anatta and cetana and conditions for right view

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby dhamma follower » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:27 pm

Dear all,

An extract from discussions with AS:

Question: How to practice right understanding?
Achaan: Who is practicing and what is practicing?
Ans: The mind or nama is practicing
Achaan: Is seeing nama?
Ans: Yes, it belongs to nama.
Achaan: Not belong to, it is nama. So is seeing nama? Can seeing practice anything?
Ans: No, it can not.
Achaan: So what can? What do you mean by “practice”?
Ans: citta.
Achaan: Where is it?
Ans: At the six-sense doors
Achaan: Now? Once at a time.
Ans: Seeing, hearing etc…
Achaan: Can they practice?
Ans: No, cannot.
Achan: So what can?
Ans: panna.
Achaan: right. What does it mean, panna? What is it? Again, if we have a question, we have an answer. Where can we find panna? Can we have it right now? Without hearing, considering, can there be right understanding by your self, by your own thoughts?
Ans: No
Achaan: So, since we are just the listeners or the learners of the teaching of the Buddha, we should know how far apart is from the ordinary person to the Buddha him-self. It doesn’t mean that anyone can read and understand the teaching directly without considering carefully. So the Buddha taught about whatever appears now: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, hardness and visible object and sound. Is seeing real now? (Ans-yes), do we have to say it’s a dhamma or it’s a dhamma even if we don’t call it a dhamma?
Ans: No, no need to name it
Achaan: So now, you understand what dhamma is. Otherwise, one calls it dhamma dhamma, but doesn’t know what it is. And this is the difference between thinking by your self about dhamma, and studying it. So now, when anyone talks about dhamma, you know that that person understands dhamma or not. If he doesn’t talk about whatever is real and appears right now, he doesn’t talk about dhamma at all. And, what can be known and understood, not the one which has passed, or the one which hasn’t come yet, only what appears now. Are there many people in this room? (Ans: yes). What is seen now?
Ans: Intellectual understanding: visible object!
Achaan: Intellectual understanding is a step to direct understanding. Without understanding intellectually, there can not be direct understanding of realities as they are at all.
dhamma follower
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby robertk » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:42 pm

mikenz66 wrote:Dear Robert,

As you know, I've always found your words and posts useful. In fact, without your insightful comments I would have completely dismissed KS's approach years ago.


:anjali:
Mike

Thanks Mike
One of the clearest of A. Sujin's students was Ven Dhammadharo (died 1988) : I really like this transcript of a talk he gave in Australia.
http://www.abhidhamma.org/be%20here%20now.htm
User avatar
robertk
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby beeblebrox » Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:42 pm

dhamma follower wrote:Dear BBB,
I still don't see... does this deliberation have something to do with self?


It is the view which is wrong. "I shall walk and sit maintaining sati". Sait does'nt arise because one decides to have it, but because of its own conditions.


Hi Dhamma Follower,

Whose view is that... yours, or the sentence's?

Let me ask you a few questions:

Do you see a self that is inherent to "free will"? If so, then isn't that a failure to see its anatta nature?

Do you see this "free will" as something that should always be available? If so, then isn't that a failure to see its impermanent nature?

Do you think that "free will" should always be something that is agreeable, or pleasant? If so, then isn't that a failure to see its dukkha nature?

Do you think that "free will" is something which should be self-functioning, in itself? If so, then isn't that a failure to see its sunyata nature?

I think it's pretty obvious to see when there is a "free will" that is happening, when it arises, and there's concentration or mindfulness already established. That is, it's easily noticeable when you see that you have a freedom to do something, which is apart from some of the conditions which were around you.

I think it would be a mistake to just throw it out because you thought you perceived some kind of self in it. You should just note its characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta, that's all... and you can also allow it to have some benefit on your own practice, while it lasts...

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:46 pm

robertk wrote:One of the clearest of A. Sujin's students was Ven Dhammadharo (died 1988) : I really like this transcript of a talk he gave in Australia.
http://www.abhidhamma.org/be%20here%20now.htm

Thanks, there's some interesting stuff in there. However, in my opinion the following is actually what many good teachers are saying, if one takes time to pay attention to them...
We don't want to be aware of distraction. We want to get on with being aware of breath, of body, of feeling, of citta (consciousness), or of this or that. What about distraction? Is distraction not included in the four satipatthanas, the objects of mindfulness? The Buddha did not say, whatever you do, don't be aware of distraction. What choice do you have? You can't be aware of seeing at the moment of distraction, because then there is no seeing, there is distraction. You can't be aware of calm at the moment of distraction, because there is no calm. Ask yourself, do you really want to be aware or do you just want calm? Just get rid of the distraction and get on with whatever we are doing. But what is the point of getting on with whatever we are doing when it is “we” who are doing it all the time? There is no awareness, no detachment. What is the point? We are just perpetuating the illusion of a self who has got a job to do, who wants to do it and does not like distraction which gets in the way of doing the job.


We cannot control anything. You cannot control seeing or hearing. You don't know what you are going to hear next, or whether you are even going to hear. Could one become blind and deaf now? We can't control anything in life. Could one make oneself angry now? If so, it is because there are conditions for it. If somebody would tell others that they should be angry now, perhaps not everybody could be angry. They might try, but it might not be possible. Some people may just laugh, others may be aware. It is not only awareness you can't control. We cannot even control wrong practice. One may take wrong practice for the right practice, and one would like to have more of it than conditions allow. We can't control anything. But with right understanding there can be more awareness. If we listen to true Dhamma in the right way, over and over again, with right attention, and learn to be aware little by little, right understanding develops.

There are ways for everything to happen by conditions. We are more familiar with attachment or anger. But who is familiar with awareness yet? It has to be developed. It is easy to have attachment, but it is difficult to be aware, awareness is not the object of attachment. .

Whenever awareness arises it is being developed. Right understanding develops little by little, when there is infinite patience. You can't be patient because you want to be, but with right understanding patience will take care of itself, when the right conditions are present, and not when the right conditions are not present. If there are not the right conditions for awareness that explains why we do not have awareness. And if there are the right conditions that explains why there is awareness. We should never forget that awareness is not self, we should not take the credit for it. If we are attached to awareness and think that we made it arise, then there is no end to our troubles, no end to the cycle of birth and death. Awareness is anatta. It is of no use to be attached to it, cling to it or to be proud of ourselves for having awareness. One has to be aware of awareness too.

This is the interesting conundrum of the path. If we are attached to particular ideas, books, teachers, approaches, methods, (or non-methods: all these points can be just as easily applied to the AS approach --- the ironic thing about many [not all] AS students is that they appear to refuse recognise this...), we are going the wrong way.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10097
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby dhamma follower » Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:02 am

Dear BBB,

It seems you haven't followed this conversation carefully and keep on saying arguments based on your own set of concepts and "experiences" rather than the standard concepts taught by the Buddha. "Free will" is one such example of your own ideas, not found in the Buddha's dhamma and I have quoted Ven "Dhammanando" quoting the Buddha for your reference. Don't forget that all "experiences" should be examined and understood according to right view taught by the Buddha , otherwise, your own interpretation will lead you astray.

I don't see any point to continue further this way.

Brgrds,

beeblebrox wrote:
dhamma follower wrote:Dear BBB,
I still don't see... does this deliberation have something to do with self?


It is the view which is wrong. "I shall walk and sit maintaining sati". Sait does'nt arise because one decides to have it, but because of its own conditions.


Hi Dhamma Follower,

Whose view is that... yours, or the sentence's?

Let me ask you a few questions:

Do you see a self that is inherent to "free will"? If so, then isn't that a failure to see its anatta nature?

Do you see this "free will" as something that should always be available? If so, then isn't that a failure to see its impermanent nature?

Do you think that "free will" should always be something that is agreeable, or pleasant? If so, then isn't that a failure to see its dukkha nature?

Do you think that "free will" is something which should be self-functioning, in itself? If so, then isn't that a failure to see its sunyata nature?

I think it's pretty obvious to see when there is a "free will" that is happening, when it arises, and there's concentration or mindfulness already established. That is, it's easily noticeable when you see that you have a freedom to do something, which is apart from some of the conditions which were around you.

I think it would be a mistake to just throw it out because you thought you perceived some kind of self in it. You should just note its characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta, that's all... and you can also allow it to have some benefit on your own practice, while it lasts...

:anjali:
dhamma follower
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby beeblebrox » Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:15 am

dhamma follower wrote:Dear BBB,

It seems you haven't followed this conversation carefully and keep on saying arguments based on your own set of concepts and "experiences" rather than the standard concepts taught by the Buddha. "Free will" is one such example of your own ideas, not found in the Buddha's dhamma and I have quoted Ven "Dhammanando" quoting the Buddha for your reference. Don't forget that all "experiences" should be examined and understood according to right view taught by the Buddha , otherwise, your own interpretation will lead you astray.

I don't see any point to continue further this way.


Hi Dhamma Follower,

I've read the thread, along with Ven. Dhammanando's post before you quoted it...

I just thought that it would be useful to the thread to point out that any "self" that a person thinks he might've viewed in anything, like the term "free will," or in a sentence like, "I am writing this," has more to do with that person's view of the self, than anything that might be inherent in these words, or even the person saying them.

To me, this sentence, "I'm going to sit and work on sati," only shows us what kind of conditions are happening... nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't say anything to me about the person's view of the self. Similarly, if a person says that there's a "free will," I try to interpret that without reading any self into it... nothing more, nothing less. (Unless the person brings up that kind of wrong interpretation into it.)

I hope you see what I meant now... and I apologize if my posts seemed inappropriate.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby dhamma follower » Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:49 am

Dear BBB,

To me, this sentence, "I'm going to sit and work on sati," only shows us what kind of conditions are happening... nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't say anything to me about the person's view of the self. Similarly, if a person says that there's a "free will," I try to interpret that without reading any self into it... nothing more, nothing less. (Unless the person brings up that kind of wrong interpretation into it.)


Only right view can recognize the wrong view. wrong view doesn't know it- self.

We all need to study the Buddha's words very carefully.

Brgds,
dhamma follower
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby theY » Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:55 am

Dear all,

I'm sorry to write in this topic without complete reading all replies.

Mistake at line by line.

Notice her stratagem.

My comment is in parenthesis with a bold character.

From quote of dhamma follower:

Question: How to practice right understanding?
[01] Achaan: Who is practicing and what is practicing?
[02] Ans: The mind or nama is practicing
[03] Achaan: Is seeing nama?
[04] Ans: Yes, it belongs to nama.
[05] Achaan: Not belong to, it is nama. So is seeing nama? Can seeing practice anything?
[06] Ans: No, it can not.
[07] Achaan: So what can? What do you mean by “practice”?
[08] Ans: citta.

([-a-] Above is suttantanaya. In abhidhammanaya, there aren't all citta can be practice--bhāvanā.)

[09] Achaan: Where is it?
[10] Ans: At the six-sense doors
[11] Achaan: Now? Once at a time.
[12] Ans: Seeing, hearing etc…

([-b-] Above is suttantanaya. In abhidhammanaya, there must add "vīthimuttacitta", too.)

[13] Achaan: Can they practice?
[14] Ans: No, cannot.

([-c-] Above refer to pañcadavārāvajjana in abhidhammanaya. But in suttantanaya, citta at bhāvanā-type-sutta(netti) can practice. We can found cittabhāvanā in many sutta. She shouldn't accept above answer, if she accept [01] to [12], because those are suttantanaya, that citta can practice. However, she accept it by no any deny at below, and mixed [01]-[14] as the same naya. This is very actually wrong mix of naya.)

[15] Achan: So what can?
[16] Ans: panna

([-d-]Above is suttantanaya, called "bhāvanāmayapāññā" in saṅgītisutta and abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, "sutamayapaññā (or cintāmayapaññā for bhodhisatta)" in vibhaṅga-abhidhammapiṭaka, and refer to 3rd to 12st of paṭisambhidāmagga's pre-thirteen-ñāṇas (i can categorize it in only pre-thirteen of tree seventy ñāṇas). But in abhidhammanaya, commentary wrote paññā of pañcadavārāvajjana can't practice as alike as its sampayutta-citta.)

[17] Achaan: right. What does it mean, panna? What is it? Again, if we have a question, we have an answer. Where can we find panna? Can we have it right now? Without hearing, considering, can there be right understanding by your self, by your own thoughts?
[18] Ans: No

([-e-]Above paññā is "dhammassavanamaya" in abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, and refer to 1st: sutamayañāṇa, in paṭisambhidāmagga. If we compare to [-d-] we will see her wrong, she made it the same paññā, so she said below "we are just the listeners or the learners of the teaching of the Buddha", even though she known that many bhikkhus in the past were enlighten without urgent listening. This is a wrong mix of paññā type in the same topic.)

[19] Achaan: So, since we are just the listeners or the learners of the teaching of the Buddha, we should know how far apart is from the ordinary person to the Buddha him-self. It doesn’t mean that anyone can read and understand the teaching directly without considering carefully. So the Buddha taught about whatever appears now: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, hardness and visible object and sound. Is seeing real now? (Ans-yes), do we have to say it’s a dhamma or it’s a dhamma even if we don’t call it a dhamma?
[20] Ans: No, no need to name it
[21] Achaan: So now, you understand what dhamma is. Otherwise, one calls it dhamma dhamma, but doesn’t know what it is. And this is the difference between thinking by your self about dhamma, and studying it. So now, when anyone talks about dhamma, you know that that person understands dhamma or not. If he doesn’t talk about whatever is real and appears right now, he doesn’t talk about dhamma at all. And, what can be known and understood, not the one which has passed, or the one which hasn’t come yet, only what appears now. Are there many people in this room? (Ans: yes). What is seen now?
[22] Ans: Intellectual understanding: visible object!
[23] Achaan: Intellectual understanding is a step to direct understanding. Without understanding intellectually, there can not be direct understanding of realities as they are at all.
...end...
[-f-]
[19]-[21] is a brief informal way to practice paccayapariggahañāṇa. Follow to netti, students can get that ñāṇa by that way, if they are 1st, or 2nd lotuses. However, most of those lotuses don't have to practice that ñāṇa, and most of 3rd or 4th lotuses can't get that ñāṇa by a brief informal way, because they can't fulfill omitted words, expose abbreviations, or notice for another tricks themselves. So most of her students can't identify their self-ñāṇa-status. They always ignore by think like "more hard over to know ".

Full method to practice this ñāṇa had taught in visuddhimagga, and vimuttimagga. And you can go to Pa-Auk to meet live teachers.

UhBaUnTaUh wrote:She thought management is atta. In addition, she taught cetana is management. Another, she taught cetana is anatta. (I'm not mistake typing any character in this line.)


[-g-]

Above will clearly see if we think to her answer when someone ask her "How to practice, do, satipaṭṭhāna ?"

Because she often answer like "You don't have to do anything", then "Sati just arise itself". Who don't think "management is atta" when listen that sentences?
Last edited by theY on Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lesson Relationship of Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha (10/31/2012)
http://tipitakanews.org/en/node/61
theY
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:07 pm

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby dhamma follower » Fri Nov 23, 2012 1:40 pm

Dear TheY,

It's funny, you seem to approach the Dhamma like a mathematician, putting words into equations and drawing conclusions from it :-).

The Buddha him self was also using conventional terms mixing with ones denoting paramatha dhamma. But those who understood could understand when he was referring to the absolute truth, and when he was not.

The knowledge of which word used in which section of the Tipitaka without right and deep understanding of them is useless.

What does anatta mean?

Brgrds,
D.F

theY wrote:From quote of dhamma follower:

Question: How to practice right understanding?
[01] Achaan: Who is practicing and what is practicing?
[02] Ans: The mind or nama is practicing
[03] Achaan: Is seeing nama?
[04] Ans: Yes, it belongs to nama.
[05] Achaan: Not belong to, it is nama. So is seeing nama? Can seeing practice anything?
[06] Ans: No, it can not.
[07] Achaan: So what can? What do you mean by “practice”?
[08] Ans: citta.

([-a-] Above is suttantanaya. In abhidhammanaya, there aren't all citta can be practice--bhāvanā.)

[09] Achaan: Where is it?
[10] Ans: At the six-sense doors
[11] Achaan: Now? Once at a time.
[12] Ans: Seeing, hearing etc…

([-b-] Above is suttantanaya. In abhidhammanaya, there must add "vīthimuttacitta", too.)

[13] Achaan: Can they practice?
[14] Ans: No, cannot.

([-c-] Above refer to pañcadavārāvajjana in abhidhammanaya. But in suttantanaya, citta at bhāvanā-type-sutta(netti) can practice. We can found cittabhāvanā in many sutta. She shouldn't accept above answer, if she accept [01] to [12], because those are suttantanaya, that citta can practice. However, she accept it by no any deny at below, and mixed [01]-[14] as the same naya. This is very actually wrong mix of naya.)

[15] Achan: So what can?
[16] Ans: panna

([-d-]Above is suttantanaya, called "bhāvanāmayapāññā" in saṅgītisutta and abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, "sutamayapaññā (or cintāmayapaññā for bhodhisatta)" in vibhaṅga-abhidhammapiṭaka, and refer to 3rd to 12st of paṭisambhidāmagga's pre-thirteen-ñāṇas (i can categorize it in only pre-thirteen of tree seventy ñāṇas). But in abhidhammanaya, commentary wrote paññā of pañcadavārāvajjana can't practice as alike as its sampayutta-citta.)

[17] Achaan: right. What does it mean, panna? What is it? Again, if we have a question, we have an answer. Where can we find panna? Can we have it right now? Without hearing, considering, can there be right understanding by your self, by your own thoughts?
[18] Ans: No

(Above paññā is "dhammassavanamaya" in abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, and refer to 1st: sutamayañāṇa, in paṭisambhidāmagga. If we compare to [-d-] we will see her wrong, she made it the same paññā, so she said below "we are just the listeners or the learners of the teaching of the Buddha", even though she known that many bhikkhus in the past were enlighten without urgent listening. This is a wrong mix of paññā type in the same topic.)

[19] Achaan: So, since we are just the listeners or the learners of the teaching of the Buddha, we should know how far apart is from the ordinary person to the Buddha him-self. It doesn’t mean that anyone can read and understand the teaching directly without considering carefully. So the Buddha taught about whatever appears now: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking, hardness and visible object and sound. Is seeing real now? (Ans-yes), do we have to say it’s a dhamma or it’s a dhamma even if we don’t call it a dhamma?
[20] Ans: No, no need to name it
[21] Achaan: So now, you understand what dhamma is. Otherwise, one calls it dhamma dhamma, but doesn’t know what it is. And this is the difference between thinking by your self about dhamma, and studying it. So now, when anyone talks about dhamma, you know that that person understands dhamma or not. If he doesn’t talk about whatever is real and appears right now, he doesn’t talk about dhamma at all. And, what can be known and understood, not the one which has passed, or the one which hasn’t come yet, only what appears now. Are there many people in this room? (Ans: yes). What is seen now?
[22] Ans: Intellectual understanding: visible object!
[23] Achaan: Intellectual understanding is a step to direct understanding. Without understanding intellectually, there can not be direct understanding of realities as they are at all.
...end...

dhamma follower
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby dhamma follower » Fri Nov 23, 2012 1:58 pm

Dear Mike,

This is the interesting conundrum of the path. If we are attached to particular ideas, books, teachers, approaches, methods, (or non-methods: all these points can be just as easily applied to the AS approach --- the ironic thing about many [not all] AS students is that they appear to refuse recognise this...), we are going the wrong way.


I would like to add that right understanding is always devoid of attachment, whereas anyone who is not yet an Arahant is bound to have lobha to different degrees. However, In the absolute sense, there's no such people called AS' students or Mahasi's or Goenka's, but only moments of citta arising and falling away by conditions, at time is is accompanied with right understanding, at others with wrong understanding and lobha. Wrong view always likes to think in terms of people and situation, while understanding knows that it is just a moment of thinking - but wrong view is bound to arise as long as we are not a sotapana, so the only hope there can be, is that more and more moments of right understanding will arise, by its own conditions, of course.

Brgrds,
D.F
dhamma follower
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:11 pm

Hi DF,

Perhaps you are missing the point. Please forgive me for being blunt. Any argument you regarding attachment and so on may be applied equally to the KS method and, in particular, to her students. Despite all this talk of cittas rising and falling, unless you happen to be an Arahant you do have a sense of self and that self that you have created has a particular understanding of the Dhamma that it thinks is better than other models.

I find AS's ideas very interesting. However, her students seem to proceed from the assumption that they are absolutely correct, which makes conversation rather stale after a while, and contradicts your statement that:
anyone who is not yet an Arahant is bound to have lobha to different degrees.



:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10097
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby theY » Fri Nov 23, 2012 9:25 pm

dhamma follower wrote:Dear TheY,

It's funny, you seem to approach the Dhamma like a mathematician, putting words into equations and drawing conclusions from it :-).

The Buddha him self was also using conventional terms mixing with ones denoting paramatha dhamma. But those who understood could understand when he was referring to the absolute truth, and when he was not.

The knowledge of which word used in which section of the Tipitaka without right and deep understanding of them is useless.

What does anatta mean?

Brgrds,
D.F

theY wrote:From quote of dhamma follower:

Question: How ...



Did you find out words: naya, sutamayañāna, sutamayapaññā, lotuses, netti, paṭisambhidāmagga, visuddhimagga, vimuttimagga, vibhaṅga, 3, and 10 puññakiriyāvatthus, before you reply above?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Where is conventional terms mixing between suttantanaya and abhidhammanaya at the same topic?

Where is conventional terms mixing between sutamayapañña and sutamayañāṇa at the same topic?

I never found them before.

Show me, please.
Lesson Relationship of Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha (10/31/2012)
http://tipitakanews.org/en/node/61
theY
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:07 pm

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby dhamma follower » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:44 am

mikenz66 wrote:Hi DF,

Perhaps you are missing the point. Please forgive me for being blunt. Any argument you regarding attachment and so on may be applied equally to the KS method and, in particular, to her students. Despite all this talk of cittas rising and falling, unless you happen to be an Arahant you do have a sense of self and that self that you have created has a particular understanding of the Dhamma that it thinks is better than other models.

I find AS's ideas very interesting. However, her students seem to proceed from the assumption that they are absolutely correct, which makes conversation rather stale after a while, and contradicts your statement that:
anyone who is not yet an Arahant is bound to have lobha to different degrees.



:anjali:
Mike


Dear Mike,

Perhaps you are missing the point :-). It is obvious that AS' students (me included) are not free from attachment, as long as they are not arahant, like any one else. However, I wanted to make the distinction between the concept of a person and the right view as a paramatha dhamma. One so called person can have moments of right view, which is free from attachment, followed by moments of wrong view, accompanied with attachment. It is bound to be so since we are so far from being a sotapanna. So what matters here is not whether AS' students have attachment or not, because of course they do, since no one claims to be an arahant there. What matters is any moment of right view that can arise now, because without it no further development is possible. Whether they think they are absolutely correct or not, does that really matter?- it's their own problem :-). I think whether what they say now contains right view or not is of more importance. If what they say is not correct, then you can point it out.

Another point I would like to add is wrong view is the first fetter to be removed, as illustrated below (extract from Nina Van Gorkom's vipassana letters):

We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (I, Sagåthå-vagga, Ch I, The Devas, 3, The
Sword Suttas, § 1, By impending Sword) that a deva said to the Buddha:
As one downsmitten by impending sword,
As one whose hair and turban are aflame,
So let the bhikkhu, mindful and alert,
Go forth, all worldly passions left behind.
The Exalted One said:
As one downsmitten by impending sword,
As one whose hair and turban are aflame,
So let the bhikkhu, mindful and alert,
Go forth, leaving personality-belief behind.
Just as the person who has been struck by a sword or whose hair and turban are
aflame will not be neglectful but apply energy to remedy his dangerous situation,
evenso should the bhikkhu not be neglectful, but mindful and alert. The Buddha
repeated what the deva said, but he changed one line, and this change is very
meaningful. The deva spoke about subduing the sense pleasures, but so long as
they have not been eradicated, will one be bound by clinging to them. They
cannot be eradicated when there is still the wrong view of self. We read in the
commentary to this sutta, the “Såratthappakåsiní”, that the Buddha, in view of
this, wanted to change the deva’s verse, using the same similes but applying
them to the magga-citta of the sotåpanna (the streamwinner, who attains the
first stage of enlightenment), which citta eradicates personality-belief, sakkåya
diììhi.


I hope it is clearer now,
Brgrds,
D.F
Last edited by dhamma follower on Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
dhamma follower
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby dhamma follower » Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:05 am

Did you find out words: naya, sutamayañāna, sutamayapaññā, lotuses, netti, paṭisambhidāmagga, visuddhimagga, vimuttimagga, vibhaṅga, 3, and 10 puññakiriyāvatthus, before you reply above?


I admit that your list of words are impressive. But I am more inclined to first understand more deeply very common words such as dhamma, anatta, panna....

When you mentioned them, I understood naya in the context of Suttantanaya and Abhidhamma naya, two modes of expression.

paṭisambhidāmagga, visuddhimagga, vimuttimagga, vibhaṅga are words that I've heard before and know roughly what they are about, but don't find them of any revelence in this context.

As for suttamayañāna and suttamayapaññā, my current understanding is like this:
suttamayapaññā: the theoretical understanding arisen as a result of hearing the Buddha's teaching
suttamayañāna: Knowledge contains in the heard

Isn't it true when AS said that we are the listeners, as opposed to being a Buddha-to-be, and therefore we need to consider carefully what we learn? What do suttamayañāna and suttamayapaññā have to do in that context?

Where is conventional terms mixing between suttantanaya and abhidhammanaya at the same topic?


The satipatthana sutta is one of the many examples
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... wayof.html

Brgrds,
D.F
dhamma follower
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby mikenz66 » Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:05 am

Hi DF,
dhamma follower wrote:Perhaps you are missing the point :-).

Sorry. I think it is you that is missing the point. theY asked some pertinant questions about mixing suttana terms with abhidhamma terms. I pointed out that uncontrollability of individual citta does not negate the possibility of conditioning things, which appears to be a key part of your argument. Since you are relying on some rather technical Abhidhamma developments, it would be prudent to check out theY's queries in detail, rather than repeat these rather simplistic "Is understanding happening now?" questions. That question can be equally asked to anyone, including KS, so actually proves nothing.

In the hands of a skilful teacher, which I presume KS is (and I am reasonably certain many other non-KS followers are are) that sort of question-and-answer can be quite valuable. But it does not answer any of the concerns that have been raised. You continue to argue with the assumption that what you believe to be true is true.

Furethermore, as far as I understand it, the whole theory you are suggesting is based on an interpretation of late Commentary on the Abhidhamma. [I may be mistaken, but in that case perhaps you can point to where this billions of mind-moments per second is recorded in the Abhidhamma itself.]

As I said, discussion is interesting, because it may well expose wrong view on both sides.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10097
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby robertk » Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:18 am

Mike If you could give some details on the points ypu think they makes I will be happy to reply. I am afraid i cannot understand anyhing he writes so it is hard for me to follow. I admire you and tam who can understand him apparently.
mikenz66 wrote:Hi DF,
dhamma follower wrote:Perhaps you are missing the point :-).

Sorry. I think it is you that is missing the point. theY asked some pertinant questions about mixing suttana terms with abhidhamma terms. I pointed out that uncontrollability of individual citta does not negate the possibility of conditioning things, which appears to be a key part of your argument. Since you are relying on some rather technical Abhidhamma developments, it would be prudent to check out theY's queries in detail, rather than repeat these rather simplistic "Is understanding happening now?" questions. That question can be equally asked to anyone, including KS, so actually proves nothing.

In the hands of a skilful teacher, which I presume KS is (and I am reasonably certain many other non-KS followers are are) that sort of question-and-answer can be quite valuable. But it does not answer any of the concerns that have been raised. You continue to argue with the assumption that what you believe to be true is true.

Furethermore, as far as I understand it, the whole theory you are suggesting is based on an interpretation of late Commentary on the Abhidhamma. [I may be mistaken, but in that case perhaps you can point to where this billions of mind-moments per second is recorded in the Abhidhamma itself.]

As I said, discussion is interesting, because it may well expose wrong view on both sides.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
robertk
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby mikenz66 » Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:06 am

Hi Robert,

I don't really understand the points because I don't have that sort of knowledge of the Pali but I gather that the gist of the argument is inappropriate mixing of sutta and abhidhamma and/or commentarial terminology. Perhaps that gives you enough to go on.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10097
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby dhamma follower » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:24 pm

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Robert,

I don't really understand the points because I don't have that sort of knowledge of the Pali but I gather that the gist of the argument is inappropriate mixing of sutta and abhidhamma and/or commentarial terminology. Perhaps that gives you enough to go on.

:anjali:
Mike


To which I have addressed in my above post to TheY. He is welcome to reply and present his counter argument. The mixing of terminology is not a problem per se. And think we can agree to say that even though the Buddha was using conventional term such as "I", "bikkhu", bhavana, it doesn't mean that he was saying that there is truly a person behind those terms. In the satipatthana sutta, he is using both terms denoting such conventional truth and paramatha dhammas.

We tend to separate the Sutta from the Abhidhamma, as though they talked about different realities, but how can it be? The Buddha taught about dhammas, kusala and akusala, how they are conditioned, how there can be an end to that dependent originations. That's the essence in both.

Furethermore, as far as I understand it, the whole theory you are suggesting is based on an interpretation of late Commentary on the Abhidhamma. [I may be mistaken, but in that case perhaps you can point to where this billions of mind-moments per second is recorded in the Abhidhamma itself.]


The main message that I was trying to present doesn't require this billion of mind-moments per second theory. The very basic concepts found in the sutta such as: anatta, dependent originations, the five khandas, the twelve ayatana, rupa etc... are already enough to support AS' main points.

And if you agree that the moment of seeing is not the same than the moment of hearing, smelling, touching and thinking, then it follows that citta must arise and fall away extremely rapidly, otherwise we could not experience life as we do.

Brgds,
dhamma follower
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby beeblebrox » Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:22 pm

theY wrote:
UhBaUnTaUh wrote:She thought management is atta. In addition, she taught cetana is management. Another, she taught cetana is anatta. (I'm not mistake typing any character in this line.)


Above will clearly see if we think to her answer when someone ask her "How to practice, do, satipaṭṭhāna ?"

Because she often answer like "You don't have to do anything", then "Sati just arise itself". Who don't think "management is atta" when listen that sentences?


To comment on UhbaUnTaUh's quote (whether it's accurate, or not)... I think that's a serious misgrasp of anatta. The main problem lies in trying to attach "atta" as a label to something like "management," or really, to anything. If we read the suttas (and maybe even abhidhamma), we don't ever see the Buddha and/or commentators using "atta" in that way. Why not? Because "atta" in itself is an illusory construction. It is not a term which can be seen as something permanent, unchanging, or reliable.

If a person makes an attempt to label something as "atta," and then tries to cling to that as something definitive, then I think only dukkha (or confusion) will ensue... because of making that kind of statement. It's the main point behind the Buddha's formula: "Is this something permanent or not...? If it's impermanent, then should it be seen as something reliable, or not? If it's not reliable, then why see a self in it?"

"Management" is just a bunch of conditions that came together... nothing more, nothing less. If that kind of formation arises, then I think that's a beneficial formation. Why beneficial? Because when there is a "management," then you can manage your time in such a way where you'll end up being able to read the Dhamma, very carefully. You'll have as much time as you'd like to read, because your time was well-managed. I think that this would always be a good thing... to try to see it otherwise, I don't think it could be called a wise behavior.

To go back to the topic of this thread... when someone thinks that kamma is negated because of anatta... then that only means he's been trying to view kamma using "atta" as a reference point (i.e., if there's no atta, then that must mean that there's no kamma)... that can't be called right view. It comes from misgrasping anatta.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Postby mikenz66 » Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:00 pm

Hi DF,
dhamma follower wrote:The main message that I was trying to present doesn't require this billion of mind-moments per second theory. The very basic concepts found in the sutta such as: anatta, dependent originations, the five khandas, the twelve ayatana, rupa etc... are already enough to support AS' main points.,

I guess I've missed that, because it certainly is not clear to me.

Despite repeated conversations (mostly online) with various KS advocates I've not heard a convincing reason why not being able to directly control citta presents a problem to development. [The Buddha said that rupa cannot be controlled, for example, but obviously that doesn't refer to the fact that doing certain things affects our bodies positively or negatively; and so on for the other aggregates...]

And, if it did, we all have the exact same problem. You seem to be arguing that a certain way of going about things is going to give better results in the long term than other methods. (If you're not, why would it be important?) But this is just as much a particular view/method as anyone else's view/method regarding Dhamma, so you (or some succession of citta if you prefer) would be subject to exactly the same criticisms that you are making.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10097
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Abhidhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests