The causes for wisdom

[dhamma follower]

Greetings,

I should add here that intellectual understanding doesn't mean collecting knowledge. There needs to be the understanding of dhammas as they appear now as only dhammas, not self, again and again, by conditions.

That should be stressed, as it's a point at rarely comes through when discussions of this nature are had.

Metta,
Retro.

Dear Retro,

Indeed, it is a very important point. The Buddha taught the dhammas for us to understand whatever appears now correctly as no one, no self, only element arising by conditions. Only this present dhamma can be understood: seeing now, thinking now, etc....

Achaan Sujin stresses this again and again...

Brgds,
D.F

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Well hopefully that answers the question of what a "daily practice" looks like then.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

I should add here that intellectual understanding doesn't mean collecting knowledge. There needs to be the understanding of dhammas as they appear now as only dhammas, not self, again and again, by conditions.

I wonder if there is an assumption here that one must approach the Buddha's Teachings only from a standpoint of the Abhidhamma, and if that is the case, then the question is are we referring to the Abhidhamma Pitaka or the much later Abhidhammatthasangaha? Is the only way of talking about understanding limited to Abhidhamma style language, or can we get along quite well enough using sutta language?

[tiltbillings]

Indeed, it is a very important point. The Buddha taught the dhammas for us to understand whatever appears now correctly as no one, no self, only element arising by conditions. Only this present dhamma can be understood: seeing now, thinking now, etc....

Achaan Sujin stresses this again and again...

Other than not restricting oneself to solely Abhidhamma style language, finding suttas language more than adequate, what Theravadin teacher says otherwise?

[kirk5a]

If there's understanding of dhammas arising only by conditions, why there needs to be a formal practice? What kind of conditions does a formal practice provide for the arising of panna?

Concentration.

372. There is no meditative concentration for him who lacks insight, and no insight for him who lacks meditative concentration.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .budd.html

[tiltbillings]

If there's understanding of dhammas arising only by conditions, why there needs to be a formal practice? What kind of conditions does a formal practice provide for the arising of panna?

Concentration.

372. There is no meditative concentration for him who lacks insight, and no insight for him who lacks meditative concentration.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .budd.html

Concentration. Something which can be cultivated by practice.

[tiltbillings]

Dear Tilt,

Cetana arises with all citta, as you must know. Cetana arises in both kusala and akusala cittas. Kusala kamma results in kusala vipaka. As for the arising of panna, it is not cetana that conditions it, but panna cetasika it-self -from hearing and understanding the rights words.

The conditions for the arising of panna have been discussed so far, and RobertK has provided a lot of canonical material about that, I don't see why we have to try to make up new ones? Btw, it is not my method's or anyone's. We are simply discussing what are in the texts. Don't you agree?

Robertk has presented a lot of commentarial material, and there is nothing wrong with that, but with that material he has also presented a very particular interpretation, which is fine; however, there is nothing compelling in robertk's expositions that would demand that I forgo viewing things differently from robertk's Sujin point of view. In terms of study, investigation, and practice, I prefer the suttas to the Abhidhamma (and if I have to consider the Abhidhamma, I very much prefer the Abhidhamma Pitaka to the later works such as the Abhidhammatthasangaha). As for teachers, I would take someone such as Ven Nanananda.

That established, are we discussing what is in the texts? I have seen very little from the Sujin followers from the suttas whereas those here who are more apt to see sitting meditation as an essential part of practice tend to point to the suttas.

Since you really did not answer my question, let me repeat it:

Let me ask you, using conventional language, one can act intentionally -- kamma --, and does not such an action give rise to dhammas? Could not these dhammas then, in turn, be the conditions for the arising of sati? Speaking conventionally, one can certainly act in such a way that the conditions for sati arise. That is not say to that one just sits on a cushion and say: "Arise sati!!!" But it is to say that one can cultivate conditions that lead to the arising of sati. Even your method claims as much, but just in a more circumbendibus way.

Dear Tilt,

Cetana arises with all citta, as you must know. Cetana arises in both kusala and akusala cittas. Kusala kamma results in kusala vipaka. As for the arising of panna, it is not cetana that conditions it, but panna cetasika it-self -from hearing and understanding the rights words.

Note: "Let me ask you, using conventional language." You gave an Abhidhamma-speak response. Since not every one here is comfortable with Abhidhamma-speak or thinks in those terms, since the suttas do not require it, how about, as an interesting exercise, that you restate what you said using conventional Dhamma language.

[tiltbillings]

Dear Tilt,

I believe it refers to the kind of being with quick understanding, those who have had accumulated such a great deal of wisdom that one short sentence in common language is enough for them to get it.

I don't thinks so. These verses from the Dhammapada are quite straightforward and are clearly aimed at not some sort of person with paramis to burn, but rather it is directed to anyone, and its language is clear and direct. One does not need the complexities of the Abhidhamma to understand what it being said, nor does one need the complexities of the Abhidhamma to put it into practice.

By oneself is evil done, by oneself is one defiled;
By oneself is evil shunned, by oneself is one refined.

To polish or stain, on ourselves it depends,
For a person cannot by another be cleansed.
(Dhammapada 165)

Dear Tilt,

The above passage is saying the work to be done is from within. It doesn't mean, however, that there is a self doing the work.

There may be no unchanging, lasting self behind the choice to willfully act -- kamma --in such a way as to leave evil shunned, but that does not mean I cannot meaningfully say:"I am going to cease to do evil; I am going to cultivate good, and I am going to purify my mind." Again, the "I" does not refer to some sort of ATMAN, but it does point to the fact that the Buddha held that direct choices can be made in terms of our practice.

As for the Abhidhamma, why don't just simply call it the teaching on dhammas which is marvelous?

As has been pointed out, one does not need the complexities of the Abhidhamma.

Can anyone comes to realization of sotapattimagga without having realized the nature of dhammas ? And again, what arises and falls away?

Again, one does not need the complexities of the Abhidhamma to accomplish this.

[tiltbillings]

Hi robertk, do you practice sitting meditation? If you don't maybe you would enjoy it.

You see now, while at the computer I am sitting (actually slouching, maybe I should straigten up).

If I thought oh I better stand up so understanding can grow, or lie down, or open a Dhamma book then I am not really serious, I really dont want to undertand this moment as it is, I am imagining that some future situation is better.

It shows a lack of confidence in what the path is, it would mean I don't believe that as it says in the Satipatthana sutta "

bhikkhus, when he is going, a bhikkhu understands: 'I am going'; when he is standing, he understands: 'I am standing'; when he is sitting, he understands: 'I am sitting'; when he is lying down, he understands: 'I am lying down'; or just as his body is disposed so he understands it."

Notice it doesnt say "when is standing he should think "Oh sitting is better". It actually says "JUST AS HIS BODY IS DISPOSED "

Or sometimes Buddhist think they should try to gte rid of lust and then have 'real' vipassana. However The Satipatthana sutta says."bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust, as with lust;"""

And all of that becomes so much easier when grounded in a meditation practice.

[Ñāṇa]

since the suttas do not require it, how about, as an interesting exercise, that you restate what you said using conventional Dhamma language.

This neatly gets to the heart of the matter.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

And all of that becomes so much easier when grounded in a meditation practice.

Is that tautologous or are you differentiating a "meditation practice" here that is separate or distinct from satipatthana as described by Robert?

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

The difference is one is the teaching of the Buddha (that listening to the right Dhamma and wise consideration condition the arising of sati-panna) and the other (that intending to have sati by formal practice) is not, it is the contrary to the Buddha's teaching on anattaness and dependent originations.

Listening to the "right Dhamma" is a choice the you make; wise consideration is a choice you make. In other words, you are acting in such a way as to condition your trajectory in relation to the Dhamma. Sitting meditation practice is no different in that it is away of conditioning one's Dhamma trajectory. This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38. Sitting meditation is not all contrary to the Buddha's teachings.

And so, Ananda, I have taught directed meditation; and I have taught undirected meditation. Whatever is to be done by a teacher with compassion for the welfare of students, that has been done by me out of compassion for you. Here are the roots of trees. Here are empty places. Get down and meditate. Don't be lazy. Don't become one who is later remorseful. This is my instruction to you.SN 47.10 PTS: S v 154 CDB ii 1638

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

And all of that becomes so much easier when grounded in a meditation practice.

Is that tautologous or are you differentiating a "meditation practice" here that is separate from satipatthana as described by Robert?

Metta,
Retro.

The point is that with a grounding in sitting/walking type practice makes the sort of thing robertk is describing easier.

[tiltbillings]

Tilt:

It is hard not to read this as a flat, straight forward dismissal of sitting practice itself. Maybe you were really tired when you wrote this and you really do not mean to dismiss meditation practice as direct away of cultivating the factors giving rise to wisdom/insight

.

Think of all the suttas that say seeing and color must be directly known, must be seen with wisdom. Yet I have even heard of people closing their eyes thinking this is part of 'doing vipasaana". (I realize this is a very extreme case, possibly no Dhammawheel members would think that, but it does show the confusions that exist about what 'meditation' really is in the Buddhist sense).

Please elaborate. I have no idea of what you are talking about here.

[dhamma follower]

Indeed, it is a very important point. The Buddha taught the dhammas for us to understand whatever appears now correctly as no one, no self, only element arising by conditions. Only this present dhamma can be understood: seeing now, thinking now, etc....

Achaan Sujin stresses this again and again...

Other than not restricting oneself to solely Abhidhamma style language, finding suttas language more than adequate, what Theravadin teacher says otherwise?

Dear Tilt,

It is not a matter of language, it is a matter of understanding. How would you describe the mind processes of those who attained enlightenment in the sutta? What lead them to the experience of Nibanna? I would be very surprised if you were to say they have realized the arising and passing away of a cow or of their own legs.

There is a big difference between 1.telling someone to constantly be aware of such and such object (like the rising and falling of the abdomen) and 2.explaining about realities now as being conditioned and saying that only what appears now can be understood, that no one is doing it but only right understanding can approach realities now, it can not be forced to arise.

Brgds,
D.F

[dhamma follower]

If there's understanding of dhammas arising only by conditions, why there needs to be a formal practice? What kind of conditions does a formal practice provide for the arising of panna?

Concentration.

372. There is no meditative concentration for him who lacks insight, and no insight for him who lacks meditative concentration.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .budd.html

Dear Kirk5a,

Right or wrong concentration?

The passage quoted above does mean that both samatha and vipassana bhavana must be accompanied by panna-wisdom, and that whenever vipassana panna is there,right concentration is there too.

Again, concentration shouldn't be understood as something one is doing. Ekaggata cetasika -the mental concomitant that samadhi (concentration) refers to -arises with all cittas. We don't need to do anything for that to arise. What makes the samadhi right or wrong is other mental concomitants, whether they are wholesome (kusala-sobhana) or unwholsome (akusala) respectively. When there is wisdom ( panna cetasika) at whatever level, the citta is wholesome, and thus concentration is also wholesome. Only that kind of samadhi should be cultivated- with the help of right understanding.

Brgds,
D.F

[dhamma follower]

That established, are we discussing what is in the texts? I have seen very little from the Sujin followers from the suttas whereas those here who are more apt to see sitting meditation as an essential part of practice tend to point to the suttas.

Since you really did not answer my question, let me repeat it:

Let me ask you, using conventional language, one can act intentionally -- kamma --, and does not such an action give rise to dhammas? Could not these dhammas then, in turn, be the conditions for the arising of sati? Speaking conventionally, one can certainly act in such a way that the conditions for sati arise. That is not say to that one just sits on a cushion and say: "Arise sati!!!" But it is to say that one can cultivate conditions that lead to the arising of sati. Even your method claims as much, but just in a more circumbendibus way.

Dear Tilt,

Cetana arises with all citta, as you must know. Cetana arises in both kusala and akusala cittas. Kusala kamma results in kusala vipaka. As for the arising of panna, it is not cetana that conditions it, but panna cetasika it-self -from hearing and understanding the rights words.

Note: "Let me ask you, using conventional language." You gave an Abhidhamma-speak response. Since not every one here is comfortable with Abhidhamma-speak or thinks in those terms, since the suttas do not require it, how about, as an interesting exercise, that you restate what you said using conventional Dhamma language.

Dear Tilt,

Not even Abhidhammic, those are notions in the suttas as well. Since you insist, let me try to replace them with English words: Volition arises with all mind-moments. Volition arises in both wholesome and unwholesome mind moments. Wholesome kamma (by wholesome volition) results in moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching wholesome objects. As for the arising of wisdom, wisdom is not conditioned by volition. The Buddha has said the condition for the arising of wisdom is hearing the right Dhamma and wise consideration of what is heard. Wise consideration means understanding must be there too. If the right Dhamma is uttered, but no right understanding of what is heard, there's not yet condition to wisdom to arise later on.

Ok?

D.F

[tiltbillings]

Indeed, it is a very important point. The Buddha taught the dhammas for us to understand whatever appears now correctly as no one, no self, only element arising by conditions. Only this present dhamma can be understood: seeing now, thinking now, etc....

Achaan Sujin stresses this again and again...

Other than not restricting oneself to solely Abhidhamma style language, finding suttas language more than adequate, what Theravadin teacher says otherwise?

Dear Tilt,

It is not a matter of language, it is a matter of understanding. How would you describe the mind processes of those who attained enlightenment in the sutta? What lead them to the experience of Nibanna? I would be very surprised if you were to say they have realized the arising and passing away of a cow or of their own legs.

Have you ever noticed that you really do not answer questions put to you? These three sentences of yours do not address what I said, and if anything, you are coming across as saying quite directly that the suttas are inadequate to the task of discussing the Buddha's teachings. That is an interesting position to be in, and I certainly would not want to be there.

There is a big difference between 1.telling someone to constantly be aware of such and such object (like the rising and falling of the abdomen) and 2.explaining about realities now as being conditioned and saying that only what appears now can be understood, that no one is doing it but only right understanding can approach realities now, it can not be forced to arise.

Well, the problem with this statement (1.) is that you really do not really seem to understand what that practice is about. So, tell me with the seeing of the rising and falling of what dhammas, other than nibbana, one does not see anicca, dukkha, and anatta, one does not see the conditioned co-produced "nature" of dhammas?

[tiltbillings]

Dear Tilt,

Not even Abhidhammic, those are notions in the suttas as well. Since you insist, let me try to replace them with English words: Volition arises with all mind-moments. Volition arises in both wholesome and unwholesome mind moments. Wholesome kamma (by wholesome volition) results in moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching wholesome objects. As for the arising of wisdom, wisdom is not conditioned by volition. The Buddha has said the condition for the arising of wisdom is hearing the right Dhamma and wise consideration of what is heard. Wise consideration means understanding must be there too. If the right Dhamma is uttered, but no right understanding of what is heard, there's not yet condition to wisdom to arise later on.

Ok?

Not at all. It seems that you do not even understand the question I put to you. Oh, well.

[tiltbillings]

The difference is one is the teaching of the Buddha (that listening to the right Dhamma and wise consideration condition the arising of sati-panna) and the other (that intending to have sati by formal practice) is not, it is the contrary to the Buddha's teaching on anattaness and dependent originations.

Listening to the "right Dhamma" is a choice the you make; wise consideration is a choice you make. In other words, you are acting in such a way as to condition your trajectory in relation to the Dhamma. Sitting meditation practice is no different in that it is away of conditioning one's Dhamma trajectory. This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38. Sitting meditation is not all contrary to the Buddha's teachings.

And so, Ananda, I have taught directed meditation; and I have taught undirected meditation. Whatever is to be done by a teacher with compassion for the welfare of students, that has been done by me out of compassion for you. Here are the roots of trees. Here are empty places. Get down and meditate. Don't be lazy. Don't become one who is later remorseful. This is my instruction to you.SN 47.10 PTS: S v 154 CDB ii 1638