Bhikkhu Ñanananda

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Spiny Norman wrote:By apperception do you mean conceiving? And are you suggesting that an Arahant doesn't perceive? As far as I can see MN1 is basically saying that an Arahant perceives ( sanna ) but doesn't conceive ( mannati ) - if an Arahant wasn't perceiving then he presumably wouldn't be able to distinguish earth from water and so on.
Sanna, though it is sometimes rendered perception or recognition, is better translated as ‘apperception.’

Apperception is: “The process of understanding by which newly observed qualities of an object are related to past experience.” Apperception is in a way a combination of perception and recognition. For example, we perceive a chair; but we already have an idea in our minds about what a chair is. So our apperception of the chair is to re-cognize what we have previously cognized as a chair.
Source: http://www.mahabodhi.org.uk/metta.html

"Re-recognizing what we have previously cognized" is not to "directly know" something.
mikenz66 wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand the second one, thought...
... just a paraphrase of the MN1 quotation as it pertains to "a monk who is a trainee"

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,

Now I'm completely confused. Do you mean that an arahant doesn't sanna-ize sense objects?

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,

An arahant doesn't papañca-saññā-sankhā-ize.

See:

Papañca-Saññā-Sankhā
http://pathpress.wordpress.com/2010/08/ ... na-sankha/

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10171
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by Spiny Norman »

retrofuturist wrote: "Re-recognizing what we have previously cognized" is not to "directly know" something.
But without previous cognition, what does "directly knowing" actually look like? An Arahant would previously have encountered and recognised "chairs" many times before, so how does he now experience a "chair"?

I'm not sure about your definition of sanna, because I think there's a distinction between perception and apperception. As I understand it, sanna is perception while apperception is what follows - conceiving and proliferating. So perception would be "chair" while apperception would be "nice chair", "my chair" etc.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10171
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by Spiny Norman »

retrofuturist wrote: An arahant doesn't papañca-saññā-sankhā-ize.
Could you briefly describe what that means in practice?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by kirk5a »

Spiny Norman wrote:But without previous cognition, what does "directly knowing" actually look like?
"In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by Dan74 »

Perhaps it is not that the arahat forgets all he/she knows about chairs, but that this knowledge does not stand in the way of direct perception. The arahat just has access to it?
_/|\_
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Spiny Norman wrote:But without previous cognition, what does "directly knowing" actually look like? An Arahant would previously have encountered and recognised "chairs" many times before, so how does he now experience a "chair"?
Kirk answered this well.
Spiny Norman wrote:I'm not sure about your definition of sanna, because I think there's a distinction between perception and apperception. As I understand it, sanna is perception while apperception is what follows - conceiving and proliferating. So perception would be "chair" while apperception would be "nice chair", "my chair" etc.
You've clearly got a different take on some key terminology to me, so it makes sense for you to define this yourself, I think. For what it's worth, your saññā seems more similar to my nama-rupa (i.e. name and form, or as Sylvester called it elsewhere, naming and form).

Whatever you do, make sure your take on saññā allows the papañca-saññā-sankhā compound to make sense to you.
retrofuturist wrote:An arahant doesn't papañca-saññā-sankhā-ize.
Spiny Norman wrote:Could you briefly describe what that means in practice?
I don't believe there is a "brief" way to describe it. Nanananda wrote Concept And Reality about it. That link that I provided gives an account of it which seems consistent to Nanananda's, albeit from a slightly different tangent.

Nanananda's downloadable 'Nibbana Sermons' happen to go into nama-rupa in great detail, and given your take on what saññā means seems to more closely align to his take on nama-rupa, you may be interested in what he has to say there, as he goes into great detail about its operation and insubstantiability. Word search the terms 'dog', 'whirlpool' or 'vortex' if you're short on time.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by chownah »

Spiny Norman wrote:
retrofuturist wrote: An arahant doesn't papañca-saññā-sankhā-ize.
Could you briefly describe what that means in practice?
Maybe it means that one should do ones best to understand the workings of the mind....a good place to start is to calm the mind....the mind is like a storm on the ocean...try to understand each wave....easier to understand waves in a calm sea....calm the sea (meditate) first and then watch the waves which arise......etc.
chownah
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by Sylvester »

retrofuturist wrote: You've clearly got a different take on some key terminology to me, so it makes sense for you to define this yourself, I think. For what it's worth, your saññā seems more similar to my nama-rupa (i.e. name and form, or as Sylvester called it elsewhere, naming and form).

But which vortex do you refer to? The point at paṭighasamphassa (bare/initial sensory contact, which afflicts even Arahants) or adhivacanasamphassa (designation contact, which Arahants continue to use as as part of naming) or the sequel paññapeti (which Arahants continue to do as part of the sphere of wisdom/paññāvacara so necessary to communicate the reality of suffering)?

I think modern scholarship has demonstrated that MN 1 cannot be given a traditional Theravada interpretation, eg footnote 6 of Ven T's translation. The sutta, although looking rather prajnaparamita-ish, is not a stab at ontology and epistemic limits in sectarian Buddhism, but rather a denial of Upanisadic cosmogony. The fact that Pajāpati (the Upanisadic "creator") makes it to the list should be clear, together with the All (Sabbaṃ/Sarvam - the Upanisadic ground of Existence, rather than the Buddha's alternative "All") point clearly to the pre-Buddhist search for beginnings/sources of identity and the "self".

I'm currently checking if the term "perceives" (sañjānāti) versus "directly knows" (abhijānāti) carries any pre-Buddhist significance, or whether this is a purely Buddhist issue, principally in the context of AN 4.49 namely perversion of perception (saññāvipallāsa). There, another stab at the Upanisads can be detected, where the perversion of perception is directed against the perception of nicca (permanent), self and sukha, all hallmarks of the Upanisad conception of Atman.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Sylvester wrote:
retrofuturist wrote: You've clearly got a different take on some key terminology to me, so it makes sense for you to define this yourself, I think. For what it's worth, your saññā seems more similar to my nama-rupa (i.e. name and form, or as Sylvester called it elsewhere, naming and form).
But which vortex do you refer to? The point at paṭighasamphassa (bare/initial sensory contact, which afflicts even Arahants) or adhivacanasamphassa (designation contact, which Arahants continue to use as as part of naming) or the sequel paññapeti (which Arahants continue to do as part of the sphere of wisdom/paññāvacara so necessary to communicate the reality of suffering)?
Your questions always hurt my head Sylvester. :lol:

I don't think I mean any of those, because I understand phassa in accordance with Nanavira Thera's description of it. I'd source the definition for you now, but the site in question is blocked at my present location.

Given that the mutual reinforcement of the experience of nama-rupa (the naming of forms of the naming of forms of the naming of forms...) is occasionally depicted in sutta depictions of paticcasamuppada, I think that's adequate vortex enough without necessitating any kind of 1:1 mapping to any of those three low-level phenomena you mention... none of which I'm particularly familiar with.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by tiltbillings »

Sylvester wrote:

But which vortex do you refer to? . . .
Good stuff. I greatly appreciate your input here.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by mikenz66 »

Very interesting Sylvester. Can I summarize your point as something like the following?

1. There are some passages in the suttas that seem to be very difficult to interpret.
2. Some scholars, such as Ven Nanananda, have reasoned out particular interpretations and they feel that the Theravada have erred on some key points.
3. Other scholars, while agreeing that the Commentators missed the point, would argue that the key problem is actually not understanding the Upanishadic background. When that is factored in, they become much simpler. As Sylvester explains, if you take Upanishadic references (e.g. the "All" not being the Buddha's usual "All", as Ven Thanissaro assumes, but the Upanishadic "Ground of Existence") then much of MN1 looks less mysterious.

It is fortunate that we have access to various perspectives.

:anjali:
Mike
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10171
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by Spiny Norman »

retrofuturist wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:I'm not sure about your definition of sanna, because I think there's a distinction between perception and apperception. As I understand it, sanna is perception while apperception is what follows - conceiving and proliferating. So perception would be "chair" while apperception would be "nice chair", "my chair" etc.
You've clearly got a different take on some key terminology to me, so it makes sense for you to define this yourself, I think. For what it's worth, your saññā seems more similar to my nama-rupa (i.e. name and form, or as Sylvester called it elsewhere, naming and form).
I think "sanna" is difficult to pin down because there's little description of it in the suttas - and it seems to be closely tied in with vedana. But on the basic point, are we in agreement that papanca follows sanna - that's how Nananda seems to describe it at the beginning of Concept and Reality.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10171
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Bhikkhu Ñanananda

Post by Spiny Norman »

mikenz66 wrote:It is fortunate that we have access to various perspectives.
I sometimes just wish that everyone would agree on something. ;)
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply