Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Hi miendzai,

meindzai wrote:Kevin - first of all you are a very patient person with folks such as me (and Retro ) and I enjoy our discussions. You absolutely get points for khanti parami.

Thanks.

Meindzai wrote: Well, sati also means memory. For me it's remembering, or "keeping something in mind." Such as when the Buddha exhorts us to be mindful of the body:

Absolutely. That is a more conventional use of the term. That is fine. But the distinction should also be understood, I feel, in order to dispel confusion.

Meindzai wrote:
Kind of amused that, out of your reverence for anatta, you tend to phrase things in passive voice, ie. "dhamma is heard and attention is payed to it wisely." Because you're trying to avoid saying "If we listen to dhamma and pay it wise attention." I get the sentiment, but to me there is still an element of intention present. We still have to listen, and we still have to pay wise attention. Until we are at least stream entrants, and even up until Arahantship, it is impossible to do anything - whether it's listen to dhamma or practice meditation, without some element of self view present.

-M

If it is simply self-view and dosa (towards suffering) that motivate us to study and understand dhamma, then more self-view and dosa are conditioned, and not wisdom at that time. Panna, the cetasika of wisdom, however, can motivate us to study. In that case panna would understand the drawbacks of seeing things as seen and become inquisitive about how things really are. This conditions panna to arise again later (and panna arising more leads to satipatthana, and subsequently the stages of insight, and eventually to the mind turning away from conditioned dhammas and instead taking the unconditioned dhamma, namely nibbana, as it's object). Studying dhamma does not have to be motivated with self-view. Self-view doesn't arise with every citta.

The mind is very complex. What is important to understand is conditionality. Defilements have fuel. When their fuel is removed, the candle can be put out.

All the best.

Kevin

Hello Meindzai, all,

meindzai wrote: Kind of amused that, out of your reverence for anatta, you tend to phrase things in passive voice, ie. "dhamma is heard and attention is payed to it wisely." Because you're trying to avoid saying "If we listen to dhamma and pay it wise attention." I get the sentiment, but to me there is still an element of intention present. We still have to listen, and we still have to pay wise attention. Until we are at least stream entrants, and even up until Arahantship, it is impossible to do anything - whether it's listen to dhamma or practice meditation, without some element of self view present.
-M

I too sometimes say that "just like practice can be done with wrong views, so can study (or anything) be done with wrong views ".


The possible position of KS-like teaching, with some of my ideas/insights, may go something like this. Whenever thought (of distraction, un-mindfulness, good or bad) arises it doesn't arise due to any Self, and whenever some thoughts/intentions do not arise, it was also not held in check by any Self. Mindfulness or concentration or path doesn't arise because it was controlled by Self (that doesn't exist), it arises due to causes and conditions. Maybe through PROPER study and contemplation wisdom grows and through that sati, samādhi, the path, etc will arise - all by itself and in due time. Maybe in this way there is less of self view (lets be mindful, concentrated, whatever) implied.


Having bare attention is very iffy thing as 4 perversions may be present in most/all cases of trying to be mindful. In D.O the avijja structurally underlies namarupa, so when one observes "mind&matter with mind", ignorance can already underly that act of observation and that which is observed. One is observing with perversions what has originated due to ignorance, kamma, craving and other factors.

(ignorance or craving or kamma or nutriment or birth) -> Materiality (rūpa)
(ignorance or craving or kamma or contact or birth ) -> Mentality (vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra).
(ignorance or craving or kamma or Mentality or birth) -> consciousness (viññāṇa)
- Ptsm 55

ignorance contact -> feeling -> craving -> intentional construction [of wrong views, uncertainty]
SN22.81

According to AN 4.49 there are "four perversions (vipallāsā) of perception (saññā), perversions of mind (citta), perversions of view (diṭṭhi)" so there is no gurantee that in "bare" observation what one does and looks at isn't already twisted by the perversions of perception, mind and view. So it is like a person wearing pink glasses, no matter where s/he looks with "bare attention", everything looks pink.

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;


IMHO,


With metta,

Alex

Greetings Virgo,

Virgo wrote:The classifications are for those of duller wit such as ourselves.

Is that a classical or modern view?

Virgo wrote:For example, someone with highly developed panna will understand while meditating when there is kusala leading to calm and where there is lobha. Most of the time, people who meditate these days have lots of lobha during meditation, thus you hear so many stories of the mind not settling down. Lobha and dosa don't aid samatha, yet quite often, because of accumulated lobha, tanha, and self-view, we take lobha as an aid in meditation. In reality, it works against samatha. This is just one example.

I'm confused as to why if it's for relative dullards, it's so gosh darn complicated - i.e. 52 cetasikas, versus the smaller lists found in the suttas e.g. 3 unwholesome roots, 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases, 5 aspects of nāma, 5 hindrances.

...self-view is so deeply rooted, we tend to think there is a decision making doer inside actions, even though the Buddha taught abhidhamma and constantly said in the suttas things like, "form is not-self, perception, intention, is not-self", "these things should be understood as not mine, not my own", etc.

Nice use of lower case abhidhamma.

I'm inclined to see the false perception of self as attributable to the presence of ignorance (avijja), rather than the absence of cetasika classifications.

When we understand deeper aspects of Abhidhamma such as conditionality such as brought out in the seventh book of Abhidhamma, the Book of Conditioned Relations, we can understand better what actions lead to untanglement from the fetters, and which actions lead to entanglement. Things are so subtle and each citta influences the next. Subtle reaffirmation of self-view conditions it in the citta again and again even when we think we are walking the path.

It is all about refining ones view. Right View is what is needed. This helps us refine our Right View.

I hope this helps.

It helps to show that the application of the Abhidhamma Pitaka and associated commentaries is the same as the application of (lower case) abhidhamma in the suttas... they're just different ways to cut and dice the constituent factors of experiential existence.

If you think that conclusion is erroneous, feel free to state why.

Metta,
Retro.

Hi Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Virgo,

Virgo wrote:The classifications are for those of duller wit such as ourselves.

Is that a classical or modern view?

I believe it is classical view based on the fact that it is understood clasically that the stronger the accumulation of wisdom, the less teaching needed in order to penetrate. Abhidhamma is a teaching with many details. It is simply not necessary for some people (those with mega-wisdom like some of the Buddhas disciples).

Retrofuturist wrote: I'm confused as to why if it's for relative dullards, it's so gosh darn complicated - i.e. 52 cetasikas, versus the smaller lists found in the suttas e.g. 3 unwholesome roots, 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases, 5 aspects of nāma, 5 hindrances.

Hi Retro. The reason is that the less wisdom we have, the more detailed explanation we need in order to understand it.

Nice use of lower case abhidhamma. 8-

:p Thanks.

I'm inclined to see the false perception of self as attributable to the presence of ignorance (avijja), rather than the absence of cetasika classifications.

After the explanation about cetasikas, panna can understand about them. Panna is amoha or goes against moha, delusion. Of course, moha, or delusion, is synonymous with avijja, or ignorance.

When we understand deeper aspects of Abhidhamma such as conditionality such as brought out in the seventh book of Abhidhamma, the Book of Conditioned Relations, we can understand better what actions lead to untanglement from the fetters, and which actions lead to entanglement. Things are so subtle and each citta influences the next. Subtle reaffirmation of self-view conditions it in the citta again and again even when we think we are walking the path.

It is all about refining ones view. Right View is what is needed. This helps us refine our Right View.

I hope this helps.[/quote]

It helps to show that the application of the Abhidhamma Pitaka and associated commentaries is the same as the application of (lower case) abhidhamma in the suttas... they're just different ways to cut and dice the constituent factors of experiential existence.

If you think that conclusion is erroneous, feel free to state why.

Metta,
Retro.

I think all abhidhamma is for the purpose of dispelling ignorance.

K

Hi Kevin

Virgo wrote:Hi Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Virgo,

Virgo wrote:The classifications are for those of duller wit such as ourselves.

Is that a classical or modern view?

I believe it is classical view based on the fact that it is understood clasically that the stronger the accumulation of wisdom, the less teaching needed in order to penetrate. Abhidhamma is a teaching with many details. It is simply not necessary for some people (those with mega-wisdom like some of the Buddhas disciples).

You need to support this and other statements with references and/or material from the ancient literature or from latter-day scholars who are representative of the Classical POV as per the special rules for the Classical Theravada sub-forum.
kind regards

Ben

Hi Ben.

You wrote:

Hi Kevin

Virgo wrote:The classifications are for those of duller wit such as ourselves.

Retro wrote:Is that a classical or modern view?

virgo wrote:I believe it is classical view based on the fact that it is understood clasically that the stronger the accumulation of wisdom, the less teaching needed in order to penetrate. Abhidhamma is a teaching with many details. It is simply not necessary for some people (those with mega-wisdom like some of the Buddhas disciples).

Ben: You need to support this and other statements with references and/or material from the ancient literature or from latter-day scholars who are representative of the Classical POV as per the special rules for the Classical Theravada sub-forum.
kind regards

Ben

Kevin: Hi Ben.

Here is an old post from Robert2K:

"We see the differences in beings also explained in the suttas

Anguttara nikaya, Book of 4s, X1V, iii(133) Quick-Witted (PTS) wrote:
"Monks, these four persons are found existing in the world. What four?

He who learns by taking hints [uggha.tita~n~nu= (brief-learner)= sankhepa~n~nu]: he who learns by full details [vipa~ncit~n~nu (diffuse-learner)= vitthaarita~n~nu]: he who has to be led on (by instruction)[neyyo=netabba]: he who has just the word (of the text) at most [padaparamo=vya~njana- padam eva parama.n assa, one who learns by heart, is word-perfect but without understanding it]. These are the four."

At this time (acording to the texts) there are only padaparama and neyya. The extremely wise types with high accumulations of parami called Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu are now extinct. Padaparama cannot attain in this life, although they can in future lives.. We, at this time, - so the Theravada commentaries say- are either padaparama or neyya and we need many details so we have to study and consider a great deal as a condition for understanding. From Ledi sayadaw
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/individu.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ledi sayadaw wrote:.""(1) A Ugghatitannu : an individual whoｷ encounters a Buddha in person, and who is capable of attaining the Holy Paths and the Holy Fruits through the mere hearing of a short concise discourse.

(2) A Vipancitannu: an individual who ｷ encounters a Buddha in person, but ｷ who is capable of attaining the Paths and the Fruits only when the short discourse is expounded to him at some length.

At the present day, only the following Neyya and Padaparama classes of individuals remain.

(3) A Neyya : an individual who needs ｷ to study the sermon and the exposition, and then ｷ to practise the provisions contained therein for 7 days to 60 years, to attain the Paths and the Fruits during this lifetime if he tries hard with guidance from the right teacher.

(4) A Padaparama : is an individual who cannot attain the Paths and the Fruits within this lifetime can attain release from worldly ills in his next existence if he dies while practising samatha or vipassana and attains rebirth either as a human being or a deva within the present Buddha Sasana. "" --

Robert"
----

K

Thanks

B

Ben wrote:Thanks

B

No problem.

Thanks Ben.

Kevin