DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote: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.
Seeing their conditioned, interdependent nature as they arise and fall dependent upon causes and conditions is the basis for meaningfully stilling them via insight.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Seeing their conditioned, interdependent nature as they arise and fall dependent upon causes and conditions is the basis for meaningfully stilling them via insight.
On a sankhara by sankhara basis this is precisely so.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Seeing their conditioned, interdependent nature as they arise and fall dependent upon causes and conditions is the basis for meaningfully stilling them via insight.
On a sankhara by sankhara basis this is precisely so.
What do you mean by that?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:What do you mean by that?
I mean it is true of each individual dhamma that you track from beginning to end.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:What do you mean by that?
I mean it is true of each individual dhamma that you track from beginning to end.
Still not clear what your meaning is here.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,

Alright, explained a different way... there are many sankhata dhamma present at one time, yet you can only place attention on any one of those dhammas at a time.

For that one dhamma, if you're mindful, you can see it rise (and the cause for its arising) and its cessation... that particular sankhata dhamma can be said to have ceased, but that is still against a background of other formed sensory and mental activity (sankhara).

The further into jhana one goes, the less sankharas are present.
MN 44 wrote:"But when a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, which things cease first: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, or mental fabrications?"

"When a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, verbal fabrications cease first, then bodily fabrications, then mental fabrications."
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

Alright, explained a different way... there are many sankhata dhamma present at one time, yet you can only place attention on any one of those dhammas at a time.

For that one dhamma, if you're mindful, you can see it rise (and the cause for its arising) and its cessation... that particular sankhata dhamma can be said to have ceased, but that is still against a background of other formed sensory and mental activity (sankhara).

The further into jhana one goes, the less sankharas are present.
MN 44 wrote:"But when a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, which things cease first: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, or mental fabrications?"

"When a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, verbal fabrications cease first, then bodily fabrications, then mental fabrications."
Metta,
Retro. :)
Okay. So the point is?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:So the point is?
Dependent origination is dependent upon avijja and sankhara, whether or not these two are explicitly denoted in any given dependent origination sequence.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19945
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:So the point is?
Dependent origination is dependent upon avijja and sankhara, whether or not these two are explicitly denoted in any given dependent origination sequence.

Metta,
Retro. :)
At last, back to the original topic...

Unless, of course, avijja and sankhara are a later addition to the sequence, as in the opinion of some of the posts above... :coffee:

But, like Tilt, I don't see the connection with the last half-dozen posts...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:But, like Tilt, I don't see the connection with the last half-dozen posts...
There isn't necessarily one - I was just responding to Tilt's line of questioning.... that his line of question doesn't lead to my point, isn't altogether surprising.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
retrofuturist wrote: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 insist.
tiltbillings wrote:I imsist.
It seems I remembered a bit over-simplistically...

http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=51" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nanavira Thera wrote:As regards samādhi, the situation is this. As soon as a person reaches the first path (not the fruition, which may come much later—see CITTA) he gets the ariyapuggala's right view (sammāditthi), which is his paññā. And it is a characteristic of paññā that when one has it (as an ariyapuggala) one also has samādhi, viriya, saddhā, and sati.[a]

Now, one who has this paññā can, simply by developing his paññā, at the same time develop his samādhi; and when these have reached sufficient strength (more is required for each successive stage) the attainment of fruition takes place. Although the development of paññā is, of necessity, partly discursive (or intellectual), in the actual attainment of fruition (sotāpatti, etc.) the mind becomes steady (since samādhi has been automatically developed together with paññā, and the two now combine as equal partners—see M. 149: iii,289[1])—and there is direct intuition instead of discursive thinking. So in all attainment of fruition there is samādhi. But it is also possible for the ariyapuggala to develop his samādhi separately by means of ānāpānasati etc., and this is, in fact, the pleasantest way of advancing (for some people, however, it is difficult, and they have to grind away at vipassanā practice—i.e. development of paññā). In this way, a far greater degree of samādhi is developed than is actually necessary for the attainment of fruition; and so the k has arūpa attainments that he does not actually need to reach nibbāna.

The minimum strength of samādhi that is necessary for fruition is as follows: for arahattā and anāgāmitā, jhāna strength is needed (the first jhāna is enough)—see Mahāmālunkya Sutta, M. 64: i,432-37; for sakadāgāmitā and sotāpatti full jhāna is not needed—see A. IX,12: iv,378-82—but it is necessary to have the samādhi nimitta (which comes long before jhāna)—see A. VI,68: iii,422-3.[ see sutta extract below ] But the samādhi can be developed either separately beforehand (as explained above) or together with paññā, and presumably in cases where there is attainment simply on listening to the Buddha it is the latter. (I am aware that there has been a controversy about whether jhāna is or is not necessary for the attainment of sotāpatti, but, as so often in controversies, the disputants have gone to extremes. Those who assert that jhāna is necessary believe—rightly or wrongly—that their opponents are maintaining that no samādhi at all is necessary. But the fact of the matter is that some samādhi is necessary, but not full jhāna; and this may or may not, have been developed independently of paññā.)

....

A. VI,68: '"One not delighting in solitude could grasp the sign of the mind (cittassa nimittam)": such a state is not to be found. "One not grasping the sign of the mind could be fulfilled in right view": such a state is not to be found. "One not having fulfilled right view could be fulfilled in right concentration": such a state is not to be found. "One not having fulfilled right concentration could abandon the fetters": such a state is not to be found. "One not having abandoned the fetters could realize extinction": such a state is not to be found.'

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:So the point is?
Dependent origination is dependent upon avijja and sankhara, whether or not these two are explicitly denoted in any given dependent origination sequence.
Which is something that would be said by any "three lifer," but that is was not the point of my question.

Let us do this over:
tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

Alright, explained a different way... there are many sankhata dhamma present at one time, yet you can only place attention on any one of those dhammas at a time.

For that one dhamma, if you're mindful, you can see it rise (and the cause for its arising) and its cessation... that particular sankhata dhamma can be said to have ceased, but that is still against a background of other formed sensory and mental activity (sankhara).

The further into jhana one goes, the less sankharas are present.
MN 44 wrote:"But when a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, which things cease first: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, or mental fabrications?"

"When a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, verbal fabrications cease first, then bodily fabrications, then mental fabrications."
Metta,
Retro. :)
Okay. So the point is?
"What is the point?" obviously did not get at what I wanted to ask.
Alright, explained a different way... there are many sankhata dhamma present at one time, yet you can only place attention on any one of those dhammas at a time. For that one dhamma, if you're mindful, you can see it rise (and the cause for its arising) and its cessation... that particular sankhata dhamma can be said to have ceased, but that is still against a background of other formed sensory and mental activity (sankhara).
Is the nature -- sabhaava -- of that one dhamma we were able to see any different from the nature -- sabhaava -- of any of the other potential dhammas of which were not aware?
The further into jhana one goes, the less sankharas are present.
It doesn't matter.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Is the nature -- sabhaava -- of that one dhamma we were able to see any different from the nature -- sabhaava -- of any of the other potential dhammas of which were not aware?
No.
retrofuturist wrote:The further into jhana one goes, the less sankharas are present.
tiltbillings wrote:It doesn't matter.
On the contrary, I think it does.
MN 44 wrote:"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected."

"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, lady, to what does his mind lean, to what does it tend, to what does it incline?"

"When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, his mind leans to seclusion, tends to seclusion, inclines to seclusion."
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Is the nature -- sabhaava -- of that one dhamma we were able to see any different from the nature -- sabhaava -- of any of the other potential dhammas of which were not aware?
No.
Then to see the nature of one dhamma is to see the nature of all dhammas.
tiltbillings wrote:
The further into jhana one goes, the less sankharas are present.
It doesn't matter.
On the contrary, I think it does.[/quote]In what way does it matter?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:In what way does it matter?
Because it recognises only how a small selected fraction of the entire panorama of present existence is not-self. There are so many other places for the false perception of self to hide, whilst you're there looking at that one sankhata dhamma in isolation.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply