Vipassanā: What Is Dissolution, Really?

[daverupa]

But it doesn't seem a very convincing argument to me to assert that if one does some practice it means one is buying into some particular philosophy.

Ones Effort is based on ones View and Intention.

[Ben]

But it doesn't seem a very convincing argument to me to assert that if one does some practice it means one is buying into some particular philosophy.

Ones Effort is based on ones View and Intention.

I think Dave is that they condition and influence each other.
That is at least my experience and my observation of other long-term practitioners.
kind regards,

Ben

[daverupa]

I think Dave is that they condition and influence each other.
That is at least my experience and my observation of other long-term practitioners.

I agree there is reflexive feedback. However,

Yes or No: With wrong view... wrong intention as condition, ... wrong mindfulness.

Because I think this is very important for a lot of people, these days.

[Ben]

Thanks Dave.
Again, from my own experience - I don't think its important to get one's philosophical ducks lined up before its possible to engage in practice and generate insight.
And my understanding of right view is different from intellectual understanding. My apologies if you are not imputing that.
kind regards,

Ben

[Brizzy]

Personal experience seems to be the only way to discuss dissolution.
Having experienced 'dissolution' on numerous occasions on BV retreat's, I can offer the following personal observations...........

a) It can be a very unsettling experience (not always).
b) It is achieved by a repeatable process that relies on specific conditions regarding environment, philosophical teachings and meditative techniques.
c) Depending on one's personal understanding of the Buddha Dhamma one can achieve an experience of non-self (which in itself is just a perception and not very extraordinary unless one can sustain such perception)
d) Except for the perception of non-self, few of the experiences I personally experienced, or were intimated that might be experienced can actually be aligned with the Buddha's Dhamma.
e) Having also been a Tibetan Buddhist student for many years I came to realise that in some ways the BV is a stripped down version of chakra/tantra techniques which aim at developing and experiencing or manipulating sensations/energies within the body.
f) If dissolution is what you want to experience then the BV traditions are to be recommended, if you want to experience vipassana within the framework that the Buddha taught then I would advise people look to the jhana's(body aware) or at least sit down to meditate with the desire & intention to experience a certain amount of joy based upon seclusion.

Metta

[dhamma follower]

Questions:

(i) Is it really true that mind (nāma) and matter (rūpa) are discrete, momentary things undergoing incessant dissolution?

(ii) Is it really true that matter is comprised of momentary kalāpas which undergo incessant dissolution?

(iii) If so, how do you know this to be true?

(iv) If not, can "insight" into conceptual fictions really be considered insight at all?

Hi Nana,

(i) I wouldn't use the term "things", but I would say yes,mental and material dhammas arise co-dependently with consciousness and fall away incessantly.

(ii) Yes, in conformation with (i)

(iii) panna has a function to confirm what it knows to be true.

(iv) Do not apply because of yes to (i), (ii), (iii)

Regards,

[dhamma follower]

I think it is rather that vipassana is not about technique, it is much much more subtle and deep than that.

I concur.
kind regards,

Ben

So do I !

Regards,

[Ñāṇa]

Yes or No: With wrong view... wrong intention as condition, ... wrong mindfulness.

Because I think this is very important for a lot of people, these days.

Indeed.

Why would one devote one's precious time on the sitting cushion or in retreat practicing bare attention to incessant dissolution and so on, unless one believed that there was good reason to do so?

On the other hand, if one understands the practice of bare attention to be of limited use in and of itself and considers the doctrine of momentariness to be an unwarranted deviation from the view of the four noble truths and specific conditionality, then it seems likely that they will devote their sitting practice and retreat time to developing a wider range of skills pertaining to mindfulness and samādhi. Ven. Ṭhānissaro, One Tool Among Many: The Place of Vipassanā in Buddhist Practice:

To take a reductionist approach to the practice can produce only reduced results, for meditation is a skill like carpentry, requiring a mastery of many tools in response to many different needs. To limit oneself to only one approach in meditation would be like trying to build a house when one's motivation is uncertain and one's tool box contains nothing but hammers.

Nothing more need be said.

[dhamma follower]

On the other hand, if one understands the practice of bare attention to be of limited use in and of itself and considers the doctrine of momentariness to be an unwarranted deviation from the view of the four noble truths and specific conditionality, then it seems likely that they will devote their sitting practice and retreat time to developing a wider range of skills pertaining to mindfulness and samādhi. Ven. Ṭhānissaro, One Tool Among Many: The Place of Vipassanā in Buddhist Practice:

To take a reductionist approach to the practice can produce only reduced results, for meditation is a skill like carpentry, requiring a mastery of many tools in response to many different needs. To limit oneself to only one approach in meditation would be like trying to build a house when one's motivation is uncertain and one's tool box contains nothing but hammers.

Nothing more need be said.

Likewise, there can be multiple nuances of bare attention, and the doctrine of momentariness is not supposed to be thrown away altogether just because one has not yet directly experienced it. It is so easy to go from one extreme to the other...

Let's continue our investigation of the Dhamma free from fixed ideas about things unstated by the Buddha.

Regards,

[Ñāṇa]

the doctrine of momentariness is not supposed to be thrown away altogether just because one has not yet directly experienced it.

The doctrine of momentariness is pseudo-impermanence. It was a poor idea when it was first thought up and it remains a poor idea to this day.

[dhamma follower]

the doctrine of momentariness is not supposed to be thrown away altogether just because one has not yet directly experienced it.

The doctrine of momentariness is pseudo-impermanence. It was a poor idea when it was first thought up and it remains a poor idea to this day.

Some interpretations of it might be, or some experiences interpreted as impermanence might be, but it doesn't necessarily mean the idea of momentariness is wrong. No one has convincing proof about it yet...

Don't throw the baby out with the water...

Regards,

[daverupa]

the doctrine of momentariness is not supposed to be thrown away altogether just because one has not yet directly experienced it.

The doctrine of momentariness is pseudo-impermanence. It was a poor idea when it was first thought up and it remains a poor idea to this day.

Some interpretations of it might be, or some experiences interpreted as impermanence might be, but it doesn't necessarily mean the idea of momentariness is wrong. No one has convincing proof about it yet...

Don't throw the baby out with the water...

Regards,

Tell me, why didn't the Buddha teach it?

[Ñāṇa]

it doesn't necessarily mean the idea of momentariness is wrong.

The immediate present has no temporal duration. Duration is always a relationship between two different times, such as the present and the past. This is the case whether the duration is .0005 nanoseconds or 5 days. And since duration cannot exist in the immediate present, there is no reason to privilege the concept of an extremely short duration over other lengths of duration. All durations are relative.

[dhamma follower]

Tell me, why didn't the Buddha teach it?

For me, although the Buddha didn't teach it explicitly in the sutta, it is something that can be deducted from reflection on Dependent Origination and observation of reality, as I've tried to express in the other thread.

We should not forget that the Abhidhamma is officially considered as the teaching of the Buddha him-self

The Buddha gave different teachings to different people, depending on their need.

Regards,

[dhamma follower]

it doesn't necessarily mean the idea of momentariness is wrong.

The immediate present has no temporal duration. Duration is always a relationship between two different times, such as the present and the past. This is the case whether the duration is .0005 nanoseconds or 5 days. And since duration cannot exist in the immediate present, there is no reason to privilege the concept of an extremely short duration over other lengths of duration. All durations are relative.

The problem lies in thinking that it should be absolute present moment. The point is not to be in absolute present moment, but to develop sati-sampajana to the degree it can penetrate the nature of dhammas.

When we have not much sati-sampajana, we can remember some details on an event. When sati-sampajana is stronger, we can remember more details about an event in the same laps of time. Do you agree with that? So the stronger sati-sampajana is, the more details it can remember. At some point, it can be so sharp that it can actually attend to the dhammas that are arising, not exactly the present moment (what is the present moment, in the end?), but so close to it that it can be called so - sati performs the function to remember and sampajana to comprehend the nature of the dhammas that have just arise. This is a very natural development of sati-sampajana.

It is this clear seeing, direct experience of dhammas that makes the difference between vipassana panna and cinta panna.

Otherwise, how do you distinguish an intellectual understanding from an understanding that liberate us from samsara?

Regards,

[daverupa]

Tell me, why didn't the Buddha teach it?

For me, although the Buddha didn't teach it explicitly in the sutta, it is something that can be deducted from reflection on Dependent Origination and observation of reality, as I've tried to express in the other thread.

We should not forget that the Abhidhamma is officially considered as the teaching of the Buddha him-self

The Buddha gave different teachings to different people, depending on their need.

Regards,

Numerous deva-realms, the meditative skills to travel among them, and to be reborn among them, can be deduced also. Consistency demands that you would pursue this on the same grounds, but the Dhamma is not shamanism. Being able to deduce leaves the Buddha left on the tree strikes me as a waste of time, at best. As to the abhidhamma, "officially considered" doesn't make much hay because it's begging the question: while the Buddha gave different teachings by various similes, he never taught momentariness - in fact he was unable to find a simile for how fast the mind changed - so how do you reconcile the commentarial focus on it with the fact that the Buddha, over 45 years of teaching innumerably diverse folk, never brought it up?

Otherwise, how do you distinguish an intellectual understanding from an understanding that liberate us from samsara?

I wonder about this use of the phrase "intellectual understanding" because:

What follows is Ven Bodhi's explanation of bare attention and sati in his dialogue with B. Alan Wallace, found here: http://shamatha.org/content/corresponde ... kkhu-bodhi

..."You were worried that I had missed out on right thought, and further on in your letter you expressed concern about the need for proper motivation; but the factor often translated as right thought, sammā saṅkappa, is what I have here translated “right motivation” (it is elsewhere translated “right intention”). I’m not sure how the Tibetan translations render the second path factor, but the Pāli term suggests the purposive, motivational element in thought, rather than the cognitive, which is covered by right view."...

Your dismissal of 'intellectual understanding' is unwarranted. Jhana is what makes it liberative.

EDIT: abhidhammic --> commentarial

[Spiny O'Norman]

it doesn't necessarily mean the idea of momentariness is wrong.

The immediate present has no temporal duration. Duration is always a relationship between two different times, such as the present and the past. This is the case whether the duration is .0005 nanoseconds or 5 days. And since duration cannot exist in the immediate present, there is no reason to privilege the concept of an extremely short duration over other lengths of duration. All durations are relative.

Yes, it does seem rather arbitrary. For me the important point is that time is defined by change, and IMO it's change that we actually notice in practice.

Spiny

[Ñāṇa]

We should not forget that the Abhidhamma is officially considered as the teaching of the Buddha him-self

The doctrine of momentariness isn't taught in the Abhidhammapiṭaka either.

The Buddha gave different teachings to different people, depending on their need.

And he never taught the doctrine of momentariness.

The problem lies in thinking that it should be absolute present moment. The point is not to be in absolute present moment, but to develop sati-sampajana to the degree it can penetrate the nature of dhammas.

Consciousness can only occur in the present.

It is this clear seeing, direct experience of dhammas that makes the difference between vipassana panna and cinta panna.

Otherwise, how do you distinguish an intellectual understanding from an understanding that liberate us from samsara?

The doctrine of momentariness is merely an intellectual superimposition. A mind moment is an arbitrary concept which impedes clear seeing.

[Spiny O'Norman]

Otherwise, how do you distinguish an intellectual understanding from an understanding that liberate us from samsara?

By dropping all views, theories and ideas about how to look, or even what to look for. Just observing what's happening.

Spiny

[daverupa]

By dropping all views, theories and ideas about how to look, or even what to look for. Just observing what's happening.

The Dhamma does precisely the underlined bit; are you saying the Dhamma is not important, only the meditation method?