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

Re: First Foundation of Mindfulness (Was: Re: [dsg] Merit Making)

Expand Messages
  • LBIDD@webtv.net
    Hi Manji, thanks for all the great quotes. Dispassion, disillusionment, and the undesirability of all and everything is certainly the point. What would you say
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Manji, thanks for all the great quotes. Dispassion, disillusionment,
      and the undesirability of all and everything is certainly the point.
      What would you say is observing the breath internally and what is
      observing the breath externally? The same question for vedana, citta,
      and dhamma.

      I've recently been thinking about abiding in emptyness as a satipatthana
      bhavana in that the focus on breath, for example, is empty of all else.

      One other point, I don't think mindfulness of breath is concerned with
      dispassion for the breath, but rather dispassion toward any
      'interruptions'.

      These are kind of random scattered thoughts that don't necessarily fit
      together; just things I've been thinking about.

      What about you? Any thoughts on these things?

      Larry
    • manji
      I think there are distinctions in mindfulness... Mindfulness of the recollection of the breath. Mindfulness of that which is recollected as the breath. Perhaps
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I think there are distinctions in mindfulness...

        Mindfulness of the recollection of the breath.
        Mindfulness of that which is recollected as the breath.

        Perhaps the former is internal and the latter is external.

        Perhaps what really matters is remaining on "that which is recollected as
        the breath" instead of the mere recollection, instead of the mere concept
        arising from recollection. In this way, the breath is dependent, therefore
        it is empty. In concentration or meditation, the mind may drift onto the
        concept of the breath, or may drift onto something else not recollected as
        the breath leading onto the mind drifting to the concept of something else
        and then so on and so on (all this mental fermentation... confusing eh?).

        If the mind remains fixed upon "that which is recollected as breath" this is
        mindfulness of the breath. In this, there is dispassion (alobha) along with
        mindfulness. Dispassion is simply is the absence of attachment. Knowing the
        difference between concepts and reality is to know sanna...

        This can be so of vedana, of citta, of all dhamma.

        Now with regard to sati (mindfulness)...

        ** Nina had quoted in Cetasikas (pg 245):

        "The Atthasåliní then gives another definition of mindfulness:

        "'. Mindfulness has "not floating away" as its characteristic,
        unforgetfulness as its function, guarding, or the state of facing the
        object, as its manifestation, firm remembrance (sanna) or application in
        mindfulness as regards the body, etc. , as approximate cause. It should be
        regarded as a door-post from being firmly established in the object, and as
        a door-keeper from guarding the door of the senses.

        ** From Indriya-vibhanga Sutta:

        "And what is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a
        disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering &
        able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago. He remains
        focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting
        aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on
        feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities
        in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed &
        distress with reference to the world. This is called the faculty of
        mindfulness.

        And why mindfulness? It makes sanna's marking and recollection well known
        because mindfulness makes sanna firm. And why know sanna? This is where the
        mind marks and recollects "I am this" and "I am not this.".

        Sanna is not self, "this I am not". ;)

        Go.... go...

        -manji-

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <LBIDD@...>
        To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 8:42 PM
        Subject: Re: First Foundation of Mindfulness (Was: Re: [dsg] Merit Making)


        > Hi Manji, thanks for all the great quotes. Dispassion, disillusionment,
        > and the undesirability of all and everything is certainly the point.
        > What would you say is observing the breath internally and what is
        > observing the breath externally? The same question for vedana, citta,
        > and dhamma.
        >
        > I've recently been thinking about abiding in emptyness as a satipatthana
        > bhavana in that the focus on breath, for example, is empty of all else.
        >
        > One other point, I don't think mindfulness of breath is concerned with
        > dispassion for the breath, but rather dispassion toward any
        > 'interruptions'.
        >
        > These are kind of random scattered thoughts that don't necessarily fit
        > together; just things I've been thinking about.
        >
        > What about you? Any thoughts on these things?
        >
        > Larry
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • LBIDD@webtv.net
        Manji, much appreciated. going, going Larry
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Manji, much appreciated.

          going, going

          Larry
        • Sarah
          Dear Manji, You gave some very helpful quotes in a reply to Larry about internal and external objects. Let me add a few comments and I’ll be glad to hear
          Message 4 of 9 , Jun 6, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Manji,

            You gave some very helpful quotes in a reply to Larry about internal and
            external objects. Let me add a few comments and I’ll be glad to hear from
            anyone if they’re incorrect. (I’m snipping the references you gave in more
            detail):

            1. Here, I understand ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to refer to the internal
            and external ayatana.
            .....
            > This is from Chachakka sutta:
            >
            > "'The six internal media should be known.' Thus it was said. In
            > reference to
            > what was it said? The eye-medium, the ear-medium......>
            <snip>
            > "'The six external media should be known.' Thus it was said. In
            > reference to
            > what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium...
            <snip>
            .....

            2. In the following sutta you quote, as it says, ‘internal’ refers to
            “within oneself”, while external refers to the opposite. I believe the
            point made is that when there is the experience of hardness, for example,
            it is just the particular rupa experienced regardless of whether it is
            internal or external
            .....
            > Knowing this, you can read Dhatu-vibhanga sutta, this is a part...:
            >
            > "And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either
            > internal
            > or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything internal,
            > within
            > oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]:
            <snip>
            > Now both the internal earth property & the external earth
            > property
            > are simply earth property.

            <snip>
            .....
            3. Continuing with this sutta, I’d like to add a comment after yours:
            .....
            > The Dhatu-vibhanga sutta goes on to the other dhatu of liquid, fire,
            > wind,
            > and space. Knowing this "internal", what is external?
            >
            > External is the vision of something seen,
            > External is the sound of something heard,
            <snip>
            > Now this/that something seen, something heard, something smelled,
            > something
            > tasted, something felt, something thought; these, I do believe, are
            > concepts. :) This vision, this sound, this smell, this taste, this
            > sensation, this idea... need not say more about rupa.
            .....
            Something seen, heard, smelled and so on can refer to one’s own *self* or
            body or to objects outside oneself. In either case, the objects are rupas
            which can be directly experienced-- even though later they are only
            concepts thought about as you suggest. Visible objects or sounds are
            merely rupas regardless of whether they are ‘internal’ or ‘external’.
            .....
            4.
            > Here is only one line from Maha-nidana sutta, the others are just as
            > important:
            >
            > "Not percipient of form internally, one sees forms externally. This is
            > the
            > second emancipation.
            .....
            Manji, I was rather puzzled by these lines, so I just checked them in
            B.Bodhi’s translation of the sutta and commentary. They are under the
            section at the end of the Eight Emancipations (a.t.tha vimokkhaa) and
            refer to jhanas. It’s not an easy section to comprehend -- and a good
            section to consider for those considering the question of ‘liberated by
            wisdom’ and ‘liberated in both ways’-- even with the commentary notes, and
            needs to be read in the full context, I think. To give an example just for
            these lines only:

            BB’s transl: “One not perceiving material forms internally sees material
            forms externally....”
            “Cy. This means that he does not arouse the fine material sphere jhanas on
            his own head hairs etc. By this the fine material sphere jhanas are shown
            for someone who does the preparatory work externally and arouses jhanas
            only externally.”
            *****

            5.
            > It can hardly be emphasized enough, "one becomes disenchanted with the
            > earth
            > property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.". I will put
            > the
            > end of the Chachakka sutta here:
            >
            > =============
            > "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
            > disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with
            > consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye,
            > disenchanted
            > with feeling, disenchanted with craving.
            >
            > "He grows disenchanted with the ear...
            <snip>
            .....
            Thank you, Manji. It’s a wonderful sutta and Frank mentioned it was his
            favourite one in his introduction on DSG.

            Only by clearly understanding these different namas and rupas over and
            over as not self, will the understanding grow that discerns the
            impermanence and unsatisfactoriness of them too. Sometimes we can
            appreciate the danger of craving, but it’s mostly by thinking about it and
            not by really discerning the characteristics of the ‘forms’ appearing now.
            .....
            > Gate... gate... paragate... parasamgate... bodhi! svaha! :)
            .....
            You’ve lost me a little here....

            Wonderful quotes. I’m very impressed by all your considerable study and
            consideration these days. I think this area of internal/external is a very
            helpful one to discuss further....lots of pitfalls and traps I find.

            Looking forward to more. (I’ve just seen your ps below which I’ll leave
            for now. Perhaps you can give some quotes from this as well to discuss.)

            Sarah
            ======
            >
            > -manji-
            >
            > ps: Majjhima Nikaya: Uddessa-viphanga sutta 138 is also a good sutta on
            > external/internal.
            ....................................



            _______________________________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
          • manji
            Are you using oneself as upadanakkhanda or pannati? Something seen, something heard, something smelled, something tasted, and something thought are merely
            Message 5 of 9 , Jun 6, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Are you using "oneself" as upadanakkhanda or pannati?

              Something seen, something heard, something smelled, something tasted,
              and something thought are merely concepts, recollected from objects
              of... seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and thought. None of which are
              self... rupa is not self.

              There couldn't "objects outside self" just as there couldn't be "objects
              inside self"... because there is no self to "have inside", and there is
              no self to "have outside". There just simply is rupa, there just simply
              is vedana, there just simply is sanna, there just simply is cetasika,
              and there just simply is vinnana...

              However, perhaps internal and external is just a stage (a mere
              recollection) along the path, just as "there is dukkha", and "there is
              cessation of dukkha". There is internal, there is external... there is
              cessation of this perception "this is internal" and there is cessation
              of this perception "this is external"... but then again, jhanas... and
              well...

              Time for jhana meditation... no time to waste! go go...

              Meanwhile...
              another rupa arises.

              -manji-

              PS:

              Anguttara Nikaya IV.200: Pema Sutta (also Tanha Sutta)

              This sutta is most auspicious at abolishing "I"... considering a
              recollection, a mere hallucination of "do I do that?" once came up
              during the very reading of the sutta; immediately it fell away.

              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@...]
              > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:56 AM
              > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: First Foundation of Mindfulness (Was: Re: [dsg] Merit
              Making)

              <snip>

              > Something seen, heard, smelled and so on can refer to one's own *self*
              or
              > body or to objects outside oneself. In either case, the objects are
              rupas
              > which can be directly experienced-- even though later they are only
              > concepts thought about as you suggest. Visible objects or sounds are
              > merely rupas regardless of whether they are 'internal' or 'external'.
            • Sarah
              Hi Manji, Let me take this thread up again....sorry for the delay. ... upadanakkhanda or pannati? When there is the experiencing of rupas, such as hardness
              Message 6 of 9 , Jun 18, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Manji,

                Let me take this thread up again....sorry for the delay.

                --- manji <manji@...> wrote: > Are you using "oneself" as
                upadanakkhanda or pannati?

                When there is the experiencing of rupas, such as hardness now, the
                hardness is rupa khandha (upadanakkhandha) regardless of whether it is
                what we conventionally say is ‘oneself’ or external to ‘oneself’.
                ‘Oneself’ is always a concept, but as in the case I mentioned, it can
                refer to particular namas and rupas. As Betty just explained, it can be a
                form of shorthand that ‘we’ have to use and it depends on the speaker and
                listener as to how it’s understood. This was also true for the Buddha.
                .....

                > Something seen, something heard, something smelled, something tasted,
                > and something thought are merely concepts, recollected from objects
                > of... seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and thought. None of which are
                > self... rupa is not self.
                .....
                Just to check we’re on the same track here, can we agree that seeing,
                hearing, smelling and tasting are namas, i.e realities which experience
                objects. Those realities you mention which are experienced (something
                seen, heard, smelled and so on) are the rupas - visible object, sound,
                smell etc. They are not concepts although of course there may be concepts
                about them later or now as we discuss them. As you say, all namas and
                rupas are not self.
                .....
                > There couldn't "objects outside self" just as there couldn't be "objects
                > inside self"... because there is no self to "have inside", and there is
                > no self to "have outside". There just simply is rupa, there just simply
                > is vedana, there just simply is sanna, there just simply is cetasika,
                > and there just simply is vinnana...
                .....
                You make a good point here, Manji. As you say, ultimately there is no
                self, no 'inside' or 'outside' and there are merely different phenomena
                experiencing and being experienced. The separation of phenomena into
                ‘Manji’s seeing’ and ‘Sarah’s seeing’ or the experience of internal and
                external hardness is a conventional device only, which we need to use for
                convenience. When the Buddha refers to rupas internally and externally it
                is to stress the range of rupas which are experienced and can be the
                objects of satipatthana.

                Let me quote a little from the Satipatthana Sutta commentary and
                sub-commentary (p.51 onwards in Soma’s translation in ‘the Section on
                Breathing’):
                *****
                <QUOTE>
                Bahiddha va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Or he lives contemplating the
                body in the body externally." Or this bhikkhu dwells in contemplation of
                the body in another's respiration-body.

                Or... in another's respiration-body. This portion deals with reflection
                for the growth of insight and has no reference to the growth of full
                absorption of quietude...

                Ajjhatta-bahiddha va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Or he lives
                contemplating the body in the body internally and externally." At one time
                in his own and at another in another's respiration-body, he dwells in
                contemplation of the body. <end quote>
                *****
                These aren’t easy passages or sections to understand. However, I
                understand the use of one’s own and another’s ‘respiration body’ to be
                conventional devices used to help us understand that any rupas experienced
                can be objects of satipatthana. A little further on we read:
                *****
                <QUOTE>
                Atthi kayoti va panassa sati paccupatthita hoti = "Or, indeed, his
                mindfulness is established, with the thought: 'The body exists.'"
                Mindfulness is established for the yogi through careful scrutiny. He
                thinks: There is the body, but there is no being, no person, no woman, no
                man, no soul, nothing pertaining to a soul, no "I", nothing that is mine,
                no one, and nothing belonging to anyone [kayoti ca attli, na satto, na
                puggalo, na itthi, na puriso, na atta, na attaniyam naham, na mama, na
                koci, na kassaciti evam assa sati paccupatthita hoti]. <end quote>
                *****
                > However, perhaps internal and external is just a stage (a mere
                > recollection) along the path, just as "there is dukkha", and "there is
                > cessation of dukkha". There is internal, there is external... there is
                > cessation of this perception "this is internal" and there is cessation
                > of this perception "this is external"... but then again, jhanas... and
                > well...
                >
                > Time for jhana meditation... no time to waste! go go...
                >
                > Meanwhile...
                > another rupa arises.
                .....
                I think it’s true that we need to hear and consider conceptually about the
                range of objects or realities in order for wrong views to be eradicated
                about them. However, I also believe the arahants and the Buddha himself
                would continue to use these concepts and differentiate into internal and
                external, without any illusion of course.
                *****
                <FINAL QUOTE>
                Anissito ca viharati = "And he lives independent." He lives emancipated
                from dependence on craving and wrong views.

                With these words is stated the direct opposition of this meditation to the
                laying hold on craving and wrong views.

                Na ca kiñci loke upadiyati = "And clings to naught in the world." In
                regard to no visible shape... or consciousness, does he think: this is my
                soul; or this belongs to my soul.
                <end all quotes from Satipatthana sutta commentary>
                *****
                You mention ‘time for jhana meditation’ and that’s another topic that can
                be controversial too. Recently two good friends mentioned their jhanic
                experiences to me and it may be helpful to discuss this further if you’d
                care to give more detail about your understanding and purpose first.

                .....
                > Anguttara Nikaya IV.200: Pema Sutta (also Tanha Sutta)
                >
                > This sutta is most auspicious at abolishing "I"... considering a
                > recollection, a mere hallucination of "do I do that?" once came up
                > during the very reading of the sutta; immediately it fell away.
                .....
                Thank you for sharing your experiences and suttas you find helpful, Manji.
                As you rightly stress, any understanding or insight is impermanent and not
                worth clinging to.

                Sarah
                =====


                _______________________________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
              • manji
                The something seen (the table) is a concept. The something smelled (the punget smell of sweat in the dojo) is a concept. The something felt (the rough carpet)
                Message 7 of 9 , Jun 20, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  The something seen (the table) is a concept. The something smelled (the
                  punget smell of sweat in the dojo) is a concept. The something felt (the
                  rough carpet) is a concept. The hardness without the recollection of
                  table however, this is rupa. The smell without recollection of sweat, or
                  pungency is rupa. The sensation without the recollection of roughness or
                  carpet is rupa. So on and so on... However... it is most interesting
                  that sanna's marking and recollection cannot be stilled in a daily
                  living sense (thus dukkha). However I do believe that sanna can merely
                  mark (under special circumstances), as in the case of jhana/samadhi,
                  mark without recollections arising...

                  for example... it is said that in the case of samadhi there is no "I am
                  experiencing... I am about to experience..." however, after the
                  meditation has passed this recollection may arise... and the mind
                  immediately recollects something which closely resembled what it has
                  marked. Now this... this mere recollection is a concept, although it is
                  pointing to a reality. This is experienced in daily life as well as
                  meditation... all day.

                  Not knowing the words to what follows, there is noting that the mind may
                  take a concept (that table), see it as concept, an object in the mind
                  door, and now there too is rupa.

                  So is there taste without recollection of salty? This, this is rupa. If
                  such is rupa, then that which is a grain of sand is not rupa. If such is
                  rupa, then that which is the earth of the mountain, this is not rupa.
                  The four elements not referring to atoms and such, it refers the
                  fundamental objects of experience of the five heaps. If such is the
                  case, then how could there be "that other out there and this self in
                  here?"

                  There merely is rupa, but then again, sit and concentrate on the bubble
                  floating in the river, and it too passes away. So with an object of
                  thought, it too passes away. So with a thought of "that other out there"
                  and "this self in here", when truly putting for right effort, right
                  concentration etc... right view... this "other out there" and "this self
                  in here" passes away. So as a foundation of mindfulness, it is most
                  auspicious to concentrate on this "external" and "internal". This
                  seeing, this experience of this passing away, this knowing, this
                  mindfulness, this knowing of this speech, this recollection, this....
                  not self.

                  About meditation, the mind seems to "tend toward", "lean to", "travel
                  the direction of"... so jhana arises out of this direction. There is no
                  intent, it is an inclination, a vector. Speaking with a dojo member it
                  is like this:

                  There is walking with a direction, and there is walking with a
                  destination. There may be walking, and happening upon Chicago, and there
                  may be walking to Chicago. While both may cross the Rapidan River, one
                  crosses mindfully, one crosses with Chicago on the head. When asked by
                  locals, "Where are you traveling?" There may be a response "I'm headed
                  toward Chicago". This recollection is a most powerful thing. To the
                  knowing, there is a fundamental difference. The direction is set, and it
                  has inclination. Go go... go beyond... This samatha, this vipassana,
                  this samadhi, this jhana... not self... the results... and subject to
                  decay. There is a fundamental difference between kamma and vipaka.

                  In physics, when a bullet is shot, the atoms do not sit and calculate
                  equations and ballistics, the atoms and molecules do not sit and think
                  about a birth and a destination, or anything in between. Crack! ....
                  Pink!.... And control... perhaps yes, there is control... as in...
                  "recollection of control". As to whether this control is real or not,
                  this "recollection of control" is merely a concept... and such... not
                  self again... this recollection of control as real? Again, a
                  recollection; a fabrication. This recollection of control as contrived?
                  Again, a recollection; a fabrication. Oh the dukkha of sanna...
                  anyways...

                  Go, go, go beyond...

                  metta-
                  time to train, bye bye Sarah.

                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@...]
                  > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 3:37 AM
                  > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: RE: First Foundation of Mindfulness (Was: Re: [dsg] Merit
                  Making)
                  >
                  > Hi Manji,
                  >
                  > Let me take this thread up again....sorry for the delay.
                  >
                  > --- manji <manji@...> wrote: > Are you using "oneself" as
                  > upadanakkhanda or pannati?
                  >
                  > When there is the experiencing of rupas, such as hardness now, the
                  > hardness is rupa khandha (upadanakkhandha) regardless of whether it is
                  > what we conventionally say is ‘oneself’ or external to ‘oneself’.
                  > ‘Oneself’ is always a concept, but as in the case I mentioned, it can
                  > refer to particular namas and rupas. As Betty just explained, it can
                  be a
                  > form of shorthand that ‘we’ have to use and it depends on the speaker
                  and
                  > listener as to how it’s understood. This was also true for the Buddha.
                  > .....
                  >
                  > > Something seen, something heard, something smelled, something
                  tasted,
                  > > and something thought are merely concepts, recollected from objects
                  > > of... seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and thought. None of which
                  are
                  > > self... rupa is not self.
                  > .....
                  > Just to check we’re on the same track here, can we agree that seeing,
                  > hearing, smelling and tasting are namas, i.e realities which
                  experience
                  > objects. Those realities you mention which are experienced (something
                  > seen, heard, smelled and so on) are the rupas - visible object, sound,
                  > smell etc. They are not concepts although of course there may be
                  concepts
                  > about them later or now as we discuss them. As you say, all namas and
                  > rupas are not self.
                  > .....
                  > > There couldn't "objects outside self" just as there couldn't be
                  "objects
                  > > inside self"... because there is no self to "have inside", and there
                  is
                  > > no self to "have outside". There just simply is rupa, there just
                  simply
                  > > is vedana, there just simply is sanna, there just simply is
                  cetasika,
                  > > and there just simply is vinnana...
                  > .....
                  > You make a good point here, Manji. As you say, ultimately there is no
                  > self, no 'inside' or 'outside' and there are merely different
                  phenomena
                  > experiencing and being experienced. The separation of phenomena into
                  > ‘Manji’s seeing’ and ‘Sarah’s seeing’ or the experience of internal
                  and
                  > external hardness is a conventional device only, which we need to use
                  for
                  > convenience. When the Buddha refers to rupas internally and externally
                  it
                  > is to stress the range of rupas which are experienced and can be the
                  > objects of satipatthana.
                  >
                  > Let me quote a little from the Satipatthana Sutta commentary and
                  > sub-commentary (p.51 onwards in Soma’s translation in ‘the Section on
                  > Breathing’):
                  > *****
                  > <QUOTE>
                  > Bahiddha va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Or he lives contemplating the
                  > body in the body externally." Or this bhikkhu dwells in contemplation
                  of
                  > the body in another's respiration-body.
                  >
                  > Or... in another's respiration-body. This portion deals with
                  reflection
                  > for the growth of insight and has no reference to the growth of full
                  > absorption of quietude...
                  >
                  > Ajjhatta-bahiddha va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Or he lives
                  > contemplating the body in the body internally and externally." At one
                  time
                  > in his own and at another in another's respiration-body, he dwells in
                  > contemplation of the body. <end quote>
                  > *****
                  > These aren’t easy passages or sections to understand. However, I
                  > understand the use of one’s own and another’s ‘respiration body’ to be
                  > conventional devices used to help us understand that any rupas
                  experienced
                  > can be objects of satipatthana. A little further on we read:
                  > *****
                  > <QUOTE>
                  > Atthi kayoti va panassa sati paccupatthita hoti = "Or, indeed, his
                  > mindfulness is established, with the thought: 'The body exists.'"
                  > Mindfulness is established for the yogi through careful scrutiny. He
                  > thinks: There is the body, but there is no being, no person, no woman,
                  no
                  > man, no soul, nothing pertaining to a soul, no "I", nothing that is
                  mine,
                  > no one, and nothing belonging to anyone [kayoti ca attli, na satto, na
                  > puggalo, na itthi, na puriso, na atta, na attaniyam naham, na mama, na
                  > koci, na kassaciti evam assa sati paccupatthita hoti]. <end quote>
                  > *****
                  > > However, perhaps internal and external is just a stage (a mere
                  > > recollection) along the path, just as "there is dukkha", and "there
                  is
                  > > cessation of dukkha". There is internal, there is external... there
                  is
                  > > cessation of this perception "this is internal" and there is
                  cessation
                  > > of this perception "this is external"... but then again, jhanas...
                  and
                  > > well...
                  > >
                  > > Time for jhana meditation... no time to waste! go go...
                  > >
                  > > Meanwhile...
                  > > another rupa arises.
                  > .....
                  > I think it’s true that we need to hear and consider conceptually about
                  the
                  > range of objects or realities in order for wrong views to be
                  eradicated
                  > about them. However, I also believe the arahants and the Buddha
                  himself
                  > would continue to use these concepts and differentiate into internal
                  and
                  > external, without any illusion of course.
                  > *****
                  > <FINAL QUOTE>
                  > Anissito ca viharati = "And he lives independent." He lives
                  emancipated
                  > from dependence on craving and wrong views.
                  >
                  > With these words is stated the direct opposition of this meditation to
                  the
                  > laying hold on craving and wrong views.
                  >
                  > Na ca kiñci loke upadiyati = "And clings to naught in the world." In
                  > regard to no visible shape... or consciousness, does he think: this is
                  my
                  > soul; or this belongs to my soul.
                  > <end all quotes from Satipatthana sutta commentary>
                  > *****
                  > You mention ‘time for jhana meditation’ and that’s another topic that
                  can
                  > be controversial too. Recently two good friends mentioned their jhanic
                  > experiences to me and it may be helpful to discuss this further if
                  you’d
                  > care to give more detail about your understanding and purpose first.
                  >
                  > .....
                  > > Anguttara Nikaya IV.200: Pema Sutta (also Tanha Sutta)
                  > >
                  > > This sutta is most auspicious at abolishing "I"... considering a
                  > > recollection, a mere hallucination of "do I do that?" once came up
                  > > during the very reading of the sutta; immediately it fell away.
                  > .....
                  > Thank you for sharing your experiences and suttas you find helpful,
                  Manji.
                  > As you rightly stress, any understanding or insight is impermanent and
                  not
                  > worth clinging to.
                  >
                  > Sarah
                  > =====
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  _______________________________________________________________________
                  > Do You Yahoo!?
                  > Get your free @... address at
                  http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                • Sarah
                  Hi Manji, ... is a concept. The something smelled (the ... ..... Agreed ... ..... Agreed. We could add, I think, that all phenomena cannot be stilled but will
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jun 24, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Manji,

                    --- manji <manji@...> wrote: > The something seen (the table)
                    is a concept. The something smelled (the
                    > punget smell of sweat in the dojo) is a concept. The something felt (the
                    > rough carpet) is a concept. The hardness without the recollection of
                    > table however, this is rupa. The smell without recollection of sweat, or
                    > pungency is rupa. The sensation without the recollection of roughness or
                    > carpet is rupa. So on and so on...
                    .....
                    Agreed
                    .....
                    >However... it is most interesting
                    > that sanna's marking and recollection cannot be stilled in a daily
                    > living sense (thus dukkha). However I do believe that sanna can merely
                    > mark (under special circumstances), as in the case of jhana/samadhi,
                    > mark without recollections arising...
                    .....
                    Agreed. We could add, I think, that all phenomena cannot be stilled but
                    will arise again by conditions (thus all namas and rupas are dukkha).
                    .....
                    > for example... it is said that in the case of samadhi there is no "I am
                    > experiencing... I am about to experience..." however, after the
                    > meditation has passed this recollection may arise... and the mind
                    > immediately recollects something which closely resembled what it has
                    > marked. Now this... this mere recollection is a concept, although it is
                    > pointing to a reality. This is experienced in daily life as well as
                    > meditation... all day.
                    .....
                    Lots of agreeing;-)
                    .....
                    > Not knowing the words to what follows, there is noting that the mind
                    may
                    > take a concept (that table), see it as concept, an object in the mind
                    > door, and now there too is rupa.
                    >
                    > So is there taste without recollection of salty? This, this is rupa. If
                    > such is rupa, then that which is a grain of sand is not rupa. If such is
                    > rupa, then that which is the earth of the mountain, this is not rupa.
                    > The four elements not referring to atoms and such, it refers the
                    > fundamental objects of experience of the five heaps. If such is the
                    > case, then how could there be "that other out there and this self in
                    > here?"
                    >
                    > There merely is rupa, but then again, sit and concentrate on the bubble
                    > floating in the river, and it too passes away. So with an object of
                    > thought, it too passes away. So with a thought of "that other out there"
                    > and "this self in here", when truly putting for right effort, right
                    > concentration etc... right view... this "other out there" and "this self
                    > in here" passes away. So as a foundation of mindfulness, it is most
                    > auspicious to concentrate on this "external" and "internal". This
                    > seeing, this experience of this passing away, this knowing, this
                    > mindfulness, this knowing of this speech, this recollection, this....
                    > not self.
                    .....
                    I’m not sure if I exactly follow this and don’t understand there is any
                    need for any special concentration on ‘external’ and ‘internal’.

                    Nina wrote to Howard about the diversity of different rupas (all included
                    under outer ayatanas). :
                    *****
                    Nina:> > Book of Analysis, outer ayatanas:
                    > <Therein, what is sapid base? That sapid (object) which, deriving from
                    > the
                    > four great essentials (elements), is invisible, impingent, the taste of
                    > roots, the taste of stems, the taste of bark, the taste of leaves, the
                    > taste
                    > of flowers, the taste of fruits, sour, sweet, bitter, pungent, salt,
                    > alkaline, sweet-acrid, acrid, nice, nauseous; or whatever other sapid
                    > object
                    > there is, deriving from the four great essentials (elements), invisible,
                    > impingent...>
                    > Flavours are different because of different compositions of elements.
                    > The
                    > same for the other sense objects. Root has a taste different from stem,
                    > and
                    > no need even to think of root or stem.
                    > The moment of thinking is different. We can think of root or stem, and
                    > then
                    > as you say, the object is a concept, and this is mind made.
                    > We touch a table. Maybe hardness appears, or it can be cold or heat.
                    > When
                    > you touch a table do you think all the time: this is the hardness of the
                    > table, this is the hardness of the table? Are there not also moments of
                    > merely experiencing the element of hardness? No need to think of outer
                    > object, outer ayatana.
                    >..<snip>
                    . Sounds must be different, there can be awareness
                    > of
                    > sound very naturally when it appears, we do not try to concentrate or
                    > think
                    > of it, it just appears. Colours are very different, there is no neutral
                    > colour. Defining of shape and form, knowing what something is, or naming
                    > red
                    > or blue is thinking of concepts. But we could not know such concepts if
                    > there were no moments of just seeing what impinges on the eyesense. When
                    > sound appears, colour cannot appear at the same time, and here we can
                    > see
                    > the functions of sammavayama, right thinking that hits the object, and
                    > samma
                    > samadhi, one pointedness on the object, while pa~n~naa understands it.
                    <end quote>
                    *****
                    we were talking before about the classification of internal and external
                    rupas (as discussed in suttas such as the Satipatthana Sutta. It’s true
                    that we are using concepts to classify different rupas. In just the same
                    way, we classify earth element by way of the different parts of the body,
                    for example, even though, as you have explained, it it only rupa (no hair,
                    no body, no internal or external) that is known. We read in MN28,
                    Mahahattipadopama Sutta, B.Bodhi’s trans:

                    “The Earth Element

                    “What friends, is the earth element? The earth element may be either
                    internal or external. What is the internal earth element? Whatever
                    internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified and clung-to; that
                    is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, lungs,
                    large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or
                    whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and
                    clung-to: this is called the internal earth element. Now both the
                    internal earth element and the external earth element are simply earth
                    element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom
                    thus: “This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ when one
                    sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes
                    disenchanted with the earth element and makes the mind dispassionate
                    toward the earth element.”
                    <end quote>
                    It continues after each description of the internal element to mention the
                    external element outside one’s body.
                    *****
                    > About meditation, the mind seems to "tend toward", "lean to", "travel
                    > the direction of"... so jhana arises out of this direction. There is no
                    > intent, it is an inclination, a vector. Speaking with a dojo member it
                    > is like this:
                    >
                    > There is walking with a direction, and there is walking with a
                    > destination. There may be walking, and happening upon Chicago, and there
                    > may be walking to Chicago. While both may cross the Rapidan River, one
                    > crosses mindfully, one crosses with Chicago on the head. When asked by
                    > locals, "Where are you traveling?" There may be a response "I'm headed
                    > toward Chicago". This recollection is a most powerful thing. To the
                    > knowing, there is a fundamental difference. The direction is set, and it
                    > has inclination. Go go... go beyond... This samatha, this vipassana,
                    > this samadhi, this jhana... not self... the results... and subject to
                    > decay. There is a fundamental difference between kamma and vipaka.
                    .....
                    I appreciate the point you are making here about the anattaness of all
                    states and conditions. In another post on the lutes and flutes (to
                    christine) you wrote very helpfully:

                    “That I, that I that keeps wanting to do something, it is not self. This
                    I, this I that is clinging, it is not self. This I, this I that is
                    taking something for self, this is not self. It is merely akusala”

                    I also understand that any samatha or vipassana development will depend on
                    conditions and will not be by wishing or intending without any
                    understanding developed.
                    .....
                    > In physics, when a bullet is shot, the atoms do not sit and calculate
                    > equations and ballistics, the atoms and molecules do not sit and think
                    > about a birth and a destination, or anything in between. Crack! ....
                    > Pink!.... And control... perhaps yes, there is control... as in...
                    > "recollection of control". As to whether this control is real or not,
                    > this "recollection of control" is merely a concept... and such... not
                    > self again... this recollection of control as real? Again, a
                    > recollection; a fabrication. This recollection of control as contrived?
                    > Again, a recollection; a fabrication. Oh the dukkha of sanna...
                    > anyways...
                    ....
                    This is a funny example;-)) We can talk conventionally about control or
                    we can talking about the controlling power of certain mental factors, but
                    the recollection of control or the idea of self controlling are illusions,
                    fabrications as you say. I’m not sure, though, why you only stress sanna
                    as being dukkha and not all other phenomena. There would be no illusion
                    without ignorance, wrong view, concentration, thinking, effort, intention
                    and many other factors too. (Sometimes, I may well misunderstand your
                    meaning, Manji, for which I apologise.)
                    ....
                    > Go, go, go beyond...
                    ....
                    We keep seeing ‘Go,go, go Goal’ on our TV screens at the moment.....(Lucy,
                    now England are out <sigh>, hope to see you back in the ADL corner;-))
                    ...
                    > metta-
                    > time to train, bye bye Sarah.
                    ....
                    Any chance of a pic of Manji in the Dojo for the album? I know I probably
                    asked before, but conditions for the ‘dukkha of sanna’ to arise again;-)

                    Sarah
                    ======


                    _______________________________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.