Samma samadhi: Sujin Boriharnwanaket

[retrofuturist]

That's an incredibly complicated way to explain cetana, imo.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

I will try to answer it like this. We make "choices" all the time. So, conventionally, yes there are choices... however, there is not a doer or a person to be found.

You were, then, wrong to say there was no choice. So, we can do what is necessary for the cultivation of insight by the choices we make, such as practicing meditation.

Therefore no doer makes "choices". . . . and so on.

All very nice, and it is good to see that you agree that we do make choices which can lead to awakening. We can try to impersonalize it by this complicated Abdhidhamma language, but the reality is that we use, more than anything else, conventional language, which is the basis of how we see and interact with the world. The teachings of the Buddha as found in the suttas, which is not less true than the Abhidhamma, is centered around gaining insight into the very nature of the self that we imagine that we are. The use of the precepts, the cultivation of mindfulness and concentration, such things as giving and compassion all give us a basis for insight into our self.

While an Abhidhamma approach may be sufficient for awakening and uselful for some, it not necessary for awakening. As my signature says: "This being is bound to samsara, karma [choice] is his means for going beyond." - SN I, 38.

[Virgo]

Hi Kevin,

This is the book you claim your teachers represent. Read it and see if it is so.

It's a little pointless to keep telling people to study texts that they have already, and have already offered explanations to your objections. Clearly you understand these texts, and the teachings of a number of teachers over the past century or so, in a different way from many (most?) others.

I'm a little confused about your current arguments. I understand (but don't accept) the standard Khun Sujin students' view about development not being possible and that the texts don't contain "instructions". But from your posts here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; you seem to have dropped that view, so it's no longer clear to me what exactly your objections are. They now seem to to with subtle differences over how one interprets the instructions.

Mike

If they have read them, they should understand each individual aggregate and how each of them should be regarded. Each aggregate should be regarded in a specific way according to Vsm. It never says one should focus on hearing as it arises, or any other object when developing wisdom. It says hearing should be understood and regarded in a certain way. Essentially Vsm details the development of wisdom first by saying that there is no specific meditation method that can cause the vipassana insight knowledges to arise; however, that one should understand certain things intellectually while having sila and samadhi to help condition higher wisdom (and that the higher wisdom will only happen if the accumulations are there). First it describes understanding the aggregates. It details each aggregate so you understand them each in a detailed way and shows how each aggregate should be regarded differently by the person (each in its own certain specific way). After one does that then it explains that then one should understand by way of sense bases and says precisely how one should accomplish this. And so on, eventually ending in Dependent Origination. Again it says there is no technique to bring about wisdom but that one should clarify about these things and view and understand them correctly, which refines conceptual wisdom. It is clearly about understanding and regarding things in a certain way, intellectually (and the same goes for the Commy to the Satipatthana Sutta which I have asked people to take a closer look at too). It says one should do this while having sila and having a samattha subject of meditation. It says that concentration from samattha can be a helping support for wisdom.

My view is more in line with the Vsm now, I feel. I still think, as per the Vsm, that one can't cause wisdom on a deep level to come up, but that one can develop Right Understanding on the conceptual level about dhammas to help condition wisdom (in the way the Vsm teaches). Again, this helps but it also depends on accumulations from doing this in past lives. That is why one person attains nibbana a week after hearing the dhamma and one attains after 70 years, even though they both hear the same dhamma. This is not much different from how Khun Sujin teaches the development of wisdom, Mike. She does tell people that they should hear dhamma, listen to it, discuss it, and try to understand it conceptually as much as possible. Also, that people should try and think in terms of mental states, and urges people to also learn details about dhammas. The Vsm. is very much the same, except it shows one should learn about the aggregates first. That one should learn them one at a time and review them. One should know how to regard each aggregate in its own way. Then it says one should do so by Sense bases.. then this way.. then another way, and so on, reviewing. In that regard it is very similar but a bit different to how Khun Sujin teaches. I mean she teaches about the same aggregates and so on. It also says though, that one should intentionally practice sila and samattha, wether you reach jhana or not. It states that this can help condition wisdom. Sujin disagrees that these two things (sila and samattha) can be intentionally developed . She takes the approach that if they arise they arise, if they don't they don't, by conditions. I think she takes the part about not being able to cause higher wisdom to arise too far and thinks that it means that one cannot cause the wisdom that naturally refrains from sila to arise, so that one should not practice sila and so on (same for samattha). This is as far as I understand. Please forgive any mistakes. Have a nice day.

Kevin

[tiltbillings]

That's an incredibly complicated way to explain cetana, imo.

Metta,
Retro.

There was a posting a few minutes ago in response to your comment that was deleted almost as soon as it was posted. It said simply: Devil's in the details. No truer words spoken.

[tiltbillings]

Sujin disagrees that these two things (sila and samattha) can be intentionally developed.

Of course they can be developed, which is the purpose of the precepts and the choice to cultivate them, and it is so of concentration. If one does not do anything, sila and calm will never arise.

She takes the approach that if they arise they arise, if they don't they don't, by conditions. I think she takes the part about not being able to cause higher wisdom to arise too far and thinks that it means that one cannot cause the wisdom that naturally refrains from sila to arise, so that one should not practice sila and so on (same for samattha). This is as far as I understand. Please forgive any mistakes. Have a nice day.

Kevin

Nice to see that you disagree with your teacher, assuming that you are portraying her position accurately. The bottom line is that the Buddha's teachings are about the choices we have in bringing to an end to our dukkha.

[Virgo]

That's an incredibly complicated way to explain cetana, imo.

Metta,
Retro.

There was a posting a few minutes ago in response to your comment that was deleted almost as soon as it was posted. It said simply: Devil's in the details. No truer words spoken.

Yeah I was going to post it again. It's true Retro... it is all just cetana, which is not-self. I agree fully. That is a good explanation indeed.

Nevertheless, I tried to explain it using some details since everybody was asking me about it. I hope I did OK.

[tiltbillings]

That's an incredibly complicated way to explain cetana, imo.

Metta,
Retro.

There was a posting a few minutes ago in response to your comment that was deleted almost as soon as it was posted. It said simply: Devil's in the details. No truer words spoken.

Yeah I was going to post it again. It's true Retro... it is all just cetana, which is not-self. I agree fully. That is a good explanation indeed.

Nevertheless, I tried to explain it using some details since everybody was asking me about it. I hope I did OK.

Devil's in the details is probably not the expressioon you would want to use, though I think it is appropriate:

The slang term “the devil is in the details” has a number of different senses. All of the meanings for the term boil down to the fact that it is often the small details of something which make it difficult or challenging. These details can prolong a task, or foil an otherwise straightforward dealing. Like many proverbs which involve the devil, it is meant to sound a note of caution. It may also be used to excuse or explain the obfuscation of an otherwise very simple project or task. - http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-the-d ... s-mean.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Virgo]

Sujin disagrees that these two things (sila and samattha) can be intentionally developed.

Of course they can be developed, which is the purpose of the precepts and the choice to cultivate them, and it is so of concentration. If one does not do anything, sila and calm will never arise.

I agree.

She takes the approach that if they arise they arise, if they don't they don't, by conditions. I think she takes the part about not being able to cause higher wisdom to arise too far and thinks that it means that one cannot cause the wisdom that naturally refrains from sila to arise, so that one should not practice sila and so on (same for samattha). This is as far as I understand. Please forgive any mistakes. Have a nice day.

Nice to see that you disagree with your teacher, assuming that you are portraying her position accurately. The bottom line is that the Buddha's teachings are about the choices we have in bringing to an end to our dukkha.

*Intentionally* should have been added. As in: "I think she takes the part about not being able to cause higher wisdom to arise too far and thinks that it means that one cannot cause the wisdom that naturally refrains from sila to arise, so that one should not practice sila *intentionally* and so on.

I think I have the part about sila right. I stuided with Ajahn for months in Bkk. Every weekend I went to the center for the two hour (or longer) talk. On weekdays I got coffee with Robert, Ivan, and others and discussed Dhamma. I know that I have the part about samattha right. Ajahn feels that samattha cannot be intentionally developed, that only people with very high accumulations can develop it and that it sort of naturally arises or happens for them.

I think we can practice sila and samattha. I also think we can contemplate things the way they are said to be contemplated in the Visuddhimagga. I think all this is a support for the insight knowledges and nibbana to arise, however, I think that without accumulation of Parami developed prior, it just won't arise. Some people heard the dhamma and penetrated, others had to practice for months or years before they did-- accumulations.

All the best,

Kevin

[Virgo]

Devil's in the details is probably not the expressioon you would want to use, though I think it is appropriate:

The slang term “the devil is in the details” has a number of different senses. All of the meanings for the term boil down to the fact that it is often the small details of something which make it difficult or challenging. These details can prolong a task, or foil an otherwise straightforward dealing. Like many proverbs which involve the devil, it is meant to sound a note of caution. It may also be used to excuse or explain the obfuscation of an otherwise very simple project or task. - http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-the-d ... s-mean.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks Tilt. I used the term so that I could take a crack at myself..

Kevin

[tiltbillings]

I think we can practice sila and samattha. I also think we can contemplate things the way they are said to be contemplated in the Visuddhimagga. I think all this is a support for the insight knowledges and nibbana to arise, however, I think that without accumulation of Parami developed prior, it just won't arise. Some people heard the dhamma and penetrated, others had to practice for months or years before they did-- accumulations.

Well, yeah. And if we do not choose to do something, nothing will happen. That is just basic Dhamma.

What I do not understand is your gripe against the Mahasi Sayadaw method and your nastiness towards Mahasi Sayadaw himself. His teaching is not saying anything different from what I have just quoted you as saying.

[Virgo]

I think we can practice sila and samattha. I also think we can contemplate things the way they are said to be contemplated in the Visuddhimagga. I think all this is a support for the insight knowledges and nibbana to arise, however, I think that without accumulation of Parami developed prior, it just won't arise. Some people heard the dhamma and penetrated, others had to practice for months or years before they did-- accumulations.

Well, yeah. And if we do not choose to do something, nothing will happen. That is just basic Dhamma.

What I do not understand is your gripe against the Mahasi Sayadaw method and your nastiness towards Mahasi Sayadaw himself. His teaching is not saying anything different from what I have just quoted you as saying.

It sure is Tilt. I refer you to my post above: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... =40#p80293

Kevin

[tiltbillings]

I think we can practice sila and samattha. I also think we can contemplate things the way they are said to be contemplated in the Visuddhimagga. I think all this is a support for the insight knowledges and nibbana to arise, however, I think that without accumulation of Parami developed prior, it just won't arise. Some people heard the dhamma and penetrated, others had to practice for months or years before they did-- accumulations.

Well, yeah. And if we do not choose to do something, nothing will happen. That is just basic Dhamma.

What I do not understand is your gripe against the Mahasi Sayadaw method and your nastiness towards Mahasi Sayadaw himself. His teaching is not saying anything different from what I have just quoted you as saying.

It sure is Tilt. I refer you to my post above: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... =40#p80293

Kevin

I see what you are getting at here, but you, as usual, mischaracterize the Mahasi Sayadaw teachings. I find nothing in what you say against Mahasi Sayadaw convincing or even remotely reflecting his position accurately, as has been pointed out to you here by me and Mike repeatedly in detail.

[Virgo]

Well, yeah. And if we do not choose to do something, nothing will happen. That is just basic Dhamma.

What I do not understand is your gripe against the Mahasi Sayadaw method and your nastiness towards Mahasi Sayadaw himself. His teaching is not saying anything different from what I have just quoted you as saying.

It sure is Tilt. I refer you to my post above: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... =40#p80293

Kevin

I see what you are getting at here, but you, as usual, mischaracterize the Mahasi Sayadaw teachings. I find nothing in what you say against Mahasi Sayadaw convincing or even remotely reflecting his position accurately, as has been pointed out to you here by me and Mike repeatedly in detail.

I have written the reply post here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 330#p80330" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kevin

[tiltbillings]

. . .

I don't think you really know what "bare attention" means. First of all it is not a term used by Mahasi Sayadaw. It was coined by Ven Nyanaponika and he carefully defines it in his book HEART OF BUDDHIST MEDITATION, and Ven Bodhi defines it here: http://shamatha.org/sites/default/files ... ndence.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course it is not going to be found in the commentary, but that does not mean that what is encompassed by the word is not an appropriate practice in terms of the Satipatthana Sutta. It is because it works. The labelling business has been dealt with at length, but you do not respond to either Mike's comments or my comments about it. Rather, you hold to a rather rigid notion that if it not spelled out in detail in a commentary then it is no good whatsoever. But never mind that the Satipatthana Sutta itself is worded in such a way that "labelling" could be easily derived from it. And then you continue to insist that the Mahasi Sayadaw practice tries to force insight by forcing attention upon an object, ignoring Mike's and my statements to the contrary, neither having ever been taught that way.

As Sujin admirers always says, understanding on the conceptual level, can lead to understanding on the experiential level naturally.

Maybe, but a conceptual level augmented by a carefully done practice such as taught by U Ba Khin and Mahasi Sayadaw will give a deeper experiential basis to the conceptual level, but the conceptual level only goes so far. it is with a direct seeing of the rise and fall of that which we experience, that which makes up our very mind/body process that insight arises. The Buddha was quite clear about 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." Ud 37 (4.1)

And here as well: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; These texts point to a type practice goes beyond the conceptual level, the sort of practice as outlined by U Ba Kin and Mahasi Sayadaw.

[Alex123]

Hello Kevin,

*Intentionally* should have been added. As in: "I think she takes the part about not being able to cause higher wisdom to arise too far and thinks that it means that one cannot cause the wisdom that naturally refrains from sila to arise, so that one should not practice sila *intentionally* and so on.

Without intention one cannot move a finger, nothing to say about doing good kamma and setting up conditions for panna. Any thought is the result of some form of intention, current or previous, wholesome, unwholesome or functional.


I fully agree that everything is conditioned. True. But this doesn't mean that actions, choices and intentions do not occur. They do. I am going to propose a
revolutionary idea that one of the causes for something to occur is the intention and decision to do it NOW.

I understand that one shouldn't have wrong views. But intention does NOT require views, much less wrong ones (though it is possible to do anything, including reading Dhamma books with wrong views).


What my concern is that phrases such as "nothing can be done", "there is no use trying to force kusala" may turn into self fulfilling prophecy or a condition that will make it hard to do more kusala. It also seems to border on the verge of denying the efficacy of actions.

With best wishes,

Alex