Friends:

Belief in an Ego is a Bondage linking to Death!

At Savatthi the Blessed Buddha said:
Bhikkhus, the uninstructed ordinary person regards form as self, or self as
possessing a form, or form as inside self, or self as inside a frame of form...
This, bhikkhus, is called an uninstructed ordinary person, who is bound by
bondage to form, who is bound by inner and outer bondage, who neither
sees the near shore, nor the far shore, who grows old in bondage, who dies
in bondage, who goes from this world to the next other world in bondage...
Such one regards feeling, perception, mental construction & consciousness
as a self or self as having feeling, perception, construction & consciousness,
or feeling, perception, construction & consciousness as being inside a self,
or a self as hidden inside feeling, perception, construction & consciousness!!!
Such one, Bhikkhus, is called an uninstructed ordinary person who is bound by
bondage, by clinging, by inner chains to feeling, perception, mental
construction,
and consciousness... Such one, Bhikkhus, bound by both inner & outer bondage,
who neither sees this near shore, nor the far shore, who grows old in bondage,
who dies in bondage, will pass on in bondage to the next world still in
bondage!!!



...
Source:
The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 22:117 III 165
http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html

Have a nice day!


  Friendship is the Greatest *
  Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-)
  http://What-Buddha-Said.net <http://what-buddha-said.net/>


I-Me-Mine-Ego-belief is Death Bondage!

Hi Alex (TG, Howard & all),

--- On Sun, 30/11/08, Alex <truth_aerator@...> wrote:

>I briefly read your reply. It didn't appear wrong. Infact you said
right things in some places.

>The Buddha didn't mind telling people when they were wrong, how
stupid & misguided they were.
.....
S: I think you missed the point of Howard's apology. Regardless of whether what
we say is the truth or not, what is important, as Howard appreciates so well, is
the citta (the consciousness) and the mental states at this very moment as we
communicate or go about our various chores.

The teachings all come back to the present moment and to these various mental
states. This is why the development of right understanding and awareness is so
important.

I appreciated Howard's kind reflections and words of friendship. He understood
that the real problem was not (and never is) what others say, do or believe, but
"our own" akusala (unwholesomeness) arising now.

These are the opportunities for metta, for kindness and for gentle speech -when
we are associating with other friends.

Metta,

Sarah
=========

Hi Rob

Many thanks for this report of the funeral service.  We were very
sorry not to have been able to make it to Bangkok.  Your description
of the proceedings is appreciated.

Jon

PS  I had not realised that domestic travel was also so badly
affected.
Your daughter may be with you for quite a while yet!


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
>
>
> Sukinder , Ivan  Kevin, and me,  and many, many others attended the
> funeral service for Peter at Wat That Thong in Bangkok .  On
Tuesday we
> listened to monks chanting, and on Saturday, as suggested by Khun
sujin,
> Sukin , Ivan, Num and myself presented  robes and requisites(bought
by
> donors) to the 4 monks who were chanting. Yesterday was the burning
of
> the body and at that there was a presentation of Dhamma books and
also
> chanting from the Abhidhamma by monks.
> Marisi, Peter's Thai wife, welcomed many of the attendees and
mentioned
> that she intended  to keep coming to the English discusions on
Saturdays at
> the Dhamma study Group in Bukkalo.
>
> We missed seeing Sarh and Jon, Nina W., and Tom and Bev all of whom
> were unable to make it due to the bizarre protests in bangkok. (My
> daughter, up for New Zealand, attended the discussion on Saturday
and it
> looks like she might be still here for the next one.)
> Robert

Dear Alex,

I appreciate this sincere message with good questions.

--- On Sun, 30/11/08, Alex <truth_aerator@...> wrote:
>May we start from the beginning?
....
S: A good idea. Let's do so.
....

>What is wrong with considering concepts as impermanent & conditioned?
.....
S: Conventionally speaking, nothing wrong at all. However, we're studying the
Buddha's teachings, the Dhamma, which is about the understanding of realities -
the elements, the khandhas, the ayatanas. It is the understanding of namas and
rupas. The reason is that these are the realities which make up our lives and
which can be directly known by insight, not just by thinking about concepts.
When the Buddha referred to dhammas as impermanent and conditioned, it was to
these dhammas he was referring.

For example, now seeing arises, hearing arises. They arise by conditions and
fall away immediately. We may think now about a ghost or a pen. Again, the
thinking arises and falls away. We cannot say this of the concepts that were
thought about - the ghost or the pen. It's very important to distinguish the
thinking from the object that is thought about. The thinking is real and can be
directly known. The idea is not.
.....
>Personally I KNOW that everything in Samsara is inconstant,
conditioned and dependently arisen. "Concepts" belong to nama which
is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen.
.....
S: Thinking is nama. The mental states that accompany that thinking is nama..
The idea, such as 'ghost' or 'pen' is not nama and it doesn't have the
attributes of nama.
.....
>The basis of
concepts (5 aggregates ONLY) is impermanent, conditioned and
dependently arisen. The thing that percieves, labels, and makes
sense of concepts is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen.
.....
S: Yes, "the 5 aggregates ONLY", the "basis" for such concepts are impermanent
etc as you say. The cittas and cetasikas (i.e the namas) which perceive, label,
and make sense of the concept are impermanent and so on. Without these khandhas,
without such thinking, there'd be no concepts, but this doesn't make the
concepts into realities with the same characteristics.
....

A:> For example a dog doesn't know and doesn't have concepts of computer,
internet, e-mail and so on. These concepts are non-existent FOR A
DOG, but they DO "exist" for humans familiar with these things. That
is an example of conditioned nature of concepts.
.....
S: All such concepts - a dog, a computer, internet and so on only exist in a
conventional sense. In reality, there are just the 5 khandhas - ONLY! What is
imagined or thought to exist is just an idea. The thinking is real, the sanna is
real, the vitakka is real, but 'the dog', the 'computer' and so on can only ever
be conceived or thought of.
.....

A:> As far as I am concerned, there is no eternal "Concept-Land" where
concepts live on forever and ever, permanent and not subject to
change.
....
S: No one has ever suggested this during the 9 years and over 90,000 messages on
DSG !
.....
A: Concepts are concieved as you have said, and that concieving is
impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen.
....
S: Yes! Correct:-). So it's very important to appreciate that now, at this very
moment, there can be direct awareness of that thinking or conceiving, but not of
the concepts.

A good discussion. Pls take it even further back to basics and the beginning if
it's still not clear or if you still disagree. It's a major breakthrough to
understand this point. Without it, we'll just be swimming in the ocean of
concepts for ever.

Metta,

Sarah
========

Dear TG,

Regarding:

TG:  "I do see the things that arise as 'outgrowths' of
interactions/conditions.  Most fundamentally as interactions of the
Four Great Elements...which I consider the Four Great Momentums..."

Scott: I guess that essay will never be presented here in its
entirety, but one can focus on the little bits of theory that are
presented piece-meal, such as in the above.  I still think it would be
good to simply give the reader the opportunity to see the whole theory
in one go.

I suspect that the theory might have a certain inner consistency,
given that the whole project seems to have to do with a stoic,
isubstantialist denial of the actuality of dhammas ('things' as you
allow) with characteristics (sabhaava).

'The Great Elements,' as far as I can determine, are known in the
suttas as 'mahaa-bhuuta' or 'dhaatu.  One would have to replace
'dhaatu' with something else, in order to preserve the particular
theoretical stance that is presented in dribs and drabs.  I suppose
'momentum' is as good as anything else one could have made up.

As is the wont, however, to question such impositions, such an
innovation is not seen in the suttas.  What Paa.li word is being
translated as 'momentum?'  I'd be surprised if such a change can be
justified and will be shown, if ever you rise to the occasion to
present the complete theory, to be an entirely post-hoc and wholesale
re-writing of the Dhamma.

It does seem evident that these dhaatu are not simply 'earth'
(pa.thavii), 'fire' (tejo), 'water' (aapo,) and 'wind' (vaayo) in a
literal sense.  These four are conascent, and include the derived
elements, as I understand it; these refer to characteristics.  There
are aspects, at least within the PTS PED definition, which point to a
certain complexity:

"Dhaatu (f.)...Closely related to dhamma in meaning *B 1b...only
implying a closer relation to physical substance...1. a primary
element, of which the usual set comprises the four pa.thavii, aapo,
tejo, vaayo (earth, water, fire, wind), otherwise termed cattaaro
mahaabhuutaa(ni)...2. (a) natural condition, property, disposition;
factor, item, principle, form. In this meaning in var. combns &
applications, esp. closely related to khandha. Thus mentioned with
khandha & aayatana (sensory element & element of sense -- perception)
as bodily or physical element, factor...As such (physical substratum)
it constitutes one of the lokaa or forms of being..."

*Under 'dhamma':

"(b) objective: substratum (of cognition), piece, constituent
(=khandha), constitution; phenomenon, thing, 'world,' cosmic order (as
the expression of cosmic sense, as under a & 2). Thus applied to the
khandhas: vedanaadayo tayo kh...; to ruupa vedanaa sa~n~naa sankhaaraa
vi~n~naa.na S...=sankhaaraa..."

Scott: Without doubt these 'physical' dhaatu are shown to serve as
condition for existence.  The snippet of theory posited above is not
in any way an improvement on the way in which the elements are shown
to serve as condition in the Abhidhamma.  As the view would seem to
have it, nothing serves as condition because there are only
conditions, and hence, such realities as dhaatu have to be recast as
insubstantial - 'momentums' in this case, but 'momentums' of nothing.

'Momentum' is a concept derived from Newtonian physics, is it not -
equal to the product of an object's mass and its velocity?  I suppose,
given what I've read of the theory (TG's, not Newtons), an
insubstantialist would need to posit 'forces'.  But even the
Newtonians consider 'mass' to be part of the picture.  Within the view
in which there are no distinguishable dhammaa  but only 'conditions'
or 'forces' it is very difficult to imagine what it is that is 'moved'
by these 'forces.'

In the absence of any further description, to suggest that 'things' -
which will never be described and will no doubt be said to have no
existence - 'arise as outgrowths of interactions/conditions' which are
then said to be a function of 'interactions' of dhaatu or elements -
reconceptualised as simply 'momentums' - is to suggest a completely
untenable and unsupportable theory.

Sincerely,

Scott.

Hi James,

You wrote to Nina:

--- On Sat, 29/11/08, buddhatrue <buddhatrue@...> wrote:
>I just cannot find your last post to me. As I recall it was rather
detailed and must have took considerable effort to write so I would
like to respond. Could you please give me the tracking number?
.....
S: I think this was Nina's last message to you:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92966

(btw, I just put 'nina', 'james' in the good search space on the homepage to
find it.)

[Ken H, Howard & all, while searching there, I also pulled out this one of
Phil's that Ken was referring to re the 'Sea of Being' or 'Ground of Being'
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/91015]

Metta,

Sarah
======

Hi Alex

> There are definite suttas that one must perfect Jhana for
Anagamiship
> and not to mention Arahatship.
>
> With path to stream entry it is more complicated. Since stream
entry
> doesn't cut off or weaken lust & hatred (2 of the hindrances for
Jhana)
> Jhana doesn't play as much role, although it certainly can help,
> especially today.
>
> While it is true that in MN2 and AN2.x it states that  two
conditions
> must be met for achieving right view (synonymous with stream entry)
> that do not specifically include Jhana. Jhana does help one to
prepare,
> soften and clean the mind for insight required for Stream Entry.


Thanks for this.  To summarise the above:
(a)  jhana is not a prerequisite for insight development, nor for
enlightenment at sotapanna level (although it can certainly help).
(b) jhana is a prerequisite for enlightenment at the levels of
anagami and arahant.

Does this summarise your understanding of the teachings on this point
correctly?

Jon

Hi James

> > BTW, I did not say that "people exist as a type of perception".
I
> > said that the perception of a world of people and things is just
> > that:  a kind of perception (only).
>
> James: Okay, I am going to assume that you mean a type of false
> perception.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the enlightened being still
perceives a world of people and things (although not with the idea of
people and things that have existence in the ultimate sense).  I
don't think this could be called a type of false perception.

> > To my understanding, the enlightened being still perceives a
world of
> > people and things, but not with any trace on an idea of those
> people
> > and things having existence in the ultimate sense, i.e., in the
> sense
> > that dhammas can be said to exist (albeit only momentarily).
>
> James: This seems very contradictory to me: Beings don't exist like
> dhammas exist, which then only exist momentarily.

I think the problem is the absence of a definition of "exist".  But
no I'm not volunteering to come up with one ;-))

Whatever your definition, however, I understand the position to be
that "people" and "things" do not exist in the same way that dhammas
can be said to exist, i.e., in that their characteristics can be the
object of direct experience.

Jon

Hi Alex (TG & all),

--- On Mon, 1/12/08, Alex <truth_aerator@...> wrote:
>Concepts are elements of the mind and are mind made. There cannot be
concepts outside of the mind and those elements on which concepts are
based.
.....
S: Let's stick to the elements which the Buddha taught about. Recently you and
TG referred us to the Bahudhaatuka Sutta, "The Many Kinds of Elements", MN 115.

Here are a few quotes, (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl):

"When Aananda, a bhikkhu is skilled in the elements, skilled in the bases,
skilled in dependent origination, skilled in what is possible and what is
impossible, in that way he can be called a wise man and an inquirer."

S: So what does it mean to be "skilled in the elements"? Does it mean to be
skilled in concepts as elements? I don't think so:

" 'But, venerable sir, in what way can a bhikkhu be called skilled in the
elements?'

"There are, Aananda, these eighteen elements: the eye element, the form element,
the eye-consciousness element; .......the body element, the tangible element,
the body-consciousness element; the mind element, the mind-object element, the
mind-consciousness element. When he knows and sees these eighteen elements, a
bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements."

S: The dhaatus (elements) only refer to realities, not to concepts, just as the
khandhas and the ayatanas (translated as bases in the first line of the quote
from the sutta above) only refer to realities.

As the translators' note to the above quote says: "The mind-object element
(dhammadhaatu) includes the subtle material pheonomena not involved in sense
cognition, the three mental aggregates of feeling, perception, and formations,
and Nibbaana. It ***does not include concepts, abstract ideas, judgements, etc.
Though these latter are included in the notion of mind-object (dhammaaramma.na),
the mind-object *element* includes only things that exist by their own nature,
not things constructed by the mind***."

In the sutta, the elements are classified in many different ways. Finally it
says:

"There are, Aananda these two elements: the conditioned element and the
unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a bhikkhu can
be called skilled in the elements."

S: Here the conditioned element refers to the 5 khandhas and the unconditioned
element to nibbana. This is 'The All' to be known. The khandhas, 'the
conditioned element' referred to here, represent the only dhammas which are
conditioned, which arise and fall away. There is no room for concepts here
amongst these dhammas (as Alberto would say).

This is why, as in this sutta which Scott recently quoted, the teachings only
refer to the arising, alteration and falling away of the khandhas (unless they
are using a simile or analogy to illustrate a point, such as with the rotting
away of the ship):

Scott:> SN 22 37 (5) Aanandasutta.m

>"...Good, good, Aananda! With form, Aananda, an arising is discerned
(uppaado pa~n~naayati), a vanishing is discerned (vayo pa~n~naayati),
an alteration of that which stands is discerned (.thitassa
a~n~nathatta.m). With feeling...perception...volitional
formations...consciousness an arising is discerned, a vanishing is
discerned, an alteration of that which stands is discerned..."

>"...Saadhu saadhu, aananda! Ruupassa kho, aananda, uppaado
pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m
pa~n~naayati. Vedanaaya... sa~n~naaya... sa"khaaraana....
vi~n~naa.nassa uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa
a~n~nathatta.m pa~n~naayati. Imesa.m kho, aananda, dhammaana.m uppaado
pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa a~n~nathatta.m
pa~n~naayatiiti."
.....

Metta,

Sarah
===========

Hi James

> > To my understanding, the Buddha taught that the All is the 6
> worlds
> > of the 6 sense doors.  The implication is that only one object is
> > known at a time.  Is it your understanding that the Buddha taught
> > that the 6 worlds are known simultaneously?
>
> James: No, it is my understanding that they exist simultaneously
but
> they are only known through one doorway at a time.

Let's take the last part of your statement first.  Yes, only one of
the 6 worlds is ever known at a given moment.  So the idea we have of
a world of people and things is a product of thinking which assembles
the experiences of the 6 worlds, occurring at different moments, into
a composite whole.

As regards the statement that the 6 worlds exist simultaneously,
that's not how I would understand the teachings.  The 6 worlds spoken
of by the Buddha are 6 separate moments of consciousness; they could
never "exist" simultaneously for an individual.

Jon

Hi TG

> TG:  ... Actually, I don't mind your  descriptions...much.  The
last
> sentence shows signs of an entity view  creeping in.  I'd reject
the notion
> that anything "has" anything of  its own.

As I said in a previous post, I think you are mistaken in ascribing
views by reference to specific words used.  There is no basis for it
in the teachings, as far as I'm aware.

Besides, your list of "substantialist" words keeps expanding; now it
includes "has" ;-))

Jon

Hi, TG -

In a message dated 11/30/2008 10:28:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
TGrand458@... writes:

Hi  Howard


In a message dated 11/30/2008 4:08:40 P.M. Mountain Standard  Time,
upasaka@... writes:

Howard:
Yes, though we have  to be careful here. There is some  complexity to the
matter, I think.
When we think of the pain just  felt, the thought-of pain is merely
imagined/projected and is nonexistent  But there *was* a felt pain,  and the
current thinking is related to that,  and in a sense it  refers to it.
Likewise, if, when, sitting in my room, I  think of the  huge tree on my
front lawn, there is just the  thinking-about-front  lawn, there is just t
interrelated namas and  rupas occurred that  served as the basis for this
present
thinking, and in  the future  similar namas and rupas will occur, enabling me
to
cognize  "that  tree" at that time
But I do quite agree with you: Though at any time,   the aggregation of
namas and rupas that enable cognizing the tree while  I  "look at it," is a
genuine collection of interrelated phenomena,

.................................................


TG:   Up to here full  agreement.


............................................................


"the   tree" projected by that
thinking is nonexistent

............................................................


TG:   There is no tree "projected" by that thinking ... other then as  mental

phenomena tapping in to memories...due to contiguously related   conditions.


Its a "mental picture" and is never anything  other.  Its mental  content.
It
does arise and cease in  dependence on conditions.  The  "projection" is the
concept,  memory in progress.
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     I know. That is why I put "the tree" in quotes. And  'projected' really
just means "imagined". When thinking of a tree, there is just  a particular
pattern of thinking, and no tree.
------------------------------------------------




.....................................................................


-  an  imagined fiction that is neither permanent nor
impermanent nor  conditioned  nor unconditioned, because there just ain't no
such
thing, the only  realities being the thinking and the aggregation of  namas
and
rupas that  is the basis for that thinking.
-----------------------------------------------

.........................................................................


TG:   To me this unnecessarily confuses the matter by trying to "play  ball"
in a non-existent park.  Why make the trip?    ;-)
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     It is important to provide clear analysis and  understanding. That
something doesn't exist but it seems that this is not  so, the matter needs to
be
analyzed. That's what the Buddha did with  "selves", showing what really is
present, and that there is nothing more  than that.
----------------------------------------------




I realize others are making and embracing that trip.   Their whole  religion
is built around the idea so will be near  impossible for any of them to  ever
realize it or see it.  I  think the best approach for me is not to  cater to
or
even sympathize  with their delusional outlook.  But rather nip  it in the
bud...with Barney Fife Buddhism.
:-)
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     The truth needs to be made clear by whatever means  work - out of
kindness if nothing else. There is a confusion when something is  called a
concept,
is thought of as a shadow and also as unconditioned and  permanent, when in
fact there is no such thing at all. And the reasons for the  confusion need to
be
put out there by showing what actually exists (contingently  and fleetingly,
of course) that leads to that confusion.
----------------------------------------------




......................................................................




So  by clearly saying concepts are only mental phenomena, I deny  this
misapprehension of a "non" projected thing/nothing. It is an fake   issue,
forged by
misapprehension, and is only a   distraction.
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
I   agree. The aggregation of rupas (and namas, IMO) that is the basis for
our  "seeing" or recalling or thinking about "a tree" exists, and the
concept

that is a particular pattern of thinking based on that  aggregation exists
(or did exist), but "the tree being thought of"  is not the same as the
aggregation, and, in fact, is a fiction.

..........................................................


TG:   This is very good.  Makes me think.  Its a fiction  if it is  not
recognized for what it really is...a concept.  But the same   applies to all
experiences when they are "taken" to be something they  are  not...such as
permanent,
self, etc.  Those are fictions  too.
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     As soon as we are engaged in thinking, what seems  to be "the object" is
only a mental projection/concoction, and not existent. The  thinking may well
be based on experienced phenomena, but what seems to  be projected by the
thinking isn't really anything at all - it just seems  that there is something,
and that seeming is part of the thinking. Even when  thinking about a sensation
just felt, all that is present is a  particular pattern of thinking that is
related to and engendered in part by the  sensation that WAS felt.
---------------------------------------------




Concepts actually arise and they're only fictions if they  are
misapprehended
as being something beyond mere memories,  conditions.
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
     As often as possible, it's probably best to avoid  even using the term
'concept', because of the danger in thinking that there is  some shadow-thing
other than a process of thought that the term refers  to.
----------------------------------------------




They couldn't fool the Buddha and I'll be damned if I'll  let them fool  me.

LOL


........................................................


We  may  speak of "the tree being thought of"
and think there is some  such thing,  but in reality there's just the
thinking
process.

......................................................


TG:   Yes!


.................................................


So,   there is the aggregation that is basis (actual), the thinking
(actual),  and the what is being thought of  (non-existent)(

....................................................


TG:   This part I don't like.  I just don't see a "non-existent"  in the
process.  What is being thought of is the reflection on the   memory.
------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     The phrase 'what is being thought of'', when not  referring (indirectly)
to a single experienced phenomenon  or aggregation of experienced phenomena
that is basis for the  thinking, but instead is intended to refer to a
shadow-something, has no actual referent at all. There exist just the 
interrelated
phenomena (rupas and namas) that are basis for the thinking,  and the thinking -
nothing else. And that point has to be made, just as  selves need to be
pointed out to be non-existent. At some point, a person  needs to be told "Santa
is
unreal, and despite the fact that I  use the name 'Santa', there still is no
Santa!"
-------------------------------------------------




.......................................................



An   analogy: There's a photograph of Chancellor Merkel of Germany
addressing  the Reichstag, and someone looking at the photo says  "Hey,
there's
Chancellor Merkel addressing the Reichstag!". The  "realities" involved are
the
Chancellor and the members of the  Reichstag sitting in the chamber at  some
time
in the past  (corresponding to the aggregation that is the  basis), the
photograph  of them (corresponding to the concept or pattern of  thinking),
and  "the
Chancellor and Reichstag members in the photograph"   (nonexistent)a

..................................................................


TG:    But the actual Chancellor and the Reichstag aren't supposed  exist in
the photograph.  Its like making up a false scenario, and then   saying the
false scenario doesn't exist.
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Since the false scenario IS imagined, the falsity  needs to be pointed
out.
------------------------------------------------

Likewise, the "tree" is not  supposed to exist in
the concept  thereof.  An unnecessary exercise  IMO.
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Unnecessary for whom? One could say that since  there is no self, there's
no need to talk about self. Well, there IS the need to  point out that it is
a fiction and why it is. That's exactly what the Buddha did  - that plus
providing a variety of additional means to go beyond that  fiction.
----------------------------------------------




My wife just called ... her best friend just died at age  51.  Wake up  call.

No condolences necessary please, just  a reason to keep making a  strong
effort while we have a  chance.
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Jesus! Well, please forgive me, but I'm very sorry  to hear this, and I
do hope you will convey that to your wife. How  terrible!
     Yes, TG, there is urgency. Now is the time to do  what needs to be done.
---------------------------------------------





Thanks Howard for all your thought provoking  posts.
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
     :-) Likewise.
----------------------------------------------




TG OUT
=============================
With metta,
Howard


/Thus is  how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
in a stream,  a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
phantom, and a  dream/

(From the Diamond  Sutra)

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)


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

Hi, all -

     We're flying early Wednesday to Texas to visit our  son & his family, to
return late at night the following Wednesday. I will  have internet access
while there but limited time for discussions. I will check  my email, though -
so
please don't hesitate to write. I will reply to posts  during that week or at
least upon our return.

With metta,
Howard


/Thus is  how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
in a stream,  a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
phantom, and a  dream/

(From the Diamond  Sutra)

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)


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

Hi Howard,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:
>
> Hi, Ken -
>
>     I apologize for the anger I expressed in my last  post to you.
I'm sorry,
> Ken. I do think that you missed the boat in several  respects, but
I missed
> it far more in my lack of calm and lack of  kindness.
>

I don't understand this apology.  Are you apologizing for using
harsh speech or for experiencing anger?  It seems more like you are
apologizing for eperiencing anger and, I think, you don't need to
apologize to anyone for that.  When you experience anger you just
hurt yourself, not Ken or anyone else.  Here is part of a sutta:

This secret place, with anger's aid,
Is where mortality sets the snare.
To blot it out with discipline,
With vision, strength, and understanding,
To blot each fault out one by one,
The wise man should apply himself,
Training likewise in the true Dhamma;
"Let smoldering be far from us."
Then rid of wrath and free from anger,
And rid of lust and free from envy,
Tamed, and with anger left behind,
	 Taintless, they reach Nibbana.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.060.nymo.html

Anger must be overcome with rationality.  As you were writing the
post to Ken, and it was a very looong post, you must have felt the
anger rising in you.  At that point, you should realize...through
rationality...that you are harming yourself.  You are destroying
your equanimity.  And at that point, you should stop writing the
post and delete it.

Apologizing after the fact is all well and good, but who does it
benefit?  Ken wasn't really hurt by your anger, you were hurt by
it.  So, it would be better to just not write to Ken if he makes you
angry.  Anyway, that's what I think.

Metta,
James

Hi, Sarah (and Phil & Ken) -

In a message dated 12/1/2008 7:47:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
sarahprocterabbott@... writes:

[Ken H,  Howard & all, while searching there, I also pulled out this one of
Phil's  that Ken was referring to re the 'Sea of Being' or 'Ground of  Being'
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/91015]
==============================
     Thank you for this, Sarah.
      Ken, for your possible interest, my reply  in msg # 91022 was the
following:

___________________________
Hi, Phil -

In a message dated 10/5/2008 6:00:05 A.M. Eastern  Daylight Time,
_philco777@..._
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/post?postID=QnOIySBc5aqBXqIW8W0I\
S8-hRdCeQYIRN5l-cuXa4ah29pZI3HLK5ZxFOkcfeg-NK66IXF1qllvgkyL3
SQ)  writes:

Howard, is the "net of  Indra" you wrote about something like
a "ground of  being?"
==============================
No, I would say it is not. The  metaphor pertains to interdependency of
dhammas, with each being a fleeting,  contingent, point within an
interconnected network of inseparable phenomena.  A ground of being notion,
accepted in only some Zen traditions, is probably a  borrowing from Vedanta.

With metta,
Howard
-----------------------------------------------

With metta,
Howard


/A change  in anything is a change in  everything/

(Anonymous)

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)


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

Hi Jon,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...>
wrote:

> I think the problem is the absence of a definition of "exist".  But
> no I'm not volunteering to come up with one ;-))

James: Actually, the Buddha already gave a sutta defining "exists" and
he stated that whatever is impermanent and subject to change which the
wise of the world agree as existing, he also states that it exists.
(Unfortunately, there isn't too much agreement among the wise of the
world about what truly exists! ;-))

>
> Whatever your definition, however, I understand the position to be
> that "people" and "things" do not exist in the same way that dhammas
> can be said to exist, i.e., in that their characteristics can be the
> object of direct experience.

James: Again, this seems to be blending satipatthana and existence.
Please address this issue as we keep coming back to it.

>
> Jon
>

Metta,
James

Hi Jon,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi James
>
> > > To my understanding, the Buddha taught that the All is the 6
> > worlds
> > > of the 6 sense doors.  The implication is that only one object
is
> > > known at a time.  Is it your understanding that the Buddha
taught
> > > that the 6 worlds are known simultaneously?
> >
> > James: No, it is my understanding that they exist simultaneously
> but
> > they are only known through one doorway at a time.
>
> Let's take the last part of your statement first.  Yes, only one
of
> the 6 worlds is ever known at a given moment.  So the idea we have
of
> a world of people and things is a product of thinking which
assembles
> the experiences of the 6 worlds, occurring at different moments,
into
> a composite whole.

James: One of those six worlds is the mind and mental objects.  I
don't believe that when we "know" a person or a pen it is the result
of thinking, it is a mental object.  It forms automatically.

>
> As regards the statement that the 6 worlds exist simultaneously,
> that's not how I would understand the teachings.  The 6 worlds
spoken
> of by the Buddha are 6 separate moments of consciousness

James: I don't see how you could come to that interpretaion.  The
sutta doesn't say anything about "separate", it just lists them:
What is the All?  Okay, you have this and this and this and this,
etc.

   ; they could
> never "exist" simultaneously for an individual.

James: Again, I don't see the connection between satipatthana and
existence.

>
> Jon
>

Metta,
James

Hi, James -

In a message dated 12/1/2008 9:20:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  budd
hatrue@... writes:

Hi  Howard,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@...  wrote:
>
> Hi, Ken -
>
>     I  apologize for the anger I expressed in my last  post to you.
I'm  sorry,
> Ken. I do think that you missed the boat in several   respects, but
I missed
> it far more in my lack of calm and lack  of  kindness.
>

I don't understand this  apology.  Are you apologizing for using
harsh speech or for  experiencing anger?
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Both, but mostly apologizing for expressing anger.  I also apologize to
others and to myself for not having done what needs to be  done to be further
beyond anger than I am.
--------------------------------------------

It seems more like you are
apologizing for eperiencing anger and, I think,  you don't need to
apologize to anyone for that.  When you experience  anger you just
hurt yourself, not Ken or anyone else.
--------------------------------------------
Howard:
     When the anger is strong enough and  defenses weak enough, the anger gets
expressed in harsh speech,  which hurts others as well as myself.
--------------------------------------------

Here is part of a sutta:

This secret place, with anger's aid,
Is  where mortality sets the snare.
To blot it out with discipline,
With  vision, strength, and understanding,
To blot each fault out one by  one,
The wise man should apply himself,
Training likewise in the true  Dhamma;
"Let smoldering be far from us."
Then rid of wrath and free from  anger,
And rid of lust and free from envy,
Tamed, and with anger left  behind,
Taintless, they reach  Nibbana.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.060.nymo.html

Anger  must be overcome with rationality.  As you were writing the
post to  Ken, and it was a very looong post, you must have felt the
anger rising in  you.  At that point, you should realize...through
rationality...that  you are harming yourself.  You are destroying
your equanimity.   And at that point, you should stop writing the
post and delete  it.

Apologizing after the fact is all well and good, but who does it
benefit?  Ken wasn't really hurt by your anger, you were hurt by
it.  So, it would be better to just not write to Ken if he makes you
angry.  Anyway, that's what I think.
-------------------------------------------
Howard:
     Certainly your prerogative! ;-)
-----------------------------------------



Metta,
James
=========================
With metta,
Howard


/A change  in anything is a change in  everything/

(Anonymous)

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)


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

Hi Sarah,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott
<sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> You wrote to Nina:
>
> --- On Sat, 29/11/08, buddhatrue <buddhatrue@...> wrote:
> >I just cannot find your last post to me. As I recall it was
rather
> detailed and must have took considerable effort to write so I
would
> like to respond. Could you please give me the tracking number?
> .....
> S: I think this was Nina's last message to you:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/92966
>
> (btw, I just put 'nina', 'james' in the good search space on the
homepage to find it.)

Thanks for this information.  I did use the search engine and I
found that post but I thought I had already responded.  I guess the
cold made me really spacey.  I have bookmarked and will respond
later as I am going to bed now.

Metta,
James

Hi Howard


In a message dated 12/1/2008 7:00:48 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
upasaka@... writes:

TG:  But the actual Chancellor and the Reichstag aren't supposed exist in
the  photograph. Its like making up a false scenario, and then saying the
false  scenario doesn't  exist.
---------------------------------------------------
Howard:
Since  the false scenario IS imagined, the falsity needs to be pointed
out.
------------------------------------------------
.......................................................


TG:  Agreed. You use your tactics and I'll use my tactics and  I'll get the
Scotland afore ye.   ;-)


...........................................................




Likewise, the "tree" is not supposed to exist in
the  concept thereof. An unnecessary exercise  IMO.
----------------------------------------------
Howard:
Unnecessary  for whom? One could say that since there is no self, there's
no need to  talk about self. Well, there IS the need to point out that it is
a fiction  and why it is. That's exactly what the Buddha did - that plus
providing a  variety of additional means to go beyond that ficti

........................................................................


TG:  Humm, cut you off...oh well.   Just my thinking ... I  think the Buddha
made the facts of 'self delusion' clear not be spending much  time pointing
out the 'self delusion aspects,' but by spending time pointing out  what
conditions were doing.  My idea is, rather than step into their  deluded
framework,
is to beat the drum saying that conditions are doing  this....and THAT thing is
a delusional imagination.  I don't reinforce the  "delusional imagination" in
order to deny it.  I use to, but not now.   I've got you for that.   ;-)  Its
probably a mute point cause I  don't think they're going to see it anyway.
:-/


Very interesting conversation.  I think we're in very good agreement  here in
terms of how we see the matter.  Just have a different approach in
discussing it.  I'm satisfied.   LOL


TG OUT
**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)


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

Dear Sarah and all,

>sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Alex,
>For example, now seeing arises, hearing arises. They arise by
>conditions and fall away immediately. We may think now about a ghost
>or a pen. Again, the thinking arises and falls away. We cannot say
>this of the concepts that were thought about - the ghost or the pen.
>It's very important to distinguish the thinking from the object that
>is thought about. The thinking is real and can be directly known.
>The idea is not.
> .....

As Howard has said, there may be miscommunication on what is meant by
a concept. While it is true that there isn't anything that is "thing-
in-itself" and that every "whole" (such as a person) is made up of
the parts,  the idea no matter how deluded and label "ghost, person"
DOES exist. What the idea points to (thing in itself) doesn't exist
outside of imagination, true.  But even here the non-exist object
that is being pointed to, does exist in delusive mind as an
imagination and ceases to haunt the Arahant. So the delusive concepts
that don't point to real thing-in-itself do assail a worldling, but
not an Arahant. This sense the concepts are impermanent.



> >Personally I KNOW that everything in Samsara is inconstant,
> conditioned and dependently arisen. "Concepts" belong to nama which
> is impermanent, conditioned and dependently arisen.
> .....
> S: Thinking is nama. The mental states that accompany that thinking
>is nama.. The idea, such as 'ghost' or 'pen' is not nama and it
>doesn't have the attributes of nama.
> .....

We may have miscommunication here.    GHOST is spelled G H O S T, the
letters, the sounds, the thought does exist. But what it refers to,
doesn't.


> >The basis of
> concepts (5 aggregates ONLY) is impermanent, conditioned and
> dependently arisen. The thing that percieves, labels, and makes
> sense of concepts is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen.
> .....
> S: Yes, "the 5 aggregates ONLY", the "basis" for such concepts are
>impermanent etc as you say. The cittas and cetasikas (i.e the namas)
>which perceive, label, and make sense of the concept are impermanent
>and so on. Without these khandhas, without such thinking, there'd be
>no concepts, but this doesn't make the concepts into realities with
>the same characteristics.
> ....

But the hallucination DOES exist (although it is misperception &
misapprehension) especially if we break into  "seeing", "thinking",
imagining, craving or hating it due to not-understanding, etc .


Thank you very much for replying.


With best wishes,

Hi Sarah, Alex, Howard, All



In a message dated 12/1/2008 6:24:43 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
sarahprocterabbott@... writes:

Hi  Alex (TG & all),

--- On Mon, 1/12/08, Alex <_truth_aerator@truth_ae_
(mailto:truth_aerator@...) >  wrote:
>Concepts are elements of the mind and are mind made. There  cannot be
concepts outside of the mind and those elements on which  concepts are
based.
.....
S: Let's stick to the elements which the  Buddha taught about. Recently you
and TG referred us to the Bahudhaatuka  Sutta, "The Many Kinds of Elements", MN
115.

Here are a few quotes,  (Nanamoli/Bodhi transl):

"When Aananda, a bhikkhu is skilled in the  elements, skilled in the bases,
skilled in dependent origination, skilled in  what is possible and what is
impossible, in that way he can be called a wise  man and an inquirer."

S: So what does it mean to be "skilled in the  elements"? Does it mean to be
skilled in concepts as elements? I don't think  so:
......................................................


TG:  The above comment is arbitrary.  Skilled in the  elements means a full
range of understandings.  No-one is saying it is  specifically to know concepts
as elements.  However, part of being skilled  in the elements is to know
mental content.  How it arises, changes, and  ceases.


.........................................................



" 'But, venerable sir, in what way can a bhikkhu be called  skilled in the
elements?'

"There are, Aananda, these eighteen elements:  the eye element, the form
element, the eye-consciousness element; .......the  body element, the tangible
element, the body-consciousness element; the mind  element, the mind-object
element, the mind-consciousness element. When he  knows and sees these eighteen
elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the  elements."

S: The dhaatus (elements) only refer to realities, not to  concepts, just as
the khandhas and the ayatanas (translated as bases in the  first line of the
quote from the sutta above) only refer to  realities.

..............................................................


TG:  This is preposterous!  You quote the Sutta and make a  comment that has
nothing to do with the quote.  As if your comment was  drawn from the quote.


Here is just an interjection of personal view, derived from the  commentaries
no doubt, and arbitrarily slapped onto a Sutta quote that says no  such thing.


In fact, a concept would fall into the category of  "mind-object-element."
Such an element may or may not be delusional.


Here is Nyanatiloka's Dictionary description of mind-object-base (ayatana)
-- "it may be physical or mental, past, present, or future, real or  imaginary"



That settles the issue.   LOL



.................................................................




As the translators' note to the above quote says: "The  mind-object element
(dhammadhaatu) includes the subtle material pheonomena not  involved in sense
cognition, the three mental aggregates of feeling,  perception, and formations,
and Nibbaana. It ***does not include concepts,  abstract ideas, judgements,
etc. Though these latter are included in the  notion of mind-object
(dhammaaramma.As the translators' note to the above quote says: "The 
mind-object element
(dhammadhaatu) includes the subtle material pheonome

...........................................................


TG:  Good Try!!!   This "note of the translator" is merely  the translator
saying what Abhidhamma says about it.  I.E. -- "...according  to Abhidhamma..."


"What Abhidhamma says about it" is the issue!!!   The above note  is full of
interior self contradiction.  Concepts and such are included in  the notion of
"mind-object," but not mind-object-element"?  That makes  sense...NOT.  So
now Abhidhamma is dabbling in what NOTIONS are or are  not.  Utterly ridiculous
stuff.  They obviously are very  confused.


What's just as bad if not worse... Here Abhidhamma is taking about "things
existing by their own nature."


I'll say it again -- "THINGS EXISTING BY THEIR OWN NATURE."  What  utter
nonsense.  Even Abhidhamma knows better than this...I thought.   A SELF by any
other name would smell as sweet.   ;-)


Then it says that "things constructed by the mind" don't qualify as
"element."  NEWS FLASH TO ABHIDHAMMA -- everything is a construction.   The GD
12 Fold
Chain is a construction by the mind for goodness sakes!


LOLOLOL  You got to love the Abhidhamma for if nothing else, comic  relief!


.............................................................




In the sutta, the elements are classified in many different  ways. Finally it
says:

"There are, Aananda these two elements: the  conditioned element and the
unconditioned element. When he knows and sees  these two elements, a bhikkhu can
be called skilled in the  elements."

S: Here the conditioned element refers to the 5 khandhas and  the
unconditioned element to nibbana. This is 'The All' to be known. The  khandhas,
'the
conditioned element' referred to here, represent the only  dhammas which are
conditioned, which arise and fall away. There is no room for  concepts here
amongst
these dhammas (as Alberto would say).
....................................................................


TG:  The last line another wild arbitrary comment to a Sutta that says
nothing of the kind!!!!


Its just MADE UP STUFF.  Can't find a Sutta that says what they want  to
hear, so they make it up and pretend they have Sutta evidence as  support!   Bad
bad bad.


....................................................................




This is why, as in this sutta which Scott recently quoted, the  teachings
only refer to the arising, alteration and falling away of the  khandhas (unless
they are using a simile or analogy to illustrate a point,  such as with the
rotting away of the ship):

Scott:> SN 22 37 (5)  Aanandasutta.

>"...Good, good, Aananda! With form, Aananda, an  arising is discerned
(uppaado pa~n~naayati)(uppaado pa~n~naayati)<WBR>, a vanishing is discer(
an alteration of that which stands is discerned  (.thitassa
a~n~nathatta.a~n~nathatta.<WBR>m). With  fa~n~nathatta.
formations..formations..<WBR>.consciousness an  arising is discerne
discerned, an alteration of that which  stands is discerned...d

>"...Saadhu saadhu, aananda! Ruupassa  kho, aananda, uppaado
pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa  a~n~nathatta.p
pa~n~naayati. Vedanaaya... sa~n~naaya..pa~n~naayati. Vedanpa~
vi~n~naa.nassa uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo  pa~n~naayati, .thitassa
a~n~nathatta.a~n~nathatta.<WBR>m pa~n~naayati. Imesa.m kho,  aananda, d
pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa  a~n~nathatta.p
pa~n~naayatiiti.p
.....


....................................................................


TG:  NOTHING!   Nothing there to support their  contention.


Very interesting to note you are dealing with a Sutta that states -- "an
alteration of that which stands is discerned."  Not theorized as some  billionth
of a second happening, but actually discerned.  Wouldn't Scott  say -- How can
something stand and change through time...this must be permanence  view....
I'll have to run it by Scott.    ;-)


My advice...denounce the Suttas as heresy and get it over with.   Whenever
you try to use them for support of dhammas theory, realities vs  concepts, etc.,
its just a mess and they harm your position far more than  support it.


TG OUT    :-)







Metta,

Sarah

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)


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

Hi Scott


TG:  What gives below...isn't this what you call "permanence  view"?


In a message dated 12/1/2008 6:24:43 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
sarahprocterabbott@... writes:

>"...Good, good, Aananda! With form, Aananda, an arising is  discerned
(uppaado pa~n~naayati)(uppaado pa~n~naayati)<WBR>, a vanishing is discer(
an alteration of that which stands is discerned  (.thitassa
a~n~nathatta.a~n~nathatta.<WBR>m). With  fa~n~nathatta.
formations..formations..<WBR>.consciousness an  arising is discerne
discerned, an alteration of that which  stands is discerned...d

>"...Saadhu saadhu, aananda! Ruupassa  kho, aananda, uppaado
pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa  a~n~nathatta.p
pa~n~naayati. Vedanaaya... sa~n~naaya..pa~n~naayati. Vedanpa~
vi~n~naa.nassa uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo  pa~n~naayati, .thitassa
a~n~nathatta.a~n~nathatta.<WBR>m pa~n~naayati. Imesa.m kho,  aananda, d
pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, .thitassa  a~n~nathatta.p
pa~n~naayatiiti.p

.......................................................................


TG:  Buddha:  "...with consciousness (and  the other aggregates) an arising
is discerned, a vanishing is
discerned, an  alteration of that which stands is  discerned...d


Now be honest, If I had said this you'd be trumpeting that I was presenting
"permanence view" right?


How can something alter through time and still stand as the "same
thing"...that's got to be permanence view.  Take it up with the Buddha  buddy!  
;-)


TG OUT




**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)


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

Hi, TG (and Scott) -

In a message dated 12/1/2008 1:30:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
TGrand458@... writes:

How can  something alter through time and still stand as the "same
thing"...that's got to be permanence view.  Take it up with the  Buddha
buddy!   ;-)
==========================
     My understanding, for what it is worth:
     Whatever supposedly alters while  remaining the "same thing" is mere
convention - a useful fiction. There  actually are no "things" that last at all,
and anicca is radical  change/impermanence with nothing remaining at all. As I
see it, anicca as it  actually is, is already emptiness. I think that "thing
thinking" is useful for  navigating "the everyday world" but should be taken
with a grain of  salt, for ultimately it is invalid and misleading.

With metta,
Howard


/He who  does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like
flowers  which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none — such a seeker
gives up the  here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin./

(From  the Uraga Sutta)
**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)


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

Hi James,
I appreciate your effort finding my post, and I forgot what I wrote.
I am just back today from a trip. I thought later on that I had
forgotten to wish you good recovery from your cold. I meant to tell
you: eat your daily ration of 200 gram of veg, and fruits, that keeps
the doctor away.
Nina.
Op 1-dec-2008, om 15:53 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven:

> I did use the search engine and I
> found that post but I thought I had already responded. I guess the
> cold made me really spacey. I have bookmarked and will respond
> later as I am going to bed now.



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

Hi Howard, Scott


In a message dated 12/1/2008 11:51:05 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
upasaka@... writes:

How  can something alter through time and still stand as the "same
thing"...that'thing"...that'<WBR>s got to be permanence view. Take it up w
buddy! ;-)
==========================
HOWARD:  My  understanding, for what it is worth:
Whatever supposedly alters while  remaining the "same thing" is mere
convention - a useful fiction. There  actually are no "things" that last at
all,
and anicca is radical  change/impermanence with nothing remaining at all.

....................................................


TG:  Of course this question to Scott was just a reiteration of what I  think
Scott's premise is.


I agree 100% with what you wrote here Howard.  Though we recognize an  object
as "continuing," it is actually in the process of changing all the time  and
has nothing of its own...ever.  It is mere convention to think of it as  "the
same thing."


TG
**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)


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

Hi Jon,

>--- "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex
>
> Thanks for this.  To summarise the above:
> (a)  jhana is not a prerequisite for insight development, nor for
> enlightenment at sotapanna level (although it can certainly help).
> (b) jhana is a prerequisite for enlightenment at the levels of
> anagami and arahant.
>
> Does this summarise your understanding of the teachings on this point
> correctly?
>
> Jon

slight correction
a)jhana mastery does not seem to be a prerequisite for insight
development for sotapanna level (although it can certainly help).

It may be the case that jhana, at least of momentary kind, occur just
before stream path and/or stream fruition.


The above assumes that Yoniso Manasikaro doesn't include Jhana.

2 conditions for ditthipanno
1) Voice of another
2) Yoniso manasikaro

MN2 and AN2.?


However all drastically changes for Anagami and especially Arhatship.


With best wishes,

Hi TG, Sarah and all,

>--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote:
> In fact, a concept would fall into the category of  "mind-object-
>element."  Such an element may or may not be delusional.

EXACTLY.


> Here is Nyanatiloka's Dictionary description of mind-object-base
>(ayatana) -- "it may be physical or mental, past, present, or
>future, real or  imaginary"
>
>
>
> That settles the issue.   LOL

It does settle the issue, Sarah.


The mind contents may refer to "real or imaginary"  , but that
doesn't change the fact that mental content exists and is fully
conditioned.


With best wishes,

Dear TG,

Regarding:

TG:  "What gives below...isn't this what you call 'permanence view'?
...Buddha:  '...with consciousness (and  the other aggregates) an
arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an  alteration of that
which stands is  discerned...Now be honest, If I had said this you'd
be trumpeting that I was presenting 'permanence view' right?"

Scott: Yes, you likely would be presenting 'permanence view.'  The
view doesn't accept the momentary arising and falling away of
conditioned dhammas, nor does it accept that dhammas have
characteristics.  And no, this is not 'permanence view.'  It is in
reference to the moment, as you know and simply have chosen to reject.

TG: "How can something alter through time and still stand as the 'same
thing'...that's got to be permanence view..."

Scott: This is clarified by the Abhidhamma to be in reference to the
moment of presence between the arising and falling away of a
conditioned dhamma, so it's not that complicated.  A given dhamma
comes from nowhere, and goes to nowhere.  It is 'here' while it is
here, for these sub-moments.

Sincerely,

Scott.

Hi Scott


In a message dated 12/1/2008 6:54:29 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
scduncan@... writes:

Dear  TG,

Regarding:

TG: "What gives below...isn'TG: "What gives below...isn'<WBR>t this wha
...Buddha: '...with consciousness (and the other  aggregates) an
arising is discerned, a vanishing is discerned, an  alteration of that
which stands is discerned...which stands is discerned...<WBR>Now be hon
be trumpeting that I was presenting 'permanence view'  right?"

Scott: Yes, you likely would be presenting 'permanence view.'

..............................................................................



So what you are saying is that you just repudiate the Suttas period?   I
guess from your perspective, the Buddha was a very sub-standard teacher as his
teaching, apparently according to you, taught permanence view ... and it  took
the Abhidhamma and commentaries to straighten things out.   Alright!



I have to give you credit for being consistent in that when I reiterate the
Suttas and you call it "permanence view," that you accuse the Suttas of the
same  when they say the same.  Its amazing, but admirable in its  consistency.


.......................................................................




The
view doesn't accept the momentary arising and falling away  of
conditioned dhammas, nor does it accept that dhammas  have
characteristics. And no, this is not 'permanence view.' It is  in
reference to the moment, as you know and simply have chosen to  reject.

.............................................


TG:  Ah yes, the Commentaries to the rescue!!!  With their  special views
unfound in the Suttas.


.................................................




TG: "How can something alter through time and still stand as  the 'same
thing'...that'thing'...that'<WBR>s got to be

Scott:  This is clarified by the Abhidhamma

.........................................................


TG:  Good thing.  That Buddha was such a "klutz" in his  dissemination of the
teaching, that nobody could have understood that what he  really meant was
something totally different than he was saying.    LOL


And while we're at it, let's just bypass saying these are our
interpretations of what the Buddha meant, and just give him direct credit for a 
whole bunch
of things he never said.  THAT'S keeping it real!


............................................................


to be  in reference to the
moment of presence between the arising and falling away  of a
conditioned dhamma, so it's not that complicated. A given  dhamma
comes from nowhere, and goes to nowhere. It is 'here' while it  is
here, for these sub-moments.

............................................................


TG:  Comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere.  Brings a tear to my  eye.  What
an amazing grasp of conditionality and causal  principles!!!


Do you have a new strategy maybe?  Hurling softballs in hopes that  I'll
spill the beans on something else?   ;-)


TG OUT






Sincerely,

Scott.

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)


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