Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:45 am

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:Do explain this:
". . . the perception of impermanence should be cultivated for the removal of the conceit 'I am.' For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the perception of not-self is established. When one perceives not-self one reaches the removal of the conceit 'I am,' which is called Nibbana here and now." U iv 1.

It is as it says. What exactly are you getting at here?

Are you inferring that perception of x does not have an active component? That the mind does not play a role in the arising and cessation of formed dhammas, which are subject to impermanence?

:popcorn:

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: 14629
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:56 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:Do explain this:
". . . the perception of impermanence should be cultivated for the removal of the conceit 'I am.' For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the perception of not-self is established. When one perceives not-self one reaches the removal of the conceit 'I am,' which is called Nibbana here and now." U iv 1.

It is as it says. What exactly are you getting at here?

Are you inferring that perception of x does not have an active component? That the mind does not play a role in the arising and cessation of formed dhammas?
Basically, I am asking you to unpack that with which you are concurring:
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings TMingyur,

TMingyur wrote:Therefore from my perspective what is called "impermanence" actually is a fabrication, i.e. an active synthesis, but cannot be "directly" (i.e. non-conceptually) perceived.

(Avoiding the hornet's nest of the "theory of moments" for now...) I concur with what you've said here, though it may well draw horror from some members... and if it does, I'd be interested to see how they respond.
TM, in his inimitable way, seems to be saying that one does not have a direct perception of impermanence. "Impermanence" is, rather as suggested by TM, a fabrication after the fact, not something directly perceived. So, what is supposedly so shocking about this and this at odds with Ven Analayo's comments about sati ?
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: 19221
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:03 am

Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:TM, in his inimitable way, seems to be saying that one does not have a direct perception of impermanence.

No, he's not. He's recognising that impermanence pertains to the objects of the six senses, and for their impermanence to actually be "perceived", there needs to be knowledge that it has changed, and such knowledge is inherently a synthesis of the present and the past rememberance. Perception of impermanence isn't an immediate and passive receptivity of some quality of impermanence "out there"...

Image

Image

tiltbillings wrote:"Impermanence" is, rather as suggested by TM, a fabrication after the fact

After what fact?

tiltbillings wrote:...not something directly perceived.

See above - no, he's not.

tiltbillings wrote:So, what is supposedly so shocking about this

Nothing to me. If it's not to you, then good.

:popcorn:

tiltbillings wrote:...and this at odds with Ven Analayo's comments about sati ?

No one said it is.

If you require a more eloquent statement, refer to Geoff's post which I gave the "good posting" treatment to here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10583&start=60#p161336

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: 14629
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:09 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:TM, in his inimitable way, seems to be saying that one does not have a direct perception of impermanence.

No, he's not. He's recognising that impermanence pertains to the objects of the six senses, and for their impermanence to actually be "perceived", there needs to be knowledge that it has changed, and such knowledge is inherently a synthesis of the present and the past rememberance. Perception of impermanence isn't immediate and passive receptivity of some quality of impermanence "out there"...
Well, that was not so hard, was it?

tiltbillings wrote:...and this at odds with Ven Analayo's comments about sati ?

No one said it is.
Here is a thread about the objections to Ven Analayo's supposed wrong views about sati and I am seeing, instead, a fair amount of agreement with Ven Analayo's analysis. Heavens.
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: 19221
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby ground » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:17 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

tiltbillings wrote:TM, in his inimitable way, seems to be saying that one does not have a direct perception of impermanence.

No, he's not. He's recognising that impermanence pertains to the objects of the six senses, and for their impermanence to actually be "perceived", there needs to be knowledge that it has changed, and such knowledge is inherently a synthesis of the present and the past rememberance. Perception of impermanence isn't an immediate and passive receptivity of some quality of impermanence "out there"...

That's funny ... (If I may comment)
Actually I fully agree with Tilt's wording "one does not have a direct perception of impermanence" but I cannot see a discrepancy in meaning as to the wording of retro.
I mean of course there is always a direct perception underlying every conceptual fabrication but this from my perspective is overriden by what is called "consciousness" which is rooted in ignorance and has as a characteristic "identification" which is based on re-cognition and therefore based on remembrance and based on past/presence.
To say "fabrication" and "'consciousness' which is rooted in ignorance" does however not mean to say that it cannot be helpful/conducive.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:23 am

Greetings TMingyur,

Would I be summarising correctly if I said that "perception of impermanence" is perception of the subjective experience of impermanence, as distinct to perception of an objective reality of impermanence?

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: 14629
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:34 am

TMingyur wrote:I mean of course there is always a direct perception underlying every conceptual fabrication
Okay, but the question is, does the "conceptual fabrication" accurately reflect the perception?

but this from my perspective is overriden by what is called "consciousness" which is rooted in ignorance and has as a characteristic "identification" which is based on re-cognition and therefore based on remembrance and based on past/presence.
To say "fabrication" and "'consciousness' which is rooted in ignorance" does however not mean to say that it cannot be helpful/conducive.
Unclear. Please try again.
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: 19221
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby ground » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:49 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings TMingyur,

Would I be summarising correctly if I said that "perception of impermanence" is perception of the subjective experience of impermanence, as distinct to perception of an objective reality of impermanence?

Metta,
Retro. :)


I would like to skip the "subjective" and rephrase "'perception of impermanence' is the result of the interactive play of the aggregates".

But thanks for the question ...
... it now dawns to me that maybe the discrepancy you seem to be seeing between your wording and Tilt's is that you are referring to impermanence qua characteristic of sense objects and are assuming that Tilt is referring to impermanence qua impermanence ("impermanence as such").
My basic assumption always has been that the talk about "impermanence" is the talk about "impermanence qua characteristic of sense objects" therefore I could not detect a difference in meaning between your wording and Tilt's wording. But maybe I simply do not know the views of both of you (?).

But actually whether the former or the later conceptual aspect of "impermanence" is referred to doesn't make a difference from my perspective.
Why?
Because I think there is a 2-step synthesis (conceptual fabrication) involved:
1. fabricating the impermanence of a sense object (impermanence qua characteristic of sense objects)
2. fabricating impermanence qua impermanence.

If there is step 1 there arises instantaneously step 2.
Why is this?
Inference of an alleged characteristic necessitates its identification and "identification" always is a conceptual "isolation", a determination ("this is that"), a manifestation of consciousness (which is rooted in ignorance).


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby Nyana » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:54 am

TMingyur wrote:Actually I fully agree with Tilt's wording "one does not have a direct perception of impermanence"

I do too. But I would add that "perception" isn't the best translation of saññā. "Recognition" is better. Secondly, saññā is also a fabrication (saṅkhāra). Thirdly, the recognition of impermanence (aniccasaññā) would be more accurately phrased as the recognition of the absence of permanence. Similarly, the recognition of unsatisfactoriness (dukkhasaññā) is the recognition of the absence of satisfactoriness in that which is not permanent. And the recognition of selflessness (anattasaññā) is the recognition of the absence of a permanent and satisfactory self in that which is not permanent and not satisfactory.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby ground » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:57 am

tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote:I mean of course there is always a direct perception underlying every conceptual fabrication
Okay, but the question is, does the "conceptual fabrication" accurately reflect the perception?

It arises dependent on the "direct" perception and other causes and conditions. Since an effect is not its own cause I cannot conceive of what "accurately reflect" may mean in this context.

tiltbillings wrote:
but this from my perspective is overriden by what is called "consciousness" which is rooted in ignorance and has as a characteristic "identification" which is based on re-cognition and therefore based on remembrance and based on past/presence.
To say "fabrication" and "'consciousness' which is rooted in ignorance" does however not mean to say that it cannot be helpful/conducive.
Inclear. Please try again.

Our everyday experience seems to validate some (but not all) fabrications because we rely on consciousness.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:06 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
TMingyur wrote:Actually I fully agree with Tilt's wording "one does not have a direct perception of impermanence"

I do too. But I would add that "perception" isn't the best translation of saññā. "Recognition" is better.
I would opt for "apperception."

Secondly, saññā is also a fabrication (saṅkhāra). Thirdly, the recognition of impermanence (aniccasaññā) would be more accurately phrased as the recognition of the absence of permanence. Similarly, the recognition of unsatisfactoriness (dukkhasaññā) is the recognition of the absence of satisfactoriness in that which is not permanent. And the recognition of selflessness (anattasaññā) is the recognition of the absence of a permanent and satisfactory self in that which is not permanent and not satisfactory.
The question in all of this were is yathā-bhūta as opposed to just constructing more fabrications?
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: 19221
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby Nyana » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:08 am

tiltbillings wrote:Here is a thread about the objections to Ven Analayo's supposed wrong views about sati and I am seeing, instead, a fair amount of agreement with Ven Analayo's analysis.

IMO Ven. Anālayo could have spent more time and effort detailing the fundamentals of sati. He begins in the right place (p. 46):

    The noun sati is related to the verb sarati, to remember. Sati in the sense of "memory" occurs on several occasions in the discourses, and also in the standard definitions of sati given in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries.

But only three paragraphs later he is off stating his theory that sati "functions as awareness of the present moment." So much for the fundamentals and details offered in the ancient Pāli texts....
Nyana
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:10 am

TMingyur wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote:I mean of course there is always a direct perception underlying every conceptual fabrication
Okay, but the question is, does the "conceptual fabrication" accurately reflect the perception?

It arises dependent on the "direct" perception and other causes and conditions. Since an effect is not its own cause I cannot conceive of what "accurately reflect" may mean in this context.
That is an interesting question. As William James has said: “What you see is what you bring." So, where in all of this are we free of conceptual structuring, papañca?
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: 19221
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby Dmytro » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:14 am

Dukkhanirodha wrote:Can you explain then how it would make sense that the ability to recollect the past would be developped by observing the reality of the body and mind in the present moment, otherwise than by the way explained in the twofold definition I gave above (see immediately previous post)?


Sati (remembrance) means either recollection of past events, or remembrance in the present. In the context of Satipatthana, it's remembrance in the present.

This is right, but only in a partial way. You are obviously forgetting that we are also left with the practice. The suttas will always remain cryptic for those who do not practice.


I would appreciate some respect on your part, or the conversation would be impossible.

Actual practice is the precise reason why I consider the exact meaning of 'sati' important. Misunderstanding of this term can pave a way to practice which is at best fruitless.
User avatar
Dmytro
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:15 am

Greetings Tmingyur,

I'm on my phone so this is going to be just a partial response but what I'm differentiating between is impermanence qua actively formed phenomena, as distinct to impermance qua raw unprocessed sensory stimuli. (and to forestall the inevitable objection, im not saying that Tilt or Analayo favour one over the other, but in most contemporary discourse on satipatthana and 'vipassana' it is the latter which is often expressed to the exclusion of the former).

Metta,
Retro. :)
Last edited by retrofuturist on Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:04 am, edited 4 times in total.
Reason: fixed formatting - originally posted via mobile phone
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: 14629
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby Nyana » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:16 am

tiltbillings wrote:The question in all of this were is yathā-bhūta as opposed to just constructing more fabrications?

Yathābhūta:

    Yathā (adv.) [fr. ya˚; Vedic yathā; cp. kathā, tathā] as, like, in relation to, after (the manner of).

    Bhūta [pp. of bhavati, Vedic etc. bhūta] grown, become; born, produced; nature as the result of becoming.

tiltbillings wrote:as opposed to just constructing more fabrications?

The path is fabricated to lead to dispassion, cessation, and liberation.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby ground » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:19 am

tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Okay, but the question is, does the "conceptual fabrication" accurately reflect the perception?

It arises dependent on the "direct" perception and other causes and conditions. Since an effect is not its own cause I cannot conceive of what "accurately reflect" may mean in this context.
That is an interesting question. As William James has said: “What you see is what you bring." So, where in all of this are we free of conceptual structuring, papañca?

When volitional formations cease there is no "conceptual structuring". However then there is still the "structuring" caused by the body which however is non-conceptual.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby Nyana » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:20 am

tiltbillings wrote:So, where in all of this are we free of conceptual structuring, papañca?

When we stop buying into what Ñāṇananda has referred to as the "relentless tyranny of the empirical consciousness." That is, the "myth of the given."
Nyana
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:24 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Here is a thread about the objections to Ven Analayo's supposed wrong views about sati and I am seeing, instead, a fair amount of agreement with Ven Analayo's analysis.

IMO Ven. Anālayo could have spent more time and effort detailing the fundamentals of sati. He begins in the right place (p. 46):

    The noun sati is related to the verb sarati, to remember. Sati in the sense of "memory" occurs on several occasions in the discourses, and also in the standard definitions of sati given in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries.

But only three paragraphs later he is off stating his theory that sati "functions as awareness of the present moment." So much for the fundamentals and details offered in the ancient Pāli texts....
He could have and should have offered a great deal more detail, but I also think he is quite correct in this:


Page 47-8: This connotation of sati as memory appears also in its formal definition
in the discourses, which relates sati to the ability of calling to
mind what has been done or said long ago.16 A closer examination of
this definition, however, reveals that sati is not really defined as
memory, but as that which facilitates and enables memory. What
this definition of sati points to is that, if sati is present, memory will
be able to function well.17 Understanding sati in this way facilitates relating it to the context
of satipatthana, where it is not concerned with recalling past events,
but functions as awareness of the present moment.18 In the context
of satipatthana meditation, it is due to the presence of sati that one is
able to remember what is otherwise only too easily forgotten: the
present moment.


16 e.g. at M I356.
17 The passage at M I 356 could then be rendered as: "he is mindful, being endowed with
highest discriminative mindfulness (so that) things said or done long ago are recalled
and remembered." Nanamoli 1995=P.1252n-560, explains: "keen attentiveness to the
present forms the basis for an accurate memory of the past." Nanananda 1984: p.28,
points out: "mindfulness and memory ... the keenness of the one naturally leads to
the clarity of the other."
18 Nanaponika 1992:P.9; Nanavira 1987=P.382; and T.W. Rhys Davids 1966:vol.Il, P·322.
Griffith 1992:p 111, explains: "the basic meaning of smrti and derivatives in Buddhist
technical discourse ... has to do with observation and attention, not with awareness
of past objects."
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: 19221
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:26 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:So, where in all of this are we free of conceptual structuring, papañca?

When we stop buying into what Ñāṇananda has referred to as the "relentless tyranny of the empirical consciousness." That is, the "myth of the given."
Thank you, but that really, probably, needs a bit more detail to be meaningful. That does not answer the question in its context.
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: 19221
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests