view of 'person' > > or > > 'self'. In fact, intention is a completely impersonal phenomenon arising > > > > automatically when the conditions for it to do so are in place. But when > > that > > intention or volition is seen, even subliminally, as personal, as the > > intervention of an alleged "self" in the causal flow, ignorance is > > active and > > growing. This is one extreme. It is the extreme I need to guard against. > > Whenever I think I begin to understand your position on this area > (intention and effort), I find something in your post that makes me wonder > if I do understand it after all! So I hope you don't mind my asking you > directly (below). > > We have discussed in our posts on this thread 2 kinds of intention-- > > 1. What you call volitional intention namely, if I understand you > correctly, the positive, conscious intention to do something, in all its > various guises and shades of deliberateness. > 2. The mental concomitant that is 'cetana' ('intention') that arises with > each moment of consciousness. > > What I am not clear on is whether you see these, as I do, as being 2 quite > different things. For example, when we talk about the intention to do > something (type 1 above), we usually mean the thought moments that precede > (by a shorter or longer period) the doing of the thing in question. So > intention here refers to a citta the object of which is the thought of > doing a particular thing. > > On the other hand, the mental factor that is 'intention' (type 2 above) > arises as one of several mental factors accompanying a citta and performs > its function in the context of that particular moment of consciousness (in > general terms, it has to do with 'willing' or coordinating the citta and > the other mental factors with which it arises). > > To put it another way, when we refer to the intention to do something > (type 1), it is not the mental factor of intention (type 2) that is being > alluded to, although the type 1 intention moments are, like all other > moments of consciousness, accompanied by the type 2 intention. Of course, > both kinds, type 1 and type 2, can equally validly be referred to as > intention. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, Jon, I can't say very much at all with regard to the cetasikas accompanying individual cittas, because I doubt very much that I am aware of them in any first-hand manner. I do make the following distinctions based on personal experience: I distinguish thoughts about doing something, a wish/hope to do something (in the sense of a rather neutral chanda[sp?]), the desire/craving to do something, and the willing/volition/intention to do something, which I think of as being a kind of motive force. I think these are all related, but that the last of these comes closest to what I understand cetana to be. --------------------------------------------------------- > Coming to your description of my position ... > > > As I see it, the other extreme, the "left-hand" error, is to see > > intention, at least at a subliminal level of awareness, as almost > > illusory, > > as being a superfluous step in the chain of causality, so that it > > appears > > that there is no effective volition at all, > > Just to clarify my understanding of the teachings on intention and > dependent origination (if that's what you are referring to here). It is > the mental factor cetana, the 'type 2' intention, that is the link in the > chain of dependent origination, not the type 1. The type 1 has no place > in the chain of causality, as I understand it. > Likewise, in the context of kamma and vipaka, it is cetana (the type 2 > intention) that is being referred to. Again, the type 1 intention is not > being alluded to here. > Was there any other context you had in mind here? > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I was thinking of kamma, and of craving -> attachment -> becoming. --------------------------------------------------------- > > > with everything that occurs being > > either random, in one form of the error, or as fated, in another, but, > > in > > either case, leading to a kind of hopelessness, a sense of *total* lack > > of > > control, a kind of nihilistic despair. > > I am happy to say that I have never found the study of the conditioned > nature of realities, or of the various kinds of conditioning relationships > that exist between realities, to give rise to these kinds of thoughts or > feelings in the slightest. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I am very happy that is so. ------------------------------------------------ (Perhaps I am fortunate in this regard, which > no doubt explains my lack of sensitivity in discussing these areas with > others!) > > > I think that you may need to guard > > against movement towards that extreme, though, of course, you are far, > > far > > away from it. If anything, I see you as quite possibly being closer to > > the > > "truthful center" than I. I talk only about tendencies here, tendencies > > to be > > closely watched. > > I'm not sure whether what I have said above makes me more "left-hand" or > less! > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, the whole left/right distinction is nonsense. I just wanted to indicate two polar extremes, both of which are errors. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks again for you well chosen and, I am sure, well-meant words, Howard. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Please be assured that they were well meant. ------------------------------------------------------ > And my apologies as usual for the time taken to respond. > > 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) 8468 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 8:52am Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi Mike, > If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely difficult to find luminous mind in Pali Cannon. I think you know that Buddha makes great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in the Mahayana Sutra. Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then luminous find is found commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana) > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong __________ Dear kenneth, Sorry, but where did I indicate that luminous mind is nibbana? robert k. > > > > > "m. nease" wrote: Hi Kenneth, > > --- KennethOng wrote: > > > > Mike > > Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a > > difference between the enlightment of Buddha and the > > enlightment of Arahats. Is there a difference in > > Thervada terms. > > Yes, there is. Howard gave a good explanation of this > in message 8381, better than I could've done. Simply > put (if I understand this correctly), a Buddha > 'discovers' the four noble truths at a time when no > one else knows them. An arahanta only(!) has to fully > awaken to them (after having been taught them). > > > If it is the same, then luminious mind is just > > simply enlightment that is found in Pali (i.e. > > Nibbana) > > If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition > > cannot not be found in Pali, it could only found in > > Mahayana Doctrines. > > As I understand it, luminosity of mind certainly does > occur according to the Theravada, but only very > briefly (though many luminous cittas may occur in > succession). It is in no way original, fundamental or > continuous and certainly is not nibbaana. > > Just my opinions, Kenneth, and I'm no authority on the > subject. > > mike > > > For comments please > > Kenneth Ong > > 8469 From: KennethOng Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 10:26am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike Hi Robert K, You are not implying, I am implying. he he :). Sorry should be more clear in my writing next time. Kind regards Kenneth Ong robertkirkpatrick wrote: --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi Mike, > If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely difficult to find luminous mind in Pali Cannon. I think you know that Buddha makes great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in the Mahayana Sutra. Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then luminous find is found commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana) > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong __________ Dear kenneth, Sorry, but where did I indicate that luminous mind is nibbana? robert k. > > > > > "m. nease" wrote: Hi Kenneth, > > --- KennethOng wrote: > > > > Mike > > Could you kindly tell me, whether there is a > > difference between the enlightment of Buddha and the > > enlightment of Arahats. Is there a difference in > > Thervada terms. > > Yes, there is. Howard gave a good explanation of this > in message 8381, better than I could've done. Simply > put (if I understand this correctly), a Buddha > 'discovers' the four noble truths at a time when no > one else knows them. An arahanta only(!) has to fully > awaken to them (after having been taught them). > > > If it is the same, then luminious mind is just > > simply enlightment that is found in Pali (i.e. > > Nibbana) > > If it is not the same, the luminious mind definition > > cannot not be found in Pali, it could only found in > > Mahayana Doctrines. > > As I understand it, luminosity of mind certainly does > occur according to the Theravada, but only very > briefly (though many luminous cittas may occur in > succession). It is in no way original, fundamental or > continuous and certainly is not nibbaana. > > Just my opinions, Kenneth, and I'm no authority on the > subject. > > mike > > > For comments please > > Kenneth Ong > 8470 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 6:14pm Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike Ah ha, I see. That's fine. Just to note: I don't see nibbana as being conscious in any way.(according to what I understand from Theravada) robert--- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > You are not implying, I am implying. he he :). Sorry should be more clear in my writing next time. > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > > robertkirkpatrick wrote: --- KennethOng wrote: > > > > Hi Mike, > > If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely difficult to find > luminous mind in Pali Cannon. I think you know that Buddha makes > great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in the Mahayana Sutra. > Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then luminous find is found > commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana) > > Kind regards > > Kenneth Ong > __________ > Dear kenneth, > Sorry, but where did I indicate that luminous mind is nibbana? > robert k. 8471 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 8:12pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike Robert K, Actually this is very interesting. Then what is Thervada defination of Nibbana. Does Nibbana has a conscious be it condition or uncondition. What are the last cittas before one reaches Nibbana? What are the cittas that cease after nibbana and what does not or are all ceases? Kind regards Kenneth Ong --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > Ah ha, I see. That's fine. Just to note: I don't see > nibbana as being > conscious in any way.(according to what I understand > from Theravada) > robert--- > > KennethOng > wrote: > > > > Hi Robert K, > > You are not implying, I am implying. he he :). > Sorry should be > more clear in my writing next time. > > Kind regards > > Kenneth Ong > > > > > > robertkirkpatrick wrote: --- > KennethOng wrote: > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely > difficult to find > > luminous mind in Pali Cannon. I think you know > that Buddha makes > > great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in > the Mahayana Sutra. > > Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then > luminous find is found > > commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana) > > > Kind regards > > > Kenneth Ong > > __________ > > Dear kenneth, > > Sorry, but where did I indicate that luminous mind > is nibbana? > > robert k. 8472 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sun Oct 7, 2001 9:53pm Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike --- Dear kenneth, post 6912 to herman has some info. about this. nibbana is an object of citta - not citta. The stream of cittas that arise and fall continues (until cuti citta -death consciousness) after the process of attaining arahantship(see below). But all defilements have been eradicated hence the fuel for future becoming is missing. After cuti citta (in this fuelless stream) there is no more conditions for citta to arise. here is something:> > Dear herman, > > Just very briefly. In the extremely short process known as magga- > > vitthi (path process) the following cittas arise in order: > > parikamma (preparatory)-takes one of the three characteristics of a > > paramattha dhamma as object > > upacara -(access) -3 characteristics as object > > anuloma -(conformity) -characteristics > > Gotrabhu - (change of lineage) -nibbana as object > > Magga citta - nibbana as object > > Phala-citta - nibbana as object > > phala-citta -nibbana as object > > > > this process arises as the culmination of the correct development > of > > insight. > > robert Kenneth Ong wrote: > Robert K, > > Actually this is very interesting. Then what is > Thervada defination of Nibbana. Does Nibbana has a > conscious be it condition or uncondition. What are > the last cittas before one reaches Nibbana? What are > the cittas that cease after nibbana and what does not > or are all ceases? > > > > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > > > --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > Ah ha, I > see. That's fine. Just to note: I don't see > > nibbana as being > > conscious in any way.(according to what I understand > > from Theravada) > > robert--- > > > > KennethOng > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Robert K, > > > You are not implying, I am implying. he he :). > > Sorry should be > > more clear in my writing next time. > > > Kind regards > > > Kenneth Ong > > > > > > > > > robertkirkpatrick wrote: --- In > > <>, > > KennethOng wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > If base on Howard views, Mike, it is extremely > > difficult to find > > > luminous mind in Pali Cannon. I think you know > > that Buddha makes > > > great distinctions between Arahat and Buddha in > > the Mahayana Sutra. > > > Whereas if we based on Robert K views, then > > luminous find is found > > > commonly in the Pali Cannon (i.e. Nibbana) > > > > Kind regards > > > > Kenneth Ong > > > __________ > > > Dear kenneth, > > > Sorry, but where did I indicate that luminous mind > > is nibbana? > > > robert k. > > > 8473 From: Victor Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 9:39am Subject: Re: Citta Friends, If interested, you might want to refer to Dhammapada 12, The Self http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html Some verses from Dhammapada 12, The Self include 157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the night. 158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control. 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain. I think these verses are some good examples of how the word "self" is used. As I understand it, the view "there is no self" is not what the Buddha taught. If interested, you might want to refer to Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html and Ananda Sutta, To Ananda http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html Metta, Victor --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- KennethOng wrote: > > > > Hi Robert K. > > Many thanks for kind patience in explaining, below are my > questions. Hope you are not offended as my questions are very direct > and frank (sometimes without mercy :) ). > > "They are real in the sense that there is nothing other than these > > conditions. Think of your father or sister. the thinking process > > during this consists of billions of changing cittas and cetasikas > > which are conditioned and ephemeral - but not non-existant at the > > time they 'exist'. But the object of thought- father or sister- is > > simply concept, idea: not real." > > > > If you said they are condition, on what cause or on what ground it > is condition. There must be something for it to be condition. > > _________________ > > dear kenneth, > Yes indeed. There are 24 conditions elucidated in the texts. these > are carefully explained in the Patthana - the great book - which is > considered the most important part of the Tipitaka by the ancient > theravada tradition. You can purchase a translation (by Venerable > narada of Burma) of the first part from the Pali text society. > ______ > > > > > > > "there is no boss, neither do they have any wish to cooperate or > get > > reborn or do anything. But they are conditioned, uncontrollable and > > henece whatver conditions arise condition the rebirth." > >_______ > >Kenneth: If they are uncontrollable, then what is the point of being > aware of then. > _____ > Robert K.:There is no one who is aware of them, nor can awareness by > controlled. If there is awareness (which is conditioned by various > factors) what it sees is this very fact - and that eliminates, at > deeper and deeper levels, the idea of self and control. > ____________ > Furthermore, if there is no boss nor do they co-operate, how do they > know our next karma. > ________ > Robert K:They don't know our next kamma - these phenomena arise and > perform their function. If that function is to condition rebirth as a > human (because of suitable conditions) then it does that. > > > > "Robert K.;It is nothing like the hard disc in a computer because > it > > is nama(mentality ) something utterly different. If it was rupa it > > would get filled up in one life let alone the countless billions in > > samsara" > > > > > > Assume volitions as Citta A, does that mean everytime what we do is > accumulated in Citta A even though if is dynamic. So could we assume > that Citta A in a sense has a boundless capacity. How does it have > the boundless capacity. On what nature that it has boundless > capacity. If they are condition, they should not be boundless. > _____ > Robert K; It is not explained how it has this. what can be seen > though is that accumulations are carried over moment to moment. It is > just the way things work. > _____ > > > > "nibbana is not conditioned but the cittas that cognise nibbana are > > conditioned (by right view and the factors of the eightfold path)." > > > > > > Hmm citta cognise Nibbana, if citta cognise Nibbana, then Nibbana > is condition as it need citta to recognise it. Furthermore, if citta > itself is condition, so must be Nibbana. If we wish to say that > Nibbana is not condition, how does it becomes uncondition. All of us > need citta in order to attain Nibbana, but how is it going to attain > sometimes that is uncondition when citta itself is condition. Even > if you say using supramundane citta, isn't supramundane is condition > by citta in the initial place. > _____ > Supramundane citta is conditioned but nibbana is not. Nibbana doesn't > arise or pass away or exist in the way that conditioned dhammas do. > > > > > > > > ""moments" are highly dynamic with influences from past > > and present factors. The dhammas themselevs are not > > different from the quality they posses. In fact the > > subcommentary to the Dhammasangani says that "there is > > no other thing than the quality born by it" " > > > > How do they being influence by past and present factor. If they > are influence by past and presents, hence they are condition, if they > are condition, they cannot be boundless, they could not have the > capacity to accumulate so many countless of citta. > > > > Could you kindly explain moment/dynamic concept more in detail and > reference with sutta if possible. > > > > Many thanks and kind regards > > > > Kenneth Ong > > ________ > > Thanks for your questions kenneth. > It would be good if you study some of the Patthana - which has > detailed answers to all these questions. i give you a taste now based > on nina van gorkoms introduction to this section of the Tipitaka > (available online at www.zolag.co.uk : > "The Buddha's teaching on the conditions for the phenomena of our life > has been laid down in the last of the seven books of the Abhidhamma, > the "Paììhåna", or "Conditional Relations". The Buddha, in the night > he > attained enlightenment, penetrated all the different conditions for > the > phenomena which arise and he contemplated the "Dependant > Origination" (Paticca Samuppåda), the conditions for being in the > cycle > of birth and death, and the way leading to the elimination of these > causes. . Before we knew the Buddha's > teachings we used to think of cause and effect in a speculative way. > We > may have reflected on the origin of life, on the origin of the world, > we > may have thought about causes and effects with regard to the events of > life, but we did not penetrate the real conditions for the phenomena > of life. The Buddha taught the way to develop understanding of what is > true in the absolute or ultimate sense. We cannot understand the > "Patthåna" if we do not know the difference between what is real in > conventional sense and what is real in the ultimate sense. Body and > mind are real in conventional sense, they are not real in the ultimate > sense. What we call body and mind are temporary combinations of > different realities which arise because of conditioning factors and > then > fall away immediately. They are succeeded by new realities which fall > away again, and thus the flux of life goes on. Body, mind, person or > being do not exist in the ultimate sense. Mental phenomena, nåma, and > physical phenomena, rúpa, which constitute what we call a "person" are > real in the ultimate sense, but they are merely passing phenomena. > > There are twentyfour classes of conditions enumerated in the > "Paììhåna". In order to understand these it is essential to have a > precise > knowledge of the realities which are involved in these conditional > relations. . Each > conditioned reality can exist just for an extremely short moment. When > we understand this it will be easier to see that there is no self who > can > exert control over realities. How could we control what falls away > immediately? When we move our hands, when we walk, when we laugh > or cry, when we are attached or worried, there are conditions for such > moments. The Patthåna helps us to understand the deep underlying > motives for our behaviour and the conditions for our defilements. It > explains, for example, that kusala can be the object of akusala > citta. For > instance, on account of generosity which is wholesome, attachment, > wrong view or conceit, which are unwholesome realities, can arise. The > Patthåna also explains that akusala can be the object of kusala, for > example, when akusala is considered with insight. This is an essential > point which is often overlooked. If one thinks that akusala cannot be > object of awareness and right understanding, the right Path cannot be > developed. > When we know that there isn't anything we can control, will > that change our life? It is beneficial to have less ignorance about > ourselves. Defilements cannot be eradicated immediately, there will > still > be sadness, worry and frustration. However, when it is more clearly > understood that realities arise because of their own conditions there > will > be less inclination to try to do what is impossible: to change what > has > arisen because of conditions. When there is more understanding one > will be less obsessed by one's experiences, there will be more > patience. > Doubt will only disappear if we thoroughly consider the > different types of conditions, because then we can see for ourselves > whether the contents of the "Patthåna" conform to the truth or not. > Theoretical > knowledge of conditions is not the purpose of the "Patthåna". Through > mere intellectual understanding conditions cannot be thoroughly > grasped. When understanding of nåma, mental phenomena, and rúpa, > physical phenomena, has been developed to the degree of the second > stage of insight there will be direct understanding of the > conditionality of realities. When conditions are understood more > clearly, there will be less clinging to a self who could control > awareness > of nåma and rúpa. Thus, the "Paììhåna" can help us to follow the right > practice. It is above all the right practice of the eightfold Path > that can > promote the survival of the Buddha's teachings."Endquote > > robert > > 8474 From: Victor Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 9:47am Subject: Re: Citta Friends, Is there any discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught that "there is no self"? Metta, Victor 8475 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 3:45pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi Howard, I’ve just been listening to the latest news (with apprehension) and checking the suttas I think you’re referring to at the same time....I’ll happily ‘focus’ on the latter now;-) .................... Howard: There is no object of discernment without the discerning, and > > there > > > > > > is no discernment without its object. The relation between > > vi~n~nana/citta > > > and namarupa is likened in the suttas to two sheaves, two bundles of > > reeds (I > > > > > > think), which are stood upright, leaning against and supporting each > > other. > > > If either bundle falls, so does the other. > > ..................... > ------------------------------------------------------- Rob K: > Howard may be refferring to the special case given for the > Paticasamupada where consciousness is explicity noted as a condition > for nama-rupa. While, of course consciousness is a nama it is > sometimes given this special distinction - and in this case (of the > paticasamupada)nama refers only to sanna, sankhara and vedana. (see > for example visuddhimagga xvii187). > > robert k. > > ========================== Howard: Exacly so. The particular sutta about dependent origination I'm thinking of gives vi~n~nana as condition for namarupa, and it gives namarupa as condition for vi~n~nana. .................... Sarah: Thanks Rob and Howard for all these ‘clues’. I think the sutta Howard had in mind (there may be others too) was the Nalakalapiyo Sutta (Sheaves of Reeds) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-067.html Indeed as Rob mentions, in these cases of paticcasamuppada, nama has a particular meaning (only referring to the cetasikas) and so indeed as Howard says, in this connection, vinnana/citta conditions nama and rupa and vice versa. Thanks for the Vis ref, Rob. I wonder if there are any other examples of this usage of nama other than in specific reference to paticcasamuppada? --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: > From my reading, I understand a sotapanna's apprehension of nibbana to > > be "at a distance", and as an object. I was referring to an arahant's > experience of nibbana. And in that case, I'm not distinguishing between the > nibbanic experience during life or beyond life. .................... Sarah: As Rob has mentioned in a couple of recent posts, in the case of both the sotapanna and the arahat, nibbana is the object of specific cittas at the moments of enlightenment. Beyond life, there is no nibbanic experience in the Theravada Teachings....I’m wondering where you get this from? .................... Howard: > When you say that at parinibbana there is no experiencing ever, do you >> mean of any sort? I understand that there is no discerning of objects. But > are you suggesting that beyond the death of an arahant is absolute > nothingness, that entry to final nibbana = annihilation? Obviously there is > no entity to be annihilated. That is not what I mean. What I question is > whether after entry to final nibbana there is no more awareness than the > awareness of a rock, and that nibbana itself is a dark nothingness - and > please note, here I am *not* equating 'nothingness' with 'emptiness'. .................... Sarah: Parinibbana is the final and total cessation of the khandhas including vinnana/citta (consciousness). Nibbana is not experienced after death under any circumstances for the Buddha or the arahats, so it’s not a matter of nibbana being a ‘dark nothingness’. Do we see life and realities as being inherently satisfactory and worth clinging onto or unsatisfactory? The arahat has eradicated all clinging and thus it is cause for joy rather than the reverse that there are no conditions for more becoming or experiencing once the fuel has run out. There is no question in the Pali canon of continuing consciousness or helping others after parinibbana out of compassion or continuing on the Path to realize Buddhahood as others (not you) have suggested. > ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: > > You also mentioned when discussing about the luminous mind (with Ken O or > > Rob > > Ep) the simile of gold in a sutta to show purity or luminosity is the > > inherent > > or natural state of the mind. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: > Again, I apologize for not being a sutta quoter! As I recall, the > simile in the Pali suttas is that the mind is not like pure gold, but rather > like gold ore, with an admixture of "defilements", and that refinement of > that ore is required for the brilliance of the gold to manifest. But, of > course, it is understood in that simile that the pure gold is present from > the outset. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: I’ve come to your rescue here too....well, The Muluposatha Sutta (Roots of the Uposatha) is the one I had in mind I think. Again there are probably others too:. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-071.html The sutta is quite long and well-worth reading and discussing further by anyone. I’ll just quote the relevant sections here: ".....Visakha, there are these three Uposathas. Which three? The Uposatha of a cowherd, the Uposatha of the Jains, and the Uposatha of the Noble Ones. "......And what is the Uposatha of the Noble Ones? It is the cleansing of the defiled mind through the proper technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed through the proper technique? ".......[Again, the Uposatha of the Noble Ones] is the cleansing of the mind through the proper technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed through the proper technique? ".....As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is calmed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as when a gold is cleansed through the proper technique. And how is gold cleansed through the proper technique? Through the use of a furnace, salt earth, red chalk, a blow-pipe, tongs, & the appropriate human effort. This is how gold is cleansed through the proper technique. In the same way, the defiled mind is cleansed through the proper technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed through the proper technique? There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the devas... As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is cleansed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned. ‘ .................... I can see straight away how we would interpret this sutta or simile to ‘gold cleansing’ in different ways. I think it has to be understood in the light of all the other suttas and abhidhamma which refer to the natural (or original) state of mind being one that as full of defilements which should be understood and eradicated as discussed in the sutta. I’d be interested to hear anything from the commentaries and from you or anyone else. Sarah 8476 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 3:53pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Vipassanã - Kenneth Mike, Thanks for your many, many posts of encouragement. i'm sure we all appreciate this. The great thing about list discussions is that even if one doesn't hear back from one person (for whatever reason) we can always be sure that someone else is listening or finding the slog of keying in the words (as in this case) worthwhile;-) Thanks for the additional reference too... Sarah --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > What a great quotation--I'd forgotten all about this > simile. Thanks for the reminder! > > By the way, I found it in the Kimsuka Sutta at SN > XXXV.204. I believe it may occur elsewhere as well, > but not certain. > > mike > > > --- Sarah wrote: > > Dear Kenneth, > > > > --- KennethOng wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > As I am from the Mahayana school of thought, I am > > not sure about vipassana > > > meditation. Could anyone here kindly share with > > me on this please? Please > > > also kindly quote sutras that talk abt it. I like > > to learn more abt it. I > > > like to know the basis of vipassana meditation and > > where did Buddha say about > > > this and to who did he say this. > > > Many thanks and kind regards > > .................... > > > > I understand all the suttas to be talking about > > bhavana (mental development), > > either samatha bhavana or vipassana bhavana or both. > > Vipassana means insight > > and refers to the development of panna (wisdom). So > > whenever we read about the > > development of understanding or about the realities > > which are to be known, we > > are considering about vipassana. > > > > With regard to stages of vipassana and many, many > > details, these can be read in > > the Visuddhimagga. > > > > If you want specific references mentioning vipassana > > (as opposed to similar > > words like panna) in the suttas, there are some I > > can think of in the Samyutta > > Nikaya. I don't have the Pali but I'm pretty sure > > that it's vipassana referred > > to in this Sutta description at SN 1V, > > Salayatanavagga, 194: > > > > 'Suppose, bhikkhu, a king had a frontier city with > > strong ramparts, walls, and > > arches, and with six gates. The gatekeeper posted > > there would be wise, > > competent, and intelligent; one who keeps out > > strangers and admits > > acquaintances. A swift pair of messengers would > > come from the east and ask the > > gatekeeper: 'Where, good man, is the lord of this > > city?' He would reply: 'He is > > sitting in the central square.' Then the swift pair > > of messengers would > > deliver a message of reality to the lord of the city > > and leave by the route by > > which they had arrived. Similarly, messengers would > > come from the west, from > > the north, from the south, deliver their message, > > and leave by the route by > > which they had arrived. > > > > “I have made up this simile, bhikkkhu, in order to > > convey a meaning. This is > > the meaning here: ‘The city’: this is a designation > > for this body consisting of > > the four great elements....’The six gates’: this is > > a designation for the six > > internal bases. “The gatekeeper’: this is a > > designation for mindfulness. ‘The > > swift pair of messengers’: this is a designation > > for serenity and insight > > (vipassana). ‘The lord of the city’: this is a > > designation for consciousness. > > ‘The cenral square’: this is a designation for the > > four great elements .....’A > > message of reality’: this is a designation for > > Nibbana. ‘The route by which > > they had arrived’: this is a designation for the > > Noble Eightfold Path; that > > is, right view....right concentration.” 8477 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 4:02pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Ken H, Butting in here.... > "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." > > > My point would simply be that the Buddha discovered and taught > the Middle Way, the way of satipatthana, the absolutely real way, > not the conventionally real way. When he describes conventional > wisdom, we are to see it in terms of parramatta dhammas. Even if > he were to say, "Eat food or you will starve," we shouldn't think > for a moment that the conventional meaning of those conventional > terms, forms a part of the Dhamma. > > Is that the way you see it? Exactly as I see it, Ken. > > While I'm at it; You also wrote: > > "If 'one' can strive for mere morality, > jhaana or heedfulness even though there's no 'one' to > strive, then isn't conventional effort a sort of > ground-level entry to the Dhamma with 'one' discarded > as the elevator (understanding?!) reaches the > abhidhamma floors?" > > I wonder if this is what is meant by, "With the Ego I perceive that > which is no Ego," -- one of the wrong views referred to in Robert > K's message # 8019. (?) Yes, I don't think conventional effort even gets off the ground. I also understand the abhidhamma floors to start at ground level....right understanding from the beginning in other words. Words like 'develop skilful states' can be understood with an idea of self or without an idea of self. Ken, look forward to many more posts from you....why not show me you're awake every day ;-))? Impressed, Sarah 8478 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 4:21pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi Sarah and Robert K Nibbana is an object of citta. Could you explain more in detail abt this object. When Arahant and Buddha reach Nibbana, are they still able to think or discern? What become of them when they reach Nibbana? Kind regards Kenneth Ong 8479 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 7:09pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Dear Kenneth, Sorry I did not give the english meaning along with the phrase 'athaan rarueng', it was partly because I have never used the words before under any other context and partly because I did not think about you or any of the other members of this list who do not know thai. When thinking about 'athaan', the words 'bravery', 'not feeling discouraged', 'facing the truth' come to mind. 'Rarueng' means 'good cheer'. So together the words mean to the effect 'having the courage to face the truth with good cheer'. Like I said, I have not used the phrase before, so it might be that other members will come up with a better translation. I take this opportunity to offer you and Robert Ep., both of whose letters I've been appreciating very much lately, to email me your postal addresses so that I may send over 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' and a couple of other books to you. If I do not get any response in a couple of days, I will email a private note to both of you. Anumodana, Sukin. KennethOng wrote: > Sorry could i know the meaning of athaan rarueng :) > Thanks and kind regards > Kenneth Ong > Sukinderpal Narula wrote: Dear Jonothan, > > > Could you (or Sukin, or anyone) please say a few words more about the > > positive aspect of this, the good cheer (athaan rarueng)? Thanks. > > I am not confident about my understading here, I have a feeling that I do not > understand > the real meaning behind this reminder (athaan rarueng). But I will relay my > experience > of this morning and wait for you or anyone to comment. > This morning I was feeling dosa towards myself and my particular circumstance. > I was > lamenting the fact that I allow weeks to go by without ever considering the > teachings > in daily life, that I was stuck only on the theoretical level and that too, I > have very little > knowledge of. I started blaming my kids, wife, work and monetary status and > this made > things even worse. I then remembered 'athaan rarueng' and the fact that all > realities arise > because of conditions. I was reminded that even in the midst of what seems > like a long > stretch of dosa, there can be moments of patience and acceptance. I noticed > that > thinking each time about 'athaan rarueng' there follows a degree of 'letting > go'. > I also reflected later that my dosa comes much in part from expectations I > have about > my progress. Eventhough I ended up still explaining my way out of the > situation, but I > was also left with some breathing space and this itself was condition for > some good cheer. > Hope I go it correct, if not let me know. > > Sukin. > 8480 From: Sukinderpal Narula Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 7:48pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] cheerfulness with Dhamma. Dear Nina and Jon, Thanks for your words of encouragement. Jon you said; "The reminder about the conditioned nature of things was the right 'medicine' for you at that moment. Not to be clung to as a 'way' for next time, of course!" This in itself is a very good reminder for me. I understand that as long as I have (for the sake of illustration) an oceanful of lobha and dosa, and the wind of moha is forever blowing over this ocean, there will always be a feeling of insecurity and hence a 'clinging to a way' even this be some small 'reflection' on the teachings. It is extremely hard to acknowledge that there is absolutely no control and therefore one must learn to walk without a crutch. But even this is to be acknowledged and not to be turned into another thing to 'reject'. I think 'patience' plays a big part here. Always the mind is looking for answers, but the answers it seems will not come from looking for it. The conceptual mind is happy with explanations, otherwise it will keep on doubting till it finds what it is looking for. In its search it misses what is essential, namely what is appearing through the six sense doors at this moment. Sorry for the rambling, this is just my experience, the recurring traps I am constantly falling into. Thought of not sending it, but then wouldn't it be nice to get some pointers from you two, or anyone else. So here it goes. Metta, Sukin. Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Sukin, your post about contrarieties in daily life and about > perseverance and gladness of Dhamma was such a good reminder. We should not > overlook seemingly unimportant events, they are Dhamma. Looking forward to > having more examples from you. It is so good to have this forum where we can > exchange our experiences. I appreciate that you are helping in many ways, > also at the foundation, anumodana, Nina. 8481 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 9:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Clinging [Kenneth] - Herman Hi Herman, I’ve been meaning to get back on this interesting post: --- Herman wrote: > > Life is full of distractions, and much human activity is purposely > expended on creating more distractions. When the suttas were written > there was no TV, radio, computers, Internet and tourism and marketing > were not fashionable. However, there was still seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and tmind-door experiencing. Is it really the TV, the radio or the computer that is the distraction now or is it not the attachment and the story about what is seen, heard and so on that is the distraction? Different stories, different concepts, but aren’t the realities just the same? > > I cannot but think that practise in daily life today has less fertile > soil in which to be grounded than when the Buddha lived In as much as there are.just as many realities to be known in daily life now as ever before, I would say the soil is just as fertile. As we’ve discussed before, many people who had the vipaka and accumulations to listen to the Buddha were very exceptional in their ability to understand and it wasn’t by chance that they were born at that time, in that place. But there were also very many who were lost in their papanca (proliferations or distractions) and wrong views, even without TVs, computers and the rest and were unable to benefit. A cursory > glimpse of awareness here and there, in between hours of captivating > but meaningless activity is how I would describe my situation Herman, this is very astute, I think. So many people think they have lots of awareness and talk about continuous awareness. This shows your comprehension of how infrequent awareness really is and how ‘captivated’ we are most the time as soon as we open our eyes or hear a sound and so on. It also reminds me that ages ago you were asking or discussing more about visible objects and seeing and so on. I remember there was one post in particular that I meant to respond to but it got lost or I got busy.Please bring up any of these comments again anytime. Speak soon, Sarah 8482 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 9:23pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã - Ken O Hi Ken O, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah and Robert K > > Nibbana is an object of citta. Could you explain more > in detail abt this object. Ken, If you go to the link below and look under nibbana, you will find a lot of posts on this topic with many useful (in my view) sutta and commentary references for the pali canon. Please quote any that don't make sense or which you wish to discuss further. Nibbana has been a very popular topic here (especially amongst those who've come from a Mahayana background). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > > When Arahant and Buddha reach Nibbana, are they still > able to think or discern? When they realize nibbbana and all the defilements are eradicated, of course they are able to think and function as we do. How else would they be able to live or teach dhamma? (If you mean parinibbana, please see my post to Howard) What become of them when > they reach Nibbana? They know (at this 4th and final stage) that all defilements have been eradicated and that there will be no more becoming after the present life. They continue to live and help others without any unskilful mental states. They still see, hear, smell. taste, touch and think , but with no clinging to self or anything that is experienced at all. Appreciating your keen interest, Ken, Sarah p.s. if you're not in Sing now, where are you? Just curious;-) 8483 From: Howard Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 6:05pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/8/01 3:53:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Sarah writes: > Hi Howard, > > I’ve just been listening to the latest news (with apprehension) and checking > the suttas I think you’re referring to at the same time....I’ll happily > ‘focus’ > on the latter now;-) > ========================== Thank you for this post, Sarah, so full of helpful quotes. Yours is a post with a wealth of information along with some questions deserving of careful response. I don't have the time to reply properly at the moment, but I promise to do so when time allows. 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) 8484 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Oct 8, 2001 11:29pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã - Ken O Oops, Sarah I was refering to Parinibbana I think you wrote this "Parinibbana is the final and total cessation of the khandhas including vinnana/citta (consciousness)." Isn't total cessation is kind of extreme views? Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching this state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or "discernment"? Where do the Arahat go after Parinibbana? I thought the Abidharma say that Arahant enters fruition attainment, the cittas that occur in the attainment belong to the class of resultants, being fruits of supramundane path. Hence in Parinibbana there should be cittas it should be the resultant supramundane citta(one only) of Arahant. Sarah, Presently I am in Brunei, a Muslim country Kindest regards Kenneth Ong 8485 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 10:27am Subject: Re: cheerfulness with Dhamma. --- Sukinderpal Narula wrote: . Always the mind is looking > for answers, but the answers it seems will not come from looking > for it. The conceptual mind is happy with explanations, otherwise > it will keep on doubting till it finds what it is looking for. In its search > it misses what is essential, namely what is appearing through the > six sense doors at this moment. _____________________________________ This is it Sukin. Only in this way is deeper understanding built up. The concepts of Dhamma are essential but if there is not understanding of the present moment - and this should occur even while thinking- the Dhamma can never be really known. It is not that we try to think less about Dhamma but rather that while considering Dhamma there are cittas, cetasikas and rupas, paramttha dhammas appearing. They should be investgated directly at whatever level is appropriate, without stress or wanting results. Doubt is just another momentary penomena- anatta, no better or worse as an object than colour or feeling or any other dhamma. robert 8486 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 1:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Victor Dear Victor, Good to see you around again;-) --- Victor wrote: > Friends, > > If interested, you might want to refer to > Dhammapada 12, The Self > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html > > Some verses from Dhammapada 12, The Self include > > 157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. > Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the > night. > > 158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only > should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > self-control. > > 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the > protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that > is hard to gain. > > I think these verses are some good examples of how the word "self" is > used. .................... Yes, good examples of how the word ‘self’ is used ‘conventionally’ by the Buddha (and arahats) who of course had no wrong idea that any self exists. .................... > As I understand it, the view "there is no self" is not what the > Buddha taught. If interested, you might want to refer to > Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html .................... This sutta clearly shows that what is taken for the self are merely the 5 khandhas and that there is no self anywhere in these khandhas. It also clearly shows how these realities are conditioned and cannot be controlled by self. ................... > and > Ananda Sutta, To Ananda > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html .................... What is not self are the khandhas, i.e the realities that make up our lives. As this sutta shows, it is not that there used to be a self which no longer exists, which might lead to the idea that ‘death is the annihilation of consciousness’. Whether there is or is not any right understanding, seeing now, hearing now and all other cittas and realities now are not self. In your next post you ask this question: .................... > Is there any discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught > that "there is no self"? .................... As I read and understand the Tipitaka, the Buddha is talking about anatta (not self) with regard to all realities in all the discourses. I may be being dense but I’m having a little trouble understanding what is at the back of your mind and what your understanding is here, Victor. Perhaps you would elaborate in more detail as these are very important points and I know you’ve raised them before. I’m also not quite sure how you see the suttas you quoted as relating to Rob’s discussion with Ken O. Would you elaborate on this too. Look forward to hearing more from you, Sarah 8487 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 3:46pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã - Ken O Hi Ken O, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Oops, Sarah I was refering to Parinibbana > > I think you wrote this > "Parinibbana is the final and total cessation of the > khandhas including vinnana/citta (consciousness)." > > Isn't total cessation is kind of extreme views? > Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching this > state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or > "discernment"? Where do the Arahat go after > Parinibbana? Sarah: At least you quoted from one of my posts rather than someone else's;-)) Remember that what we call an arahat is a conventional truth only and that really we’re talking about a particular set of 5 khandhas (aggregates) when we refer to the arahat. This isn’t an extreme view (in the quote) but rather just the way it is as described in precise detail by the Buddha. I’ve just pasted the following quote from ‘Abhidhamma in Daily Life’ (ADL)* which may help: .................... In 'As it was said' ('ltivuttaka', Ch. II, par. 7, 'Khuddaka Nikaya') two 'conditions of nibbana' (dhatu, which literally means element) are explained. Sa-upadi-sesa nibbana is nibbana with the five khandhas still remaining. For the arahat who has not finally passed away yet, there are still citta, cetasika and rupa arising and falling away, although he has eradicated all defilements. An-upadi-sesa nibbana is nibbana without the khandhas remaining. For the arahat who has finally passed away, there are no longer citta, cetasika and rupa arising and falling away. We read in the verse, after the explanation: These two nibbana-states are shown by him Who sees, who is such and unattached. One state is that in this same life possessed. With base remaining, though becoming's stream Be cut off. While the state without a base Belongs to the future, wherein all Becomings utterly do come to cease. They who, by knowing this state uncompounded Have heart's release, by cutting off the stream, They who have reached the core of dhamma, glad To end, such have abandoned all becomings. .................... Sarah: As I mentioned to Howard, it depends how one views life and realities as to whether this final cessation of the khandhas seems extreme and shocking or whether, seeing the unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned realities, reaching ‘the core of dhamma’, 'one' is ‘glad to end’ or cut off the stream. A little later in the same book (ADL), Nina shares the following relevant quote: .................... We read in the 'Kindred Sayings' (V, Maha-vagga, Book XII, Kindred Sayings about the Truths, Ch. V, part 6, Gross darkness) that the Buddha said to the monks: 'Monks, there is a darkness of interstellar space, impenetrable gloom, such a murk of darkness as cannot enjoy the splendour of this moon and sun, though they be of such mighty magic power and majesty.' At these words a certain monk said to the Exalted One: 'Lord, that must be a mighty darkness, a mighty darkness indeed! Pray, lord, is there any other darkness greater and more fearsome than that?' 'There is indeed, monk, another darkness, greater and more fearsome. And what is that other darkness? Monk, whatsoever recluses or brahmins understand not, as it really is, the meaning of: This is dukkha, this is the arising of dukkha, this is the ceasing of dukkha, this is the practice that leads to the ceasing of dukkha, such take delight in the activities which conduce to rebirth. Thus taking delight they compose a compound of activities which conduce to rebirth. Thus composing a compound of activities they fall down into the darkness of rebirth...and despair. They are not released from birth, and death...and despair. They are not released from dukkha, I declare. But, monk, those recluses or brahmins who do understand as it really is, the meaning of : This is dukkha, this is the practice that leads to the ceasing of dukkha, such take not delight in the activities which conduce to rebirth...They are released from dukkha, I declare. Wherefore, monk, an effort must be made to realize: This is dukkha. This is the arising of dukkha. This is the ceasing of dukkha. This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of dukkha.' .................... > I thought the Abidharma say that Arahant enters > fruition attainment, the cittas that occur in the > attainment belong to the class of resultants, being > fruits of supramundane path. Hence in Parinibbana > there should be cittas it should be the resultant > supramundane citta(one only) of Arahant. .................... Sarah: The details about cittas are very precise in the Tipitaka and especially in the abhidhamma. Again let me quote from Nina’s book to add to the details Rob gave you:. .................... ...... The magga-citta is the first lokuttara citta in that process of cittas. When it has fallen away it is succeeded by two (or three) phala-cittas which are the result of the magga-citta and which still have nibbana as the object. As we have seen, the magga-citta is succeeded immediately by its result, in the same process of citta. The magga-citta cannot produce vipaka in the form of rebirth, such as the kusala citta of the other planes of consciousness. The phala-cittas are succeeded by bhavanga-cittas. Some people do not need the moment of parikamma (preparatory consciousness) and in that case three moments of phala-citta arise instead of two moments. Summarizing the process of citta, during which enlightenment is attained, it is as follows: mano-dvaravajjana-citta (mind-door-adverting-consciousness) parikamma (preparatory; for some people not necessary) upacara (proximatory) anuloma (adaptation) gotrabhu (change of lineage) magga-citta phala-citta (two or three moments, depending on the individual) B. When the lokuttara cittas have fallen away and there are kamavacara cittas again, can nibbana also be the object of kamavacara citta? A. Nibbana can be the object of kamavacara-cittas which arise after the lokuttara cittas have fallen away. Before someone becomes an ariyan there can only be speculation about nibbana. Since the ariyan, however, directly experiences nibbana, he can reflect upon his experience afterwards. We read in the 'Visuddhimagga' (XXII, 19) that, after the lokuttara cittas have fallen away, the person who attained enlightenment reviews in different mind-door processes of citta the path, fruition, the defilements which have been abandoned, the defilements still remaining and nibbana. ..................... Sarah: You’ll note that the result of the magga (path) cittas which experience nibbana follow immediately. In the last quote from the Vis., which mentions the defilements still remaining, this of course does not apply to the arahat. .................... > Presently I am in Brunei, a Muslim country Well, I’d be very surprised if there were any problems in Brunei. I hope not. Are you working there? Thanks for your interest, Ken. Sarah *ADL can be found at; http://www.abhidhamma.org/ 8488 From: Herman Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 5:35pm Subject: Re: Citta Dear Victor, I do not assume from the fact that the Buddha often referred to Mara, that he credited Mara with personality, essence, substance. What the Buddha said from time to time is not necessarily what he taught as being ultimate truth, it was what he deemed appropriate for the specific audience to digest. Literal readings of any text tend to ignore the fact that words are so far, far removed from reality. All the best Herman --- Victor wrote: > Friends, > > Is there any discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught > that "there is no self"? > > Metta, > Victor 8489 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 3:09pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Kenneth - In a message dated 10/6/01 12:49:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > "If it is gone never to return" is an incorrect view because it is a very > rightist view. It is never gone, it is there. Furthermore, if in Nibbana, > we are cease to discern, is also incorrect, this is leftist view. > > Nibbana is the same essence as all defilements. this is Mahayana view of > Nibbana. If Nibbana is the ceasation of discernment, then what is point of > reaching Nibbana, it sounds like a rock stage to me. There is discernment > in Nibbana. In fact this discernment is the discernment of the Buddha > Nature.(i.e. Buddha's wisdoms ). > > Kind regards > > Kenneth Ong > ================================ As far as what is a "rightest" view and what is a "leftest" view are concerned, I have no clue, and such characterizations are of no interest to me. Getting down to the actual subject matter, neither you nor I know what the reality of this issue really is. What the so-called "essence" of defilements is other than being empty of self/core, is unknown to me, but defilements, and all conditions for that matter, do share features that the unconditioned does *not* have, namely impermanence, temporality, conditionality, and unsatisfactoriness. If no-self is what you mean by "essence", then, yes, all conditions and the unconditioned share that. Nibbana, in the sense of the tipitaka, is, or involves, unmanifestive discernment, no arising, and no ceasing. It is not a dark annihilation. But in nibbana there are no objects, there is neither vi~n~nana (discernment) nor namarupa (the discerned), there is no subject-object duality. 'Discernment' means discernment of objects, the light of awareness encountering, illuminating, and *separating out* of obstacles. The unmanifestive discernment of nibbana is a radiance that shines infinitely, encountering not so much as a separate dust mote. (The notion reminds me a bit of that of "no mind" in the Silent Illumination approach of Ch'an/Zen, if one is looking for a Mahayana correlate.) Nibbana is nama in the tipitaka. Reality is not divided there into three categories of nama, rupa, and nibbana, but only into the two categories of rupa and nama, with nama subsuming, using Abhdhammic terminology, cittas, cetasikas, and nibbana. There is nothing dead or rock-like about nibbana. What it is is an oasis, a living reality, a total opening up into vast, unrestricted freedom. Perhaps there is a "nibbana beyond nibbana" which transcends and subsumes both conditions and the unconditioned; perhaps that is what is meant by "suchness". But neither you nor I know that. I think it suffices for us to accept that there is an escape from the unworthy to the worthy, from dukkha to sukha, from spiritual limitation to spiritual freedom, from ignorance to knowing, and that the Buddha's Eightfold Path is the road to that freedom. We really ought to walk that road without worrying so much about the precise nature of the treasure at its far distant end, a nature truly indescribable in any case. 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) 8490 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 7:44pm Subject: Parinibbana (was Vipassanã - Ken O --- Dear Kenneth, You asked: Kenneth Ong wrote: > Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching this > state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or > "discernment"? Where do the Arahat go after > Parinibbana? ________ Vacchagotta asked this same question. the Buddha talked about the extreme profundity of the Dhamma and then pointed to a fire and asked vacchagotta where the flame went after it had been extinguished: MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA II II. 3.2.Aggi-vacchagottasutta.m (72) "So then Vaccha, I will question you, on this and you may reply as it pleases you. There is a fire burning in front of you, would you know, there is a fire burning in front of me?' `Good Gotama, if a fire burns in front of me, I would know, there's a fire burning in front of me.' `Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire burning in front of you, on account of what is it burning, how would you reply?''Good Gotama, if I was asked, this fire burning in front of you, on account of what is it burning, I would reply, this fire burning in front of me is burning on account of grass and sticks.' `Vaccha, if the fire in front of you extinguishes, would you know, this fire in front of me has extinguished?''Good Gotama, if the fire in front of me extinguishes, I would know, this fire has extinguished''Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire that has extinguished in which direction did it go, to the east, west, north or south?' `Good, Gotama, it does not apply. That fire burnt on account of grass and sticks, those supports finished, no other supports were supplied, without supports the fire, went out.'. `Vaccha, in that same manner, the matter with which the Thus Gone One is pointed out, is dispelled, uprooted, made a palm stump, made a thing not to grow again." You can read the full sutta at: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima2/072-aggi-vacchagotta-e1.htm robert 8491 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 9:16pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O Hi Robert K Sorry but I do need to clarify this with you. Is parinibbana a topic Buddha refused to answer similiarly to the topic of orgination or creation? Kind regards Kenneth Ong --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Dear Kenneth, > You asked: > Kenneth Ong > wrote: > > > Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching > this > > state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or > > "discernment"? Where do the Arahat go after > > Parinibbana? > ________ > Vacchagotta asked this same question. the Buddha > talked about the > extreme profundity of the Dhamma and then pointed to > a fire and asked > vacchagotta where the flame went after it had been > extinguished: > MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA II > II. 3.2.Aggi-vacchagottasutta.m (72) > "So then Vaccha, I will question you, on this and > you may reply as it > pleases you. There is a fire burning in front of > you, would you know, > there is a fire burning in front of me?' `Good > Gotama, if a fire > burns in front of me, I would know, there's a fire > burning in front > of me.' `Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire > burning in front of > you, on account of what is it burning, how would you > reply?''Good > Gotama, if I was asked, this fire burning in front > of you, on account > of what is it burning, I would reply, this fire > burning in front of > me is burning on account of grass and sticks.' > `Vaccha, if the fire > in front of you extinguishes, would you know, this > fire in front of > me has extinguished?''Good Gotama, if the fire in > front of me > extinguishes, I would know, this fire has > extinguished''Vaccha, if > you were asked, this fire that has extinguished in > which direction > did it go, to the east, west, north or south?' > `Good, Gotama, it does > not apply. That fire burnt on account of grass and > sticks, those > supports finished, no other supports were supplied, > without supports > the fire, went out.'. > `Vaccha, in that same manner, the matter with which > the Thus Gone One > is pointed out, is dispelled, uprooted, made a palm > stump, made a > thing not to grow again." > You can read the full sutta at: > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- > Nikaya/Majjhima2/072-aggi-vacchagotta-e1.htm > robert > 8492 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 9:29pm Subject: Re: Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O --- Dear kenneth, I think in one sense it is similar to questions about creation and origination. To the extent that one is confused or ignorant about conditionality, and hence has some degree of self view, then questions about origination, how did it all begin, what happens to an arahant after death can be real sticking points and a cause for doubt. The paticcasamupada (dependent origination) shows that there is no self, only different phenomena conditioning and being conditioned. To the degree that this is understood questions such as those above naturally decline (at the first stage of enlightenment the texts say all such doubts are eradicated). There is no beginning shown to this paticasamupada. The arahant has eradicated the causes, tanha(craving) and avijja (ignorance) for the wheel of paticcasamupada to spin. robert Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert K > > Sorry but I do need to clarify this with you. Is > parinibbana a topic Buddha refused to answer > similiarly to the topic of orgination or creation? > > > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong > > --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- > Dear Kenneth, > > You asked: > > Kenneth Ong > > wrote: > > > > > Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching > > this > > > state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or > > > "discernment"? Where do the Arahat go after > > > Parinibbana? > > ________ > > Vacchagotta asked this same question. the Buddha > > talked about the > > extreme profundity of the Dhamma and then pointed to > > a fire and asked > > vacchagotta where the flame went after it had been > > extinguished: > > MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA II > > II. 3.2.Aggi-vacchagottasutta.m (72) > > "So then Vaccha, I will question you, on this and > > you may reply as it > > pleases you. There is a fire burning in front of > > you, would you know, > > there is a fire burning in front of me?' `Good > > Gotama, if a fire > > burns in front of me, I would know, there's a fire > > burning in front > > of me.' `Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire > > burning in front of > > you, on account of what is it burning, how would you > > reply?''Good > > Gotama, if I was asked, this fire burning in front > > of you, on account > > of what is it burning, I would reply, this fire > > burning in front of > > me is burning on account of grass and sticks.' > > `Vaccha, if the fire > > in front of you extinguishes, would you know, this > > fire in front of > > me has extinguished?''Good Gotama, if the fire in > > front of me > > extinguishes, I would know, this fire has > > extinguished''Vaccha, if > > you were asked, this fire that has extinguished in > > which direction > > did it go, to the east, west, north or south?' > > `Good, Gotama, it does > > not apply. That fire burnt on account of grass and > > sticks, those > > supports finished, no other supports were supplied, > > without supports > > the fire, went out.'. > > `Vaccha, in that same manner, the matter with which > > the Thus Gone One > > is pointed out, is dispelled, uprooted, made a palm > > stump, made a > > thing not to grow again." > > You can read the full sutta at: > > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- > > Nikaya/Majjhima2/072-aggi-vacchagotta-e1.htm > > robert > > 8493 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 10:19pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Howard, Yes I agree with that the road leading to liberation is more impt (Oops should be the most impt). Left and right view is very impt to Mahayana doctrines. In Mahayanas, all origination of sufferings comes from dualism thoughts. All teachings in Buddha, be it in the Pali Cannon or Tibetan or Chinese Cannon never tilted to any left or right view. The other day I remember I say that Buddha never reject self, he only say that self is miscontrue, our view of self is incorrect. Actually that is why I am fascinated by Thervada definition of Nibbana and PariNibbana. It is a contrast with Mahayana way of thinking. Because it seems to me that when there is no more cittas or rupa or nama in PariNibbana, this is a very leftist view. In my personal opinion this is not conforming to Buddhist Middle Path. I more incline to believe that these temporal cittas or rupa or nama are let go or have settled down (just like sand in the water), hence allowing the Nibbana mind to manifest. Buddha never say that Nibbana is created or could be obtained, it is there since beginless time and it is inherent in us. That is why i said before, we could not obtain things that is inherent in us. I also never doubt that about the function of cittas as it suppose to function because this is citta inherent nature. This nature of citta can never be destroyed or eradicated. Take for example, our nature of seeing. The right condition (i think need about 40 over cittas) must be there before seeing can be done. But the nature of seeing never need an organ to see, we could see in our dreams. Hence bodies can slowly age and die but the nature of seeing never dies. That is why when we take rebirth, the cittas function as they suppose to function because they can never die or be eradicated. That is why cittas could determine our next rebirth because it is in their inherent nature to do that. Even though these cittas are temporal but they never dies. They just come and go to perform their inherent function. But where does this inherent function comes from. This is not said by Buddha because it is the few things Buddha refused to answer or silent abt it. This is my point of view deriving from the understanding of Surangama Sutra (Mahayana). Kind regards kenneth Ong 8494 From: Howard Date: Tue Oct 9, 2001 8:11pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Kenneth - In a message dated 10/9/01 10:22:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > Howard, Yes I agree with that the road leading to > liberation is more impt (Oops should be the most > impt). > > Left and right view is very impt to Mahayana > doctrines. In Mahayanas, all origination of > sufferings comes from dualism thoughts. > > All teachings in Buddha, be it in the Pali Cannon or > Tibetan or Chinese Cannon never tilted to any left or > right view. The other day I remember I say that > Buddha never reject self, he only say that self is > miscontrue, our view of self is incorrect. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. We differ on that. --------------------------------------------- > > Actually that is why I am fascinated by Thervada > definition of Nibbana and PariNibbana. It is a > contrast with Mahayana way of thinking. Because it > seems to me that when there is no more cittas or rupa > or nama in PariNibbana, this is a very leftist view. > In my personal opinion this is not conforming to > Buddhist Middle Path. I more incline to believe that > these temporal cittas or rupa or nama are let go or > have settled down (just like sand in the water), hence > allowing the Nibbana mind to manifest. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that the foregoing may be close to an adequate description of the mind of an arahant while not entered into nibbana, when separate objects are discernable (though "seen through"). --------------------------------------------------- Buddha never > say that Nibbana is created or could be obtained, it > is there since beginless time and it is inherent in > us. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is not created or obtained because it is not a thing, and it does not exist in time. It is not inherent in us - there *is* no "us", and nibbana is not some underlying substance. It is not eternal in the sense of existing at all times. ------------------------------------------------ That is why i said before, we could not obtain > things that is inherent in us. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: This notion of 'inherent' is a dangerous one, taking the mind towards substantialism and eternalism. ------------------------------------------------ > > I also never doubt that about the function of cittas > as it suppose to function because this is citta > inherent nature. This nature of citta can never be > destroyed or eradicated. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: This is more of what I consider to be substantialism and eternalism. It reminds me of the doctrine of the early school of Sarvastivadins which is the main school identified by Mahayana and Vajrayana as "hinayana". -------------------------------------------------- Take for example, our nature > of seeing. The right condition (i think need about 40 > over cittas) must be there before seeing can be done. > But the nature of seeing never need an organ to see, > we could see in our dreams. Hence bodies can slowly > age and die but the nature of seeing never dies. That > is why when we take rebirth, the cittas function as > they suppose to function because they can never die or > be eradicated. That is why cittas could determine our > next rebirth because it is in their inherent nature to > do that. Even though these cittas are temporal but > they never dies. They just come and go to perform > their inherent function. > > But where does this inherent function comes from. > This is not said by Buddha because it is the few > things Buddha refused to answer or silent abt it. > > > This is my point of view deriving from the > understanding of Surangama Sutra (Mahayana). > > > > Kind regards > kenneth Ong > ========================== Yes, I'm familiar with the Surangama Sutra. It was one of the sutras which helped me move from Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism. It was an easy transition because, in my opinion, the Surangama Sutra strongly expresses a substantialism and eternalism. I eventually moved on from there to Buddhism, proper, with its middle way view of emptiness and no-self, as expressed in the the Pali Tipitaka (as well as in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras of Mahayana and the works of Nagarjuna). 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) 8495 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 2:06am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Kenneth - > > In a message dated 10/9/01 10:22:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Kenneth Ong writes: > > > > Howard, Yes I agree with that the road leading to > > liberation is more impt (Oops should be the most > > impt). > > > > Left and right view is very impt to Mahayana > > doctrines. In Mahayanas, all origination of > > sufferings comes from dualism thoughts. > > > > All teachings in Buddha, be it in the Pali Cannon or > > Tibetan or Chinese Cannon never tilted to any left or > > right view. The other day I remember I say that > > Buddha never reject self, he only say that self is > > miscontrue, our view of self is incorrect. > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Okay. We differ on that. > --------------------------------------------- > > > > > Actually that is why I am fascinated by Thervada > > definition of Nibbana and PariNibbana. It is a > > contrast with Mahayana way of thinking. Because it > > seems to me that when there is no more cittas or rupa > > or nama in PariNibbana, this is a very leftist view. > > In my personal opinion this is not conforming to > > Buddhist Middle Path. I more incline to believe that > > these temporal cittas or rupa or nama are let go or > > have settled down (just like sand in the water), hence > > allowing the Nibbana mind to manifest. > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think that the foregoing may be close to an adequate description of > the mind of an arahant while not entered into nibbana, when separate objects > are discernable (though "seen through"). > --------------------------------------------------- > Buddha never > > say that Nibbana is created or could be obtained, it > > is there since beginless time and it is inherent in > > us. > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It is not created or obtained because it is not a thing, and it does > not exist in time. It is not inherent in us - there *is* no "us", and nibbana > is not some underlying substance. It is not eternal in the sense of existing > at all times. > ------------------------------------------------ > That is why i said before, we could not obtain > > things that is inherent in us. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > This notion of 'inherent' is a dangerous one, taking the mind towards > substantialism and eternalism. > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > I also never doubt that about the function of cittas > > as it suppose to function because this is citta > > inherent nature. This nature of citta can never be > > destroyed or eradicated. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > This is more of what I consider to be substantialism and eternalism. > It reminds me of the doctrine of the early school of Sarvastivadins which is > the main school identified by Mahayana and Vajrayana as "hinayana". > -------------------------------------------------- > Take for example, our nature > > of seeing. The right condition (i think need about 40 > > over cittas) must be there before seeing can be done. > > But the nature of seeing never need an organ to see, > > we could see in our dreams. Hence bodies can slowly > > age and die but the nature of seeing never dies. That > > is why when we take rebirth, the cittas function as > > they suppose to function because they can never die or > > be eradicated. That is why cittas could determine our > > next rebirth because it is in their inherent nature to > > do that. Even though these cittas are temporal but > > they never dies. They just come and go to perform > > their inherent function. > > > > But where does this inherent function comes from. > > This is not said by Buddha because it is the few > > things Buddha refused to answer or silent abt it. > > > > > > This is my point of view deriving from the > > understanding of Surangama Sutra (Mahayana). > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > kenneth Ong > > > ========================== > Yes, I'm familiar with the Surangama Sutra. It was one of the sutras > which helped me move from Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism. It was an easy > transition because, in my opinion, the Surangama Sutra strongly expresses a > substantialism and eternalism. I eventually moved on from there to Buddhism, > proper, with its middle way view of emptiness and no-self, as expressed in > the the Pali Tipitaka (as well as in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras of > Mahayana and the works of Nagarjuna). > > With metta, > Howard Ah, I should have known you were a jnani [or ex-]. We really do have a lot in common, Howard. I studied with Ramesh Balsekar and was most strongly affected by Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta. I find Buddhism to speak more precisely and less metaphorically, but there is no doubt in my mind as to the Advaitins' understanding. I appreciate your wish not to fall into substantialism and eternalism, but what about the tendency going the other way to fall into nihilism-annihilationism? The argument that 'there never was a self and so nothing is annihilated' is not wrong, but it doesn't settle the question of 'being' for me. There are plenty of philosophies that distinguish between 'being' and 'a being'. Although one may not believe that there is any consciousness in the Universe other than the momentarily arising cittas, it is very hard to understand why cittas would arise in the first place, or whence they might spring from, if there was not some faculty or substance or being or awareness to make this possible. Cittas can't arise from nowhere. There is nothing in the five skandhas in and of themselves that should make sentience possible. So how is it explained? There must be some kind of awareness from which this comes, and it can't be merely a human source. As I recall, this is one of the questions Buddha instructed us not to ask, but I must say that I don't find that very satisfying, since it is the root question of why we are here in the first place. There is a wide, wide universe of manifestation which is beyond what humans can readily perceive. We are certainly not responsible for it. It makes more sense to say that we are part of that same occurence, whatever it is, and partake in some ways of its properties. It is very possible that beyond the illusion of individual 'self' is something going on much more mysterious and interesting, which Buddha realized we would not have access to in our current state, and would only use to create new thought-forms. The 'luminous mind defiled by incoming defilements', as sparse a reference as it may be, seems to hold an awful lot of promise as a hint for what Buddha might have perceived beyond our current deluded life. I have still not found any explanations, although I particularly appreciated Sarah's, which really explained that syntax. Even when the translation is broken down, it still mentions the luminous mind being both luminous and defiled at the same time. It never mentioned two separate minds [cittas], one of which is luminous and the other defiled. It is hard not to see a stream of luminous awareness obscured by defilements in the structure of this statement. To say that total cessation of all experience is the final goal of Nibbana, in a Parinibbana without any experience, seems annihilationist to me. To see an eternal process taking place that involves non-individuated consciousness is not the same thing as establishing an eternal self or soul. Robert 8496 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 2:11am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re:_Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O Dear Robert, I think it may be a mistake to think that because we don't understand or have the answer to a question, that that means there is no answer. Is the entire universe nothing but a fabrication of momentary consciousnesses? I doubt it. But it is the manifestation of something. Why do cittas arise? They are dependently arisen, but they don't arise for rocks or empty space, they only arise in sentient beings. If one thinks it is a gigantic dependently originated coincidence that we have these seeming beings with well developed sense organs mistaking their mechanisms for a 'self' through mis-identification of cittas with the body and mind, one has more faith in 'chance' than I do. I would still like to know how and why the whole thing hangs together. Probably never will. Regards, Robert Ep. ============== --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- > Dear kenneth, > I think in one sense it is similar to questions about creation and > origination. To the extent that one is confused or ignorant about > conditionality, and hence has some degree of self view, then > questions about origination, how did it all begin, what happens to an > arahant after death can be real sticking points and a cause for > doubt. > The paticcasamupada (dependent origination) shows that there is no > self, only different phenomena conditioning and being conditioned. To > the degree that this is understood questions such as those above > naturally decline (at the first stage of enlightenment the texts say > all such doubts are eradicated). There is no beginning shown to this > paticasamupada. The arahant has eradicated the causes, tanha(craving) > and avijja (ignorance) for the wheel of paticcasamupada to spin. > robert > > > Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Robert K > > > > Sorry but I do need to clarify this with you. Is > > parinibbana a topic Buddha refused to answer > > similiarly to the topic of orgination or creation? > > > > > > Kind regards > > Kenneth Ong > > 8497 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 2:13am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O If, like a fire, the entire play of consciousness is merely the result of arising conditions, then the analogy and the cessation at the end make perfect sense. The question is whether there is nothing to the creation of consciousness but external causes which spark it off. Robert Ep. ================== --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Dear Kenneth, > You asked: > Kenneth Ong wrote: > > > Furthermore what become of Arahat after reaching this > > state. Is there any thoughts or any thinking or > > "discernment"? Where do the Arahat go after > > Parinibbana? > ________ > Vacchagotta asked this same question. the Buddha talked about the > extreme profundity of the Dhamma and then pointed to a fire and asked > vacchagotta where the flame went after it had been extinguished: > MAJJHIMA NIKAAYA II > II. 3.2.Aggi-vacchagottasutta.m (72) > "So then Vaccha, I will question you, on this and you may reply as it > pleases you. There is a fire burning in front of you, would you know, > there is a fire burning in front of me?' `Good Gotama, if a fire > burns in front of me, I would know, there's a fire burning in front > of me.' `Vaccha, if you were asked, this fire burning in front of > you, on account of what is it burning, how would you reply?''Good > Gotama, if I was asked, this fire burning in front of you, on account > of what is it burning, I would reply, this fire burning in front of > me is burning on account of grass and sticks.' `Vaccha, if the fire > in front of you extinguishes, would you know, this fire in front of > me has extinguished?''Good Gotama, if the fire in front of me > extinguishes, I would know, this fire has extinguished''Vaccha, if > you were asked, this fire that has extinguished in which direction > did it go, to the east, west, north or south?' `Good, Gotama, it does > not apply. That fire burnt on account of grass and sticks, those > supports finished, no other supports were supplied, without supports > the fire, went out.'. > `Vaccha, in that same manner, the matter with which the Thus Gone One > is pointed out, is dispelled, uprooted, made a palm stump, made a > thing not to grow again." > You can read the full sutta at: > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- > Nikaya/Majjhima2/072-aggi-vacchagotta-e1.htm > robert 8498 From: m. nease Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 3:53am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi Robert, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > I think you are very right about this, and your > quote is quite relevant. I think > it should remind us that the Buddha's teaching > functions on various levels and in > various stages. Rather than thinking in black and > white terms, that if a word is > used in a certain context in one place, it must mean > that another usage is > incorrect, we should look at what is required by > that context. This is pretty much the way I see it. I think it's something like the difference between a bricklayer talking about a brick and a particle physicist talking about the characteristics of the particles composing the brick. EXCEPT: The difference as I see it is that, in this simile, both are talking about concepts. In conventional Dhamma speech we talk about concepts; in abhidhamma speech we talk about realities. > In making efforts at cultivating mindfulness and > disciplining action, a kind of > conventional effort may be called for, while the > Right Effort that Jon has > described as occuring as a spontaneous accompaniment > of a very high level of > refinement, may be a very different effort for a > very different refined purpose. I think where we may disagree is not in the necessity of effort (or energy--viriya), but in the nature of it. Even when exerting effort consciously (say to meditate or read a sutta), this sustained series of mental and phyiscal events is all conditioned--I think the sense of it being under the control of, or the result of the will of an 'exerter' is pure illusion. Not that will (cetanaa) doesn't exist--just that it's impersonal and conditioned, in spite of the way it feels. > But it seems to make clear that conventional Effort > and other conventional terms > may be very possible to engage in, even though there > is actually no central 'self' > to do these things. I think it just depends on how we look at it. Pariyatti does often speak conventionally, and can be conceived of conventionally--but the same phenomena observed analytically via abhidhamma reveals no one behind or within the effort--just the rise and fall of conditioned naama and ruupa. Does this make any sense to you in this context? > Very interesting and should stimulate an interesting > discussion. I agree! > Best, > Robert Ep. And the best to you, sir, mike 8499 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 4:58am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Robert, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > I think you are very right about this, and your > > quote is quite relevant. I think > > it should remind us that the Buddha's teaching > > functions on various levels and in > > various stages. Rather than thinking in black and > > white terms, that if a word is > > used in a certain context in one place, it must mean > > that another usage is > > incorrect, we should look at what is required by > > that context. > > This is pretty much the way I see it. I think it's > something like the difference between a bricklayer > talking about a brick and a particle physicist talking > about the characteristics of the particles composing > the brick. EXCEPT: The difference as I see it is that, > in this simile, both are talking about concepts. In > conventional Dhamma speech we talk about concepts; in > abhidhamma speech we talk about realities. To me, it seems that when you exempt Abhidhamma from being 'talk about concepts', you reify it as a mystical object. What I mean by this is that language is language, and there is no language without concepts. Language exists in the realm of concepts, and there is language that points beyond that, but there is no language that does not partake of conceptual activity. When we make this mistake, and I apologize for asserting it this way, we start thinking that somehow our deluded sense of things is transcended in this special instance, and we trade mindfulness for a kind of obedience to the sacred word that stops us from discerning either what is really there, or what is in the way of our reading it clearly in our own minds. We can't afford to be discerning and see the anatta of everything *except* the Sutras. They are also empty, and that is why Buddha went to a lot of trouble to talk about getting rid of all mundane views. When we read the Suttas, we are not reading 'Right View'. Right View can only be the property of the citta that upholds it, it is not in a book. When we read the Suttas through an akusala citta, what we are reading is an akusula citta, yet in this instance no one seems to be too wary of falling into this trap, and they assume they are reading not only the Buddha's words, but a correct interpretation of his intent. Even relying on commentaries falls into the same category. We read through the filter of our beliefs and views until they are no more. To be mindful of this means we may transcend it at times, but we cannot transcend it by relying on what we think we are reading. When we depend so strongly on the Suttas, we give up the responsibility for our own mind, which can only be corrected by mindfulness. And when I say 'our own' I am not assuming there is a self that has the responsibility. It is the kusala cittas themselves that would be awakened by the call to mindfulness and are generated as mindful. But we don't want to put them to sleep by telling them 'as long as you follow the correct words, you're mindful'. > > In making efforts at cultivating mindfulness and > > disciplining action, a kind of > > conventional effort may be called for, while the > > Right Effort that Jon has > > described as occuring as a spontaneous accompaniment > > of a very high level of > > refinement, may be a very different effort for a > > very different refined purpose. > > I think where we may disagree is not in the necessity > of effort (or energy--viriya), but in the nature of > it. Even when exerting effort consciously (say to > meditate or read a sutta), this sustained series of > mental and phyiscal events is all conditioned--I think > the sense of it being under the control of, or the > result of the will of an 'exerter' is pure illusion. > Not that will (cetanaa) doesn't exist--just that it's > impersonal and conditioned, in spite of the way it > feels. I think it is very easy to assume that because there is no 'self' that there is only conditioned responses. Mindfulness, the will, effort, all of these things are possible to generate without a 'self' doing it. The question of whether there is any intervention in the series of conditioned events can be asked separately from whether or not there is a self. I am quite sure there is no self within this body or mind -- haven't seen one lately -- even though I am familiar with that 'feeling' you speak of that 'feels' like there's 'someone' here. But it is possible to look mindfully into experience and produce the will, effort, discernment, etc. to pay more attention to objects, to meditate more, or whatever. It is in fact more magical that these things can have an effect even without a self to generate this or to enjoy the fruits. > > But it seems to make clear that conventional Effort > > and other conventional terms > > may be very possible to engage in, even though there > > is actually no central 'self' > > to do these things. > > I think it just depends on how we look at it. > Pariyatti does often speak conventionally, and can be > conceived of conventionally--but the same phenomena > observed analytically via abhidhamma reveals no one > behind or within the effort--just the rise and fall of > conditioned naama and ruupa. Does this make any sense > to you in this context? It makes sense, but I don't think that the series of co-arising events proves that there is no intervention by the forces of effort, energy, or discernment, mindfulness. It may be that when these forces are awakened they cause changes that are greater than the forces that originally conditioned them. I take it, however, that this would not be a very popular view...... > > Very interesting and should stimulate an interesting > > discussion. > > I agree! > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. > > And the best to you, sir, > > mike You know, even without a self, it's always enjoyable to talk to you. Doesn't really matter whether we agree or disagree either. Thanks for the dialogue. Robert Ep. 8500 From: m. nease Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:28am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi Robert, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > The difference as I see it is > that, > > in this simile, both are talking about concepts. > In > > conventional Dhamma speech we talk about concepts; > in > > abhidhamma speech we talk about realities. > > To me, it seems that when you exempt Abhidhamma from > being 'talk about concepts', > you reify it as a mystical object. What I mean by > this is that language is > language, and there is no language without concepts. > Language exists in the realm > of concepts, and there is language that points > beyond that, but there is no > language that does not partake of conceptual > activity. I see your point. I didn't express this well. > When we make this mistake, and I apologize for > asserting it this way, we start > thinking that somehow our deluded sense of things is > transcended in this special > instance, and we trade mindfulness for a kind of > obedience to the sacred word that > stops us from discerning either what is really > there, or what is in the way of our > reading it clearly in our own minds. For my part, I don't think that my deluded sense of things is transcended in any instance. Obedience to anything sacred is also quite alien to my way of looking at things. > We can't afford to be discerning and see the anatta > of everything *except* the > Sutras. They are also empty, and that is why Buddha > went to a lot of trouble to > talk about getting rid of all mundane views. When > we read the Suttas, we are not > reading 'Right View'. Right View can only be the > property of the citta that > upholds it, it is not in a book. Obviously. > When we read the > Suttas through an akusala > citta, what we are reading is an akusula citta, yet > in this instance no one seems > to be too wary of falling into this trap, and they > assume they are reading not > only the Buddha's words, but a correct > interpretation of his intent. Lots of different cittas at work in reading, some kusala, some akusala, some neither one, as I understand it. > Even relying on commentaries falls into the same > category. We read through the > filter of our beliefs and views until they are no > more. To be mindful of this > means we may transcend it at times, but we cannot > transcend it by relying on what > we think we are reading. > > When we depend so strongly on the Suttas, we give up > the responsibility for our > own mind, which can only be corrected by > mindfulness. > And when I say 'our own' I > am not assuming there is a self that has the > responsibility. It is the kusala > cittas themselves that would be awakened by the call > to mindfulness and are > generated as mindful. But we don't want to put them > to sleep by telling them 'as > long as you follow the correct words, you're > mindful'. Obviously not. > > > In making efforts at cultivating mindfulness and > > > disciplining action, a kind of > > > conventional effort may be called for, while the > > > Right Effort that Jon has > > > described as occuring as a spontaneous > accompaniment > > > of a very high level of > > > refinement, may be a very different effort for a > > > very different refined purpose. > > > > I think where we may disagree is not in the > necessity > > of effort (or energy--viriya), but in the nature > of > > it. Even when exerting effort consciously (say to > > meditate or read a sutta), this sustained series > of > > mental and phyiscal events is all conditioned--I > think > > the sense of it being under the control of, or the > > result of the will of an 'exerter' is pure > illusion. > > Not that will (cetanaa) doesn't exist--just that > it's > > impersonal and conditioned, in spite of the way it > > feels. > > I think it is very easy to assume that because there > is no 'self' that there is > only conditioned responses. Mindfulness, the will, > effort, all of these things > are possible to generate without a 'self' doing it. I don't know what you mean by 'possible to generate'. > The question of whether there > is any intervention in the series of conditioned > events can be asked separately > from whether or not there is a self. I am quite > sure there is no self within this > body or mind -- haven't seen one lately -- even > though I am familiar with that > 'feeling' you speak of that 'feels' like there's > 'someone' here. But it is > possible to look mindfully into experience and > produce the will, effort, > discernment, etc. to pay more attention to objects, > to meditate more, or whatever. > It is in fact more magical that these things can > have an effect even without a > self to generate this or to enjoy the fruits. > > > > But it seems to make clear that conventional > Effort > > > and other conventional terms > > > may be very possible to engage in, even though > there > > > is actually no central 'self' > > > to do these things. > > > > I think it just depends on how we look at it. > > Pariyatti does often speak conventionally, and can > be > > conceived of conventionally--but the same > phenomena > > observed analytically via abhidhamma reveals no > one > > behind or within the effort--just the rise and > fall of > > conditioned naama and ruupa. Does this make any > sense > > to you in this context? > > It makes sense, but I don't think that the series of > co-arising events proves that > there is no intervention by the forces of effort, > energy, or discernment, > mindfulness. It may be that when these forces are > awakened they cause changes > that are greater than the forces that originally > conditioned them. I take it, > however, that this would not be a very popular > view...... I really don't know, and am not particularly interested in popular opinion. It's been nice chatting with you, Robert, mike > > > Very interesting and should stimulate an > interesting > > > discussion. > > > > I agree! > > > > > Best, > > > Robert Ep. > > > > And the best to you, sir, > > > > mike > > You know, even without a self, it's always enjoyable > to talk to you. Doesn't > really matter whether we agree or disagree either. > Thanks for the dialogue. > > Robert Ep. > > 8501 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 7:57am Subject: Re:_Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Robert, > I think it may be a mistake to think that because we don't understand or have the > answer to a question, that that means there is no answer. Is the entire universe > nothing but a fabrication of momentary consciousnesses? I doubt it. But it is > the manifestation of something. Why do cittas arise? They are dependently > arisen, but they don't arise for rocks or empty space, they only arise in sentient > beings. If one thinks it is a gigantic dependently originated coincidence that we > have these seeming beings with well developed sense organs mistaking their > mechanisms for a 'self' through mis-identification of cittas with the body and > mind, one has more faith in 'chance' than I do. _______________________ Dear Robert Ep., Could you show me where you got the idea that I thought anything happens by chance? robert > ============== > 8502 From: Howard Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:07am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/9/01 2:15:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > > --- Howard wrote: > > Hi, Kenneth - > > > > In a message dated 10/9/01 10:22:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > Kenneth Ong writes: > > > > > > > Howard, Yes I agree with that the road leading to > > > liberation is more impt (Oops should be the most > > > impt). > > > > > > Left and right view is very impt to Mahayana > > > doctrines. In Mahayanas, all origination of > > > sufferings comes from dualism thoughts. > > > > > > All teachings in Buddha, be it in the Pali Cannon or > > > Tibetan or Chinese Cannon never tilted to any left or > > > right view. The other day I remember I say that > > > Buddha never reject self, he only say that self is > > > miscontrue, our view of self is incorrect. > > > > > ----------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Okay. We differ on that. > > --------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Actually that is why I am fascinated by Thervada > > > definition of Nibbana and PariNibbana. It is a > > > contrast with Mahayana way of thinking. Because it > > > seems to me that when there is no more cittas or rupa > > > or nama in PariNibbana, this is a very leftist view. > > > In my personal opinion this is not conforming to > > > Buddhist Middle Path. I more incline to believe that > > > these temporal cittas or rupa or nama are let go or > > > have settled down (just like sand in the water), hence > > > allowing the Nibbana mind to manifest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I think that the foregoing may be close to an adequate description > of > > the mind of an arahant while not entered into nibbana, when separate > objects > > are discernable (though "seen through"). > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Buddha never > > > say that Nibbana is created or could be obtained, it > > > is there since beginless time and it is inherent in > > > us. > > ------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > It is not created or obtained because it is not a thing, and it > does > > not exist in time. It is not inherent in us - there *is* no "us", and > nibbana > > is not some underlying substance. It is not eternal in the sense of > existing > > at all times. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > That is why i said before, we could not obtain > > > things that is inherent in us. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > This notion of 'inherent' is a dangerous one, taking the mind > towards > > substantialism and eternalism. > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > I also never doubt that about the function of cittas > > > as it suppose to function because this is citta > > > inherent nature. This nature of citta can never be > > > destroyed or eradicated. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > This is more of what I consider to be substantialism and > eternalism. > > It reminds me of the doctrine of the early school of Sarvastivadins which > is > > the main school identified by Mahayana and Vajrayana as "hinayana". > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Take for example, our nature > > > of seeing. The right condition (i think need about 40 > > > over cittas) must be there before seeing can be done. > > > But the nature of seeing never need an organ to see, > > > we could see in our dreams. Hence bodies can slowly > > > age and die but the nature of seeing never dies. That > > > is why when we take rebirth, the cittas function as > > > they suppose to function because they can never die or > > > be eradicated. That is why cittas could determine our > > > next rebirth because it is in their inherent nature to > > > do that. Even though these cittas are temporal but > > > they never dies. They just come and go to perform > > > their inherent function. > > > > > > But where does this inherent function comes from. > > > This is not said by Buddha because it is the few > > > things Buddha refused to answer or silent abt it. > > > > > > > > > This is my point of view deriving from the > > > understanding of Surangama Sutra (Mahayana). > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > kenneth Ong > > > > > ========================== > > Yes, I'm familiar with the Surangama Sutra. It was one of the > sutras > > which helped me move from Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism. It was an easy > > transition because, in my opinion, the Surangama Sutra strongly expresses > a > > substantialism and eternalism. I eventually moved on from there to > Buddhism, > > proper, with its middle way view of emptiness and no-self, as expressed > in > > the the Pali Tipitaka (as well as in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras of > > Mahayana and the works of Nagarjuna). > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > Ah, I should have known you were a jnani [or ex-]. We really do have a lot > in > common, Howard. I studied with Ramesh Balsekar and was most strongly > affected by > Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta. I find Buddhism to speak more precisely > and > less metaphorically, but there is no doubt in my mind as to the Advaitins' > understanding. --------------------------------------- Howard: Interesting similarities, indeed, Robert. The difference is that my experience with Vedanta was only book learning. --------------------------------------- > > I appreciate your wish not to fall into substantialism and eternalism, but > what > about the tendency going the other way to fall into > nihilism-annihilationism? > ---------------------------------------- Howard: A pitfall equally serious, but less common. ---------------------------------------- The > argument that 'there never was a self and so nothing is annihilated' is not > wrong, > but it doesn't settle the question of 'being' for me. --------------------------------------- Howard: Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and if parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an annihilation as far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a nibbana is an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of craving for being. -------------------------------------- > > There are plenty of philosophies that distinguish between 'being' and 'a > being'. > Although one may not believe that there is any consciousness in the > Universe other > than the momentarily arising cittas, it is very hard to understand why > cittas > would arise in the first place, or whence they might spring from, if there > was not > some faculty or substance or being or awareness to make this possible. > Cittas > can't arise from nowhere. There is nothing in the five skandhas in and of > themselves that should make sentience possible. So how is it explained? > There > must be some kind of awareness from which this comes, and it can't be > merely a > human source. ------------------------------------------ Howard: First of all, I am not "sold" on the Abhidhammic notion of discrete acts of discernment. This may, indeed, be the way things actually work, but I just don't see that in the Sutta Pitaka, and I think the notion is problematical. The problem, however, may be mine and not the theory. But in any case, I see vi~n~nana (or discernment of objects) as a function which operates within a field of awareness. For example, a moment of adverting consciousness, which turns towards an object, is an early stage in the discerning of an object. In some sense, that object must already be available for separating out. The field of awareness, a field of potentiality, in a quantum-mechanical sense, from which objects of discernment are "carved" out must be presumed, I think. What is discernable depends on what has already been discerned and on current conditions. -------------------------------------------------- > to > ask, but I must > > root question of why we are here in the first place. > There is a wide, wide universe of manifestation which is beyond what humans > can > readily perceive. We are certainly not responsible for it. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I think we contribute to it. The world of samsaric experience is an ongoing construct, I think, of the kamma of masses of sentient beings from the very no-beginning of time. ------------------------------------------------ It makes more sense > to say that we are part of that same occurence, whatever it is, and partake > in > some ways of its properties. It is very possible that beyond the illusion > of > individual 'self' is something going on much more mysterious and > interesting, > which Buddha realized we would not have access to in our current state, and > would > only use to create new thought-forms. The 'luminous mind defiled by > incoming > defilements', as sparse a reference as it may be, seems to hold an awful > lot of > promise as a hint for what Buddha might have perceived beyond our current > deluded > life. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that the Avatamsaka Sutra (the Garland Sutra) may give some insight into the nature of nibbana, there being no separate objects, but there certainly *not* being nothing at all. ------------------------------------------------------ I have still not found any explanations, although I particularly > appreciated Sarah's, which really explained that syntax. Even when the > translation is broken down, it still mentions the luminous mind being both > luminous and defiled at the same time. It never mentioned two separate > minds > [cittas], one of which is luminous and the other defiled. It is hard not > to see a > stream of luminous awareness obscured by defilements in the structure of > this > statement. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: That's as I see it. ---------------------------------------------- > > To say that total cessation of all experience is the final goal of Nibbana, > in a > Parinibbana without any experience, seems annihilationist to me. To see an > eternal process taking place that involves non-individuated consciousness > is not > the same thing as establishing an eternal self or soul. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. (Although I am wary about the term 'eternal'.) ---------------------------------------------- > > Robert > ====================== 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) 8503 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 0:18pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi Howard, Thanks for the explanation and I enjoy discussing abt this. It has been a long time, I have a good debate on Mahayana doctrines and I love it when I have a chance. thanks for this opportunity Let me use the fleeting word in Daimond Sutra. Lets us take for eg a human life of as a fleeting event. When we dies, only our body dies, but we take up another form. Hence nothing dies, it just changes. Howard, when Buddha said it is a fleeting world, it means all things keep changing, all things are conditioned but Buddha never say all things are destroyed or thats the end of it. When we say when light comes to a dark room, darkness dissapper. Does darkness die. No it does not it just disappear but it would reappear once lightness dissappear. If it dies, it would not reappear when lightness dissappear. All things never dies it just changes form. Hence there is an inherent nature just like what I say about the nature of seeing. This is not an eternalism view, this is a fact about reality. When you talk abt emptiness, is not emptiness also an eternalist view. Buddha talks abt emptiness it is beyond dualism or oneness. It is inconceivable (sad to say). It is beyond words as words are condition hence cannot describe fully the meaning of emptiness. As such, isn't emptiness also an eternalism (ultimate) concept for Mahayana, which is similiar to PariNibbana that is the ultamite concept for Thervada. Aren't all these eternalism concepts? The reason about Buddha never talks abt origination of such inherent nature because there will be no end to such questions. Assuming that he said that there is such origination, then we would ask what is the originator of such origination. In the Bible they say that God is the Creator, so we would ask who create God, then if we know who create God, we would ask who is the creator of the creator of God. It will never ends. There is no orgination because it is just there. All inherent nature is there. It is very hard to shallow but it is there. It is like we part of a cycle just that Buddha is a neutral. He is able to get out of the cycle and watch neutrally but he is not totally out of existence. He is just there and beyond any changes as he is one with reality. How come like that, I also dont know. What is this reality, how does this reality come abt, I also do not and Buddha does not explain or refuse to explain. (Maybe one day when I meet him, I really going to have a very long chat with him :)) Inherent nature is not eternalism, it is reality. Kindest regards Kenneth Ong 8504 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 1:49pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Howard, I think we're basically in the same place about this. I may tend towards more 'eternalist' tendencies than you at times, which I'm happy to have chopped down. But your description of the 'quantum field of consciousness', a field of possibilities, makes a lot of sense to me. I am glad you also feel that total cessation as a goal, with nothing remaining would be annihilationist and would be equal to the mundane relief of death. Only because I appreciate the company I guess. Anyway, I appreciate your replies here, with which I accord. As to my use of the word 'eternal', I used it mainly to counterpose eternal 'process' to eternal 'self' or 'soul'. But it is a flowery word, and one that isn't necessary. An 'ongoing process or presence' is fine with me. Perhaps I should look at the Avatamsaka Sutra sometime. Robert =================================== --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 10/9/01 2:15:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > > Hi, Kenneth - > > > > > > In a message dated 10/9/01 10:22:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > > Kenneth Ong writes: > > > > > > > > > > Howard, Yes I agree with that the road leading to > > > > liberation is more impt (Oops should be the most > > > > impt). > > > > > > > > Left and right view is very impt to Mahayana > > > > doctrines. In Mahayanas, all origination of > > > > sufferings comes from dualism thoughts. > > > > > > > > All teachings in Buddha, be it in the Pali Cannon or > > > > Tibetan or Chinese Cannon never tilted to any left or > > > > right view. The other day I remember I say that > > > > Buddha never reject self, he only say that self is > > > > miscontrue, our view of self is incorrect. > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Okay. We differ on that. > > > --------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > Actually that is why I am fascinated by Thervada > > > > definition of Nibbana and PariNibbana. It is a > > > > contrast with Mahayana way of thinking. Because it > > > > seems to me that when there is no more cittas or rupa > > > > or nama in PariNibbana, this is a very leftist view. > > > > In my personal opinion this is not conforming to > > > > Buddhist Middle Path. I more incline to believe that > > > > these temporal cittas or rupa or nama are let go or > > > > have settled down (just like sand in the water), hence > > > > allowing the Nibbana mind to manifest. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > I think that the foregoing may be close to an adequate description > > of > > > the mind of an arahant while not entered into nibbana, when separate > > objects > > > are discernable (though "seen through"). > > > --------------------------------------------------- > > > Buddha never > > > > say that Nibbana is created or could be obtained, it > > > > is there since beginless time and it is inherent in > > > > us. > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > It is not created or obtained because it is not a thing, and it > > does > > > not exist in time. It is not inherent in us - there *is* no "us", and > > nibbana > > > is not some underlying substance. It is not eternal in the sense of > > existing > > > at all times. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > That is why i said before, we could not obtain > > > > things that is inherent in us. > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > Howard: > > > This notion of 'inherent' is a dangerous one, taking the mind > > towards > > > substantialism and eternalism. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also never doubt that about the function of cittas > > > > as it suppose to function because this is citta > > > > inherent nature. This nature of citta can never be > > > > destroyed or eradicated. > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > This is more of what I consider to be substantialism and > > eternalism. > > > It reminds me of the doctrine of the early school of Sarvastivadins which > > is > > > the main school identified by Mahayana and Vajrayana as "hinayana". > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > Take for example, our nature > > > > of seeing. The right condition (i think need about 40 > > > > over cittas) must be there before seeing can be done. > > > > But the nature of seeing never need an organ to see, > > > > we could see in our dreams. Hence bodies can slowly > > > > age and die but the nature of seeing never dies. That > > > > is why when we take rebirth, the cittas function as > > > > they suppose to function because they can never die or > > > > be eradicated. That is why cittas could determine our > > > > next rebirth because it is in their inherent nature to > > > > do that. Even though these cittas are temporal but > > > > they never dies. They just come and go to perform > > > > their inherent function. > > > > > > > > But where does this inherent function comes from. > > > > This is not said by Buddha because it is the few > > > > things Buddha refused to answer or silent abt it. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is my point of view deriving from the > > > > understanding of Surangama Sutra (Mahayana). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > kenneth Ong > > > > > > > ========================== > > > Yes, I'm familiar with the Surangama Sutra. It was one of the > > sutras > > > which helped me move from Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism. It was an easy > > > transition because, in my opinion, the Surangama Sutra strongly expresses > > a > > > substantialism and eternalism. I eventually moved on from there to > > Buddhism, > > > proper, with its middle way view of emptiness and no-self, as expressed > > in > > > the the Pali Tipitaka (as well as in the Perfection of Wisdom sutras of > > > Mahayana and the works of Nagarjuna). > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > > > Ah, I should have known you were a jnani [or ex-]. We really do have a lot > > in > > common, Howard. I studied with Ramesh Balsekar and was most strongly > > affected by > > Ramana Maharshi and Nisargardatta. I find Buddhism to speak more precisely > > and > > less metaphorically, but there is no doubt in my mind as to the Advaitins' > > understanding. > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Interesting similarities, indeed, Robert. The difference is that my > experience with Vedanta was only book learning. > --------------------------------------- > > > > > I appreciate your wish not to fall into substantialism and eternalism, but > > what > > about the tendency going the other way to fall into > > nihilism-annihilationism? > > > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > A pitfall equally serious, but less common. > ---------------------------------------- > The > > argument that 'there never was a self and so nothing is annihilated' is not > > wrong, > > but it doesn't settle the question of 'being' for me. > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and if > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an annihilation as > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a nibbana is > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of craving for > being. > -------------------------------------- > > > > There are plenty of philosophies that distinguish between 'being' and 'a > > being'. > > Although one may not believe that there is any consciousness in the > > Universe other > > than the momentarily arising cittas, it is very hard to understand why > > cittas > > would arise in the first place, or whence they might spring from, if there > > was not > > some faculty or substance or being or awareness to make this possible. > > Cittas > > can't arise from nowhere. There is nothing in the five skandhas in and of > > themselves that should make sentience possible. So how is it explained? > > There > > must be some kind of awareness from which this comes, and it can't be > > merely a > > human source. > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > First of all, I am not "sold" on the Abhidhammic notion of discrete > acts of discernment. This may, indeed, be the way things actually work, but I > just don't see that in the Sutta Pitaka, and I think the notion is > problematical. The problem, however, may be mine and not the theory. > But in any case, I see vi~n~nana (or discernment of objects) as a > function which operates within a field of awareness. For example, a moment of > adverting consciousness, which turns towards an object, is an early stage in > the discerning of an object. In some sense, that object must already be > available for separating out. The field of awareness, a field of > potentiality, in a quantum-mechanical sense, from which objects of > discernment are "carved" out must be presumed, I think. What is discernable > depends on what has already been discerned and on current conditions. > -------------------------------------------------- > > to > > ask, but I must > > > > root question of why we are here in the first place. > > There is a wide, wide universe of manifestation which is beyond what humans > > can > > readily perceive. We are certainly not responsible for it. > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think we contribute to it. The world of samsaric experience is an > ongoing construct, I think, of the kamma of masses of sentient beings from > the very no-beginning of time. > ------------------------------------------------ > It makes more sense > > to say that we are part of that same occurence, whatever it is, and partake > > in > > some ways of its properties. It is very possible that beyond the illusion > > of > > individual 'self' is something going on much more mysterious and > > interesting, > > which Buddha realized we would not have access to in our current state, and > > would > > only use to create new thought-forms. The 'luminous mind defiled by > > incoming > > defilements', as sparse a reference as it may be, seems to hold an awful > > lot of > > promise as a hint for what Buddha might have perceived beyond our current > > deluded > > life. > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think that the Avatamsaka Sutra (the Garland Sutra) may give some > insight into the nature of nibbana, there being no separate objects, but > there certainly *not* being nothing at all. > ------------------------------------------------------ > I have still not found any explanations, although I particularly > > appreciated Sarah's, which really explained that syntax. Even when the > > translation is broken down, it still mentions the luminous mind being both > > luminous and defiled at the same time. It never mentioned two separate > > minds > > [cittas], one of which is luminous and the other defiled. It is hard not > > to see a > > stream of luminous awareness obscured by defilements in the structure of > > this > > statement. > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That's as I see it. > ---------------------------------------------- > > > > > To say that total cessation of all experience is the final goal of Nibbana, > > in a > > Parinibbana without any experience, seems annihilationist to me. To see an > > eternal process taking place that involves non-individuated consciousness > > is not > > the same thing as establishing an eternal self or soul. > > > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes. (Although I am wary about the term 'eternal'.) > ---------------------------------------------- > > > > > Robert > > > ====================== > 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) > 8505 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 2:03pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re:_Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > I think it may be a mistake to think that because we don't > understand or have the > > answer to a question, that that means there is no answer. Is the > entire universe > > nothing but a fabrication of momentary consciousnesses? I doubt > it. But it is > > the manifestation of something. Why do cittas arise? They are > dependently > > arisen, but they don't arise for rocks or empty space, they only > arise in sentient > > beings. If one thinks it is a gigantic dependently originated > coincidence that we > > have these seeming beings with well developed sense organs > mistaking their > > mechanisms for a 'self' through mis-identification of cittas with > the body and > > mind, one has more faith in 'chance' than I do. > _______________________ > Dear Robert Ep., > Could you show me where you got the idea that I thought anything > happens by chance? > robert > > ============== I was ruminating about how the human species is so meticulously designed, and that I didn't see how this could arise from a series of essentially meaningless and disconnected cittas. This is what I meant by 'chance'. However, it was my own conclusion and I wasn't trying to imply that you ever said such a thing. Sorry if that was not clear. It's why I said 'one' and not 'you'. Robert Ep. ============= > > --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > > > --- > > > Dear kenneth, > > > I think in one sense it is similar to questions about creation > and > > > origination. To the extent that one is confused or ignorant about > > > conditionality, and hence has some degree of self view, then > > > questions about origination, how did it all begin, what happens > to an > > > arahant after death can be real sticking points and a cause for > > > doubt. > > > The paticcasamupada (dependent origination) shows that there is > no > > > self, only different phenomena conditioning and being > conditioned. To > > > the degree that this is understood questions such as those above > > > naturally decline (at the first stage of enlightenment the texts > say > > > all such doubts are eradicated). There is no beginning shown to > this > > > paticasamupada. The arahant has eradicated the causes, tanha > (craving) > > > and avijja (ignorance) for the wheel of paticcasamupada to spin. > > > robert > > > > > > > > > Kenneth Ong 8506 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 3:35pm Subject: Re:_Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Dear Robert, > > > I think it may be a mistake to think that because we don't > > understand or have the > > > answer to a question, that that means there is no answer. Is the > > entire universe > > > nothing but a fabrication of momentary consciousnesses? I doubt > > it. But it is > > > the manifestation of something. Why do cittas arise? They are > > dependently > > > arisen, but they don't arise for rocks or empty space, they only > > arise in sentient > > > beings. If one thinks it is a gigantic dependently originated > > coincidence that we > > > have these seeming beings with well developed sense organs > > mistaking their > > > mechanisms for a 'self' through mis-identification of cittas with > > the body and > > > mind, one has more faith in 'chance' than I do. > > _______________________ > Dear Robert Ep., I think questions such as these are not neccesarily profitable to occupy ourselves with. Time is running out, soon we will die, and our head is on fire with tanha(craving)and ignorance about dhammas. Why do cittas arise you ask? As has been explained in this forum they arise by conditions - see the 24paccaya that I referred you to, or the paticcasamupada (dependent origination). I am happy to write more about this. But perhaps you mean when did the original citta arise? That is not revealed: (from the samyutta nikaya, ii, 178) The world without end is this round of birth and death. No beginning can be seen of those beings hindered by ignorance, bound by craving running through the round of birth and death. Just as if a man should chop up all of the straws, boughs, twigs and leaves in India and piling them together should lay them in a heap, square by square, saying: `This is my mother, this is the mother of that mother of mine', -still unsupplied would be the mother's of that man. Nay, to supply them all, the straw, boughs, twigs and leaves in this India would come to an end and be used up, ere this were done. "ENDQUOTE) Again why should it be this way? Why should cittas condition other cittas is simply not answered. why are the lwas of nature the way they are? No answer. The thing is they are the way they are - and our job is to uncover them; not to find out why it is this way. Trying to figure out that is like the man who was shot with an arrow asking the doctor who shot the arrow, what it is made of, where it came from..The man might die before he gets all his answers. The Buddha is the doctor who can heal - his job is not to tell us about other things. Nevertheless we can glean a few things about the wider universe from the texts. Citta is not the only conditioning factor. There is sometimes mentioned 5factors called niyama which are a sort of cosmic classification of things. utu-niyama: the caloric order bija-niyama: the germinal order kamma-niyama: the moral order citta-niyama: the psychical order dhamma-niyama: natural phenomenal sequence You can read more at: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ledinyma.htm#5foldniyama robert 8507 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > Without > > > understanding, even patience and friendliness e.g. > > > can > > > be dangerous I think. > > > > Although not for true actual patience and > > friendliness, but for their near > > enemies, perhaps you mean? > > I probably did mean this, without realizing it (have > to refresh my memory on these). I meant e.g. > friendliness with bad friends (as described by the > Buddha) and patience--well, patience is different, > maybe. Even with wrong view, nivaranas etc. it's hard > to see danger in it. Just a brief comment, if I may. If by friendliness we mean metta here, I think the friendliness is towards (not with) the other person. It means actually wishing the other person well, which is a fairly straightforward concept, whereas the term 'friendliness' in English carries other connotations too. There's no English expression I can think of that is really a good translation for 'metta'. So there can be 'friendliness' towards even one's worst enemy, but only if metta has been sufficiently developed. Metta towards those we come into contact with during the day can and does arise naturally, spontaneously, even though more often there is likely to be either lobha or dosa. Awareness of these different realities as they occur naturally and spontaneously in our daily life is the first step in the development of metta, I believe. Jon 8508 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) Rob Ep, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Hi Jon! > My point is that if the Suttas are not readily accessible to us because of > ignorance, then any 'good friend' who interprets the true meaning for us is giving > us their interpretation. How do we know it is not 'their view' and is > the original view of the Sutta? This is a good question and an important one. As might be expected, the Buddha himself has left us some guidance on the subject. Basically, the advice is to test anything we hear against the suttas. This advice should not surprise us, since the Buddha also said that he had explained everything that needed to be known to gain escape from samsara. From Digha Nikaya 16 Maha-Parinibbana Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html) "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu [that what he says is true dhamma] is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu." [ends] > We have to trust our 'good friend' to have access to > the original view, since we can't verify it ourselves. It's not, I believe, a matter of trusting the 'good friend'. That would not be a safe approach, for reasons that I think must be obvious. > That's fine, as long as you feel that you can know with some certainty that the > interpreters you are relying upon understand the original meaning. It is not, > however, the same thing, as hearing the words of the Buddha directly. It is an > explanation or interpretation that you are relying upon, one way or the other. It is of course neither simple nor easy to verify whether what someone proclaims to be the teaching is indeed to be found in the Tipitaka, and it may also take a long time. Some of the questions we might ask ourselves could include the following: - Does the person acknowledge the importance of understanding being in accordance with the teachings as found in the Tipitaka, or does he/she suggest that what is in the Tipitaka is not the whole teaching anyway? - Do they encourage us to read and study the Tipitaka for ourselves, or do they say, for example, that certain sections of the Tipitaka are of little or no use? - Do they encourage questions and discussion on the teachings, or do they take the approach that discussion and inquiry into the teachings is of little use or practical benefit? - Are they able to give references to support what they have said, or do they say that it may not be found in the Tipitaka or commentaries but it amounts to the same thing? > This is only to say that if I rely on the wisdom of a Zen Master who > also seeks to > relay the true meaning of the Buddha's words to me, I don't believe that is very > different from what you are relying on in the commentaries, or via the teachers > who explain the Suttas. Or is it? For the reasons given above, I think the 2 are quite different. > If people are still using the Buddha's teachings to move towards > enlightenment and > if some are realizing Nibbana and carrying on the teachings, I don't understand > how they can continue to devolve. Why would this be? Isn't the eventual > destination that the Buddha laid out more and more people reaching Nibbana? Or is > restricted to a very few in your understanding? I'm not familiar with any passage that refers to people reaching Nibbana at an ever-increasing rate as time goes on. In fact, my understanding is that the opposite is said. > I still don't understand how the Tipitaka will disappear. It seems to > be > available quite freely. Have parts already been lost? How would this occur? I > don't mean to be dense, but it seems a lot of people have copies..... Or do you > mean it in another way, that our understanding will diminish, even though the > texts will continue to be there....? The understanding diminishes first, I believe, and with lack of appreciation in the texts (because of the increase of wrong view), the texts themselves are gradually lost or become corrupted (parts of the commentaries have already been lost). > > I'm not sure what you mean when you suggest (if I read you correctly) that > > the teachings are other than 'whole and complete', and so needing us to > > 'milk out their meaning and implications for ourselves'. I would be > > interested to hear examples of any areas where you see this as applying. > > My understanding, perhaps from the studies of philosophy I have done in the past, > is that we never read anything directly. Our understanding of what we read is > colored by our presuppositions and understandings that we bring to it. I see > understanding Suttas as a process rather than a given. We may look back at a > Sutta ten years from now, with more panna, and say 'Oh my God, I didn't understand > this at all, it really meant *this*.' Without insight, reading in itself has no > certainty. It is part of a process of growth in understanding in knowledge, which > is the case in studying anything, not just the Suttas. We are human beings, and > our pre-existing kandhas shape the impressions we get of everything. So the > Suttas come in not seen directly, but distorted by defilements as well. So one > has to come to wisdom in regard to the suttas just as much as regards any dharma. > In my view, anyway. I'm sure there's some truth in what you say, Rob, but unless I've misread you it doesn't address my request -- could you give examples of instances where you consider the teachings to be not whole and complete and needing to be supplemented by one's own understanding. > Oh well, if I weren't challenged in turn, it wouldn't be any fun, would > it? I > hope my answers above at least clarify my view a bit more. I'll be > happy to hear > your response. Shall I brace myself?? :] No need to brace yourself this time. I'm trying to keep detail to a minimum and get up-to-date before I leave, so you're being let off lightly! Jon 8509 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:27pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Ken O --- KennethOng wrote: > > Hi Jon > > > "Let me see if I have understood. You are suggesting, I think, that > developing kusala does not necessarily help to reduce our attachment to > an > idea of a self. Have I got it right?" > > (In my personal experience we should be more aware of kusala because > they make us feel good abt it and this is also attachment. Good > attachments are harder to notice than aversive ones) I think your point is that all realities should be known, not just one's we see as being 'problem' ones (or 'good' ones), and I would agree with this. 'All realities' of course includes rupas, too -- they are as equally to be known as namas. > "By the way, I think the distinction between prompted an unprompted > kusala > cittas is still a useful one. It helps us to understand the conditioned > nature of these moments, and also the value of useful reminders given by > ourselves or others. I would be interested to know whether this > distinction is meaningful to you, the way it is described in the > Visuddhimagga (in my earlier post). By that I mean, are you able to > relate it to your own experience?" > (The distinction between prompted and unprompted kusala is not the > significance, it is the origination of such prompting action (or > intentions) is the impt factor. It is definitely good to have such a > difference and I personally think that unprompted kusala is better than > prompted. Why? Because unprompted means that we have the habit inbuilt > in us of doing kusala. It has become a "natural" process. There is no > need to prompt. Kusala definitely needs prompted because only through > continuous prompting, it will slowly becomes more and more unprompted) I agree with what you say about the difference between prompted and unprompted kusala. I also agree that kusala 'needs' prompting, in the sense that it is so weak in us. But the idea that we can prompt kusala by 'determined effort to have kusala' is, in my view, not the teaching of the Buddha. The Buddha clearly and repeatedly laid down the conditioning factors for the arising of kusala and the development of understanding, and they do not include so-called 'determined effort' (to my understanding). Jon 8510 From: Herman Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:46pm Subject: Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) John, The Discourses mentioned in your reply to Robert Ep, to be used in the vetting of what people tell you, which Discourses are they? I am assuming that the Tipitaka did not exist when the event described in this Sutta took place. Thanks in advance Herman --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Hi Jon! > > My point is that if the Suttas are not readily accessible to us because > of > > ignorance, then any 'good friend' who interprets the true meaning for us > is giving > > us their interpretation. How do we know it is not 'their view' and is > > the original view of the Sutta? > > This is a good question and an important one. As might be expected, the > Buddha himself has left us some guidance on the subject. Basically, the > advice is to test anything we hear against the suttas. This advice should > not surprise us, since the Buddha also said that he had explained > everything that needed to be known to gain escape from samsara. From > Digha Nikaya 16 Maha-Parinibbana Sutta > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html) > > "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu [that what he > says is true dhamma] is neither to be received with approval nor with > scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the > sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify > them by the Discipline. 8511 From: Howard Date: Wed Oct 10, 2001 4:35pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Ken - In the following you have articulated your position very well. It is a fine position, time honored and world honored, but, in my opinion, while that position does, indeed, represent a current within Mahayana, it is just one such current, and is one which, as I see it, is not really Buddhadhamma. I could go on to reiterate why I think it is not, but that would just be repetitive of ideas expressed in previous posts of mine. I think that there are backwaters of eternalism and substantialism (as well as nihilism) to be found within all the main branches of Buddhism, but these backwaters diverge from the central Dhammic stream, being closer to Vedanta than to Buddhadhamma. This is simply the way I see it. I have no doubt that you strongly disagree. Well, these are just opinions, on each of our parts. When our practice takes us far enough, then we will really know. Until then, I wish you, and me, and all of us a good path-faring. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/10/01 12:20:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Kenneth Ong writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Thanks for the explanation and I enjoy discussing abt > this. It has been a long time, I have a good debate > on Mahayana doctrines and I love it when I have a > chance. thanks for this opportunity > > Let me use the fleeting word in Daimond Sutra. Lets > us take for eg a human life of as a fleeting event. > When we dies, only our body dies, but we take up > another form. Hence nothing dies, it just changes. > > Howard, when Buddha said it is a fleeting world, it > means all things keep changing, all things are > conditioned but Buddha never say all things are > destroyed or thats the end of it. > > When we say when light comes to a dark room, darkness > dissapper. Does darkness die. No it does not it just > disappear but it would reappear once lightness > dissappear. If it dies, it would not reappear when > lightness dissappear. All things never dies it just > changes form. Hence there is an inherent nature just > like what I say about the nature of seeing. This is > not an eternalism view, this is a fact about reality. > > When you talk abt emptiness, is not emptiness also an > eternalist view. Buddha talks abt emptiness it is > beyond dualism or oneness. It is inconceivable (sad to > say). It is beyond words as words are condition hence > cannot describe fully the meaning of emptiness. As > such, isn't emptiness also an eternalism (ultimate) > concept for Mahayana, which is similiar to PariNibbana > that is the ultamite concept for Thervada. Aren't all > these eternalism concepts? > > The reason about Buddha never talks abt origination of > such inherent nature because there will be no end to > such questions. Assuming that he said that there is > such origination, then we would ask what is the > originator of such origination. In the Bible they say > that God is the Creator, so we would ask who create > God, then if we know who create God, we would ask who > is the creator of the creator of God. It will never > ends. > > > There is no orgination because it is just there. All > inherent nature is there. It is very hard to shallow > but it is there. It is like we part of a cycle just > that Buddha is a neutral. He is able to get out of > the cycle and watch neutrally but he is not totally > out of existence. He is just there and beyond any > changes as he is one with reality. How come like > that, I also dont know. What is this reality, how > does this reality come abt, I also do not and Buddha > does not explain or refuse to explain. (Maybe one day > when I meet him, I really going to have a very long > chat with him :)) Inherent nature is not eternalism, > it is reality. > > > > Kindest regards > Kenneth Ong > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8512 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 0:31am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Hi Jon " But the idea that we can prompt kusala by 'determined effort to have kusala' is, in my view, not the teaching of the Buddha. The Buddha clearly and repeatedly laid down the conditioning factors for the arising of kusala and the development of understanding, and they do not include so-called 'determined effort' (to my understanding)." But I thought there should be some kind of deliberate effort. Take for eg, letting a seat in a public to another person. It takes a lot of my deliberate effort to let the seat due to my fear of embrassment if that the person not willing to accept the seat. I believe there should be some kind of deliberate effort for our practise. What do you think? How do we develop kusala without such "determined effort". Kind regards Kenneth Ong 8513 From: m. nease Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 1:20am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi, Ken, Sorry for the late reply! --- Ken Howard wrote: > Mike > You are way ahead of me in this Dhamma-study > business, so the > following is not presumed to be telling you anything > that is, in the > least bit, new to you. I'm just verbalising my > shaky understanding > and proving to Sarah that I'm still awake. I have a feeling 'your' understanding is 'way ahead of 'mine'. Trust me, Ken, I'm so new to this stuff that I probably should just be listening and not even talking about it. There are teachers here, but I am truly just a learner (that's on a GOOD day). > > You wrote: > "I do understand and agree. There are instances in > the > Suttas, though, in which the Buddha plainly > encourages > effort in the conventional sense we've talked about > recently, e.g. > > "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." > > > My point would simply be that the Buddha discovered > and taught > the Middle Way, the way of satipatthana, the > absolutely real way, > not the conventionally real way. When he describes > conventional > wisdom, we are to see it in terms of parramatta > dhammas. Even if > he were to say, "Eat food or you will starve," we > shouldn't think > for a moment that the conventional meaning of those > conventional > terms, forms a part of the Dhamma. > > Is that the way you see it? Not sure. In some suttas the Buddha gives advice to laypeople, for example, about how to handle their money--or in the vinaya, to bhikkhus about brushing their teeth. This is pretty practical, conventional stuff, but I do see it as a part of the Dhamma. > While I'm at it; You also wrote: > > "If 'one' can strive for mere morality, > jhaana or heedfulness even though there's no 'one' > to > strive, then isn't conventional effort a sort of > ground-level entry to the Dhamma with 'one' > discarded > as the elevator (understanding?!) reaches the > abhidhamma floors?" > > I wonder if this is what is meant by, "With the Ego > I perceive that > which is no Ego," -- one of the wrong views referred > to in Robert > K's message # 8019. (?) > Ken, this really was a kind of crackpot simile. I disown it! However I wasn't thinking of ego, but of a way of looking at the teachings. Personally I think that the more analytical and refined, the more accurate the conceptual understanding--this I think of as abhidhamma--not satipatthaana, needless to say. Great to hear from you Ken. Post more! mike 8514 From: m. nease Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 6:33am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Kenneth, Please forgive the slow response. --- KennethOng wrote: > > Dear Mike and Robert Ep, > "So that using the term "luminous mind" can > easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in > our Western culture, still > haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into > equating it with an immortal soul, > thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory > conception of "self." " > Buddhist in my opinion should not be scare of this > word self. I think the problem is the definition of > self. Buddha never rejects self, it only says the > self we are in is miscontrue and it is just the five > aggregates. In fact all beings in the six realms, > form by at least one of the five aggregates. Hence > I think that why they could be also known as > ultimate condition in Abidharma. > The word realizing Nibbana already means there is > something to grasp, to hold on (technically > speaking). Not sure if I understood you correctly here, but Nibbaana, as I understand it, is simply the cessation of dukkha. Nothing to grasp or hold onto there. > Nibbana could be equate to word like > "god" or "soul" because it is the ultimate reality > of Buddism in Thervada terms. This sounds something like the Hindu Atman to me--but nothing like Nibbaana. From a Theravada viewpoint I don't think it can be equated with 'god' or 'soul' in any way. Also it is only one of the four 'ultimate realities'--citta, cetasika, ruupa, nibbaana. > Hence Nibbana is > utlimate in Buddhism so is God is to christain. I don't believe there is any parallel here. > Nibbana in a sense the immortal soul of Buddhists. Not from the Theravada perspective, as I understand it. > We should not be afraid of words like immortal soul > or self. Fear itself is a kind of akusala and never a good thing. However it is good to see danger in wrong views, such as the various kinds of self view (including 'I have no self', among many others). > Because Buddha never rejects self, he only > says this self is not as what we see. This does not concur with my reading of the Pali Canon. > There is more > than meets the eye. If Buddha rejects self, he would > be in the extreme left view. > Actually the term Thervada use on Nibbana could be > misleading because it is a rightist view as it is > the ultimate reality of Abidharma. I don't see it as left, right or center--just the Theravada, which is quite different from the Mahayana. > Sorry no offence > here, thats why I like the Mahayana coining of > Nirvana, it is the same essence as defilements. I do understand this concept. As I understand it, it is alien to the Theravada. > This definition does not cling to left or right > views. No offence taken and none intended. Thanks for helping to define our differences. > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong To you too, sir, mike 8515 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 9:04am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Mike, Isn't ultimate reality is also Atman. But the difference between us and Hinduism is that our Atman is unconditional. At first I also believe that Buddhism does not talk abt eternalism, but certain facts are there and they are talking abt eternalism. You could see this in the post between me and Howard. Why are we so afraid of eternalism? Why are we so afraid abt Buddhism is also Atman? Isn't Buddha enlightment or PariNibbana an Atman? Isn't this the ultimate reality? To me there is no need to be afraid of such concepts as they are just mere concepts and if we use the principle of emptiness, there is nothing to be afraid of :) . If it is like that, it is just like that. I always believe we must be open to ideas even those that rocks the foundamental of Buddhism. Only through such investigation, then we could anchor our believe in Buddhism deeply with a solid rock conviction. Kind regards Kenneth Ong --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Kenneth, > > Please forgive the slow response. > > --- KennethOng wrote: > > > > Dear Mike and Robert Ep, > > "So that using the term "luminous mind" can > > easily mislead readers or listeners (especially in > > our Western culture, still > > haunted by conceptions of God and soul) into > > equating it with an immortal soul, > > thus nourishing the attachment to the illusory > > conception of "self." " > > Buddhist in my opinion should not be scare of this > > word self. I think the problem is the definition > of > > self. Buddha never rejects self, it only says the > > self we are in is miscontrue and it is just the > five > > aggregates. In fact all beings in the six realms, > > form by at least one of the five aggregates. > Hence > > I think that why they could be also known as > > ultimate condition in Abidharma. > > The word realizing Nibbana already means there is > > something to grasp, to hold on (technically > > speaking). > > Not sure if I understood you correctly here, but > Nibbaana, as I understand it, is simply the > cessation > of dukkha. Nothing to grasp or hold onto there. > > > Nibbana could be equate to word like > > "god" or "soul" because it is the ultimate > reality > > of Buddism in Thervada terms. > > This sounds something like the Hindu Atman to > me--but > nothing like Nibbaana. From a Theravada viewpoint I > don't think it can be equated with 'god' or 'soul' > in > any way. Also it is only one of the four 'ultimate > realities'--citta, cetasika, ruupa, nibbaana. > > > Hence Nibbana is > > utlimate in Buddhism so is God is to christain. > > I don't believe there is any parallel here. > > > Nibbana in a sense the immortal soul of Buddhists. > > Not from the Theravada perspective, as I understand > it. > > > We should not be afraid of words like immortal > soul > > or self. > > Fear itself is a kind of akusala and never a good > thing. However it is good to see danger in wrong > views, such as the various kinds of self view > (including 'I have no self', among many others). > > > Because Buddha never rejects self, he only > > says this self is not as what we see. > > This does not concur with my reading of the Pali > Canon. > > > There is more > > than meets the eye. If Buddha rejects self, he > would > > be in the extreme left view. > > Actually the term Thervada use on Nibbana could be > > misleading because it is a rightist view as it is > > the ultimate reality of Abidharma. > > I don't see it as left, right or center--just the > Theravada, which is quite different from the > Mahayana. > > > Sorry no offence > > here, thats why I like the Mahayana coining of > > Nirvana, it is the same essence as defilements. > > I do understand this concept. As I understand it, > it > is alien to the Theravada. > > > This definition does not cling to left or right > > views. > > No offence taken and none intended. Thanks for > helping to define our differences. > > > Kind regards > > Kenneth Ong > > To you too, sir, > > mike > 8516 From: m. nease Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 10:08am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Kenneth, Beautiful post, thanks. --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Mike, > > Isn't ultimate reality is also Atman. I think not. True perhaps for the Mahayana, but I think not for our poor little lesser vehicle. > But the > difference between us and Hinduism is that our Atman > is unconditional. Isn't Atman also described as being beyond conditions? > At first I also believe that > Buddhism does not talk abt eternalism, but certain > facts are there and they are talking abt > eternalism. I believe this is true of the Mahayana, but not of the Theravada. Of course, I am no authority on either of these subjects, and could well be wrong. These are just my opinions and I'm just a student--by no means ANYONE's teacher. > You could see this in the post between me and > Howard. > Why are we so afraid of eternalism? Why are we so > afraid abt Buddhism is also Atman? Isn't Buddha > enlightment or PariNibbana an Atman? Isn't this the > ultimate reality? To me there is no need to be > afraid > of such concepts as they are just mere concepts and > if > we use the principle of emptiness, there is nothing > to > be afraid of :) . If it is like that, it is just > like > that. I always believe we must be open to ideas > even > those that rocks the foundamental of Buddhism. Only > through such investigation, then we could anchor our > believe in Buddhism deeply with a solid rock > conviction. I have no belief in Buddhism at all. 'Buddhism' means millions of things to millions of different people. My confidence is in the hypothesis that the Pali canon is the closest we can come to to what the Buddha (the real, living Gotama the Buddha) taught during his human lifetime. I have yet to find anything that rocks that foundation. Again, no offense! And always great to talk to you, Kenneth. mike 8517 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Oct 11, 2001 5:19pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Hi Mike It always great to talk to you and in fact I enjoy talking to every one in the list. I learn from you and pple here even though our views are different. It is a pleasure to converse in this list because pple here are accepting, genuine, very sincere and most importantly practise the right speech. In fact, Sukin, has kindly offered to send me materials for me to read. I am touch. The pple here are sincere and they wish to share Buddhism with me. This is the first time in my life that I experience the spirit of a Buddhist community. Mike, what I have brought out recently could be a bit too tilted but i just like to take out this idea that is in my mind. Hmm, I would refrain from discussing such views as I realise that it could be miscontrue. Mike, you are my teacher (so next time you can call me pupil or student) and in fact everyone is my teacher here. I agree with you that Pali Cannon is great and actually Pali is much more clearer in their practise than the Mahayana (no offense here for Mahayanist). I learn a lot from the Pali Cannons :) Cheers. Kindest regards Kenneth Ong --- "m. nease" wrote: > Kenneth, > > Beautiful post, thanks. > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Mike, > > > > Isn't ultimate reality is also Atman. > > I think not. True perhaps for the Mahayana, but I > think not for our poor little lesser vehicle. > > > But the > > difference between us and Hinduism is that our > Atman > > is unconditional. > > Isn't Atman also described as being beyond > conditions? > > > At first I also believe that > > Buddhism does not talk abt eternalism, but certain > > facts are there and they are talking abt > > eternalism. > > I believe this is true of the Mahayana, but not of > the > Theravada. Of course, I am no authority on either > of > these subjects, and could well be wrong. These are > just my opinions and I'm just a student--by no means > ANYONE's teacher. > > > You could see this in the post between me and > > Howard. > > Why are we so afraid of eternalism? Why are we so > > afraid abt Buddhism is also Atman? Isn't Buddha > > enlightment or PariNibbana an Atman? Isn't this > the > > ultimate reality? To me there is no need to be > > afraid > > of such concepts as they are just mere concepts > and > > if > > we use the principle of emptiness, there is > nothing > > to > > be afraid of :) . If it is like that, it is just > > like > > that. I always believe we must be open to ideas > > even > > those that rocks the foundamental of Buddhism. > Only > > through such investigation, then we could anchor > our > > believe in Buddhism deeply with a solid rock > > conviction. > > I have no belief in Buddhism at all. 'Buddhism' > means > millions of things to millions of different people. > My confidence is in the hypothesis that the Pali > canon > is the closest we can come to to what the Buddha > (the > real, living Gotama the Buddha) taught during his > human lifetime. I have yet to find anything that > rocks that foundation. > > Again, no offense! And always great to talk to you, > Kenneth. > > mike 8518 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 4:38am Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Kenneth, I would like to support your comments about the atmosphere of support and learning on this List. I do not post often, but read most posts, and learn much. After the turmoil elsewhere on another list, DSG is an oasis and refuge with its kind, well-mannered list-members, well- versen in Dhamma. Thank you all. metta, Christine --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Mike > > It always great to talk to you and in fact I enjoy > talking to every one in the list. I learn from you > and pple here even though our views are different. It > is a pleasure to converse in this list because pple > here are accepting, genuine, very sincere and most > importantly practise the right speech. In fact, > Sukin, has kindly offered to send me materials for me > to read. I am touch. The pple here are sincere and > they wish to share Buddhism with me. This is the > first time in my life that I experience the spirit of > a Buddhist community. > > Mike, what I have brought out recently could be a bit > too tilted but i just like to take out this idea that > is in my mind. Hmm, I would refrain from discussing > such views as I realise that it could be miscontrue. > > Mike, you are my teacher (so next time you can call me > pupil or student) and in fact everyone is my teacher > here. I agree with you that Pali Cannon is great and > actually Pali is much more clearer in their practise > than the Mahayana (no offense here for Mahayanist). I > learn a lot from the Pali Cannons :) Cheers. > > > > > Kindest regards > Kenneth Ong > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > Kenneth, > > > > Beautiful post, thanks. > > 8519 From: axtran Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 5:05am Subject: Re: bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Mike, Good answers to good questions. I enjoyed your posts. Thanks, AT --- "m. nease" wrote: > Kenneth, > > Beautiful post, thanks. > > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Mike, > > > > Isn't ultimate reality is also Atman. > > I think not. True perhaps for the Mahayana, but I > think not for our poor little lesser vehicle. > > > But the > > difference between us and Hinduism is that our Atman > > is unconditional. > > Isn't Atman also described as being beyond conditions? > > > At first I also believe that > > Buddhism does not talk abt eternalism, but certain > > facts are there and they are talking abt > > eternalism. > > I believe this is true of the Mahayana, but not of the > Theravada. Of course, I am no authority on either of > these subjects, and could well be wrong. These are > just my opinions and I'm just a student--by no means > ANYONE's teacher. > > > You could see this in the post between me and > > Howard. > > Why are we so afraid of eternalism? Why are we so > > afraid abt Buddhism is also Atman? Isn't Buddha > > enlightment or PariNibbana an Atman? Isn't this the > > ultimate reality? To me there is no need to be > > afraid > > of such concepts as they are just mere concepts and > > if > > we use the principle of emptiness, there is nothing > > to > > be afraid of :) . If it is like that, it is just > > like > > that. I always believe we must be open to ideas > > even > > those that rocks the foundamental of Buddhism. Only > > through such investigation, then we could anchor our > > believe in Buddhism deeply with a solid rock > > conviction. > > I have no belief in Buddhism at all. 'Buddhism' means > millions of things to millions of different people. > My confidence is in the hypothesis that the Pali canon > is the closest we can come to to what the Buddha (the > real, living Gotama the Buddha) taught during his > human lifetime. I have yet to find anything that > rocks that foundation. > > Again, no offense! And always great to talk to you, > Kenneth. > > mike 8520 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:06am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Kenneth (and Christine), --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Mike > > It always great to talk to you and in fact I enjoy > talking to every one in the list. I learn from you > and pple here even though our views are different. The pleasure is mutual, Kenneth. It's always good to hear from you and I really appreciate that we can exchange differing views without arousing ill-will. This is fairly rare in my experience outside this group. > It > is a pleasure to converse in this list because pple > here are accepting, genuine, very sincere and most > importantly practise the right speech. I couldn't agree more. Maybe careful consideration of the Dhamma just naturally conditions careful speech. > In fact, > Sukin, has kindly offered to send me materials for > me > to read. I am touch. So am I. Sukin is a great friend to us all. > The pple here are sincere and > they wish to share Buddhism with me. This is the > first time in my life that I experience the spirit > of > a Buddhist community. I'm really glad you've found us, Kenneth. So important to have good friends. > Mike, what I have brought out recently could be a > bit > too tilted but i just like to take out this idea > that > is in my mind. Hmm, I would refrain from discussing > such views as I realise that it could be miscontrue. > > Mike, you are my teacher (so next time you can call > me > pupil or student) and in fact everyone is my teacher > here. Good heavens Kenneth, I hardly even qualify as a beginning student--certainly not as a teacher! Thanks for the compliment just the same. > I agree with you that Pali Cannon is great > and > actually Pali is much more clearer in their practise > than the Mahayana (no offense here for Mahayanist). > I > learn a lot from the Pali Cannons :) Cheers. Yes, the more I study the Pali Canon the more attached(!) I become to it (also and again, no offense to the Mahayanists!). Some danger in this of course. Still I'm really glad you've found merit in these great teachings. Cheers back at you, Kenneth, mike 8521 From: Ken Howard Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 1:09pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi, Ken, > . . . . . >> we > > shouldn't think > > for a moment that the conventional meaning of those > > conventional > > terms, forms a part of the Dhamma. > > > > Is that the way you see it? > > Not sure. In some suttas the Buddha gives advice to > laypeople, for example, about how to handle their > money--or in the vinaya, to bhikkhus about brushing > their teeth. This is pretty practical, conventional > stuff, but I do see it as a part of the Dhamma. > > Hello Mike Thanks for your patient reply to my argumentative message. Just as your elevator simile (since disowned), went over my head, so too your views on the conventional advice given by the Buddha might be too deep for my level of understanding. However, it seems safe to say that you are suggesting the Buddha did sometimes teach conceptual truths (e.g., "its good to clean your teeth"). Wouldn't the teaching of conceptual truth amount to the teaching of absolute untruth? -- given that there are no teeth and no cleaning of teeth, that there is only the present, conditioned citta arising and immediately falling away? I think we would agree that the Buddha's utterances were, essentially, well chosen conditions. They were the conditions which he knew had the best possible chance of combining with other prevailing conditions in a way that would bring about some moments of right understanding for his audience. Where we differ is that I see it as a case of all or nothing. I can't see the Buddha, the teacher of the Middle Way, moonlighting as a teacher of conventional wisdom. I would respectfully suggest that your lingering inclination to see courses of action `prescribed' in the Dhamma, might be a symptom of a failure to see conditionality in absolutely everything -- a complaint we all suffer from. Kind regards Ken Howard 8522 From: Robert Epstein Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 1:59pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re:_Parinibbana_(was_Vipassanã_-_Ken_O --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > Nevertheless we can glean a few things about the wider universe from > the texts. Citta is not the only conditioning factor. There is > sometimes mentioned 5factors called niyama which are a sort of cosmic > classification of things. > utu-niyama: the caloric order > bija-niyama: the germinal order > kamma-niyama: the moral order > citta-niyama: the psychical order > dhamma-niyama: natural phenomenal sequence > You can read more at: > > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ledinyma.htm#5foldniyama > robert thanks. I understand your answer and thanks for the link! Robert Ep. 8523 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 5:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa.. Hi Ken Howard You said that > My point would simply be that the Buddha discovered and taught > the Middle Way, the way of satipatthana, the absolutely real way, > not the conventionally real way. When he describes conventional > wisdom, we are to see it in terms of parramatta dhammas. Even if > he were to say, "Eat food or you will starve," we shouldn't think > for a moment that the conventional meaning of those conventional > terms, forms a part of the Dhamma. > > Is that the way you see it? I think we should think of the difference in terms of beneficial and non-beneficial. I feel that to classify under conventional and absolute is like "enshrining" Buddha's teachings. To my understanding this "absolute" (mindfulness) has to be practise in "conventional" (daily) life activities, hence such classification might lead to confusions. For your comments please Kindest Regards Kenneth Ong 8524 From: Sarah Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 7:29pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bhavanga (life-continuum) Mike & Howard Dear Ken O, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Mike > > It always great to talk to you and in fact I enjoy > talking to every one in the list. I learn from you > and pple here even though our views are different. It > is a pleasure to converse in this list because pple > here are accepting, genuine, very sincere and most > importantly practise the right speech. In fact, > Sukin, has kindly offered to send me materials for me > to read. I am touch. The pple here are sincere and > they wish to share Buddhism with me. This is the > first time in my life that I experience the spirit of > a Buddhist community. This is a really touching and special note and you also offer us a very fine example of sincere and considerate speech, Ken. I'm very glad to hear of your good experience. I think we all appreciate the fine example of Mike's gentle speech and other excellent examples. Like you, I learn a lot from these. Anumodana, Sarah 8525 From: Sarah Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 8:00pm Subject: a bit of a rave to Christine Dear Christine, --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Dear Kenneth, > > I would like to support your comments about the atmosphere of support > and learning on this List. I do not post often, but read most posts, > and learn much. After the turmoil elsewhere on another list, DSG is > an oasis and refuge with its kind, well-mannered list-members, well- > versen in Dhamma. > Thank you all. In appreciation too, Christine..... you're one of the excellent examples and I always appreciate your posts and look forward to hearing from you..(lots of lobha;-) We're in a little 'turmoil' here right now, having both just finished work and needing to check everything is in order for Jon's trip to Bkk tomorrow (after the morning in the office, Hong Kong style!) and then onto India on Sunday with the group. There were meant to be about 150 people in the group, but I know that some have had to cancel because of family concerns about safety. I really feel a lot of sympathy for these people and those of you who follow here, like Betty, please share dhamma with us instead! I know Kom is already in Bkk and ready to go, but haven't heard news of the others joining from the States. We never know what will happen, no matter what plans we make......2 years ago Jon was the one who had to cancel at the very last minute (for health reasons), so I'm really happy at this stage that he's still going.... Best wishes, Sarah p.s All- pls remember to 'cut' non-relevant posts and yahoo blurb from your replies....many thanks. 8526 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 8:58pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hello, Ken, Interesting! --- Ken Howard wrote: > Thanks for your patient reply to my argumentative > message. Just > as your elevator simile (since disowned), went over > my head, so too > your views on the conventional advice given by the > Buddha might > be too deep for my level of understanding. However, > it seems safe > to say that you are suggesting the Buddha did > sometimes teach > conceptual truths (e.g., "its good to clean your > teeth"). Yes, that's what I was suggesting. > Wouldn't the teaching of conceptual truth amount to > the teaching > of absolute untruth? -- given that there are no > teeth and no cleaning > of teeth, that there is only the present, > conditioned citta arising > and immediately falling away? Well, I don't THINK that anything but satipatthaana is 'absolutely untrue'. 'All compounded phenomena are subject to decay', e.g., is a conceptual statement. I wouldn't say, though, that it's absolutely untrue. > I think we would agree that the Buddha's utterances > were, > essentially, well chosen conditions. They were the > conditions > which he knew had the best possible chance of > combining with > other prevailing conditions in a way that would > bring about some > moments of right understanding for his audience. Yes, I would agree with that. > Where we differ is that I see it as a case of all or > nothing. I can't > see the Buddha, the teacher of the Middle Way, > moonlighting as a > teacher of conventional wisdom. 'Moonlighting' seems a strange way of putting it, of course. Certainly some of his audiences were capable of understanding fairly advanced concepts (or even of being encouraged to direct insight), while others were not. To the latter, my reading of the Dhammavinaya suggests that he spoke of concepts comprehensible to them, leading in the right direction obviously. > I would respectfully suggest that your lingering > inclination to see > courses of action `prescribed' in the Dhamma, might > be a symptom of a > failure to see conditionality in absolutely > everything -- a complaint > we all suffer from. Maybe so, maybe so! I'll have to investigate this carefully. I'm out of time at the moment. Would you like some examples of expressions by the Buddha that I take to be 'prescribed courses of action'? By the way, I wouldn't exactly call them 'prescribed'--he more often simply explains that one course of action will lead to bad results and that others will lead to good results. > Kind regards Thanks for your consideration, mike 8527 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 9:11pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Rob --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Jon, > I take your words at the end of your post as an invitation to be direct. > I > have to state once again that I am not conversant enough with Abhidhamma > to make > any claims about it at all, so I will be happy to have your corrections > on that > score, if there are some factors I am not taking into account. > > However, with that said, I want to recall that you said in recent posts > that the > Suttas were complete and should not be subject to undue interpretation. > Correct > me if I don't understand your point of view here adequately. Yet we see > a number > of different types of interpretation taking place to give the Buddha's > words an > appropriate context for understanding. Just to clarify, I believe I said the suttas were complete, but needed elucidation in order to be understood by us. I was referring to the elucidation that is to be gained from a familiarity with and understanding of all the suttas, of all the other parts of the Tipitaka (including the Abhidhamma) and of the ancient commentaries, down to and including the Visuddhimagga and the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha. As regards the 2 last-mentioned, they claim to be, and are widely accepted as being, compilations of the commentaries available in their time, and made without the interpolation of the compiler's own views. I am not able in the short time that remains to give detailed references or quotes for the points you have raised, but I think you can find references to these topics in the archive posts listed at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts. I will however try to give one or two relevant references in my comments that follow. > For instance, we are to take it that his words to ordinary people about > developing > ethics and virtues and about the eightfold path were told in a way that > was not > totally accurate, but was geared to their level of understanding. So I am not sure it is useful to talk in generalities like this, without reference to particular passages from the suttas. I am happy to discuss a particular passage if you would like to mention one. But I certainly was not imputing any inaccuracy to the words in the suttas. I was alluding to the fact that what may be clear and meaningful to those of highly developed understanding (ie. to the listeners in the Buddha's time) would not necessarily be so to those of considerably less understanding (ie. to us now). > So the Buddha > leaves the impression that there is volition, that we should strive to > do virtuous > and spiritual actions and efforts, and that we should avoid actions and > internal > states that produce further negative kamma and suffering. But in truth, > none of > these is volitional, they are dependent upon the concordance of > favorable > conditions, which are accumulated in a snowball sort of effect from > other positive > causes. It depends on the sense in which you are using 'volitional' here. I have said quite a bit on this subject in other posts lately, so I'll spare everyone the agony of going over the same ground again. I am of course happy to elaborate on any particular aspects. The essential question in any case is, what was meant by the Buddha when he used the particular term (in the instance you give above, 'strive'). I seems to me naive, and perhaps even presumptuous, to assume that this question can be answered purely by reference to our own experience in this life to date. After all, that would assume understanding that was on a par with those listening to the Buddha when he gave the sutta in question. This is not an assumption I would rush to make in my own case (and for obvious reasons, I can hear you say!). Let me just say that in many parts of the texts and commentaries one can find references to conventional terms used by the Buddha such as intention, energy, etc that are explained in terms of mental factors arising with a moment of consciousness and performing a function in the context of that moment only. I give one example in answer to your question on right effort below. This explains how the Requisites of Enlightenment known as the four supreme efforts (sammapphadhaanaa) are in fact the single mental factor (cetasika) of energy. > Next, although I do not understand it thoroughly, we have the view of > the > Abhidhamma that the eightfold path is not a sequence of separate factors > to be > practiced, which will lead to wisdom and ultimately to Nibbana, but that > there is > a mundane path leading to super-mundane path factors arising > spontaneously and > simeoltaneously, and that this is the true meaning of the eightfold > path. I have > heard some discussions of this on this list, but have not seen suttas in > which the > Buddha explains it to be the case. Are there sections of the Abhidhamma > in which > the Buddha himself makes clear that the eightfold path refers to an > advanced state > in which these factors arise in quick succession just prior to Nibbana? > > If not, I would propose that this interpretation of the eightfold path > is not > based directly on the Buddha's words, and in fact contradicts his words > in other > suttas. But I will be happy to see direct references to what the Buddha > said on > this matter. Here are 2 passages from the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation and commentary summary ('Guide') known as Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma-- VII, 30 "Of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, right view (sammaaditthi) is the cetasika of wisdom exercised in understanding the Four Noble Truths. Right intention (sammasmakappa) is the cetasika of initial application (vitakka) directed towards renunciation, good will, and harmlessness. Path-factors (3)-(5) are identical with the three abstinences. Right effort is the same as the four supreme efforts. Right mindfulness is the same as the four foundations of mindfulness. Right concentration is defined in terms of the four jhanas of the Suttanta system." VII, 38 "The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path. In the teaching of the four truths, this is the collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path factors arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths. It should be noted that while in the section on the requisites of enlightenment, the eight path factors may be either mundane or supramundane, in the teaching of the Four Noble Truths they are exclusively supramundane." You mention the view of the Noble Eightfold Path as being a 'sequence of separate factors to be practiced, which will lead to wisdom and ultimately to Nibbana'. The Buddha did indeed tell us what the 'factors towards wisdom' are (aka factors for stream entry), and I have mentioned these also in recent posts. They are not anything like the factors of the eightfold Path taken separately and individually. > Finally, you interpret the Buddha's teachings on Right Effort and > Letting Go as > factors that are not volitional and not dependent on any exertion of > will. Are > there direct statements on the part of the Buddha which supports this > interpretation, or are you taking the Buddha's statements in the light > of the > philosophy of Abhidhamma, and thus giving them a particular slant not > obvious in > the words themselves? If this is the case, I would say that there is a > particular > act of interpretation taking place to make the argument that these > factors arise > merely as the result of the appropriate factors being in place. My 'interpretation' of deliberate effort vs. right effort is along the same lines as my recent comments about volitional intention vs. the cetasika 'cetana'. There is a 'type 1' and a 'type 2', and the 2 should not be confused. Here is another reference from the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation: CMA VII, 25 "There are four supreme efforts (sammapphadhaanaa): (1) the effort to discard evil states that have arisen, (2) the effort to prevent the arising of unarisen evil states, (3) the effort to develop unarisen wholesome states, (4) the effort to augment arisen wholesome states. Here one mental factor, energy, performs four separate functions. This fourfold effort is identical with right effort, the sixth factor of the Noble Eightfold Path." > It seems to me that the Buddha would not have used the term 'Right > Effort' if in > fact there was no effort involved. He would not have used the word > 'Intention' if > in fact no intention was necessary, and he would not have referred to > 'Letting Go' > if no letting go was necessary. These are understandable assumptions, but the picture one gets by looking into the texts and commentaries is a rather different one. > You say that the idea of letting go is probably a 'reminder' that > clinging is > akusala. In other words, it is not a call to a kind of action of > letting go, but > is just another prompt to understanding. I am not aware of the Buddha > saying > anything of this kind, and I assume this is your interpretation of the > idea of > letting go, which the Buddha has placed at the very end of the path of > liberation, > a most advanced factor. On the question of 'letting go', Rob, I think you may have misread an earlier post of mine. I have not made any comments on letting go as a term used by the Buddha -- only on that expression as a term used by someone (Ken O, I believe) in a description of their understanding of the practice. I hope I've responded on most of your points. Jon PS I am hoping that on the trip through India I will have access to a computer from time to time, and will try to keep in touch. So please don't hold back on replies just because I'm away from home base. > To say that Right Effort is in fact not Right Effort but is non-Effort, > seems to > me to flatly contradict the Buddha's teaching on Right Effort. Again, I > apologize > for being so blunt, but I want to reach some understanding on this view. > So I > would be grateful if you can quote the Buddha himself on this > interpretation of > Right Effort. I can theoretically understand the possibility that Right > Thinking > or Right Concentration could be the result of arising factors of insight > and > wisdom, but I find it impossible to define Effort of any kind as a > factor that > actually arises by itself, and actually involves no effort at all. > If this interpretation of Right Effort is not a contradiction of the > Buddha's > words, I will be very happy to hear how this can be so. > I think I've been even more direct than you, Jon. Considering my spotty > knowledge > of the Suttas, I apologize for seeming like I'm more sure of my views > than I am. > My intention is to confront some important issues, and if my ideas are > refuted in > the process, that's okay with me. : ) > > Best Regards, > Robert Ep. 8528 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 9:17pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > > It is said that > > if, for example, the > > mind-state is akusala then by means of deliberate > > intention and effort the > > mind-state can become kusala. In terms of moments > > of consciousness, it > > seems to me that any such moments of intention and > > effort are simply > > aspects of thinking of some kind or other and > > likely, by our nature, to be > > motivated by a subtle desire for more kusala. They > > certainly are not > > necessarily kusala moments since, as has been noted > > before, sincerity of > > intentions does not a kusala citta make. > > I do understand and agree. There are instances in the > Suttas, though, in which the Buddha plainly encourages > effort in the conventional sense we've talked about > recently, e.g. 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. > "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. 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 Jon 8529 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 9:25pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Volition and Self [To Jon] Howard --- Howard wrote: > > > To put it another way, when we refer to the intention to do something > > (type 1), it is not the mental factor of intention (type 2) that is > being > > alluded to, although the type 1 intention moments are, like all other > > moments of consciousness, accompanied by the type 2 intention. Of > course, > > both kinds, type 1 and type 2, can equally validly be referred to as > > intention. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, Jon, I can't say very much at all with regard to the > cetasikas > accompanying individual cittas, because I doubt very much that I am > aware of > them in any first-hand manner. I do make the following distinctions > based on > personal experience: I distinguish thoughts about doing something, a > wish/hope to do something (in the sense of a rather neutral > chanda[sp?]), the > desire/craving to do something, and the willing/volition/intention to do > something, which I think of as being a kind of motive force. I think > these > are all related, but that the last of these comes closest to what I > understand cetana to be. What you say about cetasikas accompanying individual cittas applies I am sure to everyone -- we don’t know them by direct experience, only from a study of the texts and commentaries, whereas we are very familiar with volitional intention. But what we are seeking to uncover, in the first place, is the meaning of the words spoken by the Buddha as part of the process leading to the realisiation of the truths of which he spoke. It seems to me that to attempt to limit the meaning of anything said by the Buddha to something within our own experience is bound to lead to misinterpretations. Given the extent of the Buddha's understanding of things, should we not be open to the possibility that his words have meaning on a level other than the plainly obvious? Of course, I do not give this as a reason for adopting one particular interpretation, but simply by way of explanation why I value and respect the elucidation that is available to us through the abhidhamma and commentaries. Jon 8530 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 10:26pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Jon, My understanding of the passage in question agrees completely with yours, though my grasp of it is less detailed and well-informed, as usual. Robert K. has also pointed out that this refers only to very advanced levels of samatha. Is this stated clearly in the commentaries or is it a logical inference? --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > 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. Understood--I do accept this. > 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. True--I assume it may be effort *to have* a kusala different from the present 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. > > > "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. > > 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. This is exactly as I read it. > 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. Again, exactly as I understood it. > Here, the attention/effort referred to is plainly > meant to be kusala > effort/intention only. Of course. > 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! Right! > 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". Yes! > 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 Naturally--samadhi meditation was commonplace before Gotama was born. It never awakened anyone. Satipatthaana vipassanaa is clearly the key, by my understanding. Thanks Jon, and bon voyage to you and all on the India trip. I'll see some of you in Bangkok in a month or so, conditions permitting. mike 8531 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 11:00pm Subject: Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > My understanding of the passage in question agrees > completely with yours, though my grasp of it is less > detailed and well-informed, as usual. > > Robert K. has also pointed out that this refers only > to very advanced levels of samatha. Is this stated > clearly in the commentaries or is it a logical > inference? _______ Dear Mike (and Jon), Sorry Mike I forget where and in what context I indicated this - do you remember? I am a little out of my depth in this discussion between you, ken H. and Jon. I am following it with interest though. robert k. .com 8532 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 12, 2001 11:34pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Hi Robert, --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- "m. nease" > wrote: > > Jon, > > > > My understanding of the passage in question agrees > > completely with yours, though my grasp of it is > less > > detailed and well-informed, as usual. > > > > Robert K. has also pointed out that this refers > only > > to very advanced levels of samatha. Is this > stated > > clearly in the commentaries or is it a logical > > inference? > _______ > > Dear Mike (and Jon), > Sorry Mike I forget where and in what context I > indicated this - do > you remember? > I am a little out of my depth in this discussion > between you, ken H. > and Jon. I am following it with interest though. > robert k. On second thought I think you were referring to the Dvedhavitakka sutta, in a post several months back. A similar theme, I think--but I haven't been able to put my finger on the post. Sorry about the bad reference... mike 8533 From: m. nease Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 0:19am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] paramis Jon, Right you are. What I meant by 'friendliness' was definitely not mettaa (I was equivocating the two). Thanks for the correction. mike --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > > Without > > > > understanding, even patience and friendliness > e.g. > > > > can > > > > be dangerous I think. > > > > > > Although not for true actual patience and > > > friendliness, but for their near > > > enemies, perhaps you mean? > > > > I probably did mean this, without realizing it > (have > > to refresh my memory on these). I meant e.g. > > friendliness with bad friends (as described by the > > Buddha) and patience--well, patience is different, > > maybe. Even with wrong view, nivaranas etc. it's > hard > > to see danger in it. > > Just a brief comment, if I may. If by friendliness > we mean metta here, I > think the friendliness is towards (not with) the > other person. It means > actually wishing the other person well, which is a > fairly straightforward > concept, whereas the term 'friendliness' in English > carries other > connotations too. There's no English expression I > can think of that is > really a good translation for 'metta'. > > So there can be 'friendliness' towards even one's > worst enemy, but only if > metta has been sufficiently developed. > > Metta towards those we come into contact with during > the day can and does > arise naturally, spontaneously, even though more > often there is likely to > be either lobha or dosa. Awareness of these > different realities as they > occur naturally and spontaneously in our daily life > is the first step in > the development of metta, I believe. > > Jon > > > 8534 From: m. nease Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 3:28am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi Sarah and Howard, I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa. The converse seems obvious but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other abhidhamma). Howard, is your idea that this underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa? Sarah, I may be wrong but I think the sutta Howard was referring to was the Samugatta/Nimitta Sutta at Anguttara Nikaya III.103. Ven. Thanissaro's translation is at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-103.html I think it will be good if anyone can come up with any commentarial material on this sutta. Intuitively I can see how it might support Howard's argument (much to my chagrin). mike --- Sarah wrote: > Indeed as Rob mentions, in these cases of > paticcasamuppada, nama has a > particular meaning (only referring to the cetasikas) > and so indeed as Howard > says, in this connection, vinnana/citta conditions > nama and rupa and vice > versa. > Howard: > > > Again, I apologize for not being a sutta > quoter! As I recall, the > > simile in the Pali suttas is that the mind is not > like pure gold, but rather > > like gold ore, with an admixture of "defilements", > and that refinement of > > that ore is required for the brilliance of the > gold to manifest. But, of > > course, it is understood in that simile that the > pure gold is present from > > the outset. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Sarah: > > I’ve come to your rescue here too....well, The > Muluposatha Sutta (Roots of the > Uposatha) is the one I had in mind I think. Again > there are probably others > too:. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-071.html > > The sutta is quite long and well-worth reading and > discussing further by > anyone. I’ll just quote the relevant sections here: > > ".....Visakha, there are these three Uposathas. > Which three? The Uposatha of a > cowherd, the Uposatha of the Jains, and the Uposatha > of the Noble Ones. > > "......And what is the Uposatha of the Noble Ones? > It is the cleansing of the > defiled mind through the proper technique. And how > is the defiled mind cleansed > through the proper technique? > > ".......[Again, the Uposatha of the Noble Ones] is > the cleansing of the mind > through the proper technique. And how is the defiled > mind cleansed through the > proper technique? > > ".....As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is > calmed, and joy arises; the > defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as when > a gold is cleansed through > the proper technique. And how is gold cleansed > through the proper technique? > Through the use of a furnace, salt earth, red chalk, > a blow-pipe, tongs, & the > appropriate human effort. This is how gold is > cleansed through the proper > technique. In the same way, the defiled mind is > cleansed through the proper > technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed > through the proper technique? > There is the case where the disciple of the noble > ones recollects the devas... > As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is > cleansed, and joy arises; the > defilements of his mind are abandoned. ‘ > .................... > I can see straight away how we would interpret this > sutta or simile to ‘gold > cleansing’ in different ways. I think it has to be > understood in the light of > all the other suttas and abhidhamma which refer to > the natural (or original) > state of mind being one that as full of defilements > which should be understood > and eradicated as discussed in the sutta. I’d be > interested to hear anything > from the commentaries and from you or anyone else. 8535 From: Victor Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 6:33am Subject: Re: Citta -Sarah Sarah, I am going to reply in context below. --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Victor, > > Good to see you around again;-) > > --- Victor wrote: > Friends, > > > > If interested, you might want to refer to > > Dhammapada 12, The Self > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html > > > > Some verses from Dhammapada 12, The Self include > > > > 157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. > > Let the wise man keep vigil during any of the three watches of the > > night. > > > > 158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only > > should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. > > > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > > self-control. > > > > 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the > > protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that > > is hard to gain. > > > > I think these verses are some good examples of how the word "self" is > > used. > .................... > Yes, good examples of how the word `self' is used `conventionally' by the > Buddha (and arahats) who of course had no wrong idea that any self exists. Sarah, how would the word "self" be used 'unconventionally' by the Buddha? :-) > > .................... > > As I understand it, the view "there is no self" is not what the > > Buddha taught. If interested, you might want to refer to > > Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html > > .................... > This sutta clearly shows that what is taken for the self are merely the 5 > khandhas and that there is no self anywhere in these khandhas. It also clearly > shows how these realities are conditioned and cannot be controlled by self. > > ................... > > and > > Ananda Sutta, To Ananda > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > .................... > What is not self are the khandhas, i.e the realities that make up our lives. As > this sutta shows, it is not that there used to be a self which no longer > exists, which might lead to the idea that `death is the annihilation of > consciousness'. Whether there is or is not any right understanding, seeing now, > hearing now and all other cittas and realities now are not self. > > In your next post you ask this question: > > .................... > > Is there any discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught > > that "there is no self"? > > .................... > As I read and understand the Tipitaka, the Buddha is talking about anatta (not > self) with regard to all realities in all the discourses. So you didn't find a discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught that "there is no self". > > I may be being dense but I'm having a little trouble understanding what is at > the back of your mind and what your understanding is here, Victor. Perhaps you > would elaborate in more detail as these are very important points and I know > you've raised them before. I'm also not quite sure how you see the suttas you > quoted as relating to Rob's discussion with Ken O. Would you elaborate on this > too. For reference, I was responding to message 8447 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8447 In that message, Robert K wrote: "There is no one who is aware of them, nor can awareness by controlled. If there is awareness (which is conditioned by various factors) what it sees is this very fact - and that eliminates, at deeper and deeper levels, the idea of self and control." Sarah, what I was trying to get across is that the view "there is no self" or "there is no one" is a speculative view. Maybe I was trying too hard and my response seemed to be out of context. :-) > > Look forward to hearing more from you, > > Sarah Metta, Victor 8536 From: Howard Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 5:18am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Mike (and Sarah) - In a message dated 10/12/01 3:32:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike writes: > Hi Sarah and Howard, > > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana > conditions naama-ruupa. The converse seems obvious > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other > abhidhamma). Howard, is your idea that this > underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the > vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, not at all. It is ordinary discernment of an object. I believe that when, in paticcasamupada, it is said that vi~n~nana conditions naamaruupa, naamaruupa is understood there as consisting of the various *objects* of discernment. There is no discerning without discerned objects, and there are no objects discerned without the discernment. They are mutually conditioning - they arise together. ------------------------------------------------------ > Sarah, I may be wrong but I think the sutta Howard was > referring to was the Samugatta/Nimitta Sutta at > Anguttara Nikaya III.103. Ven. Thanissaro's > translation is at > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-103.html ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, it does express similar ideas, but I don't think that is the exact sutta I had in mind, Mike. --------------------------------------------------------- > > I think it will be good if anyone can come up with any > commentarial material on this sutta. Intuitively I > can see how it might support Howard's argument (much > to my chagrin). > > mike > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > Indeed as Rob mentions, in these cases of > > paticcasamuppada, nama has a > > particular meaning (only referring to the cetasikas) > > and so indeed as Howard > > says, in this connection, vinnana/citta conditions > > nama and rupa and vice > > versa. > > > Howard: > > > > > Again, I apologize for not being a sutta > > quoter! As I recall, the > > > simile in the Pali suttas is that the mind is not > > like pure gold, but rather > > > like gold ore, with an admixture of "defilements", > > and that refinement of > > > that ore is required for the brilliance of the > > gold to manifest. But, of > > > course, it is understood in that simile that the > > pure gold is present from > > > the outset. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Sarah: > > > > I’ve come to your rescue here too....well, The > > Muluposatha Sutta (Roots of the > > Uposatha) is the one I had in mind I think. Again > > there are probably others > > too:. > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-071.html > > > > The sutta is quite long and well-worth reading and > > discussing further by > > anyone. I’ll just quote the relevant sections here: > > > > ".....Visakha, there are these three Uposathas. > > Which three? The Uposatha of a > > cowherd, the Uposatha of the Jains, and the Uposatha > > of the Noble Ones. > > > > "......And what is the Uposatha of the Noble Ones? > > It is the cleansing of the > > defiled mind through the proper technique. And how > > is the defiled mind cleansed > > through the proper technique? > > > > ".......[Again, the Uposatha of the Noble Ones] is > > the cleansing of the mind > > through the proper technique. And how is the defiled > > mind cleansed through the > > proper technique? > > > > ".....As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is > > calmed, and joy arises; the > > defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as when > > a gold is cleansed through > > the proper technique. And how is gold cleansed > > through the proper technique? > > Through the use of a furnace, salt earth, red chalk, > > a blow-pipe, tongs, & the > > appropriate human effort. This is how gold is > > cleansed through the proper > > technique. In the same way, the defiled mind is > > cleansed through the proper > > technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed > > through the proper technique? > > There is the case where the disciple of the noble > > ones recollects the devas... > > As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is > > cleansed, and joy arises; the > > defilements of his mind are abandoned. ‘ > > .................... > > I can see straight away how we would interpret this > > sutta or simile to ‘gold > > cleansing’ in different ways. I think it has to be > > understood in the light of > > all the other suttas and abhidhamma which refer to > > the natural (or original) > > state of mind being one that as full of defilements > > which should be understood > > and eradicated as discussed in the sutta. I’d be > > interested to hear anything > > from the commentaries and from you or anyone else. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8537 From: Larry Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 0:11pm Subject: consciousness> Hi, Mike (and Sarah) - > > In a message dated 10/12/01 3:32:42 PM Eastern > Daylight Time, > mike writes: > > > > Hi Sarah and Howard, > > > > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how > vi~n~naana > > conditions naama-ruupa. The converse seems > obvious > > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very > > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other > > abhidhamma). Howard, is your idea that this > > underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the > > vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa? > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, not at all. It is ordinary discernment of > an object. I believe > that when, in paticcasamupada, it is said that > vi~n~nana conditions > naamaruupa, naamaruupa is understood there as > consisting of the various > *objects* of discernment. There is no discerning > without discerned objects, > and there are no objects discerned without the > discernment. They are mutually > conditioning - they arise together. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Sarah, I may be wrong but I think the sutta Howard > was > > referring to was the Samugatta/Nimitta Sutta at > > Anguttara Nikaya III.103. Ven. Thanissaro's > > translation is at > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-103.html > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, it does express similar ideas, but I > don't think that is the > exact sutta I had in mind, Mike. > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > I think it will be good if anyone can come up with > any > > commentarial material on this sutta. Intuitively > I > > can see how it might support Howard's argument > (much > > to my chagrin). > > > > mike > > > > --- Sarah wrote: > > > > > Indeed as Rob mentions, in these cases of > > > paticcasamuppada, nama has a > > > particular meaning (only referring to the > cetasikas) > > > and so indeed as Howard > > > says, in this connection, vinnana/citta > conditions > > > nama and rupa and vice > > > versa. > > > > > Howard: > > > > > > > Again, I apologize for not being a > sutta > > > quoter! As I recall, the > > > > simile in the Pali suttas is that the mind is > not > > > like pure gold, but rather > > > > like gold ore, with an admixture of > "defilements", > > > and that refinement of > > > > that ore is required for the brilliance of the > > > gold to manifest. But, of > > > > course, it is understood in that simile that > the > > > pure gold is present from > > > > the outset. > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Sarah: > > > > > > I’ve come to your rescue here too....well, The > > > Muluposatha Sutta (Roots of the > > > Uposatha) is the one I had in mind I think. > Again > > > there are probably others > > > too:. > > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-071.html > > > > > > The sutta is quite long and well-worth reading > and > > > discussing further by > > > anyone. I’ll just quote the relevant sections > here: > > > > > > ".....Visakha, there are these three Uposathas. > > > Which three? The Uposatha of a > > > cowherd, the Uposatha of the Jains, and the > Uposatha > > > of the Noble Ones. > > > > > > "......And what is the Uposatha of the Noble > Ones? > > > It is the cleansing of the > > > defiled mind through the proper technique. And > how > > > is the defiled mind cleansed > > > through the proper technique? > > > > > > ".......[Again, the Uposatha of the Noble Ones] > is > > > the cleansing of the mind > > > through the proper technique. And how is the > defiled > > > mind cleansed through the > > > proper technique? > > > > > > ".....As he is recollecting the devas, his mind > is > > > calmed, and joy arises; the > > > defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as > when > > > a gold is cleansed through > > > the proper technique. And how is gold cleansed > > > through the proper technique? > > > Through the use of a furnace, salt earth, red > chalk, > > > a blow-pipe, tongs, & the > > > appropriate human effort. This is how gold is > > > cleansed through the proper > > > technique. In the same way, the defiled mind is > > > cleansed through the proper > > > technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed > > > through the proper technique? > > > There is the case where the disciple of the > noble > > > ones recollects the devas... > > > As he is recollecting the devas, his mind is > > > cleansed, and joy arises; the > > > defilements of his mind are abandoned. ‘ quote> > > > .................... > > > I can see straight away how we would interpret > this > > > sutta or simile to ‘gold > > > cleansing’ in different ways. I think it has > to be > > > understood in the light of > > > all the other suttas and abhidhamma which refer > to > > > the natural (or original) > > > state of mind being one that as full of > defilements > > > which should be understood > > > and eradicated as discussed in the sutta. I’d > be > > > interested to hear anything > > > from the commentaries and from you or anyone > else. > > > > > > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A > star at dawn, a bubble > in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, > a flickering lamp, a > phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond > Sutra) > 8539 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 1:00pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: The wisdom of the suttas (was, (Not) Catching Up-ANDERS) Herman Thanks for bringing this up. They are, as I understand it, the discourses given by the Buddha during his lifetime. Although the Tipitaka did not then exist in printed form, it existed in an oral form, in that discourses were apparently memorised by monks and repeated among themselves or to others, in the tradition of the time. Later on, of course, they came to be arranged into the various Nikayas as they come to us today. Jon --- Herman wrote: > John, > > The Discourses mentioned in your reply to Robert Ep, to be used in > the vetting of what people tell you, which Discourses are they? I am > assuming that the Tipitaka did not exist when the event described in > this Sutta took place. > > Thanks in advance > > Herman > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Rob Ep, > > > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Hi Jon! > > > My point is that if the Suttas are not readily accessible to us > because > > of > > > ignorance, then any 'good friend' who interprets the true meaning > for us > > is giving > > > us their interpretation. How do we know it is not 'their view' > and is > > > the original view of the Sutta? > > > > This is a good question and an important one. As might be > expected, the > > Buddha himself has left us some guidance on the subject. > Basically, the > > advice is to test anything we hear against the suttas. This advice > should > > not surprise us, since the Buddha also said that he had explained > > everything that needed to be known to gain escape from samsara. > From > > Digha Nikaya 16 Maha-Parinibbana Sutta > > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html) > > > > "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu [that > what he > > says is true dhamma] is neither to be received with approval nor > with > > scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying > the > > sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and > verify > > them by the Discipline. > 8540 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 1:38pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Ken O Thanks for bringing up this question, and for doing so in the context of a daily life example. This is a helpful way to go. --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Jon > > " But the idea that we can prompt kusala by > 'determined effort to have > kusala' is, in my view, not the teaching of the > Buddha. The Buddha > clearly and repeatedly laid down the conditioning > factors for the arising > of kusala and the development of understanding, and > they do not include > so-called 'determined effort' (to my understanding)." > > But I thought there should be some kind of deliberate > effort. Take for eg, letting a seat in a public to > another person. It takes a lot of my deliberate > effort to let the seat due to my fear of embrassment > if that the person not willing to accept the seat. I > believe there should be some kind of deliberate effort > for our practise. What do you think? How do we > develop kusala without such "determined effort". > > Kind regards > Kenneth Ong There are times when kusala will not arise without this kind of 'prompting', but there are also times when kusala arises spontaneously. In either case, it is kusala citta and is accompanied by the mental factor that is energy/effort (viriya). At such kusala moments the energy/effort factor is 'right'. However, even with the prompting of deliberate effort, kusala can only arise if the conditions for its arising have been sufficiently developed. The deliberate effort is not given as one of the conditions for the development of kusala, whereas the 'right' effort is (to my understanding). Taking the example of giving up the seat, one may in fact be naturally inclined to such gestures, but then hesitate to do so for the reasons you have given. Thus the initial intention arises as unprompted kusala, but if doubts/embarrassment (=akusala) intervene this intention may not be carried through, or may only be carried through with prompting. Or, to take another example, if the same situation occurs but in circumstances where the hesitation/doubt does not arise (eg, if there's no 3rd person around to be the object of our embarrassment), then the natural, spontaneous instinct (kusala mental state) may condition kusala action through the body (rising to offer the seat), with little or no prompting (your 'deliberate intention') necessary. In any event, I would distinguish the deliberate effort in these circumstances, where an opportunity for kusala presents itself and one essentially reminds oneself of the value of seizing that opportunity, with the idea that akusala mind-states now arising can be replaced with kusala-states by the exercise of deliberate effort. I don't know if this makes sense. Jon 8541 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 2:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Mike A quick reply from the airport. --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > > My understanding of the passage in question agrees > completely with yours, though my grasp of it is less > detailed and well-informed, as usual. > > Robert K. has also pointed out that this refers only > to very advanced levels of samatha. Is this stated > clearly in the commentaries or is it a logical > inference? It was something I got from the notes to the MLDB tranlsation (Vens Nanamoli and Bodhi), which quoted from the commentary, if I remember correctly. Sorry, but I don't have access to the translation now. > > So even in the context of samatha, the Buddha > > stressed the importance of > > satipatthana/vipassana > > Naturally--samadhi meditation was commonplace before > Gotama was born. It never awakened anyone. > Satipatthaana vipassanaa is clearly the key, by my > understanding. > > Thanks Jon, and bon voyage to you and all on the India > trip. I'll see some of you in Bangkok in a month or > so, conditions permitting. > > mike Thanks, Mike. It should be a good trip. And I'm really looking forward to meeting you after your move to Bangkok. Do keep us all posted on progress on that front. Jon 8542 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 2:33pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?> --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and if > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an annihilation as > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a nibbana is > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of craving for > being. > -------------------------------------- I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect that at nibbana the khandas cease completely. There can be no question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely Just a thought. Must run. Got a plane to catch. Jon 8543 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 3:12pm Subject: sunyatta There was a question about the meaning of 'sunyatta' on another list. This is not as common as anatta in the texts but has (originally) a similar or almost identical meaning. The world is said to be sunna(pronounced sunnya) (empty, void) because it is empty of self and of what belongs to the self Samyutta nikaya salayatanna vagga (35)85 "Empty is the world": The Buddha said to ananda "'empty is the world'. And what is empty of the self and of what belongs to the self? the eye Ananda is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Visible object is empty of self and what belongs to self. Eye consciousness is empty of self and what belongs to self. Eye contact is empty of self and what belongs to self. whatever feeling arising from that contact is empty of self.. [and the same for all the other doors]" Thus we see that sunnata is simply another way of explaining the conditioned and anattaness nature of all dhammas. I think the term has taken on a more radical meaning in some mahayana schools and hence some Theravada teachers may avoid using the term, robert unless there is an opportunity to explain it thoroughly. 8544 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 5:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nature of Right Effort (was Re: Jhanas Are Within Our ... Hi Jon, Let us look at the other way round, how abt looking at akusala. Usually akusala is unprompted, for eg, looking at a beautiful lady (no offence here for ladies). I more incline to believe this unprompted akusala arise due to our past habits at looking at things. Then we apply the Abidhamma method, then slowly this "looking" is just successive cittas. Then eventually as the practise becomes finer and finer, this successive cittas is seen as it is, the akusala now has not become unprompted. Next time when looking at a beaufiful lady, the akusala is just a sucessive cittas. The unprompted has been "slow" down to a point of prompted. Hence we are able to see our successive cittas in an objective manner. Similarly, I assuming that kusala actions that are unprompted could be our past karma habits. Hence to develop further kusala habbit there should be some determined effort involved, until such habit becomes unprompted. Take for example again abt the letting of my seat in the public for other pple. If I constantly do a deliberate effort to let my seat to others, next time it will become naturally to me. There is no need for deliberate or determine effort. Hence this deliberate effort has become right effort in a sense. It has become natural, unprompted, arises spontaneously Let us use your reference in one of your email. CMA VII, 25 "There are four supreme efforts (sammapphadhaanaa): (1) the effort to discard evil states that have arisen, (2) the effort to prevent the arising of unarisen evil states, (3) the effort to develop unarisen wholesome states, (4) the effort to augment arisen wholesome states. Here one mental factor, energy, performs four separate functions. This fourfold effort is identical with right effort, the sixth factor of the Noble Eightfold Path." I interpret No (3) as a deliberate effort. Take for eg the Karaniiya Metta Sutta , to me the words in the sutta seems to point that there is a need of an deliberate effort to do metta. One particular sentence seems to support this notion "In anger or ill will let him not wish another ill." I do not know whether you classify a calm mind as kusala. In order to practise the breathing method to calm the mind, it does not come easily, one got to be discipline, notice the breath, able at first to endure the muscle and body pains etc.... It becomes naturally after constant and deliberate effort in the first place. What do you think? But I have to wait a while before you are back. Sigh..... With kindest regards Kenneth Ong 8545 From: Howard Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 2:59pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>
... Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/13/01 2:34:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Hi, Howard > > I'm out of place in a discussion along these lines, but I just wanted > to comment/ask about one point of yours that I've seen said here > previously. > > > --------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and > if > > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an > annihilation as > > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the > > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a > nibbana is > > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of > craving for > > being. > > -------------------------------------- > > I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if > you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance > with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very > life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, > whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect > that at nibbana the khandas cease completely. There can be no > question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely > > Just a thought. > > Must run. Got a plane to catch. > > Jon > ======================== No, I'm not confusing the two. My point was the following: 1) A materialist believes that the body is all that there is, that consciousness is a function of the body, and that when the body dies nothing remains, there is no continuation of awareness *in any sense*. 2) Some Theravadins believe that the five khandas are all that there is *in the sense* that these are clusters of functions operating "in a vacuum", and not within a field of sentient potentiality (so that, for example, adverting to an object somehow occurs without the object being potentially available for discerning). Thus, in this view, when parinibbana occurs, that is, when there is the final dissolution and cessation of that cluster of functions, nothing whatsoever remains, there is no continuation of awareness *in any sense*. These positions strike me as similar. In both cases, after (what is viewed as) a final cessation, there remains, not an emptiness, but a total nothingness. That being the case, and if such annihilation is "good", then the materialist view would be the more hopeful of the two. The materialist needn't follow any practice whatsoever, but just live his/her one and only life which then automatically ends in "freedom" (a.k.a. annihilation). Nibbana-as-annihilation seems to have appeal to some folks. I don't know why unless the appeal is due to a form of suicidal desire. 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) 8546 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 9:12pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan? Howard Hello from Bangkok. I have access to a computer just long enough for a quick post. Your reply does clarify, thanks, and I can see that i perhaps misunderstod the context. You say that "a materialist believes" and "some Theravadins believe" ... I am saying, what about a conclusion reached on an analysis/understanding of the teachings ie. something separate and apart from any belief held. Would you see a conclusion to the effect that the khandas cease on parinabbana as being inconsistent with any other aspect of the Buddha's teaching? Jon --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 10/13/01 2:34:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > Hi, Howard > > > > I'm out of place in a discussion along these lines, but I just wanted > > to comment/ask about one point of yours that I've seen said here > > previously. > > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and > > if > > > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an > > annihilation as > > > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the > > > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a > > nibbana is > > > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of > > craving for > > > being. > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if > > you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance > > with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very > > life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, > > whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect > > that at nibbana the khandas cease completely. There can be no > > question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely > > > > Just a thought. > > > > Must run. Got a plane to catch. > > > > Jon > > > ======================== > No, I'm not confusing the two. My point was the following: > 1) A materialist believes that the body is all that there is, > that > consciousness is a function of the body, and that when the body dies > nothing > remains, there is no continuation of awareness *in any sense*. > 2) Some Theravadins believe that the five khandas are all that > there > is *in the sense* that these are clusters of functions operating "in a > vacuum", and not within a field of sentient potentiality (so that, for > example, adverting to an object somehow occurs without the object being > potentially available for discerning). Thus, in this view, when > parinibbana > occurs, that is, when there is the final dissolution and cessation of > that > cluster of functions, nothing whatsoever remains, there is no > continuation of > awareness *in any sense*. > These positions strike me as similar. In both cases, after (what > is > viewed as) a final cessation, there remains, not an emptiness, but a > total > nothingness. That being the case, and if such annihilation is "good", > then > the materialist view would be the more hopeful of the two. The > materialist > needn't follow any practice whatsoever, but just live his/her one and > only > life which then automatically ends in "freedom" (a.k.a. annihilation). > Nibbana-as-annihilation seems to have appeal to some folks. I don't know > why > unless the appeal is due to a form of suicidal desire. > > 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) > > > 8547 From: Howard Date: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:34pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan? Hi, Jon - In a message dated 10/13/01 9:14:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jonothan Abbott writes: > Howard > > Hello from Bangkok. I have access to a computer just long enough for a > quick post. > > Your reply does clarify, thanks, and I can see that i perhaps misunderstod > the context. > > You say that "a materialist believes" and "some Theravadins believe" ... > > I am saying, what about a conclusion reached on an analysis/understanding > of the teachings ie. something separate and apart from any belief held. > Would you see a conclusion to the effect that the khandas cease on > parinabbana as being inconsistent with any other aspect of the Buddha's > teaching? > > Jon > ========================= Ahh. That's an easy question to answer, Jon. No, I do *not* think that such a conclusion is inconsistent with any other aspect of the Dhamma. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 8548 From: David Progosh Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 1:54am Subject: 31 planes of existence I am a bit confused by this notion of 31 planes of existence. Since there is no transmigration of a soul after death in Buddhism, what moves between the planes? Also, the movement between the planes is based on kamma-- good, bad, or indifferent. Given that at a single moment the cycle of birth and death occurs thousands of times with many shades of different kammic effect, what factors determine which plane one enters (if one can say this) upon the next birth? Is it a matter of taking the average of good or bad kamma, and whichever one tops out that determines the next plane of existence? Please explain. Gaga Dhamma (Actually I find the Ven. Buddadasa Bikkhu's explanation of the Paticcasamuppada [law of dependent origination] a useful way to observe the notion of birth, death, and rebirth. He suggests that this notion of birth death and rebirth is not referenced to a lifetime of a human, as has been interpreted by Buddhagosa, but rather the wheel of kamma turns-- birth and death (arising and falling)-- occur so rapidly at every moment, so thatfor example in 5 minutes one can become mindful of the entire samsaric cycle thousands of times. Perhaps when the Buddha claimed he witnessed hundreds of thousands of past lives he was referring to Paticcasamuppada in the way the Ven. Buddhadassa suggests. thought?) 8549 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 4:54am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Ken, Wouldn't it also be a failure to see conditionality in everything to see 'absolute teachings' as separate from 'conditional ones'? If everything is merely a condition which combines with other conditions to have a beneficial or non-beneficial effect, than why could not the Buddha use seemingly conditional statements to have such effects just as well as he could use seemingly 'absolute' statements? Since any statement, whether pointing to conditional or absolute reality will by virtue of being in language be a conceptual act, the only way that Buddha could refrain from participating in conventional reality would be to refrain from teaching altogether. Even by the act of teaching people, he has taken those who have no permanent or actual existence as entities, and has treated them as 'real' for the purposes of teaching. Rather than say that this somehow compromises Buddha's absolute standpoint, I would rather say that he is skillfully straddling the line between using conditionality and denying its actuality, a line which only a World-Teacher could maintain effectively. The Absolute is what there is to transmit, and the Conditional is the field of skillful means he uses to transmit it. There is nothing in my opinion, from how someone ties their shoes to how they look upon the final cittas preceding entry into Nibbana, that is not potentially part of the Buddha's pallette. And there is almost nothing in human existence that he didn't talk about. Best, Robert Ep. ======================================== --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hello, Ken, > > Interesting! > > --- Ken Howard wrote: > > > Thanks for your patient reply to my argumentative > > message. Just > > as your elevator simile (since disowned), went over > > my head, so too > > your views on the conventional advice given by the > > Buddha might > > be too deep for my level of understanding. However, > > it seems safe > > to say that you are suggesting the Buddha did > > sometimes teach > > conceptual truths (e.g., "its good to clean your > > teeth"). > > Yes, that's what I was suggesting. > > > Wouldn't the teaching of conceptual truth amount to > > the teaching > > of absolute untruth? -- given that there are no > > teeth and no cleaning > > of teeth, that there is only the present, > > conditioned citta arising > > and immediately falling away? > > Well, I don't THINK that anything but satipatthaana is > 'absolutely untrue'. 'All compounded phenomena are > subject to decay', e.g., is a conceptual statement. I > wouldn't say, though, that it's absolutely untrue. > > > I think we would agree that the Buddha's utterances > > were, > > essentially, well chosen conditions. They were the > > conditions > > which he knew had the best possible chance of > > combining with > > other prevailing conditions in a way that would > > bring about some > > moments of right understanding for his audience. > > Yes, I would agree with that. > > > Where we differ is that I see it as a case of all or > > nothing. I can't > > see the Buddha, the teacher of the Middle Way, > > moonlighting as a > > teacher of conventional wisdom. > > 'Moonlighting' seems a strange way of putting it, of > course. Certainly some of his audiences were capable > of understanding fairly advanced concepts (or even of > being encouraged to direct insight), while others were > not. To the latter, my reading of the Dhammavinaya > suggests that he spoke of concepts comprehensible to > them, leading in the right direction obviously. > > > I would respectfully suggest that your lingering > > inclination to see > > courses of action `prescribed' in the Dhamma, might > > be a symptom of a > > failure to see conditionality in absolutely > > everything -- a complaint > > we all suffer from. > > Maybe so, maybe so! I'll have to investigate this > carefully. I'm out of time at the moment. Would you > like some examples of expressions by the Buddha that I > take to be 'prescribed courses of action'? By the > way, I wouldn't exactly call them 'prescribed'--he > more often simply explains that one course of action > will lead to bad results and that others will lead to > good results. > > > Kind regards > > Thanks for your consideration, > > mike 8550 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 5:11am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa... Dear Jon, Hi. Hope you're having a great trip. I won't say too much to burden your reading time while away. On re-reading my original posts, my tone wasn't all that pleasant. It's sometimes easier to see this in retrospect. At the time, I was very intent on trying to seek clarification, and that led to a somewhat combatative tone. Anyway, I enjoy interacting with you on these issues, and I appreciate your gentle tone in response to my 'challenges'. I appreciate the effort you went to in quoting from the Abhidhamma commentaries. I guess my real question is still a general one. One can certainly read and understand, with a bit of work [!] what is being said in the commentaries and how they explain the mechanism implied by the Buddha's teachings on the Eight-fold Path. My general question is: did the Buddha himself use this kind of language about the 'path factors' and about Energy handling the four 'supreme efforts' and these sorts of things. I am sure the system hangs together very well and makes a lot of sense after some study. What I am asking is whether there is a basis for this analysis in the Buddha's words himself? Is there a Sutra where he talks about the 'four supreme efforts' and that they are handled by the single factor of Energy? Is there a place where Buddha himself talks about the 'path factors' arising in the advanced moments before enlightenment? Is there a place in the sutras where Buddha talks about the 'mundane Eightfold Path and the Supramundane Eightfold path'? If there is, I would like to be directed to what part of the Tipitaka, not counting the commentaries, I might read some of these things. If there is not, I would still like to know on what basis these kinds of extrapolations have been made. I feel quite confident that following Abhdhamma and its analysis of arising cittas, that one would reach a great understanding of how realities are constituted and regarding the nature of mind and dhamma. It seems like a very thorough analysis. But I don't think it's unfair to ask whether there is a basis for this analysis in the direct statements of the Buddha. If the analysis is in the commentaries but not in the Suttas, I would just like to know this so I can proceed accordingly. Thanks, Robert Ep. =========================================== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > Dear Jon, > > I take your words at the end of your post as an invitation to be direct. > > I > > have to state once again that I am not conversant enough with Abhidhamma > > to make > > any claims about it at all, so I will be happy to have your corrections > > on that > > score, if there are some factors I am not taking into account. > > > > However, with that said, I want to recall that you said in recent posts > > that the > > Suttas were complete and should not be subject to undue interpretation. > > Correct > > me if I don't understand your point of view here adequately. Yet we see > > a number > > of different types of interpretation taking place to give the Buddha's > > words an > > appropriate context for understanding. > > Just to clarify, I believe I said the suttas were complete, but needed > elucidation in order to be understood by us. I was referring to the > elucidation that is to be gained from a familiarity with and understanding > of all the suttas, of all the other parts of the Tipitaka (including the > Abhidhamma) and of the ancient commentaries, down to and including the > Visuddhimagga and the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha. As regards the 2 > last-mentioned, they claim to be, and are widely accepted as being, > compilations of the commentaries available in their time, and made without > the interpolation of the compiler's own views. > > I am not able in the short time that remains to give detailed references > or quotes for the points you have raised, but I think you can find > references to these topics in the archive posts listed at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts. I will > however try to give one or two relevant references in my comments that > follow. > > > For instance, we are to take it that his words to ordinary people about > > developing > > ethics and virtues and about the eightfold path were told in a way that > > was not > > totally accurate, but was geared to their level of understanding. So > > I am not sure it is useful to talk in generalities like this, without > reference to particular passages from the suttas. I am happy to discuss a > particular passage if you would like to mention one. > > But I certainly was not imputing any inaccuracy to the words in the > suttas. I was alluding to the fact that what may be clear and meaningful > to those of highly developed understanding (ie. to the listeners in the > Buddha's time) would not necessarily be so to those of considerably less > understanding (ie. to us now). > > > So the Buddha > > leaves the impression that there is volition, that we should strive to > > do virtuous > > and spiritual actions and efforts, and that we should avoid actions and > > internal > > states that produce further negative kamma and suffering. But in truth, > > none of > > these is volitional, they are dependent upon the concordance of > > favorable > > conditions, which are accumulated in a snowball sort of effect from > > other positive > > causes. > > It depends on the sense in which you are using 'volitional' here. I have > said quite a bit on this subject in other posts lately, so I'll spare > everyone the agony of going over the same ground again. I am of course > happy to elaborate on any particular aspects. > > The essential question in any case is, what was meant by the Buddha when > he used the particular term (in the instance you give above, 'strive'). I > seems to me naive, and perhaps even presumptuous, to assume that this > question can be answered purely by reference to our own experience in this > life to date. After all, that would assume understanding that was on a > par with those listening to the Buddha when he gave the sutta in question. > This is not an assumption I would rush to make in my own case (and for > obvious reasons, I can hear you say!). > > Let me just say that in many parts of the texts and commentaries one can > find references to conventional terms used by the Buddha such as > intention, energy, etc that are explained in terms of mental factors > arising with a moment of consciousness and performing a function in the > context of that moment only. I give one example in answer to your > question on right effort below. This explains how the Requisites of > Enlightenment known as the four supreme efforts (sammapphadhaanaa) are in > fact the single mental factor (cetasika) of energy. > > > Next, although I do not understand it thoroughly, we have the view of > > the > > Abhidhamma that the eightfold path is not a sequence of separate factors > > to be > > practiced, which will lead to wisdom and ultimately to Nibbana, but that > > there is > > a mundane path leading to super-mundane path factors arising > > spontaneously and > > simeoltaneously, and that this is the true meaning of the eightfold > > path. I have > > heard some discussions of this on this list, but have not seen suttas in > > which the > > Buddha explains it to be the case. Are there sections of the Abhidhamma > > in which > > the Buddha himself makes clear that the eightfold path refers to an > > advanced state > > in which these factors arise in quick succession just prior to Nibbana? > > > > If not, I would propose that this interpretation of the eightfold path > > is not > > based directly on the Buddha's words, and in fact contradicts his words > > in other > > suttas. But I will be happy to see direct references to what the Buddha > > said on > > this matter. > > Here are 2 passages from the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation and > commentary summary ('Guide') known as Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma-- > > VII, 30 > "Of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, right view > (sammaaditthi) is the cetasika of wisdom exercised in understanding the > Four Noble Truths. Right intention (sammasmakappa) is the cetasika of > initial application (vitakka) directed towards renunciation, good will, > and harmlessness. Path-factors (3)-(5) are identical with the three > abstinences. Right effort is the same as the four supreme efforts. Right > mindfulness is the same as the four foundations of mindfulness. Right > concentration is defined in terms of the four jhanas of the Suttanta > system." > > VII, 38 > "The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the Noble > Eightfold Path. In the teaching of the four truths, this is the > collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path factors > arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths. > It should be noted that while in the section on the requisites of > enlightenment, the eight path factors may be either mundane or > supramundane, in the teaching of the Four Noble Truths they are > exclusively supramundane." > > You mention the view of the Noble Eightfold Path as being a 'sequence of > separate factors to be practiced, which will lead to wisdom and ultimately > to Nibbana'. The Buddha did indeed tell us what the 'factors towards > wisdom' are (aka factors for stream entry), and I have mentioned these > also in recent posts. They are not anything like the factors of the > eightfold Path taken separately and individually. > > > Finally, you interpret the Buddha's teachings on Right Effort and > > Letting Go as > > factors that are not volitional and not dependent on any exertion of > > will. Are > > there direct statements on the part of the Buddha which supports this > > interpretation, or are you taking the Buddha's statements in the light > > of the > > philosophy of Abhidhamma, and thus giving them a particular slant not > > obvious in > > the words themselves? If this is the case, I would say that there is a > > particular > > act of interpretation taking place to make the argument that these > > factors arise > > merely as the result of the appropriate factors being in place. > > My 'interpretation' of deliberate effort vs. right effort is along the > same lines as my recent comments about volitional intention vs. the > cetasika 'cetana'. There is a 'type 1' and a 'type 2', and the 2 should > not be confused. Here is another reference from the > Abhidhammattha-Sangaha translation: > > CMA VII, 25 > "There are four supreme efforts (sammapphadhaanaa): (1) the effort to > discard evil states that have arisen, (2) the effort to prevent the > arising of unarisen evil states, (3) the effort to develop unarisen > wholesome states, (4) the effort to augment arisen wholesome states. > Here one mental factor, energy, performs four separate functions. This > fourfold effort is identical with right effort, the sixth factor of the > Noble Eightfold Path." > > > It seems to me that the Buddha would not have used the term 'Right > > Effort' if in > > fact there was no effort involved. He would not have used the word > > 'Intention' if > > in fact no intention was necessary, and he would not have referred to > > 'Letting Go' > > if no letting go was necessary. > > These are understandable assumptions, but the picture one gets by looking > into the texts and commentaries is a rather different one. > > > You say that the idea of letting go is probably a 'reminder' that > > clinging is > > akusala. In other words, it is not a call to a kind of action of > > letting go, but > > is just another prompt to understanding. I am not aware of the Buddha > > saying > > anything of this kind, and I assume this is your interpretation of the > > idea of > > letting go, which the Buddha has placed at the very end of the path of > > liberation, > > a most advanced factor. > > On the question of 'letting go', Rob, I think you may have misread an > earlier post of mine. I have not made any comments on letting go as a > term used by the Buddha -- only on that expression as a term used by > someone (Ken O, I believe) in a description of their understanding of the > practice. > > I hope I've responded on most of your points. > > Jon > > PS I am hoping that on the trip through India I will have access to a > computer from time to time, and will try to keep in touch. So please > don't hold back on replies just because I'm away from home base. > > > To say that Right Effort is in fact not Right Effort but is non-Effort, > > seems to > > me to flatly contradict the Buddha's teaching on Right Effort. Again, I > > apologize > > for being so blunt, but I want to reach some understanding on this view. > > So I > > would be grateful if you can quote the Buddha himself on this > > interpretation of > > Right Effort. I can theoretically understand the possibility that Right > > Thinking > > or Right Concentration could be the result of arising factors of insight > > and > > wisdom, but I find it impossible to define Effort of any kind as a > > factor that > > actually arises by itself, and actually involves no effort at all. > > If this interpretation of Right Effort is not a contradiction of the > > Buddha's > > words, I will be very happy to hear how this can be so. > > I think I've been even more direct than you, Jon. Considering my spotty > > knowledge > > of the Suttas, I apologize for seeming like I'm more sure of my views > > than I am. > > My intention is to confront some important issues, and if my ideas are > > refuted in > > the process, that's okay with me. : ) > > > > Best Regards, > > Robert Ep. 8551 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 6:44am Subject: Re: 31 planes of existence --- "David Progosh" wrote: > I am a bit confused by this notion of 31 planes of existence. Since there is no > transmigration of a soul after death in Buddhism, what moves between the > planes? > > Also, the movement between the planes is based on kamma-- good, bad, or > indifferent. Given that at a single moment the cycle of birth and death occurs > thousands of times with many shades of different kammic effect, what factors > determine which plane one enters (if one can say this) upon the next birth? Is > it a matter of taking the average of good or bad kamma, and whichever one > tops out that determines the next plane of existence? > > Please explain. > > Gaga Dhamma > > (Actually I find the Ven. Buddadasa Bikkhu's explanation of the > Paticcasamuppada [law of dependent origination] a useful way to observe > the notion of birth, death, and rebirth. He suggests that this notion of birth > death and rebirth is not referenced to a lifetime of a human, as has been > interpreted by Buddhagosa, but rather the wheel of kamma turns-- birth and > death (arising and falling)-- occur so rapidly at every moment, so thatfor > example in 5 minutes one can become mindful of the entire samsaric cycle > thousands of times. Perhaps when the Buddha claimed he witnessed > hundreds of thousands of past lives he was referring to Paticcasamuppada in > the way the Ven. Buddhadassa suggests. thought?) Dear David, Hello from another who is trying to understand Anatta (no-soul, no- self). In my opinion it's probably necessary to understand Anatta, before one can understand Kamma - however, as I am still blundering around on the Misty Flats, maybe I'm incorrect in this assumption. Others on this list will be able to help. I can only offer a couple of links that I found a beginning help: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/nynatlo1.htm "Egolessness" by Nyanatiloka Mahathera "There are three teachers in the world. The first teacher teaches the existence of an eternal ego-entity outlasting death: that is the eternalist, as for example the Christian. The second teacher teaches a temporary ego-entity which becomes annihilated at death: that is the annihilationist, or materialist. The third teacher teaches neither an eternal, nor a temporary ego-entity: this is the Buddha. The Buddha teaches that, what we call ego, self, soul, personality etc., are merely conventional terms not referring to any real independent entity. And he teaches that there is only to be found this psycho-physical process of existence changing from moment to moment. Without understanding the egolessness of existence, it is not possible to gain a real understanding of the Buddha-word; and it is not possible without it, to realize that goal of emancipation and deliverance of mind proclaimed by the Buddha." and "No Inner Core - Anatta" U Silananda, of which I am only on the first chapter called "Impermanence, Suffering and No-Soul" http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/5787/anatta1.html However, I am already being brought face to face with some unconscious beliefs I held, for example: 'we can certainly say that there is no atta or self which realises Nibbana. What realizes Nibbana is insight-wisdom, Vipassana-panna. It is not the property of a personal OR A UNIVERSAL SELF, but is rather a power developed 'through meditative penetration of phenomena.' and 'One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not only for the actual realisation of the goal of Nibbana, but also for a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable preliminary condition to grasp fully the truth of anatta, the egolessness and insubstantiality of all forms of existence. Without such an understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nibbana - according to one's either materialistic or metaphysical leanings - either as annihilation of an ego, or an eternal state of existence into which an ego or self enters OR WITH WHICH IT MERGES. (The capitals show the unconscious belief I have just realised I had.) Keep on keeping on with your learning - that's all we can do, metta, Christine 8552 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 8:47am Subject: Fwd: Re: [d-l] Abhidhamma and understanding (1) --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: --- Dear David, Thanks. Comments below : > I have also seen people (on other lists) be ego oriented about > study of Abhidhamma (I study Abhidhamma). So I have been afraid to look > at it (More ego) therefore avoidance. __________ Right. Well the fact is some people do get conceited about their knowledge of Abhidhamma. The thing is we are full of conceit and it doesn't so much get bigger by studying a hard subject such as Abhidhamma - rather the innate conceit takes Abhidhamma as an object. It is not right for one who studies correctly to keep on with their conceited ways, though. If so they are not sincere, they are just having book learning and they are almost insulting the Dhamma with such behaviour. _______ > > For whatever reason forest tradition has always attracted me. Tan Achaan > Chah was once asked if he had his students study Abhidhamma. He said, "of > course." Then he was asked, "what books on Abhidhamma do you recomended > to start with?" "Only here," as he pointed to his heart. > ___________ With due respect to Acharn Cha - and perhaps it was just an off-hand comment that has been seized on by some of his students, I don't know- I think this is not a wise thing to say. We have been 'looking into our own "heart" since beginningless time. It is only by learning the Buddha's Dhamma - which goes utterly against the flow of deeply held 'commonsense' ideas that profound insight develops. In the Intro. to the Vibhanga(Abhidhamma pitaka) (Pali text society) Iggelden writes "It is all very well to say 'I know what needs to be done to break the continuity of rebirth and death'. In fact very few people know of even the most elementary reasons for the continuity of process, let alone of breaking it. It is the detailed description, analysis and reasons given for this cyclic process that the scriptures spend so much care in putting before us. It is all very well to say 'What do I want to know all these definitions of terms for, it only clutters the mind?'The question is, though, how many people when they seriously ask themselves as to the extent and range of some such apparently simple terms as greed, hatred and ignorance, can know their full and proper implications and manifestations within their own thoughts and actions..This the scriptures are at pains to make clear to even the dullest reader.."Endquote. He goes on in a similar vein for pages. The Dhamma is above all for practising; but if practice is not informed by correct theory one is likely to follow paths that come to deadends. One might not even know one has been following the wrong way. One might even think they have now fathomed the matter and take 'wrong release' for the real thing. I wrote most of this for other readers, David, as I know you see the advantage of study already. best wishes robert --- End forwarded message --- 8553 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:15am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã --- Howard wrote: > > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana > > conditions naama-ruupa. The converse seems obvious > > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very > > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other > > abhidhamma). Howard, is your idea that this > > underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the > > vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa? > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, not at all. It is ordinary discernment of an object. I believe > that when, in paticcasamupada, it is said that vi~n~nana conditions > naamaruupa, naamaruupa is understood there as consisting of the various > *objects* of discernment. There is no discerning without discerned objects, > and there are no objects discerned without the discernment. They are mutually > conditioning - they arise together. > ------------------------------------------------------ Hi Howard. If discernment and discerned object arise together and are mutually conditioning, does this imply that the object only exists as a product of mental activity, or am I understanding this incorrectly? Thanks, Robert Ep. 8554 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:57am Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Hi, Howard > > I'm out of place in a discussion along these lines, but I just wanted > to comment/ask about one point of yours that I've seen said here > previously. > > > --------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and > if > > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an > annihilation as > > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the > > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a > nibbana is > > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of > craving for > > being. > > -------------------------------------- > > I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if > you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance > with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very > life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, > whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect > that at nibbana the khandas cease completely. There can be no > question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely > > Just a thought. > > Must run. Got a plane to catch. > > Jon Dear Jon, I think what Howard was suggesting was that having a Nibbana that is a complete cessation of consciousness [including primary awareness or awakeness] as a goal would be a clinging to annihilation, ie, having the kandhas and associated experience destroyed. I think he is saying that if that is the actual description of Nibbana, then having such a goal represents a craving for non-being, just as clinging to samsara represents a craving for existence, or being. I have to agree with this. I do not understand total cessation as the final goal of the spiritual path. Suffering comes from attachment and desire, not from awareness. It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one is a Buddha. There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of suffering. Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a desireable goal, only cessation of suffering and attachment. Best, Robert Ep. 8555 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:58am Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Hi, Howard > > I'm out of place in a discussion along these lines, but I just wanted > to comment/ask about one point of yours that I've seen said here > previously. > > > --------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and > if > > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an > annihilation as > > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the > > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a > nibbana is > > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of > craving for > > being. > > -------------------------------------- > > I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if > you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance > with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very > life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, > whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect > that at nibbana the khandas cease completely. There can be no > question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely > > Just a thought. > > Must run. Got a plane to catch. > > Jon Dear Jon, I think what Howard was suggesting was that having a Nibbana that is a complete cessation of consciousness [including primary awareness or awakeness] as a goal would be a clinging to annihilation, ie, having the kandhas and associated experience destroyed. I think he is saying that if that is the actual description of Nibbana, then having such a goal represents a craving for non-being, just as clinging to samsara represents a craving for existence, or being. I have to agree with this. I do not understand total cessation as the final goal of the spiritual path. Suffering comes from attachment and desire, not from awareness. It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one is a Buddha. There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of suffering. Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a desireable goal, only cessation of suffering and attachment. Best, Robert Ep. 8556 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:06am Subject: Kinds of dukkha (Rob E) -Dear Robert E-- Robert Epstein wrote: . I do not understand total cessation as the final goal > of the spiritual path. Suffering comes from attachment and desire, not from > awareness. It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one is a Buddha. > There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of suffering. > Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a desireable goal, only > cessation of suffering and attachment. > _____________ Dear Robert E. There are three kinds of dukkha. Samyutta Nikaya (Salayatana vagga 38:14)(Bodhi translation p.1299) 'Suffering' "There are friend these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to formations.."Endquote Even kusala citta is dukkha according to the Buddha. The Buddha teaches dukkha and he teaches the cause of dukkha and he teaches the way to the cessation of dukkha. It is a profound matter to understand what Dukkha really is. I can write more if you like, Robert . robert 8557 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:29am Subject: Re: Kinds of dukkha (Rob E) Sorry the sutta should have said .. "...suffering due to formations, suffering due to CHANGE" robert--- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > -Dear Robert E-- Robert Epstein > wrote: > . I do not understand total cessation as the final goal > > of the spiritual path. Suffering comes from attachment and desire, > not from > > awareness. It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one > is a Buddha. > > There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of > suffering. > > Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a > desireable goal, only > > cessation of suffering and attachment. > > > _____________ > Dear Robert E. > There are three kinds of dukkha. > Samyutta Nikaya (Salayatana vagga 38:14)(Bodhi translation > p.1299) 'Suffering' > "There are friend these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due > to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to > formations.."Endquote > Even kusala citta is dukkha according to the Buddha. The Buddha > teaches dukkha and he teaches the cause of dukkha and he teaches the > way to the cessation of dukkha. > It is a profound matter to understand what Dukkha really is. > I can write more if you like, Robert . > robert 8558 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:33am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan? --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 10/13/01 9:14:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > Jonothan Abbott writes: > > > > Howard > > > > Hello from Bangkok. I have access to a computer just long enough for a > > quick post. > > > > Your reply does clarify, thanks, and I can see that i perhaps misunderstod > > the context. > > > > You say that "a materialist believes" and "some Theravadins believe" ... > > > > I am saying, what about a conclusion reached on an analysis/understanding > > of the teachings ie. something separate and apart from any belief held. > > Would you see a conclusion to the effect that the khandas cease on > > parinabbana as being inconsistent with any other aspect of the Buddha's > > teaching? > > > > Jon > > > ========================= > Ahh. That's an easy question to answer, Jon. No, I do *not* think that > such a conclusion is inconsistent with any other aspect of the Dhamma. > > With metta, > Howard I think we may all be able to agree that the kandhas cease on parinibbana. The question is whether there is anything that does not cease on parinibbana, that is not the kandhas. 8559 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:43am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Kinds of dukkha (Rob E) --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > -Dear Robert E-- Robert Epstein > wrote: > . I do not understand total cessation as the final goal > > of the spiritual path. Suffering comes from attachment and desire, > not from > > awareness. It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one > is a Buddha. > > There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of > suffering. > > Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a > desireable goal, only > > cessation of suffering and attachment. > > > _____________ > Dear Robert E. > There are three kinds of dukkha. > Samyutta Nikaya (Salayatana vagga 38:14)(Bodhi translation > p.1299) 'Suffering' > "There are friend these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due > to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to > formations.."Endquote > Even kusala citta is dukkha according to the Buddha. The Buddha > teaches dukkha and he teaches the cause of dukkha and he teaches the > way to the cessation of dukkha. > It is a profound matter to understand what Dukkha really is. > I can write more if you like, Robert . > robert Thanks, Robert. I believe there is a difference between unmodified awareness and consciousness which is involved in formations and modifications. If there is only consciousness that is involved with an object then I would understand consciousness creating dukkha. I will be happy to hear further on your sense of what the Buddha said about the relationship of consciousness and dukkha. Robert Ep. 8560 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:44am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Kinds of dukkha (Rob E) --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > Sorry the sutta should have said .. > "...suffering due to formations, suffering due to CHANGE" got it. thanks, Robert Ep. 8561 From: Gaga Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 1:15pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence Thank you Christine for your attempt at answering this query. Alas, I am aware of the anatta, and of nama/rupa. Then what exists in the 31 planes of existence, and how does "it" move from plane to plane? --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > > Dear David, > Hello from another who is trying to understand Anatta (no-soul, no- > self). In my opinion it's probably necessary to understand > Anatta, before one can understand Kamma - however, as I am still > blundering around on the Misty Flats, maybe I'm incorrect in this > assumption. Others on this list will be able to help. > I can only offer a couple of links that I found a beginning help: > > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/nynatlo1.htm > "Egolessness" by Nyanatiloka Mahathera > > "There are three teachers in the world. The first teacher teaches the > existence of an eternal ego-entity outlasting death: that is the > eternalist, as for example the Christian. The second teacher teaches > a temporary ego-entity which becomes annihilated at death: that is > the annihilationist, or materialist. The third teacher teaches > neither an eternal, nor a temporary ego-entity: this is the Buddha. > The Buddha teaches that, what we call ego, self, soul, personality > etc., are merely conventional terms not referring to any real > independent entity. And he teaches that there is only to be found > this psycho-physical process of existence changing from moment to > moment. Without understanding the egolessness of existence, it is not > possible to gain a real understanding of the Buddha-word; and it is > not possible without it, to realize that goal of emancipation and > deliverance of mind proclaimed by the Buddha." > > and > > "No Inner Core - Anatta" U Silananda, of which I am only on the first > chapter called "Impermanence, Suffering and No-Soul" > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/5787/anatta1.html > > However, I am already being brought face to face with some > unconscious beliefs I held, for example: > > 'we can certainly say that there is no atta or self which realises > Nibbana. What realizes Nibbana is insight-wisdom, Vipassana-panna. > It is not the property of a personal OR A UNIVERSAL SELF, but is > rather a power developed 'through meditative penetration of > phenomena.' > and > 'One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not > only for the actual realisation of the goal of Nibbana, but also for > a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable preliminary > condition to grasp fully the truth of anatta, the egolessness and > insubstantiality of all forms of existence. Without such an > understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nibbana - according > to one's either materialistic or metaphysical leanings - either as > annihilation of an ego, or an eternal state of existence into which > an ego or self enters OR WITH WHICH IT MERGES. > (The capitals show the unconscious belief I have just realised I > had.) > > Keep on keeping on with your learning - that's all we can do, > metta, > Christine 8562 From: Sarah Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 6:02pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã - Mike Dear Mike (& Howard), Let me add a few ‘sinippets’ here to the other helpful replies. > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana > conditions naama-ruupa. The converse seems obvious > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other > abhidhamma). .................... As discussed, in this context of paticca samuppada (dependent origination), nama is referring to the cetasikas only. As you’ll remember, when we were discussing the relationship between cittas and cetasikas, we discussed how cittas ‘lead’ in experiencing objects and cittas condition cetasikas and vice versa. Also we know there are 4 conditions or causes for rupas to arise: namely kamma, consciousness, temperature and nutriment. I was just re-reading the detailed chapter on Dpendent Orig. in the Vism (ch XV11) and interestingly, came across the ‘sheaves of reeds’ to describe (para 196)here the support given by the different kinds of originated rupa: .................... ‘Now although this kamma-born materiality is the first to find a footing in the several kinds of becoming, generation, destiny, station of consciousness, and abode of beings, it is nevertheless unable to carry on without being consolidated by materiality of triple origination , nor can that of triple origination do so without being consolidated by the former. But when they thus give consolidating support to each other, they can stand up without falling, like sheaves of reeds propped together on all four sides, even though battered by the wind......’ .................... A little later in the same chapter, after a discussion on rebirth consciousness we read (para 201): .................... ‘All the remaining kinds of consciousness from the time of the first life-continuum onwards should be understood as a condition for some kind of mentality-materiality as apporopriate. But since the whole contents of the Patthana must be cited in order to show how it acts in detail, we do not undertake that (end quote) .................... I won’t undertake it either then;-))!! Mike, on a very simple level, I think we can know for ourselves that if there is no seeing or hearing, there is no attachment to what is seen or heard and no pleasant or unpleasant feeling on account of the visible object or sound. In fact there is no visible object or sound appearing at all if there is no seeing or hearing now. Likewise, we can know that when it is an unwholesome citta which thinks, it’s accompanied by say dosa and the rupas, such as those that constitute our facial expressions, are conditioned immediately. ..................... Let me add one more quote from the Vism (para 202): .................... ‘Here it may be asked: ‘But how is it to be known that the mentality-materiality of rebirth-linking has consciousness as its condition?’. From the Suttas and from logic. For in the Suttas it is established in many places that feeling, etc., have consciousness as condition in the way beginning ‘States with paallel occurrence through consciousness’ (Dhs 1522). But as to logic: From matter seen here to be born Of consciousness a man can tell That consciousness is a condition for matter when unseen as well. Whether consciousness likes it or not, (certain) material instances are seen to arise in conformity with it. And the unseen is inferred from the seen. So it can be known, by means of the consciousness-born materiality that is seen, that consciousness is also a condition for the unseen materiality of rebirth-linking....’ .................... That was a little more typing in than I intended at the start;-) I’ll have to leave the Nimitta sutta for another post. Sarah p.s The Group all left on time for New Delhi, including several dsg lurkers who had come from U.S. via Bkk. Apparently several people who had ‘dropped out’, ‘dropped in’ again at the last minute;-). Jon was very happy to see a lot of old friends and one or two, like dear Kom, for the first time. 8563 From: Sarah Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 8:52pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] 31 planes of existence Dear David, Good to hear from you and your challenging question. I'll pass for now as I'm out of time (even though I don't need to share the computer today!). Hope to hear plenty more from you and any introduction would be interesting. (Glad your name isn't Rob, but i'm still getting a bit confused between David and Gaga;-) Welcome to dsg, Sarah --- David Progosh wrote: > I am a bit confused by this notion of 31 planes of existence. .......... 8564 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:49pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan? Hi Robert E > I think we may all be able to agree that the kandhas cease on > parinibbana. The > question is whether there is anything that does not cease on > parinibbana, that is > not the kandhas. I got this naughty thougts when you said quote the question above, what are you hoping for :)? When there is something after parinibbana, isn't it eternalism or materialism, but if there is nothing, why would Buddha go into Parinibbana in the first place. Then what is it, I really do not know, i more incline to believe that it should be similiar to the definition of Nibbana :) Cheers Kenneth Ong 8565 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:02pm Subject: Re:__[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi, Howard > > > > I'm out of place in a discussion along these lines, but I just wanted > > to comment/ask about one point of yours that I've seen said here > > previously. > > > > > --------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > Nor for me. If "all that there is" is the five khandas, and > > if > > > parinibbana is a final end to these, then parinibbana is an > > annihilation as > > > far as I am concerned, one which would differ not at all from the > > > annihilation of death for a materialist. To me, desire for such a > > nibbana is > > > an instance of craving for annihilation, the mirror image of > > craving for > > > being. > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > I'm not familiar with the language of the 'isms', but I do wonder if > > you're not confusing a *belief or view* that is not in accordance > > with reality (in this case, that on death at the end of this very > > life ther is nothing more, or that there is no result of deeds, > > whatever 'annihilationalism means) with a statement to the effect > > that at nibbana the khandas cease completely. There can be no > > question of any similarity or overlap between the 2, surely > > > > Just a thought. > > > > Must run. Got a plane to catch. > > > > Jon > > Dear Jon, > I think what Howard was suggesting was that having a Nibbana that is a > complete > cessation of consciousness [including primary awareness or awakeness] as > a goal > would be a clinging to annihilation, ie, having the kandhas and > associated > experience destroyed. I think he is saying that if that is the actual > description > of Nibbana, then having such a goal represents a craving for non-being, > just as > clinging to samsara represents a craving for existence, or being. > > I have to agree with this. I do not understand total cessation as the > final goal > of the spiritual path. Suffering comes from attachment and desire, not > from > awareness. It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one is a > Buddha. > There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of > suffering. > Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a desireable > goal, only > cessation of suffering and attachment. > > Best, > Robert Ep. > > 8566 From: Robert Kirkpatrick Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:51pm Subject: bangkok rendezvous? Dear Nina, Kom, Jon and all, Hope India is fun. Looking fwd to lots of reports if you can get to the net. Sarah, Would you know if Nina VG is going to be returning via Bangkok after India? If so I might book a flight and have a weekend there. Perhaps it coincides with Mike's upcoming journey, and it would be a chance to meet with Kom too. I haven't seen Nina and Loedwijk since the Nakorn Pathom adventure and discussing Dhamma with Jon is always edifying. All just icing on the cake compared with the chance to listen to T.A. sujin, but then I've always been partial to icing. robert 8567 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 2:05pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Kinds of dukkha (Rob E) Hi Robert K, I would deeply appreciate if you write more the profound matter of dukkha and I agree with you that even kusala cittas is dukkha. Thanks in advance and kindest regards Kenneth Ong --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > -Dear Robert E-- In <>, Robert Epstein > wrote: > . I do not understand total cessation as the final goal > > of the spiritual path. Suffering comes from attachment and desire, > not from > > awareness. It is possible to have nothing but kusala cittas if one > is a Buddha. > > There is no reason to annihilate awareness in order to be free of > suffering. > > Therefore I do not see annihilation of consciousness as a > desireable goal, only > > cessation of suffering and attachment. > > > _____________ > Dear Robert E. > There are three kinds of dukkha. > Samyutta Nikaya (Salayatana vagga 38:14)(Bodhi translation > p.1299) 'Suffering' > "There are friend these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due > to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to > formations.."Endquote > Even kusala citta is dukkha according to the Buddha. The Buddha > teaches dukkha and he teaches the cause of dukkha and he teaches the > way to the cessation of dukkha. > It is a profound matter to understand what Dukkha really is. > I can write more if you like, Robert . > robert > 8568 From: Sarah Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 4:32pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah Hi Victor, --- Victor wrote: > Sarah, > > I am going to reply in context below. Good, glad to 'talk';-) > > Yes, good examples of how the word `self' is used `conventionally' > by the > > Buddha (and arahats) who of course had no wrong idea that any self > exists. > > > Sarah, how would the word "self" be used 'unconventionally' by the > Buddha? :-) When he explains repeatedly that what we take for a 'self' are in fact the 5 khandhas only or just nama and rupa (mental and physical phenomena), this is the 'unconventional' usage, or rather the description of paramattha dhammas (absolute realities) as opposed to conventional truths such as Victor, computer and so on :-) > > So you didn't find a discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught > that "there is no self". On the contrary, in every discourse I read, I understand the Buddha to be teaching ‘there is no self’. He teaches about realities to be known as not self. If you say to me, does he ever say ‘there is no self’ other than with regard to the khandhas, the namas and rupas, the elements and so on, the question doesn’t make any sense to me. For example, we can talk about seeing or hearing or attachment as not self. We cannot talk about computer or any concept as having no self because they are only concepts. Likewise, we cannot talk about a ‘blank’ or a ‘nothing’ having no self or being no self:-) I’m still not sure we’re on the same ‘wavelength’ and would like to pursue this further...... > > In that message, Robert K wrote: > "There is no one who is aware of them, nor can awareness by > controlled. If there is awareness (which is conditioned by various > factors) what it sees is this very fact - and that eliminates, at > deeper and deeper levels, the idea of self and control." > > Sarah, what I was trying to get across is that the view "there is no > self" or "there is no one" is a speculative view. If we talk about awareness being aware rather than a self being aware (as above), this is either intellectual rt. understanding or direct understanding of the characteristic of sati (awareness) as explained to us by the Buddha. In what way is it a ‘speculative view’? What do you mean by ‘speculative view’ here? Do you agree that sati (and all other realities) are not self? > > Maybe I was trying too hard and my response seemed to be out of > context. :-) Not at all, Victor...I think these are important points and in fact anatta is the essence of the Teachings, so let’s check we’re on the same wavelength here....I’m actually not sure at all whether you are just questioning the use of words or whether you have a different understanding of what anatta means. I’m sorry I was rather butting in here, but these are points I was interested to discuss sometime back that have been raised by you again. Look forward to more, Sarah 8569 From: Howard Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:52am Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã Hi, Robert - In a message dated 10/13/01 10:17:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert E writes: > --- Howard wrote: > > > > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana > > > conditions naama-ruupa. The converse seems obvious > > > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very > > > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other > > > abhidhamma). Howard, is your idea that this > > > underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the > > > vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa? > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > No, not at all. It is ordinary discernment of an object. I believe > > that when, in paticcasamupada, it is said that vi~n~nana conditions > > naamaruupa, naamaruupa is understood there as consisting of the various > > *objects* of discernment. There is no discerning without discerned > objects, > > and there are no objects discerned without the discernment. They are > mutually > > conditioning - they arise together. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Hi Howard. > If discernment and discerned object arise together and are mutually > conditioning, > does this imply that the object only exists as a product of mental > activity, or am > I understanding this incorrectly? > > Thanks, > Robert Ep. > ========================== I see it as almost that, but not quite. My interpretation is a kind of radical phenomenalism, a bit like William James' "radical empiricism", but not an idealism. To me, objects do not exist independently of being observed, yet they are not *created* by discernment. To exist is to be *able* to be discerned. Existence (such as it is) is conditional, and dependent on conditions, both previous in time and co-existing, and including being discernable as one of those conditions. That an object, A , "exists" means to me that if certain experiences were to occur (or be made to occur), then the experiencing of A would occur. Moreover, things are not observed only by a single sentient being; a realm of experience is a shared realm, formed by the kammic traces of those who "share" that realm. To me an object that is in principle unable to be observed is as good as no object at all. A nonobservable is nonexistent. 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) 8570 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 3:09pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan? Hi Robert Ep > I think we may all be able to agree that the kandhas cease on > parinibbana. The > question is whether there is anything that does not cease on > parinibbana, that is > not the kandhas. Thinking of it again, unless Buddha defines what is Parinibbana to us, whatever that is written or spoken even those written by Elders are just mere speculations. Why do I say that, because even Buddha enter into PariNibbana, hence how could we know abt it unless he come out and tell us abt it. Furthermore, when he is still alive, he cannot describe it because he has not gone into PariNibbana. These are also my speculations and no offence are meant. Kind regards Kenneth Ong 8571 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:09pm Subject: Re: Kinds of dukkha (Rob E) --- Dear Kenneth and Rob. E, You certainly have an approach that encourages everyone to respond. Dukkha is one of those subjects that we can write and write about. Let me just say a little for now: The sammohavinodani (Dispeller of delusion) SaccaVibhanga (classification of the truths)p112 Notes that the first two noble truths (dukkhasacca and samudayasacca) are "profound because hard to grasp" p111 notes that all 4 truths are similar because they are "void of self and difficult to penetrate". Dukkha-dukkhata is the usual daily life pains we all know so well and also includes ones that are coming such as death and old age. The woes in animal and hell realms are much more. This type of dukkha is understood by all religions and philosophies. Viparinama-dukkhata is the pleasant feeling which is suffering because it changes. Sankhara-dukkhata is all conditioned phenomena of all planes of existence. It is Dukkha because it oppresses by rise and fall. It never stops coming. This is the hard one to see. How can this truth of Dukkha (ariya dukkha sacca) be known? The "Patisambhidamagga" . The First or Great Division, I, Treatise on Knowledge, Ch XV, Defining Internally, says that one "defines" or develops understanding of the ayatanas . "How is it that understanding of defining internally is knowledge of difference in the physical bases? How does he define dhammas internally? He defines the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind internally."Endquote Nina Van gorkom commenting on this says "When panna is developed in vipassana one does not confuse the different doorways with each other, there is only one reality appearing at a time through one doorway." We then read that he considers the conditions for the arising of the bases, namely ignorance and craving. He considers the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anatta. In the course of the development of panna clinging to the bases is abandoned. The Commentary, the Saddhammappakasini, states that the eye does not exist before its arising, that it is there after its arising, that after its falling away it will not return. The commentary states that it is not stable, that it cannot last, that it is unsure and insignificant (viparinama). The eye is so fleeting. It seems to last but this is an illusion. if we could see the conditioned arising and passing away of this and of all phenomena we would turn away from such insignificant and oppressive phenomena because then we would see the real meaning of dukkha. That is sankharadukkha. Now we cling to the eye, we enjoy seeing and we cling to the objects that are seen. Why? Because dukkha is not understood yet. robert Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert K, > > I would deeply appreciate if you write more the profound matter of dukkha > and I agree with you that even kusala cittas is dukkha. > > Thanks in advance and kindest regards > Kenneth Ong > > > mail.yahoo.ie 8572 From: Gaga Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:13pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] 31 planes of existence Dear Sarah, Nice to meet you too! Sorry for not introducing myself to the group. Here it is then: David Progosh, Canadian. Pen name is Gaga, which I prefer in correspondences. I have lived abroad now for 12 years (6 in Japan, 1 in the United States, 1 in Hong Kong, 2 in France, 2 in Thailand). I came into contact with Zen Buddhism in the 70s, but started meditation and vipassana seriously in the Thai Forest tradition (Theravadan) 3 years ago. I occasionally work with the folks at Suan Mokkh (http://www.suanmokkh.org/) editing and preparing their more recent dhamma books. I am in Canada for the time being. I hope to take some time in the new year to study the dhamma more closely with the sangha at Wat Pa Nanachat in Northeastern Thailand. I look forward too hearing back from you and the others regarding my query. All the best, Be well, Gaga --- Sarah wrote: > Dear David, > > Good to hear from you and your challenging question. I'll pass for now as > I'm > out of time (even though I don't need to share the computer today!). Hope to > hear plenty more from you and any introduction would be interesting. > > (Glad your name isn't Rob, but i'm still getting a bit confused between David > and Gaga;-) > > Welcome to dsg, > > Sarah > > --- David Progosh wrote: > I am a bit confused by this > notion of 31 planes of existence. .......... 8573 From: Sarah Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:18pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bangkok rendezvous? Rob, --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Nina, Kom, Jon and all, > Hope India is fun. Looking fwd to lots of reports if you can get > to the net. Just got a quick call to say thy've all arrived safely at the hotel and Nina and Lodevick were there at the entrance to greet them;-) In the old days, we'd go off to India for weeks or months and have no tel or email communication...now it's so easy....I'm passing on these snippets as I know one or two people like you and Betty and Sukin (& Ivan if he's listening) will be glad to hear. > Sarah, > Would you know if Nina VG is going to be returning via Bangkok > after India? I'm pretty sure that she won't be....they may be spending a little more time in India or Nepal and then back to Holland. If so I might book a flight and have a weekend > there. Perhaps it coincides with Mike's upcoming journey, and > it would be a chance to meet with Kom too. Certainly worthwhile to see Mike and Kom. I haven't seen Nina > and Loedwijk since the Nakorn Pathom adventure and discussing > Dhamma with Jon is always edifying. > All just icing on the cake compared with the chance to listen to > T.A. sujin, but then I've always been partial to icing. You'd miss Jon's icing too as he's just connecting flights in Bkk and back to HK on the Sunday eve ready to get back to drafting laws on the Monday morning;-) (Only academics get these lovely long hols.....) I'm missing his icing already (just dosa, I know), but I'm just so glad to have you all to talk to and listen to;-) By the way, are you still in NZ or back in Japan..I've lost track, but then only another story! Sarah p.s I appreciated your comments to David about conceit with regard to Abhidhamma. It was a good reminder. It can arise even though what we say may be correct, but the abhidhamma shouldn't just be book-learning. Actually I listened today to a tape in which K.Sujin was talking about the purpose of studying dhamma and 'being respectful'. if one just reads and hears and accumulates knowledge without developing understanding of the unwholesome tendencies at this very moment when we're studying, we're not being 'respectful' to the Teachings. This was very similar to what you mentioned about 'insulting the Dhamma'. Sometimes (I find) it's easy to see and point out the other's conceit or attachment, but what about now, is there any real understanding of 'our own' cittas? There can be conceit now when we think we don't have the same conceit as others even...(just 'caught out' with this one;-) I've also appreciated Rob Ep's reminders in this regard while reading the Suttas....understanding the realities at these very times when we're reading the reminders is a good test. 'if not now, then when?' as K.Sujin says. Studying the Abhidhamma and anatta should be a condition for more humility and honesty with ourselves, rather than the reverse. Btw, Rob Ep, with regard to a comment in your last post to Jon, we often comment on how very pleasant it is talking to you. I think we all get a 'tad impatient' at times, but we both really appreciate your sincerity and willingness to consider these aspects. Very tired, probably not making any sense, must stop! Sarah 8574 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:43pm Subject: Re: bangkok rendezvous? --- Dear sarah, thanks for the extra comments a bout conceit,. So nice to hear about Nina and Loedwijk meeting jon (wish I was there) Hmmm, A little bird told me that Cybele might be arriving in bangkok about that time too. But still if nina is not going to be there that takes an awful lot of icing away. Not sure I can justify the journey. Might have to wait until January. best wishes robert Sarah wrote: > Rob, > 8575 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 10:58pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã - Mike Hi Sarah, Is the conscious you are writing below refer to bhavanga citta? Could you kindly explain what is the series of cittas in a rebirth process? And also if you do not mind, what is the series of cittas in a sense process. I know there are 40 or more cittas in seeing but I do not know which come first. Another question do you need the organ of eye in order to see? thanks and kindest regards Kenneth Ong --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Mike (& Howard), > > Let me add a few ‘sinippets’ here to the other helpful replies. > > > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana > > conditions naama-ruupa. The converse seems obvious > > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very > > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other > > abhidhamma). > .................... > > As discussed, in this context of paticca samuppada (dependent > origination), > nama is referring to the cetasikas only. As you’ll remember, when we > were > discussing the relationship between cittas and cetasikas, we discussed > how > cittas ‘lead’ in experiencing objects and cittas condition cetasikas and > vice > versa. Also we know there are 4 conditions or causes for rupas to arise: > namely > kamma, consciousness, temperature and nutriment. > > I was just re-reading the detailed chapter on Dpendent Orig. in the Vism > (ch > XV11) and interestingly, came across the ‘sheaves of reeds’ to describe > (para > 196)here the support given by the different kinds of originated rupa: > .................... > > ‘Now although this kamma-born materiality is the first to find a footing > in the > several kinds of becoming, generation, destiny, station of > consciousness, and > abode of beings, it is nevertheless unable to carry on without being > consolidated by materiality of triple origination temperature, and nutriment>, nor can that of triple origination do so > without > being consolidated by the former. But when they thus give consolidating > support to each other, they can stand up without falling, like sheaves > of reeds > propped together on all four sides, even though battered by the > wind......’ quote> > .................... > > A little later in the same chapter, after a discussion on rebirth > consciousness > we read (para 201): > .................... > > ‘All the remaining kinds of consciousness from the time of the first > life-continuum onwards should > be > understood as a condition for some kind of mentality-materiality as > apporopriate. But since the whole contents of the Patthana must be > cited in > order to show how it acts in detail, we do not undertake that (end > quote) > .................... > I won’t undertake it either then;-))!! > > Mike, on a very simple level, I think we can know for ourselves that if > there > is no seeing or hearing, there is no attachment to what is seen or heard > and no > pleasant or unpleasant feeling on account of the visible object or > sound. In > fact there is no visible object or sound appearing at all if there is no > seeing > or hearing now. Likewise, we can know that when it is an unwholesome > citta > which thinks, it’s accompanied by say dosa and the rupas, such as those > that > constitute our facial expressions, are conditioned immediately. > ..................... > > Let me add one more quote from the Vism (para 202): > .................... > > ‘Here it may be asked: ‘But how is it to be known that the > mentality-materiality of rebirth-linking has consciousness as its > condition?’. > From the Suttas and from logic. For in the Suttas it is established in > many > places that feeling, etc., have consciousness as condition in the way > beginning > ‘States with paallel occurrence through consciousness’ (Dhs 1522). But > as to > logic: > > From matter seen here to be born > Of consciousness a man can tell > That consciousness is a condition > for matter when unseen as well. > > Whether consciousness likes it or not, (certain) material instances are > seen to > arise in conformity with it. And the unseen is inferred from the seen. > So it > can be known, by means of the consciousness-born materiality that is > seen, that > consciousness is also a condition for the unseen materiality of > rebirth-linking....’ > .................... > > That was a little more typing in than I intended at the start;-) I’ll > have to > leave the Nimitta sutta for another post. > > Sarah > > p.s The Group all left on time for New Delhi, including several dsg > lurkers who > had come from U.S. via Bkk. Apparently several people who had ‘dropped > out’, > ‘dropped in’ again at the last minute;-). Jon was very happy to see a > lot of > old friends and one or two, like dear Kom, for the first time. > 8576 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:20pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Kinds of dukkha (Rob E) Hi Robert K, Thanks for your kind patience in explaining dukkha, could you point to a link or would you like to write more on Sankhara-dukkhata. Kind regards Kenneth Ong --- robertkirkpatrick wrote: > --- > Dear Kenneth and Rob. E, > You certainly have an approach that encourages everyone to respond. > Dukkha is one of those subjects that we can write and write about. > Let me just say a little for now: > The sammohavinodani (Dispeller of delusion) SaccaVibhanga > (classification of the truths)p112 Notes that the first two noble > truths (dukkhasacca and samudayasacca) are "profound because hard to > grasp" p111 notes that all 4 truths are similar because they > are "void of self and difficult to penetrate". > > Dukkha-dukkhata is the usual daily life pains we all know so well and > also includes ones that are coming such as death and old age. The > woes in animal and hell realms are much more. This type of dukkha is > understood by all religions and philosophies. > Viparinama-dukkhata is the pleasant feeling which is suffering > because it changes. > Sankhara-dukkhata is all conditioned phenomena of all planes of > existence. It is Dukkha because it oppresses by rise and fall. It > never stops coming. This is the hard one to see. > > How can this truth of Dukkha (ariya dukkha sacca) be known? > The "Patisambhidamagga" . The First or Great Division, I, Treatise on > Knowledge, Ch XV, Defining Internally, says that one "defines" or > develops understanding of the ayatanas . > "How is it that understanding of defining internally is knowledge of > difference in the physical bases? > How does he define dhammas internally? > He defines the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the > mind internally."Endquote > > Nina Van gorkom commenting on this says "When panna is developed > in vipassana one does not confuse the different doorways with each > other, there is only one reality appearing at a time through one > doorway." > We then read that he considers the conditions for the arising of the > bases, namely ignorance and craving. He considers the characteristics > of impermanence, dukkha and anatta. In the course of the development > of panna clinging to the bases is abandoned. > > The Commentary, the Saddhammappakasini, states that the eye does > not exist before its arising, that it is there after its arising, > that after its falling away it will not return. The commentary states > that it is not stable, that it cannot last, that it is unsure and > insignificant (viparinama). > > The eye is so fleeting. It seems to last but this is an illusion. if > we could see the conditioned arising and passing away of this and of > all phenomena we would turn away from such insignificant and > oppressive phenomena because then we would see the real meaning of > dukkha. That is sankharadukkha. > Now we cling to the eye, we enjoy seeing and we cling to the objects > that are seen. Why? Because dukkha is not understood yet. > robert > > > Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > > > I would deeply appreciate if you write more the profound matter of > dukkha > > and I agree with you that even kusala cittas is dukkha. > > > > Thanks in advance and kindest regards > > Kenneth Ong > > 8577 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Oct 14, 2001 11:31pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Cetana (volition, intention)is controllable? (was kusa Hi Jon, This reference that you have quoted, VII, 38 "The noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path. In the teaching of the four truths, this is the collection of eight cetasikas corresponding to the eight path factors arisen in the cittas of the four supramundane paths. It should be noted that while in the section on the requisites of enlightenment, the eight path factors may be either mundane or supramundane, in the teaching of the Four Noble Truths they are exclusively supramundane." Could you kindly comment why is the Four Noble Truths are exlusively supramudane. My confusion is that the Four Noble Truths is exlusively supramundanee, how is it going to be supramundance if the eight path factors which is part of the Four Noble Truth could be mundane. Furthermore if it is supramundane, how are we going to learn or practise using mundane effort or understanding. Kindest regards Kenneth Ong 8578 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 0:29am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bangkok rendezvous? Rob --- Robert Kirkpatrick wrote: > Dear Nina, Kom, Jon and all, > Hope India is fun. Looking fwd to lots of reports if you can get > to the net. Thanks. As Sarah has mentioned, we have just arrived in India and checked in. It has been a long day, but great to catch up with some of our lurking list members, including Jack and Oi, Oh and Jaran from California whom Sarah and I met last year on the Cambodia trip, and Tom and Beverly also from the States whom I first knew in BAngkok and last saw about 20 years ago, and to meet Kom in person for the first time, and of course Nina and her husband. I will try to give some news or reports as we go along, but am already learning that getting and sustaining a connection here can be a dicy thing. Nina is not planning to go to Bangkok after the trip. I think she stays in India for a while and then returns to Holland. Long day. Must get some rest. Jon > Sarah, > Would you know if Nina VG is going to be returning via Bangkok > after India? If so I might book a flight and have a weekend > there. Perhaps it coincides with Mike's upcoming journey, and > it would be a chance to meet with Kom too. I haven't seen Nina > and Loedwijk since the Nakorn Pathom adventure and discussing > Dhamma with Jon is always edifying. > All just icing on the cake compared with the chance to listen to > T.A. sujin, but then I've always been partial to icing. > robert > 8579 From: Howard Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:36am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence Hi, Gaga (and Christine) - In a message dated 10/14/01 1:20:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, David P writes: > Thank you Christine for your attempt at answering this query. > > Alas, I am aware of the anatta, and of nama/rupa. Then what exists in the > 31 > planes of existence, and how does "it" move from plane to plane? > ====================== How's this for a possibility?: There *is* no "it" which moves anywhere; there is just some channel flipping (to use a modern metaphor) - each plane being a different channel, a different mode of experience. 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) 8580 From: Howard Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:47am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Hi, > > Hmm by the way could any quote any sutta that supports parinibbana concept > of cessation of consciousness. So far I know that there is description of > Nibbana in the sutta but I have not been able to pinpoint any sutta on the > definition of parinibbana. I would be most delightful if anyone could > pinpoint to me. Thanks > > Kindest regards > Kenneth Ong > ======================== This is an interesting and important question, I think. Someone who is not on the list but has been reading some of the posts at the web site raised the very same question with me, pointing out the sutta entitled "The All" states that the five khandas are, in fact, all that ever (conventionally) exists, but that there is no reason to assume that (all of) these do not continue after parinibbana based on the suttas, but only to assume that there is no self/person sensed as associated with them, and, thus, there is no annihilation with parinibbana. 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) 8581 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 7:33am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Hi, Kenneth - > > In a message dated 10/14/01 9:22:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > <> writes: > > > > Hi, > > > > Hmm by the way could any quote any sutta that supports parinibbana concept > > of cessation of consciousness. So far I know that there is description of > > Nibbana in the sutta but I have not been able to pinpoint any sutta on the > > definition of parinibbana. I would be most delightful if anyone could > > pinpoint to me. Thanks > > > > Kindest regards > > Kenneth Ong > > > ======================== > This is an interesting and important question, I think. Someone who is > not on the list but has been reading some of the posts at the web site raised > the very same question with me, pointing out the sutta entitled "The All" > states that the five khandas are, in fact, all that ever (conventionally) > exists, but that there is no reason to assume that (all of) these do not > continue after parinibbana based on the suttas, but only to assume that there > is no self/person sensed as associated with them, and, thus, there is no > annihilation with parinibbana. > > 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) 8582 From: Victor Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 8:17am Subject: Re: Citta -Sarah Sarah, I am going to reply in context below. --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- Victor wrote: > Sarah, > > > > I am going to reply in context below. > > Good, glad to 'talk';-) > > > > Yes, good examples of how the word `self' is used `conventionally' > > by the > > > Buddha (and arahats) who of course had no wrong idea that any self > > exists. > > > > > > Sarah, how would the word "self" be used 'unconventionally' by the > > Buddha? :-) > > When he explains repeatedly that what we take for a 'self' are in fact the 5 > khandhas only or just nama and rupa (mental and physical phenomena), this is > the 'unconventional' usage, or rather the description of paramattha dhammas > (absolute realities) as opposed to conventional truths such as Victor, computer > and so on :-) > > > > So you didn't find a discourse in Tipitaka in which the Buddha taught > > that "there is no self". > > On the contrary, in every discourse I read, I understand the Buddha to be > teaching `there is no self'. He teaches about realities to be known as not > self. Sarah, let's focus on what the Buddha taught: Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) 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.'"* > > If you say to me, does he ever say `there is no self' other than with regard to > the khandhas, the namas and rupas, the elements and so on, the question doesn't > make any sense to me. Let's focus again on what the Buddha taught: Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) 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.'" For example, we can talk about seeing or hearing or > attachment as not self. We cannot talk about computer or any concept as having > no self because they are only concepts. Rupa is impermanent. A computer is impermanent. Nama is impermanent. A concept is impermanent. Likewise, we cannot talk about a > `blank' or a `nothing' having no self or being no self:-) > Again, let's focus on what the Buddha taught: Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" > I'm still not sure we're on the same `wavelength' and would like to pursue this > further...... > > > > > In that message, Robert K wrote: > > "There is no one who is aware of them, nor can awareness by > > controlled. If there is awareness (which is conditioned by various > > factors) what it sees is this very fact - and that eliminates, at > > deeper and deeper levels, the idea of self and control." > > > > Sarah, what I was trying to get across is that the view "there is no > > self" or "there is no one" is a speculative view. > > If we talk about awareness being aware rather than a self being aware (as > above), this is either intellectual rt. understanding or direct understanding > of the characteristic of sati (awareness) as explained to us by the Buddha. In > what way is it a `speculative view'? What do you mean by `speculative view' > here? By speculative views I mean views that are based on assumption and speculation, views that do not lead to the cessation of dukkha. >Do you agree that sati (and all other realities) are not self? Sati is not self. Sati 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.'" > > > > Maybe I was trying too hard and my response seemed to be out of > > context. :-) > > Not at all, Victor...I think these are important points and in fact anatta is > the essence of the Teachings, so let's check we're on the same wavelength > here....I'm actually not sure at all whether you are just questioning the use > of words or whether you have a different understanding of what anatta means. Sarah, how we use the word "self" reflects our understanding. Let's focus again on what the Buddha taught: Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.'" > > I'm sorry I was rather butting in here, but these are points I was interested > to discuss sometime back that have been raised by you again. > Butting in here is no problem with me. :-) > Look forward to more, > > Sarah Sarah, also check out SN.18 Rahulasamyutta. :-) Metta, Victor *Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html 8583 From: Gaga Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 9:35am Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: 31 planes of existence Much thanks for your analogy to flipping channels for tackling this notion of 31 planes Howard. In essence then there is no moral or ethical ramification (a good or bad!) then to be at any plane-- some might be "hot", others "sensual", and so on and so forth... A naive question as a follow up: is there a cosmology from whence Gotama derived these planes, or did he envision these through insight alone? In other words, on what basis are these 31 planes identified and characterized? May you be well, Gaga --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Gaga (and Christine) - > > In a message dated 10/14/01 1:20:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, David P > writes: > > > > Thank you Christine for your attempt at answering this query. > > > > Alas, I am aware of the anatta, and of nama/rupa. Then what exists in the > > 31 > > planes of existence, and how does "it" move from plane to plane? > > > ====================== > How's this for a possibility?: There *is* no "it" which moves > anywhere; there is just some channel flipping (to use a modern metaphor) - > each plane being a different channel, a different mode of experience. > > 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) > 8584 From: Howard Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:11am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ writes: > Dear Howard, > would you mind quoting the sutta you mention "The All" > thanks > robert > --- > Howard wrote: > > Hi, Kenneth - > > > > In a message dated 10/14/01 9:22:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > <> writes: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Hmm by the way could any quote any sutta that supports > parinibbana concept > > > of cessation of consciousness. So far I know that there is > description of > > > Nibbana in the sutta but I have not been able to pinpoint any > sutta on the > > > definition of parinibbana. I would be most delightful if anyone > could > > > pinpoint to me. Thanks > > > > > > Kindest regards > > > Kenneth Ong > > > > > ======================== > > This is an interesting and important question, I think. > Someone who is > > not on the list but has been reading some of the posts at the web > site raised > > the very same question with me, pointing out the sutta > entitled "The All" > > states that the five khandas are, in fact, all that ever > (conventionally) > > exists, but that there is no reason to assume that (all of) these > do not > > continue after parinibbana based on the suttas, but only to assume > that there > > is no self/person sensed as associated with them, and, thus, there > is no > > annihilation with parinibbana. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > ============================== I can't find it on Access to Insight. It occurs early in the Salayatanasamyutta. It is the first piece under the section also entitled "The All". It is quite short, so I will type it out: 23 (1) The All At Saavatthi. "Bhikkus, I will teach you the all. Listen to that .... "And whatm bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. "If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: 'Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all" - that would be a mere empty boast on his part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain." Does sound rather definitive, doesn't it! The question in my mind is: "Where does nibbana fit in?". 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) 8585 From: Howard Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 6:23am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ The question in my mind is: "Where does nibbana fit in?". ======================== One *might* infer from this that nibbana really is nothing but the cessation of the three poisons (i.e., is the attainment of bodhi), leaving the mind undefiled. In that case, if parinibbana marks the cessation of the five khandhas ("the all"), then parinibbana really is an annihilation. So, accepting this inference, the question of where in the suttas, and not just the commentaries, the Buddha speaks thusly of parinibbana assumes great importance. 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) 8586 From: robertkirkpatrick Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 11:44am Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ Hi again, Robert K - > > In a message dated 10/14/01 10:11:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Upasaka writes: > > > > The question in my mind is: "Where does nibbana fit in?". > ======================== > One *might* infer from this that nibbana really is nothing but the > cessation of the three poisons (i.e., is the attainment of bodhi), leaving > the mind undefiled. In that case, if parinibbana marks the cessation of the > five khandhas ("the all"), then parinibbana really is an annihilation. So, > accepting this inference, the question of where in the suttas, and not just > the commentaries, the Buddha speaks thusly of parinibbana assumes great > importance. > 8587 From: Sarah Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 1:50pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Re: Citta -Sarah Victor, --- Victor wrote: > Sarah, > > I am going to reply in context below. .................... Likewise.....I’m going to give the points a number as i have a feeling (before I start) that I may end up going in a circle..... .................... (1) > > On the contrary, in every discourse I read, I understand the Buddha > to be > > teaching `there is no self'. > He teaches about realities to be known as not > > self. .................... > Sarah, let's focus on what the Buddha taught: > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) 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.'"* .................... Do you agree that feeling, perception and so on are realities (paramattha dhammas)? If yes, in what way do my words in (1) not reflect what the Buddha taught as implied? .................... (2) > > If you say to me, does he ever say `there is no self' other than > with regard to > > the khandhas, the namas and rupas, the elements and so on, the > question doesn't > > make any sense to me. .................... > Let's focus again on what the Buddha taught: > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) 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.'" .................... Can we agree that feeling and so on are 4 of the 5 khandhas? If so, where is the difference in meaning? .................... (3) > For example, we can talk about seeing or hearing or > > attachment as not self. We cannot talk about computer or any > concept as having > > no self because they are only concepts. .................... > Rupa is impermanent. > > A computer is impermanent. > > Nama is impermanent. > > A concept is impermanent. .................... Is a computer a concept (pa~n~natti). Is a concept a rupa? Where does the Buddha say a concept is impermanent or has the characteristic of anicca (impermanence)?> .................... (4) >> Likewise, we cannot talk about a > > `blank' or a `nothing' having no self or being no self:-) .................... > Again, let's focus on what the Buddha taught: > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) 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.'" .................... Victor, do we agree here? If not why? .................... (5)> > If we talk about awareness being aware rather than a self being > aware (as > > above), this is either intellectual rt. understanding or direct > understanding > > of the characteristic of sati (awareness) as explained to us by the > Buddha. In > > what way is it a `speculative view'? What do you mean > by `speculative view' > > here? .................... > By speculative views I mean views that are based on assumption and > speculation, views that do not lead to the cessation of dukkha. .................... Would you say my comments above are speculative views (using your definition) and do not lead to the cessation of dukkha? If so, why? .................... (6)> >Do you agree that sati (and all other realities) are not self? .................... > Sati is not self. Sati 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.'" .................... So where is the disagreement? Where is the speculation? ................... (7)> > ....I'm actually not sure at all whether you are just > questioning the use > > of words or whether you have a different understanding of what >> anatta means. .................... > Sarah, how we use the word "self" reflects our understanding. > > Let's focus again on what the Buddha taught: > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is not self. > > Body (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) 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.'" .................... Victor, we all agree that all the khandhas (these ones plus rupa) are not self. We have all read suttas where this is confirmed many times Please indicate what has been said that does not conform with this Teaching and where any difference is. .................... (8)> Butting in here is no problem with me. :-) .................... Good! We agree :-) (aside to others- Must say, I like the contrast in styles on the list.....the minimalist one is quite a refreshing change and challenge - may become addictive;-) .................... (9)> Sarah, also check out SN.18 Rahulasamyutta. :-) .................... What is your point, Victor? .................... > Metta, > Victor ................... best wishes and metta too, Sarah ..................... (10)> *Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html .................... Please indicate what I’ve said (or someone else has said) that you don’t believe conforms with the understanding (rather than the exact words) taught here. We both agree with your point stated in (7) that how we use ‘self’ reflects the understanding and that it is the understanding that is important. (Of course, as the Buddha emphasised, we have to talk to someone quite a lot to get an idea of their understanding when they use certain words......and you’re not giving much away, Victor, but I'm in no hurry ;-) (aside to others - lost the minimalist approach here... --- 8588 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:11pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan? --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert E > > > I think we may all be able to agree that the kandhas cease on > > parinibbana. The > > question is whether there is anything that does not cease on > > parinibbana, that is > > not the kandhas. > > I got this naughty thougts when you said quote the question above, what > are you hoping for :)? When there is something after parinibbana, isn't > it eternalism or materialism, but if there is nothing, why would Buddha go > into Parinibbana in the first place. Then what is it, I really do not > know, i more incline to believe that it should be similiar to the > definition of Nibbana :) right! Robert 8589 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:26pm Subject: Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassanã --- Howard wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > In a message dated 10/13/01 10:17:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Robert E writes: > > > > --- Howard wrote: > > > > > > I've been puzzled for a long time as to how vi~n~naana > > > > conditions naama-ruupa. The converse seems obvious > > > > but how vi~n~naana conditions naama-ruupa is very > > > > counter-intuitive, to me (like a lot of other > > > > abhidhamma). Howard, is your idea that this > > > > underlying, continuous, luminous 'mind' is the > > > > vi~n~naana which conditions naama-ruupa? > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Howard: > > > No, not at all. It is ordinary discernment of an object. I believe > > > that when, in paticcasamupada, it is said that vi~n~nana conditions > > > naamaruupa, naamaruupa is understood there as consisting of the various > > > *objects* of discernment. There is no discerning without discerned > > objects, > > > and there are no objects discerned without the discernment. They are > > mutually > > > conditioning - they arise together. > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Hi Howard. > > If discernment and discerned object arise together and are mutually > > conditioning, > > does this imply that the object only exists as a product of mental > > activity, or am > > I understanding this incorrectly? > > > > Thanks, > > Robert Ep. > > > ========================== > I see it as almost that, but not quite. My interpretation is a kind of > radical phenomenalism, a bit like William James' "radical empiricism", but > not an idealism. To me, objects do not exist independently of being observed, > yet they are not *created* by discernment. To exist is to be *able* to be > discerned. Existence (such as it is) is conditional, and dependent on > conditions, both previous in time and co-existing, and including being > discernable as one of those conditions. That an object, A , "exists" means to > me that if certain experiences were to occur (or be made to occur), then the > experiencing of A would occur. Moreover, things are not observed only by a > single sentient being; a realm of experience is a shared realm, formed by the > kammic traces of those who "share" that realm. > To me an object that is in principle unable to be observed is as good > as no object at all. A nonobservable is nonexistent. > > With metta, > Howard Very good, but my question is: is the object only existent by virtue of being discernible, or is it only observable because it is existent? Regards, Robert 8590 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:35pm Subject: Re: __[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassan?>______________________ --- > Howard, > I think there might be a sutta where the Buddha explains that he > teaches Dukkha and the cause of dukkha and the way to the cessation > of dukkha. The cessation of dukkha is parinibbana. Dukkha is all > conditioned dhammas - i.e the five aggregates, the ayatanas, the > dhatus. > We can say the buddha teaches the anihilation of dukkha. But he > doesnt have the slightest thread of anililationsim as a doctrine of > self that is being anilihilated. You wrote earlier that you thought > he cessation of the khandas sounded like a suicide wish. This idea > comes from a belief that there is something to be anihilated. Dhammas > are really nothing - just fleeting conditioned phenomenena without a > trace of self. Nothing lasting, nothing worth clinging to. Because of > deep delusion though WE cling. Such a long path to comprehend this > properly. > robert > > Howard wrote: > > Hi again, Robert K - > > > > In a message dated 10/14/01 10:11:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > Upasaka writes: > > > > > > > The question in my mind is: "Where does nibbana fit in?". > > ======================== > > One *might* infer from this that nibbana really is nothing > but the > > cessation of the three poisons (i.e., is the attainment of bodhi), > leaving > > the mind undefiled. In that case, if parinibbana marks the > cessation of the > > five khandhas ("the all"), then parinibbana really is an > annihilation. So, > > accepting this inference, the question of where in the suttas, and > not just > > the commentaries, the Buddha speaks thusly of parinibbana assumes > great > > importance. > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > 8591 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Oct 15, 2001 2:39pm Subject: Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] bangkok rendezvous? --- Sarah wrote: > Btw, Rob Ep,