watching rise and fall

[Sylvester]

If you're reading Ven T's translation, chuck it. He translates the no intention passage as if it pertains only to the Base of Nothingness. The Pali has the pronoun and verb in the plural (ie it pertains to all the attainments) while Ven T renders them incorrectly into the singular. The Chinese parallel also has a rendering of Tassa saññagge ṭhitassa evaṃ hoti that shows a post attainment thought, in line with the Pali idiom tassa evam hoti by treating the phrase as "regarding that station".

Does that make sense?

[mikenz66]

Hi Sylvester,

Thanks for the useful post on mindfulness, jhana, etc.

Can you tell us where the passage is in DN9 that you are referring to. Paste the Thanissaro translation and/or give us the paragraph number in the Walshe translation?


Mike

[dhammarelax]

If you're reading Ven T's translation, chuck it. He translates the no intention passage as if it pertains only to the Base of Nothingness. The Pali has the pronoun and verb in the plural (ie it pertains to all the attainments) while Ven T renders them incorrectly into the singular. The Chinese parallel also has a rendering of Tassa saññagge ṭhitassa evaṃ hoti that shows a post attainment thought, in line with the Pali idiom tassa evam hoti by treating the phrase as "regarding that station".

Does that make sense?

That is the translation I have at hand, I assume the passage is ""And then, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, [thinking,] 'There is nothing,' enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. His earlier perception of a refined truth of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness ceases, and on that occasion there is a perception of a refined truth of the dimension of nothingness. On that occasion he is one who is percipient of a refined truth of the dimension of nothingness. And thus it is that with training one perception arises and with training another perception ceases." but this is not mentioning intention.

Another passage might be ""Now, when the monk is percipient of himself here, then from there to there, step by step, he touches the peak of perception. As he remains at the peak of perception, the thought occurs to him, 'Thinking is bad for me. Not thinking is better for me. If I were to think and will, this perception of mine would cease, and a grosser perception would appear. What if I were neither to think nor to will?' [3] So he neither thinks nor wills, and as he is neither thinking nor willing, that perception ceases [4] and another, grosser perception does not appear. He touches cessation. This, Potthapada, is how there is the alert [5] step-by step attainment of the ultimate cessation of perception." although this passage does mention will it refers to the cessation of perception, I am afraid I am at a loss but please dont spend much time time on this for my sake.

smile all the time
dhammarelax

[dhammarelax]

Hi All

A number of times I have seen a preference to use Right Effort instead of the four noble truths, I say this because to me they seem to be identical, if anyone could help me understand if there is substantial practical difference between them I would be grateful.

So far I can only think that they are identical but complement each other in a loop making the four noble truths an "algorithm" that repeats its self until suffering is eliminated, I say this because right effort is part of the noble eightfold path which is the four noble truth with off course is part of the four noble truths. Is this correct?

Smile all the time
dhammarelax

[daverupa]

Another passage might be...

Right; here is a link. The "here" refers to all the preceding states, relating the cessation of will in various stages to the cessation of grosser perceptions & the arising of subtler ones.

While I'm back in the old MN & DN, I noticed MN 19 in this connection of bare attention, effort, and so forth, and it occurs to me to point out that the cowherd there engages various levels of energy, each one appropriate to the environment:

Just as in the last month of the rainy season, in the autumn, when the crops thicken, a cowherd would guard his cows by constantly tapping and poking them on this side and that with a stick to check and curb them. Why is that? Because he sees that he could be flogged, imprisoned, fined, or blamed if he let them stray into the crops. So too I saw in unwholesome states danger, degradation, and defilement, and in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing.

Just as in the last month of the hot season, when all the crops have been brought inside the villages, a cowherd would guard his cows while staying at the root of a tree or out in the open, since he needs only to be mindful that the cows are there; so too, there was need for me only to be mindful that those [wholesome] states were there.

Maybe the second case is closer to a case of bare attention while the first case is more of an ardent attending-to. So there's a way that right effort shifts based on what sort of cow one is dealing with & the season, as it were; guarding the sense gates means certain cows are showing up in a given season, while seated satipatthana means other cows are showing up in another season.

Each cow+season calls for its own balanced expenditure of effort (& the other four spiritual faculties, in fact).

[Sylvester]

Can you tell us where the passage is in DN9 that you are referring to. Paste the Thanissaro translation and/or give us the paragraph number in the Walshe translation?

Apologies for the hasty job on my phone last night. Mobile devices are the new kāmaguṇā.

The text in question is this declaration by the Buddha -

Yato kho, poṭṭhapāda, bhikkhu idha sakasaññī hoti, so tato amutra tato amutra anupubbena saññaggaṃ phusati. Tassa saññagge ṭhitassa evaṃ hoti: ‘cetayamānassa me pāpiyo, acetayamānassa me seyyo. Ahañceva kho pana ceteyyaṃ, abhi­saṅ­kha­reyyaṃ, imā ca me saññā nirujjheyyuṃ, aññā ca oḷārikā saññā uppajjeyyuṃ; yannūnāhaṃ na ceva ceteyyaṃ na ca abhi­saṅ­kha­reyyan’ti. So na ceva ceteti, na ca abhisaṅkharoti. Tassa acetayato anabhi­saṅ­kha­roto tā ceva saññā nirujjhanti, aññā ca oḷārikā saññā na uppajjanti. So nirodhaṃ phusati. Evaṃ kho, poṭṭhapāda, anu­pubbā­bhisañ­ñāni­rodha­sam­pajā­na­samā­patti hoti.

Now, when the monk is percipient of himself here, then from there to there, step by step, he touches the peak of perception. As he remains at the peak of perception, the thought occurs to him, ‘Thinking is bad for me. Not thinking is better for me. If I were to think and will, this perception of mine would cease, and a grosser perception would appear. What if I were neither to think nor to will?’ So he neither thinks nor wills, and as he is neither thinking nor willing, that perception ceases and another, grosser perception does not appear. He touches cessation. This, Potthapada, is how there is the alert step-by step attainment of the ultimate cessation of perception.

Hope I didn't mess up the colour scheme, but it's just to show how the Pali was mistranslated. It should read -

Now, when the monk is percipient of himself here, then from there to there, step by step, he touches the peak of perception. As he remains at the peak of perception, the thought occurs to him, ‘Thinking is bad for me. Not thinking is better for me. If I were to think and will, these perceptions of mine would cease, and a grosser perception would appear. What if I were neither to think nor to will?’ So he neither thinks nor wills, and as he is neither thinking nor willing, those perceptions cease and another, grosser perception does not appear. He touches cessation. This, Potthapada, is how there is the alert step-by step attainment of the ultimate cessation of perception.

He mistranslated the pronouns referring to the Attainments into the singular (as if it referred only to Base of Nothingness), when they are in the plural, and makes the same error correspondingly with the verb "cease".

[pulga]

Hi Sylvester,

It should read -

Now, when the monk is percipient of himself here, then from there to there, step by step, he touches the peak of perception. As he remains at the peak of perception, the thought occurs to him, ‘Thinking is bad for me. Not thinking is better for me. If I were to think and will, these perceptions of mine would cease, and a grosser perception would appear. What if I were neither to think nor to will?’ So he neither thinks nor wills, and as he is neither thinking nor willing, those perceptions cease and another, grosser perception does not appear. He touches cessation. This, Potthapada, is how there is the alert step-by step attainment of the ultimate cessation of perception.

He mistranslated the pronouns referring to the Attainments into the singular (as if it referred only to Base of Nothingness), when they are in the plural, and makes the same error correspondingly with the verb "cease".

Shouldn't the underlined be in the plural as well?

[Sylvester]

Verily. It shows my blind spot, when I obsess with Ven T's effort to dumb-down the jhanas into noisy chatrooms where one merrily abhi­saṅ­kha­roti away, and miss the re-appearance series.

Thank you very much!

PS - what do you think about the clause "Tassa saññagge ṭhitassa evaṃ hoti"? "Tassa evaṃ hoti" is a stock phrase indicating thought. Should the past participle ṭhita therein be treated as if it were functioning as a verb (cf SN 6.14's reference to brahmaloke ṭhitassa), or should it be tied to the pronoun tassa, thereby reading it as the substantive noun linked to the pronoun (eg SN 12.37's ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ). It seems the latter would then yield -

Of that stationing in the peak of perception, it occurs to him

, which makes more sense than the translation -

as he remain at the peak of perception, the thought occurs to him

that there were thoughts intruding into the Attainment, thereby conflicting with the very message that thinking in the attainments is bad.

[dhammarelax]

Another passage might be...

Right; here is a link. The "here" refers to all the preceding states, relating the cessation of will in various stages to the cessation of grosser perceptions & the arising of subtler ones.

While I'm back in the old MN & DN, I noticed MN 19 in this connection of bare attention, effort, and so forth, and it occurs to me to point out that the cowherd there engages various levels of energy, each one appropriate to the environment:

Just as in the last month of the rainy season, in the autumn, when the crops thicken, a cowherd would guard his cows by constantly tapping and poking them on this side and that with a stick to check and curb them. Why is that? Because he sees that he could be flogged, imprisoned, fined, or blamed if he let them stray into the crops. So too I saw in unwholesome states danger, degradation, and defilement, and in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing.

Just as in the last month of the hot season, when all the crops have been brought inside the villages, a cowherd would guard his cows while staying at the root of a tree or out in the open, since he needs only to be mindful that the cows are there; so too, there was need for me only to be mindful that those [wholesome] states were there.

Maybe the second case is closer to a case of bare attention while the first case is more of an ardent attending-to. So there's a way that right effort shifts based on what sort of cow one is dealing with & the season, as it were; guarding the sense gates means certain cows are showing up in a given season, while seated satipatthana means other cows are showing up in another season.

Each cow+season calls for its own balanced expenditure of effort (& the other four spiritual faculties, in fact).

[pulga]

PS - what do you think about the clause "Tassa saññagge ṭhitassa evaṃ hoti"?

You're more astute to the nuances of Pali grammar than I am, but I'd just read it as a genitive absolute construction of a past participle, hence "while remaining at the limit of perception, it occurs to him thus".

[Sylvester]

Thanks pulga! I did toy with the possibility of the genitive absolute, but I wasn't sure if I could form an absolute with a participle and a pronoun (in this case tassa since that seems to have a life of its own as part of the tassa evaṃ hoti construction).

Hmm, if ṭhitassa is the genitive of a past participle, won't that function in a pluperfect sense, rather than a present continuous (which would technically require a present participle)?

[pulga]

Hmm, if ṭhitassa is the genitive of a past participle, won't that function in a pluperfect sense, rather than a present continuous (which would technically require a present participle)?

There's a passage in the Bhayabheravasutta that indicates that there is no real distinction between whether the absolute construction is of the past or present participle. The tense seems to be determined by the verb of the main sentence.

Tassa mayhaṃ, brāhmaṇa, caṅkamantassa taṃ bhayabheravaṃ āgacchati. So kho ahaṃ, brāhmaṇa, neva tāva tiṭṭhāmi na nisīdāmi na nipajjāmi, yāva caṅkamantova taṃ bhayabheravaṃ paṭivinemi. Tassa mayhaṃ, brāhmaṇa, ṭhitassa taṃ bhayabheravaṃ āgacchati. So kho ahaṃ, brāhmaṇa, neva tāva caṅkamāmi na nisīdāmi na nipajjāmi. Yāva ṭhitova taṃ bhayabheravaṃ paṭivinemi. Tassa mayhaṃ, brāhmaṇa, nisinnassa taṃ bhayabheravaṃ āgacchati. So kho ahaṃ, brāhmaṇa, neva tāva nipajjāmi na tiṭṭhāmi na caṅkamāmi, yāva nisinnova taṃ bhayabheravaṃ paṭivinemi. Tassa mayhaṃ, brāhmaṇa, nipannassa taṃ bhayabheravaṃ āgacchati. So kho ahaṃ, brāhmaṇa, neva tāva nisīdāmi na tiṭṭhāmi na caṅkamāmi, yāva nipannova taṃ bhayabheravaṃ paṭivinemi. MN 4

Ven. Bodhi translates the passage as follows:

“While I walked, the fear and dread came upon me; I neither stood nor sat nor lay down till I had subdued that fear and dread. While I stood, the fear and dread came upon me; I neither walked nor sat nor lay down till I had subdued that fear and dread. While I sat, the fear and dread came upon me; I neither walked nor stood nor lay down till I had subdued that fear and dread. While I lay down, the fear and dread came upon me; I neither walked nor stood nor sat down till I had subdued that fear and dread.