If you are using the terminology in a way that is different from the commonly accpted manner of usage, it is incumbent upon you to carefully define how you are using the terminology if you are expecting to be understood and if you are expecting to have a dialogue. Simply, in this instance, you bear the burden.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
Much of how these terms are conventionally understood involves definitions derived from the Theravada commentarial tradition as opposed to the suttas themselves.mikenz66 wrote:Only if you are using a different definition from the suttas with respect to eye, forms, eye consciousness, and contact.
'the conflict is in the watcher'
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
I agree Tilt.
I think we should have this in our Terms of Service to say that we should use (take every effort) the generally accepted terminology (or give the Pali word).
Is there a generally accepted Buddhist dictionary?
I think we should have this in our Terms of Service to say that we should use (take every effort) the generally accepted terminology (or give the Pali word).
Is there a generally accepted Buddhist dictionary?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
Well matter how you chose to define them there are clearly processes that involve: Form, eye, eye conciousness, contact, and so on.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
Much of how these terms are conventionally understood involves definitions derived from the Theravada commentarial tradition as opposed to the suttas themselves.mikenz66 wrote:Only if you are using a different definition from the suttas with respect to eye, forms, eye consciousness, and contact.
And the task in meditation is to examine these processes, as described in suttas such as this:
https://suttacentral.net/an4.41"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.
and the sutta I quoted above (MN 152):
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p347886
Mike
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
I find that distinction dissolves when mindfulness is strong, but it's present when mindfulness is weak or patchy.retrofuturist wrote:Once you have "the watcher" you have created a false bifurcation between sense-base and "object", from whence spawns "contact".
Buddha save me from new-agers!
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
Greetings Tilt,
Not with animosity, mind you, and not to dismiss anyone or anything, but simply due to an assessment that the burden of complexity in bringing everyone into conceptual alignment would outweigh the benefit of the original message.
In this case, I have said my piece - it may be understood by some, not understood by some, and that's fine. I just wanted to counter Mike's perception that I was somehow deviating from sutta definitions.
Metta,
Retro.
What you say is perfectly reasonable and fair, but since these subtle differences in terminology need to be re-established in each and every discussion, and those meanings not being necessarily understood or accepted by all participants even when communicated, there comes a point where rather than "bear the burden", I would rather just drop the conversation.tiltbillings wrote:If you are using the terminology in a way that is different from the commonly accpted manner of usage, it is incumbent upon you to carefully define how you are using the terminology if you are expecting to be understood and if you are expecting to have a dialogue. Simply, in this instance, you bear the burden.
Not with animosity, mind you, and not to dismiss anyone or anything, but simply due to an assessment that the burden of complexity in bringing everyone into conceptual alignment would outweigh the benefit of the original message.
In this case, I have said my piece - it may be understood by some, not understood by some, and that's fine. I just wanted to counter Mike's perception that I was somehow deviating from sutta definitions.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
Okay.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
What you say is perfectly reasonable and fair, but since these subtle differences in terminology need to be re-established in each and every discussion, and those meanings not being necessarily understood or accepted by all participants even when communicated, there comes a point where rather than "bear the burden", I would rather just drop the conversation.tiltbillings wrote:If you are using the terminology in a way that is different from the commonly accpted manner of usage, it is incumbent upon you to carefully define how you are using the terminology if you are expecting to be understood and if you are expecting to have a dialogue. Simply, in this instance, you bear the burden.
Not with animosity, mind you, and not to dismiss anyone or anything, but simply due to an assessment that the burden of complexity in bringing everyone into conceptual alignment would outweigh the benefit of the original message.
In this case, I have said my piece - it may be understood by some, not understood by some, and that's fine. I just wanted to counter Mike's perception that I was somehow deviating from sutta definitions.
Metta,
Retro.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
The watcher is just a convention. A way of talking. It is only a problem when one tries to intellectualise the practice. If we practice, rather than think about practice, it is not a problem.Spiny Norman wrote:I find that distinction dissolves when mindfulness is strong, but it's present when mindfulness is weak or patchy.retrofuturist wrote:Once you have "the watcher" you have created a false bifurcation between sense-base and "object", from whence spawns "contact".
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
Therein lies the challenge.Mr Man wrote:If we practice, rather than think about practice, it is not a problem.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
robertk wrote:Do any Buddhist groups suggest there is watcher, it sounds like a vedanta idea..
The suggestion in the thread that one doesnt need to be too concerned about wrong view- we not being arahat - is erroneous in my opinion Without right view at the intellectual level, in otherwords from the beginning, it is impossible to even attain the first stage of vipassana, let alone sotapanna or arahat. Even a moment of real awareness of satipatthana is linked with right view..
It's sometimes mentioned in the Thai Forest Tradition, although they would say "the one who knows".
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
http://www.fsnewsletter.amaravati.org/t ... xcerpt.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Like Oil and Water
Enlightenment, liberation, depends on the recognition of the radical separateness of awareness—“the one who knows” as Ajahn Chah would phrase it—and the world of the five khandhas (Sanskrit: skandhas). Having said that, it’s also crucial to note that the phrase “the one who knows” (Pali: buddho) is a colloquialism that has different meanings in different contexts. It can be used at one end of the spectrum to mean “that which cognizes an object,” and at the other end to mean supramundane wisdom. Most often it is used in simple concentration instructions, where the meditator separates awareness from the object and then focuses on the awareness. The separate awareness of full awakening is of a different order altogether.
A comparable model that Ajahn Chah often used to illus-trate this area is that of the relationship of mindfulness (sati), clear comprehension (sampajañña), and wisdom (pañña) to each other. He would liken these three to the hand, the arm, and the body respectively: sati, like the hand, is simply that which picks things up, or cognizes them; sampajañña, like the arm that enables the hand to reach for the desired objects and move them around, refers to seeing an object in its context and how it relates to its surroundings; pañña, like the life source which is the body, is seeing things in terms of anicca–dukkha–anatta—uncertainty, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self. The hand and the arm have their functions, but without the body they are powerless.
The key is training the heart to rest in these various dimensions of knowing, and not becoming entangled in the khandhas.
"The heart knowing the Dhamma
of ultimate ease
sees for sure that the khandhas
are always stressful.
The Dhamma stays as the Dhamma,
the khandhas stay as the khandhas, that’s all."
~ Ajahn Mun, The Ballad of Liberation from the Five Khandhas
(translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
The relationship of this quality of awareness to the conditioned realm is embodied in Ajahn Chah’s analogy of oil and water, an image he used very often.
"This is the way it is. You detach. You let go. Whenever there is any feeling of clinging, we detach from it, because we know that that very feeling is just as it is. It didn’t come along especially to annoy us. We might think that it did, but in truth it just is that way. If we start to think and consider it further, that, too, is just as it is. If we let go, then form is merely form, sound is merely sound, odour is merely odour, taste is merely taste, touch is merely touch and the heart is merely the heart. It’s similar to oil and water. If you put the two together in a bottle, they won’t mix because of the difference of their nature…
Oil and water are different in the same way that a wise person and an ignorant person are different. The Buddha lived with form, sound, odor, taste, touch and thought. He was an arahant (Enlightened One), so he turned away from rather than toward these things. He turned away and detached little by little since he understood that the heart is just the heart and thought is just thought. He didn’t confuse and mix them together.
The heart is just the heart; thoughts and feelings are just thoughts and feelings. Let things be just as they are! Let form be just form, let sound be just sound, let thought be just thought. Why should we bother to attach to them? If we think and feel in this way, then there is detachment and separateness. Our thoughts and feelings will be on one side and our heart will be on the other. Just like oil and water—they are in the same bottle but they are separate."
~ Ajahn Chah, “The Training of the Heart” in Food for the Heart
When we use such terms as “the one who knows,” it is important to understand that this is a colloquial usage. In no way is some kind of true self or super-entity implied—it’s merely a convenient figure of speech. If we start looking for “who” it is that is aware we rapidly end up in a tangle of self-view.
When we speak or think about the quality of awareness, there is also a subtle danger of trying to cast it into the form of some kind of immaterial thing or process. The word “awareness” is an abstract noun, and we get so used to relating to ordinary objects through conceptualizing them that we allow the habit to overflow and we can end up conceiving awareness in the same way. The heart can be aware, but trying to make awareness an object, in the same way that we would a tree or a thought, is a frustrating process. Ajahn Chah warned against this, often saying:
You’re riding on a horse and asking,
“Where’s the horse?”
~ Ajahn Chah, in Venerable Father, by Paul Breiter
Ajahn Sumedho also had a favorite analogy for this:
"Just like the question “Can you see your own eyes?” Nobody can see their own eyes. I can see your eyes but I can’t see my eyes. I’m sitting right here, I’ve got two eyes and I can’t see them. But you can see my eyes. But there’s no need for me to see my eyes because I can see! It’s ridiculous, isn’t it? If I started saying “Why can’t I see my own eyes?” you’d think “Ajahn Sumedho’s really weird, isn’t he!” Looking in a mirror you can see a reflection, but that’s not your eyes, it’s a reflection of your eyes. There’s no way that I’ve been able to look and see my own eyes, but then it’s not necessary to see your own eyes. It’s not necessary to know who it is that knows—because there’s knowing."
~ Ajahn Sumedho, “What is the Citta?”
Forest Sangha Newsletter, October 1988
This very error is the reason why it’s perhaps wiser to use a term such as “knowing” instead of “transcendent wisdom” or “awareness.” As a gerund it is a verb-noun, thus lending it a more accurate quality of immanence, activity, and nonthingness. The process of awakening not only breaks down subject-object relationships, it also breaks down the very formulation of “things.”
Some years ago Buckminster Fuller published a book entitled I Seem to Be a Verb, and more recently, and more expansively, Rabbi David Cooper published God is a Verb. Both of these were attempts to counteract the floodtide of formulations of reality as “things” that the untrained, conditioned mind is prone to generating.
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.
- BB
- BB
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
Yes, I've found myself doing that. I find it more helpful to view it as a more spacious state of mind, looking at it in terms of the 3rd frame of reference in Satipatthana.bodom wrote: When we speak or think about the quality of awareness, there is also a subtle danger of trying to cast it into the form of some kind of immaterial thing or process.
~ Ajahn Chah, in Venerable Father, by Paul Breiter
Buddha save me from new-agers!
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27858
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
Greetings Spiny,
Good suggestion.
Anything that works towards non-appropriation, non-identification and non-accumulation is useful.
Metta,
Retro.
Good suggestion.
Anything that works towards non-appropriation, non-identification and non-accumulation is useful.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
Can you elaborate your thinking with bit more details.Spiny Norman wrote:Yes, I've found myself doing that. I find it more helpful to view it as a more spacious state of mind, looking at it in terms of the 3rd frame of reference in Satipatthana.bodom wrote: When we speak or think about the quality of awareness, there is also a subtle danger of trying to cast it into the form of some kind of immaterial thing or process.
~ Ajahn Chah, in Venerable Father, by Paul Breiter
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
-
- Posts: 10262
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
I used to ask myself "who or what is being mindful?", and or course there was never a satisfactory answer. Now I ask myself "what is my state of mind?", which is helpful both in establishing mindfulness and in reducing the tendency to think of mindfulness as something separate or detached.SarathW wrote:Can you elaborate your thinking with bit more details.Spiny Norman wrote:Yes, I've found myself doing that. I find it more helpful to view it as a more spacious state of mind, looking at it in terms of the 3rd frame of reference in Satipatthana.bodom wrote: When we speak or think about the quality of awareness, there is also a subtle danger of trying to cast it into the form of some kind of immaterial thing or process.
~ Ajahn Chah, in Venerable Father, by Paul Breiter
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: 'the conflict is in the watcher'
So what that leads to?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”