Anatta the Adj.

[Several]

I think so. As Ajahn Cha says about chickens, if its just a case of sitting around waiting unadvisedly we'd all be enlightened.

Take archery. The practice is advised by knowledge. The knowledge alone will not strike the mark, the practice alone will not strike the mark consistently.

Actually I'm a little surprised that you think understanding (or striving for) is ineffectual but smoking is.

I could go on, but I won't.

 

I guess this is a drawback of a forum based dialogue.

 

Without detailed expression I'm not fully understood.

 

I'm not against striving for knowledge and understanding, but was more interested in an answer.

 

To ask you "why does it matter" was my way of getting your ideas on "why it matters & how it would affect your practice"?

Ah. I see. Well in brief its down to the Zen Koan approach. Rationality cannot grasp the truth, like a painting is not the real thing. Rational understanding really is only of use to communicate an experience or concept, but it has grown out of proportion and has become a surrogate for insight or direct apprehension. The Koan approach gives the rational structure a problem it cannot rationally solve. The sound of one hand clapping, three chin of flax etc. After extended time and effort (Viriya) trying to solve the unanswerable the rational construct collapses. This causes the mind to use insight/gnosis to appehend the true answer which is not only the answer to the Koan, but an immediate experience of the true nature of everything. One is no longer using judgement and interpretation to 'understand' existence.

This, to me, says much about Buddhas silence when questioned about the nature of Anatta. Like a Koan you could say "without denying and without affirming the deathless, what is it?"

Viriya, effort or energy, is one of the seven enlightenment factors. It implies a heroic or manly struggle. Tranquility is also one of the seven factors. A balancing act indeed, and a necessary one if we are to go beyond our conditoned state into a liberated one.

[lungmi]

I think so. As Ajahn Cha says about chickens, if its just a case of sitting around waiting unadvisedly we'd all be enlightened.

Take archery. The practice is advised by knowledge. The knowledge alone will not strike the mark, the practice alone will not strike the mark consistently.

Actually I'm a little surprised that you think understanding (or striving for) is ineffectual but smoking is.

I could go on, but I won't.

I guess this is a drawback of a forum based dialogue.

Without detailed expression I'm not fully understood.

I'm not against striving for knowledge and understanding, but was more interested in an answer.

To ask you "why does it matter" was my way of getting your ideas on "why it matters & how it would affect your practice"?

Ah. I see. Well in brief its down to the Zen Koan approach. Rationality cannot grasp the truth, like a painting is not the real thing. Rational understanding really is only of use to communicate an experience or concept, but it has grown out of proportion and has become a surrogate for insight or direct apprehension. The Koan approach gives the rational structure a problem it cannot rationally solve. The sound of one hand clapping, three chin of flax etc. After extended time and effort (Viriya) trying to solve the unanswerable the rational construct collapses. This causes the mind to use insight/gnosis to appehend the true answer which is not only the answer to the Koan, but an immediate experience of the true nature of everything. One is no longer using judgement and interpretation to 'understand' existence.

This, to me, says much about Buddhas silence when questioned about the nature of Anatta. Like a Koan you could say "without denying and without affirming the deathless, what is it?"

Viriya, effort or energy, is one of the seven enlightenment factors. It implies a heroic or manly struggle. Tranquility is also one of the seven factors. A balancing act indeed, and a necessary one if we are to go beyond our conditoned state into a liberated one.

The Koan of the one clapping hand I resolved. Clap the head of your spiritual master.

[rockyysdt]

Ah. I see. Well in brief its down to the Zen Koan approach. Rationality cannot grasp the truth, like a painting is not the real thing. Rational understanding really is only of use to communicate an experience or concept, but it has grown out of proportion and has become a surrogate for insight or direct apprehension. The Koan approach gives the rational structure a problem it cannot rationally solve. The sound of one hand clapping, three chin of flax etc. After extended time and effort (Viriya) trying to solve the unanswerable the rational construct collapses. This causes the mind to use insight/gnosis to appehend the true answer which is not only the answer to the Koan, but an immediate experience of the true nature of everything. One is no longer using judgement and interpretation to 'understand' existence.

This, to me, says much about Buddhas silence when questioned about the nature of Anatta. Like a Koan you could say "without denying and without affirming the deathless, what is it?"

Viriya, effort or energy, is one of the seven enlightenment factors. It implies a heroic or manly struggle. Tranquility is also one of the seven factors. A balancing act indeed, and a necessary one if we are to go beyond our conditoned state into a liberated one.

Thanks Sev.

An excellent thought to take into insight meditation.

What about Plotinus Veritas' take on Anatta?

How would his understanding alter your practice?

[sabaijai]

The Wisdom/Morality/Concentration sequence interpretation is quite common at least academically. There are other ways of ordering it, just reporting on one as a counterpoint to the idea the meditation comes first, or that meditation is necessary and sufficient for sati to arise.

For me it's instructive to listen to the views from all angles, assuming that you trust the sources. The perspective cline runs the gamut from meditation as the be-all, end-all, to no meditation necessary, all depending on how you interpret the Satipatthana Sutta, and for some, how important you find the Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Strict interpreters of the latter two texts say that meditation itself doesn't directly cause the conditions for sati to arise, just as waiting for a bus doesn't cause it to arrive.

Many people I have met along the way have said that sati arose not when they were practising sitting, standing, lying or walking meditation but rather while engaging in an otherwise-mundane activity (ie when they stopped waiting for the bus). Yet all meditated at some point in their personal history. All studied dhamma under capable masters.

In such cases, which is the horse and which is the cart? Strictly speaking it's impossible to say as correlation alone doesn't imply causality.

Right view proponents,argue that whether sati/awarness arises during 'meditation' or during 'non-meditation', it is a result of discerning nama and rupa, It is never a direct result of meditation technique.

Continuing in this vein, although awareness means being aware of something, it's not being aware of the four foundations of mindfulness (body, feeling, mind, dhamma) per se; it's seeing and understanding that they arise and fall away, that they are impermanent, insubstantial and unsatisfactory. It is a coming to an understanding, an arrival at right view.

It's accomplished empirically, by observing the natural world, not by engendering mystical power. To some who follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, your posture is irrelevant. The breathing pace is irrelevant. These things may be altered to suit your mood or your desires, but they don't produce sati in and of themselves. More plainly put, sati arises in spite of all your physical attempts to create the conditions. When right view is present, sati may arise.

In my own 'practice' I take this view to have more validity than the view that says the more you 'meditate', the closer you get to stream entry. Like Aj Cha is famous for saying, 'Chickens can sit a very long time,' or something to that effect. There is a great intuitive appeal to assigning primacy to meditation which is not necessarily borne out in the Tipitaka.

'Meditation', like 'enlightenment', may be a rather inadequate word to describe the process. The only thing in the Noble Eightfold Path that comes close to corresponding to the notion of 'meditation' is Samadhi/Concentration. Yet that brings calm and tranquillity, not wisdom. Some Westerners use the word 'vipassana' instead, ie, 'vipassana' has become synonymous with 'meditation'. But vipassana is a an experience, not a technique. Sitting still watching your mind, body etc is not vipassana. Vipassana is the result, literally 'special insight'. And it's not listed in the Noble Eightfold Path.

For some reason many people seem to think that Samma-Samadhi (Right Concentration) is more important than Samma-Ditthi (Right View) but at the very least it seems they should be considered of equal importance. Not to mention Right Livelihood etc.

Doesn't regular "concentration" & "awareness" practice allow one to gradually develop a state in which one is able to better discern Nama & Rupa?

Although Sati may not arise during a sitting session, hasn't the regular practice of meditation and awareness/mindfulness brought one to a state which cultivates it?

Shouldn't we subscribe to all three sections of the path as important parts of the whole?

Isn't the wisdom we study an interpretation of another?

Don't we facilitate insight of wisdom, Nama & Rupa, when we regularly practice Concentration & Mindfulness?

Sati may not arise during a sit, but doesn't the state it cultivates over time give us the poise and balance to see things we otherwise miss?

In terms of trusting sources, we are all at sea and subject to much interpretation, and re interpretation over the centuries.

I agree that balance of all three parts of practice is important, but are you advocating that Concentration/Awareness practice is not important or unnecessary?

I wasn't advocating. I was offering an alternative view held by some. in counterpoint to fabianfred's assertion that all you need to do is meditate and the answers will come (paraphrase).

Western Buddhists tend to give 'meditation' primacy but it's only one limb of the 8-Fold Path. Even then the only thing resembling 'meditation' that appears in the 8-Fold Path is samadhi, one-pointedness, whose purpose is the development of calm and tranquillity. The development of awareness, ie, satipatthana, doesn't appear in the list. It has been suggested that that's what Right View engenders.

It's just one point of view. It's one that I find compelling, judging from personal experience and the teachings of a few masters I've studied with, both in the forest tradition and among Abhidhammists. Tipitaka texts say a lot more on right view and ethical conduct then on meditation, whether samadhi or satipatthana (if you define the latter as 'meditation').

For me the jury is still out on the question; maybe the opposite is true, and long hours, days and months of formal meditation are fruitful, despite the fact that there is no text in the Tipitaka advocating such an approach.

. .

[rockyysdt]

The Wisdom/Morality/Concentration sequence interpretation is quite common at least academically. There are other ways of ordering it, just reporting on one as a counterpoint to the idea the meditation comes first, or that meditation is necessary and sufficient for sati to arise.

For me it's instructive to listen to the views from all angles, assuming that you trust the sources. The perspective cline runs the gamut from meditation as the be-all, end-all, to no meditation necessary, all depending on how you interpret the Satipatthana Sutta, and for some, how important you find the Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Strict interpreters of the latter two texts say that meditation itself doesn't directly cause the conditions for sati to arise, just as waiting for a bus doesn't cause it to arrive.

Many people I have met along the way have said that sati arose not when they were practising sitting, standing, lying or walking meditation but rather while engaging in an otherwise-mundane activity (ie when they stopped waiting for the bus). Yet all meditated at some point in their personal history. All studied dhamma under capable masters.

In such cases, which is the horse and which is the cart? Strictly speaking it's impossible to say as correlation alone doesn't imply causality.

Right view proponents,argue that whether sati/awarness arises during 'meditation' or during 'non-meditation', it is a result of discerning nama and rupa, It is never a direct result of meditation technique.

Continuing in this vein, although awareness means being aware of something, it's not being aware of the four foundations of mindfulness (body, feeling, mind, dhamma) per se; it's seeing and understanding that they arise and fall away, that they are impermanent, insubstantial and unsatisfactory. It is a coming to an understanding, an arrival at right view.

It's accomplished empirically, by observing the natural world, not by engendering mystical power. To some who follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, your posture is irrelevant. The breathing pace is irrelevant. These things may be altered to suit your mood or your desires, but they don't produce sati in and of themselves. More plainly put, sati arises in spite of all your physical attempts to create the conditions. When right view is present, sati may arise.

In my own 'practice' I take this view to have more validity than the view that says the more you 'meditate', the closer you get to stream entry. Like Aj Cha is famous for saying, 'Chickens can sit a very long time,' or something to that effect. There is a great intuitive appeal to assigning primacy to meditation which is not necessarily borne out in the Tipitaka.

'Meditation', like 'enlightenment', may be a rather inadequate word to describe the process. The only thing in the Noble Eightfold Path that comes close to corresponding to the notion of 'meditation' is Samadhi/Concentration. Yet that brings calm and tranquillity, not wisdom. Some Westerners use the word 'vipassana' instead, ie, 'vipassana' has become synonymous with 'meditation'. But vipassana is a an experience, not a technique. Sitting still watching your mind, body etc is not vipassana. Vipassana is the result, literally 'special insight'. And it's not listed in the Noble Eightfold Path.

For some reason many people seem to think that Samma-Samadhi (Right Concentration) is more important than Samma-Ditthi (Right View) but at the very least it seems they should be considered of equal importance. Not to mention Right Livelihood etc.

Doesn't regular "concentration" & "awareness" practice allow one to gradually develop a state in which one is able to better discern Nama & Rupa?

Although Sati may not arise during a sitting session, hasn't the regular practice of meditation and awareness/mindfulness brought one to a state which cultivates it?

Shouldn't we subscribe to all three sections of the path as important parts of the whole?

Isn't the wisdom we study an interpretation of another?

Don't we facilitate insight of wisdom, Nama & Rupa, when we regularly practice Concentration & Mindfulness?

Sati may not arise during a sit, but doesn't the state it cultivates over time give us the poise and balance to see things we otherwise miss?

In terms of trusting sources, we are all at sea and subject to much interpretation, and re interpretation over the centuries.

I agree that balance of all three parts of practice is important, but are you advocating that Concentration/Awareness practice is not important or unnecessary?

I wasn't advocating. I was offering an alternative view held by some. in counterpoint to fabianfred's assertion that all you need to do is meditate and the answers will come (paraphrase).

Western Buddhists tend to give 'meditation' primacy but it's only one limb of the 8-Fold Path. Even then the only thing resembling 'meditation' that appears in the 8-Fold Path is samadhi, one-pointedness, whose purpose is the development of calm and tranquillity. The development of awareness, ie, satipatthana, doesn't appear in the list. It has been suggested that that's what Right View engenders.

It's just one point of view. It's one that I find compelling, judging from personal experience and the teachings of a few masters I've studied with, both in the forest tradition and among Abhidhammists. Tipitaka texts say a lot more on right view and ethical conduct then on meditation, whether samadhi or satipatthana (if you define the latter as 'meditation').

For me the jury is still out on the question; maybe the opposite is true, and long hours, days and months of formal meditation are fruitful, despite the fact that there is no text in the Tipitaka advocating such an approach.

. .

Thanks SJ.

That makes it a lot clearer to me.

I definitely subscribe to the suite of practices.

I'm surprised to read that Samahdi only represents single pointed meditation.

I've been going on the Wiki understanding of:

Concentration (Samadhi) = Right Effort. Right Concentration. Right Mindfulness.

I thought that this meant:

Right Concentration = Single pointed awareness of the breathe, body, thoughts, feelings, and the external.

Right Mindfulness = Carrying on this awareness during ones wakeful day.

Right Effort = Ensuring regular practice of these.

To me both sitting & wakeful concentration/awareness were already covered and that no amount of knowledge about right understanding, although vital, is enough without experience/insight which Samadhi allows.

Isn't the wiki chart drawn from documented Dharma?

[sabaijai]

The Wisdom/Morality/Concentration sequence interpretation is quite common at least academically. There are other ways of ordering it, just reporting on one as a counterpoint to the idea the meditation comes first, or that meditation is necessary and sufficient for sati to arise.

For me it's instructive to listen to the views from all angles, assuming that you trust the sources. The perspective cline runs the gamut from meditation as the be-all, end-all, to no meditation necessary, all depending on how you interpret the Satipatthana Sutta, and for some, how important you find the Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Strict interpreters of the latter two texts say that meditation itself doesn't directly cause the conditions for sati to arise, just as waiting for a bus doesn't cause it to arrive.

Many people I have met along the way have said that sati arose not when they were practising sitting, standing, lying or walking meditation but rather while engaging in an otherwise-mundane activity (ie when they stopped waiting for the bus). Yet all meditated at some point in their personal history. All studied dhamma under capable masters.

In such cases, which is the horse and which is the cart? Strictly speaking it's impossible to say as correlation alone doesn't imply causality.

Right view proponents,argue that whether sati/awarness arises during 'meditation' or during 'non-meditation', it is a result of discerning nama and rupa, It is never a direct result of meditation technique.

Continuing in this vein, although awareness means being aware of something, it's not being aware of the four foundations of mindfulness (body, feeling, mind, dhamma) per se; it's seeing and understanding that they arise and fall away, that they are impermanent, insubstantial and unsatisfactory. It is a coming to an understanding, an arrival at right view.

It's accomplished empirically, by observing the natural world, not by engendering mystical power. To some who follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, your posture is irrelevant. The breathing pace is irrelevant. These things may be altered to suit your mood or your desires, but they don't produce sati in and of themselves. More plainly put, sati arises in spite of all your physical attempts to create the conditions. When right view is present, sati may arise.

In my own 'practice' I take this view to have more validity than the view that says the more you 'meditate', the closer you get to stream entry. Like Aj Cha is famous for saying, 'Chickens can sit a very long time,' or something to that effect. There is a great intuitive appeal to assigning primacy to meditation which is not necessarily borne out in the Tipitaka.

'Meditation', like 'enlightenment', may be a rather inadequate word to describe the process. The only thing in the Noble Eightfold Path that comes close to corresponding to the notion of 'meditation' is Samadhi/Concentration. Yet that brings calm and tranquillity, not wisdom. Some Westerners use the word 'vipassana' instead, ie, 'vipassana' has become synonymous with 'meditation'. But vipassana is a an experience, not a technique. Sitting still watching your mind, body etc is not vipassana. Vipassana is the result, literally 'special insight'. And it's not listed in the Noble Eightfold Path.

For some reason many people seem to think that Samma-Samadhi (Right Concentration) is more important than Samma-Ditthi (Right View) but at the very least it seems they should be considered of equal importance. Not to mention Right Livelihood etc.

Doesn't regular "concentration" & "awareness" practice allow one to gradually develop a state in which one is able to better discern Nama & Rupa?

Although Sati may not arise during a sitting session, hasn't the regular practice of meditation and awareness/mindfulness brought one to a state which cultivates it?

Shouldn't we subscribe to all three sections of the path as important parts of the whole?

Isn't the wisdom we study an interpretation of another?

Don't we facilitate insight of wisdom, Nama & Rupa, when we regularly practice Concentration & Mindfulness?

Sati may not arise during a sit, but doesn't the state it cultivates over time give us the poise and balance to see things we otherwise miss?

In terms of trusting sources, we are all at sea and subject to much interpretation, and re interpretation over the centuries.

I agree that balance of all three parts of practice is important, but are you advocating that Concentration/Awareness practice is not important or unnecessary?

I wasn't advocating. I was offering an alternative view held by some. in counterpoint to fabianfred's assertion that all you need to do is meditate and the answers will come (paraphrase).

Western Buddhists tend to give 'meditation' primacy but it's only one limb of the 8-Fold Path. Even then the only thing resembling 'meditation' that appears in the 8-Fold Path is samadhi, one-pointedness, whose purpose is the development of calm and tranquillity. The development of awareness, ie, satipatthana, doesn't appear in the list. It has been suggested that that's what Right View engenders.

It's just one point of view. It's one that I find compelling, judging from personal experience and the teachings of a few masters I've studied with, both in the forest tradition and among Abhidhammists. Tipitaka texts say a lot more on right view and ethical conduct then on meditation, whether samadhi or satipatthana (if you define the latter as 'meditation').

For me the jury is still out on the question; maybe the opposite is true, and long hours, days and months of formal meditation are fruitful, despite the fact that there is no text in the Tipitaka advocating such an approach.

. .

Thanks SJ.

That makes it a lot clearer to me.

I definitely subscribe to the suite of practices.

I'm surprised to read that Samahdi only represents single pointed meditation.

I've been going on the Wiki understanding of:

Concentration (Samadhi) = Right Effort. Right Concentration. Right Mindfulness.

I thought that this meant:

Right Concentration = Single pointed awareness of the breathe, body, thoughts, feelings, and the external.

Right Mindfulness = Carrying on this awareness during ones wakeful day.

Right Effort = Ensuring regular practice of these.

To me both sitting & wakeful concentration/awareness were already covered and that no amount of knowledge about right understanding, although vital, is enough without experience/insight which Samadhi allows.

Isn't the wiki chart drawn from documented Dharma?

The division in the Wiki chart corresponds to the same schemata I mentioned in an earlier post, where the three groups can be seen to be taken in stages. Or together.

If you read the detailed Wiki description of Samadhi you'll see it follows the traditional idea of creating calm, absorption states, etc. Not vipassana, sati or panna.

Yes I meant to address Right Mindfulness (Samma-Sati) as well. Slipped my mind while writing the response, guess I need more mindfulness

However that particular limb does not require any particular posture. Even reading the Mahasatipathana Sutta you'll see there is no mention of formal sitting etc, rather sitting, as well as other postures, in general, .

Only with respect to Samadhi do we see a description of formal 'meditation' as understood by most Westerners, ie, sitting cross-legged, back straight etc. Specifically the only sutta that mentions formal posture, as far as I know, is the Anapanasati Sutta, on mindfulness of breathing. As Ven Wikipedia notes: "Traditionally, anapanasati has been used as a basis for developing meditative concentration (samadhi) until reaching the state and practice of full absorption (jhana)". In other words, it may be considered a Samadhi technique.

In this line of thought, Right Concentration is the main limb concerned with the usual interpretation of 'formal meditation'.

There are other forms of Samadhi meditation, including focusing on kasina (objects of concentration) such as coloured spheres, etc as described here

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.20.0.piya.html

One sutta talks about beings having been born in the Deva realm as a result of their advanced concentration practice using kasinas.

The notion that satipatthana may be cultivated using similar postures seems to be a relatively recent one, developed in Myanmar and now practised by many around the world in varying guises.

I've attended intensive satipatthana retreats myself and where there was progress -- if I dare admit to any -- I feel it arose from the teachings received during the interviews and dhamma talks, through which Right View was 'adjusted,' and that the formal meditation techniques themselves may have been incidental. Or they were calming enough to allow one to hear the dhamma correctly. From that angle, I can see intensive retreats as a way of focussing on Buddhadhamma within the context of a formal meditation setting. Tibetan Buddhists have a similar slant with dzongchen, or 'pointing out', practice.

That would be the Abhidhammist view for sure. As long as there is someone 'doing' the practice -- and when adopting a certain posture, you are 'doing' -- then sati cannot arise.

It's pretty difficult to say for sure where are the horses and where are the carts. One thing seems certain, and that is both must be abandoned before crossing the stream.

The fact that all of this confuses people and is so wide open to interpretation underscored the need, in my opinion, for an adept teacher.

[Several]

A thing I've been wondering is about the difference between right thinking and right view. Thinking is a conceptualisation, inner dialogue. Is right view a deeper level of understanding, beyond construct in the realm of true knowing?

[rockyysdt]

The division in the Wiki chart corresponds to the same schemata I mentioned in an earlier post, where the three groups can be seen to be taken in stages. Or together.

If you read the detailed Wiki description of Samadhi you'll see it follows the traditional idea of creating calm, absorption states, etc. Not vipassana, sati or panna.

Yes I meant to address Right Mindfulness (Samma-Sati) as well. Slipped my mind while writing the response, guess I need more mindfulness

However that particular limb does not require any particular posture. Even reading the Mahasatipathana Sutta you'll see there is no mention of formal sitting etc, rather sitting, as well as other postures, in general, .

Only with respect to Samadhi do we see a description of formal 'meditation' as understood by most Westerners, ie, sitting cross-legged, back straight etc. Specifically the only sutta that mentions formal posture, as far as I know, is the Anapanasati Sutta, on mindfulness of breathing. As Ven Wikipedia notes: "Traditionally, anapanasati has been used as a basis for developing meditative concentration (samadhi) until reaching the state and practice of full absorption (jhana)". In other words, it may be considered a Samadhi technique.

In this line of thought, Right Concentration is the main limb concerned with the usual interpretation of 'formal meditation'.

There are other forms of Samadhi meditation, including focusing on kasina (objects of concentration) such as coloured spheres, etc as described here

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.20.0.piya.html

One sutta talks about beings having been born in the Deva realm as a result of their advanced concentration practice using kasinas.

The notion that satipatthana may be cultivated using similar postures seems to be a relatively recent one, developed in Myanmar and now practised by many around the world in varying guises.

I've attended intensive satipatthana retreats myself and where there was progress -- if I dare admit to any -- I feel it arose from the teachings received during the interviews and dhamma talks, through which Right View was 'adjusted,' and that the formal meditation techniques themselves may have been incidental. Or they were calming enough to allow one to hear the dhamma correctly. From that angle, I can see intensive retreats as a way of focussing on Buddhadhamma within the context of a formal meditation setting. Tibetan Buddhists have a similar slant with dzongchen, or 'pointing out', practice.

That would be the Abhidhammist view for sure. As long as there is someone 'doing' the practice -- and when adopting a certain posture, you are 'doing' -- then sati cannot arise.

It's pretty difficult to say for sure where are the horses and where are the carts. One thing seems certain, and that is both must be abandoned before crossing the stream.

The fact that all of this confuses people and is so wide open to interpretation underscored the need, in my opinion, for an adept teacher.

Thanks S J.

Very informative.

At Wat Suan Mokkh both formal Sitting as well as wakeful Mindfulness are emphasized.

The formal Meditation encompasses Sitting as well as group and individual Walking Meditation.

The facilitator regularly emphasizes the need to carry on awareness, not just during sits, but from the moment one arises until the time one falls asleep.

Things such as the food reflection (mindful eating), walking bare footed (mindful walking) were examples of engaging such mindfulness.

Constant (where concentration allows) Mindfulness of ones thoughts as an impartial observer was also very revealing.

[rockyysdt]

A thing I've been wondering is about the difference between right thinking and right view. Thinking is a conceptualisation, inner dialogue. Is right view a deeper level of understanding, beyond construct in the realm of true knowing?

Yes.

Does our conceptualization of specific right views match the actual meaning of these right views?

Does our conceptualization match others views?

How do we establish correct "right view"?

My understanding is that Samadhi allows us to gain insight to "right view', but conceptualized right view coupled with "right conduct" will carry us until this can occur.

Right Conduct assists us to reduce the fuel which powers the Ego.

Metta & Karuna also play their part in turning away from Self, turning it out towards Others.

Experiencing diminished Ego might also provide insight, especially with the poise of Samadhi.

Edited August 13, 2013 by rockyysdt

[lungmi]

The problem you are discussing is interesting, but it is a western discussion.

Pativedha (penetration) signifies the realization of the Truth of the Dhamma,

realization as distinguished from the theory and practice (pariyatti or patipatti).

Your discussion is antagonistic (western dichotomic logic) - Pati or Patti.

No, Pati and Patti are dialectic elements for higher development.

[sabaijai]

The problem you are discussing is interesting, but it is a western discussion.

Pativedha (penetration) signifies the realization of the Truth of the Dhamma,

realization as distinguished from the theory and practice (pariyatti or patipatti).

Your discussion is antagonistic (western dichotomic logic) - Pati or Patti.

No, Pati and Patti are dialectic elements for higher development.

I've listened to Thais discuss similar topics, including a few prominent dhamma teachers.

[rockyysdt]

The problem you are discussing is interesting, but it is a western discussion.

Pativedha (penetration) signifies the realization of the Truth of the Dhamma,

realization as distinguished from the theory and practice (pariyatti or patipatti).

Your discussion is antagonistic (western dichotomic logic) - Pati or Patti.

No, Pati and Patti are dialectic elements for higher development.

How does one practice Pativedha in order to achieve penetration?

[Several]

I like the antagonistic approach, though it does sometimes descend into argument. I like to vigorously test an argument to know if it is robust. If I built a shed (theory) I kick it to see if it stays up (argument).

It is also necessary to theorise if one is to communicate experience. I suspect this is where Pacceka Buddhas fall down. They attain enlightenment solely through practice, but cannot teach because they never construct a theoretical framework. Or build sheds.

[rockyysdt]

I like the antagonistic approach, though it does sometimes descend into argument. I like to vigorously test an argument to know if it is robust. If I built a shed (theory) I kick it to see if it stays up (argument).

It is also necessary to theorise if one is to communicate experience. I suspect this is where Pacceka Buddhas fall down. They attain enlightenment solely through practice, but cannot teach because they never construct a theoretical framework. Or build sheds.

One concern when practicing is, "Am I doing the right things in the right way to achieve results?".

If a Pacceka Buddha succeeded by practicing a successful regime, isn't this practice worthy of being taught, and wouldn't anyone with the inclination be capable of imparting it?

Isn't a Pacceka Buddha only theoretical and none exist except in mythology?

[Several]

No, Pacceka Buddhas don't know how they did it so they cannot teach. Buddhas are capable of showing how its done. Thats what makes them special. That and being fully self enlightened. Not sure why Pacceka Buddhas would be mythological.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Several

[rockyysdt]

No, Pacceka Buddhas don't know how they did it so they cannot teach. Buddhas are capable of showing how its done. Thats what makes them special. That and being fully self enlightened. Not sure why Pacceka Buddhas would be mythological.

Apart from mythological ones, I thought there was only one Buddha.

Are those who achieve Awakening also referred to as Buddhas?

[lungmi]

The problem you are discussing is interesting, but it is a western discussion.

Pativedha (penetration) signifies the realization of the Truth of the Dhamma,

realization as distinguished from the theory and practice (pariyatti or patipatti).

Your discussion is antagonistic (western dichotomic logic) - Pati or Patti.

No, Pati and Patti are dialectic elements for higher development.

I've listened to Thais discuss similar topics, including a few prominent dhamma teachers.

You are right. P.A. Payutto has been attacked as "scholar", no real "pativedha". Adjahn Bodhi gave the arguments.

Other dhamma teachers (Mahachulalongkorn University) riposted: P.A. Payutto has investigated the authentical

Pali Canon to adapt it to the modern world (his Buddhadhamma) beyond the words. Only a deep pativedha

could give him this capacity.

[ChrisB87]

Yeah, I realise its both risky and a bit heavy going. I don't want to cause an argument as Anatta is a core idea in Buddhism. But I do like to get to the bottom of things. If what this guy is saying is in any way true I want to know about it. Is there a soul that I am an aspect of? Does this possibility have something to do with the abundance of Arahants in Buddhas time as opposed to now?

The scripture guides the practice. I like to check if I'm barking up the right bodhi tree.

To discover the truth and get to the bottom of things, we need to do the practice, not philosophize or intellectualize. I know from my lack of actual practice that its much easier to think about it (and get the pleasure which comes with that) than to actually practice equanimity.

It really doesn't matter what the other guy thinks.

[lungmi]

The problem you are discussing is interesting, but it is a western discussion.

Pativedha (penetration) signifies the realization of the Truth of the Dhamma,

realization as distinguished from the theory and practice (pariyatti or patipatti).

Your discussion is antagonistic (western dichotomic logic) - Pati or Patti.

No, Pati and Patti are dialectic elements for higher development.

I've listened to Thais discuss similar topics, including a few prominent dhamma teachers.

You are right. P.A. Payutto has been attacked as "scholar", no real "pativedha". Adjahn Bodhi gave the arguments.

Other dhamma teachers (Mahachulalongkorn University) riposted: P.A. Payutto has investigated the authentical

Pali Canon to adapt it to the modern world (his Buddhadhamma) beyond the words. Only a deep pativedha

could give him this capacity.

The problem you are discussing is interesting, but it is a western discussion.

Pativedha (penetration) signifies the realization of the Truth of the Dhamma,

realization as distinguished from the theory and practice (pariyatti or patipatti).

Your discussion is antagonistic (western dichotomic logic) - Pati or Patti.

No, Pati and Patti are dialectic elements for higher development.

How does one practice Pativedha in order to achieve penetration?

No way to practice. The way of the rsi (rishi) , intuition by inspiration, has multiple accesses: You know them all.

[sabaijai]

The problem you are discussing is interesting, but it is a western discussion.

Pativedha (penetration) signifies the realization of the Truth of the Dhamma,

realization as distinguished from the theory and practice (pariyatti or patipatti).

Your discussion is antagonistic (western dichotomic logic) - Pati or Patti.

No, Pati and Patti are dialectic elements for higher development.

I've listened to Thais discuss similar topics, including a few prominent dhamma teachers.

You are right. P.A. Payutto has been attacked as "scholar", no real "pativedha". Adjahn Bodhi gave the arguments.

Other dhamma teachers (Mahachulalongkorn University) riposted: P.A. Payutto has investigated the authentical

Pali Canon to adapt it to the modern world (his Buddhadhamma) beyond the words. Only a deep pativedha

could give him this capacity.

As if the 'attackers' were somehow above critique. Simple prevarication.

To attack itself is to fall victim to the perspective they are criticising, that is, rational argumentation. As the Dalai Lama XIV says, 'The existence of things is not in dispute. It is the manner in which they exist that must be clarified.'.

[Several]

No, Pacceka Buddhas don't know how they did it so they cannot teach. Buddhas are capable of showing how its done. Thats what makes them special. That and being fully self enlightened. Not sure why Pacceka Buddhas would be mythological.

 

Apart from mythological ones, I thought there was only one Buddha.

 

Are those who achieve Awakening also referred to as Buddhas?

No. Many Buddhas. Each world age has at least one, even in this Kali Yuga. Maitreia is next up to bat, apparently. Pacceka Buddhas are apparently more common, but as I hear are unable to teach.

[Several]

Yeah, I realise its both risky and a bit heavy going. I don't want to cause an argument as Anatta is a core idea in Buddhism. But I do like to get to the bottom of things. If what this guy is saying is in any way true I want to know about it. Is there a soul that I am an aspect of? Does this possibility have something to do with the abundance of Arahants in Buddhas time as opposed to now?

The scripture guides the practice. I like to check if I'm barking up the right bodhi tree.

 

To discover the truth and get to the bottom of things, we need to do the practice, not philosophize or intellectualize.  I know from my lack of actual practice that its much easier to think about it (and get the pleasure which comes with that) than to actually practice equanimity.

 

It really doesn't matter what the other guy thinks.

 

I'm not so sure. If conceptual understanding was completely unnecessary then animals would become enlightened. Practice cannot be structured or improved without analysis, so the experience cannot be passed on and repeated by others.

[lungmi]

The trap again in your understanding.

----------------

A famous legend of Chinese Buddhism is my answer:

An old established Wat in China with many devoted monks and a venerated abbot.

One problem. One monk didn't follow the discipline the others had to respect.

He passed his time in a tree observing the fishes in a small lake, listening to the

chants of the birds, or played with the cats and dogs, and sometimes slept

with the baby cats.

The other monks complained.

The Abbot apologized for his "bad" teaching, saying : My teaching was not good enough

for you to understand the way. I waste my time. No I go in a cave to listen the voice of nothing (voidness).

[Several]

Thats it though. The voice of nothing, not just nothing. He did not enter a cave to avoid listening, but to be mindful of the sound of nothing. It is a subtlety, but it is the point I'm driving at. It is not something, yet it is not nothing. That phenomena are not self does not preclude it, but to say there is self denies it.

[chrisartist]

The key to the Buddha's pronouncements on anatta is to be found in the 12-step formula for dependent origination: with ignorance, as condition, volitional formations arise.......etc.

This formula is a gloss on the second noble truth, which states that suffering has an origin. The formula is also sometimes presented in reverse, to explain the cessation of suffering, which glosses the third noble truth: with the cessation of x, y cannot arise....etc.

So, if we are to achieve liberation from suffering, the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination must be broken, i.e. there must be cessation of each element in the chain. This is *only* possible if there can be change. And what has to change? The aggregates. The Buddha's target in his pronouncements on anatta pertain to a view of the self (note: not the soul, but the self) that holds the self to be permanent and unchanging. If one adheres to this view, one will never be able to change, so one will never be able to sever the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination, so one will never be able to achieve liberation from suffering.

The Buddha's purpose in speaking about anatta is negative. He wants to show us what the self is *not*, so that we will see that we can change, so that the way will be open to us to achieve liberation from suffering. The Buddha makes no positive pronouncements at all of a metaphysical nature on any of a wide variety of topics. This is because they are not relevant to the overarching goal of achieving liberation from suffering. His strategy is one of methodological phemonenology. He takes what we experience directly and does not go beyond that, because that is all that is relevant to achieving liberation from suffering.

So, the Buddha speaks of not-self. he does not speak of not-soul. He makes no positive pronouncements on self or soul because they are not relevant. (Though he would not endorse any view of a soul, because the traditional way of conceiving of a soul is that it is permanent and unchanging.)

I recommend that people do not read commentaries on the original teachings of the Buddha if this can be avoided. it is best to read the original words for yourself. Ponder them and practise. With more pondering will come better with practice. With more practice will come better insight and understanding, which will in turn lead to better practise. I recommend reading the Nikayas in this order: Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Dighya Nikaya, then the Anguttara Nikaya.

p.s. This is copyright material (copyrighted to me). Please respect the copyright. As far as I know, nobody else has made this methodological point about the doctrine of no-self, methodological phenomenology, and the formula for dependent origination.

Edited August 31, 2013 by chrisartist

[lungmi]

P.A. Payutto did it in his Buddhadhamma for some topics you mentioned.

[Several]

The key to the Buddha's pronouncements on anatta is to be found in the 12-step formula for dependent origination: with ignorance, as condition, volitional formations arise.......etc.

 

This formula is a gloss on the second noble truth, which states that suffering has an origin. The formula is also sometimes presented in reverse, to explain the cessation of suffering, which glosses the third noble truth: with the cessation of x, y cannot arise....etc.

 

So, if we are to achieve liberation from suffering, the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination must be broken, i.e. there must be cessation of each element in the chain. This is *only* possible if there can be change. And what has to change? The aggregates. The Buddha's target in his pronouncements on anatta pertain to a view of the self (note: not the soul, but the self) that holds the self to be permanent and unchanging. If one adheres to this view, one will never be able to change, so one will never be able to sever the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination, so one will never be able to achieve liberation from suffering.

 

The Buddha's purpose in speaking about anatta is negative. He wants to show us what the self is *not*, so that we will see that we can change, so that the way will be open to us to achieve liberation from suffering. The Buddha makes no positive pronouncements at all of a metaphysical nature on any of a wide variety of topics. This is because they are not relevant to the overarching goal of achieving liberation from suffering. His strategy is one of methodological phemonenology. He takes what we experience directly and does not go beyond that, because that is all that is relevant to achieving liberation from suffering.

 

So, the Buddha speaks of not-self. he does not speak of not-soul. He makes no positive pronouncements on self or soul because they are not relevant. (Though he would not endorse any view of a soul, because the traditional way of conceiving of a soul is that it is permanent and unchanging.)

 

I recommend that people do not read commentaries on the original teachings of the Buddha if this can be avoided. it is best to read the original words for yourself. Ponder them and practise. With more pondering will come better with practice. With more practice will come better insight and understanding, which will in turn lead to better practise. I recommend reading the Nikayas in this order: Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Dighya Nikaya, then the Anguttara Nikaya.

 

p.s. This is copyright material (copyrighted to me). Please respect the copyright. As far as I  know, nobody else has made this methodological point about the doctrine of no-self, methodological phenomenology, and the formula for dependent origination. 

True enough. The original post was about work by a scholar using only those nikayas and that use of the word Anatta is an adjective describing what self is not. I think the word soul is actually quite 'fluffy' and imprecise and has connotations from many other faiths confusing the issue. I probably should avoid using it.

So in pondering it, or making an investigation of states, you are correct that Buddha remained silent on the matter of the existence of self, but he also remained silent when asked if there was no self. Furthermore Buddha remained silent when he assented to something such as an invitation. Is it possible he is alluding to something? He never outright denies the existence of self and only speaks of what self is not.

Ultimate realisation is a matter of experience, as shown by Buddhas doubt in the ability of others to achieve it after his Nibbana. Rationality is most probably an obstacle that can only be exhausted rather than circumvented, hence the value of pursuing theory is in causing its own collapse and forcing us into a position where immediate apprehension of truth is the only recourse rather that reliance on a surrogate understanding.

Just as an aside, it isn't the done thing to copyright Dhamma. I like what you write though. Sadhu.

[rockyysdt]

So in pondering it, or making an investigation of states, you are correct that Buddha remained silent on the matter of the existence of self, but he also remained silent when asked if there was no self. Furthermore Buddha remained silent when he assented to something such as an invitation. Is it possible he is alluding to something? He never outright denies the existence of self and only speaks of what self is not.

Ultimate realisation is a matter of experience, as shown by Buddhas doubt in the ability of others to achieve it after his Nibbana. Rationality is most probably an obstacle that can only be exhausted rather than circumvented, hence the value of pursuing theory is in causing its own collapse and forcing us into a position where immediate apprehension of truth is the only recourse rather that reliance on a surrogate understanding.

From this you could deduce that there is a self, or soul, or

You could deduce that there is not.

The Buddha did live in a time ruled by Brahmanism where decention could be met with death.

To survive, you either had to go along with it, or you had to disguise your teaching in such a way that those who were deluded were catered for, but the door was open to allow for the truth.

If the latter is the case then attachment to soul (or something more) is the greatest attachment one can have.

To me, this suggests that the way to go is to work towards making 'this" life the best it can be, free from greed, aversion & delusion.

If there is more, then this will fall into place of its own accord.

If there is not, then one hasn't wasted ones time chasing the greatest delusion.

Edited August 31, 2013 by rockyysdt

[chrisartist]

The key to the Buddha's pronouncements on anatta is to be found in the 12-step formula for dependent origination: with ignorance, as condition, volitional formations arise.......etc.

This formula is a gloss on the second noble truth, which states that suffering has an origin. The formula is also sometimes presented in reverse, to explain the cessation of suffering, which glosses the third noble truth: with the cessation of x, y cannot arise....etc.

So, if we are to achieve liberation from suffering, the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination must be broken, i.e. there must be cessation of each element in the chain. This is *only* possible if there can be change. And what has to change? The aggregates. The Buddha's target in his pronouncements on anatta pertain to a view of the self (note: not the soul, but the self) that holds the self to be permanent and unchanging. If one adheres to this view, one will never be able to change, so one will never be able to sever the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination, so one will never be able to achieve liberation from suffering.

The Buddha's purpose in speaking about anatta is negative. He wants to show us what the self is *not*, so that we will see that we can change, so that the way will be open to us to achieve liberation from suffering. The Buddha makes no positive pronouncements at all of a metaphysical nature on any of a wide variety of topics. This is because they are not relevant to the overarching goal of achieving liberation from suffering. His strategy is one of methodological phemonenology. He takes what we experience directly and does not go beyond that, because that is all that is relevant to achieving liberation from suffering.

So, the Buddha speaks of not-self. he does not speak of not-soul. He makes no positive pronouncements on self or soul because they are not relevant. (Though he would not endorse any view of a soul, because the traditional way of conceiving of a soul is that it is permanent and unchanging.)

I recommend that people do not read commentaries on the original teachings of the Buddha if this can be avoided. it is best to read the original words for yourself. Ponder them and practise. With more pondering will come better with practice. With more practice will come better insight and understanding, which will in turn lead to better practise. I recommend reading the Nikayas in this order: Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Dighya Nikaya, then the Anguttara Nikaya.

p.s. This is copyright material (copyrighted to me). Please respect the copyright. As far as I know, nobody else has made this methodological point about the doctrine of no-self, methodological phenomenology, and the formula for dependent origination.

True enough. The original post was about work by a scholar using only those nikayas and that use of the word Anatta is an adjective describing what self is not. I think the word soul is actually quite 'fluffy' and imprecise and has connotations from many other faiths confusing the issue. I probably should avoid using it.

So in pondering it, or making an investigation of states, you are correct that Buddha remained silent on the matter of the existence of self, but he also remained silent when asked if there was no self. Furthermore Buddha remained silent when he assented to something such as an invitation. Is it possible he is alluding to something? He never outright denies the existence of self and only speaks of what self is not.

Ultimate realisation is a matter of experience, as shown by Buddhas doubt in the ability of others to achieve it after his Nibbana. Rationality is most probably an obstacle that can only be exhausted rather than circumvented, hence the value of pursuing theory is in causing its own collapse and forcing us into a position where immediate apprehension of truth is the only recourse rather that reliance on a surrogate understanding.

Just as an aside, it isn't the done thing to copyright Dhamma. I like what you write though. Sadhu.

The point is that it is a necessary condition of achieving liberation from suffering that all the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination be severed and that each element in the chain cease to be. It is a necessary condition for *that* to occur, that the aggregates be able to change and cease. it is a necessary condition for *that* to occur that the aggregates not comprise self in any way. The Buddha therefore explains that the aggregates have nothing to do with self. That's all. There is no need to consider anything else. Once one has realised that the aggregates are not-self, one has opened the gate to the path to liberation. Then you have to follow it.

Books on dhamma are copyrighted. My point about the *purpose* of arguing for not-self in relation to the formula for dependent origination, plus the point about methodological phenomenology, will form part of a book that I am writing. I need to make a living, so I need to protect the ideas. Copyrighting does not mean that people cannot use the ideas. It does mean that they cannot pass them off as their own. However, the problem on the forum is that it is anonymous, so if you tell anyone else, you cannot tell them who wrote the text. So, please take note of the ideas, but do not pass them on without acknowledgement. I didn't need to tell you about these things, but I chose to do so to help.

p.s. You are making things too complicated. The Buddha's words are hard to understand, but the answers are simple. I recommend that you search for simple interpretations such that everything makes sense together. In addition, proceed step by step. Do not try to understand everything at once. Start at the beginning and proceed step by step. Practice will lead to understanding. Understanding will lead to further practice. Further practice will lead to further understanding, and so on. Step by step.

Do not forget that some of the Buddha's teachings are very deep. Different levels of depth will reveal themselves at different stages along the path. So, for example, take the First Noble Truth, which says that there is suffering. The Buddha says that we need to understand this truth. However, we will not understand it fully until we reach the end of the path. All of us can start, because all of us have a rough and ready notion of what suffering is. Yet we need to revisit this truth as we go on and progress through all the steps. Once we have eliminated gross types of suffering and we begin to understand how the formula for dependent origination works, we will begin to realise more subtle levels of suffering, caused by more subtle aspects of the fetters that bind us. Eventually, for one who has achieved liberation, the full meaning of the First Noble Truth will have revealed itself. Yet for us beginners, there is no point trying to understand everything at once. We can't do it. We have to proceed slowly, step by step. We need to form our preliminary understanding of the Four Noble Truths, then begin to practice in a simple way. Try to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, first by following the five lay precepts. Observe what happens to yourself and deeper understanding will come; for example, deeper understanding of the five precepts will come, with respect to what kind of behaviour and attitude is necessary to make progress.

Edited August 31, 2013 by chrisartist

[chrisartist]

So in pondering it, or making an investigation of states, you are correct that Buddha remained silent on the matter of the existence of self, but he also remained silent when asked if there was no self. Furthermore Buddha remained silent when he assented to something such as an invitation. Is it possible he is alluding to something? He never outright denies the existence of self and only speaks of what self is not.

Ultimate realisation is a matter of experience, as shown by Buddhas doubt in the ability of others to achieve it after his Nibbana. Rationality is most probably an obstacle that can only be exhausted rather than circumvented, hence the value of pursuing theory is in causing its own collapse and forcing us into a position where immediate apprehension of truth is the only recourse rather that reliance on a surrogate understanding.

From this you could deduce that there is a self, or soul, or

You could deduce that there is not.

The Buddha did live in a time ruled by Brahmanism where decention could be met with death.

To survive, you either had to go along with it, or you had to disguise your teaching in such a way that those who were deluded were catered for, but the door was open to allow for the truth.

If the latter is the case then attachment to soul (or something more) is the greatest attachment one can have.

To me, this suggests that the way to go is to work towards making 'this" life the best it can be, free from greed, aversion & delusion.

If there is more, then this will fall into place of its own accord.

If there is not, then one hasn't wasted ones time chasing the greatest delusion.

The Buddha's point is that one needs to realise that the aggregates are not-self if one is to achieve liberation from suffering. Further speculation is irrelevant and will hinder progress along the path.

Edited August 31, 2013 by chrisartist