cittas arise and pass away billions per instant

[Mr Man]

Intellectually it doesn't take to much to understand that "this" arises because of "that". Is the "close attention" method a really a different kind of understanding? Are we actually seeing a process?

[tiltbillings]

Intellectually it doesn't take to much to understand that "this" arises because of "that". Is the "close attention" method a really a different kind of understanding? Are we actually seeing a process?

What do you think is the case?

[Mr Man]

Intellectually it doesn't take to much to understand that "this" arises because of "that". Is the "close attention" method a really a different kind of understanding? Are we actually seeing a process?

What do you think is the case?

I think the brain is creating the conclusions and that the close attention method is not different to any other way of understanding causality. That we need to acknowledge that and keep going. I think the notion that we can become very still and then somehow observe things as they "really" happening is suspect (and that if we repeat this action often enough we will eventually have a liberating insight). I think that we should avoid giving transformative value to particular experiences.

[Mkoll]

The problem with these commentarial theories is their unprovability through experience, which means they are probably irrelevant to the path.

There are like 20,000 Sutta Pitaka suttas... I don't think we need much more to think about.



~

[appicchato]

from Nyanaponika page 164 . . .

And which book would that be?

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Nyana ... tudies.pdf

[ancientbuddhism]

Intellectually it doesn't take to much to understand that "this" arises because of "that". Is the "close attention" method a really a different kind of understanding? Are we actually seeing a process?

What do you think is the case?

I think the brain is creating the conclusions and that the close attention method is not different to any other way of understanding causality. That we need to acknowledge that and keep going. I think the notion that we can become very still and then somehow observe things as they "really" happening is suspect (and that if we repeat this action often enough we will eventually have a liberating insight). I think that we should avoid giving transformative value to particular experiences.

If ‘close attention’ is within the context of sati in the satipaṭṭhāna suttas, this would be free from conceptualization or any mental ‘conclusions’ of the objects observed.

As cited earlier in this thread, the Avijja Sutta discusses how cognitions are ‘seen differently’ (aññatto passati,Ṭhānissaro's 'sees ... as something separate' is a dubious translation) than the attention given them by the puthujjana.

[kirk5a]

After this comes that stage of
representative cognition termed the determining consciousness
(Votthapana). Discrimination is exercised at
this stage. Freewill plays its part here. Immediately after
there arises the psychologically most important stage—
Impulsion or Javana. It is at this stage that an action is
judged whether moral or immoral. Kamma is performed
at this stage; if viewed rightly (yoniso manasikàra), the
Javana becomes moral; if viewed wrongly (ayoniso manasikàra),
it becomes immoral. In the case of an Arahant this
Javana is neither moral nor immoral, but merely functional
(Kiriya).
...
The Manodvàràvajjana
(mind-door consciousness), a Kriyà Citta,
functions as the Votthapana consciousness. One can use
one’s freewill at this stage. The seven Javana thoughtmoments
constitute Kamma.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf

[tiltbillings]

Intellectually it doesn't take to much to understand that "this" arises because of "that". Is the "close attention" method a really a different kind of understanding? Are we actually seeing a process?

What do you think is the case?

I think the brain is creating the conclusions and that the close attention method is not different to any other way of understanding causality. That we need to acknowledge that and keep going. I think the notion that we can become very still and then somehow observe things as they "really" happening is suspect (and that if we repeat this action often enough we will eventually have a liberating insight). I think that we should avoid giving transformative value to particular experiences.

In other words, you are arguing that we can think our way out of samsara.

[Mr Man]

Not at all. What I'm saying is that if we believe we are observing "this arising because of that" or "if we believe we are observing arising and passing away" that is just more movement of the mind and we should not buy into it. We should know it as such and continue.

We can contemplate causality and impermanence at any time, as a mental activity and with awareness. We do not need great stillness to do this. It is not something so special.

[tiltbillings]

Not at all. What I'm saying is that if we believe we are observing "this arising because of that" or "if we believe we are observing arising and passing away" that is just more movement of the mind and we should not buy into it. We should know it as such and continue.

We can contemplate causality and impermanence at any time, as a mental activity and with awareness. We do not need great stillness to do this. It is not something so special.

What do you mean by contemplate?

[robertk]

yes absolutely Mr man.
also here is useful quote from bhikku bodhi

Bhikkhu Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words page 302:




Contemporary Buddhist literature commonly conveys two ideas about pañña that have become almost axioms in the popular understanding of Buddhism, The first is that pañña is exclusively nonconceptual and nondiscursive, a type of cognition that defies all the laws of logical thought; the second, that pañña arises spontaneously, through an act of pure intuition as sudden and instantaneous as a brilliant flash of lightning. These two ideas about pañña are closely connected. If pañña defies all the laws of thought, it cannot be approached by any type of conceptual activity but can arise only when the rational, discriminative, conceptual activity of the mind has been stultified. And this stopping of conceptualization, somewhat like the demolition of a building, must be a rapid one, an undermining of thought not previously prepared for by any gradual maturation of understanding. Thus, in the popular understanding of Buddhism, pañña defies rationality and easily slides off into "crazy wisdom," an incomprehensible, mindboggling way of relating to the world that dances at the thin edge between super-rationality and madness.

Such ideas about pañña receive no support at all from the teachings of the Nikayas, which, are consistently sane, lucid, and sober, To take the two points in reverse order: First, far from arising spontaneously, pañña in the Nikayas is emphatically conditioned, arisen from an underlying matrix of causes and conditions. And second, pañña is not bare intuition, but a careful, discriminative understanding that at certain stages involves precise conceptual operations. Pañña is directed to specific domains of understanding. These domains, known in the Pali commentaries as "the soil of wisdom" (paññabhumi), must be thoroughIy investigated and mastered through conceptual understanding before direct, nonconceptual insight can effectively accomplish its work. To master them requires analysis, discrimination, and discernment. One must be able to abstract from the overwhelming mass of facts certain basic patterns fundamental to all experience and use these patterns as templates for close contemplation of one's own experience

[Mr Man]

Not at all. What I'm saying is that if we believe we are observing "this arising because of that" or "if we believe we are observing arising and passing away" that is just more movement of the mind and we should not buy into it. We should know it as such and continue.

We can contemplate causality and impermanence at any time, as a mental activity and with awareness. We do not need great stillness to do this. It is not something so special.

What do you mean by contemplate?

Think.

[tiltbillings]

Not at all. What I'm saying is that if we believe we are observing "this arising because of that" or "if we believe we are observing arising and passing away" that is just more movement of the mind and we should not buy into it. We should know it as such and continue.

We can contemplate causality and impermanence at any time, as a mental activity and with awareness. We do not need great stillness to do this. It is not something so special.

What do you mean by contemplate?

Think.

There is a great deal of difference between thinking about anicca and directly, without comment, seeing the rise and fall of the nama/rupa process.

During a meditation retreat, in the meditation hall, the woman four place over and one row down coughs. You recognize that cough as being hers, and an image of her pops into your head, and right along with that image comes a raging, burning lust, a carnal wanting. What do you do? You can think about it, and try the various anti-lust options in the Buddhist contemplative tool box to free oneself from this fire. Or you can simply pay attention without comment to it, seeing the aversion, the wanting, feeling the pleasure and feeling discomfort rising and falling in a flaming swirl. This storm rages and you sit unmoved, simply paying attention, and then there is this moment where the fuel of the lust is expended, and you move effortlessly in an instant from burning lust to nibbuti, coolness, release, ease more deeply concentrated and attentive. No thinking, no comment, just direct experience of the play of one's nama/rupa process. Afterwards you can talk about this, put into a context, but it was a direct experience, giving a direct insight into the nature of the nama/rupa, and it such an experience as this that changes one.

It is not something special and it is nothing at all to hang onto, and it is not something that comes by thinking alone. It is such an experience that gives one's contemplative life, meaning, and direction.

[Mr Man]

There is a great deal of difference between thinking about anicca and directly, without comment, seeing the rise and fall of the nama/rupa process.

During a meditation retreat, in the meditation hall, the woman four place over and one row down coughs. You recognize that as being her, and an image of her pops into your head, and right along with that image comes a raging, burning lust, a carnal wanting. What do you do? You can think about it, and try the various anti-lust options in the Buddhist contemplative tool box to free oneself from this fire. Or you can simply pay attention without comment to it, seeing the aversion, the wanting, feeling the pleasure and feeling discomfort rising and falling in a flaming swirl. This storm rages and you sit unmoved, simply paying attention, and then there is this moment where the fuel of the lust is expended, and you move effortlessly in an instant from burning lust to nibbuti, coolness, release, ease more deeply concentrated and attentive. No thinking, no comment, just direct experience of the play of one's nama/rupa process. Afterwards you can talk about this, put into a context, but it was a direct experience, giving a direct insight into the nature of the nama/rupa, and it such an experience as this that changes one.

It is not something special and it is nothing at all to hang onto, and it is not something that comes by thinking alone. It is such an experience that gives one's contemplative life, meaning, and direction.

In the scenario you have described there is constant mental activity, which is constantly being bought in to. This is no more direct experience than any other activity it has just been rarefied.

[tiltbillings]

In the scenario you have described there is constant mental activity, which is constantly being bought in to. This is no more direct experience than any other activity it has just been rarefied.

In the seen just the seen, in the heard just the heard, in the cognized just the cognized. I don't know what you are talking about.