Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

So, is this an expression of what is really happening, or is it just Mahasi Saydaw's imagination? Might there actually be something to what he is describing, or are we to reject it out of hand because we find the philosophical structure built up around the momentary dhamma notion overly clumsy?

Taking "we" as constituting "you", "I" and "others"... I've explained what I've done. I've side-stepped the whole issue by not wading into those waters in the first place.

{{{sigh}}} Oh, well. But you already have seriously waded into those waters, up to your armpits. I think you have seriously missed my point. I am asking if there might be a possibility of something of value actually might be going on despite the seemingly problematic (for some) language used? It is a reasonable question that may open rather than shuts off possibilties for discussion.

[tiltbillings]

Note: not wrong, just out of the frame.

But what does that really mean? You are a big Ven Nanananda fan and he uses and teaches Mahasi Sayadaw tuype practice. Geoff seem to think that Ven Nanananda has not given up the idea of momentariness (but he states that is not sure) and you have made this comment:

Meditation instructions however, which are based upon commentarial terminology, are inextricably intertwined with the consequences and implications that underpin that commentarial terminology, which is fine if the commentaries are entirely free of error and/or irrelevance.

If this is the case, then so much for Ven Nanananda's brilliance and insight. It is just all book learning, having nothing to do with a real world meditative confrontation nama-rupa. Interesting.

Isnt it the case that Nanananda has worked very hard to undermine and correct some small but pivotal "implications that underpin commentarial terminology"?

Yes, and I think in a balanced manner

I dont think there is any reason to throw out a whole system of well tuned practice techniques based on a few suspect "implications". The Buddha didnt create whole new systems of meditation when converting Brahmans and Shramanas. He utilized what helped and corrected that which did not. The same can be done with these "implications". In my view this is what Nanananda has been doing with utmost skill.


Just a comment not directed at anyone in particular.
Prasadachitta

And they are appreciated.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

But you already have sertiously waded into those waters, up to your armpits.

No, I haven't. I've never based my bhavana-practice around commentarial notions not found in the suttas.

I think you have seriously missed my point. I am asking if there might be a possibility of something of value actually might be going on despite the seemingly problematic (for some) language used?

It's not my concern, for the reason stated above. I've never based my bhavana-practice around commentarial notions not found in the suttas. Mahavihara meditation is no more relevant to me personally than Mahayana meditation. I understand that for you and others it may well be, so as I said, your investigations are better directed to others to whom it is relevant.

It is a reasonable question that may open rather than shuts off possibilties for discussion.

By all means, I encourage it, but it's not my discussion to have. I think I have done all that's necessary to demonstrate in a non-derisive manner that these questions posed by Geoff at the start of the topic are not for me to resolve, and do not need to be resolved or addressed at all if one's sticks to Buddhavacana as the gold standard.



Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

But you already have sertiously waded into those waters, up to your armpits.

No, I haven't. I've never based my bhavana-practice around commentarial notions not found in the suttas.

I am talking about your involvement in this discussion.

I think you have seriously missed my point. I am asking if there might be a possibility of something of value actually might be going on despite the seemingly problematic (for some) language used?

It's not my concern, for the reason stated above. I've never based my bhavana-practice around commentarial notions not found in the suttas. Mahavihara meditation is no more relevant to me personally than Mahayana meditation. I understand that for you and others it may well be, so as I said, your investigations are better directed to others to whom it is relevant.

If it is not relevant to you, then why are you in this thread, posting quotes from Mahasi Sayadaw, if you are not willing to discuss what it is you are posting, then why post; discussion would seem to be the purpose of posting.

It is a reasonable question that may open rather than shuts off possibilities for discussion.

By all means, I encourage it, but it's not my discussion to have. I think I have done all that's necessary to demonstrate in a non-derisive manner that these questions posed by Geoff at the start of the topic are not for me to resolve.

If you are not willing to discuss what you have posted, it really doesn't help. What is the point, because really does not add anything to what has been said? And I or others cannot get any clarification on what you have said. No dialogue, just statements.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

If it is not relevant to you, then why are you in this thread, posting quotes from Mahasi Sayadaw, if you are not willing to discuss what it is you are posting, then why post; discussion would seem to be the purpose of posting.

Whilst nowadays it's becoming easier to find well-considered interpretation and discussion of the Buddha's doctrine that isn't filtered through the prism of the Mahavihara school of thought, there is still a long way to go in this area with respect to bhavana. In investigating bhavana in the Buddha's tradition, I have incidentally encountered much on the subject of bhavana which is presented within, or filtered through, that Mahavihara prism. Whilst I don't personally take it on board or apply it in practice, I do still read it as some things may be discussed which do not address bhavana through that prism. In doing so I have acquired quite an array of questions, curiosities, thoughts etc. in relation to it. Some of it relates to what has been called above, the "Burmese Vipassana Tradition".

My involvement in this topic is attributable to the fact I enjoy reading Geoff's well-considered interpretation and analysis of matters that pertain to bhavana, and with you volunteering as the protagonist to vigilantly defend and represent BVT & Mahavihara, it creates an vibrant dynamic which is interesting to follow, and which teases out some interesting insights in relation to bhavana and the implicit views that underpin various bhavana techniques in the Theravada tradition. Even just in the last page or two, Dan74 and Brizzy have commented that they've found it educational, and I have too. Therefore, I've put my thoughts, observations, concerns etc. in relation to Mahavihara momentariness into the public forum, in a non-derisive manner and I invite participants in the discussion to use them as tools or props in their respective presentations as they see fit. Who knows... some of those questions I had whilst reading those Dhamma texts may yet be answered. But for me personally, it doesn't matter so much, as I haven't invested my life into either the BVT or the Mahavihara, so as I said to Mike, they're not my questions to answer.

In the meantime...



Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

with you volunteering as the protagonist to vigilantly defend and represent BVT & Mahavihara,

And they need to be defended against the sort of black-and-white thinking geoff has given us. It is too bad Ven Dhammanando is not here to do justice to the subject, but you have also seriously missed what I have been trying to do in terms getting at the Dhamma in all of this. I was not asking questions of you concerning your Mahasi Sayadaw quotes to be annoying.

Also, it is very saddening to see the thoughtless devaluation of our Dhamma brothers and sisters in the name of Informed discussion and substantive criticism. As I have said, this has been a waste of time, but I have tried.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

I was not asking questions of you concerning your Mahasi Sayadaw quotes to be annoying.

I didn't say you were. I just wanted to be equally as transparent about my terms of engagement as you were with me a page or two back here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10653&start=240#p164564

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

I was not asking questions of you concerning your Mahasi Sayadaw quotes to be annoying.

I didn't say you were. I just wanted to be equally as transparent about my terms of engagement as you were with me a page or two back here - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p164564

Metta,
Retro.

Transparent and strange.

I've had enough of this thread. It is a bit too unwholesome. Better things to do.

[Nyana]

And they need to be defended against the sort of black-and-white thinking geoff has given us.

Your recent attempts to mis-characterize what I've said as "highly corrosive attacks" and so on are an example of black-and-white thinking.

Also, it is very saddening to see the thoughtless devaluation of our Dhamma brothers and sisters in the name of Informed discussion and substantive criticism. As I have said, this has been a waste of time, but I have tried.

Let's see....

tiltbillings: "[Some] with good reason as any, consider the Sujin take on things, especially vipassana meditation, equally out there as Ingram's approach." Source.

tiltbillings: "Sujato is an intemperate axe-grinder." Source.

tiltbillings: "Nanavira was given to overblown, dense prose and not always the best reasoning." Source.

tiltbillings: "Essentially Wallace is tarring the whole of the Western contingent of vipassana teachers with this sort of accusation as makes in his cheesy interview." Source.

And on and on it goes....

[tiltbillings]

And they need to be defended against the sort of black-and-white thinking geoff has given us.

Your recent attempts to mis-characterize what I've said as "highly corrosive attacks" and so on are an example of black-and-white thinking.

Also, it is very saddening to see the thoughtless devaluation of our Dhamma brothers and sisters in the name of Informed discussion and substantive criticism. As I have said, this has been a waste of time, but I have tried.

Let's see....

tiltbillings: "[Some] with good reason as any, consider the Sujin take on things, especially vipassana meditation, equally out there as Ingram's approach." Source.

tiltbillings: "Sujato is an intemperate axe-grinder." Source.

tiltbillings: "Nanavira was given to overblown, dense prose and not always the best reasoning." Source.

tiltbillings: "Essentially Wallace is tarring the whole of the Western contingent of vipassana teachers with this sort of accusation as makes in his cheesy interview." Source.

And on and on it goes....

Heavens to besty, you certainly had to dig around for some of that stuff (and you missed some of my better ones), and I certainly appreciate you putting the link along with the quotes so that the context is available. You do, however, by your own actions here make my point about this thread. In its inception onwards, not the most wholesome effort here.

Since this is my last posting in it, which gives you the last word (all very Shantideva of me), I'll refer you my signature, and as Trungpa was wont to say on occasions such as this: Good luck to you, sir.

[Nyana]

Heavens to besty, you certainly had to dig around for some of that stuff (and you missed some of my better ones)

Nah. Only took a minute or two.

You do, however, by your own actions here make my point about this thread. In its inception onwards, not the most wholesome effort here.

You have never once, to the best of my recollection, ever acknowledged any criticism of Burmese Vipassanā as having any validity whatsoever. It's no surprise then, that you would show up yet again with guns a-blazing in this discussion.

I'll refer you my signature

Ven. Ṭhānissaro:

Some Theravadins insist that questioning the commentaries is a sign of disrespect for the tradition, but it seems to be a sign of greater disrespect for the Buddha — or the compilers of the Canon — to assume that he or they would have left out something absolutely essential to the practice.

[daverupa]

[robertk]

Dear all
tell me if you think that it is the same citta or a different one that hears, that sees, etc?

[Brizzy]

On an experiential level, I have personally found that the idea of momentariness and its associated meditative culture leads to a racing of the mind and events with one trying to play catch-up and telling oneself that 'there is just this' (as per BVT/commentarial view). The rapidity of the mind and its observed sensations is what I understand as dissolution. On the other hand I have found jhana as a slowing down of the mind and events where one can actually observe mind events like 'intention' in a calm, relaxed and dispassionate way.

[chownah]

SN 35.28 PTS: S iv 19 CDB ii 1143
Adittapariyaya Sutta: The Fire Sermon
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.

"The ear is aflame. Sounds are aflame...

"The nose is aflame. Aromas are aflame...

"The tongue is aflame. Flavors are aflame...

"The body is aflame. Tactile sensations are aflame...

"The intellect is aflame. Ideas are aflame. Consciousness at the intellect is aflame. Contact at the intellect is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I say, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that, too, he grows disenchanted.

"He grows disenchanted with the ear...

"He grows disenchanted with the nose...

"He grows disenchanted with the tongue...

"He grows disenchanted with the body...

"He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with contact at the intellect. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: He grows disenchanted with that too. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
.....................................
It doesn't matter if one's experience contains momentariness or if one's experience does not contain momentairness. Either way it is aflame and best seen with disenchantment.

We all experience from the roots of ignorance.....the best we can do is to observe those results of ignorance and through insight find our way along the path. If one experiences momentariness then it is best to use that momentariness to point towards the path. If one experineces non-momentariness the it is best to use that non-momentariness to point toward the path.

I guess....but I don't know for sure because all my views are rooted in ignorance.....
chownah

[Brizzy]

My issue is twofold....

1. Did the Buddha actually teach that "If one experiences momentariness then it is best to use that momentariness to point towards the path".

2. Is it possible to use dissolution as a valid means of progressing on the path or has one already veered off from Right View. One cannot use every experience to progress on the path.

Metta

[DarwidHalim]

The notion of momentariness is rejected by 1 Buddhist school.

Why? It is illogical.


It is illogical because this reality is not like a blink of television, blink, blink, and blink.
If we accept the notion of momentariness, we want or we don't want, we have to accept the empty space that separate each moment to each moment.
If we say there is no empty gap, then it is not momentary.

Momentary CAN only exist if there is an empty gap in between.

Without empty gap, the definition of momentary cannot fit in.

So, no point to adopt it. For me, I don't see the ground.

[chownah]

One cannot use every experience to progress on the path.

I think you are mistaken....every experience is an opportunity....I guess.....
chownah

[Nyana]

tell me if you think that it is the same citta or a different one that hears, that sees, etc?

Cognitions are classified in terms of sense faculty and object. MN 38 Mahātaṇhāsankhaya Sutta:

Monks, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose and odors, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on tongue and flavors, it is reckoned as tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on body and tangibles, it is reckoned as body consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness.

And there also has to be the corresponding engagement or "act-of-attention" (samannāhāra) for any of the six consciousnesses to arise. MN 28 Mahāhatthipadopama Sutta:

Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Robert,

In response to your question, I understand it as per the teachings quoted in MN 38 Mahātaṇhāsankhaya Sutta in the post immediately above.

I do not regard it in terms of same/different "cittas" - it's not a terminology I use, as I do not subscribe to the commentarial teaching of cittavithi. To me, the term citta is virtually synonymous with mano.

Metta,
Retro.