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

Re: [dsg] Re: Poor Venerable Aananda! To Han Tun puthujjana

Expand Messages
  • han tun
    Dear Brother Tep,   I take Sarah s kind advice: Let s drop this talk of insulting Sarah! :-)) So, the case is closed.   ...   Dear brother, I want to tell
    Message 1 of 27 , May 18 6:37 PM
      Dear Brother Tep,
       
      I take Sarah's kind advice:
      Let's drop this talk of "insulting Sarah!" :-))
      So, the case is closed.
       
      --------------------
       
      Dear brother, I want to tell you one Myanmar saying which
      has nothing to do with this topic.
      It says:
       
      "A person knows how to accuse another of stealing, if
      he himself knows how to steal."
       
      Maybe, you have a similar saying in Thai.
       
      with metta and respect,
      Han


      ________________________________
      From: Tep Sastri <tepsastri@...>
       Dear Han, -

      > >Sarah: All I can see are the sharing of understandings. No Sarah to be insulted!
      >Han: If any of my posts has seemed to insult Sarah I most humbly apologized.

      T: Brother Han, believe her that there was no Sarah who told you that there had been "no Sarah to be insulted". [A little confusing, isn't it?] Don't be confused, though; just switch off the real world of ultimate hallucination and switch on the ultimate reality!

      In the ultimate-reality world, there are no Sarah, no Han, no apology, and no debts to pay. What a relief it is!

      Truly,
      Tep
      ==





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dieter Moeller
      Hi Tep, you wrote: D: the focus on different difficult tasks ? ... T: I mean it is easy to develop mindfulness simply through being mindful in the body posture
      Message 2 of 27 , May 19 9:19 AM
        Hi Tep,

        you wrote:


        D: the focus on different difficult tasks ?
        > Not clear what you mean , Tep. The Maha Satipatthana Sutta is the guidance to establish the framework of mindfulness, attention to the breath a tool to calm body and mind allowing proper contemplation. Body postures one issue of plenty to do in respect to the part of the body and for daily practise only important when there is related activity .
        >
        T: I mean it is easy to develop mindfulness simply through being mindful in the body posture and movement during a given day. Also mindfulness in the in- & out- breathing helps reduce mental distraction and induces calm.


        D: yes, attention to the breath it is a mean to induce the calm necessary for development of mindfulness.
        Possibly I misunderstood your comment 'What has made you too busy to even to keep mindfulness in the body postures and/or in the breaths?'

        I think we agree that sati means to be mindful about what one is busy with in the here-and-now.

        with Metta Dieter



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Dieter Moeller
        Hi Sarah , you wrote: Good to see you back! Look forward to more discussion later. Now, just off a flight from Aus. D: thanks Sarah. I suppose , travelling
        Message 3 of 27 , May 19 9:41 AM
          Hi Sarah ,

          you wrote:

          Good to see you back! Look forward to more discussion later. Now, just off a flight from Aus.


          D: thanks Sarah.

          I suppose , travelling must be meanwhile same routine for you as other people go to the supermarket .. (?)


          >K: You must have heard it was safe to come back.
          > D: safe in which respect ? I never had the feeling to be unsafe on DSG .. tired some times, yes..
          ...
          S: Ha, ha.... if one feels "unsafe" or "tired"....all in the mind anyway!

          D: yes.. and wondering what is not ;-)




          ...

          > K: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible,>
          > D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ?
          ...
          S: Sounds pretty melodramatic:-)) I think I must have missed those posts too! All I can see are the sharing of understandings. No Sarah to be insulted!

          D: glad to dismiss my worst expectations ;-)



          > K: and anatta has been declared off-topic.
          >
          > D: by whom and why ? As anatta is one of the 3 core elements of the teaching ,so it can hardly become an off-topic issue .
          ....
          S: Agree.... will always be the core of the Teachings so will never be off-topic.


          D: and it provides the stuff which keeps the discussion alive


          with Metta Dieter


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Tep Sastri
          Hi Dieter, - ... T: I am asking whether you have been too busy with works and meetings and other things in life such that you are forgetful about mindfulness
          Message 4 of 27 , May 19 1:48 PM
            Hi Dieter, -

            > D: yes, attention to the breath it is a mean to induce the calm necessary for development of mindfulness. Possibly I misunderstood your comment 'What has made you too busy to even to keep mindfulness in the body postures and/or in the breaths?'
            >
            T: I am asking whether you have been too busy with works and meetings and other things in life such that you are forgetful about mindfulness in the body postures or the breaths.

            > D: I think we agree that sati means to be mindful about what one is busy with in the here-and-now.

            T: It depends on what thing you are busy with. When you are busy with any thing that's not one of the four foundations of mindfulness, you cannot put away greed and distress "with reference to the world".
            ....
            "And what, monks, is right mindfulness?
            (i) There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself --ardent, aware, & mindful-- putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.
            (ii) He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves --ardent, aware, & mindful-- putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.
            (iii) He remains focused on the mind in & of itself --ardent, aware, & mindful-- putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.
            (iv) He remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves --ardent, aware, & mindful-- putting away greed & distress with reference to the world. This, monks, is called right mindfulness."
            [MN 10]
            .....
            I don't have any idea why we disagree on the Satipatthana!

            Tep
            ===
            --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dieter Moeller" <moellerdieter@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Tep,
            >
            > you wrote:
            >
            >
            > D: the focus on different difficult tasks ?
            > > Not clear what you mean , Tep. The Maha Satipatthana Sutta is the guidance to establish the framework of mindfulness, attention to the breath a tool to calm body and mind allowing proper contemplation. Body postures one issue of plenty to do in respect to the part of the body and for daily practise only important when there is related activity .
            > >
            > T: I mean it is easy to develop mindfulness simply through being mindful in the body posture and movement during a given day. Also mindfulness in the in- & out- breathing helps reduce mental distraction and induces calm.
            >
          • Robert E
            Hi Ken H..... ... I can see you - can you see me waving? :-) ... Nobody around here of any position or disposition believes in eternal atta - where on
            Message 5 of 27 , May 19 9:46 PM
              <sigh> Hi Ken H.....

              --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:

              > Hi Dieter,
              >
              > Thanks for your reply; I was beginning to think I was invisible. :-)

              I can see you - can you see me waving? :-)

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

              > In my idle fantasy I imagine a battle at DSG between the middle way and the two extremes. Mostly the middle way prevails here, but lately the eternal-atta extreme has prevailed.

              Nobody around here of any position or disposition believes in eternal atta - where on earth did you invent that idea from? A quote please...?

              > I apologise for labelling you as an eternal-atta believer, but there is only one middle way and you and I have different impressions of it. Only one of us can be right. If I am right then you must be an eternal-atta believer, and if you are right then I must be annihilated-atta believer.

              How about if both of your beliefs have no relation to what the other believes at all? And there is very little chance that a worldling will have 100% right view no matter what you believe. Just being able to say what you think is the right sentence doesn't give you right view.

              > ------------------
              > >> KH: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible,
              >
              > > D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ?
              > ------------------
              >
              > KH: You tell me, Dieter, what would be the worst allegation to make against a true Dhamma student? To say that she believed herself to be an arahant must undoubtedly be the worst, mustn't it?

              Who said that Sarah believed she was an arahant? I must have missed that. BTW, it's okay to be an arahant, just not to state that you are one, is it not? I have no opinion on whether anyone is an arahant or not, since I'm not qualified to judge.

              > -------------------------
              > >> KH: and anatta has been declared off-topic.
              >
              > > D: by whom and why ? ...
              >
              > KH: That is what Tep has been suggesting.

              When did Tep ever suggest that? I must have missed that too.

              > But there can be no Dhamma discussion until the question of `self or no self' has been cleared up.

              Everyone agrees that anatta is a reality - what is the dispute about in your view?

              > Otherwise we would be talking about two completely different teachings while pretending to be talking about the same teaching.

              No one on dsg has ever doubted the truth of anatta. People may have different opinions on the status of the khandas. I think we probably all agree that:

              a/ the khandas really do appear, but they are temporary and not-self;
              b/ the khandas arise due to conditions, not anyone's decision or desire;
              c/ there is no self within the khandas, and there is no self outside of the khandas either; ie, there is no self.

              I think that if anyone says that the "ordinary everyday self" is "real but temporary," what they mean by that is that the khandas which are taken for self are actual but temporary and not-self.

              If anyone thinks that the personal self is real, and by that they mean the entity known as Ken H. or Rob E, they may not be discerning what that supposed entity consists of, that is a series of impersonal kandhas that are taken for self. That's my view in any case.

              Whether the body and other structural components of the human organism are real or illusory however is a subject of dispute, and as that is a fairly complex topic I think there is plenty of room for disagreement and misunderstanding. I think it would require a very patient discussion to really spell out what that is all about, and why we continue to recognize familiar people that we "know" in various ways.

              > ------------------
              > > D: As I see it, a delusion (atta) appears to be real until proven as such, reason alone provides no certainty for dropping the attachment. It needs penetration to know by heart in order to gain insight .
              > ------------------
              >
              > KH: I hope you will forgive me for labeling that as doubletalk. It is just a collection of words with no clear meaning. As is the case with all doubletalk, the listener is required to infer a meaning.
              >
              > Doubletalk is the medium of all wrong paths. Only the true Dhamma can be expressed in plain words with complete, logical consistency.

              What Dieter said there was quite clear - it is not doubletalk at all, and I don't particularly forgive you for jumping to conclusions like that every time someone uses slightly different terminology than you are used to in your limited understanding. You should stop doing that. To translate, Dieter was saying that intellectual knowledge by itself will not get rid of clinging to delusory forms, such as self-view. One has to directly understand the falseness of illusions that are clung to before they can be released. If you think that's double-talk, it just means you have little understanding of the real content of the Dhamma.

              > -------------------
              > K: But DSG has had setbacks before, and the true Dhamma will continue to be studied here.
              >
              >
              > D: the true Dhamma is the Buddha Dhamma as laid down by the Pali Tipitaka (at least for Theravadins)
              > -------------------
              >
              > KH: But not exclusively. Commentaries (ancient and modern) also can contain the true Dhamma. The test is that they are consistent with the Tipitaka as a whole.

              Have you ever seen a "whole?" The whole point of dhamma theory is that there is no whole, just individual moments of experience. The Dhamma that you are calling the "whole" is nothing but the understanding that is gotten from its parts. If you misinterpret the suttas because of your own false interpretation of the commentaries, then you will be more deluded than if you had never read them at all.

              > ---------------------------
              > >> KH: Religious rites and rituals as will still be exposed for what they are.
              >
              >
              > > D: Ken , please specify what you mean by 'rites and rituals',
              > ----------------------------
              >
              > KH: Ultimately, the entire universe is contained in the presently arisen paramattha dhammas -- over which there is no control. When people deny that ultimate reality they invent an alternative reality. They teach about people, places and things to do. They misrepresent the Middle Way as being (for example) a person going to a quiet place and engaging in a meditation activity.

              If the Buddha hadn't taught about all those things you object to so extensively, we would not be having this problem. It is your view which dismisses most of the actual material of the suttas which is extreme. It's not annihilationist against beings; it's annihilationist against the actual words of the Buddha and the terms he spoke in every day for forty years.

              > ---------------
              > >> D: not disregarding the stated 2 kinds of right understanding/view (the mundane and the super-mundane ). The puthajjana or wordling , denying the former , misconstrues his/her own reality, doesn't he/she?.
              > ---------------
              >
              > KH: According to the Tipitaka, "mundane right understanding" is satipatthana – right understanding of a presently arisen conditioned dhamma. Supramundane right understanding is Path consciousness – right understanding of Nibbana.

              Please give a quote regarding "mundane right understanding" so I can see where it appears in the Tipitaka.

              > Some modern commentators, like yourself, insist mundane right understanding is an understanding of people, places and things to do. But that is not taught in the Tipitaka.

              Show where that is denied or contradicted in the Tipitaka. In all these years, you have still failed to do so. It doesn't mean you are not right about dhammas - it just means you are not right about the role of ordinary activities and people and how they are related to dhammas and the Dhamma. The Buddha spoke about them for a reason, even though they are not "ultimate."

              > Anyway, thanks again for your reply, Dieter. Perhaps you might tell Htoo I have been trying to get his attention. :-)

              When you're invisible you're invisible. When you're not you're not. You got my attention anyway - akusala kamma....? :-)

              Best,
              Rob E.

              = = = = = = = =
            • Robert E
              Hi Han. ...   ... Han, I wouldn t worry too much. As you can see, Sarah is not upset at all. Only Ken H. seems upset by imagined insults. I m sure we can
              Message 6 of 27 , May 19 9:50 PM
                Hi Han.

                --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun <hantun1@...> wrote:

                > If any of my posts has seemed to insult Sarah I most humbly
                > apologized....

                > Of course, we have agreements and disagreements, but we
                > never insult each other. ...
                 
                > By the way, I had thought that a person who sincerely
                > believes in anatta doctrine would be immune to any kind of insult directed
                > towards him or to another person!

                Han, I wouldn't worry too much. As you can see, Sarah is not upset at all. Only Ken H. seems upset by imagined insults. I'm sure we can all forgive him. :-)

                Best,
                Rob E.

                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                _________________________________

                > From: sarah <sarahprocterabbott@...>
                >   > K: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible,
                > >
                > > D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ?
                > ...
                > S: Sounds pretty melodramatic:-)) I think I must have missed those posts too! All I can see are the sharing of understandings. No Sarah to be insulted!

                ---------------------------------
              • philip
                Dear Group I am briefly rejoining to defend Ken H on this issue of insulting, and then will leave again. In the post Ken is referring to, Sarah was accused of
                Message 7 of 27 , May 19 11:33 PM
                  Dear Group



                  I am briefly rejoining to defend Ken H on this issue of insulting, and then will leave again. In the post Ken is referring to, Sarah was accused of believing herself to be of advanced understanding. The post in question was written with a tone that I am familiar with since I have often used it myself. It was a silly attempt at sarcastic humor used in order to be dismissive not only of Sarah but all who express an appreciation of developing understanding of realities in daily life. The person in question has used that tone repeatedly since rejoining the group, in a kind of ridiculing of the basic understanding that was/ is ***behind the formation of the Bangkok group some 40 years ago and this internet group some 15 years ago.*** It just shows a typical willful (it seems to me to be willful) misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what Ajahn Sujin and her students say, nobody is claiming advanced understanding. I feel it shows bad manners for a visitor to make dismissive comments of a group he is visiting, basic bad manners. (And of course I am not saying I am above such manners.)

                  The most relevant point is not so much that some visitors are rude but that extended discussion between people who are not on the same page is pointless. But never mind that. I would just like to back Ken H up, although it would be nice if a more reputable member scolded the person in question. I think he is being coddled because of political correctness (which drove Scott away) and I suppose it is a Buddhist ideal to constantly turn the other cheek, but there are limits, and yes, sure, those limits are probably set by kilesas and self-view.

                  Well, I guess Sarah is just SO advanced that she is above being insulted!!!

                  Er, wait a minute....

                  Anyways, I find DSG to be very sad these days because of the lack of references to our teacher (the wisest Dhamma friend) but I am constantly drawn back towards it, which is doubly depressing...

                  I will keep trying to get away but for now I just wanted to stand with Ken H. Yes, there have been insults. Of course that is nothing new. I'm very good at it myself. I just think people who are not students of Ajahn Sujin should remember when and why this group was formed. It seems to me that the entire context of DSG has become debating in order to satisfy the needs of people whose understanding opposes that of Ajahn Sujin and her students. Perhaps people would rather not identify themselves as students of Ajahn Sujin and will deny that the general dynamic of DSG has become opposition to her explanation of Dhamma. If that is the case, I will say (as the bad mannered person once said to Sarah) "be realistic."

                  Ok, once this has been posted by the moderators I will get out of here until the next javana implulses that pull me back.

                  Phil


                  --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Han.
                  >
                  > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun <hantun1@> wrote:
                  >
                  > > If any of my posts has seemed to insult Sarah I most humbly
                  > > apologized....
                  >
                  > > Of course, we have agreements and disagreements, but we
                  > > never insult each other. ...
                  > 
                  > > By the way, I had thought that a person who sincerely
                  > > believes in anatta doctrine would be immune to any kind of insult directed
                  > > towards him or to another person!
                  >
                  http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/b1
                  > Best,
                  > Rob E.
                  >
                  > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  > _________________________________
                  >
                  > > From: sarah <sarahprocterabbott@>
                  > > Â > K: Sarah has been insulted in the worst way possible,
                  > > >
                  > > > D: I only started to read some messages lately .. by what ..which postings ?
                  > > ...
                  > > S: Sounds pretty melodramatic:-)) I think I must have missed those posts too! All I can see are the sharing of understandings. No Sarah to be insulted!
                  >
                  > ---------------------------------
                  >
                • Ken H
                  Hi Robert E, ... ... KH: Don t look now . . . oh, too late!:-) ... ... KH: For Pete s sake, haven t you been reading the posts? :-) How many
                  Message 8 of 27 , May 20 3:29 AM
                    Hi Robert E,

                    ---------
                    <. . .>
                    > RE: I can see you - can you see me waving? :-)
                    ---------

                    KH: Don't look now . . . oh, too late!:-)

                    -------------
                    <. . .>
                    > RE: Nobody around here of any position or disposition believes in eternal atta - where on earth did you invent that idea from? A quote please...?
                    -------------

                    KH: For Pete's sake, haven't you been reading the posts? :-) How many times have we been told `Of course there are people, cars and trees,' `Of course there is a Sarah saying there is no Sarah,' etc etc etc?

                    What you should be asking is how do people have the temerity to say such things in a Dhamma discussion group? How do they have the audacity to tell a group of serious students that the Buddha believed in atta?

                    There is only one reason we are seeing such outrageous behaviour, and that is the web site, Access To Insight. It brazenly tells its readers the Buddha did not teach "no self." It brazenly says `Of course there is a self; if there wasn't a self to inherit the results of its deeds there could be no law of kamma and vipakka,' etc.

                    ATI has singlehandedly made Eternal-life Buddhism mainstream.

                    ----------------------
                    <. . .>
                    > RE: I think we probably all agree that:

                    a/ the khandas really do appear, but they are temporary and not-self;
                    b/ the khandas arise due to conditions, not anyone's decision or desire;
                    c/ there is no self within the khandas, and there is no self outside of the
                    khandas either; ie, there is no self.

                    > I think that if anyone says that the "ordinary everyday self" is "real but temporary," what they mean by that is that the khandas which are taken for self are actual but temporary and not-self.
                    ----------------------

                    KH: If we all agreed on that sort of thing we could make progress together – discussing it honestly and trying to understand it more deeply.

                    I could be wrong, but I believe some of us have no intention of understanding it. Some of us (and I could be wrong) are interested only in spreading Thanissaro's heterodoxy.

                    ---------------------------------
                    <. . .>
                    > RE: If you misinterpret the suttas because of your own false interpretation of the commentaries, then you will be more deluded than if you had never read them at all.
                    ---------------------------------

                    KH: I can almost understand your rejection of the no control Dhamma interpretation. (I say "almost" because in my case I took to it like a duck to water, but I had been a meditator before that. And so I *almost* understand your opposition.) But while you are getting such strong support from the Thanissaro camp, you are unlikely to change your stance. You are unlikely to give up your wrong understanding.

                    There are still a lot of people following wrong interpretations of the Tipitaka who could potentially see the right interpretation that is found in the ancient commentaries. However, while they are infiltrated by undercover Thanissaro missionaries, there is not so much hope for them.

                    So I am genuinely concerned for your welfare.

                    Ken H
                  • han tun
                    Dear Rob E,   Thank you very much for your kind words and your kind understanding.   with metta and respect, Han     ________________________________ From:
                    Message 9 of 27 , May 20 4:43 AM
                      Dear Rob E,
                       
                      Thank you very much for your kind words and your kind understanding.
                       
                      with metta and respect,
                      Han  
                       

                      ________________________________
                      From: Robert E <epsteinrob@...>
                       Hi Han.

                      Han, I wouldn't worry too much. As you can see, Sarah is not upset at all. Only Ken H. seems upset by imagined insults. I'm sure we can all forgive him. :-)

                      Best,
                      Rob E.






                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • sarah
                      Hi Phil & all, ... ... S: Ha, ha! I liked a comment I heard on a tape today to the effect that whenever there is the remembering of no self, the problem s
                      Message 10 of 27 , May 20 5:21 AM
                        Hi Phil & all,

                        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" <philco777@...> wrote:
                        >

                        > Well, I guess Sarah is just SO advanced that she is above being insulted!!!
                        >
                        > Er, wait a minute....
                        ...
                        S: Ha, ha!

                        I liked a comment I heard on a tape today to the effect that whenever there is the remembering of no self, the problem's already solved.

                        All so ordinary, so "dhammada" - just different dhammas arising and falling away. Just thinking, dreaming, about what's been seen and heard all day long - usually with attachment, aversion or ignorance.

                        Metta

                        Sarah
                        ======
                      • Robert E
                        Hello Ken H....... ... Thanks for playing... ... None of those are examples of Eternal Atta - they are examples of everyday kandhic atta. Those are both
                        Message 11 of 27 , May 21 9:35 PM
                          Hello Ken H.......

                          --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hi Robert E,
                          >
                          > ---------
                          > <. . .>
                          > > RE: I can see you - can you see me waving? :-)
                          > ---------
                          >
                          > KH: Don't look now . . . oh, too late!:-)

                          :)

                          Thanks for playing...

                          > -------------
                          > <. . .>
                          > > RE: Nobody around here of any position or disposition believes in eternal atta - where on earth did you invent that idea from? A quote please...?
                          > -------------
                          >
                          > KH: For Pete's sake, haven't you been reading the posts? :-) How many times have we been told `Of course there are people, cars and trees,' `Of course there is a Sarah saying there is no Sarah,' etc etc etc?

                          None of those are examples of Eternal Atta - they are examples of everyday kandhic atta. Those are both nonexistent but not the same thing. You are equating the person "Sarah" with an eternal soul. That is not the same concept. Get your complaints straightened out please.

                          > What you should be asking is how do people have the temerity to say such things in a Dhamma discussion group? How do they have the audacity to tell a group of serious students that the Buddha believed in atta?

                          Nobody is saying that the Buddha believed in atta. But there is a topic worthy of discussion if one had the patience to understanding it -- you don't. It is the status of everyday beings and behavior and how and why they appear and what are their true nature. The Buddha taught that their true nature was the kandhas and that they were really the result of impersonal processes. That adds up to the same thing - no such beings exist as such. But sure we experience everyday actions and people recurring. Some folks are just trying to make the point that these sorts of appearances continue based on the conditioned occurrences of the kandhas in various combinations. That is a valid point and does not constitute belief in a self, and certainly not a belief in any sort of eternal anything, since such formations are temporary and eventually disappear completely.

                          > There is only one reason we are seeing such outrageous behaviour,

                          There is no outrageous behavior except in the reactive formulations of your own cittas.

                          > and that is the web site, Access To Insight. It brazenly tells its readers the Buddha did not teach "no self." It brazenly says `Of course there is a self; if there wasn't a self to inherit the results of its deeds there could be no law of kamma and vipakka,' etc.
                          >
                          > ATI has singlehandedly made Eternal-life Buddhism mainstream.

                          Show me the quotes, but really - I think it is worthwhile to look at what the Buddha actually said and discuss that, rather than some other stupid thing.

                          > ----------------------
                          > <. . .>
                          > > RE: I think we probably all agree that:
                          >
                          > a/ the khandas really do appear, but they are temporary and not-self;
                          > b/ the khandas arise due to conditions, not anyone's decision or desire;
                          > c/ there is no self within the khandas, and there is no self outside of the
                          > khandas either; ie, there is no self.
                          >
                          > > I think that if anyone says that the "ordinary everyday self" is "real but temporary," what they mean by that is that the khandas which are taken for self are actual but temporary and not-self.
                          > ----------------------
                          >
                          > KH: If we all agreed on that sort of thing we could make progress together – discussing it honestly and trying to understand it more deeply.

                          Well that's what I'm up to - I hope.

                          > I could be wrong, but I believe some of us have no intention of understanding it. Some of us (and I could be wrong) are interested only in spreading Thanissaro's heterodoxy.

                          I don't have the impression - after many years - that any of the players around here are particularly "Thanissaro followers." I am fine with many of his translations, but uninterested in his personal philosophy. And always happy to see an alternate translation as well.

                          > ---------------------------------
                          > <. . .>
                          > > RE: If you misinterpret the suttas because of your own false interpretation of the commentaries, then you will be more deluded than if you had never read them at all.
                          > ---------------------------------
                          >
                          > KH: I can almost understand your rejection of the no control Dhamma interpretation. (I say "almost" because in my case I took to it like a duck to water, but I had been a meditator before that. And so I *almost* understand your opposition.) But while you are getting such strong support from the Thanissaro camp, you are unlikely to change your stance. You are unlikely to give up your wrong understanding.

                          Well I did say "if." I don't think you are very clear about my understanding, one way or the other. It would be hard to be too accurate, as my understanding is a work in progress, not set.

                          > There are still a lot of people following wrong interpretations of the Tipitaka who could potentially see the right interpretation that is found in the ancient commentaries. However, while they are infiltrated by undercover Thanissaro missionaries, there is not so much hope for them.
                          >
                          > So I am genuinely concerned for your welfare.

                          I think that paranoia does not become you. This kind of conspiracy theory is amazingly silly. I'm not a Thanissaro follower and this is the first I've heard about everyone who disagrees with your particular view being some kind of Thanissaro zombie, hypnotized by wrong view.

                          Do you ever stop to think whether there are some gaps in your own view? Maybe you are more screwed up than you think... :-)

                          Best,
                          Rob E.

                          = = = = = = = =
                        • Ken H
                          Hi Robert E. ... ... one way or the other. It would be hard to be too accurate, as my understanding is a work in progress, not set. ... KH: You have
                          Message 12 of 27 , May 21 11:16 PM
                            Hi Robert E.

                            ------
                            <. . .>
                            > RE: I don't think you are very clear about my understanding,
                            one way or the other. It would be hard to be too accurate, as my understanding is a work in progress, not set.
                            ------

                            KH: You have made no progress at all since you joined DSG umpteen years ago. For all that time you have stubbornly refused to consider anatta.

                            I can't blame you for that; not many people can consider no self, even for an instant. It is just too frightening.

                            ------------------
                            > RE: I think that paranoia does not become you. This kind of conspiracy theory is amazingly silly. I'm not a Thanissaro follower and
                            -----------------

                            KH: Thanissaro at least has the honesty to say he is rejecting the doctrine of no self.

                            Most other meditating Buddhists pretend to believe in anatta. Actually, they can't face the prospect of no self, even for an instant, but they do pretend.

                            I don't know which is worse.

                            -------------------
                            > RE: this is the first I've heard about everyone who disagrees with your particular view being some kind of Thanissaro zombie, hypnotized by wrong view.
                            -------------------

                            KH: It does sound a bit melodramatic when you put it that way.

                            -------------------------
                            > RE: Do you ever stop to think whether there are some gaps in your own view? Maybe you are more screwed up than you think... :-)
                            -------------------------

                            KH: My view is, "There are only dhammas (no self)," how can there be gaps in that?

                            Ken H
                          • Robert E
                            Hi Ken H. ... You re being arrogant Ken. I do accept anatta and understand it as well as you I am sure if not moreso. You cling to doctrine like it is anatta
                            Message 13 of 27 , May 22 11:38 PM
                              Hi Ken H.

                              --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Hi Robert E.
                              >
                              > ------
                              > <. . .>
                              > > RE: I don't think you are very clear about my understanding,
                              > one way or the other. It would be hard to be too accurate, as my understanding is a work in progress, not set.
                              > ------
                              >
                              > KH: You have made no progress at all since you joined DSG umpteen years ago. For all that time you have stubbornly refused to consider anatta.
                              >
                              > I can't blame you for that; not many people can consider no self, even for an instant. It is just too frightening.

                              You're being arrogant Ken. I do accept anatta and understand it as well as you I am sure if not moreso. You cling to doctrine like it is anatta itself. Anatta is not a word or a thingy, it stands for no self at all. You appear to have made your version of familiar Dhamma concepts your treasured self, even though the Buddha says to cling to nothing at all, including even Right View, which is destroyed by clinging. You judge others because they don't say the right keywords and you don't understand what they are saying at all, or what they know or believe.

                              > ------------------
                              > > RE: I think that paranoia does not become you. This kind of conspiracy theory is amazingly silly. I'm not a Thanissaro follower and
                              > -----------------
                              >
                              > KH: Thanissaro at least has the honesty to say he is rejecting the doctrine of no self.

                              You have the foolishness to think you know whether someone's own view is what they really think or not. If I say I don't believe in the existence of any form of self, you ought to take my word for it. You really don't know enough to look into someone else's mental state or understanding.

                              > Most other meditating Buddhists pretend to believe in anatta. Actually, they can't face the prospect of no self, even for an instant, but they do pretend.
                              >
                              > I don't know which is worse.

                              You have no idea what "most meditators" think or know. You make it up to comfort yourself and go back to reciting your favorite concepts. That is no different than any meditator with a mantra.

                              > -------------------
                              > > RE: this is the first I've heard about everyone who disagrees with your particular view being some kind of Thanissaro zombie, hypnotized by wrong view.
                              > -------------------
                              >
                              > KH: It does sound a bit melodramatic when you put it that way.
                              >
                              > -------------------------
                              > > RE: Do you ever stop to think whether there are some gaps in your own view? Maybe you are more screwed up than you think... :-)
                              > -------------------------
                              >
                              > KH: My view is, "There are only dhammas (no self)," how can there be gaps in that?

                              Perhaps because you can say the right words but don't really know what they mean.

                              Best,
                              Rob E.

                              - - - - - - - - - -
                            • sarah
                              Hi Rob E, ... ... S: So do we all agree that the khandhas are the only (conditioned) realities, the (conditioned) all ? There is no self, no person, no
                              Message 14 of 27 , May 24 3:41 AM
                                Hi Rob E,

                                --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:

                                > No one on dsg has ever doubted the truth of anatta. People may have different opinions on the status of the khandas. I think we probably all agree that:
                                >
                                > a/ the khandas really do appear, but they are temporary and not-self;
                                > b/ the khandas arise due to conditions, not anyone's decision or desire;
                                > c/ there is no self within the khandas, and there is no self outside of the khandas either; ie, there is no self.
                                ...
                                S: So do we all agree that the khandhas are the only (conditioned) realities, the (conditioned) "all"? There is no self, no person, no computer, no diamond?

                                Metta

                                Sarah
                                =====
                              • Robert E
                                Hi Sarah. ... There is still a distinction which is the problematic one I think. Yes, ultimately that s all that exists, like atoms and their contents are the
                                Message 15 of 27 , May 26 1:46 PM
                                  Hi Sarah.

                                  --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hi Rob E,
                                  >
                                  > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > No one on dsg has ever doubted the truth of anatta. People may have different opinions on the status of the khandas. I think we probably all agree that:
                                  > >
                                  > > a/ the khandas really do appear, but they are temporary and not-self;
                                  > > b/ the khandas arise due to conditions, not anyone's decision or desire;
                                  > > c/ there is no self within the khandas, and there is no self outside of the khandas either; ie, there is no self.
                                  > ...
                                  > S: So do we all agree that the khandhas are the only (conditioned) realities, the (conditioned) "all"? There is no self, no person, no computer, no diamond?

                                  There is still a distinction which is the problematic one I think. Yes, ultimately that's all that exists, like atoms and their contents are the ultimate reality of all objects of science. But in the case of science we can say the chariot appears to be solid, but is really made up of atoms whirling around in empty space. In the case of dhammas, we don't say that what we see as wholes are really a bunch of momentary dhammas arising marked by sanna, etc. to create the sense of a stable whole, but instead it is said that the dhammas exist independently and the seeming larger objects are totally illusory. I think this is the real problem. Where is it said that the conventional objects are of the nature of hallucinations and the dhammas only exist in their own right? There is a conceptual element to piecing all these dhammas together into the sense of a stable whole, but it may be too extreme to say those objects don't exist at all. The Buddha never said the chariot wasn't real, just that it was made up of infinitely less stable and more discrete parts than appeared. I think it's possible to look at the two aspects of existence - the conventional and the dhammas and see the link between them, rather than a vast separation, and much of the talk in the commentaries acknowledges this connection, from what I've seen [limited though it may be.] I think to say that only dhammas exist and thus conventional objects are wholly nonexistent may be one of the extreme views that the Buddha warned against. To say that the universe is experienced only one dhamma at a time and that we have to understand the nature of this experience with wisdom is one thing - that unwinds the human enterprise and brings it to cessation. To say that the physical universe doesn't exist at all and that only dhammas exist altogether is quite another, and I would have to wonder exactly how that view is justified. I don't see that stated anywhere that I can recall. The Buddha says that the physical universe consists of kandhas - true, but not that it doesn't exist as such. I am sure the first view that our experience only takes place one dhamma at a time is justified, but not sure the second that this is the whole of the universe and that there is no physical world other than individual rupas is not too extreme.

                                  In addition, I would wonder how even the sages know that rupas arise apart from experience, since even they do not experience them. That seems to acknowledge a physical event-world that is beyond human experience, in any case.

                                  Best,
                                  Rob E.

                                  = = = = = = = = = = = =
                                • sarah
                                  Hi Rob E, ... ... S: Remember the suttas in which we read about mirages and conjuring tricks? It is not the conventional objects which are of the nature of
                                  Message 16 of 27 , May 29 1:08 AM
                                    Hi Rob E,

                                    --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:

                                    > > S: So do we all agree that the khandhas are the only (conditioned) realities, the (conditioned) "all"? There is no self, no person, no computer, no diamond?
                                    ....
                                    >R:....Where is it said that the conventional objects are of the nature of hallucinations and the dhammas only exist in their own right? There is a conceptual element to piecing all these dhammas together into the sense of a stable whole, but it may be too extreme to say those objects don't exist at all.
                                    ...
                                    S: Remember the suttas in which we read about mirages and conjuring tricks? It is not the conventional objects which are of the nature of hallucinations, but it is the mis-perceiving of realities that does the hallucinating - taking what is not real for being real.

                                    Here's a good example which was recently quoted in Nina's series:

                                    >The "Visuddhimagga" (XI, 100) states that the four Great Elements are "deceivers":

                                    "And just as the great creatures known as female spirits (yakkhinii) conceal
                                    their own fearfulness with a pleasing colour, shape and gesture to deceive
                                    beings, so too, these elements conceal each their own characteristics and
                                    function classed as hardness, etc., by means of a pleasing skin colour of
                                    women's and men's bodies, etc., and pleasing shapes of limbs and pleasing
                                    gestures of fingers, toes and eyebrows, and they deceive simple people by
                                    concealing their own functions and characteristics beginning with hardness and
                                    do not allow their individual essences to be seen. Thus they are great primaries
                                    (mahaa-bhuuta) in being equal to the great creatures (mahaa-bhuuta), the female
                                    spirits, since they are deceivers."

                                    >Realities are not what they appear to be. Because of sa~n~naa, the cetasika
                                    remembrance that arises with every citta, we remember shape and form and
                                    immediately we cling to what we believe are things and persons.

                                    >One may be infatuated by the beauty of men and women, but what one takes for a
                                    beautiful body are mere ruupa-elements.<
                                    ****

                                    >R:... To say that the physical universe doesn't exist at all and that only dhammas exist altogether is quite another, and I would have to wonder exactly how that view is justified. I don't see that stated anywhere that I can recall.
                                    ....
                                    S: >The Blessed Buddha replied:
                                    It is, Vaccha, because of neither knowing form, nor feeling, nor perception,
                                    nor mental construction, nor consciousness, nor the cause of origin of form,
                                    feeling, perception, mental construction, and consciousness, nor the cause
                                    of ceasing of form, feeling, perception, construction, and consciousness,
                                    nor the way to cease form, feeling, perception, construction, & consciousness
                                    that these various speculative views, such as: "This Universe is eternal,
                                    finite etc. " arise in the world! This ignorance, this not seeing, blindness,
                                    this not understanding, this not fully knowing, this not breaking through,
                                    this not comprehending, this not penetrating, this not discerning, this not
                                    discriminating, this not differentiating, this not closely investigating, this
                                    not directly experiencing and realizing, friend Vaccha, is the cause, and
                                    is the reason, why those various speculative views arise in this world!<
                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/122306

                                    S: Remember that the Buddha taught the "All" - just the ayatanas meeting together now, just paramattha dhammas.
                                    ...
                                    > In addition, I would wonder how even the sages know that rupas arise apart from experience, since even they do not experience them. That seems to acknowledge a physical event-world that is beyond human experience, in any case.
                                    ....
                                    S: The Buddha's omniscient wisdom knew about all and any realities attended to.
                                    This should never be underestimated.

                                    Metta

                                    Sarah

                                    p.s. Off to Thailand early in the morning, so some delay in replies.
                                    =====
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.