Regarding concentration (samadhi) and insight (vipassana), see, for example:
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
And: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.htmlhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.htmlhttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Thanks for the response.
However, my question to Bikkhu Pesala was about jhana dichotomy
, that is samatha jhana
and vipassana jhana
. Samatha and vipassana are adjectives, jhana is noun. Your sutta quote and the other sutta links do say something about the adjectives, but not the noun.
In suttas, the Buddha describes jhana consistently only one kind of jhana(s), as in the stock jhana description. There's no dichotomy mentioned in suttas.
I don't mean to spark another jhana debate here, 'cos I know it's not the right place. I just want to point out the difference between Mahasi teaching and what the suttas say about jhana. Since they are different, how can one say it's samma-samadhi.
If it's not samma-samadhi, how can I agree the technique supports the pursue the Noble Eightfold Path.
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:and discovered the right path of insight meditation leading to the end of suffering, which is nibbāna.
Alright now go back to my OP, about the way to attain nibbana using Mahasi teaching or technique.
The technique instructs to be indifferent or equanimous in regards to any arisen
doesn't cease here, while nibbana technically is cessation of perception and feeling
. So, it is impossible to attain nibbana.
2. Phassa paccaya vedana, vedana paccaya tanha, tanha paccaya upadana, and so on until jara-marrana. While phassa hasn't ceased
, there will be
vedana. There are three types of feeling: pleasant, unpleasant, not pleasant nor unpleasant (in other word, indifferent). It instructs to resort to indifferent feeling, by being equanimous. The tanha is tanha of the third feeling, and so is the upadana.
The right technique should be consistent with the suttas, cutting off the root instead of the middle. The root is (eye, ear, etc) consciousness (and of course after avijja). Vinnana, salayatana, object, the meeting of the three is called phassa. From phassa, there is vedana, and so on. So, in order to cut off vedana, cut off phassa by cutting off the consciousness. The suttas say to make consciousness ceased by abandoning
passion pertaining to consciousness. This is where my practice at, discerning how to abandon that passion.
Yes there is a sutta which says cessation of suffering is cessation of craving (SN 56.11). But remember that the Buddha taught the Dhamma by means of exposition http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.than.html
. So one needs to read more.
I don't remember in which thread, someone commented that Thai forest tradition people think there is no Arahant in Burma, from Burmese tradition. It does make sense. The main principle of Thai forest tradition is "letting go", it's another way to say "abandoning". See the consistency. By practicing letting go, eventually one will let go, abandon the passion towards consciousness. Vinnana ceases thus phassa and the rest also cease - ending of all fermentation, or formation, or whatever the term is - nibbana. Without being pro-Thai-tradition or contra-Burmese-tradition, I'm only pro-suttas, it makes more sense for me if there is Arahant from Thai forest tradition.