The causes for wisdom

[robertk]

Some posts suggested that silabataparamasa only applied to things like dog duty asectics and other extreme practices.
So I repost this to make it clear that silabataparamsa can ve very subtle.

In fact the visuddhimagga CHAPTER XVII The Soil of Understanding (conclusion):267. Another [thinks] through rules-and-vows(silabataparamasa) clinging, “
This rite and ritual
leads him who perfects it to perfect bliss in becoming in the fortunate states of
the sense sphere or in the fine-material or immaterial kinds of becoming,” and
he performs kamma to achieve that. That kamma of his is kamma-process
becoming. The aggregates generated by the kamma are rebirth-process becoming.
But the percipient, etc., kinds of becoming are included in that, too. So rules-andvows
clinging is a condition for all three, namely, the sense-desire, fine-material
and immaterial kinds of becoming with their analysis and their synthesis.
The material and immaterial becomings are the results of true jhana: extra-ordinary degrees of mahakusala.

so this is how incredibly subtle silabataparamasa can be . It can at times even lead to kusala actions.




What more to say of any special practice we think is needed to make vipassana arise. So certainly an idea that by sitting (or standing or walking or talking) or focussing on this or focussing on that , that these actions are neccessary conditions for insight to arise is an aspect of wrong view and silabataparamasa.
Like now, can insight arise while typing on a computer- Yes provided there is enough right understanding. But if one then tries to make it happen, or thinks they should focus on the fingers or the feelings or whatever their object of choice is then that shows a lack of understanding of how incredibly anatta and uncontrollable is each moment.

There is not the patience (khanti) to let satisampajanna arise naturally, as it must if the conditions are there. If one tries in this way it shows one still has some doubts or even disbelieves the texts about anatta. The theory and the practice conform completely: not "oh I still have self, I will do my practice and after I become sotapanna there will be no self" . It will never happen

[tiltbillings]

It is totally unclear, in light of these comments -- viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952&p=230761#p230741 -- that you are at all neutral about sitting meditation as it generally understood here.

Please check out the quotes from the Satipatthana sutta I supplied earlier in this thread.
Insight can arise while walking, while standing, while looking straight ahead, while looking to the back, while defacating and while urinating. And most certainly it can arise while sitting.

Yes, well, no one has said any differently.

However if one believes that insight depends on being in a certain posture, or if one thinks that some technique is what vipassana is or leads to vipassana, then this belief is, so I claim, an indication of silabataparamasa.

So, then your statements in the linked msg are not quite correct. Actually, they are exaggerated and polemical, so we can dismiss what you have said to this point. I know of no teacher that teaches the distorted caricature of meditation that seems rampant among Sujin followers and that you displayed for us here. Good to see that maybe we can find a common ground.

Note I am referring here to vipassana: some samatha is aided by seclusion and by specific posture as I mentioned above.

Okay.

[robertk]

Good to see that maybe we can find a common ground.

yes we seem to be getting closer. I can almost feel the love

I think that many of the meditation groups do say that insight can arise anywhere,
so it is not clear why they then seem to preference certain activities...

[tiltbillings]

What more to say of any special practice we think is needed to make vipassana arise. So certainly an idea that by sitting (or standing or walking or talking) or focussing on this or focussing on that , that these actions are neccessary conditions for insight to arise is an aspect of wrong view and silabataparamasa.

Except you are rather missing the point of the practice as a skillful means for cultivating the conditions that give rise to mindfulness/sati, allowing to one see the rise and fall of the nama/rupa experience as it is. If there is a clinging to practice as you suggest might happen, that is not necessarily a fatal problem. It is simply part of the context that gets seen, understood as being empty of self, and let go. Any practice is subject to such issues, even listing to and studying the Dhamma in hopes that one can "see" the "realities."

Like now, can insight arise while typing on a computer- Yes provided there is enough right understanding. But if one then tries to make it happen, or thinks they should focus on the fingers or the feelings or whatever their object of choice is then that shows a lack of understanding of how incredibly anatta and uncontrollable is each moment.

What is the right amount of "enough understanding?" You are, in this Sujin practice, by your own description, actively choosing to do any number of things in hope that that helps give rise to the proper conditions for insight.

There is not the patience (khanti) to let satisampajanna arise naturally, as it must if the conditions are there.

Are you, in following the Sujin methodology, being super patient just because it is the Sujin method? You cannot be impatient, you cannot want this to move a little faster and little deeper because you are doing the Sujin method? Every practice has that as a problem.

As for letting satisampajanna arise naturally, in Burmese Vipassana, for example, satisampajanna arises naturally dependent upon conditions. It is the only way it can arise.

If one tries in this way it shows one still has some doubts or even disbelieves the texts about anatta.

Not necessarily. Doubts are a natural things that everyone struggles with. It takes time, and the nice thing about doubts is that they can be watched, observed to rise and fall dependent upon conditions, having no inherent substance, and can be -- with insight -- let go.

The theory and the practice conform completely: not "oh I still have self, I will do my practice and after I become sotapanna there will be no self" . It will never happen

A confused sentence, but I am guessing it is part of the distorting caricature of meditation that plagues the Sujin people.

[tiltbillings]

Good to see that maybe we can find a common ground.

yes we seem to be getting closer. I can almost feel the love

I would not go that far.

I think that many of the meditation groups do say that insight can arise anywhere,
so it is not clear why they then seem to preference certain activities...

The preference for "formal" meditation is because it what the Buddha taught and because it works.

[dhamma follower]

Good to see that maybe we can find a common ground.

yes we seem to be getting closer. I can almost feel the love

I think that many of the meditation groups do say that insight can arise anywhere,
so it is not clear why they then seem to preference certain activities...

Dear Robert,

Being an ex of the meditation camp that you are referring to, I think the underlying idea is that insight can only arise from a clear mind, and that the activity of doing meditation or being in a secluded environment such as meditation center can help for that.

First, most people think that samadhi is the cause for panna, maybe because in the Vis., it is stated that concentration is the proximate cause of panna.

Secondly, somehow, there's confusion between the nivarana (obstacles) to samatha bhavana and that to vipassana bhavana,

But It turns out,as we can learn from the text, the only obstacle to vipassana bhavana is wrongview, and right concentration arises with any moment of right understanding, whereas wrong concentration abound if there's not enough understanding.

In my personal case, and also in that of many yogis I know, it is due to lack of proper knowledge and understanding of what is explained in the Tipitaka, not enough consideration.

Brgds,
Tam

[tiltbillings]

But It turns out,as we can learn from the text, the only obstacle to vipassana bhavana is wrongview, and right concentration arises with any moment of right understanding, whereas wrong concentration abound if there's not enough understanding.

Are wrong views conceptual?

[robertk]

The preference for "formal" meditation is because it what the Buddha taught and because it works.

Here is a quote from a popular book by Venerable Gunaratana,Mindfulness in Plain English:

One of the most difficult things to learn is that mindfulness is not dependent on any emotional or mental state.. You don't need to move at a snail's pace to be mindful. You don't even need to be calm. You can be mindful while solving problems in intensive calculus. You can be mindful in the middle of a football scrimmage. You can even be mindful in the midst of a raging fury. Mental and physical activities are no bar to mindfulness.

[Mr Man]

so it is not clear why they then seem to preference certain activities...

I think it is certainly a question that is worth exploring. Formal meditation may be part of a framework, which we use to observe - structure can be useful. It can also be an oportunity to take a step back. It can be a time were we chalenge the momentum.

[tiltbillings]

The preference for "formal" meditation is because it what the Buddha taught and because it works.

Here is a quote from a popular book by Venerable Gunaratana,Mindfulness in Plain English:

One of the most difficult things to learn is that mindfulness is not dependent on any emotional or mental state.. You don't need to move at a snail's pace to be mindful. You don't even need to be calm. You can be mindful while solving problems in intensive calculus. You can be mindful in the middle of a football scrimmage. You can even be mindful in the midst of a raging fury. Mental and physical activities are no bar to mindfulness.

Sure, but don't forget that this is in a broader context of doing meditation practice that helps set up the conditions that give rise to mindfulness.

[mikenz66]

Being an ex of the meditation camp that you are referring to...

Why do there have to be camps? And why are the KS followers so keen to define themselves as a camp and waste time criticising other camps (interpretations of the Buddha vacana)? It's that constant rubbishing (and simplistic parodying of views) of the other camps that I found completely off-putting when I met a few in person. Quite unlike the tolerant discussion I find in other off-line groups, who are usually prepared to compare ideas and experiences without trying to show that they have the only right interpretation. I found it baffling, since there is clearly some good knowledge in that group, but I was perplexed that (with the notable exception of Robert) they had little interest in discussing what we had in common.

That you (and the other KS followers) recognise that there was a problem with how you were practising, and are now practising in a way that you feel is more effective is excellent. Many followers of the Buddha Dhamma believe that they have had analogous recognitions that changed the way they viewed the Dhamma. It would be more useful to share these experiences and views, rather than trying to prove that one view is better than another (which seems contrary to the way the Buddha taught).

[Of course, this camp thing seems to be very common on-line, in forums such as this one, but in my experience is generally the exceptions off-line.]


Mike

[dhamma follower]

Being an ex of the meditation camp that you are referring to...

Why do there have to be camps?

It is just a way of saying "You are describing exactly where I was as well as many people I know" -which is a fact. No offence intended. I apologize if any.

It would be more useful to share these experiences and views, rather than trying to prove that one view is better than another

I sincerely don't see how to share my views that I believe to be true (what I think I am doing) and not to show that it is closer to what is taught by the Buddha than another view which is different from mine?

In the end, views don't belong to anyone, Let's just discuss views ?

Brgds,

[tiltbillings]

It is just a way of saying "You are describing exactly where I was as well as many people I know" -which is a fact. No offence intended. I apologize if any.

No offense, but the problem is that you are making a very serious mistake in thinking that your failure with meditation is something that you can generalize to everyone else who is not you.

I sincerely don't see how to share my views that I believe to be true (what I think I am doing) and not to show that it is closer to what is taught by the Buddha than another view which is different from mine?

That is actually very sad, and i think that points to a very contracted view of the Dhamma, but then that is my opinion, and as I do not have to agree with your opinion, you do not have to agree with mine.

[Mr Man]

I sincerely don't see how to share my views that I believe to be true (what I think I am doing) and not to show that it is closer to what is taught by the Buddha than another view which is different from mine?

In the end, views don't belong to anyone, Let's just discuss views ?

Hi dhamma follower
Don't the above two sentences contradict each other?

I'm interested in how established you are in you views and what is their source?

Are your views fluid and you wish to explore or have they been fixed?

[dhamma follower]

I sincerely don't see how to share my views that I believe to be true (what I think I am doing) and not to show that it is closer to what is taught by the Buddha than another view which is different from mine?

In the end, views don't belong to anyone, Let's just discuss views ?

Hi dhamma follower
Don't the above two sentences contradict each other?

I'm interested in how established you are in you views and what is their source?

Are your views fluid and you wish to explore or have they been fixed?

Hi Mr Man,

They don't. Views, as any reality, don't belong to anyone, ok?
There are however, right view and wrong view.

The first sentence was just to say that it is inevitable to try to prove one's view is right if one think it is right. Everyone is doing that here.

If we don't think too much in terms of "my view" or "his view", one can better focus on whether this view is right or wrong. That's it.

The source of my views come from my so far, limited studying of the Tipitaka. Ajhan Sujin's understanding has influenced mine.

i don't have a choice over my views. They are conditioned, as any other sankhara dhamma. It was different 10 years ago. It was different 10 months and 10 days ago. Never really the same. It changes as considering over dhammas occurs again and again, by conditions.

Brgds,

[dhamma follower]

It is just a way of saying "You are describing exactly where I was as well as many people I know" -which is a fact. No offence intended. I apologize if any.

No offense, but the problem is that you are making a very serious mistake in thinking that your failure with meditation is something that you can generalize to everyone else who is not you.

What do you call "success with meditation", Tilt? The jhanas? 1rst insight? 1rst Path? Arahant Path?

It is quite pointless to talk about failure and success here, while we are simply discuss Dhammic points.

brgds,

[Mr Man]

I sincerely don't see how to share my views that I believe to be true (what I think I am doing) and not to show that it is closer to what is taught by the Buddha than another view which is different from mine?

In the end, views don't belong to anyone, Let's just discuss views ?

Hi dhamma follower
Don't the above two sentences contradict each other?

I'm interested in how established you are in you views and what is their source?

Are your views fluid and you wish to explore or have they been fixed?

Hi Mr Man,

They don't. Views, as any reality, don't belong to anyone, ok?
There are however, right view and wrong view.

The first sentence was just to say that it is inevitable to try to prove one's view is right if one think it is right. Everyone is doing that here.

If we don't think too much in terms of "my view" or "his view", one can better focus on whether this view is right or wrong. That's it.

The source of my views come from my so far, limited studying of the Tipitaka. Ajhan Sujin's understanding has influenced mine.

i don't have a choice over my views. They are conditioned, as any other sankhara dhamma. It was different 10 years ago. It was different 10 months and 10 days ago. Never really the same. It changes as considering over dhammas occurs again and again, by conditions.

Brgds,

Hi dhamma follower
I'm not sure of the relevance of "right view" or "wrong view" at this point. "Right view" is something rather different. It is not a position that we take up.

If we have "right view" do you think that we will still feel the need to "try to prove one's view is right"? I also don't think that everyone here is trying to prove that their view is "right".

What you are putting forward are your views or Khun Sujin's views, which as you say are conditioned. Or is there an implication that you are becoming or that Khun Sujin is a conduit?

[kirk5a]

But if one then tries to make it happen, or thinks they should focus on the fingers or the feelings or whatever their object of choice is then that shows a lack of understanding of how incredibly anatta and uncontrollable is each moment.

A mind which is incapable of remaining focused on an object of choice is not a cause for wisdom. There would be no development of concentration in that case. And therefore, no knowledge and vision of things as they really are.

[kirk5a]

It's interesting to read about Ajahn Chah's early struggles with meditation. This is when he'd been a monk for three years:

When I wasn't trying to do anything in particular, my mind was relatively at ease. But whenever I determined to make the mind unify in samādhi, it went out of control. "What's going on here," I wondered. "Why is this happening?"
...
Why? Because the willpower I was using was tainted with clinging and attachment. I didn't know what was going on. All that frustration and hardship was coming up because I was bringing craving into the meditation.

http://www.ajahnchah.org/pdf/unshakeable_peace.pdf

But it would certainly be learning the wrong lesson from such struggles to think "meditation is unskillful, there's craving involved, actually everything is anatta and uncontrollable"

[Alex123]

Insight can arise while walking, while standing, while looking straight ahead, while looking to the back, while defacating and while urinating. And most certainly it can arise while sitting.

Right. But you are leaving out all the causes for insight prior to this. This is what matters.

However if one believes that insight depends on being in a certain posture,

Who is saying this? Insight depends on wisdom.