Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by mikenz66 »

As I pointed out on a couple of recent threads:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 84#p155954" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 12#p156504" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 22#p156368" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
it is well known that in the suttas we find two descriptions.
One in terms of "beings"/"concepts" and one in terms of various "subdivisions" (khandhas/sense bases/elements, etc).

In many cases this distinction seems rather important in mental cultivation instructions. For example, expositions on metta, etc use the "conceptual" language:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#brahma1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"That disciple of the noble ones, headman — thus devoid of covetousness, devoid of ill will, unbewildered, alert, mindful — keeps pervading the first direction [the east] with an awareness imbued with good will, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety, he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without hostility, without ill will. Just as a strong conch-trumpet blower can notify the four directions without any difficulty, in the same way, when the awareness-release through good will is thus developed, thus pursued, any deed done to a limited extent no longer remains there, no longer stays there.
I.e. the concept of metta is developed.

On the other hand, many of the instructions in the Satipatthana Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; use the "subdivisions" language, and these are the parts typically used for "vipassana" approaches such as Goenka's, which initially focusses on vedena:
"When feeling a painful feeling of the flesh, he discerns, 'I am feeling a painful feeling of the flesh.' When feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh, he discerns, 'I am feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh.' When feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns, 'I am feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh.' ...
or Sayadaw Mahasi's, whose instructions tend to involve elements (translated as "properties" here):
"Furthermore...just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body — however it stands, however it is disposed — in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.'
I.e. contemplation of the body in terms of harness/softness, fluidity/cohesion, heat/cold, motion/distension. [Mahasi's instructions talk particularly about the motion aspect - feet or abdomen.]

And, of course, there are the various other satipatthanas that may be discerned: mind, dhammas, which are of the "subdivision" type.

Suttas where insight into anicca, dukkha, and anatta is developed tend to employ the "subdivision" language, e.g. the second discourse:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'
... feeling ... peception ... fabrications .... conciousness.
...
"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
... feeling ... peception ... fabrications .... conciousness.
Whereas the "conceptual" meditation objects such as metta do not seem to lead to those insights.
They do have benefits, however:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Monks, for one whose awareness-release through good will is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven benefits can be expected. Which eleven?

"One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and — if penetrating no higher — is headed for the Brahma worlds.
Are there any suttas where contemplation of conceptual objects leads to insight into the characteristics, etc?

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by Ben »

Excellent and interesting post, Mike!
I look forward to the discussion with interest.

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by cooran »

Hello Mike, all,

My understanding of ‘concept’ is that it is an Idea or Notion formed in the mind.
Is this how you are using it here?

In which case, I don’t see how it applies to Metta meditation.

When I do metta, it is a ‘feeling’ that I pervade, not an Idea.

With metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Cooran,

Good question!

The way I saw it, I was using "conceptual" to mean something created by the mind.

As I understand it, with metta one generates a loving-kindness concept ("may all beings be happy" or some such).
Of course this will result in the experience of feeling (vedana).

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Are there any suttas where contemplation of conceptual objects leads to insight into the characteristics, etc?
mikenz66 wrote:I was using "conceptual" to mean something created by the mind.
In which case you would be including so called "volitional formations" (sankhara) into the mix.

I think the distinction, using metta-bhavana as per the example you've given, is that if it is a case of absorption is into the volitional object itself, then it could lead only to heavenly destination (hence, brahma-vihara).

If however, the focus was the perception (sanna) on the anicca/anatta/dukkha of the volitional formation itself, then that would lead to insight into the characteristics.

In other words, for insight, it doesn't matter what sankhata-dhamma you are watching (whatever division, sub-division etc.), so long as you are observing its anicca/anatta/dukkha characteristics, as compared to absorbing into the formed object itself.

Does that make sense to you?

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."
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by cooran »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Cooran,

Good question!

The way I saw it, I was using "conceptual" to mean something created by the mind.

As I understand it, with metta one generates a loving-kindness concept ("may all beings be happy" or some such).
Of course this will result in the experience of feeling (vedana).

:anjali:
Mike
Hello Mike,
When I’m about to begin Metta meditation, I initially think of an endearing little baby or puppy or kitten etc.
Visualising them evokes a distinct feeling throughout and all over the body and mind of warmth and love.

At that point, immersed in the feeling, I visualise individual persons and hold them in my heart-mind with loving-kindness while saying ‘’May you be safe and protected, may you be healthy and strong, may you be happy of heart and mind, May you live with ease and well-being. May you swiftly progress on the Path to Nibbana, May you have happiness and the causes of happiness, May you be free of mental and physical pain.’’

But the visualising and the feeling being radiated are the important things. I don’t need the words at all.

Do you see the above – as concept?

With interested metta, :smile:
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:I was using "conceptual" to mean something created by the mind.
In which case you would be including so called "volitional formations" (sankhara) into the mix.
I guess, so but a "concept" is non-trivial to classify it in terms of khandhas, whether it's the concept of "quantum mechanics" the concept of "my self". See below.
retrofuturist wrote: I think the distinction, using metta-bhavana as per the example you've given, is that if the case of absorption is into the volitional object itself, then it could lead only to heavenly destination (hence, brahma-vihara).

If however, the focus was the perception (sanna) on the anicca/anatta/dukkha of the volitional formation itself, then that would lead to insight into the characteristics.
Yes, and that would mean analysing the metta in terms of khandas, such as the feelings that arise.
retrofuturist wrote: In other words, for insight, it doesn't matter what sankhata-dhamma you are watching (whatever division, sub-division etc.), so long as you are observing its anicca/anatta/dukkha characterists, as compared to absorbing into the object itself.

Does that make sense to you?
Somewhat, but note that concepts don't really have such characteristics. There's no anicca/dukkha/anatta in the concept of "quantum mechanics" or "may all beings be happy".

Of course, the machinations that the mind does when trying to do quantum mechanical calculations does have such characteristics.. :coffee:

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Somewhat, but note that concepts don't really have such characteristics. There's no anicca/dukkha/anatta in the concept of "quantum mechanics" or "may all beings be happy".
I disagree with your assertion that there's no no anicca/dukkha/anatta in concepts.

What is a concept? A concept is a thought construct that you have. A thought construct is in loka. Thoughts arise, change and pass away just like anything else in loka.

There is asankhata dhamma (i.e. nibbana) and everything else experienced (no matter how you opt to slice, dice and form it) is sankhata dhamma.

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."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Chris,
cooran wrote: ...
But the visualising and the feeling being radiated are the important things. I don’t need the words at all.

Do you see the above – as concept?

With interested metta, :smile:
Chris
Hmm, ... I wouldn't make a distinction about concepts based on words or lack of words.
But I'm getting a little tired and I'm losing my conceptual continuity...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: I disagree with your assertion that there's no no anicca/dukkha/anatta in concepts.
Of course. That's one of the key interesting issues...

I agree that thoughts about concepts have characteristics.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Somewhat, but note that concepts don't really have such characteristics. There's no anicca/dukkha/anatta in the concept of "quantum mechanics" or "may all beings be happy".
I disagree with your assertion that there's no no anicca/dukkha/anatta in concepts.

What is a concept? A concept is a thought construct that you have. A thought construct is in loka. Thoughts arise, change and pass away just like anything else in loka.
That is a philosophical argument that goes way beyond the scope of this thread, which I would not touch at all, but how does one "see" the three marks of a concept?
There is asankhata dhamma (i.e. nibbana) and everything else experienced (no matter how you opt to slice, dice and form it) is sankhata dhamma.
As a matter of setting a basis for discussion, it would be helpful to state what is meant by the word dhamma -- just so we can all be on the same page..
>> 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
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:how does one "see" the three marks of a concept?
Concept is an object of mind-consciousness, and it is observed and explained as follows...
SN 22.59 wrote:"What do you think of this, O monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

........

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever mental formations, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all those mental formations must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'These are not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"

This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment.

Indeed, at that time there were six arahants in the world.
... and ...
MN 10 wrote:He understands consciousness and mental objects and the fetter that arises dependent on both (consciousness and mental objects); he understands how the arising of the non-arisen fetter comes to be; he understands how the abandoning of the arisen fetter comes to be; and he understands how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned fetter comes to be.
tiltbillings wrote:As a matter of setting a basis for discussion, it would be helpful to state what is meant by the word dhamma -- just so we can all be on the same page..
As an experience.

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."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:how does one "see" the three marks of a concept?
Concept is an object of mind-consciousness, and it is observed and explained as follows...
A concept is a "mind-object" when it is a mind object. As for the rest of it. It is kind of unnecessary to quote at length suttas.
tiltbillings wrote:As a matter of setting a basis for discussion, it would be helpful to state what is meant by the word dhamma -- just so we can all be on the same page..
As an experience.
Simple enough.
>> 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
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:how does one "see" the three marks of a concept?
Concept is an object of mind-consciousness ...
In which sutta does it say that a concept is an object of mind-conciousness?

At the very least, thinking about a concept involves a very complicated sequence of mind-objects. At least that's my experience...

Which is the point of this thread. In the suttas insight (where it is explained in detail) seems to arise as a result of breaking down experience into simple objects.

It seems like an important question to ask whether there are examples of insight arising via complicated objects. Some sutta references would be appreciated.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:A concept is a "mind-object" when it is a mind object.
And it can be nothing else. There is no "concept" separate from experience of it as a mind object.
tiltbillings wrote:As for the rest of it. It is kind of unnecessary to quote at length suttas.
Well, when you ask how something is done, this being the forum it is, I quote the Buddha's instruction for how it is done. Quite simple, really. That said, I do endeavour to clip anything out that doesn't seem closely related.

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."
Post Reply