As I recall and understand this, Ven. Ananda was busy as the Buddha's personal attendant, very busy, most every day. When he was not allowed into the first council as he was still a stream entrant and the Buddha was now dead as soon as Ven. Kasapa insisted he must be an Arahat to attend he completed the task in less than a day. I would not underestimate Ven. Ananda's capacities.Manapa wrote:Hi Ben Retro, & All
"Enlightenment is only a moment away"
the length of that moment is another thing though
I personally think the time frames given are concerning the right method mentioned in the start, the full practice done correctly, remember Ananda took longer than 7 years under the Buddhas teachings to gain enlightenment.
mikenz66 wrote:Hi Phil,
Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization
http://www.windhorsepublications.com/Ca ... ductID=681
http://www.amazon.com/Satipatthana-Dire ... 1899579540
Comments, questions, corrections, criticisms, slaps around the face... whatever is relevant... are all appreciated.
catmoon wrote:By placing them in rigid sequence, it seems to me that you condemn all meditators to spending three fourths of their time meditating with an object unsuited to them!
bodom wrote:In my experience the four establishments can only be seperated on paper.
Nathan wrote:I think the satipatthana frames of reference are discernibly distinct avenues of lived experience.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Bodom,bodom wrote:In my experience the four establishments can only be seperated on paper.
What about those which are sensory inputs versus those which are responses to those inputs?
What do you make of Nathan's earlier comment?Nathan wrote:I think the satipatthana frames of reference are discernibly distinct avenues of lived experience.
bodom wrote:I fail to see the ability to seperate sense input from the reaction or vedana as it is dependently arisen.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Bodom,bodom wrote:I fail to see the ability to seperate sense input from the reaction or vedana as it is dependently arisen.
Well the matter of dependent origination is precisely why I ask, although in the sutta quotation you provided, it stopped before getting to tanha (craving), which is itself dependent arisen from vedana. I think this as an important step to observe, and of course, one more associated with the latter aspects of the satipatthana sequence.
In the introduction to Soma Thera's commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta there is talk, based on the traditional commentarial expositions about choosing one frame of reference as your "preliminary object of contemplation"All the four different objects of mindfulness: body, feeling, consciousness and mental objects, have to be understood before one reaches sanctitude. According to character, temperament and cognizing slant, one can make however only one of these the preliminary object of contemplation. It is often the case that owing to a lack of proper understanding of oneself one has to try all objects before one gets to know what suits one best for the preliminary work. The choice is made more difficult by the fact that most of us have no clear-cut natures and are a mixture of a little of every possible human characteristic. In these circumstances there is no alternative to the method of trial and error. But the earnest ones will find their way with persistence and sustained effort.
By character there are two types determined by the excess of sensuous qualities of craving, or of the asensuous qualities of abstract beliefs that make up their personality. The craving type is generally extrovert; the other is generally introvert. According to temperament there are those whose mental functioning is slow, those who are languid mentally and those who are mentally keen, the nervous type. But here it must be understood that the terms languid and nervous have no necessary connection with calm and excitement. The nervous often keep cool when the languid fluster. The nervous type is sensitive, but strong and vigorous and keen. The nervous think forcefully and clearly. The languid are sluggish, inert, and weak, unclear, discursive, and often mixed-up in thought. Cognizing slant is either intuitive or intellective.
According to character and temperament the body-object is recommended for the languid extravert and the feeling-object for the nervous extrovert. For the languid introvert the consciousness-object is recommended, and for the nervous introvert, mental objects.
According to cognizing slant and temperament the body-object is pointed out for the mentally slow who belong to the intuitive kind which makes concentration its vehicle for progress, and for the mentally keen of this kind the feeling-object. For the mentally slow who belong to the intellective kind which makes insight its vehicle the consciousness-object is recommended, and to the mentally keen of this kind the mental object.
Further, contemplation on the body destroys the delusion of beauty; that on feeling destroys the delusion of pleasure; contemplation on consciousness dispels the delusion of permanence; and that on mental objects, the delusion of the soul.
Freawaru wrote:So I would say it is more a matter of understanding oneself first, which frame of reference is more accessible than the others at any given time to decide for an object of sati.
I know this is not as teachers like Soma Thera seem to teach it but it works for me.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Catmoon,
The sequence is not rigid, but not irrelevant either. If sati is already strong enough to attend to dhammas, then why not dive right in? That's where the delusions of self will become untangled.
Registered users: Alex123, Awarewolf, Billymac29, Bing [Bot], binocular, corrine, dharmagoat, Dmytro, Feathers, Google [Bot], ground, Helyron, Hickersonia, kmath, Mindstar, Mojo, Mr Man, onaquest, robertk, Sam Vara, Zenainder