Not-Thinking as a practice

[Alex123]

Bhante,

Thank you for your reply,

If one is a worldling there is no 'how' about it. One cannot not conceive, nor is not conceiving one’s task. Likewise if one is an arahant there is no 'how' about it: having cut off the fetter of māna the arahant does not have to deliberately refrain from conceiving any more than he needs to deliberately abstain from immoral conduct.

Then "how" do you suggest one becomes an Aryan?


With best wishes,

Alex

[Mr Man]

Mr Man
I think that you mean the Dhayna infinity of space. In that state you are thinking about the space.

Hi SarathW,
I guess it would depend on what we understood "think" to be. From the OP I had understood thought to be mental dialogue.

[Cittasanto]

A worldling who believes that the abandoning of māna consists in the deliberate avoidance of thinking and conceiving will be going about things the wrong way. He will probably just end up frustrated, unless he’s a jhāna-wallah and very strongly committed to deliberate abstention from thinking, in which case he may arrive at the impercipient attainment and end up spending a few kalpas in the Brahmā realms as an anthropomorphic block of stone.

Hi Ajahn,
Could MN20 The Vitakkasanthana Sutta be dealling with this also?

[Dhammanando]

Then "how" do you suggest one becomes an Aryan?

By arriving at a level of insight knowledge that is adequate to cut off the first three fetters. This is done by developing and making much of the Eightfold Path.

[Alex123]

Bhante,

Then "how" do you suggest one becomes an Aryan?

By arriving at a level of insight knowledge that is adequate to cut off the first three fetters. This is done by developing and making much of the Eightfold Path.

So one practices/develops N8P?

What is wrong with practicing to avoid thinking with greed, anger and delusion? Isn't that part of N8P? Doesn't it help N8P?


With best wishes,

Alex

[Dhammanando]

What is wrong with practicing to avoid thinking with greed, anger and delusion?

Nothing, but that's rather different from the non-thinking tout court that you were advocating earlier.

[Dhammanando]

A worldling who believes that the abandoning of māna consists in the deliberate avoidance of thinking and conceiving will be going about things the wrong way. He will probably just end up frustrated, unless he’s a jhāna-wallah and very strongly committed to deliberate abstention from thinking, in which case he may arrive at the impercipient attainment and end up spending a few kalpas in the Brahmā realms as an anthropomorphic block of stone.

Hi Ajahn,
Could MN20 The Vitakkasanthana Sutta be dealling with this also?

I understand that sutta to be about the overcoming of the five hindrances in samatha-bhāvanā. Both a Buddhist jhāna-wallah and a non-Buddhist yogi striving to become a block of stone via the impercipient attainment (asaññā-samāpatti) would of course need to do this, for the latter attainment, though not at all approved in Buddhist tradition, does require jhānic proficiency as its foundation.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Then "how" do you suggest one becomes an Aryan?

By arriving at a level of insight knowledge that is adequate to cut off the first three fetters. This is done by developing and making much of the Eightfold Path.

Metta,
Retro.

[Cittasanto]

Hi Ajahn,
Could MN20 The Vitakkasanthana Sutta be dealling with this also?

I understand that sutta to be about the overcoming of the five hindrances in samatha-bhāvanā. Both a Buddhist jhāna-wallah and a non-Buddhist yogi striving to become a block of stone via the impercipient attainment (asaññā-samāpatti) would of course need to do this, for the latter attainment, though not at all approved in Buddhist tradition, does require jhānic proficiency as its foundation.

Thank-you Ajahn,
I feel I was unclear by choosing the wrong post you made to quote. I was thinking more about this when the Sutta came to mind

Conceiving (maññati, e.g., "he conceives earth...") is what the worldling does do, what the sekha ought not to do, and what the asekha (arahant) does not do.

I Although applying it to more daily life when we may have thoughts and ideas surrounding something increasing (proliferation) instead of dealing with facts of a situation.
However thing the link I made was incorrect.

[jackson]

Pardon my ignorance and slight derailment of the topic, but could someone explain what a Jhana-Wallah is for those of us who don't know the term? I tried looking it up but had no success.
Thanks

[imagemarie]

Hi Jackson


Well, some people claim that the term is an oxymoron (Ajahn Brahm?). Because to be able to attain the state of jhana, requires some degree of letting go of self proliferating. That jhana is a kind of free-falling which once initiated, leaves little to attach to. Piti, sukkha etc. are seen to arise and pass.

Others claim that the "bliss states", and beyond, can provide a false haven, or temporary refuge where the notional self can choose to hang out.
Hence "jhana wallah".

I think probably the only resolution to this argument is to test it.

Saying that, I did find this book to be worthwhile..

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Experience- ... 999&sr=8-1

[nibbuti]

Well, some people claim that the term is an oxymoron (Ajahn Brahm?). Because to be able to attain the state of jhana, requires some degree of letting go of self proliferating. That jhana is a kind of free-falling which once initiated, leaves little to attach to. Piti, sukkha etc. are seen to arise and pass.

Others claim that the "bliss states", and beyond, can provide a false haven, or temporary refuge where the notional self can choose to hang out.
Hence "jhana wallah".

Only what is based on craving (for jhana), rather than on letting go, can provide a false haven.

So it should really be 'nose tip' wallah or craving wallah.

[kirk5a]

Wakeful non-thinking is not stone-like. Not remotely. On the contrary, it allows for the development of energy, a factor of awakening, rather than its dispersal down the endless rabbit-warrens of the mind. If it was stone-like, the Buddha wouldn't have advocated it. Which he did, as I have pointed out. To further this point:

He should develop mindfulness of in-&-out breathing so as to cut off distractive thinking.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Trivial thoughts, subtle thoughts,
Mental jerkings that follow one along:
Not understanding these mental thoughts,
One runs back and forth with wandering mind.

But having known these mental thoughts,
The ardent and mindful one restrains them.
An awakened one has entirely abandoned them,
These mental jerkings that follow one along.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

For one who has mindfulness of in-&-out breathing well established to the fore within oneself, annoying external thoughts & inclinations don't exist.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[Dhammanando]

Pardon my ignorance and slight derailment of the topic, but could someone explain what a Jhana-Wallah is for those of us who don't know the term? I tried looking it up but had no success.
Thanks

In about the mid-80's the term "vipassanā-wallah" came into use as either a jocular term for persons committed to one or another of the modern systems of dry insight meditation or a pejorative term for persons fanatical about the same. I don't know who came up with the term, but I first heard it myself from the Aussie Patrick Kearney when he was a monk in Thailand.

In more recent years, with the growth of interest in absorption practice, "jhāna-wallah" has come into use to denote those with a similar dedication to samatha-bhāvanā.

[Mr Man]

Wakeful non-thinking is not stone-like. Not remotely. On the contrary, it allows for the development of energy, a factor of awakening, rather than its dispersal down the endless rabbit-warrens of the mind.

Well said. I think it is certainly worth exploring.

[jackson]

In about the mid-80's the term "vipassanā-wallah" came into use as either a jocular term for persons committed to one or another of the modern systems of dry insight meditation or a pejorative term for persons fanatical about the same. I don't know who came up with the term, but I first heard it myself from the Aussie Patrick Kearney when he was a monk in Thailand.

In more recent years, with the growth of interest in absorption practice, "jhāna-wallah" has come into use to denote those with a similar dedication to samatha-bhāvanā.

Thank you for the interesting bit of history Venerable Dhammanando. I'd also like to take this time to say it's great to see you posting on these boards again, I enjoy reading your posts very much.
Anyway,

[danieLion]

Experience is always direct. Thoughts about it, are at best one level removed from actual experience.

So, when we're thinking, we're not experiencing? They can never occur simultaneously?

Maybe thinking is a form of experience; maybe thinking and experiencing are concomitants?

And are you saying thinking is epiphenomonal to experiencing?

[daverupa]

There's direct experience, and reflexion which is awareness of experiencing. So there's "ouch!" and there's "a pain is felt", and this last is sampajanna. It isn't that a sentence is necessarily formed per se, but there's an awareness of sense input which limits or prevents it from invading the mind and remaining & which differs from "whatever is, is".

This reflexion is what allows for right effort. If the brute impact of sense-impressions are not addressed with right effort - which takes vitakka-vicara at first, then only later is it done sans vitakka, then later sans vitakka-vicara - so without this right effort, where is the bhavana?

Many people seem to think that thinking is wrong or an obstacle, but this is exactly required in the gradual training...

[danieLion]

Hi Dave,
A sharp distinction between experience and reflex is difficult at best. E.g., the James-Lange theory of emotion has it as, "We don't cry because we're sad, we're sad because we cry." Or in your example, "ouch" is the experience of contact, "pain is felt" is the experience of the reaction. They're both experience, and awareness itself a type of experience. Experience isnt' just what happens to us; it's also how we happen.

[daverupa]

A sharp distinction between experience and reflex is difficult at best.

We don't need a sharp distinction; any distinction which indicates that we are to note our behaviors, rather than let them pass unnoticed, is going in the right direction.

And, at first and likely for some time, this requires thinking.