If by "meditate properly" you mean accessing the jhanas then I'd agree.ignobleone wrote: The point is, you cannot meditate properly if one or more of the five hindrances exist.
Spiny
If by "meditate properly" you mean accessing the jhanas then I'd agree.ignobleone wrote: The point is, you cannot meditate properly if one or more of the five hindrances exist.
I did read on and read that what you said, is the case for Jhana, like the previous poster said. Do you define "meditation" as only "Jhana"? If yes, then is Anapanasati also not "meditation"? Does one need to already have abandoned all the hindrances in order to practice Anapanasati? Most people would consider Anapanasati to be "meditation" I would think.ignobleone wrote:Have you read MN 39 thoroughly and completely? I suggest you to read completely every sutta that you want to read, do not read partially. If you still couldn't find it after reading the sutta completely, I will post the passage for you. And if later you're still not satisfied, read AN 5.51.seeker242 wrote:Where do you see the Sutta reference saying this in MN 39? What I see in MN 39 is this and it seems to me to be opposite of what you are saying.ignobleone wrote: - MN 39 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It then goes on to say:Abandoning the hindrances
"And what more is to be done? There is the case where a monk seeks out a secluded dwelling: a forest, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a jungle grove, the open air, a heap of straw. After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore.
Taken in context, all this is happening as he is sitting there with his legs crossed and body erect. If that not meditation?"Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will and anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will and anger. Abandoning sloth and drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth and drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth and drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness and anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness and anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty.
And btw, the two passages you quoted describe the instruction to remove hindrances with samma-sati (suggested by "brings mindfulness to the fore") which can be done in sitting posture.
Indeed, seeing the N8P as a strict, linear progression is faulty and ignores the feedback mentioned here:MN 44 wrote:"And are the three aggregates [of virtue, concentration, & discernment] included under the noble eightfold path, lady, or is the noble eightfold path included under the three aggregates?"
"The three aggregates are not included under the noble eightfold path, friend Visakha, but the noble eightfold path is included under the three aggregates. Right speech, right action, & right livelihood come under the aggregate of virtue. Right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration come under the aggregate of concentration. Right view & right resolve come under the aggregate of discernment."
"Now what is concentration, lady, what qualities are its themes, what qualities are its requisites, and what is its development?"
"Singleness of mind is concentration, friend Visakha; the four frames of reference are its themes; the four right exertions are its requisites; and any cultivation, development, & pursuit of these qualities is its development."
The Digha Nikaya allows for an interesting analysis. In DN 4, cited just above, the hindrances are dealt with under the Sila category (corresponding to § 41-74 of DN 2) while the jhana pericopes begin the Panna category (DN 2, § 75-97). Later, DN 8 will bracket these differently, with § 41-63 of DN 2 dealing with the "perfection of sila", § 64-82 with the "perfection of citta", and § 83-98 with the "perfection of wisdom". DN 10, a Sutta by Ananda, is the first in the Digha Nikaya to mention Noble Morality, Noble Concentration, and Noble Wisdom.DN 4 wrote:Wisdom is purified by morality, and morality is purified by wisdom.
If you're unable to provide the valid reference(s) to back your opinion, then it would be legit for me to laugh.marc108 wrote:If we had to abandon the hindrances BEFORE we began to meditate we would all be truly up a creek without a paddle lol
Have you read the suttas carefully and thoroughly? And you simply ignored the supporting sutta such as AN 5.51.danieLion wrote: I was referring to this order in your statement, "...the 5 hindrances need to be abandoned first before meditating." Your imposing a linear-temporal-serial order--"...first before..."--pattern onto the Suttas that the Suttas don't consistently support. Why would the Buddha say, "There is a case where...," if there was only one linear-temporal-serial order that is the case? "There is a case where" implies a multiplicity of cases, including the cases where the hindrances are abandoned/removed/absent during or after samma-sati, samma-samadhi, bahvana, etc.... In fact, the hindrances are simply abandoned whenever they're not present, regardless of whether we 'meditate' or not. For instance, when you're being kind, ill-will is absent. When you wake up refreshed, sloth and torpor are absent. When you do something with confidence, doubt is absent. When you're relaxed, restlessness and anxiety are absent. When your being generous, sensuous desire is absent. The point is to reinforce the skillful/wholesome and extinguish the unskillful/unwholesome in everything you do, not before 'meditation'.
Goodwill
Daniel
This is what I mean with over-interpretation. You interpreted it too far. I'd suggest you to only read, and interpret if and only if it's meaningless or it sounds weird/unconvincing. If it's already clear by itself, there's no point to interpret it further. Over-interpretation will only bring bias, contradict with the original clear statement."There is a case where" implies a multiplicity of cases, including the cases where the hindrances are abandoned/removed/absent during or after samma-sati, samma-samadhi, bahvana, etc....
Those sentences are out-of-context since they're not connected within the scope of the discussion (i.e. before meditating, 5 hindrances need to be abandoned or not). It's the same as if someone ask you: "do you need some money in order to buy something?" and your answer is: "I simply don't have money whenever my wallet is empty".In fact, the hindrances are simply abandoned whenever they're not present, regardless of whether we 'meditate' or not. ..... The point is to reinforce the skillful/wholesome and extinguish the unskillful/unwholesome in everything you do, not before 'meditation'.
1) amounts to equivocating: the difference between "a" and "the" is negligibleignobleone wrote:Have you read the suttas carefully and thoroughly? And you simply ignored the supporting sutta such as AN 5.51.danieLion wrote: I was referring to this order in your statement, "...the 5 hindrances need to be abandoned first before meditating." Your imposing a linear-temporal-serial order--"...first before..."--pattern onto the Suttas that the Suttas don't consistently support. Why would the Buddha say, "There is a case where...," if there was only one linear-temporal-serial order that is the case? "There is a case where" implies a multiplicity of cases, including the cases where the hindrances are abandoned/removed/absent during or after samma-sati, samma-samadhi, bahvana, etc.... In fact, the hindrances are simply abandoned whenever they're not present, regardless of whether we 'meditate' or not. For instance, when you're being kind, ill-will is absent. When you wake up refreshed, sloth and torpor are absent. When you do something with confidence, doubt is absent. When you're relaxed, restlessness and anxiety are absent. When your being generous, sensuous desire is absent. The point is to reinforce the skillful/wholesome and extinguish the unskillful/unwholesome in everything you do, not before 'meditation'.
Goodwill
Daniel
IMO you have some problems: 1) language related problem, 2) over-interpretation, 3) out-of-context examples (caused by logic error). No offense, I'll explain each of them.
1) You are too caught up in the "There is a case where" phrase. Btw, it should be "There is THE case where". It proves you didn't read them carefully. I think "There is a case where" can be replaced by "when", since they have the same meaning in this context. Anyway, the phrase exists in the "Abandoning the hindrances" section only in MN 39, and the case is a monk in sitting posture brings mindfulness to the fore, i.e. there's only one case.
2)This is what I mean with over-interpretation. You interpreted it too far. I'd suggest you to only read, and interpret if and only if it's meaningless or it sounds weird/unconvincing. If it's already clear by itself, there's no point to interpret it further. Over-interpretation will only bring bias, contradict with the original clear statement."There is a case where" implies a multiplicity of cases, including the cases where the hindrances are abandoned/removed/absent during or after samma-sati, samma-samadhi, bahvana, etc....
3)Those sentences are out-of-context since they're not connected within the scope of the discussion (i.e. before meditating, 5 hindrances need to be abandoned or not). It's the same as if someone ask you: "do you need some money in order to buy something?" and your answer is: "I simply don't have money whenever my wallet is empty".In fact, the hindrances are simply abandoned whenever they're not present, regardless of whether we 'meditate' or not. ..... The point is to reinforce the skillful/wholesome and extinguish the unskillful/unwholesome in everything you do, not before 'meditation'.
When you say "abandoning the hindrances", are you thinking of Right Effort, ie abandoning and and preventing unwholesome states? Or are you thinking of the hindrances being abandoned as a result of of meditation and mindfulness?Brizzy wrote:I have argued in the past that 'abandoning the hindrances' IS the practice.
I think you can view anapanasati as a method for temporarily suspending the hindrances, following which one can develop jhana and/or insight. Presumably the permanent abandoning of the hindrances results from Right Mindfulness ( and Right Effort? ).seeker242 wrote: Do you define "meditation" as only "Jhana"? If yes, then is Anapanasati also not "meditation"? Does one need to already have abandoned all the hindrances in order to practice Anapanasati? Most people would consider Anapanasati to be "meditation" I would think.
Not the same but yolked.Spiny O'Norman wrote:When you say "abandoning the hindrances", are you thinking of Right Effort, ie abandoning and and preventing unwholesome states? Or are you thinking of the hindrances being abandoned as a result of of meditation and mindfulness?Brizzy wrote:I have argued in the past that 'abandoning the hindrances' IS the practice.
Or maybe these are the same?
Spiny
Yes, and vice-versa.Brizzy wrote:Right effort and mindfulness are both part of the same practice. I don't believe you can practice right mindfulness without right effort.
Yes.Spiny O'Norman wrote:Yes, and vice-versa.Brizzy wrote:Right effort and mindfulness are both part of the same practice. I don't believe you can practice right mindfulness without right effort.
Spiny