DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby mikenz66 » Thu May 05, 2011 12:58 am

Hi Retro,

I'm basically agnostic about the version of DO and so on, but I'm quite comfortable with Ven Nanananda's analysis. I honestly can't see how time-delineated or not or "reality" or not makes any difference to the instructions of any teacher I am familiar with. That's why I'm asking.

Instructions I am most familiar with make use of the Satipathana Sutta, and the obvious parts of DO that are observable in any model (contact, feeling, craving, clinging) order to see though the delusion of self, etc. Which seems to me to be what the Suttas are asking us to do.

The things you are concerned about are, to me, things that will, one hopes, become clear as one progresses on the path. Such analysis is interesting, but I don't expect to be able to work out what nibbana is like by analysis. You seem to me to have a particular view on how the path will unfold. I'm comfortable with the idea that I have little idea of exactly how it will unfold.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10667
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby BlackBird » Thu May 05, 2011 1:12 am

rowyourboat wrote:Personally, I find that belief in rebirth motivates me to practice with much more viriya than if I remained non-committed about the issue. I wonder if I would practice at all if I felt it all ended at death.


I quite agree. In fact in my darkest days the potential for a bad re-birth is one of the strongest motivating factors that keeps me alive.

As far as D.O is concerned my working hypothesis is that it's a structural principle of dependence and not a concrete set of things. The lists just exemplify the principle, they are not the principle themselves. This is allowed by the variable nature of the items within the list.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 05, 2011 1:16 am

retrofuturist wrote:Asking, "How can these instructions lead to me to see that all sankharas are dukkha?", and "How can these instructions lead to me to see that all sankharas are capable of ceasing?".
Simple enough. Pay attention whatever it is that arises and falls.

Depending upon how they respond, you could ask follow up questions exploring the this/that conditionality of specific nidana combinations from the dependent origjnation teachings (e.g. sankhara to consciousness, bhava to jati). The answer received would want to satisfy any doubts that there is anything formed that is not subject to this/that conditionality, and satisfy any doubts that vijja will bring about their cessation.
That is an intellectual exercise.

Mike wrote:I'm basically agnostic about the version of DO and so on, but I'm quite comfortable with Ven Nanananda's analysis. I honestly can't see how time-delineated or not or "reality" or not makes any difference to the instructions of any teacher I am familiar with.
It doesn't. Those are conceptual constructs. What matters is paying attention, mindfulness practice.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19905
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby mikenz66 » Thu May 05, 2011 1:21 am

Hi BlackBird,
BlackBird wrote:As far as D.O is concerned my working hypothesis is that it's a structural principle of dependence and not a concrete set of things. The lists just exemplify the principle, they are not the principle themselves. This is allowed by the variable nature of the items within the list.

Certainly, there are many variations, both in the Nidana-samyutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... tml#nidana and in many Suttas that might not normally be identified as "DO Suttas", such as our current discussion Sutta, SN 35.93: Dvaya Sutta
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=8242
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
and the Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10667
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu May 05, 2011 1:24 am

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Asking, "How can these instructions lead to me to see that all sankharas are dukkha?", and "How can these instructions lead to me to see that all sankharas are capable of ceasing?".
Simple enough. Pay attention whatever it is that arises and falls.

Yes, but does this also involve seeing the condition for its arising, or just the arising itself (i.e. demonstrating the dhamma is a sankata dhamma)? Does it involve seeing how the removal of the cause, leads to the removal of the effect? In other words, does "arising and falling" alone actually demonstrate this/this conditionality? I don't believe that it does.

For example, consider the following example from the Satipatthana Sutta in which proper discernment is not just simplistically regarded as "arising and falling"...

MN 10 wrote:There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of a fetter that has been abandoned.

To provide a simile, we need to know how the tap works in order to turn it off, remove the cause and you remove the effect... otherwise we'll just be mindfully catching the falling water in buckets, without any hope of the water ever running dry. It's for this reason I'm inclined to believe that 'practice' (as Mike puts it) if it is to see 'sabbe sankhara dukkha' must include awareness of sankharas, and the gradual temporary removal of them through cultivation of jhana, conjoined with right view (i.e. samma samadhi). This is why I think the suttas are so full of boilerplate text on the jhanas. To whatever extent it is discerned that sankharas are stilled - i.e. individual formations cease and individual formations do not arise, it will be evident that sabbe sankhara dukkha... it cannot be seen through 'dry-insight' alone, where sankhara just keep rushing on by, with no method (other than jhana) by which to still them and observe the causality.

Returning to your "whatever it is" then, does the "whatever it is" include paying attention to the arising and cessation of bhava? Paying attention to the arising and cessation of jati? Paying attention to the arising and cessation of nama-rupa? Paying attention to the arising and cessation of vinnana?... and so on? If so, good. If not, it's an incomplete picture of sankhata dhamma.

tiltbillings wrote:That is an intellectual exercise.

Only to the extent that you would regard Right View to be "an intellectual exercise"... because the questions I recommended asking pertain directly to the noble truths on nirodha and magga.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby BlackBird » Thu May 05, 2011 1:29 am

mikenz66 wrote:Hi BlackBird,
BlackBird wrote:As far as D.O is concerned my working hypothesis is that it's a structural principle of dependence and not a concrete set of things. The lists just exemplify the principle, they are not the principle themselves. This is allowed by the variable nature of the items within the list.

Certainly, there are many variations, both in the Nidana-samyutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... tml#nidana and in many Suttas that might not normally be identified as "DO Suttas", such as our current discussion Sutta, SN 35.93: Dvaya Sutta
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=8242
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
and the Madhupindika Sutta: The Ball of Honey: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

:anjali:
Mike


All of these have the hallmarks of paticcasamupada imo. Perhaps if one were to come to see dependence of X on Y in our own experience then anicca would be understood and sotapatti reached. That's the idea I'm working with at the moment anyway.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu May 05, 2011 1:30 am

Greetings Blackbird,

BlackBird wrote:As far as D.O is concerned my working hypothesis is that it's a structural principle of dependence and not a concrete set of things. The lists just exemplify the principle, they are not the principle themselves. This is allowed by the variable nature of the items within the list.

I agree... but only once you get past avijja and sankhara. That first nidana is an indespensible component of the causality that follows. Without sankharas dependent upon avijja, the rest could not arise. In fact, without sankharas dependent upon avijja, the rest cease.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby BlackBird » Thu May 05, 2011 1:51 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Blackbird,

BlackBird wrote:As far as D.O is concerned my working hypothesis is that it's a structural principle of dependence and not a concrete set of things. The lists just exemplify the principle, they are not the principle themselves. This is allowed by the variable nature of the items within the list.

I agree... but only once you get past avijja and sankhara. That first nidana is an indespensible component of the causality that follows. Without sankharas dependent upon avijja, the rest could not arise. In fact, without sankharas dependent upon avijja, the rest cease.

Metta,
Retro. :)


And if you will recall - In that system we are both familiar with - What is avijja? In addition to being a determinant of all other determinants, it is a nonknowledge of paticcasamupada. Understanding dependence is therefore the key to unlock the door. Tangentially, but of importance - What are the Four Noble Truths? With craving there is suffering, with the cessation of craving, suffering ceases. When there is this, that is. With the cessation of this, that cease. Look familiar? Paticcasamupada.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu May 05, 2011 1:53 am

:goodpost:

Well said.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 05, 2011 4:54 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Asking, "How can these instructions lead to me to see that all sankharas are dukkha?", and "How can these instructions lead to me to see that all sankharas are capable of ceasing?".
Simple enough. Pay attention whatever it is that arises and falls.

Yes, but does this also involve seeing the condition for its arising, or just the arising itself (i.e. demonstrating the dhamma is a sankata dhamma)? Does it involve seeing how the removal of the cause, leads to the removal of the effect? In other words, does "arising and falling" alone actually demonstrate this/this conditionality? I don't believe that it does.
But if one has actually done the practice, one would know the answer to those questions. The answer is, yes.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19905
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 05, 2011 5:04 am

retrofuturist wrote:
MN 10 wrote:There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of a fetter that has been abandoned.

To provide a simile, we need to know how the tap works in order to turn it off, remove the cause and you remove the effect... otherwise we'll just be mindfully catching the falling water in buckets, without any hope of the water ever running dry. It's for this reason I'm inclined to believe that 'practice' (as Mike puts it) if it is to see 'sabbe sankhara dukkha' must include awareness of sankharas, and the gradual temporary removal of them through cultivation of jhana, conjoined with right view (i.e. samma samadhi). This is why I think the suttas are so full of boilerplate text on the jhanas.
Interestingly enough the Satipatthana Sutta is not full of jhana boiler-plate, and certainly, neither is Ud I 10.
To whatever extent it is discerned that sankharas are stilled - i.e. individual formations cease and individual formations do not arise, it will be evident that sabbe sankhara dukkha... it cannot be seen through 'dry-insight' alone, where sankhara just keep rushing on by, with no method (other than jhana) by which to still them and observe the causality.
This is naught more than an intellectual construct as to how things should be. In other words, you don't know.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19905
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu May 05, 2011 5:48 am

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:Interestingly enough the Satipatthana Sutta is not full of jhana boiler-plate, and certainly, neither is Ud I 10.


Correct, but in the Satipatthana Sutta there is...

MN 10 wrote:"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long' ... He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'

... and...

MN 10 wrote:"When the mind is constricted, he discerns that the mind is constricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns that the mind is not released.

... and later...

MN 10 wrote:"Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the seven factors for Awakening. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the seven factors for Awakening? There is the case where, there being mindfulness as a factor for Awakening present within, he discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening is present within me.' Or, there being no mindfulness as a factor for Awakening present within, he discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening is not present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen mindfulness as a factor for Awakening. And he discerns how there is the culmination of the development of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening once it has arisen. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining factors for Awakening: analysis of qualities, persistence, rapture, serenity, concentration, & equanimity.)


... there is clearly comparison and discernment taking place regarding jhanic states and non-jhanic states. Therefore Samma Samadhi is not absent from Satipatthana Sutta, even if the boilerplate jhana text often associated with it is.

retrofuturist wrote:To whatever extent it is discerned that sankharas are stilled - i.e. individual formations cease and individual formations do not arise, it will be evident that sabbe sankhara dukkha... it cannot be seen through 'dry-insight' alone, where sankhara just keep rushing on by, with no method (other than jhana) by which to still them and observe the causality.

tiltbillings wrote:This is naught more than an intellectual construct as to how things should be. In other words, you don't know.

It's based on readings of the suttas that show how Right Knowledge and Right Release come to be (e.g. For one of right concentration, right knowledge arises. For one of right knowledge, right release arises)- I didn't say I had personally experienced either.

Right View is necessarily "an intellectual construct", despite your dismissive language. The Noble Eightfold Path is fabricated.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 05, 2011 6:15 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:Interestingly enough the Satipatthana Sutta is not full of jhana boiler-plate, and certainly, neither is Ud I 10.


Correct, but in the Satipatthana Sutta there is...

MN 10 wrote:"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.' Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns, 'I am making a long turn,' or when making a short turn discerns, 'I am making a short turn'; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long' ... He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'
While this might suggest jhana, the other two quotes do not suggest the necessity of jhana, depending upon what is meant by that vexed term.

... there is clearly comparison and discernment taking place regarding jhanic states and non-jhanic states. Therefore Samma Samadhi is not absent from Satipatthana Sutta, even if the boilerplate jhana text often associated with it is.
That is assuming that jhana is required for insight and bodhi. It might be required for arahant status, but before that, not so much.


retrofuturist wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:To whatever extent it is discerned that sankharas are stilled - i.e. individual formations cease and individual formations do not arise, it will be evident that sabbe sankhara dukkha... it cannot be seen through 'dry-insight' alone, where sankhara just keep rushing on by, with no method (other than jhana) by which to still them and observe the causality.

tiltbillings wrote:This is naught more than an intellectual construct as to how things should be. In other words, you don't know.

It's based on readings of the suttas that show how Right Knowledge and Right Release come to be (e.g. For one of right concentration, right knowledge arises. For one of right knowledge, right release arises)- I didn't say I had personally experienced either.
When you start talking about "sankharas rushing on by," that has no bearing upon the actual practice of vipassana type meditation.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19905
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu May 05, 2011 6:34 am

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:That is assuming that jhana is required for insight and bodhi. It might be required for arahant status, but before that, not so much.

I believe it is said elsewhere that the path of stream-entry does not require jhana, but the fruition of stream-entry does. I could look it up, if you inisist.

tiltbillings wrote:When you start talking about "sankharas rushing on by," that has no bearing upon the actual practice of vipassana type meditation.

Nama is a sankhata-dhamma... and (to quote Nanavira Thera - http://www.nanavira.110mb.com/sn-nama.htm) "náma consists of the following (Majjhima i,9 <M.i,53>[1]): whether (the experience is) pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral (vedaná or 'feeling'); shape, colour, smell, and so on (saññá [q.v.] or 'perception [percepts]'); significance or purpose (cetaná [q.v.] or 'intention[s]'); engagement in experience (phassa [q.v.] or 'contact'); and (intentional) direction of emphasis (manasikára or 'attention')."

These sankharas have "bearing upon the actual practice of vipassana type meditation", don't they?

The tools of investigation for vipassana surely must be seen as sankhata as well - neglecting to observe how key components of 'nama' such as manasikara and cetana are sankhara/anicca/anatta/dukkha would be disastrous, as this is precisely where the deepest, most integral, yet ultimately false perceptions of self reside. The importance of knowing that vedana is sankhara/anicca/anatta/dukkha is negligible (and rather obvious) compared to the need to know that cetana and manasikara are so, in order to uproot perceptions of self.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 05, 2011 6:41 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:That is assuming that jhana is required for insight and bodhi. It might be required for arahant status, but before that, not so much.

I believe it is said elsewhere that the path of stream-entry does not require jhana, but the fruition of stream-entry does. I could look it up, if you inisist.
I imsist.

tiltbillings wrote:When you start talking about "sankharas rushing on by," that has no bearing upon the actual practice of vipassana type meditation.

Nama is a sankhata-dhamma... and (to quote Nanavira Thera - http://www.nanavira.110mb.com/sn-nama.htm) "náma consists of the following (Majjhima i,9 <M.i,53>[1]): whether (the experience is) pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral (vedaná or 'feeling'); shape, colour, smell, and so on (saññá [q.v.] or 'perception [percepts]'); significance or purpose (cetaná [q.v.] or 'intention[s]'); engagement in experience (phassa [q.v.] or 'contact'); and (intentional) direction of emphasis (manasikára or 'attention')."

These sankharas have "bearing upon the actual practice of vipassana type meditation", don't they?
Then explain your "rushing on by" statement."
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19905
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu May 05, 2011 6:46 am

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:I imsist.

Alright, I'll hunt it down tonight.

tiltbillings wrote:Then explain your "rushing on by" statement."

I've since added an extra paragraph from the time you quoted. I hope that gives a decent listing of the sankhata dhamma prevalent throughout 'vipassana meditation'

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby tiltbillings » Thu May 05, 2011 6:52 am

retrofuturist wrote:The tools of investigation for vipassana surely must be seen as sankhata as well - neglecting to observe how key components of 'nama' such as manasikara and cetana are sankhara/anicca/anatta/dukkha would be disastrous, as this is precisely where the deepest, most integral, yet ultimately false perceptions of self reside. The importance of knowing that vedana is sankhara/anicca/anatta/dukkha is negligible (and rather obvious) compared to the need to know that cetana and manasikara are so, in order to uproot perceptions of self.
Okay, but you do not need jhana for that.

it cannot be seen through 'dry-insight' alone, where sankhara just keep rushing on by, with no method (other than jhana) by which to still them and observe the causality.
And this simply is not true.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19905
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby mikenz66 » Thu May 05, 2011 7:04 am

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:Right View is necessarily "an intellectual construct", despite your dismissive language. The Noble Eightfold Path is fabricated.

You've mentioned Right View before. Do you claim that if you have the wrong interpretation of DO or are mistaken about whether you should side with the philosophical stance of phenomenology/realism/idealism, you would have wrong view, and have messed up the Path? Hmm, what if you get it wrong...? Ooops...

Obviously I would not agree, since to me, those are details that are realised, not reasoned out beforehand.

Right View is often: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... index.html
"And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view."


And, more Commentarily:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.

"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

My cartoon view of the instructions in the Suttas (and Abhidhamma) is that there are different ways of slicing and dicing phenomenological experience, in order to see through the delusion of self. So one can slice into khandhas or sense bases (or in more detail into rupa/citta/cetasika), or in the time-dimension by DO (or the other conditional relations method of the Abhidhamma). And one does that by examining experience, not reasoning about it. I see no evidence that one has to master every single mode of slicing and dicing, or have the correct understanding beforehand for practice to be effective.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10667
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby mikenz66 » Thu May 05, 2011 7:06 am

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:The tools of investigation for vipassana surely must be seen as sankhata as well - neglecting to observe how key components of 'nama' such as manasikara and cetana are sankhara/anicca/anatta/dukkha would be disastrous, as this is precisely where the deepest, most integral, yet ultimately false perceptions of self reside. The importance of knowing that vedana is sankhara/anicca/anatta/dukkha is negligible (and rather obvious) compared to the need to know that cetana and manasikara are so, in order to uproot perceptions of self.

What are you critiquing that neglects to observe manasikara and cetana? Doesn't sound like anything I'm familiar with...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10667
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu May 05, 2011 8:53 am

Greetings Mike,

retrofuturist wrote:Right View is necessarily "an intellectual construct", despite [Tilt's] dismissive language. The Noble Eightfold Path is fabricated.

mikenz66 wrote:Obviously I would not agree, since to me, those are details that are realised, not reasoned out beforehand.

Given that Right View is the forerunner of the Noble Eightfold Path, the consequence of your assertion would be that you "realise" (i.e. know) the Four Noble Truths, before commencing development of the Noble Eightfold Path. I'm sure this is not quite what you intended though, because as per your MN 117 quote (and my oft quoted SN 12.15) there are increasingly refined degrees of Right View in the lead up to vijja, or samma-nana.

mikenz66 wrote:What are you critiquing that neglects to observe manasikara and cetana? Doesn't sound like anything I'm familiar with...

I wasn't critiquing anything here necessarily... only explaining that all sankhara are not stilled through mindfulness alone, because the very tools of mindfulness are sankhata.

mikenz66 wrote:My cartoon view of the instructions in the Suttas (and Abhidhamma) is that there are different ways of slicing and dicing phenomenological experience, in order to see through the delusion of self. So one can slice into khandhas or sense bases (or in more detail into rupa/citta/cetasika), or in the time-dimension by DO (or the other conditional relations method of the Abhidhamma). And one does that by examining experience, not reasoning about it. I see no evidence that one has to master every single mode of slicing and dicing, or have the correct understanding beforehand for practice to be effective.

Agreed - though the more refined the understanding is, the more refined the Right View.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14780
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests