Re: [dsg] Re: Fw: The Storm
- Hi KenH,
KH: No, that's still not it. Please consult Nyanaponika's Buddhist Dictionary.
D: no, that is Nyanatiloka's .. ;-)
(> D: but this truth needs not only to be understood but penetrated and realized , up to then ( last fetter mana/conceit) the ignorance /delusion of self is prevalent. ( For example :a mirage is taken for real until it is discerned as such).
KH: I think you are saying there needs to be a practice apart from right understanding. That is, there needs to be a ritual satipatthana.
-D: not really .. let's say there is wrong understanding, a bit of understanding , advanced understanding and there is the perfection (samma) of understanding (led by practise/penetration )
<. . .>
> D: starting with the training of the precepts .. nothing to do /not to do ?--------
KH: There can *never* be anything to do. Even conventional teachings (piano lessons, for example) cannot be deliberately put into practice.
There can be an *illusion* of deliberate piano practice, but nothing more than that.
D: tell that a piano virtuoso ..
KH: This rule applies even more strictly to vipassana practice (satipatthana). There can't even be an illusion of deliberate satipatthana.
What is mean is, there isn't a ritual that can symbolise satipatthana. Sitting cross-legged, for example, is no more symbolic of satipatthana than is walking or eating etc. (see the Satipatthana Sutta).
D: I see that the Buddha stated :"There is the case where a monk - having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building - sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out...."
<. . .>
>> KH: I think we have established beyond doubt that the two perspectives are totally at odds with eachother. They require conflicting interpretations of virtually every point taught in the Tipitaka.
>> D: not conflicting , Ken .You simply cannot deny that the Buddha spoke of two kinds of right understanding ..as quoted before.-------------------
KH: I did my best to deny your interpretation of that quote. I said, even though the *degree* of right understanding does vary in practice, there is only *one* right understanding of the Dhamma.
D: "There are these two who misrepresent the Tathagata. Which two? He who represents a Sutta of indirect meaning as a Sutta of direct meaning and he who represents a Sutta of direct meaning as a Sutta of indirect meaning. "
> D: Likewise classical physics and quantum physics are only contradicting eachother (in many points) as far as it is overlooked that each is valid in its own domain.--------------------------------
KH: The domain of conventional understanding is outside the domain of the Dhamma.
Conventional wisdom can never elucidate the Dhamma in any way. (Except sometimes by way of simile, of course.)
D: A major misunderstanding by you .. related to your view concerning (the law of) Kamma
I think we are as far as we can get this time , Ken.. perhaps a new start at another occasion..
with Metta Dieter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Hi Pt,
--- In email@example.com, "ptaus1" <ptaus1@...> wrote:
> > S: Isn't that the point? We're used to thinking in terms of people, activities and control, but here we're learning that there are only dhammas.
> pt: Well, yes, so if we're talking about dhammas, then instead of control we should be saying ditthi, I think. That's a dhamma, whereas control can have any number of invested meanings.
S: When there is an idea that we have control in life, it is ditthi. It's a way of explaining a kind of atta-view. There are different kinds of ditthi. The Buddha elaborated and explained these using many different kinds of words. We can read or hear anything with right or wrong view.
> pt: As a new internet buddhist, I wasn't familiar with dhammas, but I was intimately familiar with control. Consequently, it seemed like an important realisation that what seems like an apparent control to me is in fact just ditthi. A dhamma. And conditioned at that. On the other hand, the expression that dhammas cannot be controlled always seemed to miss that point. But I guess it speaks differently to different people.
S: Dhammas cannot be controlled because they are conditioned and there is no one to exert any control. I think it is the ignorance and wrong view that is the problem, rather than the wording.
For example, we can read different translations of suttas inc TB's with or without any misunderstanding. We can read newspaper reports or anything with or without wrong understanding too
> > S: Are you talking here about balas (powers) in the development of satipatthana or jhana development?
> pt: Yes.
> > S: If you're talking about the development of insight, the powers of saddha, viriya, sati and samadhi can only become powers when panna is unshakeable and clearly understands seeing, visible object and all kinds of namas and rupas. There is no change in the outer appearance - daily life as usual, but clear comprehension, no question of "what would it be like?"
> pt: Thanks, hence I feel the validity of the conclusion that without powers, our "conscious attempts" to (have) insight (into) something (right now) is basically just ditthi (right now). (In other words, apparent control at this point is akusala.)
S: And with these balas, powers, there would be no "conscious attempts" to have insight or any other realities arise because there is the clear understanding of conditioned dhammas as anatta. Even for the Buddha, whatever arose was by conditions.
> > S: If you're talking about jhana attainment, can we imagine what it is like not to wish to see or to hear now?
> pt: I was more wondering about pre-jhana development of samatha. I mean, I assume powers must be developed before jhana can actually happen. Further I assume that it has to do with more than just wishing not to see, etc. I mean, if there are no powers, then this wish would be akusala, I assume.
S: Of course - any wishing for anything to arise is akusala. Even for those with highly developed samatha, non-attachment to seeing does not occur by wishing, but by the development of panna.
It always comes back to panna - whether we are talking about the development of samatha or satipatthana.
> > S: Like now, if there is wise consideration of dhammas such as seeing, visible object and attachment, there is panna and there is calm.
> pt: Ok, but for the sake of simplicity, let's say it's outside of sasana and there's no knowledge of dhammas, so how would bhavana (pre-jhana, non-sila, non-dana, non-insight) occur?
S: Like now, through the wise consideration of objects that can bring calm. For example, even without any understanding of realities, there can be wise or unwise consideration about death, about kindness to others, about colour, about breath, about generosity.
Of course, occasional moments of wise consideration with calm cannot be considered as bhavana - they are just occasional moments of kusala. In order to be bhavana, it is to be a habit, a development of such wise consideration.
Would we like to have more such wise consideration, more such calm? Is that our reason for wishing to know? In that case, it's bound to be attachment, not detachment.
> Thanks for the discussion.
S: Always a pleasure, Pt. You always raise good points and topics which help me and others too, I'm sure.