Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

yes absolutely Mr man.
also here is useful quote from bhikku bodhi

Bhikkhu Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words page 302:




Contemporary Buddhist literature commonly conveys two ideas about pañña that have become almost axioms in the popular understanding of Buddhism, The first is that pañña is exclusively nonconceptual and nondiscursive, a type of cognition that defies all the laws of logical thought; the second, that pañña arises spontaneously, through an act of pure intuition as sudden and instantaneous as a brilliant flash of lightning. These two ideas about pañña are closely connected. If pañña defies all the laws of thought, it cannot be approached by any type of conceptual activity but can arise only when the rational, discriminative, conceptual activity of the mind has been stultified. And this stopping of conceptualization, somewhat like the demolition of a building, must be a rapid one, an undermining of thought not previously prepared for by any gradual maturation of understanding. Thus, in the popular understanding of Buddhism, pañña defies rationality and easily slides off into "crazy wisdom," an incomprehensible, mindboggling way of relating to the world that dances at the thin edge between super-rationality and madness.

Such ideas about pañña receive no support at all from the teachings of the Nikayas, which, are consistently sane, lucid, and sober, To take the two points in reverse order: First, far from arising spontaneously, pañña in the Nikayas is emphatically conditioned, arisen from an underlying matrix of causes and conditions. And second, pañña is not bare intuition, but a careful, discriminative understanding that at certain stages involves precise conceptual operations. Pañña is directed to specific domains of understanding. These domains, known in the Pali commentaries as "the soil of wisdom" (paññabhumi), must be thoroughIy investigated and mastered through conceptual understanding before direct, nonconceptual insight can effectively accomplish its work. To master them requires analysis, discrimination, and discernment. One must be able to abstract from the overwhelming mass of facts certain basic patterns fundamental to all experience and use these patterns as templates for close contemplation of one's own experience

tiltbillings wrote:

Mr Man wrote:Not at all. What I'm saying is that if we believe we are observing "this arising because of that" or "if we believe we are observing arising and passing away" that is just more movement of the mind and we should not buy into it. We should know it as such and continue.

We can contemplate causality and impermanence at any time, as a mental activity and with awareness. We do not need great stillness to do this. It is not something so special.

What do you mean by contemplate?

Think.

Mr Man wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:

Mr Man wrote:Not at all. What I'm saying is that if we believe we are observing "this arising because of that" or "if we believe we are observing arising and passing away" that is just more movement of the mind and we should not buy into it. We should know it as such and continue.

We can contemplate causality and impermanence at any time, as a mental activity and with awareness. We do not need great stillness to do this. It is not something so special.

What do you mean by contemplate?

Think.

There is a great deal of difference between thinking about anicca and directly, without comment, seeing the rise and fall of the nama/rupa process.

During a meditation retreat, in the meditation hall, the woman four place over and one row down coughs. You recognize that cough as being hers, and an image of her pops into your head, and right along with that image comes a raging, burning lust, a carnal wanting. What do you do? You can think about it, and try the various anti-lust options in the Buddhist contemplative tool box to free oneself from this fire. Or you can simply pay attention without comment to it, seeing the aversion, the wanting, feeling the pleasure and feeling discomfort rising and falling in a flaming swirl. This storm rages and you sit unmoved, simply paying attention, and then there is this moment where the fuel of the lust is expended, and you move effortlessly in an instant from burning lust to nibbuti, coolness, release, ease more deeply concentrated and attentive. No thinking, no comment, just direct experience of the play of one's nama/rupa process. Afterwards you can talk about this, put into a context, but it was a direct experience, giving a direct insight into the nature of the nama/rupa, and it such an experience as this that changes one.

It is not something special and it is nothing at all to hang onto, and it is not something that comes by thinking alone. It is such an experience that gives one's contemplative life, meaning, and direction.

tiltbillings wrote:There is a great deal of difference between thinking about anicca and directly, without comment, seeing the rise and fall of the nama/rupa process.

During a meditation retreat, in the meditation hall, the woman four place over and one row down coughs. You recognize that as being her, and an image of her pops into your head, and right along with that image comes a raging, burning lust, a carnal wanting. What do you do? You can think about it, and try the various anti-lust options in the Buddhist contemplative tool box to free oneself from this fire. Or you can simply pay attention without comment to it, seeing the aversion, the wanting, feeling the pleasure and feeling discomfort rising and falling in a flaming swirl. This storm rages and you sit unmoved, simply paying attention, and then there is this moment where the fuel of the lust is expended, and you move effortlessly in an instant from burning lust to nibbuti, coolness, release, ease more deeply concentrated and attentive. No thinking, no comment, just direct experience of the play of one's nama/rupa process. Afterwards you can talk about this, put into a context, but it was a direct experience, giving a direct insight into the nature of the nama/rupa, and it such an experience as this that changes one.

It is not something special and it is nothing at all to hang onto, and it is not something that comes by thinking alone. It is such an experience that gives one's contemplative life, meaning, and direction.

In the scenario you have described there is constant mental activity, which is constantly being bought in to. This is no more direct experience than any other activity it has just been rarefied.

Mr Man wrote:
In the scenario you have described there is constant mental activity, which is constantly being bought in to. This is no more direct experience than any other activity it has just been rarefied.

In the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the cognized just the cognized. I don't know what you are talking about.

tiltbillings wrote:

Mr Man wrote:
In the scenario you have described there is constant mental activity, which is constantly being bought in to. This is no more direct experience than any other activity it has just been rarefied.

In the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the cognized just the cognized. I don't what you are talking about.

Yes, but in your retreat description you were taken away from that.

Mr Man wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:

Mr Man wrote:
In the scenario you have described there is constant mental activity, which is constantly being bought in to. This is no more direct experience than any other activity it has just been rarefied.

In the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the cognized just the cognized. I don't what you are talking about.

Yes, but in your retreat description you were taken away from that.

I was? Not at all.

Mr Man wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:

Mr Man wrote:
In the scenario you have described there is constant mental activity, which is constantly being bought in to. This is no more direct experience than any other activity it has just been rarefied.

In the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the cognized just the cognized. I don't what you are talking about.

Yes, but in your retreat description you were taken away from that.

Taken away from what? The post was about about observing what arises.


Mike

mikenz66 wrote: Taken away from what? The post was about about observing what arises.

I think he got confused by an after the fact description.

mikenz66 wrote: from what? The post was about about observing what arises.


Mike

Taken away from: "In the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the cognized just the cognized".

In the seen is just the seen there is no arises and no passes away.

Where neither water nor yet earth
Nor fire nor air gain a foothold,
There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light,
There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns.

When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this
For himself through his own wisdom,
Then he is freed from form and formless.
Freed from pleasure and from pain.
Ud 1.10

Mr Man wrote:

mikenz66 wrote: from what? The post was about about observing what arises.


Mike

Taken away from: "In the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the cognized just the cognized".

I don't get your point. He heard, he cognized...

Do you think that that sutta is talking about turning into a vegetable?


Mike

mikenz66 wrote:

Mr Man wrote:

mikenz66 wrote: from what? The post was about about observing what arises.


Mike

Taken away from: "In the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the cognized just the cognized".

I don't get your point. He heard, he cognized...

Do you think that that sutta is talking about turning into a vegetable?


Mike

No. vegetables do not see.

Mr Man wrote:

mikenz66 wrote: from what? The post was about about observing what arises.


Mike

Taken away from: "In the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the cognized just the cognized".

Sadly, you snipe, but you make no actual argument for your criticism. I am keenly interested in reading any criticism, but as of yet you offer nothing of substance. Quite frankly, I don't think you understand what was actually said, and that may be my fault for not being clearer in my description, but then descriptions such I offered are always after the fact, what was experienced was "In the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the cognized just the cognized."

In the seen is just the seen there is no arises and no passes away.

Where neither water nor yet earth
Nor fire nor air gain a foothold,
There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light,
There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns.

When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this
For himself through his own wisdom,
Then he is freed from form and formless.
Freed from pleasure and from pain.
Ud 1.10

I see your problem, which is that "In the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the cognized just the cognized," is not just talking about the experience of nibbana; it is talking about the path that leads to nibbana, the way one should train oneself: "Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya." When the training is complete, awakening.

"Then, Malunkyaputta, with regard to phenomena to be seen, heard, sensed, or cognized: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Malunkyaputta, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress. S iv 72 CDB ii 1175.

In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. It is a way of training that leads to awakening, and most importantly here, finding its completion in awakening: "When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen . . . then, Malunkyaputta, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.

The argument for my criticism was made earlier: I think the brain is creating the conclusions and that the close attention method is not different to any other way of understanding causality. That we need to acknowledge that and keep going. I think the notion that we can become very still and then somehow observe things as they "really" happening is suspect (and that if we repeat this action often enough we will eventually have a liberating insight). I think that we should avoid giving transformative value to particular experiences.

and

Not at all. What I'm saying is that if we believe we are observing "this arising because of that" or "if we believe we are observing arising and passing away" that is just more movement of the mind and we should not buy into it. We should know it as such and continue. (This in my opinion is the spirit of the teaching to Bahiya)

But I have taken things way off the original topic here. Sorry