Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by pt1 »

Hi Freawaru,
Freawaru wrote: This still agrees with how Mahayana sees it. For correct "hearing" states of concentration and insight are necessary on the part of the student. The level seems to depend on the specific transmission (there are various). For the base level transmission one needs to be in a state of zhine (samatha) for example. The transmission does not work without it.
So, then we're talking about the same thing? I mean, what you say above for Mahayana "hearing" seems pretty much identical for how it is in Theravada imo, and I believe what they'd say on DSG, though they'd probably express it in abhidhamma terminology, something like "at the moment that kusala citta arises with panna [wisdom or insight as you call it], the cetasikas of concetration and calm [what you call samatha] are also kusala and accompany the citta. And cetasikas can be of different kinds and intensities [as you also seem to be saying by various transmisions]".
Freawaru wrote: Do you have another Theravadan option of what "the voice of another" means than the one the DSG proposes?
Could you please clarify - what's the one you think DSG proposes? Afaik, in Theravada, "voice of another" can be anyone, or even the texts, that's not important, what's important is that there is wise consideration, or as you say above, insight and samatha, or in abidhamma terms, panna and samadhi, on the part of the hearer.

Best wishes
Last edited by pt1 on Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by pt1 »

Hi Laura,
LauraJ wrote:Energy body?
The elements (air, water, etc) yes. But energy body? I'm not trying to be snarky, just very curious.
Yep, you're absolutely right, "energy body" afaik is nothing but the four great elements, ruupas in other words.

Best wishes
User avatar
LauraJ
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by LauraJ »

pt1 wrote:Hi Laura,
LauraJ wrote:Energy body?
The elements (air, water, etc) yes. But energy body? I'm not trying to be snarky, just very curious.
Yep, you're absolutely right, "energy body" afaik is nothing but the four great elements, ruupas in other words.

Best wishes
Thanks :anjali:

Best wishes,
Laura
Dharma Wheel
Buddha Blog

Conquer the angry man by love. Conquer the ill-natured man by goodness. Conquer the miser with generosity. Conquer the liar with truth. -The Dhammapada
Freawaru
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by Freawaru »

pt1 wrote:
LauraJ wrote:Energy body?
The elements (air, water, etc) yes. But energy body? I'm not trying to be snarky, just very curious.
Hi Laura,

what we consider to be awareness of our physical body is not truely awareness of the physical body. When meditating one can see this easily. What we consider our physical body is just an image of it. This image is changeable. For example in dreams our body is not much linked to our physical one any more. We can be again in our body from childhood, or do stuff with our body we can't in wake (like flying) or even be in a completely different body than in wake (like an animal or other person or whatever). Still, all these bodies feel just like our physical body does during wake - it is because they all are, even the wake one, just images. The only difference to wake is that the image of the physical body is loosely connected to the senses.

In Mahayana they investigate the different kinds of bodies, made from different elements. A dream body is less connected to the external senses than the "physical body" (meaning the image of it). There are also several other kinds of bodies, more subtle than the dream body, investigated. Some of these bodies only seem to appear in connection with the iddhis or are very abstract like the Dharmakaya, the body of a Buddha.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

Freawaru wrote:
what we consider to be awareness of our physical body is not truely awareness of the physical body. When meditating one can see this easily. What we consider our physical body is just an image of it. This image is changeable. For example in dreams our body is not much linked to our physical one any more. We can be again in our body from childhood, or do stuff with our body we can't in wake (like flying) or even be in a completely different body than in wake (like an animal or other person or whatever). Still, all these bodies feel just like our physical body does during wake - it is because they all are, even the wake one, just images. The only difference to wake is that the image of the physical body is loosely connected to the senses.
What happens in dreams is what happens in dreams, but that does not support your claim that "what we consider to be awareness of our physical body is not truely awareness of the physical body."
>> 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
Freawaru
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by Freawaru »

Hi pt1,
pt1 wrote:
Freawaru wrote: This still agrees with how Mahayana sees it. For correct "hearing" states of concentration and insight are necessary on the part of the student. The level seems to depend on the specific transmission (there are various). For the base level transmission one needs to be in a state of zhine (samatha) for example. The transmission does not work without it.
So, then we're talking about the same thing?
That is what I am trying to find out.
I mean, what you say above for Mahayana "hearing" seems pretty much identical for how it is in Theravada imo, and I believe what they'd say on DSG, though they'd probably express it in abhidhamma terminology, something like "at the moment that kusala citta arises with panna [wisdom or insight as you call it], the cetasikas of concetration and calm [what you call samatha] are also kusala and accompany the citta. And cetasikas can be of different kinds and intensities [as you also seem to be saying by various transmisions]".
Yes, but in Mahayana only specific persons can give a transmission. We find this idea in other cultures as well, think of the baptism in Christianity or Reiki initiations. This is the reason for the lineages. No transmissions no lineages. In fact the whole concept of lineage is only plausible if there is something like a transmission. Something that can be lost.

Lineages cannot not start from scripture - one NEEDS an original person who discovered the energy (or recieved it himself by some enlightened being like Manjushri) and starts the lineage by transmitting the energy to someone else. This is why in lineages the persons who transmit are very important). Without the energy the scripture is still interesting and useful but does not have the same effect - at least that is the theory in Mahayana, I have not tested it.
Freawaru wrote: Do you have another Theravadan option of what "the voice of another" means than the one the DSG proposes?
Could you please clarify - what's the one you think DSG proposes?
People at DSG (not all, but many) consider Abhidhamma and the Pali suttas as formal systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Considering these scriptures in a formal way isn't, IMO, what the Buddha meant by "wise consideration". But it has many similarities. Concentrating on a formal system brings calm, just as doing Mathematical calculations or writing programs in C++ does. Also, dealing with scripture in this way one understands something - but not the Buddha's Dhamma. They define that kind of calm as samatha and the formal understanding of the Abhidhamma as "wise consideration". So for them it is "hearing Dhamma" when someone more knowledgeable of Abhidhamma in a formal way is explaining (in a formal way) the scripture and this way they think they are "considering wisely". Which would lead to "right view". Their "right view" is understanding of a fomal logic and I do not think that the Buddha's Dhamma is meant on this level. When looking at the suttas "right view" clearly is based on iddhis (like the knowledge of beings appearing and disappearing: the iddhi called divine eye). Right view is nothing one has been told by someone else. Nothing one can gain by a formalism.

IMO, they change the meanings of the terms in the suttas. Because the the result is not correct. That calm they talk about is is not samatha, playing with a formalism is not "wise consideration". And thus there must be more about "hearing Dhamma" than just having Abhidhamma read by someone else.
Afaik, in Theravada, "voice of another" can be anyone, or even the texts, that's not important, what's important is that there is wise consideration, or as you say above, insight and samatha, or in abidhamma terms, panna and samadhi, on the part of the hearer.
As far as I know "understanding of sacred scriptures" is an iddhi gained from the element fire (a so-called Kundalini accomplishment). Does not require a linage. But here, too, "hearing" or "reading" is quite different from normal hearing or reading. And it does not require someone else to speak.
Freawaru
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by Freawaru »

tiltbillings wrote:
Freawaru wrote:
what we consider to be awareness of our physical body is not truely awareness of the physical body. When meditating one can see this easily. What we consider our physical body is just an image of it. This image is changeable. For example in dreams our body is not much linked to our physical one any more. We can be again in our body from childhood, or do stuff with our body we can't in wake (like flying) or even be in a completely different body than in wake (like an animal or other person or whatever). Still, all these bodies feel just like our physical body does during wake - it is because they all are, even the wake one, just images. The only difference to wake is that the image of the physical body is loosely connected to the senses.
What happens in dreams is what happens in dreams, but that does not support your claim that "what we consider to be awareness of our physical body is not truely awareness of the physical body."
Hi tilt,

two years ago I attended the Dalai Lama event in Hamburg and one of the speakers in the framework program, Prof. Dr. Th. Metzinger, held this lecture http://www.dalailama-hamburg.de/index.php?id=70&L=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The lecture of Thomas Metzinger will pursue the question how the sensation of I myself arises, which is the basis of all feeling and thought. How is it possible to imagine, that in an information processing system like the human brain a "phenomenal self" arises, a consciously experienced self? Metzinger will argue that there is no such thing like a substantial self but only a "transparent model of self". Then he will show that it is just as wrong to allege that the self is an illusion.
It was basically about that statement of mine and how that kind of image of the physical body arises in the mind. Our consciousness is - during normal conditions - just aware of that image, not the physical body itself. If you are interested in this topic from a theoretical point of view I suggest reading the various books of Metzinger.
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by pt1 »

Hi Freawaru,
Freawaru wrote: Yes, but in Mahayana only specific persons can give a transmission. We find this idea in other cultures as well, think of the baptism in Christianity or Reiki initiations. This is the reason for the lineages. No transmissions no lineages. In fact the whole concept of lineage is only plausible if there is something like a transmission. Something that can be lost.

This might then be a significant difference between the Theravada and Mahayana (and other religions), i.e. in Theravada imo it's about what's the true Dhamma, not who teaches it.
Freawaru wrote: Lineages cannot not start from scripture - one NEEDS an original person who discovered the energy (or recieved it himself by some enlightened being like Manjushri) and starts the lineage by transmitting the energy to someone else. This is why in lineages the persons who transmit are very important). Without the energy the scripture is still interesting and useful but does not have the same effect - at least that is the theory in Mahayana, I have not tested it.
Again, this might be another major difference. E.g. in Mahaparinibana sutta, DN16 the Buddha says that after his death, it's the Dhamma and Vinaya he thought that we should consider as the teacher (which are in the form of texts nowadays), so no lineages and special transmissions required. That said, in Theravada, afaik, the Buddha (Sammasambuddha) is the person who rediscovers the Dhamma and is then able to teach it to others. I am not sure whether "person who rediscovers the Dhamma" is equivalent to your "person who discovered the energy". What exactly do you mean by "energy"? In Theravada, afaik, "Dhamma" can be explained in many ways, but is summed up well by the four noble truths, dependent origination, noble eight-fold path etc.
Freawaru wrote: People at DSG (not all, but many) consider Abhidhamma and the Pali suttas as formal systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Considering these scriptures in a formal way isn't, IMO, what the Buddha meant by "wise consideration". But it has many similarities. Concentrating on a formal system brings calm, just as doing Mathematical calculations or writing programs in C++ does. Also, dealing with scripture in this way one understands something - but not the Buddha's Dhamma. They define that kind of calm as samatha and the formal understanding of the Abhidhamma as "wise consideration". So for them it is "hearing Dhamma" when someone more knowledgeable of Abhidhamma in a formal way is explaining (in a formal way) the scripture and this way they think they are "considering wisely". Which would lead to "right view". Their "right view" is understanding of a fomal logic and I do not think that the Buddha's Dhamma is meant on this level. When looking at the suttas "right view" clearly is based on iddhis (like the knowledge of beings appearing and disappearing: the iddhi called divine eye). Right view is nothing one has been told by someone else. Nothing one can gain by a formalism.

IMO, they change the meanings of the terms in the suttas. Because the the result is not correct. That calm they talk about is is not samatha, playing with a formalism is not "wise consideration". And thus there must be more about "hearing Dhamma" than just having Abhidhamma read by someone else.
With respect, the things you say above are largely a misrepresentation (and sometimes a total opposite) of how these things are explained on DSG, as well as in Theravada imo. In fact, I had similar conclusions like you after spending a couple of weeks browsing through DSG (which is roughly how much time I saw you spending there), but it takes a bit more time to get to understand their terminology and approach (dry insight, which at times can be completely alien to those of us who practice "meditation"). Not sure if you're interested, but we can discuss all this a bit more in depth if you want?
Freawaru wrote: As far as I know "understanding of sacred scriptures" is an iddhi gained from the element fire (a so-called Kundalini accomplishment). Does not require a linage. But here, too, "hearing" or "reading" is quite different from normal hearing or reading. And it does not require someone else to speak.

Not sure what you're saying here?

Best wishes
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by tiltbillings »

Freawaru wrote:
two years ago I attended the Dalai Lama event in Hamburg and one of the speakers in the framework program, Prof. Dr. Th. Metzinger, held this lecture http://www.dalailama-hamburg.de/index.php?id=70&L=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The lecture of Thomas Metzinger will pursue the question how the sensation of I myself arises, which is the basis of all feeling and thought. How is it possible to imagine, that in an information processing system like the human brain a "phenomenal self" arises, a consciously experienced self? Metzinger will argue that there is no such thing like a substantial self but only a "transparent model of self". Then he will show that it is just as wrong to allege that the self is an illusion.
It was basically about that statement of mine and how that kind of image of the physical body arises in the mind. Our consciousness is - during normal conditions - just aware of that image, not the physical body itself. If you are interested in this topic from a theoretical point of view I suggest reading the various books of Metzinger.
That still does not support your claim that "what we consider to be awareness of our physical body is not truely awareness of the physical body."

You might want to consider how the khandhas actually function, which is something that is accessible via vipassana/mindfulness practice.
>> 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
kumarajiva
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:40 am

Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by kumarajiva »

pink_trike wrote:
Freawaru wrote:
Me? I got the impression that most practitioners' priority is going to retreats and getting empowerments - not to practice themselves. This has lead to a version of Guru Yoga I cannot accept.

Freawaru
People new to the Vajrayna path often grasp at empowerments, in the same way that newbies to Theravada grasp at rules, behaviors, and form. Both empowerments and rules/behaviors/form are seeds and soil for the manifestation of fruit. In both traditions "most" practitioners eventually shift their perspective organically, from the material elements to a more experiential understanding.
Actually I find that newbies to Theravada grasp at its meditation practices. They do not pay too much attention to the behaviors and forms. In fact, ethics and behaviours form the foundation of Theravada practice. Before you can discipline the mind it is good to have a go at disciplining the body.
Freawaru
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by Freawaru »

tiltbillings wrote:
Freawaru wrote:
two years ago I attended the Dalai Lama event in Hamburg and one of the speakers in the framework program, Prof. Dr. Th. Metzinger, held this lecture http://www.dalailama-hamburg.de/index.php?id=70&L=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The lecture of Thomas Metzinger will pursue the question how the sensation of I myself arises, which is the basis of all feeling and thought. How is it possible to imagine, that in an information processing system like the human brain a "phenomenal self" arises, a consciously experienced self? Metzinger will argue that there is no such thing like a substantial self but only a "transparent model of self". Then he will show that it is just as wrong to allege that the self is an illusion.
It was basically about that statement of mine and how that kind of image of the physical body arises in the mind. Our consciousness is - during normal conditions - just aware of that image, not the physical body itself. If you are interested in this topic from a theoretical point of view I suggest reading the various books of Metzinger.
That still does not support your claim that "what we consider to be awareness of our physical body is not truely awareness of the physical body."

You might want to consider how the khandhas actually function, which is something that is accessible via vipassana/mindfulness practice.
Hi Tilt,

I do not understand your claim. What exactly do you think I mean by that statement?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi pt1,
pt1 wrote: With respect, the things you say above are largely a misrepresentation (and sometimes a total opposite) of how these things are explained on DSG, as well as in Theravada imo. In fact, I had similar conclusions like you after spending a couple of weeks browsing through DSG (which is roughly how much time I saw you spending there), but it takes a bit more time to get to understand their terminology and approach (dry insight, which at times can be completely alien to those of us who practice "meditation"). Not sure if you're interested, but we can discuss all this a bit more in depth if you want?
I've spent a long time reading DSG, and posted a little. and my conclusion is somewhat similar to Freawaru. The Ajahn Sujin followers do not advocate "dry insight" in the sense that I understand it, e.g. as taught by the Burmese traditions such as Mahasi, and as explained in the Visuddhimagga - of course, as you know, they deny that the Suttas, Commentaries, and Visuddhimagga contains any "instructions" at all. My frustation with them is that they essentially refuse to engage on the interesting questions and retreat to the: "citta rise and fall very fast and there is no self, so there is no control and therefore meditative development is impossible" argument.

Of course, all Buddhist teachers are well aware of "lack of control". It is a key insight. It would be interesting to discuss the subtleties with them, but since they appear reject what all other Buddhist teachers teach, I don't find it easy to have much useful discussion. (A notable exception for me is a Robert K's posts - it's a pity he stopped posting here).

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by mikenz66 »

Freawaru wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: You might want to consider how the khandhas actually function, which is something that is accessible via vipassana/mindfulness practice.
I do not understand your claim. What exactly do you think I mean by that statement?
I can't speak for Tilt, but as I understand it, the idea of vipassana is to see through the concepts. So instead of having the conceptual idea of "my foot" lifting off the ground, moving forward, and dropping, one starts to perceive the elemental qualities of motion, hardness, heat, etc... (Hmm, that's an analysis by the elements, but the same sort of thing applies to the khandas...)

As far as I understand, what Metzinger says is the same as what the Buddha taught. I.e. we are bound up in these concepts of self. That correctly identifies the problem, but not the solution.

Metta
Mike
Freawaru
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by Freawaru »

Hi pt1,
pt1 wrote:Hi Freawaru,
Freawaru wrote: Yes, but in Mahayana only specific persons can give a transmission. We find this idea in other cultures as well, think of the baptism in Christianity or Reiki initiations. This is the reason for the lineages. No transmissions no lineages. In fact the whole concept of lineage is only plausible if there is something like a transmission. Something that can be lost.

This might then be a significant difference between the Theravada and Mahayana (and other religions), i.e. in Theravada imo it's about what's the true Dhamma, not who teaches it.
This is my impression, too, and, btw, one of the things that attract me to Theravada. :D
Freawaru wrote: Lineages cannot not start from scripture - one NEEDS an original person who discovered the energy (or recieved it himself by some enlightened being like Manjushri) and starts the lineage by transmitting the energy to someone else. This is why in lineages the persons who transmit are very important). Without the energy the scripture is still interesting and useful but does not have the same effect - at least that is the theory in Mahayana, I have not tested it.
Again, this might be another major difference. E.g. in Mahaparinibana sutta, DN16 the Buddha says that after his death, it's the Dhamma and Vinaya he thought that we should consider as the teacher (which are in the form of texts nowadays), so no lineages and special transmissions required.
Is this really so easy? Dhamma, yes. But the Vinaya requires initiation and the presence of specific persons at this ritual, too. I am no nun so I have no idea what happens at the ritual but I know - due to the recent disagreements - that an ordained nun is required to be at the initiation ritual to fully ordain another nun. Why should this be necessary if there is not something else going on? Just because everybody but aryans clings to rites and rituals? Not enough, IMO. Theravadans also claim that the linage of nuns was broken some time back and they cannot re-establish it because no nun (meaning: a specific person) can be present. Without something like transmissions this requirement of presence of a specific person makes no sense at all. Dhamma (scripture in this case) should be sufficient.
That said, in Theravada, afaik, the Buddha (Sammasambuddha) is the person who rediscovers the Dhamma and is then able to teach it to others. I am not sure whether "person who rediscovers the Dhamma" is equivalent to your "person who discovered the energy". What exactly do you mean by "energy"? In Theravada, afaik, "Dhamma" can be explained in many ways, but is summed up well by the four noble truths, dependent origination, noble eight-fold path etc.
Mahayana has that, too, as far as I know. Energy is, IMO, just another term for the various combinations of the elements. In Mahayana an enlightened being like Manjushri or Tara also has a specific combination of the elements. To tune in into this combination (to get into samadhi) is kusala and speeds up the devellopment to Buddhahood. The Visuddhimagga describes a similar technique regarding the elements (kasina and nimitta meditation) that leads to the iddhis and ultimately to Liberation (Mahyana has this, too) but, ifaik, it does not describe specific combinations that are useful as objects of samadhi. The transmission is necessary to get the specific combination of the elements known to the student so he or she can practice samadhi with the object, say, Manjushri. This is one of the basic ideas in Tantra (see for example: "Introduction to Tantra" by Lama Yeshe) and called "guru yoga". Not the idolization of some living person but to attain samadhi with a Buddha. A quote taken from "Introduction to Tantra":
Lama Yeshe wrote: Look at the different ways in which people respond to the same spiritual teachings by the same teacher. One person may not even intellectually understand the concepts contained in the teaching. Another may be able to understand them but be unable to penetrate their inner meaning. And there are those who can reach beyond the mere words and concepts and experience total unification with the teacher's wisdom and compassion. These reactions are all due to the various individuals' having achieved different levels of intellectual and spiritual evolution. The more in touch they are with their own internal guru, the more profound their understanding of the teaching will be.
Practically speaking, there is only so much the relative, external guru can do for us, he or she cannot guarantee that we gain insight and realizations. But our inner guru, our own clear wisdom, can accomplish everything. The practice of guru yoga, therefore, is primarily a method for learning how to listen to this inner guru.
Ordinarily, even though we do possess this inner voice of wisdom, we do not listen to it. We do not even hear it. we are too busy listening to the garbage conversation of our gross dualistic minds.


I think this quote nicely sums up why I prefer the Mahayana interpretation of "Hearing Dhamma". First, it clearly discerns between so-called intellectual understanding of concepts and the penetration of the inner meaning of the teaching. Two interpretations of the very same suttas, two languages, two levels of understanding, Then it describes the samadhi (unification) experience with wisdom. And it describes why most people have problems with this: they simply are not able to find the object (namely wisdom). Just like nimitta meditation goes beyond concepts (elements are not concepts) so do the transmissions. And just like in the Visuddhimagga it is said that it needs a lot of practice in this life or in past lifes to acquire the very ability to be aware of the elements in Tantra it is required to be aware of the energies, Which means a lot of prepratory practice for most.
Freawaru wrote: People at DSG (not all, but many) consider Abhidhamma and the Pali suttas as formal systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_system" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Considering these scriptures in a formal way isn't, IMO, what the Buddha meant by "wise consideration". But it has many similarities. Concentrating on a formal system brings calm, just as doing Mathematical calculations or writing programs in C++ does. Also, dealing with scripture in this way one understands something - but not the Buddha's Dhamma. They define that kind of calm as samatha and the formal understanding of the Abhidhamma as "wise consideration". So for them it is "hearing Dhamma" when someone more knowledgeable of Abhidhamma in a formal way is explaining (in a formal way) the scripture and this way they think they are "considering wisely". Which would lead to "right view". Their "right view" is understanding of a fomal logic and I do not think that the Buddha's Dhamma is meant on this level. When looking at the suttas "right view" clearly is based on iddhis (like the knowledge of beings appearing and disappearing: the iddhi called divine eye). Right view is nothing one has been told by someone else. Nothing one can gain by a formalism.

IMO, they change the meanings of the terms in the suttas. Because the the result is not correct. That calm they talk about is is not samatha, playing with a formalism is not "wise consideration". And thus there must be more about "hearing Dhamma" than just having Abhidhamma read by someone else.
With respect, the things you say above are largely a misrepresentation (and sometimes a total opposite) of how these things are explained on DSG, as well as in Theravada imo. In fact, I had similar conclusions like you after spending a couple of weeks browsing through DSG (which is roughly how much time I saw you spending there), but it takes a bit more time to get to understand their terminology and approach (dry insight, which at times can be completely alien to those of us who practice "meditation"). Not sure if you're interested, but we can discuss all this a bit more in depth if you want?
I would appreciate to discuss it in depth :D

As to dry insight - the Mahasi method makes a lot of sense to me but Nina's method seems very different as it completely takes out meditation.
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: Hearing. was Re: Mahamudra in Theravada?

Post by pt1 »

Hi Mike,
mikenz66 wrote: I've spent a long time reading DSG, and posted a little. and my conclusion is somewhat similar to Freawaru. The Ajahn Sujin followers do not advocate "dry insight" in the sense that I understand it, e.g. as taught by the Burmese traditions such as Mahasi,

Yes, my understanding is that DSG "dry insight" is even "dryer" in the sense that no concentration practice is undertaken before or in parallel with insight (and insight is also not seen as an intentional practice but a moment of understanding that cannot be forced to arise, and in fact, it's the very forcing which usually prevents understanding from arising). From what I know about Mahasi methods, they still do have a facet of concentration practice in them, even though i's not stressed that much.
mikenz66 wrote: and as explained in the Visuddhimagga - of course, as you know, they deny that the Suttas, Commentaries, and Visuddhimagga contains any "instructions" at all.
Yeah, I find that very interesting. I can't say that I understand it entirely yet, but imo that kind of interpretation has some important advantages, in particular, understanding the three marks (in my case at least).
mikenz66 wrote: My frustation with them is that they essentially refuse to engage on the interesting questions and retreat to the: "citta rise and fall very fast and there is no self, so there is no control and therefore meditative development is impossible" argument.
I know what you mean. This is not an easy topic and it took me a while before it started making at least a bit of sense. Currently, my understanding is (as brief as I can put it):

1. It is not said that meditative development is impossible.
2. Samatha (jhana absorption) is possible and it would depend on one's accumuations whether it can be reached. Everyone else who doesn't have such accumulations will be likely engaging in wrong concentration when they are aiming for jhana or even think they reached it.
3. Meditative development (bhavana) does not equate to concentration practice nor even jhana absorption.
4. Bhavana can be described as samatha and vipassana, but more precisely, bhavana happens when kusala citta is accompanied with panna (as well as other kusala cetasikas). So there can be what you and me conventionally call meditation and concentration, but, defining them by cetasikas, they can be either kusala or akusala cittas (where aksuala obviously doesn't lead to liberation).
5. Whenever there is kusala citta with panna, there's automatically kusala concentration and calm (samadhi) and the stronger the panna, the stronger the insight as well as samadhi.
6. So, meditative development (bhavana) happens with development of panna,
7. Panna cannot be forced to arise (being conditioned, and thus beyond control by a self), so when someone tries to force it to arise (or force sati or concentration to be this way or that), it is evident that at that moment there is no panna that would understand these dhammas as being beyond control by a self, and thus, such forcing is necessarily a product of akusala cittas.
8. It is important to divorce the above from conventional activities and apply it to a single moment. I.e. whatever we are conventionally doing right now - meditating, reading suttas, discussing dhamma, cleaning the room, etc, each of these activities will have quadrillions of cittas, and some will be kusala, some aksuala, depending on panna.
9. going beyond single citta frame reference when considering abhidhamma is not advised because it requires operating with concepts (e.g. I'm (not) meditating - both "I" and "meditating" are concepts), and concepts are not paramattha dhammas.
10. single citta frame reference (and thus the speed you mention) is very useful for establishing the right view - understanding the three marks of dhamma(s) in the present moment.

Not sure if this help, we can discuss more if you like. Btw, I answered on DSG to one of your posts couple of days ago about multiple citta trends in abhidhamma (so not just single citta frame), not sure if you caught it. If not, let me know, and I'll chase down the post number for you.
mikenz66 wrote: Of course, all Buddhist teachers are well aware of "lack of control". It is a key insight. It would be interesting to discuss the subtleties with them, but since they appear reject what all other Buddhist teachers teach, I don't find it easy to have much useful discussion. (A notable exception for me is a Robert K's posts - it's a pity he stopped posting here).
I'd suggest talking a bit more with Sarah and Jon, they are always glad to discuss this topic. The problem is that Sarah (and Jon) is quite busy, as well as feeling the responsibility that she has to welcome each newcomer and answer almost every question posted, so it takes her a while to get to your post. I am also in a marathon thread with her on this topic, as I am in favor of jhana, so every month or so, she replies, then I reply in a month, etc. It's slow, but worthwhile. If you haven't caught that thread, let me know, and I'll chase down the link for you. Or keep at the thread you started but address your questions to her, and I'm sure she'll reply, though you'd need to be patient as she's usually on a backlog of several hundred posts.

Best wishes
Post Reply