Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [dsg] part 2 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was: concepts can lead to awakening

Expand Messages
  • sarah abbott
    Dear Ken O, ...
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 30, 2011
      Dear Ken O,

      --- On Thu, 21/4/11, Ken O <ashkenn2k@...> wrote:

      << S:Kusala is always calm, but if thereis no understanding of the distinction between kusala and akusala at this very moment and the characteristic of calm, samatha, it can never be developed. It's
      >useless to discuss highly developed samatha and samadhi if there is no beginning of understanding of samatha now.>>
      ...
      >KO:  the development of samadhi is the distinction between kusala and akusala at the very moment - could you give me commentarian textual support on this.  This is an interpretation by AS but this is not supported by the commentarian text. 
      ....
      S: Sorry, but this is not an interpretation by AS or by me or anyone else I know. Instead it's another mis-interpretation by Ken O of what we've said - very different from what I said above:-))

      To clarify again, samadhi is concentration, ekaggata cetasika. It can be kusala or akusala. In order for samma-samadhi (right concentration) to be developed, there has to be samma-ditthi (right understanding) developed. That samma-ditthi has to understand:

      a) in the case of samatha-bhavana, the distinction between moments of kusala and akusala, the nature of calm, the nature of attachment to sensuous objects.

      b) in the case of satipatthana, the nature of namas and rupas as anatta - just dhammas.
      ....
      >K:The development of samadhi is usually used as a basis of insight as show in the commentary of satipatthana sutta
      ....
      S: There cannot be insight, there cannot be even a beginning of satipatthana, even pariyatti, without samma-samadhi. It's a path factor that arises with each moment of samma-ditthi of the path. As I've said before, at stages of insight the samma-samadhi is apparent, the factors are "yoked" together on account of the growing strength of the samma-samdhi which is equivalient to upacara samadhi.

      If you are talking about the prior development of jhana and jhana as basis for insight, this has been discussed to death:-). You read the commentaries in your way. Others of us read them with a different interpretation. I first read the Vism from cover to cover over 35 years ago, before I met K.Sujin. It's not a matter of just reading texts, but as we've discussed before, of the right consideration and understanding at this very moment. Better to read one phrase with right understanding of realities appearing now, than the entire Tipitaka and set of commentaries with a view of self doing something to get a result:-)
      ....

      K:>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html

      <<It is said that a young bhikkhu went with a novice to get wood for
      tooth-cleaners. The novice getting out of the road proceeded in front to a place in search of wood and saw a corpse. Meditating on it he produced the first absorption, and making the factors of the absorption a basis for developing insight realized the first three fruitions of arahantship, while examining the conformations [sankhare sammasanto], and stood having laid hold of the subject of meditation for realizing the path of full arahantship.>>
      ....
      S: Qus:
      1.Reflecting (wisely) on the corpse, by conditions of course, not by wishing for any result, did "He produce" the first absorption or were there conditions for the first jhana citta to arise?

      2.Was any Self involved?

      3. Did he "Make the factors of absorption a basis" for insight or, by conditions, did it happen that insights arose with those factors as objects of understanding (vipassana) just prior to the attaining of the stages of enlightenment?

      4. In other words, did the various dhammas arise by conditions, beyond anyone's control or did they arise because a Being forced and controlled the jhana cittas and then the enlightenment cittas?

      5. Are jhana cittas any less dukkha than any other conditioned dhammas?
      ....

      >>S:You would like to just exchange texts and refs, but for me, the Dhamma is not book-study and memorization, but it's about the understanding of the citta at this very moment. This is why I always remind you (and everyone) to consider, to understand the present citta, the dhammas appearing right now.
      ...
      >KO: Lets see what the commentary said about this

      pg 111, The Brahmajala Sutta, B Bodhi

      <<the blind worlding (andhaputhujjana) is the worlding who has not studied, interrogated, learned, memorized and reviewed the teachings on the aggregates, elements, sense bases etc, The worlding who has done so is the good worldling (kalyanaputhujjana)>>
      ....
      S: And what is the right study, right learning and right reviewing of the khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas now? Is it book study or is it the direct understanding of visible object and other rupas, vedana, sanna, citta and mental factors appearing now? If there is no beginning to understand the present dhamma appearing, there is no "right study" at all. The study that the Buddha taught is the study of present moment realities.
      ....
      K:> There are a few instances of memorisation as part of practise in the text. 
      ....
      S: So what is this memorisation at this very moment? Is it rote learning of the texts or is it the right remembering of what appears now with right awareness and right understanding?

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/57200
      "S: In, AN, 5s 'The Confounding of Saddhamma (b)' (PTS), we read about the 5 things which lead to the disappearance of the Teachings:

      'Herein, monks, the monks master not Dhamma....
      They teach not others Dhamma in detail....
      They make not others speak it in detail...
      They make no repetition of it in detail....
      The monks do not in their hearts turn over and ponder upon Dhamma, they
      review it not in their minds.....'
      .....
      In AN,4s, 186 'Approach' (Ummagga), we read about the meaning of what this
      'mastery' refers to. It refers to being 'widely learned' and 'knowing
      Dhamma by heart'.

      This sounds like memorization of the texts, but what it says is:

      '...Well, monk, I have taught Sutta, Geyya, Veyyaakara.na,G aathaa,
      Udaana, Itivuttaka, Jaataka, Abbhutadhamma and Vedalla. Now if a monk
      *UNDERSTANDS THE MEANING* and (text of) dhamma, - *EVEN IF IT BE BUT A
      STANZA OF FOUR LINES*, - and be set on living in accordance with Dhamma,
      he may well be called 'one *WIDELY LEARNED*, *WHO KNOWS DHAMMA BY HEART*' "

      Metta

      Sarah
      ======
    • Ken O
      ... commentarian text.  ... S: There cannot be insight, there cannot be even a beginning of satipatthana, ... KO:  please provide text, you only said what
      Message 2 of 7 , May 1, 2011
        >
        >From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...>
        >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
        >Sent: Sunday, 1 May 2011 14:20:19
        >Subject: Re: [dsg] part 2 to Ken O - was: Bkk - with K.Sujin Mar 2011 (2) was:
        >concepts can lead to awakening
        >

        >Dear Ken O,
        >
        >--- On Thu, 21/4/11, Ken O <ashkenn2k@...> wrote:
        >
        ><< S:Kusala is always calm, but if thereis no understanding of the distinction
        >between kusala and akusala at this very moment and the characteristic of calm,
        >samatha, it can never be developed. It's
        >
        >>useless to discuss highly developed samatha and samadhi if there is no beginning
        >>
        >>of understanding of samatha now.>>
        >...
        >>KO:  the development of samadhi is the distinction between kusala and akusala at
        >>
        >>the very moment - could you give me commentarian textual support on this.  This
        >
        >>is an interpretation by AS but this is not supported by the
        commentarian text. 
        >....
        >S: Sorry, but this is not an interpretation by AS or by me or anyone else I
        >know. Instead it's another mis-interpretation by Ken O of what we've said - very
        >
        >different from what I said above:-))
        >
        >To clarify again, samadhi is concentration, ekaggata cetasika. It can be kusala

        >or akusala. In order for samma-samadhi (right concentration) to be developed,
        >there has to be samma-ditthi (right understanding) developed. That samma-ditthi

        >has to understand:
        >
        >a) in the case of samatha-bhavana, the distinction between moments of kusala and
        >
        >akusala, the nature of calm, the nature of attachment to sensuous objects.
        >
        >b) in the case of satipatthana, the nature of namas and rupas as anatta - just
        >dhammas.

        S: There cannot be insight, there cannot be even a beginning of satipatthana,
        >even pariyatti, without samma-samadhi. It's a path factor that arises with each

        >moment of samma-ditthi of the path. As I've said before, at stages of insight
        >the samma-samadhi is apparent, the factors are "yoked" together on account of
        >the growing strength of the samma-samdhi which is equivalient to upacara
        >samadhi.
        >
        >If you are talking about the prior development of jhana and jhana as basis for
        >insight, this has been discussed to death:-). You read the commentaries in your

        >way. Others of us read them with a different interpretation. I first read the
        >Vism from cover to cover over 35 years ago, before I met K.Sujin. It's not a
        >matter of just reading texts, but as we've discussed before, of the right
        >consideration and understanding at this very moment. Better to read one phrase
        >with right understanding of realities appearing now, than the entire Tipitaka
        >and set of commentaries with a view of self doing something to get a result:-)


        >....
        KO:  please provide text, you only said what you and AS interpretatecd, so far
        you, Ken H and others are all puffed :-), no substiantial text, But I can still
        produce more and more commentarian text


        >>K:The development of samadhi is usually used as a basis of insight as show in
        >>the commentary of satipatthana sutta
        >....
        >>....
        >
        >K:>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html
        >
        ><<It is said that a young bhikkhu went with a novice to get wood for
        >tooth-cleaners. The novice getting out of the road proceeded in front to a place
        >
        >in search of wood and saw a corpse. Meditating on it he produced the first
        >absorption, and making the factors of the absorption a basis for developing
        >insight realized the first three fruitions of arahantship, while examining the
        >conformations [sankhare sammasanto], and stood having laid hold of the subject
        >of meditation for realizing the path of full arahantship.>>
        >....
        >S: Qus:
        >1.Reflecting (wisely) on the corpse, by conditions of course, not by wishing for
        >
        >any result, did "He produce" the first absorption or were there conditions for
        >the first jhana citta to arise?
        >
        >
        >2.Was any Self involved?
        >
        >3. Did he "Make the factors of absorption a basis" for insight or, by
        >conditions, did it happen that insights arose with those factors as objects of
        >understanding (vipassana) just prior to the attaining of the stages of
        >enlightenment?
        >
        >4. In other words, did the various dhammas arise by conditions, beyond anyone's

        >control or did they arise because a Being forced and controlled the jhana cittas
        >
        >and then the enlightenment cittas?
        >
        >5. Are jhana cittas any less dukkha than any other conditioned dhammas?
        >....
        >
        KO:  Oh then the commentaries are all wrong, and you and AS are right :-).  what
        all you have said only happened in supradmundane or from the delimiting of nama
        and rupa onawards.

        >...
        >>KO: Lets see what the commentary said about this
        >
        >pg 111, The Brahmajala Sutta, B Bodhi
        >
        ><<the blind worlding (andhaputhujjana) is the worlding who has not studied,
        >interrogated, learned, memorized and reviewed the teachings on the aggregates,
        >elements, sense bases etc, The worlding who has done so is the good worldling
        >(kalyanaputhujjana)>>
        >....
        >S: And what is the right study, right learning and right reviewing of the
        >khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas now? Is it book study or is it the direct
        >understanding of visible object and other rupas, vedana, sanna, citta and mental
        >
        >factors appearing now? If there is no beginning to understand the present dhamma
        >
        >appearing, there is no "right study" at all. The study that the Buddha taught is
        >
        >the study of present moment realities.
        >....

        KO:  hmm you have to asked the commentarians, this is not the first time , they
        said about learning and studying, you are just puff, please produce text.


        >K:> There are a few instances of memorisation as part of practise in the text. 


        >....
        >S: So what is this memorisation at this very moment? Is it rote learning of the

        >texts or is it the right remembering of what appears now with right awareness
        >and right understanding?
        >
        >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/57200
        >"S: In, AN, 5s 'The Confounding of Saddhamma (b)' (PTS), we read about the 5
        >things which lead to the disappearance of the Teachings:
        >
        >'Herein, monks, the monks master not Dhamma....
        >They teach not others Dhamma in detail....
        >They make not others speak it in detail...
        >They make no repetition of it in detail....
        >The monks do not in their hearts turn over and ponder upon Dhamma, they
        >review it not in their minds.....'
        >.....
        >In AN,4s, 186 'Approach' (Ummagga), we read about the meaning of what this
        >'mastery' refers to. It refers to being 'widely learned' and 'knowing
        >Dhamma by heart'.
        >
        >This sounds like memorization of the texts, but what it says is:
        >
        >'...Well, monk, I have taught Sutta, Geyya, Veyyaakara.na,G aathaa,
        >Udaana, Itivuttaka, Jaataka, Abbhutadhamma and Vedalla. Now if a monk
        >*UNDERSTANDS THE MEANING* and (text of) dhamma, - *EVEN IF IT BE BUT A
        >STANZA OF FOUR LINES*, - and be set on living in accordance with Dhamma,
        >he may well be called 'one *WIDELY LEARNED*, *WHO KNOWS DHAMMA BY HEART*' "
        >

        KO:  definitly, only those who are sotapanna knows dhamma by heart or the one
        who is on the path of sotapanna or at least receiters of the suttas etc.  as I
        said many times, dont quote text out of context, all this refer to at least
        sotapanna. I am very confident of this, you could always asked Nina to check
        what I said correct or not :-)


        Ken O
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.