[RobertK]

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mikenz66@...> wrote:
>>
> Mike: However, what I can not grasp is the implication that this problem
doesn't apply equally to studying the Dhamma as to any other activity. It
certainly involves making choices, taking actions, and potentially producing an
"*I'm* a good studier of the Dhamma" view. How do you avoid that problem?
>
>++++++++++
Dear Mike
I don'y want to interfere between you and KenH but perhaps I can add something.

The main point is that hearing/studying Dhamma is essential for right view to
develop. If one does not learn the theory accurately and in sufficient depth
then it is sure that one will either make no progess or progess in a wrong
direction. These wrong directions can be very enticing and have the outward
appearance of correctness. One may live a more serene and law-abiding life but
be as deluded about the way out of samsara as ever.

One may wonder whether everyone who studies, studies rightly. In fact very
obviously they don't. But why is that?
Mainly it is because of the very deepseated nature of self-view, it must be
truly understood that there are only elements arising and passing away with no
one controlling or doing anything. These elments don't want to study or not
study, they are mere conditioned phenomema that arise and perform their
function, and then they cease forever and a new element arises.
Kind of easy to write about and of course most Buddhists easily agree with this
( a few don't) but then because of self-view people believe that they have to do
something /change something in order to understand this. But the real 'change'
is not anything outward it is purely the arising of understanding.
And this type of understanding, as the suttas say, depends on hearing Dhamma.

Now three people may hear/read this and have totally different reactions: one
may properly understand, at some level. Another might say 'yes, but..I still
want to do something' Another might say 'it is nonsense..'
This is due to accumulations from the near and distant past.

Even the one who understands correctly at the basic level may still go wrong.
They may think mere acceptance of these facts is already enough whereas it is
only the first step in a long path of studying and learning - both in theory
and directly the difference between concept and reality- and eventually the
difference between nama and rupa.

Now if you are sitting down can there be understanding - even direct
understanding of an element.? There can if there are conditions. You don't have
to stand up to understand, or go and sit somewhere else. And if you were sitting
somewhere else you don't need to come and sit here..
Or if you have desire arising, as we all do very often - can it be known as
desire, as an element, right there and then? Yes, it can if there are enough
conditions. But if one thought that 'Oh, here is desire I must remove it', then
one is no longer following the path toward vipassana. One is either having
aversion, or another more subtle desire (to get rid of the big desire) or at
best one might be developing samatha.
Robert

[RobertK]

The conditions for right view are hearing the Dhamma are wise attention to it.
One of the classifications of progress is that of the three gocara(arammana, objects):
When talking about bhavana these are
1. Upanissaya gocara is the basis and is the hearing and wise considering of the teachings.
2. This leads to araki gocara which is the protection against akusala citta- in other words the first gocara conditions araki.
3.upanipanda gocara which is satipatthana.

[mike]

But if one thought that 'Oh, here is desire I must remove it', then
one is no longer following the path toward vipassana. One is either having
aversion, or another more subtle desire (to get rid of the big desire) or at
best one might be developing samatha.
Robert

Hi Robert,

I agree with everything you wrote that I excised from the beginning of this quote, including "...then
one is no longer following the path toward vipassana...".

One or two questions though:

(1) Do you think that there's anything inherently wrong with the development of samatha (as opposed to "following the path toward vipassana")? and

(2) Do you think that 'subtle desire' is an obstacle to the development of samatha?

Thanks in Advance,

mike

[RobertK]

From sarah abbott
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudyg.../message/121878

Why did the Buddha teach meditation and all the other conventional subjects he
addressed in sutta? Why didn't he just teach Abhidhamma?
>
> And: can you give me a quote from Buddhist scripture that states that
meditation is wrong practice, from *any* legitimate source including commentary
and subcommentary.
....
S: I think you'll agree that the Buddha only encouraged the development of
wholesome states, so even whilst talking about "conventional subjects" or
"meditation", it is essential to understand what kinds of dhammas are arising.
The Dhamma, the Abhidhamma, whether in Suttas, Vinaya or Abhidhamma Pitaka,
comes down to the understanding of this moment.

For example, we read in the .Gopakamoggallaana Sutta, MN 108:

(Ananda speaking):
"The Blessed One, Brahmin, did not praise every type of meditation (jhaana.m),
nor did he condemn every type of meditation. What kind of meditation did the
Blessed One not praise? Here, Brahmin, someone abides with his mind obsessed by
sensual lust
(kaamaraagapariyu.t.thitena cetasaa viharati), a prey to sensual lust, and he
does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen sensual lust.

"While he harbours sensual lust within, he meditates, premeditates,
out-meditates, and mismeditates (jhaayanti pajjhaayanti nijjhaayanti
apajjhaayanti). He abides with his mind obsessed by sloth and torpor, a prey to
sloth and torpor....with his mind obsessed by
restlessness and remorse......obsessed by doubt, a prey to doubt, and he does
not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen doubt. While he harbours
doubt within, he meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates. The
Blessed One did not praise that kind of meditation."

We also read in the texts that even wholesome states that are not the
development of the Eightfold Path, including the attainment of mundane jhanas,
are considered as "wrong practice" in that they do not lead out of Samsara - the
bricks of samsara are still being accumulated at such times. Only the
development of satipatthana, vipassana, is "right practice".

SN 55:55:
"Bhikkhus, these four things, when developed and cultivated, lead to the
realization of the fruit of stream-entry. What four?
Association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention,
practice in accordance with the Dhamma...."

As Jon wrote before: "In the expression "practice in accordance with the
Dhamma", the term "practice" means the actual moment of consciousness
accompanied by insight that knows something about the true nature of a presently
arising dhamma. It does not mean undertaking some kind of activity with a view
to having that consciousness occur."

Metta

Sarah
=====