Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

[tiltbillings]

Perhaps I may help to unblock this communiation with the following suggestion:

"bare attention" is mere receptivity not volitionally directed to any contents of the sphere of (potential) perception and lacking contact (phassa). Lacking contact neither perception, nor feeling, nor conceivings (papanca) can be present. Since perception, feeling and consciousness cannot be separated, consciousness is absent as well.


Kind regards

I would also suggest that you read this link:

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p160162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dhamma follower]

Of course it is not linear. When citta arises with one object, many cetasikas arise also at the same time. I understand that. But when the object changes, that means it is not the same citta any more, right? Visible object is not the same than sound, smell,...or thoughts. The sanna that arises and recognize someone is not the same than the ones that are are involved in thinking about how to avoid him. Because the objects are many, cittas must be many too.

The only thing that is really shown here is that the citta changes... not that there are many cittas.

Hi,

Are you saying it is the same citta that changes object?

It reminds me of the error of Sati, the son of a fisherman:

Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. �As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else�?"

"Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."

"Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven�t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."

http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards,

[dhamma follower]

Dear all,

This is quite nice:

But sati as memory operates differently from sañña. It is built upon sañña, for according to the Abhidhamma one of its immediate causes is “strong perception” (thira-sañña). This is the direct, face-to-face encounter with experience which generates mindfulness — as we saw in the entry Establishing mindfulness. Mindfulness begins with our normal, everyday encounters with the world, but made clear, sharp, by a direct and energetic encounter with this present experience. This encounter cuts through the baggage of habitual associations that are a normal aspect of perception. In Satipatthana Sutta the Buddha suggests this with the formula describing the meditator as “contemplating body as body … mind as mind.” This sight is just this sight; these thoughts and judgements are just these thoughts and judgements. That’s all. Normally, perception takes the package of experience — sights, sounds, thoughts, emotions — and recognises them through their habitual associations as inherited from the past, containing little or nothing that is new, and so conditions us to react to the experience habitually, without sensing the possibilities within it. Mindfulness implies an encounter that is so direct and clear that these habitual associations don’t have the opportunity to take over. They arise, of course, but can be recognised, remembered, as just associations, nothing else.

Mindfulness then continues to “remember” this encounter, by returning again and again to its directness, not forgetting what is so easy to forget — that which we assume we already know. So we don’t just know the world; in mindfulness, we know that we know. When our habitual perceptions take over, they do so through forgetfulness. We forget, slip into habit. In this state we know, but don’t know that we know, and in losing touch with this reflexivity we find our ready-made perceptions again defining reality for us. Then, we remember. Mindfulness returns, and we remember that body is just body, mind is just mind, and we find ourselves in a world that is new, no longer the product of habit.

This activity of mindfulness provides the foundation for judgement, for the gatekeeper’s job. The gatekeeper learns to recognise who to admit, and who to refuse. This recognition is sañña, perception, but a perception reshaped, educated, by mindfulness. Both mindfulness and perception are based on memory, and it is memory which allows a judgement. And of course, we are always making judgements. Even the notion that we should not be making judgements is a judgement. Mindfulness allows the emergence of judgement partnered with wisdom, understanding, discernment. This is a judgement that is more in tune with reality than our habitual judgements, the long-standing products of our delusion.

http://www.dharmasalon.net/Dharma%20Sal ... 0d2-5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In my understanding, this " This encounter cuts through the baggage of habitual associations that are a normal aspect of perception" is what is meant by "bare attention".

Regards,

[ground]

Perhaps I may help to unblock this communiation with the following suggestion:

"bare attention" is mere receptivity not volitionally directed to any contents of the sphere of (potential) perception and lacking contact (phassa). Lacking contact neither perception, nor feeling, nor conceivings (papanca) can be present. Since perception, feeling and consciousness cannot be separated, consciousness is absent as well.


Kind regards

I would also suggest that you read this link:

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p160162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously my suggestion does not comply with B. Bodhi's explanation (B. Bodhi: “Sati, as bare attention, is never completely bare.") . Nevertheless I would prefer to stay with the understanding suggested. For me this is just evidence that I have no shares in the controverse about the expression "bare attention" in this context which seems to be caused by verbal inconsistency.


Kind regards

[tiltbillings]

Perhaps I may help to unblock this communiation with the following suggestion:

"bare attention" is mere receptivity not volitionally directed to any contents of the sphere of (potential) perception and lacking contact (phassa). Lacking contact neither perception, nor feeling, nor conceivings (papanca) can be present. Since perception, feeling and consciousness cannot be separated, consciousness is absent as well.


Kind regards

I would also suggest that you read this link:

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p160162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously my suggestion does not comply with B. Bodhi's explanation (B. Bodhi: “Sati, as bare attention, is never completely bare.") . Nevertheless I would prefer to stay with the understanding suggested. For me this is just evidence that I have no shares in the controverse about the expression "bare attention" in this context which seems to be caused by verbal inconsistency.


Kind regards

Given that Ven Bodhi in the link given is reflecting Ven Nyanaponika understanding of bare attention, and given it was Ven Nyanaponika who coined the term and defined it, I would prefer to ignore the "understanding suggested," since it really is not addressing "bare attention" as defined by Vens Bodhi and Nyanaponika.

[tiltbillings]

And how do you, in brief, understand that writing (Alan Wallace's dialogue with Ven Bodhi:) ? What is "bare attention" in your own words?

I am still not going to answer that question, Alan, for the same reasons I have already given. Before I say anything further, given that you are the one who introduced the issue into this sub-discussion, it is up to you to define what you mean by "bare attention."

[cittaanurakkho]

May this link be helpful. Ven. Analayo himself mentioned a little bit about the term mindfulness in this talk, about minute 59 onward.

http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/208/ ... tation.mp3

[tiltbillings]

May this link be helpful. Ven. Analayo himself mentioned a little bit about the term mindfulness in this talk, about minute 59 onward.

http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/208/ ... tation.mp3

Thanks. Great talk.

[Alex123]

Tilt,

Before I say anything further, given that you are the one who introduced the issue into this sub-discussion, it is up to you to define what you mean by "bare attention."

By bare attention I mean: "attention to the present moment without evaluating it as kusala/akusala, and without trying to change it."

How do you, Tilt, interpret "bare attention". I've answered your question, now please answer mine.


Alex

[tiltbillings]

Tilt,

Before I say anything further, given that you are the one who introduced the issue into this sub-discussion, it is up to you to define what you mean by "bare attention."

By bare attention I mean: "attention to the present moment without evaluating it as kusala/akusala, and without trying to change it."

How do you, Tilt, interpret "bare attention". I've answered your question, now please answer mine.


Alex

As for how I understand bare attention, carefully read this: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p160162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, let us process this. You are sitting and a lustful thought pops up, what do you do?

[tiltbillings]

Just one more thing, Alex, this translation you quote below, to be polite, it is not very good. I suggest that you look at Ven Bodhi's far superior effort before drawing conclusions about what this text is saying.

And if you think a toddler or a baby does not have wrong view and or "directly cognizes without any subjective comments," there is a great deal about a great deal you do not understand about babies and the Dhamma.

"to a toddler who moves about with difficulty, there are not even thoughts. How could doubts arise to him about thoughts? The latent tendency to doubt, filter to him. To a toddler who moves about with difficulty there are not even virtues. How could there be a holding to virtues as high? The latent tendency to hold to virtues as high filter to him. Malunkhyaputta, to a toddler there is not even sensual desires. How could there be interest for sensual desires? The latent tendencies to greed for sensual interest filter to him. Malunkhyaputta, to a toddler beings don't matter. How could he have anger towards beings? The latent tendencies to get angry filter to him. "
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ta-e1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Toddler does not have thoughts about self, doesn't have doubts, etc. So his/her awareness is bare of them. Why doesn't his bare attention to the present moment eliminate the fetters? Toddler can't have distracted thoughts, doubts or wrong views arise.

[beeblebrox]

Of course it is not linear. When citta arises with one object, many cetasikas arise also at the same time. I understand that. But when the object changes, that means it is not the same citta any more, right? Visible object is not the same than sound, smell,...or thoughts. The sanna that arises and recognize someone is not the same than the ones that are are involved in thinking about how to avoid him. Because the objects are many, cittas must be many too.

The only thing that is really shown here is that the citta changes... not that there are many cittas.

Hi,

Are you saying it is the same citta that changes object?

It reminds me of the error of Sati, the son of a fisherman:

I don't understand why it reminds you of the consciousness transmigrating. I only said that the most we can see here is that the citta is changing. If something changes, then we don't cling (as something permanent)... full stop. There's nothing more that needs to said after that.

If someone's practice doesn't seem to be working... it doesn't mean that he needs to be taught some more theories about it (i.e., the Dhamma is deficient in itself), or have even more overlays put over it (i.e., his own experience of the practice isn't enough in itself)... it just means that he needs to scrutinize his own understanding of the Dhamma, and then practice it some more.

[Alex123]

So, let us process this. You are sitting and a lustful thought pops up, what do you do?

If I remember the Dhamma and have enough wisdom, I try to remember asubha, mindfulness of death, etc. On retreat I had long time ago, what I did was to note it "lust, lust". There are also other ways such as ignore it, or focus more on primary meditation object, etc.

Thank you for your link. As for:
"“Sati, as bare attention, is never completely bare. When practiced in the full context of the noble eightfold path (even the path-practice of a worldling) it is, or should be, embraced by other factors of the path, most notably by right view, right motivation, and right effort (factors 1, 2, and 6); it is already supported by the three morality factors (3, 4, 5).”" , then why call it "bare" attention? Why not use some other term such as "appropriate attention" or simply as developing "Noble Eightfold path"?

[tiltbillings]

So, let us process this. You are sitting and a lustful thought pops up, what do you do?

If I remember the Dhamma and have enough wisdom, I try to remember asubha, mindfulness of death, etc. On retreat I had long time ago, what I did was to note it "lust, lust". There are also other ways such as ignore it, or focus more on primary meditation object, etc.

There is nothing wrong trying to remember all those things, but that pretty much puts your into the realm of conceptualization, of thinking about things, not seeing what is actually happening, which is not to say that these are not useful tools, depending upon the context.

It might be better, assuming your concentration and mindfulness are sufficient, to simply pay attention to the lust. It arises, it elicits a response, you try to wipe it away with the things you suggested, or it arises and you simply pay attention to it without comment, seeing the play of things, such as aversion, that also arise. But in simply paying attention to it without comment, you see it for what it is, the discomfort that goes with the wanting-mind and you also get to actually see -- not think about, but actually see -- the changing and conditioned and empty nature of it. One can sit with very uncomfortable states of mind and not react to them, not getting lost in them, seeing -- not thinking about -- what actually is arising and falling, which is nothing more than six interealted processes.

It takes work to get that point, but it is worth it. One of the things that this sort of practice help one prepare for is sickness and dying.

[daverupa]

It might be better, assuming your concentration and mindfulness are sufficient, to simply pay attention to the lust... But in simply paying attention to it without comment, you see it for what it is, the discomfort that goes with the wanting-mind and you also get to actually see -- not think about, but actually see -- the changing and conditioned and empty nature of it. One can sit with very uncomfortable states of mind and not react to them, not getting lost in them, seeing -- not thinking about -- what actually is arising and falling, which is nothing more than six interealted processes.

"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'

"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, destroyed it, dispelled it, wiped it out of existence.

Are these the same?