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

Re: [dsg] October thoughts from Cooran

Expand Messages
  • Sarah
    Hi Christine & Ken H, Many thanks for your reports. KenH, did you write an introduction to the anapanasati sutta? If so, can we see it? How can there be any qu
    Message 1 of 31 , Dec 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Christine & Ken H,

      Many thanks for your reports. KenH, did you write an introduction to the
      anapanasati sutta? If so, can we see it? How can there be any qu of
      nibbana not being the only unconditioned dhamma?

      --- christine_forsyth <cforsyth@...> wrote: > We touched on what
      'keeping the precepts' means - i.e. if one is
      > sitting in Dhamma discussions, not guzzling alcohol, commiting mayhem
      > or frolicking with wild, wild women (or men) - this doesn't mean one
      > is presently keeping at least three of the precepts. Keeping the
      > precepts is 'abstaining' from breaking them - and this can only
      > happen when the opportunity to break them is successfully resisted.
      ....
      ;-)
      ....
      > and what are the chances of
      > splinting a particular flys' middle left hand leg. The answer
      > is 'two - Buckleys and none'. :-)
      .....
      I’ll have to wait til my Aussie interpreter fills me in. Perhaps it’s the
      Dutch or ‘double-dutch’ influence....
      ....
      > There was a discussion on an article by Maurice Walshe (translator of
      > the Digha Nikaya) about Dana - "Giving from the Heart" about
      > intention and recipients (which also included a very interesting
      > remark about the Vesantara Jataka :-)).
      ....
      As it’s a :-)) one, you’d better share it, Chris.
      ....
      >There was definitely not
      > consensus on the Buddhist idea of some recipients being more worthy
      > than others to receive gifts, or the fact that more beneficial vipaka
      > would be generated by givng to one person rather than another.
      .....
      We never know - so many conditions and factors involved. Better to just
      give when we have a chance and not think about the vipaka.....otherwise,
      so easily it can be clinging to self again. As I was discussing with
      Victor (Larry thanks for your help;-)), even whilst giving, there can be
      clinging to the generosity, to the gift, to ‘me’ or anything.

      Glad you all had a good weekend and I hope Azita can make it next time
      too.

      Metta,

      Sarah
      =====


      _______________________________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
    • Sarah
      Hi Ken H (& Michael), It s OK, this is the last;-) ... .... ;-) Funny, as I was lifting the tea pot this morning, I was thinking of this and chuckling to
      Message 31 of 31 , Dec 9, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Ken H (& Michael),

        It's OK, this is the last;-)

        --- kenhowardau <kenhowardau@...> wrote:

        > The interpretations I meant were the ones I referred to
        > as found in the commentaries to the Satipatthana Sutta.
        > (about jackalls and babies)
        >
        > In my early days of Dhamma study, there were popular
        > Buddhists books telling me how to 'practise satipatthana.'
        > The idea was that I should concentrate on (be mindful of)
        > everything I did in daily life: 'When you are making a
        > pot of tea, know you are making a pot of tea . . as you
        > see the tea pot, know you are seeing the tea pot . . as
        > you reach for it, . . as you feel the elbow straighten . .
        > the fingers straighten . . the touch of the tea pot . . .'
        >
        > These silly, impractical instructions are impossible to
        > comply with for more than a few seconds; More to the point,
        > they are ineffective and counterproductive and they make a
        > mockery of the Dhamma.
        ....
        ;-) Funny, as I was lifting the tea pot this morning, I was thinking of
        this and chuckling to myself....
        ....
        > As you know, it is possible for wholesome consciousness
        > to experience unwholesome consciousness. By normal
        > logic, this should not be possible. But, in the
        > billionth of a second (or so) after a dhamma has ceased
        > to exist, the succeeding mental factors can know its
        > characteristics just as clearly as if it were still
        > there.
        ....
        including wrong view;-)
        ....
        > That's all I was trying to describe in my previous
        > message -- vipassana consciousness sharing the same
        > object as the previous jhana consciousness and so,
        > effectively, the two operating together.
        ...
        Wouldn't the object of the vipassana consciousness be one of the jhana
        factors or a reality such as the hardness of breath as opposed to the
        concept experienced by the previous jhana consciousness? Of course when
        they are coupled, the object (reality) is experienced by jhana level
        concentration etc. But then the factors are arising together. I'm getting
        into hot water here too. Nina may need to rescue us.

        Metta,

        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.