Hi Howard,
thank you for your kind post and your concern. But you know,
considerations of the Dhamma truly helped us. Of course it was a
shock and I was worried about Lodewijk's health problems which are
also caused by old age. We can learn from such events.
This morning I heard a Thai recording, Kh Sujin was paraphrasing the
Expositor about sati and asati. Considerations about birth, old age,
sickness and death help us with a sense of urgency, not to be
neglectful with the development of understanding. I have heard this
often, but by events in life we experience ourselves this becomes
more meaningful.
In order to be free from the cycle sati and pa~n~naa should be
developed again and again. There can be more chanda, wish-to-do, and
viriya, the four right efforts. One can see more the disadvantages of
akusala, preventing akusala that has not yet arisen. Sati must be
aware, not coming to a halt, again and again. Not laying down the
burden, not letting go of sati.
I think this is a good exhortation.
Nina.
Op 30-jun-2012, om 17:54 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

> I'm sorry to hear of this. It was surely upsetting to both Lodewijk
> and you. (I think you are a dear, loving couple.) Please wish
> Lodewijk my
> very best!



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

Dear friends,

Someone of our group remarked that he did not understand why the
Thais paid such deep respect at the holy places by bowing down, by
incense, candles and flowers, by sticking gold leaf on the stupas and
Buddha statues and by chanting texts of the scriptures. He said that
he did not have accumulations for these forms of respect. Acharn
Sujin explained to him that it is because of satipatthĺna, the four
Applications of Mindfulness the Buddha taught, that such great
respect is paid to the Buddha. When we are mindful of nĺma and rúpa
we understand more deeply the value of the Buddha’s teachings in our
life. We come to know the teacher through the teachings and then we
wish to pay respect to him, even though he passed away. In Buddhism
one does not follow the teacher with blind faith, but one listens to
the teachings, considers them and applies them in one’s life. When we
have seen for ourselves that the Dhamma can change our life, we come
to know the teacher and we wish to pay respect to him. When we had
come to the end of our pilgrimage the same person said: ”Now I wish
to return to the holy places and pay respect.”

In order to be able to teach the Dhamma which can change people’s
lives, the Buddha endured so much during the “four incalculable ages
and a hundred thousand aeons” when he was a Bodhisatta
(“Visuddhimagga” Ch IX, 26). Forbearance, khanti, is one of the
perfections he accumulated. In many Jĺtakas one can read about his
forbearance and loving kindness. He did not allow hate to corrupt his
mind even when his enemies tried to murder him on various occasions.
In the “Khantivĺdi Jĺtaka” (no. 313) we read that when he was asked
by the king of Kĺsi “What do you preach, monk?”, he replied “I am a
preacher of patience”. Then the king had him flogged with scourges of
thorns and had his hands and feet cut off, but the Bodhisatta did not
feel the slightest anger. He practised what he preached.

******

Nina.




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

Dear Friends,

Today I was reflecting on  the dust-rag reminders and how manna (conceit) often
makes it difficult for all us to hear criticism or blame. Also, I was reflecting
on ways of helpful speech. Let me share a few of the quotes and comments I was
considering in U.P. under 'Dustrag' and "Speech-right'

I wrote before:

S:> In the PTS translation (Hare) it is in Bk of 9s, Ch 11 "The Lion
Roar", i,11and also in B.Bodhi's "Numerical Discourses of the
Buddha", under "Sariputta's Lion's Roar", p231.

"Just as, Lord, people throw upon the earth things clean and unclean, dung,
urine, spittle, pus and blood, yet for all that the earth has no
revulsion, loathing or disgust towards it; even so, Lord, do I dwell with a
heart that is like the earth, vast, exalted and measureless, without hostility
and without ill will. However, one in whom mindfulness directed on the body in
regard to the body is not present may well hit a fellow monk and leave without
an apology.

"Just as. Lord, people use water to wash things clean and unclean,
things soiled.......<etc>

"Just as, Lord, fire burns things clean and unclean, things soiled....<etc>

"Just as, Lord, the wind blows over things clean and unclean.....<etc>

"Lord, just as a duster wipes over things clean and unclean, things soiled with
dung, urine, pus and blood, yet for all that the duster has no revulsion,
loathing or disgust towards it; even so, Lord, do I dwell with a heart that is
like a duster....<etc>

"Lord, just as an outcast boy or girl, begging-vessel in hand and clad in rags,
enters a village with a humble heart; even so, Lord, do I dwell with a heart
like that of an outcast youth, a heart that is vast, exalted and measureless,
without hostility and without ill will......<etc>

Metta

Sarah
=====

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

Dear Friends,

I wrote the following post before:

>C:  The friend said that if another person points out our (true)
> faults, "regardless of this other person's intentions", we should see
> it as someone pointing us to treasure.
*****

>S:I'm no expert when it comes to the graceful acceptance of criticism
(quite the contrary), but I have been reflecting a little over the weekend
and I'd like to offer a few comments about aspects I find helpful in
this regard. I also learn a lot from my students in this regard -- some
can really hear and appreciate criticism which tends to encourage the teacher to
help more (and with more goodwill, I find). For others, their inclination is to
react and argue which tends to discourage assistance and goodwill.

I think that usually, the problem with hearing adverse comments or criticism --
and surely the reason we find it easier to pounce on our perception of the
speaker's unwholesomeness-- is mana (conceit) and clinging to self again. As we
know conceit "has haughtiness as characteristic, self-praise as function, desire
to (advertise self like) a banner as manifestation....". When we hear the
adverse comments, the banner can be so apparent, I find.

We've discussed before the list of objects on account of which mana arises from
the Vibhanga (17) and these include "...pride of gain; pride of being honoured;
pride of being respected; pride of prominence; pride of having adherents; pride
of wealth; pride of appearance; pride of intelligence; pride of being a
knowledgeable authority;..."

We also know that because of the attachment to self and finding oneself
so important, we cling to the 8 worldly conditions and very seldom see the value
of being a 'nobody' or a dust-rag as Sariputta did. On one of our trips to
India, K.Sujin talked a lot about the value of reflecting in this very way. When
I first heard it, again the banner would start waving and I was aware of how
much discomfort there was at considering the value of being a door-mat that
anyone could criticise or trample over. Gradually, I've come to appreciate these
reminders more and more and to see what precious 'treasure' they are.

The following are two passages that Nina wrote in letters about
K.Sujin's example of the dustrag on that trip:
*****
1. N:>Khun Sujin had reminded us in India to become like a dustrag which
serves for wiping the feet. A dustrag takes up filth and is undisturbed by
it. One should become as humble as a dustrag. Sariputta, who could
forgive anybody, no matter whether that person treated him in an unjust
manner, compared himself with a dustrag. He had no conceit. When
right understanding has been developed one will cling less to the self,
there will be more humbleness. During the discussions Khun Sujin said again:

"I would like to be a dustrag. I follow the way to be one, it is my resolution.
Our resolution means that we take action by developing
understanding and metta. ".

It is beneficial to be reminded again of the dustrag, because humbleness seems
to go against our nature. As understanding develops it must lead to letting go
of namas and rupas. What we take for self are only impermanent namas and rupas.
When their impermanence has been realized can they be as important as before? 

We read in the "Vinaya" (VI, Parivara, Ch XII) how the monk should behave when
he approaches the Sangha when it is convened for the investigation of a legal
question. We read:

...he should approach the Order with a humble mind, with a mind as though it
were removing dust. He should be skilled about seats and skilled about sitting
down. He should sit down on a suitable seat without encroaching on (the space
intended for) monks who are Elders and without keeping newly ordained monks from
a seat. He should not talk in a desultory fashion, nor about inferior (worldly)
matters. Either he should speak Dhamma himself or should ask another to do so,
or he should not disdain the ariyan
silence... The commentary (the Samantapasadika) adds to "with a mind as though
it were removing dust" : "like a towel for wiping the feet."
*****
2. N:> There is conceit if we have an idea that we should be "somebody
with great wisdom". We should follow Sariputta's example who compared
himself with a dustrag, a useless rag without any value. If we do not
consider ourselves "somebody", but rather a "nobody", it will prevent us
from pretending, even to ourselves, that we are more advanced than we in reality
are. We also need the perfection of truthfulness (sacca) to keep us on the right
track. We have to be sincere, truthful to reality. Do we want to avoid being
aware of akusala? We have to be aware of it in order to know our true
accumulations. If we are not aware of akusala we will
take what is akusala for kusala. We need to develop the perfection of equanimity
in order to learn to accept with kusala citta the vicissitudes of life. Praise
and blame are only realities which arise because of their own conditions, in
reality people are not the cause of praise or blame. When people do wrong to us
we can develop metta if we see the value of metta. Instead of having aversion
about people's bad points we will try to remember their good qualities. If they
have none there can be compassion or there can be equanimity. There can be
equanimity when we remember that the real cause of unpleasant experiences
through the senses is not a
person but our own kamma. We should carefully consider the different perfections
and then we will be reminded to develop them in our daily life, they are needed
in each situation. Khun Sujin said that while she prepares lectures for the
radio she needs many perfections, such as metta, patience, energy and
equanimity. When there is equanimity she does not feel hurt when people do not
want to listen to her or when they criticise her.<
*****

Metta

Sarah
=======


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

Dear Friends,

From an earlier message I wrote:

>S: When we listen to and consider the teachings, as we read in the Simile
of the Snake, they should be 'grasped' in a way which leads to less mana
and clinging to self importance rather than the reverse.

I'd like to requote two paragraphs from ADL (ch 5) which Larry wisely repeated
in a post to a friend as an offering of
assistance for a difficult office situation, emphasising the value
of understanding phenomena as namas and rupas, not self:
--------------------
"All degrees of lobha, be it coarse or more subtle, bring sorrow. We are
like slaves as long as we are absorbed in and infatuated by the objects
which present themselves through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense
and mind. We are not free if our happiness depends on the situation we
are in, and the way others behave towards us. One moment people may be
kind to us, but the next moment they may be unpleasant. If we attach too
much importance to the affection of other, we shall be easily disturbed
in mind, and thus become slaves of our moods and emotions.

We can become more independent and free if we realize that both we
ourselves and other people are only nama and rupa, phenomena arising
because of conditions and falling away again. When others say unpleasant
things to us there are conditions which cause them to speak in that way,
and there are conditions which cause us to hear such words. Other
people's behaviour and our reactions to it are conditioned phenonomena
which do not stay. At the moment we are thinking about these phenomena,
they have already fallen away. The development of insight is the way to
become less dependent on the vicissitudes of life. When there is
mindfulness of the present moment, we attach less importance to the way
people behave towards us." 
*****
"At the moment we are thinking about these phenomena, they have already
fallen away"<


Metta

Sarah
=====

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

Dear Friends,

"--Rahula, develop a mind similar to earth, when you develop a mind similar to
earth arisen contacts of like and dislike do not take hold of your mind and
stay. Rahula on the earth is dumped, the pure and the impure, excreta, urine,
saliva, pus, blood, the earth does not loathe those, in the same manner develop
a mind similar to earth. When you develop a mind similar to earth, arisen
contacts of like and dislike do not take hold of the mind and stay--"


From Num, #4072

"As Erik brought up about mana. I would like to discuss and get some
inputs about mana cetasika. How many different ways can mana cetasika
manifest? Pride, esteem, feeling of superiority, inferiority, equality, etc.

I have read about Ven. Sariputta who said that he considered himself as only a
dustrag or a floormat. His humbleness is really impressed me. I admire
his wisdom, his kindness, his patience and his humbleness. I asked my self do
I like to feel as a dustrag, definitely not. At time I thought about how
being ariyan feel like. Like a dustrag!?? V.Sariputta is the foremost
Bhuddha disciple in wisdom 2nd only to the Buddha. When his mom invited group
of monk for offering food, she was really mean and sarcastic to the
monks. V.Sariputta was calm and patient. When he was wrongly accused by a
young monk, and after the Buddha cleared the accusation he even asked for a
pardon from the younger monk if he had offended him in any means. A lot
more incidents rgd V.Sariputta's humbleness."

Recommended reading: The Life of Sariputta,
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel090.html

****
Metta

Sarah
=======

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

Dear Friends,

By mistake, I left out the last line of Num's message:

"What's the consequence of mana? Most people like to feel superior, like to be
approved."

Here are a few more reflections on right speech - and right listening - which
I've been considering today. 


MN 139 "Aranavibhanga Sutta" (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl)

8. "And how, bhikkhus, does there come to be neither extolling nor disparaging
but teaching only the Dhamma? When one does not say: 'All those engaged in the
pursuit of the enjoyment of one whose pleasure is linked to sensual
desires…have entered upon the wrong way,' but instead: 'The pursuit is a
state beset by suffering, vexation, despair, and fever, and it is the wrong
way,' then one teaches only the Dhamma "(1261)

Note 1261: That is, extolling and disparaging come about when one frames one's
statements in terms of persons, some of whom are
praised and others blamed. One teaches "only the Dhamma" when one frames one's
statements in terms of the state (dhamma) –the mode of practice-without
explicit references to persons.
***

From the Kakacupama Sutta (The Simile of the Saw)

http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn021.html

"Thus, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will be easy to admonish and
make ourselves easy to admonish purely out of esteem for the Dhamma, respect
for the Dhamma, reverence for the Dhamma.' That's how you should train
yourselves."


"In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and
we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare,
with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him
with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep
pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will
-- abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from
ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."

"Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw,
do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you could not endure?"

"No, lord."

"Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw. That will
be for your long-term welfare & happiness."

Finally for this post:

From the Kara.niiyametta Sutta:

Kara.niiyam-atthakusalena, yan-ta.m santa.m pada.m abhisamecca:


"What should be done by one skilled in goodness, who has comprehended the state
of peace"


sakko ujuu ca suujuu ca, suvaco cassa mudu anatimaanii,


"he ought to be able (sakko), straight (ujuu), and upright (ca suujuu), easy to
speak to (suvaco), meek (mudu), without conceit (anatimaanii)"
****
S: A quote of Nina's I appreciated:

"But I realize that conceit arises very often, unknowingly. When thinking of he
and me there is already likely to be conceit, even now while I am writing. But
when thinking only of the Dhamma there will also be kusala cittas.

Thus, we should be like a dust rag"

S: Lots of conceit arising unknowingly all day for us all. It can be known when
it appears and we can reflect again and again on the dust rag.

Metta

Sarah
=======

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

Dear Friends,

For the last post in this series, I've also selected the following extract from
Nina's book 'Cetasikas', ch. 'The Three Abstinences' which I posted before. It
 contains so many helpful reminders:

>"We may not kill or steal, but we may be forgetful as far as our speech is
concerned. A word which can harm ourselves and others
is uttered before we realize it. We tend to disparage others because we are
attached to talking and want to keep the conversation
going. When we are slighted by someone else we are easily inclined to answer
back. Our self-esteem may be hurt and then we want
to defend ourselves. Most of the time we think of ourselves; we want to be
honoured and praised. We forget that it is beneficial
to abstain from wrong speech and to speak with kusala citta. How often in a day
do we speak with kusala citta?

The Buddha reminded the monks about right speech. We should remember what the
Buddha said about right speech in the Parable
of the Saw (Middle Length Sayings I, no. 21):
*
Monks, when speaking to others you might speak at a right time or
at a wrong time; monks, when speaking to others you might speak
according to fact or not according to fact; monks, when speaking to
others you might speak gently or harshly; monks, when speaking to
others you might speak about what is connected with the goal or
about what is not connected with the goal; monks, when speaking to
others you might speak with a mind of friendliness or full of hatred.

Herein, monks, you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither will our
minds become perverted nor will we utter an evil speech, but kindly
and compassionate will we dwell, with a mind of friendliness, void of
hatred; and we will dwell having suffused that person with a mind of
friendliness; and, beginning with him, we will dwell having suffused the
whole world with a mind of friendliness that is far-reaching, widespread,
immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence.' This is
how you must train yourselves, monks."
*


When we give in to wrong speech there is no kindness and consideration for other
people's welfare. When there is loving
kindness there is no opportunity for wrong speech. We can and should develop
loving kindness in daily life and we should at the
same time see the value of observing morality, otherwise loving kindness cannot
be sincere. Many wholesome qualities have to be
developed together with right understanding so that eventually defilements can
be eradicated."
*****

Metta,

Sarah
======

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

Dear Nina, all,

you wrote:

"Someone of our group remarked that he did not understand why the  Thais
paid such deep respect ..."

It has a lot to do as well with knowing  (and overcoming )  one's conceit
(mana) ..


with Metta Dieter

Dear Dieter,
Op 1-jul-2012, om 15:45 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven:
> you wrote:
>
> "Someone of our group remarked that he did not understand why the
> Thais
> paid such deep respect ..."
>
> It has a lot to do as well with knowing (and overcoming ) one's
> conceit
> (mana) ..
>
-------
N: Yes, to be humble minded. Respect, admiration for the Buddha's
teachings. The more one understands what he taught, the more one
respects the teachings.
-------
Nina.

Dear Sarah,
thank you for the series. Good to read old texts, one forgets.
Op 1-jul-2012, om 11:27 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven:

> MN 139 "Aranavibhanga Sutta" (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl)
>
> 8. "And how, bhikkhus, does there come to be neither extolling nor
> disparaging but teaching only the Dhamma? When one does not say:
> 'All those engaged in the pursuit of the enjoyment of one whose
> pleasure is linked to sensual desires…have entered upon the wrong
> way,' but instead: 'The pursuit is a state beset by suffering,
> vexation, despair, and fever, and it is the wrong way,' then one
> teaches only the Dhamma "(1261)
>
> Note 1261: That is, extolling and disparaging come about when one
> frames one's statements in terms of persons, some of whom are
> praised and others blamed. One teaches "only the Dhamma" when one
> frames one's statements in terms of the state (dhamma) –the mode of
> practice-without explicit references to persons.
-------
N: This is really very good. Leave out names dropping as I wrote
before. Unless it is in order to rejoice in someone else's kusala,
anumodana daana.

Nina.



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

Dear Sarah,

you wrote:

(S: it's all about now, realities now. The Buddha taught us to understand what
is real at this very moment. This is the only way that DO, death and so on can
be understood.
D: repeating : how about Buddhagosa's interpretation of D.O. concerning 3 lives
?)
....
S: When there is understanding of ignorance now, there is also understanding of
past ignorance and future ignorance. When there is understanding of attachment
now as anatta, there is understanding that past attachment is like this and
future attachment will also be like this. So by understanding dhammas now, there
is an understanding of momentary death. At the end of this lifetime, conditioned
dhammas arising and passing away like now.


D: Not cleasr to me what you mean. Ignorance/avijja  is defined by  not knowing
the 4 Noble Truths.  How can you understand what you still do not fully  know
and only get by deepest penetration/path training ?
To understand the reality (the All) now one needs to have established the
foundation of mindfulness (Satipatthana) .. and to understand what is beyond the
All, one practises Jhana.  I.e. the 7th and 8th step as part of the
(sila-)-samadhi training are the means to develop understanding (panna)

D.O. can be understood  to refer to lifetimes (samsara) and to the process going
on here and now..
The chain of D.O. is not interrupted ..when there is death there is birth , at
least until the chain is not broken.
To use a metaphor with cards :game over, the cards are newly shuffled ..starting
again with different cards but with the same system..

I like to emphasise the misunderstanding that avijja and sankhara ( first and
second ) has been finalized / belong to the previous life , they belong to
inumerable previous moments  ..    we possibly agree on that.. (?)



(D The other is the consideration whether the Buddha distinguished at all
between realities and concepts.> ....
>? S: Heat is a reality which can be directly known now. 'Butter-jar" is a
concept which can only ever be thought about. All the teachings are for
understanding, testing out at this moment.>
> Dnew: taking jar for khandha ,e.g. the. vinnana jar inlucing eye
consciousness, ear consciousness etc. , the jar indeed is a concept, isn't it?)
...
S: Sorry, I don't follow you. If there is taking the jar for anything real, for
something of any kind, it's atta view. Yes, the jar is just an idea, a concept,
not any khandha at all.

D:  I played with your  example of concept 'butter-  jar' . ( Who would consider
to dedicate a soul to a jar, not to talk about the butter?;-)  )
Khandha is a grouping, an abstract  for specified dhammas .  A cart may fit
better to distinguish reality and concept : no reality on it's own , only the
cart's wheels, the cart's axis ..etc.  Likewise Vinnaya Khandha = eye
consciousness, ear consciousness  etc.

with Metta Dieter

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

Hi, Dieter (and Sarah) -

In a message dated 7/1/2012 11:37:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
moellerdieter@... writes:

D: I  played with your example of concept 'butter- jar' . ( Who would
consider to  dedicate a soul to a jar, not to talk about the butter?;-) )
Khandha is a  grouping, an abstract for specified dhammas . A cart may fit
better to  distinguish reality and concept : no reality on it's own , only
the cart's  wheels, the cart's axis ..etc. Likewise Vinnaya Khandha = eye
consciousness,  ear consciousness etc.

===========================
     For some reason, Sarah and some others,  despite the clear meaning of
'khandha' as "group"/"collection"/"aggregate", call  individual namas and
rupas "khandhas," a usage I find odd but their usage  nonetheless. So, whether
it "grates on the ear" or not (LOL!), the usage should  be understood and
accepted for the sake of good conversation.

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 Howard (and Sarah),

you wrote:

For some reason, Sarah and some others, despite the clear meaning of 'khandha'
as "group"/"collection"/"aggregate", call individual namas and
rupas "khandhas," a usage I find odd but their usage nonetheless. So, whether it
"grates on the ear" or not (LOL!), the usage should be understood and
accepted for the sake of good conversation

D:the background of this discussion is the distinction  between reality and
concept ,the  importance  often    emphasised here.
It began   when   Sarah disagreed with   Nyanatiloka's defintion of khandha 
(=abstract)

with Metta Dieter



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

Hi, Dieter (and Sarah) -

In a message dated 7/1/2012 1:29:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
moellerdieter@... writes:

Hi  Howard (and Sarah),

you wrote:

For some reason, Sarah and some  others, despite the clear meaning of
'khandha' as  "group"/"collection"/"aggregate", call individual namas and
rupas  "khandhas," a usage I find odd but their usage nonetheless. So,
whether it  "grates on the ear" or not (LOL!), the usage should be understood
and
accepted for the sake of good conversation

D:the background of this  discussion is the distinction between reality and
concept ,the importance  often emphasised here.
It began when Sarah disagreed with Nyanatiloka's  defintion of khandha
(=abstract)
-----------------------------------------------------
HCW:
     Yes, I understand that.
     My point, possibly tangential  to your primary topic of conversation,
is that a well-established  way of speaking is a convention that needs to be
accepted for purposes of  communication. (I also think it is important, I
hasten to add, that speech  conventions effect manner of thinking, and so, it
is important to be very much  aware of one's speech conventions.)
-------------------------------------------------------



with Metta Dieter
==============================
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 Sarah,

Ahhhh, the eternal debate. Okay, let's jump in:

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> When you pop back to check, would you elaborate a little on what you've said
here:
>
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Larry Biddinger <lbidd1@> wrote:
>
> > When you are sad you are also standing or sitting or lying down, maybe
> > walking or running.
> ...
> S: What does this mean? In truth isn't it true that sadness is just a mental
factor that arises and passes away? We say conventionally that we're in this or
that posture, but isn't this just an idea we have? Really, just different
elements arising and passing away.

Larry: First, let's go to the "idea". Yes, all the words are ideas. They are
actually little rupas, but let's not get into that. I'm just using ordinary
language in an attempt to be helpful.

A
> ...
> Whatever the posture, it isn't sad. Mary Carbone is
> > a group effort, not "just sad". This is the meaning of emptiness.
> ...
> Again, what does this mean, the "group effort". Do you mean that what we take
for Mary or Larry are really just different mental states at such times? What do
you understand by "emptiness"?

L: Any experience is a group of many elements. In actuality no element defines
the group. So the group is empty of a definition. In that sense the group is
somewhat open. However, usually we bunch everything together and say this is it.
"Sad" for example.
>
> Looking forward to more discussions with you.
>
> Metta
>
> Sarah
> =====
>
L: Good to see you Sarah. What do you understand by "emptiness"?

Larry

Hi Nina,

So good to see you. But it seems like I've only been gone a minute.

Here's a comment on one sentence:

Nina: "We can learn from such experiences. You are unhappy and you wish to be
happy, but this cannot occur on command. Exactly this is what the Buddha taught
us: thoughts, feelings, material phenomena, they all arise because of the
appropriate conditions and they do not belong to a self, they are anattaa,
non-self."

Larry:  Any strong mental state that arises, something that we are obviously
identifying with, just a glance and we can see quite simply, it's not me. The
pause that refreshes;))) But letting go can be difficult.

Larry

Dear pt
Thanks for the detailed explanation, I dont really remember our earlier
  conversations, I think I joined dsg in 1999 and si many me,bers have come and
gone, imost of them I don't even remember the name.
I i took you wrongly in your earlier post,for some reason I thought it looked a
bit off topic re the Dhamma point. Sorry about that.
Robert

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" <ptaus1@...> wrote:
>
> Hi RobK,
>I will no longer question your beliefs so as not to upset you.

You can't take criticism very well, so I don't want to upset you
>

Hi Jon,

I sent you a reply hours ago but it got lost in the www. Anyway, it's good to
see you too. I haven't been doing much with dhamma studies but the dhamma of
course is always here and it brings to mind the studies everyday. Hope to
participate from time to time but it looks like you guys are saying everything
that needs to be said.

Larry

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Larry
>
> Great to see you back.  Was wondering only the other day what you were up to
these days (in Dhamma terms, I mean).  Any reflections to share?
>
> Hoping you stick around for a while.
>
> Jon
>
>

Hi Ken and Howard (and Rob K.)

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:

> KH: Right, but why do you also talk about  streams?
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> HCW:
>     Why not? Do not namas and rupas interrelate in such a way, as a result
> of which, for example, you and Robert are distinguishable?

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> ...like to talk about streams of dhammas. The rest of us (I would have
> thought} prefer  to talk about the presently arisen citta, cetasikas and rupas
> or just the  present dhamma-arammana.
>
> What we call a dog is really a presently  arisen dhamma, or group of
> presently arisen dhammas, isn't  it?
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> HCW:
>     Ken! Why do you speak of groups??? (Oh, yeah, they  must be more
> "Dhamma-true" than "streams"!!!)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------

What is exciting to me is to hear Ken H. talk about "a dog" really being "a
presently arisen dhamma, or group of...dhammas."  This is the kind of
correspondence I've been advocating - that sure there is no "dog" per se, but
there are the dhammas that correspond to 'dog' or that we recognize or translate
as 'dog.'  So the concept 'dog' does relate to dhammas, just imprecisely.

> We use  the notion of a stream to explain the conditioned nature, and the
> conditioning  functions, of dhammas, but nothing more than that. There is no
> stream in  ultimate reality.

But the stream relates to more than just general conditioning, it relates to the
pattern that is created by the arising of a series of different sets of
conditions.  a leads to be leads to c.  That is what causes it to be a stream. 
I think it's important to acknowledge not only the individual nature of dhammas,
but they way they cause their "domino effect" down the line to further dhammas. 
Each domino is an individual event, but the line of dominoes does create a
series of conditions that goes from the first one to the last one, and that does
constitute a stream through which the series of conditions plays out.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> HCW:
>     The commentaries and the Buddha in the suttas speak  of conditioned
> dhammas as arising, changing while standing, and ceasing. Is that not a
> "stream"?

"Changing while standing" is indeed most important since it shows anicca even
within the individual dhamma.  There is not even a moment in reality that is
static, but is constantly in a process of dynamic change.  Conditions are not
static either but are part of the changing reality.

> The Buddha taught anicca as a basic property of all conditioned
> dhammas. Where is the anicca of a dhamma during it's  alleged single moment of
> existence? How do you explain anicca with respect to a single moment?

Well if you allow for 'changing while standing' within the individual dhamma,
you can have anicca take place on the smallest micro-level.  The dhamma is said
to have three phases, arising, functioning and falling away.  According to the
Buddha, as you quote, 'changing while standing' would exist even within that
micro-moment, and the commentarial version seems to echo that.

It seems to me that anicca - change - would exist in all three phases - changing
while arising, changing while standing/functioning, changing while falling away.
Obviously in arising there is a point where it changes to whatever the function
is that is performed, and there is a point where that changes to falling away,
so there is actually change throughout the entire process.

Best,
Rob E.

- - - - - - - - -

Hi Larry,
good to see that you are active.
Op 2-jul-2012, om 3:22 heeft lbidd2 het volgende geschreven:

> Larry: Any strong mental state that arises, something that we are
> obviously identifying with, just a glance and we can see quite
> simply, it's not me. The pause that refreshes;))) But letting go
> can be difficult.
-----
N: Yeah, yeah, you are right. It is pa~n~naa's job, not ours. "We"
could never manage that. But it all goes very, very gradually. Many
life times.
Nina.



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

Dear friends,

In his last life, when he had become a Buddha, his cousin Devadatta
wanted to harm him and hurled a stone at him. The Buddha’s foot was
pierced by a stone splinter. We read in the “Kindred
Sayings” (Sagĺthĺ vagga, Ch I, part 4, § 8, The splinter) that
although the pains were “keen and sharp”, he bore them “mindful and
discerning, nor was he cast down”. When he was lying down in the
“lion’s posture”, devas came to see him and expressed their
admiration for his endurance:

“See! what a wondrous creature (Nĺga) is the worshipful recluse
Gotama! It is by this wondrous nature that he endures, mindful and
discerning, the pains that have arisen in his body, keen and sharp,
acute, distressing and unwelcome, and that he is not cast down....”

He who could endure anything exhorted the monks to have endurance. We
read in the                 “Discourse on all the Cankers” (Middle
Length Sayings I, no 2) about the getting rid of all the cankers. The
Buddha said concerning the cankers to be got rid of by endurance:

“And what, monks, are the cankers to be got rid of by endurance? In
this teaching, monks, a monk, wisely reflective, is one who bears
cold, heat, hunger, thirst, the touch of gadflies, mosquito, wind and
sun, creeping things, ways of speech that are irksome, unwelcome; he
is of a character to bear bodily feelings which, arising, are
painful, acute, sharp, shooting, disagreeable, miserable, deadly.
Whereas, monks, if he lacked endurance, the cankers which are
destructive and consuming might arise. But because he endures,
therefore these cankers which are destructive and consuming are not.
These, monks, are called the cankers to be got rid of by endurance.”

Can we endure “ways of speech that are irksome, unwelcome”? Are we
always forbearing with regard to other people and patient with
ourselves? We tend to be impatient sometimes when we do not notice a
rapid progress in understanding. We should accumulate patience and
the way to do this is mindfulness of nĺma and rúpa.

******
Nina.

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

Hi Robert E (and Howard),

----
>>> KH: What we call a dog is really a presently  arisen dhamma, or group of
> presently arisen dhammas, isn't  it?
>>>

>> HCW:
>     Ken! Why do you speak of groups??? (Oh, yeah, they  must be more
> "Dhamma-true" than "streams"!!!)
>>

> RE: What is exciting to me is to hear Ken H. talk about "a dog" really being
"a
presently arisen dhamma, or group of...dhammas."  This is the kind of
correspondence I've been advocating - that sure there is no "dog" per se, but
there are the dhammas that correspond to 'dog' or that we recognize or translate
as 'dog.'  So the concept 'dog' does relate to dhammas, just imprecisely.
----

KH: I might want to retract that statement. :-)

In a Dhamma discussion when we say we have experienced the sight of a dog, or
the sound of a dog (etc), we know we have really only experienced visible object
or audible object, don't we? That's what I meant by, "What we call a dog is
really a dhamma." (Forget that I said, "a presently arisen dhamma," that might
have been misleading.)

Also, when we talk about the dog itself (or any other sentient being) we are
really talking about a momentary arising of the five khandhas, aren't we? That's
what I meant by "a group dhammas."  (Again, forget that I said, "presently
arisen dhammas.")

So I hope you can see I wasn't talking about a series or "stream" of dhammas.
According to my understanding, there is no stream. One momentary set of five
khandhas arises and falls away, and that is all there is to a sentient being, or
dog.  A completely new set of five khandhas is conditioned to take it's place,
and so there is a completely new dog. (Or a completely new "that which we call a
dog.")

Ken H

Hi RobK

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@> wrote:
> > ...
> Dear kenh
> I do not know how you get the idea that kalapas arose in kalapas from what  I
said?
> Could you say more, I am lost.
> And again if sarah ir nina or jon, anyone wants to show how I have got it all
wrong, i plead with them to speak out now.
> ===============

J:  Well, if it's any comfort, I of course don't think you've got it all wrong! 
But apart from that comment, I'm afraid I can't say much because, as I explained
in an earlier post, I'm not really able to see what the Dhamma issue/s being
discussed between you and KenH is/are.

The discussion you and he are having seems to be at a somewhat personal level,
and I prefer to leave you both to sort out any disagreement.  I look forward to
the time when you agree to shake hands on your differences and get back to the
discussion of actual Dhamma issues :-))

Jon

Hi RobK

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
>
> > KH: It is quite foreign to me.  It sounds like a conventional scientific
explanation in which the terms `molecule' and `atom' have been replaced with the
terms `kalapa' and `rupa.'
> >
> > -----
> RK:  Ok lets talk about the future. Nasruddin was sitting on the outside of a
branch( i think i told this story before) sawing and sawing. A man came past and
said that if he keeps cutting when the branch is sawn through Nasruddin will
fall to the ground. Nasruddin kept sawing and to his amazement it happened just
like that. He ran adter the man wanting to know how he knew the future.
> ...
> For some semi- hiddem reason no one ( howard amd rob excepted) will ever come
out to make a correction of your misconceptions.  I must have made some heinous
kamma to have to be the one to try to help.
> ===============

J:  Well I appreciate the good intentions ;-)), but somehow the misconceptions
you are wanting to point out are not being formulated clearly enough for me to
come in on the thread and comment.  (For example, your allegory about Nasruddin
as a response to KenH's comment.)

> ===============
> God I miss Scott.
> ===============

J:  Pondering this one.  Did he share your views on certain topics (I don't
recall any specific occasion)?

Jon

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...>
>
> J:  Well I appreciate the good intentions ;-)), but somehow the misconceptions
you are wanting to point out are not being formulated clearly enough for me to
come in on the thread and comment.  (For example, your allegory about Nasruddin
as a response to KenH's comment.)
>
> > ==============
> Hi RobK
> 
  I look forward to the time when you agree to shake hands on your differences
and get back to the discussion of actual Dhamma issues :-))
> 
> Jon


Dear jon
I dont see it as personal at all. It is to me a clear discusion on Dhamma
points. Take this recent post below. I give a paragraph of explanation and Ken
comes back saying he doesnt see it as Dhamma ( i paraphrase. See his exact
comments below).

No one else coments at all( as i predicted re nasruddin) leaving members to
conclude whatever they conclude. Why diont some of the members who know
Abhidhamma come in and say" omg robk, you silly twat, you have reaaly missed the
boat."
  And then give more details and try to help me know what i have got wrong.
Robert

P.s I liked scotts writing because it was clear what he meant atall times.
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken
>
> ------------------------------------
> RK: Each kalapa lasts for about a trillioth time as flash of lightining and
then
> disappears forever. But while the condtioning factors such as citta or kamma
or
> utu or ahara ( nutrition) are presenr, new Kalaps will arise. Because thos
> conditioning factors are often similar the new kalapas may look much the same
as
> the old ones. But again they can never be exactly the same. Countless kalaps
> make up the physical eye and some of those are conditioned by citta: one can
> detect a glint of lust sometimes in someone, or icy cold, or the flare of
rage.
> And that is just looking at the physical eyes. . Or somone might eat and eat
and
> eat,. You se them after a year and they are fatter. This is because of ahara
> conditiong rupa. Is this ok?
> ------------------
 KH: It is quite foreign to me. It sounds like a conventional scientific
explanation in which the terms `molecule' and `atom' have been replaced with the
terms `kalapa' and `rupa.'
>
> -----

Hi KenH and RobE

Butting in if I may.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Robert E (and Howard),
> ...
> KH: So I hope you can see I wasn't talking about a series or "stream" of
dhammas. According to my understanding, there is no stream. One momentary set of
five khandhas arises and falls away, and that is all there is to a sentient
being, or dog.  A completely new set of five khandhas is conditioned to take
it's place, and so there is a completely new dog. (Or a completely new "that
which we call a dog.")
> ===============

J:  Rob E, I'm just wondering if what you're referring to is the fact that each
citta is related to one that preceded it and one that follows it by contiguity
condition (among others).

So are you perhaps saying that cittas that are so related can be regarded as
being in a 'stream'.

The texts do refer to stream (Pali: 'sota') in a number of contexts including
'bhavanga-sota' to refer to the bhavanga cittas that arise continuously
throughout life except when interrupted by sense-door impressions.

Jon

Hi Rob K

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" <jonabbott@>
> >
> > J:  Well I appreciate the good intentions ;-)), but somehow the
misconceptions you are wanting to point out are not being formulated clearly
enough for me to come in on the thread and comment.  (For example, your allegory
about Nasruddin as a response to KenH's comment.)
> >
> >  I look forward to the time when you agree to shake hands on your
differences and get back to the discussion of actual Dhamma issues :-))
> >
> > Jon
>
> RK:
> Dear jon
> I dont see it as personal at all. It is to me a clear discusion on Dhamma
points. Take this recent post below. I give a paragraph of explanation and Ken
comes back saying he doesnt see it as Dhamma ( i paraphrase. See his exact
comments below).
>
> No one else coments at all( as i predicted re nasruddin) leaving members to
conclude whatever they conclude. Why diont some of the members who know
Abhidhamma come in and say" omg robk, you silly twat, you have reaaly missed the
boat."
>  And then give more details and try to help me know what i have got wrong.
> ===============

J:  Just a guess, but he could be referring (in part) to the statement
"Countless kalaps make up the physical eye".  His comment could be that this
could be read as meaning that according to the teachings the physical eye breaks
down into rupas, in the same way that modern science holds that the eye breaks
down into atoms and molecules.

Of course, he may be taking your comments too literally (I wouldn't have made
the same assumption as KenH myself).  But you may have not caught his drift, in
which case it's always possible to seek clarification (or ignore completely).

> ===============
> RK:  P.s I liked scotts writing because it was clear what he meant atall
times.
> ===============

J:  Yes, never any doubt about meaning (or sentiment :-))

Jon

> ===============
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> > RK: Each kalapa lasts for about a trillioth time as flash of lightining and
> then
> > disappears forever. But while the condtioning factors such as citta or kamma
> or
> > utu or ahara ( nutrition) are presenr, new Kalaps will arise. Because thos
> > conditioning factors are often similar the new kalapas may look much the
same
> as
> > the old ones. But again they can never be exactly the same. Countless kalaps
> > make up the physical eye and some of those are conditioned by citta: one can
> > detect a glint of lust sometimes in someone, or icy cold, or the flare of
> rage.
> > And that is just looking at the physical eyes. . Or somone might eat and eat
> and
> > eat,. You se them after a year and they are fatter. This is because of ahara
> > conditiong rupa. Is this ok?
> > ------------------
>  KH: It is quite foreign to me. It sounds like a conventional scientific
> explanation in which the terms `molecule' and `atom' have been replaced with
the
> terms `kalapa' and `rupa.'
> >
> > -----

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> wrote:
>
> Hi KenH and RobE
>
> Butting in if I may.
>
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Robert E (and Howard),
> > ...
> > KH: So I hope you can see I wasn't talking about a series or "stream" of
dhammas. According to my understanding, there is no stream.
> > ===============
> 
> J:  Rob E, I'm just wondering if what you're referring to is the fact that
each citta is related to one that preceded it and one that follows it by
contiguity condition (among others).
> 
> 
> Jon
Dear jon
Here is a post I wrote  a week ago back where the visuddhimaga talks about the
stream of continuity. Again no one commented and yet when i mention a few days
ago  the stream of arisind and passing elements, there are objections. 


"The two together: since any given states are produced without interrupting
the [cause-fruit] continuity of any given combination of conditions, the whole
expression "dependent origination" (paţicca-samuppáda) represents the middle
way, which rejects the doctrines, "He who acts is he who reaps" and "One acts
while another reaps" (S II 20), and which is the proper way described thus, "Not
insisting on local language and NOT OVERRIDDING NORMAL USAGE" (M III 234)""

"And with a STREAM of  continuity there is neither identity nor otherness.
For if there were absolute identity in a STREAM of continuity, there would be no
forming of curd from milk. And yet if there were absolute otherness, the curd
would not be derived from the milk. And so too with all causally arisen things.


Or this one , please read. 
Are there errors in this, surely it would be helpful to me and possibly others
to know.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/120682

Robert

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> wrote:
>
> 
> > ===============
> 
> J:  Just a guess, but he could be referring (in part) to the statement
"Countless kalaps make up the physical eye".  His comment could be that this
could be read as meaning that according to the teachings the physical eye breaks
down into rupas, in the same way that modern science holds that the eye breaks
down into atoms and molecules.
> 
> Of course, he may be taking your comments too literally (I wouldn't have made
the same assumption as KenH myself).  But you may have not caught his drift, in
which case it's always possible to seek clarification (or ignore completely).
> 
> > ===============
Dear jon,
Thanks for coming in on this discussion. Please continue.

Obviously atoms and molecules have no existence at all, they are merely invented
ideas of scientists.
 But kalapas are real. Of course  physical eye is merely a concept with no
existence, but we need to refer to body and eye and heart etc to be able to
discuss Dhamma. 

Nina writes in her  book on physical phenomena about foetus and body ( of course
she knows they are merely designations) yet for some reason when I use terms
like eye or body there are objections.  I would certainly be very happy if ken
clarifies more, maybe to reply to this post, and on the other posts I made.

Nina: "The unborn being in the womb, for example, needs the right temperature in
order
to grow. Throughout life the element of heat produces rupas. Nutrition is
another factor which produces rupas. When food has been taken by a living being
it is assimilated into the body and then nutrition can produce rupas. Some of
the groups of rupa of our body are produced by kamma, some by citta, some by
temperature and some by nutrition. "" 

> 
> > ===============
> > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > > RK: Each kalapa lasts for about a trillioth time as flash of lightining
and
> > then
> > > disappears forever. But while the condtioning factors such as citta or
kamma
> > or
> > > utu or ahara ( nutrition) are presenr, new Kalaps will arise. Because thos
> > > conditioning factors are often similar the new kalapas may look much the
same
> > as
> > > the old ones. But again they can never be exactly the same. Countless
kalaps
> > > make up the physical eye and some of those are conditioned by citta: one
can
> > > detect a glint of lust sometimes in someone, or icy cold, or the flare of
> > rage.
> > > And that is just looking at the physical eyes. . Or somone might eat and
eat
> > and
> > > eat,. You se them after a year and they are fatter. This is because of
ahara
> > > conditiong rupa. Is this ok?
> > > ------------------
> >  KH: It is quite foreign to me. It sounds like a conventional scientific
> > explanation in which the terms `molecule' and `atom' have been replaced with
the
> > terms `kalapa' and `rupa.'
> > >
> > > -----
>