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

Re: [dsg] Re: Rob M’s Problem Repl y Part I

Expand Messages
  • upasaka@aol.com
    Hi, Rob - In a message dated 10/1/05 9:20:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... ======================== My opinion: Sadhu x 3 ! :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Rob -

      In a message dated 10/1/05 9:20:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      rob.moult@... writes:

      > Subj: [dsg] Re: Rob M’s Problem Reply Part I
      > Date: 10/1/05 9:20:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time
      > From: rob.moult@...
      > Reply-to: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
      > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent from the Internet
      >
      >
      ========================
      My opinion: Sadhu x 3 ! :-)

      With metta,
      Howard

      /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
      in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
      phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra) 


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • upasaka@aol.com
      Hi, Ken (and Rob) - In a message dated 10/10/05 2:20:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... ========================== Omigod!! There is the following:
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, Ken (and Rob) -

        In a message dated 10/10/05 2:20:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
        kenhowa@... writes:

        > The jhanas were practised to their full extent before the Dhamma
        > became known. Therefore, it is impossible that the Buddha would have
        > defined Right Concentration (pertaining to the NEP) as the jhanas. If
        > a sutta seems to give that impression, then it needs further
        > explanation.
        ==========================
        Omigod!! There is the following:
        __________________
        The definition

        "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk — quite
        withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters &
        remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal,
        accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought &
        evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born
        of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation —
        internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity,
        mindful, & fully alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains
        in the third jhana, and of him the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful,
        he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as
        with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in
        the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain.
        This is called right concentration."— SN XLV.8
        _________________

        With metta,
        Howard






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • upasaka@aol.com
        Hi, Ken - In a message dated 10/11/05 6:41:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... ==================== Why, then, Ken, do you study, contemplate, and discuss Dhamma?
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 11, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi, Ken -

          In a message dated 10/11/05 6:41:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
          kenhowa@... writes:

          > I don't have a vipassana practice of any kind - formal meditation, or
          > otherwise. The idea of doing something to change the course of
          > conditionality is inconsistent with my understanding of the Dhamma.
          >
          ====================
          Why, then, Ken, do you study, contemplate, and discuss Dhamma? If that
          is not to alter the course of conditionality, is it just a matter of
          interest, like being interested in reading Playboy, Penthouse, Sports Illustrated,
          Shakespeare, or comic books? ;-)
          And, just to ask, are you opposed to doing anything to change the
          course of conditionality in all matters? Do you never take any purposeful actions
          to alter the course of events, for example in terms of choice of job or
          project, or choosing whom and what to vote for, or where and what to eat, or choice
          of medication or even taking any medication, or caring for loved ones, or
          stepping out of the way of an oncoming truck? And if one never chooses ...
          anything, not even to direct attention, how does one differ from a stone or stick?

          With metta,
          Howard



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • kenhowardau
          Hi Howard, We have a conversation on another thread that I have been meaning to catch up on. You said the Dhammapada quote I gave (about dosa never overcoming
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 11, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Howard,

            We have a conversation on another thread that I have been meaning to
            catch up on. You said the Dhammapada quote I gave (about dosa never
            overcoming dosa) applied only in cases where other people's dosa was
            involved. You believe dosa lobha and mana can sometimes overcome dosa
            lobha and mana, and you cite the Bhikkhuni Sutta. Can you understand
            my strong opposition to your theory? To my mind, it denies there is
            an ultimate reality: it insists the world is relative, directionless
            and unconditioned.

            I like to think you are temporarily confusing ultimate reality with
            conventional reality - something we all do on a regular basis.
            Returning to the current thread, I think the same, temporary
            confusion led you to ask the following.

            --------------------------------
            H: > Why, then, Ken, do you study, contemplate, and discuss Dhamma?
            ---------------------------------

            As an uninstructed worldling, I am motivated mainly by lobha dosa and
            moha. Even my Dhamma-related activities are predominately akusala. I
            suspect they include more kusala moments than do my other daily
            activities, but that is not saying much. :-)

            -------------------------------------------------------
            H: > If that is not to alter the course of conditionality, is it just
            a matter of interest, like being interested in reading Playboy,
            Penthouse, Sports Illustrated, Shakespeare, or comic books? ;-)
            --------------------------------------------------------

            Please, don't tell me my Dhamma study is motivated by wrong view (the
            idea of altering conditionality): that is a possibility I prefer to
            ignore! :-)

            I hope my akusala is mainly of a lesser kind (lobha without wrong
            view). Certainly, I don't openly deny the Buddha and his teaching,
            but wrong view is sure arise in less obvious ways.

            -------------------------------------------------------------
            H: > And, just to ask, are you opposed to doing anything to change
            the course of conditionality in all matters?
            --------------------------------------------------------------

            Yes, wrong view is the greatest of all evils.

            -------------
            H: > Do you never take any purposeful actions
            to alter the course of events, for example in terms of choice of job
            or project, or choosing whom and what to vote for, or where and what
            to eat, or choice of medication or even taking any medication, or
            caring for loved ones, or stepping out of the way of an oncoming
            truck?
            -------------

            Conditioned volitional activity (kamma) is not always motivated by
            ignorance (much less so by ignorance with wrong view). But if I ever
            believe that the Buddha was wrong, and that I can control the
            workings of conditionality, please point out the error of my ways:
            you will be doing me the greatest possible favour.

            -------------------------
            H: > And if one never chooses ...
            anything, not even to direct attention, how does one differ from a
            stone or stick?
            -----------------------

            A stone or a stick is a concept. A being [that chooses or never
            chooses] is also a concept. Or are you asking, "How does citta
            without wrong view differ from rupa (which is also without wrong
            view)?"

            Citta is a mental phenomenon: it experiences an object. Rupa is a
            material phenomenon: it doesn't experience anything. There's a
            start. :-)

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