Dear Phil,
Op 31-jul-2011, om 17:08 heeft philip het volgende geschreven:
>
> I am confused about rupas and concepts
>
> Here is just an illustration: you may experience the smell
> > of a flower. When you lick the flower there is flavour, when you eat
> > it, there is some nutritive essense. When you touch it there is
> > hardness. These ruupas we call a flower can be experienced one at a
> > time. When you taste the flower, there cannot be smelling at the
> same
> > time, but this does not mean that there is no odour. In the ultimate
> > sense there is no flower, there are only different units of ruupas
> > consisting of the eight inseparable ruupas, arising and falling
> away.
> >
>
> Ph: But there is a flower lying on the ground that I can hold in my
> hands and lick and bite and sniff? If there is a solid object that
> I csn pick up and hold, I have no trouble understanding how rupas
> can rise as inseparables, how fragrance must gave a support etc.
>
------
N: Just an example to show that in the ultimate sense there are
different objects experienced through different doorways, one at a
time. In reality there is no flower that exists. We may think that it
was there already and that it lasts. But we can think of a flower, we
do not have to avoid thinking of concepts.
-----
> Ph: Or how a waterfall has a sound tgat is different from the sound
> of a car, we duscussed sound of a waterfall some months ago, is
> there a solid mass of water that makesa sound, or millions of
> liitle units or rupas arising and falling to give the illusion of a
> waterfall or flower or rotten body?
>
-----
N: Sounds are not the same. Because of conditions they are different.
Sound can be heard, that is all. No need to think of units of ruupa
or how this sound is produced.
-------
>
> Ph: Can I pick up an object that we call and think of as a flower
> flower and sniff it according to the Buddha? I'm perplexed, sorry.
> A dead body lies on the ground, decomposing. Moment by moment is
> there actually no body there but rupas rising and falling away,
> somehow more rotten than the ones that rose and fell away a
> moment earlier, but no solid body?
>
------
N: When odour, unpleasant odour impinges on smellingsense, there are
conditions for smelling. Then odour is the object and no need to
think of the source of the odour, that is another object, namely a
concept.
--------
> What are wrinkles.Don't wrinkles indicate that a solid body covered
> by skin is changing over time? Why does the Budha talk about old
> bodies, wrinled, with teeth falling out etc. They are not real.
> Isn't the point of the teaching of paramattha dhammas and concepts
> that a
> panna can see through objects and reduce them to dhammas for the
> sake of detachment and liberation, and the Buddha didn't say that
> the objects don't exist?
>
-------
N: The Buddha wanted to help people to come closer to the truth in
speaking about parts of the body, or a body that is decaying. One can
see the whole, solid body as mere elements. When the time was right
he would explain that each of the khandhas we cling to are like foam,
a bubble, a dream:
Vis. Ch XIV, 224
   there are similes pertaining to each of the five khandhas
separately and this is how they are seen in detail.
---------

<Text Vis.: In detail [that is, individually] matter should be
regarded as a
lump of froth because it will not stand squeezing, feeling as a bubble
on water because it can only be enjoyed for an instant, perception as a
mirage because it causes illusion, formations as a plantain trunk
because it has no core, and consciousness as a conjuring trick because
it deceives (S.iii,140-42).>
-------
N: The Tiika elaborates on these similes, and the text is partly
similar to the ‘Dispeller of Delusion’ (p. 36-38).
Ruupa is just like a lump of froth without any substance and it
cannot be grasped, since it breaks up immediately. Ruupa is like wood
surrounding the pith of a tree, without core or substance, it is
weak, and it should not be taken as “I” or “mine”. Ruupa continually
breaks up from the first stage of a foetus on, until it finally
breaks up at death.
The Dispeller adds: <in the face of death it is converted into minute
fragments.>

Feeling is like a bubble of water. Just as a bubble of water is
unsubstantial, is ungraspable, and does not last long, so is feeling.
Just as a bubble arises due to four causes: the water surface, the
drop of water, wetness of the water and the air which holds it up by
drawing it together as an envelope, just so feeling also arises due
to four causes: the physical base, the object, the flame of
defilements and the impact of contact (phassa). ...

Saññaa is like a mirage, since it is unsubstantial and cannot be
grasped. One cannot grasp it, drink it, wash in it, bathe in it or
fill a pot with it. A mirage quivers and deceives many people. ..

The khandha of formations is like a plantain stem since it is
unsubstantial and cannot be grasped. Just as a plantain stem is a
combination of many sheets and is without core, evenso the khandha of
formations which is a combination of many dhammas, the cetasikas, it
is without core, and cannot be grasped. It cannot be taken as
permanent, etc. ...

The khandha of consciousness, viññaa.na, is like an illusion (maya).
It is without substance or core, and it cannot be grasped. Just as an
illusion is changeable and appears swiftly, so is citta. ...>
------
Nina.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Howard,
Op 31-jul-2011, om 16:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

> Is it your perspective that the authority of commentaries is absolute,
> regardless of the content of the sutta involved? ...
> It is certainly clear here that one should not use claimed "authority"
> as sole basis for belief. It is, certainly, a good basis for giving
> serious consideration to what is said, for contemplation and
> discussion of it,
> and for attempted experiential verification of it, but NOT for blind
> acceptance.
> ---------------------------------------------
N: Nobody here thinks of blind acceptance. We have to verify the
truth ourselves, clear.
Best is to read the commentaries themselves so that one can acquire
an idea of their value. I just quoted from the Visuddhimagga to Phil
about the khandhas compared to a lump of foam, etc. This is also
dealt with in a sutta, a sutta that you quote. We can see for
ourselves whether the elaboration by Buddhaghosa is helpful or not.
Read many, many commentaries, next to the suttas, then one can see
for oneself. You could use Ven. Bodhi translations and his notes to
begin with, although his notes of the Co are only a summary.

Nina.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Phil & all,

>Thanks  also for telling me about visama lobha, sounds right down my alley!
....
S: This is what I wrote before to Scott in a discussion about sama (ordinary)
lobha and visama (extraordinary) lobha:

>S:Visama lobha is the kind of lobha that leads to improper behaviour of one
kind or other and which is likely to lead to extreme measures to cover the
tracks. This is the kind of lobha which I mentioned can be a 'block',
especially if one is obsessed with it and it leads one away from
association with the wise. Visama lobha is conditioned by kamma and
accumulations, but still if the inclination is there, there can be
listening to the dhamma and gradually the extreme lobha can be eradicated
if not in this lifetime, then over lifetimes. I think the Agga~n~na Sutta
in DN gives some very good examples. Lots of other examples of truly deviant
behaviour which would qualify. As usual, however, it's not so much about
categorising situations as about particular cittas.<

S: "conditioned by kamma and accumultions" in the sense that they are the
accumulated tendencies to what is experienced through the senses, the result of
kamma.

Here's an extract from the other sutta I referred to on how someone’s virtue,
honesty, courage and wisdom is known:

(SN3:11 Seven Jatilas)

1.“It is by living together with someone, great king, that his virtue is
to be known, and that after a long time, not after a short time; by one
who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is wise, not
by a dullard.

2.“It is by dealing with someone, great king, that his honesty is to be
known, and that after a long time, not after a short time; by one who is
attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is wise, not by a
dullard.

3.“It is in adversities, great king, that a person’s fortitude is to be
known, and that after a long time, not after a short time; by one who is
attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is wise, not by a
dullard.

4.“It is by discussion with someone, great king, that his wisdom is to be
known, and that after a long time, not after a short time; by one who is
attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is wise, not by a
dullard.�

Metta

Sarah
======

Dear Alex,
Op 31-jul-2011, om 19:17 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven:

> But isn't "listening & considering" a linguistic process? We listen
> and consider using words. Words are linguistic conventions. Even
> words such as "citta" is just a concept as a word.
-------
N: at first we think of words, but then we learn by means of the
words of the teachings that there are characteristics of realities
that can be attended to and it is not necessary to think all the time
of words. Seeing has a characteristic different from hearing or
thinking. Sound is different from smell. There can be more
understanding of these so that they are seen as only dhammas.
-------
>
>
> A: Considering its stated momentariness, we cannot take the same
> citta and examine it. So even a word "citta", as a word, is a
> category that doesn't point to any particular moment of citta
> frozen in time that exists now and can be cognized by two people.
------
N: There is citta now, and all the time citta is different. It is a
conditioned dhamma and we can learn that not "I" experiences, but citta.
-------
>
>
> A: About "direct experience". What you seem to say is not very
> different from direct experience in "vipassana meditation". And of
> course, meditation, like everything, happens when appropriate
> conditions are met.
-------
N: Direct experience by pa~n~naa, and this is at first only beginning
and can slowly develop. And yes, as you say, depending on conditions.
------
You asked for texts to prove that we cannot do anything about
realities such as intention or effort.
Sarah quoted a text about the five khandhas, stating that we should
not wish may it be such or such or otherwise. This goes for
sankhaarakkhandha which includes effort and intention.
Quoting Sarah:< The habitual tendencies are not self...one does not
get the chance of saying in regard to the habitual tendencies, 'Let
the habitual tendencies become thus for me, let the habitual
tendencies not become thus for me'."
It might seem that if nothing 'can be done' that the path is
therefore hopeless. On the contrary, it is the very understanding now
of such dhammas as anatta and not being within anyone's control that
is the Path that leads to enlightenment. If we are still attempting
to control/calm/condition the bodily phenomena, the feelings and
habitual tendencies that arise now with an idea that we have a chance
of saying 'Let them be this way or that way', it indicates a lack of
understanding of the core of the Buddha's message. >

Nina.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dearest All,

   I thought of all of you during my 10-day retreat from which I got back last
night.  The importance of study, reflection and discussion really hit me. 
Without a proper suta-maya panna there can not even be the right cinta-maya
panna, far away is the proper bhanava-maya panna.  So it's critical we have a
proper guide or map and there's no arguing that the only ancient map still
intact is the whole Tipitaka including the Commentaries.  While other traditions
maps were there they are not available to us as a whole and an incomplete map is
almost as bad as a wrong map because one can get stuck or be led through blind
alleys.  So the faith in ancient wisdom and descriptions from ones who surely
have walked through the correct path is critical.  All this skeptical doubts
really does not properly prepare one to have a stable and grounded understanding
of the basic suta-maya panna of this profound Dhamma; saddha is an indriya for a
reason.  Samma ditthi is the first factor as often stated in this group and now
I see why it is so critical.

   Another progression as we all know is sila, samadhi and panna.  Contentment of
life through proper and absolute sila surely is a foundation needed before we
can even talk about samma samadhi.  I found they are proper condition for
clarity of thought needed for realization which is grounded on previous proper
cinta-maya-panna.  So when Sarah talked before about Jon's sila and how only
someone living with the person would know, I realized this mode of practice
works great for people of their inclination.  I do think we all just need that
moment of clarity and how one gets there is going to be different.  But if the
mind is free of crap that occupies most worldlings then the proper conditions
exists already.  Surely there are plenty of examples in suttas where one stanza
is enough to give that moment of clarity and why would such mode of realization
be only possible in the past?  One just needs a proper map pointed out to them
to see the world for what it is and rise above it instantly.

   I also been investigated into the "dark nights" syndrome  (James ala Daniel
Ingram) and it's all due to lack of proper suta-maya panna.  It's easy to get
led astray and find oneself in quite dark alleys.  When one does not trust the
proper map or try to use too many, one gets confused on the path.  The mind is
so malleable and powerful so it can also do a lot of dangerous things.  Also
with proper cinta-maya panna one would mistake bhanga-nana (Howard) as a
terrifying experience instead of being joyous at finally experiencing the
underlying reality.  I believe all meditation experiences are shared by many
different traditions, it is the lack of proper understanding that leads to
different results.  Surely this is why Joy is one of the factors of
enlightenment.

   I took Dhamma vicaya to heart and really sat down to just study the world
albeit on a cushion with the map that's been given to me since birth.  To me it
was experiencing the compounded nature of our existence through sensations but
being able to tune into different ones amidst this sea gave some glimpses of the
different sense-doors and mental factors.  Some reflection after gave rise to
thoughts about anatta gave me better intellectual understanding of what I
experienced so once again former discussions came to be very helpful.  Some
years back I also thought like Christine that if the questioner just asked
Buddha a follow-up question or did a "yea but" Buddha could've made everything
so much clearer.  It seems that when 4 doctrinal possibilities of Atta was
asked, they were seeing in 2D and asking about corners of a square.  Buddha saw
in 3D and was looking at a cube instead.  Buddha always knew best and I am just
a fool for thinking otherwise.  It was humbling and realization of the depth of
Buddha's knowledge and as a teacher was profound.  I thought the sutta endings
were embellishments before but I literally shouted in my head.  Oh Blessed one,
Oh Magnificent one is truly a sight to behold and his vantage point is the
proper one and he answers all completely without anything to add or subtract.  I
am not sure what language it was in : English, Burmese or Pali but the feeling
was undeniable at realizing the Master's wisdom.

   I share my merits with you all (except KenH).

- Kel

Hi Howard,

----------
<. . .>
> HCW: I understand the sutta. It is subtle, but I  understand it. I believe
that if you were a practitioner, you might too.  ;-)
----------

KH: I am very interested to know this subtle understanding you have gained.

However, I would be disappointed if you were to tell me it couldn't be explained
in words. I think that sort of thing is the thin end of the wedge.

Buddhism, as we all know, can attract some strange characters. The author David
Maurice summed them up in a subheading, "freaks, frauds, fantasts, fanatics."
And the one thing they all rely on is the concept of secret knowledge.

If I were the moderator of a Dhamma group (and thank heavens I am not) the first
rule would be: If you can't explain it in words, keep it to yourself!
:-)

Ken H

> HCW:
>     You have faith in all commentaries. Enjoy!  :-)

Hi, Ken -

In a message dated 8/1/2011 5:36:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
kenhowardau@... writes:

Hi  Howard,

----------
<. . .>
> HCW: I understand the  sutta. It is subtle, but I  understand it. I
believe that if you were a  practitioner, you might too.  ;-)
----------

KH: I am very  interested to know this subtle understanding you have
gained.

However, I would be disappointed if you were to tell me it couldn't be
explained in words. I think that sort of thing is the thin end of the wedge.
-------------------------------------------------
HCW:
     Then I won't tell you that! LOL! (Even though  it's so, at least if one
is looking for adequacy.)
     What I WILL say, as inadequate as are the words, is  that I view the
sutta as expressing the middle-way as applied to effort, and it  is an effort
with sense-of-self either absent or minimal, a non-doing  doing.
------------------------------------------



Buddhism, as we all know, can attract some strange  characters. The author
David Maurice summed them up in a subheading, "freaks,  frauds, fantasts,
fanatics." And the one thing they all rely on is the concept  of secret
knowledge.
------------------------------------------
HCW:
     Direct knowledge of the supermundane is certainly  not adequately
conveyable by concept/language. For the most part, all that we  can hope for is
that 1)  concept, the finger pointing at the moon, isn't  too shaky and
points reasonably in the right direction, and 2) on rare  occasions we actually
get a glimpse of the moon itself.
------------------------------------------



If I were the moderator of a Dhamma group (and thank  heavens I am not) the
first rule would be: If you can't explain it in words,  keep it to
yourself!
:-)
--------------------------------------------
HCW:
     By your criterion, this list would be quite  silent except for sutta
postings! (And even they are just steady  fingers pointing well.)
-------------------------------------------



Ken H
==============================
With metta,
Howard


Seamless Interdependence

/A change in  anything is a change in  everything/

(Anonymous)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Jon.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Robert E
>
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jon.
> > ...
> > > [J:] In the case of the young children who suffer the pain of hunger and
malnutrition leading to death, it would I think be reasonable to assume that
this was not the result of unwholesome deeds done in the present lifetime.  And
the same could be said for any person who suffers an early and traumatic death. 
Then there are the unpleasant characters who live a life of deceit or crime but
never get caught and who are able to enjoy their ill-gotten gains.  And so on.
> >
> > [RE:] I agree it is complex.  Yet I would say that there are some things
that seem to be traceable to a series of events, and there are some patterns in
one's life that seem to lead in a particular direction.  One may be able to
safely assume that this is at least part of a pattern that one has become
accustomed to, and may reflect a broader proportion of that person's tendencies
and accumulations.
> > ===============
>
> J:  I'm afraid you've lost me here.  We are discussing the question of kamma
(deeds, actions) and result (things experienced).  As I recall, you advanced the
idea that kamma committed routinely brings its result within the same lifetime,
and that this makes it possible for the law of kamma and result to be confirmed
by direct experience.
>
> I think general experience in life tends to point to results not making a good
match with deeds within the same lifetime.  I am wary about attributing
experienced results to particular preceding deeds, since there is nothing in
results to link them with those preceding deeds rather than any others (within
the same lifetime or an earlier one).

Well I just don't agree with this.  I think both logic and observation show that
there are many connections between conventional events and the results that
follow.  I would understand that you would most likely say that this has nothing
to do with the technical operation of kamma, and that conventional affairs have
nothing to do with the operations of dhammas, but I would find it strange if you
did not see that often particular conventional causes are obviously associated
with logically following conventional results.

I personally do not draw a strict line between conventional cause-effect and
that of kamma, because I believe that conventional events are merely a
conglomerated view of dhammic events.  I realize that this is not a popular view
around here.

While I do not think we can trace the distant effects of current causes, I think
we can see some of the effects which are more immediate, and they are not
invisible.

If some outcomes don't seem to match the causes that we observe, that may be due
to other influences involved, to be sure, from this or other lives; but some do
match, and they are observable.

> On the whole, I think it better not to speculate too much in this area. :-))

Well I think it's okay to believe that current vipaka is the result of old
kamma, as long as one understands that it is then an article of faith, since one
can never see the evidence that this is the case, other than some mismatching in
the current life between seeming causes and seeming results, which doesn't prove
anything about past kamma and present results.  For myself, I think that if one
can understand how cause and effect operates in different arenas and time
frames, it may lead to greater understanding.

Best,
Robert E.

= = = = = = = = = = =

Hi Ken H.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Howard and Robert E,
>
> -----------
> <. . .>
> > HCW: Right, "no doubt". So, you dismiss, then, what the  Buddha taught about
protecting the truth. Okay, as you will. Among the things  that people cling to,
opinion and belief is a major one, especially for "smart"  folks.
> ------------
>
> KH: I know how you feel. My stubbornness appears to you the same way your
stubbornness appears to me.
>
> One difference, however, is that I have shared your point of view in the past.
Not only have you never shared my point of view, you have refused to even
consider it.
>
> Take, for example, the way you and Robert E are currently raging against the
commentaries. If you had considered for one moment the "dhammas only - no
control" point of view you would have seen that the commentaries were not saying
anything different from the Ongha Sutta.
>
> If there really is no self - if there really is only one citta with its
associated cetasikas and rupas – then of course "striving" and "standing still"
must be understood in that context.
>
> And that is all the commentaries are doing.  The Buddha said it first; the
commentaries are just helping those of us who don't already know the details.

I was not raging against anything the commentaries had to say about dhammas, or
about the dhamma-based meaning of striving and standing still.  I was raging
against the totally unrelated and thoroughly *conventional* interpretation of
the commentary that the sutta was really about correcting the egoic pride of
some deva.  You should be against this too, since it has nothing to do with
dhammas but is all about beings and personalities, but apparently if a
commentary says it, you like it, even if it goes 100% against your own
often-stated belief in "dhammas only."  So I guess I will hope that you will
take a look at that section and realize that you are railing against yourself,
and that I am closer to your view than you are in this case, and it is the
commentary that is off-base.  A deva, as Shakespeare once said, does not a
dhamma make.

The other part of the commentary also sheds no light at all on dhammas in any
way - I am talking about the section in which the commentator gave his
incredibly astute explanation for how one looks for something to stand on in a
"shallow" flood, but doesn't stand still in deep water where he will sink.  This
is not about dhammas, but about conventional "floods," ignoring anything having
to do with right effort, which is what the sutta is about. The Buddha says
clearly that he neither stood still nor strived, not that he stood still here
and there, and in some other places he strove.  He said that both strategies
were fruitless for crossing the flood, because they both led to disaster.  Yet
the commentary happily describes where is the good spot for doing one or the
other, totally contradicting the Buddha.

So to review, in this particular part of the Dhamma, there is not a single
dhamma in sight.  So why do you still think it's about dhammas when it is
thoroughly conventional?  Because you simply believe anything a Commentary says,
no matter what?

Best,
Robert E.

= = = = = = = =

Hi Alex.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" <truth_aerator@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi RobertE, all,
>
> I like what you have said in msg#116478.
>
> I think that answer could be found in suttas such as:
>
>
>
> "Just so, when the mind is sluggish it is the wrong time to cultivate the
enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because a
sluggish mind is hard to arouse through these factors...
>
> "But, monks, when the mind is sluggish, that is the right time to cultivate
the enlightenment-factor of investigation-of-states, the enlightenment-factor of
energy, the enlightenment-factor of rapture.[2] What is the reason? A sluggish
mind is easy to arouse by these factors...
>
> "Monks, when the mind is agitated,[3] that is the wrong time to cultivate the
enlightenment-factors of investigation-of-states, of energy, of rapture. Why? An
agitated mind is hard to calm through these factors...
>
> "When the mind is agitated, that is the right time to cultivate the
enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration, equanimity. Why? Because
an agitated mind is easy to calm[4] through these factors.
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn46/sn46.053.wlsh.html
>
>
> So when one has An agitated mind it is good to "stay still". When the mind is
sluggish, then it is good to stuggle.  IMHO.

In my view, the two suttas are a little difficult to compare, but I really like
the above sutta.  I don't think it's especially saying to ever "strive" or
"stand still."  I think the Buddha has ruled both of those out, because striving
or straining is an agitated state, and standing still is a sluggish and
ineffective one.  In the sutta you quote, he is recommending the stimulative
factors for one who is too sluggish [standing still] and the calming factors for
one who is overstimulated. So this seems like a balancing action, rather than a
straining or passive action.

The sutta you quote also makes absolutely clear that one is to look at current
conditions and take appropriate measures to cause balance and change. The idea
that one should not do anything purposeful to develop proper conditions is once
again clearly contradicted by the Buddha himself.  So much for 'passively
attending dhammas' as the only activity of the path.

Best,
Robert E.

= = = = = = = = =

Hi Nina.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Rob E,
> Op 31-jul-2011, om 7:52 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven:
>
> > the commentary is fantasizing and is on its own separate track that
> > is NOT what the Buddha spoke about in that sutta in any way, shape
> > or form, nor does it even purport to interpret what the Buddha
> > said. Instead it merely says that what the Buddha said had no
> > importance, and it was just an inter-species squabble. It's worse
> > than a contradiction - it's a sidetrack away from what the Buddha
> > was teaching on that occasion. If that is a valid commentary, I'd
> > rather read a comic book.
> ------
> N: The Buddha knew the cittas of that deva, that he was full of
> pride. He uttered the right words, so that the deva would consider
> again. As the Co stated: 'humbled, the deva would ask for
> clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that he
> could understand.'. The Buddha knew ahead of time how the deva would
> react.
> -------

I just don't think the sutta says anything to suggest that this is what the
sutta is about.  What you say above is a plausible explanation of the
commentary, if one assumes the commentary is correct, but the commentary
provides no evidence from the sutta or elsewhere that this is what the sutta is
about.

There is an important lesson for the reader in what lies beyond both "standing
still and striving/straining," which defines the area of right effort.  The
commentary distracts from, rather than illuminates, this point.

Best,
Robert E.

= = = = = = =

Hi Howard.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:
>
> Hi, Nina (and Robert & Jon) -
>
> In a message dated 7/31/2011 3:57:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> vangorko@... writes:
>
> Dear Rob  E,
> Op 31-jul-2011, om 7:52 heeft Robert E het volgende  geschreven:
>
> > the commentary is fantasizing and is on its own  separate track that
> > is NOT what the Buddha spoke about in that  sutta in any way, shape
> > or form, nor does it even purport to  interpret what the Buddha
> > said. Instead it merely says that  what the Buddha said had no
> > importance, and it was just an  inter-species squabble. It's worse
> > than a contradiction - it's  a sidetrack away from what the Buddha
> > was teaching on that  occasion. If that is a valid commentary, I'd
> > rather read a  comic book.
> ------
> N: The Buddha knew the cittas of that deva, that he  was full of
> pride. He uttered the right words, so that the deva  would consider
> again. As the Co stated: 'humbled, the deva would ask  for
> clarification and the Buddha would explain in such a way that  he
> could understand.'. The Buddha knew ahead of time how the deva  would
> react.
> ------------------------------------------------
> HCW:
>     That might have been the case, Nina, but I see  *nothing* in the sutta
> itself suggesting this. Are we to believe something  entirely on the basis
> of the "authority" of a commentary? I think the Buddha  taught otherwise.
> ----------------------------------------------

I agree.  So far the discipline is still called Buddhism and not
Commentarialism.  I think it is a mistake to confuse the words of the
commentaries those actually spoken by the Buddha, and give them equal weight. 
They may have many insightful things to say, but they do not have the same
status as the Buddha's own words, and what he himself purported to be talking
about in his suttas.

Best,
Robert E.

= = = = = = = = = = =

Hello RobertE, all,

As I understand it, there is an appropriate time for this or that action. It is
not one tool for the job.

When the mind is sluggish, one focuses on: Enlightenment-factor of
investigation-of-states, energy, of rapture

When the mind is agitated, one focuses on: enlightenment-factors of
tranquillity, concentration, equanimity.


>RE: The sutta you quote also makes absolutely clear that one is to look >at
current conditions and take appropriate measures to cause balance and >change.
The idea that one should not do anything purposeful to develop >proper
conditions is once again clearly contradicted by the Buddha >himself.  So much
for 'passively attending dhammas' as the only activity >of the path.

Right.

Also another interesting sutta

"A monk endowed with six qualities is incapable of realizing the unexcelled
cooled state. Which six? There is the case where a monk doesn't rein
(niggaṇh�ti) in his mind when it should be reined in. He doesn't exert
(paggaṇh�ti) his mind when it should be exerted. He doesn't gladden
(sampahaṃseti) his mind when it should be gladdened. He doesn't watch over
(ajjhupekkhati) his mind when it should be watched over. He is intent on what is
lowly (hīn�dhimuttiko). And he delights in self-identity (sakk�y�bhirato). A
monk endowed with these six qualities is incapable of realizing the unexcelled
cooled state.

"A monk endowed with six qualities is capable of realizing the unexcelled cooled
state. Which six? There is the case where a monk reins in his mind when it
should be reined in. He exerts his mind when it should be exerted. He gladdens
his mind when it should be gladdened. He watches over his mind when it should be
watched over. He is intent on what is exquisite. And he delights in Unbinding. A
monk endowed with these six qualities is capable of realizing the unexcelled
cooled state."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.085.than.html


"He should develop [contemplation of] the unattractive so as to abandon lust. He
should develop good will so as to abandon ill will. He should develop
mindfulness of in-and-out breathing so as to cut off distractive thinking. He
should develop the perception of inconstancy so as to uproot the conceit, 'I
am.' For a monk perceiving inconstancy, the perception of not-self is made firm.
One perceiving not-self attains the uprooting of the conceit, 'I am' —
Unbinding in the here and now."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.4.01.than.html

These do not sound like things have happened all by themselves without any
current effort.



165. By oneself (Attan�'va) is evil done; by oneself (attan�) is one defiled.
By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity
depended on oneself; no one can purify another.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.budd.html

"So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are
clearly discerned (satt� paññ�yantī); of such beings, this is the self-doer
(attak�ro), this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by
himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no
other-doer’?�"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html

No excuses only on past conditions. One of the condition is what one does now.
"By oneself (Attan�'va) is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is
evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. "

While I understand about western philosophical arguments about lack of free will
(hard determinism), I believe that we should be careful with adding western
metaphysical concepts especially when they contradict clear statements of the
Buddha above  in Attavaggo of Dhammapada , AN 6.38 and others.


With best wishes,

Alex

Hi Robert E,

-------------
<. . .>
> RE: I was not raging against anything the commentaries had to say about
dhammas, or about the dhamma-based meaning of striving and standing still. I was
raging against the totally unrelated and thoroughly *conventional*
interpretation of the commentary that the sutta was really about correcting the
egoic pride of some deva.
--------------

KH: Oh, I see what you mean! :-)

Wiping the egg from my face, I might point out that the commentaries'
explanation is the most likely one.  The deva asked a perfectly sensible
question to which the Buddha would normally have replied, "I crossed the flood
by means of the Eightfold Path. "

(Or, keeping to the metaphor, he might have said by the "raft" of the Eightfold
Path.")

On this occasion he answered in a confusing way that his audience needed to
hear. You will find similar things happening in other suttas.

----------------------
> RE: You should be against this too, since it has nothing to do with
dhammas but is all about beings and personalities, but apparently if a
commentary says it, you like it, even if it goes 100% against your own
often-stated belief in "dhammas only."
---------------------

KH: The Buddha, the disciples and the commentaries often taught in conventional
language. So long as we don't get caught out by that language we will be OK. If
we can't handle it, we should go back to the direct language of the Abhidhamma.

--------------------------
> RE: So I guess I will hope that you will take a look at that section and
realize that you are railing against yourself, and that I am closer to your view
than you are in this case, and it is the
commentary that is off-base.
-------------------------

KH: I have apologised for that (almost) but, as I have just tried to argue, the
commentaries were right whichever way you look at it.

------------------------------
> RE: A deva, as Shakespeare once said, does not a dhamma make.
-------------------------

KH: I won't go so far as to say there never was a deva but, to my mind, it
doesn't matter whether the sutta was conventionally true or not.  The ultimate
truth is the one I am interested in.

Ultimately, the deva can be seen as akusala citta afflicted with mana (conceit).
Right understanding destroys conceit – as it did in this case.

------------------------------------
> RE: The other part of the commentary also sheds no light at all on dhammas in
any way - I am talking about the section in which the commentator gave his
incredibly astute explanation for how one looks for something to stand on in a
"shallow" flood, but doesn't stand still in deep water where he will sink. This
is not about dhammas, but about conventional "floods," ignoring anything having
to do with right effort, which is what the sutta is about.
-----------------------------------

KH: Talk about raging! You should listen to yourself sometimes, Robert.

The flood is a metaphor, isn't it? When the deva asked, "How did you cross the
flood," he meant, "How did you overcome sensuality, existence, views and/or
ignorance."

And the Buddha replied in kind – keeping to the same metaphor.

Most people, as Jon alluded, would have thought standing still meant not doing
anything, but that would have been a bit lame wouldn't it? People don't cross a
flood by just standing there looking at it. The commentaries' take on it was
much more in keeping with the metaphor.

--------------------------------------------
> RE: The Buddha says clearly that he neither stood still nor strived, not that
he stood still here and there, and in some other places he strove. He said that
both strategies were fruitless for crossing the flood, because they both led to
disaster. Yet the commentary happily describes where is the good spot for doing
one or the other, totally contradicting the Buddha.
---------------------------------------------

KH: Tosh! :-)

----------------------------------------------------
> RE: So to review, in this particular part of the Dhamma, there is not a single
dhamma in sight. So why do you still think it's about dhammas when it is
thoroughly conventional? Because you simply believe anything a Commentary says,
no matter what?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

KH: Now you've got me completely confused. You do realise the flood was a
metaphor, don't you?

I think in your raging you have got carried away. :-)

Ken H

Hi Ken H.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Robert E,
>
> -------------
> <. . .>
> > RE: I was not raging against anything the commentaries had to say about
dhammas, or about the dhamma-based meaning of striving and standing still. I was
raging against the totally unrelated and thoroughly *conventional*
interpretation of the commentary that the sutta was really about correcting the
egoic pride of some deva.
> --------------
>
> KH: Oh, I see what you mean! :-)
>
> Wiping the egg from my face, I might point out that the commentaries'
explanation is the most likely one.  The deva asked a perfectly sensible
question to which the Buddha would normally have replied, "I crossed the flood
by means of the Eightfold Path. "
>
> (Or, keeping to the metaphor, he might have said by the "raft" of the
Eightfold Path.")
>
> On this occasion he answered in a confusing way that his audience needed to
hear. You will find similar things happening in other suttas.

Yeah, well I think when the Buddha says things that are not so
straightforward-seeming, it is because he is giving a more interesting teaching,
not that he is trying to confuse some poor conceited deva by being
"paradoxical."  I have tried to explain how sensible it is for the Buddha to
describe the "middle way" between sinking and struggling, but to no avail! 
Buddha explained it in clear, easy terms that even a deva can understand: "When
I stood still I sank, when I strained, I was carried away, therefore I crossed
the flood by neither straining nor standing still."  It's absolutely
straightforward Ken, and it makes perfect sense just the way it is!

Yes, it's a metaphor, but a very close one.  If one struggles on the path of
life, the suffering is made worse.  When you fall into sloth and torpor and do
nothing, you don't progress on the path.  The middle way is to follow the path
with right effort, which means to accept and understanding what arises, and to
take the courses of action that are skillful. What is so confusing about this
metaphor?  Nothing!

...

> KH: I have apologised for that (almost) but, as I have just tried to argue,
the commentaries were right whichever way you look at it.

I have pointed out very logically why I disagree with both the intent and
content of this commentary, and I'll leave it at that.

...

> Ultimately, the deva can be seen as akusala citta afflicted with mana
(conceit).  Right understanding destroys conceit – as it did in this case.

That's lovely, except that there's no evidence that this is what the sutta was
about, and is not mentioned by the Buddha in his "paradoxical" explication.  I
just don't think the commentary has any reason to say what it does, nor does it
illuminate anything useful.

> ------------------------------------
> > RE: The other part of the commentary also sheds no light at all on dhammas
in any way - I am talking about the section in which the commentator gave his
incredibly astute explanation for how one looks for something to stand on in a
"shallow" flood, but doesn't stand still in deep water where he will sink. This
is not about dhammas, but about conventional "floods," ignoring anything having
to do with right effort, which is what the sutta is about.
> -----------------------------------
>
> KH: Talk about raging! You should listen to yourself sometimes, Robert.

Actually I'm just being straightforward, Ken, and cutting through the nonsense
in this case.  You love to do that yourself, but I guess it's harder to observe
it than to do it.

> The flood is a metaphor, isn't it?

Yes, but it's not a parodoxical or crazy metaphor.  It's not a wild hip-hop
metaphor, or an obscure metaphor written in ancient Mesopotamian.  It's a very
straightforward metaphor about what kind of relation to effort will get one
safely across the flood of samsaric conditionality.

> When the deva asked, "How did you cross the flood," he meant, "How did you
overcome sensuality, existence, views and/or ignorance."

Well, duh....!    :-)

[I like your and/or above - you mean it's multiple choice?]  ;-)

> And the Buddha replied in kind – keeping to the same metaphor.

Right, so it's not nonsense and it's not paradoxical, and it's not weird, and
it's not 'finishing school for devas.'  It's an actual teaching of the Buddha's!
What a shock!

> Most people, as Jon alluded, would have thought standing still meant not doing
anything, but that would have been a bit lame wouldn't it? People don't cross a
flood by just standing there looking at it. The commentaries' take on it was
much more in keeping with the metaphor.

Uh.....not!

> --------------------------------------------
> > RE: The Buddha says clearly that he neither stood still nor strived, not
that he stood still here and there, and in some other places he strove. He said
that both strategies were fruitless for crossing the flood, because they both
led to disaster. Yet the commentary happily describes where is the good spot for
doing one or the other, totally contradicting the Buddha.
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> KH: Tosh! :-)

That's easy for you to say!

> ----------------------------------------------------
> > RE: So to review, in this particular part of the Dhamma, there is not a
single dhamma in sight. So why do you still think it's about dhammas when it is
thoroughly conventional? Because you simply believe anything a Commentary says,
no matter what?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> KH: Now you've got me completely confused. You do realise the flood was a
metaphor, don't you?

Uh...yeah.  But I always thought that what you so loved about the commentaries
is that they explicated the meaning of the Buddha's teachings in terms of actual
dhammas, not that they told a little tale about a very naughty deva that the
Buddha confused to cut him down to size.  But hey, live and learn. As I
suspected, you like anything that's in a commentary, regardless of content.

> I think in your raging you have got carried away. :-)

Yes, I've been carried away by my own raging flood - help..... I'm floating out
to sea.....!       Heeeeelllllppppp me Ken H.  ........ Come out on your
surfboard and save me.....

Oh, never mind, a giant deva just plucked me out of the ocean with his enormous
hand. What a relief!

Best,
Robert E.

= = = = = = = = =

Hi Alex.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, A T <truth_aerator@...> wrote:

> No excuses only on past conditions. One of the condition is what one does now.
"By oneself (Attan�'va) is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is
evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. "

Nice material Alex. It's always good to see what the Buddha had to say about
these things.

Best,
Robert E.

= = = = = = = = = =

Hi Group,

I'm reading the book THE EXPERIENCE OF SAMADHI and can easily verify everything
in the first chapter. It's amazing how it seemlessly fits into TANTRA.

Does anybody know how I can, in meditations, resolve the issue of SPACE as
existing? It cannot exist just as TIME cannot exist since then they would cease
to be NOUMENA  and MIND ONLY concepts, they have to be RUPA as long as they are
EXISTENT.

I can easily TRANSCEND TIME but this is the first time I've tried it with the
concept of SPACE.

Any ideas would be helpful.

toodles,
colette

Friends:
Evaporate the Enemy inside by Friendliness!



Suppose an enemy has hurt you now, in what is his domain, his house etc...
Why try yourself additionally to hurt your mind? That is not his domain!
In tears you have left your family, though they had been both kind & nice.
So why not leave your 'enemy': The anger that brings you internal harm?
This anger that we harbour is gnawing at the very roots of all the qualities
and virtues, that we otherwise try to guard and protect! Anger is foolish!
Another behaves badly... Then stirred one becomes angry! But how is this?
Does one really want to copy the bad behaviour, that he just committed?
Suppose another, to annoy, provokes you with some offensive behaviour:
Why suffer then by letting anger spring up? One is certainly punished so...
If anger-blinded enemies plans conflict, getting angry one-self only grows
even more hostility! Therefore put this bitter anger down, since why should
one be harassed groundlessly? Since all states last only a moment's time,
this 'enemy' has already evaporated, when the sweet revenge is planned...
But why then attack an 'absence', that is only an image maintained inside?
The 'enemy' never really was there 'outside', but only became interpreted
so, by an inner mental pollution called hate, anger, aversion, irritation
etc...

Source: The Path of Purification: (Visuddhimagga) 301
http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100


<...>
Have a nice & noble day!

Friendship is the Greatest!
  <http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Bhikkhu_Samahita> Bhikkhu
Samâhita _/\_ *
<...>

Hi Sarah and Phil,

Thanks for the discussion.

> S: "conditioned by kamma and accumultions" in the sense that they are the
accumulated tendencies to what is experienced through the senses, the result of
kamma.

In terms of kamma and tendencies, how about strong attachment between two people
- it seems that this would depend on accumulations in sanna as much as on lobha?
Especially if the two people have met in recent previous lives, there'd be
pre-conditions for strong dis/like due to sanna, no? Of course, most of it with
concepts as objects, I'd think.

In fact, now that I think about it, there's a sutta where the Buddha advises a
couple on how to get reborn together again or smth like that. Not sure how
collective rebirth exactly fits in with kamma and tendencies?

Regarding abstention, there seem to be three varieties:
- without understanding, when one abstains because of intellectual beliefs like
- god will punish me, it's the law, etc.
- with intelectual understanding, when one intellectually understands what'll be
the detrimental consequences of a deed, and thus abstains.
- with direct understanding, when there's recognition of craving for this, or
against that, as anatta.

Anything else I'm missing?

Best wishes
pt

Hi Pt and Sarah

> In fact, now that I think about it, there's a sutta where the Buddha advises a
couple on how to get reborn together again or smth like that. Not sure how
collective rebirth exactly fits in with kamma and tendencies?


     Ph: Yes, if their virtue is in perfect tune they will rejoice together in
the next life, I think in a deva realm. One of the most explicit cases of tge
Buddha holding out the carrot of favourable destination, this time a family plan
I think the Buddha understood very well (well, duh!) that people of weak
understanding and perhaps shaky sila might be motivated by this sort of thing.
His purpose was to free people ftom suffering, so this sutta that must struck
some people as awfully Xtian sounding had its valid purpose.

> Regarding abstention, there seem to be three varieties:
> - without understanding, when one abstains because of intellectual beliefs
like - god will punish me, it's the law, etc
> - with intelectual understanding, when one intellectually understands what'll
be the
detrimental consequences of a deed, and thus abstains.
> - with direct understanding, when there's recognition of craving for this, or
against that, as

      Ph: Thanks for reminding me of this. In my case, struggling to abstain from
sex with a married woman, I notuce that the Buddha uses an appeal to the
intellectual understanding described above. A verse in Dhammapada lists 5 or 6
undesirable results  of such a liaison,  and it's very  easy to imagine the
resukts arising fron this. A
really conventional teaching, because the cuttas involved are not the point,
it's the harsh worldly results. Well, of course they are ultimayely experienced
through cittas, and being dominated by a concern about the 8 worldly dhammas is
certainly not as cool as getting downto the paramatthic nitty gritty.

     Sarah, there were not conditions for accepting your advice ti not see the
woman. We played squash together today, and I'm afriad the akulsala conditional
forces pushing us together are threatening to overpower the good guys, but the
batle goes on, we shall see...



     Also, Sarah and Nina, thanks so much for the excellent posts yesterday, will
respond from the computer when I get a chance...

       Metta,
       Phil

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" <philco777@...> wrote:
>
>
>  Hi Pt and Sarah
>
> > In fact, now that I think about it, there's a sutta where the Buddha advises
a couple on how to get reborn together again or smth like that. Not sure how
collective rebirth exactly fits in with kamma and tendencies?
>
>
>     Ph: Yes, if their virtue is in perfect tune they will rejoice together in
the next life, I think in a deva realm. One of the most explicit cases of tge
Buddha holding out the carrot of favourable destination, this time a family plan
I think the Buddha understood very well (well, duh!) that people of weak
understanding and perhaps shaky sila might be motivated by this sort of thing.
His purpose was to free people ftom suffering, so this sutta that must struck
some people as awfully Xtian sounding had its valid purpose.

    Ph:  Hi again, ifwe accept the sutta in question not as a cheap motivating
carrot as I suggested it was but rather asa teaching on how kamma operates,
whuch isobvioulya betterwayto see it, doesn't it lend weight to the arguments of
those of us who say that kamma from this one lifetime have greater influence on
the rebirth to come than those of countless past lives? How else could the kamma
of two  people who lived together in this lifetime play out with such a perfect 
cohesion(?) if countless kammas ofcountless past lives were equally probable
candidates to be the rebirth citta?

     Of course we know that speculating about the workings of kamma is
discouraged by the  Buddhda.

       Metta
       Phil
>
> > Regarding abstention, there seem to be three varieties:
> > - without understanding, when one abstains because of intellectual beliefs
like - god will punish me, it's the law, etc
> > - with intelectual understanding, when one intellectually understands
what'll be the
> detrimental consequences of a deed, and thus abstains.
> > - with direct understanding, when there's recognition of craving for this,
or against that, as
>
>      Ph: Thanks for reminding me of this. In my case, struggling to abstain
from sex with a married woman, I notuce that the Buddha uses an appeal to the
intellectual understanding described above. A verse in Dhammapada lists 5 or 6
undesirable results  of such a liaison,  and it's very  easy to imagine the
resukts arising fron this. A
> really conventional teaching, because the cuttas involved are not the point,
it's the harsh worldly results. Well, of course they are ultimayely experienced
through cittas, and being dominated by a concern about the 8 worldly dhammas is
certainly not as cool as getting downto the paramatthic nitty gritty.
>
>     Sarah, there were not conditions for accepting your advice ti not see the
woman. We played squash together today, and I'm afriad the akulsala conditional
forces pushing us together are threatening to overpower the good guys, but the
batle goes on, we shall see...
>
>
>
>     Also, Sarah and Nina, thanks so much for the excellent posts yesterday,
will respond from the computer when I get a chance...
>
>       Metta,
>       Phil
>

Hi Nina

    Are virya and chanda more common than citta as the factor for predominance
condition? I mean , of the  four factors, do vimamsa and citta represent more
rarefied factors than virya or chanda when there is kusala? I think your book
says at one point that citta as kusala predominance factor is "pure"...

     Thanks Nina, only when you have time...

     Metta,
      Phil

Hi Alex,

You wrote:
-----------
>>> A: When the suttas and commentaries say "do this" you keep telling us that
what they really say is that "one should NOT do this".
---------

And I replied:
-------------------
>> KH: Can you give an example of where this has happened? I could find a
hundred examples of where you have made that exact same allegation against me
and others. Our response has always been to explain there is no 'doing' or 'not
doing' *as those things are conventionally understood*. There are only
conditioned dhammas arising one citta at a time. Therefore, the Buddha's
exhortations to "do" certain things and "not do" certain things have to be
understood in terms of a single-moment universe.

>> You don't believe that, and I can understand your disbelief. But I would be
grateful if you would stop this inane repetition. No one is saying, "When the
Buddha said 'do this' he actually meant 'do not do this'.

>> No one!
----------------

KH: You chose not to give the examples I asked for. That is understandable,
because there aren't any.

But you did write:
-----------------------
> A: VsM VIII,
157. ...So the Blessed One said 'gone to the forest', etc., to point out a
forest abode as a place likely to hasten his advancement.
<. . .>

> A: Where in VsM is it explained that one shouldn't do these?
-------------------

KH: For the millionth time, Alex:  No one is saying that!

You had also written in the original message:
----------------------------
>>> A: If "don't take these as prescription, only as description", then 
wouldn't such points be repeated over and over again in the suttas and
commentaries?
----------------------------

KH: I thought that hypothetical situation would be a good one to discuss. And so
I asked you to imagine for a minute that the texts did actually use those exact
words over and over again. How would you have understood those words? What
meaning would you have given them?

The reason I asked was that I believed you still wouldn't get it. You would
still take those words to be a prescription, rather than a  description.

If the Buddha said, "Take my Teaching as descriptive, not as prescriptive," you
would have taken that as a prescription to do so wouldn't you?

(You wouldn't have taken it as a description of the middle way.)

My point is, it doesn't matter how the Dhamma is phrased, you always insist on
seeing it the way you do. Changing the wording wouldn't make a scrap of
difference.

--------------------
<. . .>
>> KH:People at  DSG are constantly giving quotes  from  the
suttas in support of their "dhammas only" understanding.
>>

> A: Except these suttas often talk about things to be DONE, and without
mentioning that "these are only descriptions. Don't ever do them."
---------------------

KH: You have ignored my request: " I would be grateful if you would stop this
inane repetition. No one is saying, "When the Buddha said 'do this' he actually
meant 'do not do this',"

And I don't blame you for ignoring it. It's a free world; repeat it as often as
you like! :-)

Apart from a high five from Robert E, however, you can't expect much response,
can you?  People can take only so much.

--------------------------------------
>> KH: The desire to be a person who practises Dhamma can be very strong. It can
easily block out the truth that there is no person.
>>

> A: And the Buddha has never denied the existence of a conventional person.
Thanks again for telling us that you do not teach what the Buddha has tought.
-------------------------------------

KH When the Buddha used the words "person" "I" "you" "they" etc, he was actually
referring to the five khandhas (fleeting nama and rupa).  And so he certainly
did not deny the existence of the "person" in that respect.

However, he did deny it in every other respect. The entire Dhamma is a constant
reminder that all conditioned dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta, and all
dhammas (including nibbana) are anatta.

"....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to
self...."
(Alagadduupama Sutta )

You will eventually have to accept that, Alex. You and Ven Thanissaro, and ten
million Thanissaro supporters, will eventually have to accept  there is no self.
Or find yourselves an eternalist religion.

Ken H

> A: Note, it says that it depends on oneself. The fault is all on
> the person, never due to strict determinism that was what some
> heretical teachers taught which the Buddha rejected.

Dear KenH, all,

> KH: I thought that hypothetical situation would be a good one to >discuss. And
so I asked you to imagine for a minute that the texts >did actually use those
exact words over and over again. How would >you have understood those words?
What meaning would you have given >them?
>
> The reason I asked was that I believed you still wouldn't get it. >You would
still take those words to be a prescription, rather than >a  description.

If the Buddha would have said to take His message as descriptive rather than
prescriptive, then I would definitely take His word and take His message to be
descriptive rather than prescriptive. If He taught that there are only Dhammas,
than I would accept that as Buddha's teaching.


>KH:(You wouldn't have taken it as a description of the middle way.)

I would take it as a description of the middle way if He would clearly tells us
so.


>KH: My point is, it doesn't matter how the Dhamma is phrased, you >always
insist on seeing it the way you do. Changing the wording >wouldn't make a scrap
of difference.

It would. I believe that phrasing that the Buddha used IS IMPORTANT.

Unlike some people here, He does not use past passives. He uses present active
or even present imperative verbs. The grammatical structure and words that He
uses do imply "thing to be done".

I would really love it to be true that He taught only descriptions and
No-Control where one could become "Arahant while cooking". It would be awesome
to explore the presently arisen reality while lying in a bed watching Old HK
flicks with Deadly Asian Girls brutalize guys and each other....

Too bad it doesn't seem to be the case, as much as I wish it to be the case...
Doing hard work is so, well, hard...

With best wishes,
Alex

Hi Alex and all


      Alex makes a very good point about grammar. Unless any Pali experts can
cone forward and state that the Buddha did not speak in the imperative voice, it
must be pretty difficult or impossible to convincingly deny that the teachings
are prescroprive, don't you think? I suppose the "the listeners in the Buddhas
day were of more developed understanding so they saw through the imperative to a
deeeper truth" argument is the only way to do so, but I've never heard it
anywhere except at DSG.


           Rather than denying that the teachings about physical seclusion are
prescriptive, I think critics of meditation as it is practiced today would in my
opinion be better off arguing that there are impediments prevalent in modern
society (desire for fast results, information overload fouled  minds,
guru-centred orgsnizations  like Goenka and Mahasi etc that don't teach strictly
in line with the ancient texts and make a cult out of retreats etc) that make it
unlikely that there are suitable conditions for the prescriptive teachings to be
followed with correct understanding...)


      But denying that the Buddha prescribed physical seclusion to his listeners
is consistenly peculiar, in my opinion, for what it's worth...

      Metta,
       Phil
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" <truth_aerator@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear KenH, all,
>
> > KH: I thought that hypothetical situation would be a good one to >discuss.
And so I asked you to imagine for a minute that the texts >did actually use
those exact words over and over again. How would >you have understood those
words? What meaning would you have given >them?
> >
> > The reason I asked was that I believed you still wouldn't get it. >You would
still take those words to be a prescription, rather than >a  description.
>
> If the Buddha would have said to take His message as descriptive rather than
prescriptive, then I would definitely take His word and take His message to be
descriptive rather than prescriptive. If He taught that there are only Dhammas,
than I would accept that as Buddha's teaching.
>
>
> >KH:(You wouldn't have taken it as a description of the middle way.)
>
> I would take it as a description of the middle way if He would clearly tells
us so.
>
>
> >KH: My point is, it doesn't matter how the Dhamma is phrased, you >always
insist on seeing it the way you do. Changing the wording >wouldn't make a scrap
of difference.
>
> It would. I believe that phrasing that the Buddha used IS IMPORTANT.
>
> Unlike some people here, He does not use past passives. He uses present active
or even present imperative verbs. The grammatical structure and words that He
uses do imply "thing to be done".
>
> I would really love it to be true that He taught only descriptions and
No-Control where one could become "Arahant while cooking". It would be awesome
to explore the presently arisen reality while lying in a bed watching Old HK
flicks with Deadly Asian Girls brutalize guys and each other....
>
> Too bad it doesn't seem to be the case, as much as I wish it to be the case...
Doing hard work is so, well, hard...
>
> With best wishes,
> Alex
>

Hi Phil, all,


There are such phrases as:
18. "What can be done for his disciples by a Master who seeks their welfare and
has compassion and pity on them, that I have done for you, Cunda.[27] There are
these roots of trees, there are empty places. Meditate, Cunda, do not delay,
lest you later regret it. 'This is my message to you." jh�yatha, cunda, m�
pam�dattha, m� pacch�vippaṭis�rino ahuvattha’
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.008.nypo.html
[similar is said to monks in M1.118 , S 4.132  A3.87 and other places.]

jh�yatha is either Present Active 2nd person plural or active imperative 2nd
person plural.

Buddha is instructing us to meditate using active tone!

With best wishes,
Alex

Hi Phil and all,

-------
<. . .>
> Ph: But denying that the Buddha prescribed physical seclusion to his listeners
is consistenly peculiar, in my opinion, for what it's worth...
------

KH: The point is there are only the presently arisen dhammas. They are all that
exists. And they have already arisen!

It makes it hard if you really want to be able to do something in absolute
reality. But what can you do?

Ken H

PS:
> Ph: but I've never heard it anywhere except at DSG.

KH: And in Thailand, don't forget.

Hi KenH, all,


>KH: The point is there are only the presently arisen dhammas.

Right, and so is meditation (verb jh�yati) said in present-active or
present-imperative tone (jh�yatha).

There is no pali passive references to meditation (jh�yati) anywhere in the
tipitaka or commentaries. Its not even possible. Causative passive forms
(jh�pī*) are grammatically possible, but are not encountered in tipitaka or
ANY commentaries, except as perhaps a Thai word said in 20-21st century.


With best wishes,
Alex

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the question.
---------
<. . .>
> A: Right, and so is meditation (verb jh�yati) said in present-active or
present-imperative tone (jh�yatha).

> There is no pali passive references to meditation (jh�yati) anywhere in the
tipitaka or commentaries. Its not even possible. Causative passive forms
(jh�pī*) are grammatically possible, but are not encountered in tipitaka or
ANY commentaries, except as perhaps a Thai word said in 20-21st century.
---------

KH: Holy smoke! Whatever gave you the impression samatha and vipassana bhavana
were passive? Nothing could be further from the truth!

Bhavana is the most difficult thing in the world, attainable only with the most
concentrated effort. There is nothing remotely passive about it.

Oh, unless you are talking about sentient beings and other forms of atta. They
have no role to play in ultimate reality – passive or active. They are just
concepts.

Ken H

Hi Ken

   I think insight when developed reveals that there is only the presently arisen
nama and rupa, yes, but that is when insight is developed, and the Buddha wisely
prescribes recommended behaviour in body, speech and mind in order to foster
conditions for that insight to develop. You take thinking and talking about that
insight as tge starting point. There may be value in that and there is certainly
no doubting your saddha, but I still wonder if all this thinking and
talking/writing in terms tyat represent the understanding of the noble ones is
conducive to fostering conditions for deeper understanding...it may be, but ut
may also be an obstacle because you may be depriving yourself of helpful
conditional factors found through the conventional teachings and you may also
have such confidence in the value of your thinking in paramattha terms that it
interferes with concern about akusala kamma pattha etc. Just my suspicion, you
may be right and I may be wrong..

      Metta,
      Phil

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Phil and all,
>
> -------
> <. . .>
> > Ph: But denying that the Buddha prescribed physical seclusion to his
listeners is consistenly peculiar, in my opinion, for what it's worth...
> ------
>
> KH: The point is there are only the presently arisen dhammas. They are all
that exists. And they have already arisen!
>
> It makes it hard if you really want to be able to do something in absolute
reality. But what can you do?
>
> Ken H
>
> PS:
> > Ph: but I've never heard it anywhere except at DSG.
>
> KH: And in Thailand, don't forget.
>