Ajahn Sucitto: Fragmentation & Distancing from Experience

[Anders Honore]

Freawaru,

You might want to rethink all of that, seriously rethink all of that.

What did you make of it that was so terribly wrong that all of it should seriously rethought?

[christopher:::]

The awareness itself, that stable kind of consciousness mentioned in the Uddesa-vibhanga Sutta refers IMO to what he means by "Ground of Being": the connection. It does not do something, it let things happen. It does not interfere, does not disturb. It has these qualities of being "bright, luminous, immaculate, suffusive" and it does not have ideas, opinions and so on because these are properties of the changing consciousness, the monkey mind.

That may be more of a Zen/Dzogchen view, which can also be effective (at least in J. Goldstein's opinion) when put into practice. The challenge is to cultivate an alert and tranquil mind that does not cling to anything...

In recent years you've been studying with some Tibetan teachers. What inspired that?

In the early nineties, our old friend Surya Das, whom we knew from India, had come back from two three-year Tibetan retreats. He told us about his practices and encouraged us to meet his teachers, particularly two great dzogchen masters, Tulku Urgyen, who died recently, and Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche. Surya Das had done some vipassana practice before his Tibetan retreats, so I think he felt that we would also have a connection with the dzogchen teachings.

What's the connection?

The connection is awareness and freeing the mind. In vipassana, there's a great emphasis on the objects of awareness and being mindful of them. We pay attention to the breath, to thoughts, to sensations, and notice their impermanent, insubstantial nature. In dzogchen there's less emphasis on the object and more on recognizing the empty nature of awareness and resting in that.

What do you mean by the "empty nature of awareness"?

In different traditions this phrase might be explained in different ways. One way of understanding it is that when one looks for awareness, there's nothing to find. It's invisible, formless, groundless, and yet there is a cognizant capacity-there's knowing. In dzogchen, this is the union of awareness and emptiness. The "pointing-out instructions" that a qualified dzogchen master will give in a variety of ways help the student to recognize this nature of their own mind.

In the Burmese system, liberation involves transcending awareness. In dzogchen, liberation is recognizing that the nature of mind is awareness itself. These are two quite different ways of expressing things. I spent a month of that retreat trying to figure it out, trying to decide who was "right." I finally came to realize that I could understand both systems as skillful means rather than as statements of absolute truth.

Well, that was a huge relief. But, of course, then the question arises, "Well, skillful means for what?" What I've come to understand more deeply over the years-and what I think is supported by the teachings in all of the Buddhist traditions-is that the liberated mind is the mind that does not cling to anything. In one discourse the Buddha said, "Nothing whatsoever is to be clung to as I or mine. Whoever has realized this has realized all the teachings."

All the different methods and metaphysical systems can be seen as skillful means to accomplish the mind of no-clinging. This understanding really freed me from attachments to metaphysical models that I didn't even know I'd had. I'd been so completely immersed in the model of the Burmese teachings that when I came into contact with a different model, it became a huge conflict. I had just assumed that the particular way we speak of things was the truth, forgetting that the words were just skillful means for experiencing the mind that doesn't cling to anything. That's where the freedom is.

How did you settle the contradiction between the Burmese and dzogchen notions of awareness? You said the Burmese aims to transcend awareness into the "unconditioned," or "nirvana," which they would describe as the cessation of consciousness. But in dzogchen, there's no possibility of transcending awareness since it's the very nature of mind.

I've had intimations that perhaps at a certain point these concepts of awareness and of transcending awareness are themselves no longer applicable: The actual experience may be beyond that duality. On one level of experience what may seem to be a conflict, on another level may be resolved through a deeper understanding.

~Joseph Goldstein
"An Interview with Joseph Goldstein" Tricycle - The Buddhist Review

[mikenz66]

Anders, Tilt, Freawaru,

Freawaru,

You might want to rethink all of that, seriously rethink all of that.

What did you make of it that was so terribly wrong that all of it should seriously rethought?

This bit about:

The necessity is not to develop a stable consciousness but a consciousness that does not alter with the changes and instabilities of consciousness. ...

Seems contradictory. Consciousness arises in association with objects. That's clear not only in the Abhidhamma and Commentaries, but in many Suttas. It is always altering (according to the Buddha Dhamma). It seems to me that the Buddha challenges us to accept that everything we experience is anicca. He does not advocate seeking something "stable" in it.

Of course I could be misinterpreting the post...

Mike

[Freawaru]

Hi Mike, Tilt, Anders,

The necessity is not to develop a stable consciousness but a consciousness that does not alter with the changes and instabilities of consciousness. ...

Seems contradictory. Consciousness arises in association with objects. That's clear not only in the Abhidhamma and Commentaries, but in many Suttas. It is always altering (according to the Buddha Dhamma). It seems to me that the Buddha challenges us to accept that everything we experience is anicca. He does not advocate seeking something "stable" in it.

Yes, I see what you mean about contradictory. Sounds paradox. But let me quote the Uddesa-vibhanga Sutta again:

His consciousness changes & is unstable, but his consciousness doesn't — because of the change & instability of consciousness — alter in accordance with the change in consciousness.

His consciousness changes but his consciousness doesn't alter with the change in consciousness. Well, "alter" is a synonym of "change", isn't it? So the sutta states that "his consciousness changes but his consciousness doesn't change with the change in consciousness". Sounds paradox. But it isn't.

What is meant, IMO, is that there are two kinds of consciousness happening. The first one is linked to the arising objects (like the monkey holding the branches) and the second is free of this activity. The second one (here called "consciousness"; I don't know whether the Pali term is citta or vinanna) is that what gives rise to our good old "sati-sampajanna": Awareness, Clear Comprehending.

In what this sutta calls "an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person" the two consciousnesses alter in tandem, when the first changes so does the second. Thus awareness is consumed:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma ... His consciousness changes & is unstable. Because of the change & instability of consciousness, his consciousness alters in accordance with the change in consciousness. With the agitations born from the alteration in accordance with the change in consciousness and coming from the co-arising of (unskillful mental) qualities, his mind stays consumed. And because of the consumption of awareness, he feels fearful, threatened, & solicitous.

"This, friends, is how agitation is caused by clinging/sustenance.

So there are two kinds of agitation. The first is known to everybody, including the "uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person", this is the agitation caused by the arising of different kinds of objects. But the other kind of agitation is caused by clinging, meaning by the absence of sati-sampajanna. The "run-of-the-mill person" does not discern between these two kinds of agitation because he does not know the second kind of "consciousness" that arises from not-clinging as the "instructed disciple of the noble ones" knows. For this second kind of person - the "instructed disciple of the noble ones" - the two consciousnesses do not arise and fall in tandem, their arising and falling is independent of each other, this is called "not-clinging".

This is, IMO, exactly what we try to accomplish in Theravada. Think of the Mahasi method: one walks and tries to stay aware of walking: two kinds of consciousness arise, one absorbed in the experience of the walking and the other is observing this consciousness of experience. The first changes (one foot, the other foot) but the other, the aware one, is stable, unchanging. And because of this stability of the second kind of consciousness the mind is not consumed.

"And how is non-agitation caused by lack of clinging/ sustenance? There is the case where an instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for nobles ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma ...

His consciousness changes & is unstable, but his consciousness doesn't — because of the change & instability of consciousness — alter in accordance with the change in consciousness. His mind is not consumed with any agitations born from an alteration in accordance with the change in consciousness or coming from the co-arising of (unskillful mental) qualities. And because his awareness is not consumed, he feels neither fearful, threatened, nor solicitous.

"This, friends, is how non-agitation is caused by lack of clinging/sustenance.

This is a crucial point: The two kinds of consciousness, one experiencing and the other observing the experience. The second is a kind of Meta-consciousness. When people meditate they often think that the goal is an experience - like jhana. But Liberation is attained by detaching from experience, this does not mean that there is no experience any more but that there is this Meta-consciousness that observes all experience and can be stabilised through all kinds of experience.... well, this is not Liberation, yet, either, IMO, but it is the important accomplishment that leads to Liberation.

As to the Abhidhamma: to see change one needs a fix-point. A star-ship moving in free space can only be said to be moving when comparing the distance to something, like stars or galaxies. If everything moves in the same way, at the same speed, in the same direction all these definitions can't be used and the term "movement" or "change" becomes meaningless. Abhihamma talks about change in consciousness but here, too, one needs a fix-point for the term change to become meaningful. This fix-point is the stable sati-sampajanna awareness, the second kind of consciousness that is based on non-agitation caused by lack of clinging.

I think it is because of the seeming paradox - calling both "consciousness" - that some teachers prefer to give it other names. Thus I think it quite possible that Ahjan Sucitto means it - at least it fits the description.

[mikenz66]

Hi there Freawaru,

The translation of MN138 by Ven Thanissaro:

His form changes & is unstable, but his consciousness doesn't — because of the change & instability of form — alter in accordance with the change in form. His mind is not consumed with any agitations born from an alteration in accordance with the change in form or coming from the co-arising of (unskillful mental) qualities. And because his awareness is not consumed, he feels neither fearful, threatened, nor solicitous.

is translated by Vens Nanmoli/Bodhi as:

With the change and becoming otherwise of that material form, his consciousness is not preoccupied with that change of material form. Agitated mental states born of preoccupation with the change of material form do not arise together and remain obsessing his mind. Because his mind is not obsessed, he is not anxious, distressed, and concerned, and due to non-clinging he does not become agitated.

Personally, I prefer the second. But I think they are actually saying the same thing.

Metta
Mike

[tiltbillings]

is translated by Vens Nanmoli/Bodhi as:
. . .
Personally, I prefer the second. But I think they are actually saying the same thing.

Ven Thanisaro's translatyion vary in quality from good to not so good. The above is a not so good. Vens Nanmoli/Bodhi gets at the meaning far better.

[Freawaru]

Hi Mike,

Hi there Freawaru,

The translation of MN138 by Ven Thanissaro:

His form changes & is unstable, but his consciousness doesn't — because of the change & instability of form — alter in accordance with the change in form. His mind is not consumed with any agitations born from an alteration in accordance with the change in form or coming from the co-arising of (unskillful mental) qualities. And because his awareness is not consumed, he feels neither fearful, threatened, nor solicitous.

is translated by Vens Nanmoli/Bodhi as:

With the change and becoming otherwise of that material form, his consciousness is not preoccupied with that change of material form. Agitated mental states born of preoccupation with the change of material form do not arise together and remain obsessing his mind. Because his mind is not obsessed, he is not anxious, distressed, and concerned, and due to non-clinging he does not become agitated.

Personally, I prefer the second. But I think they are actually saying the same thing.

Metta
Mike

Yes, I think they say the same, too. My interpretation works for both. The part for consciousness in the translation of Vens Nanmoli/Bodhi would be (substituting "material form" by "consciousness"):

With the change and becoming otherwise of that consciousness, his consciousness is not preoccupied with that change of consciousness. Agitated mental states born of preoccupation with the change of consciousness do not arise together and remain obsessing his mind. Because his mind is not obsessed, he is not anxious, distressed, and concerned, and due to non-clinging he does not become agitated.

Same meaning as before: Consciousness is not preoccupied with change of consciousness thus mental states born from preoccupation do not arise. Stability. Non-agitation due to non-clinging

It is really something odd and I still find it hard to express. But the mind can do it. It can be simultaneously agitated and non-agitated, it can jump around or think nonsense and still be calm, concentrated. This is the difference between samatha and vipassana. When one just practices the jhanas one can reach states of calm born from prolonged concentration on one object, experience them. But with sati-sampajanna the mind can be calm even while there is agitation (as long as it is not the agitation born from clinging).

[tiltbillings]

Stability. Non-agitation due to non-clinging/

Stability does not mean that the mind (citta), which is a process, ceases to be a dynamic intedependent flow. It means - in the case of the arahant - it is no longer agitated by greed, hatred, and delusion.

[Freawaru]

Hi Tilt,

Stability. Non-agitation due to non-clinging/

Stability does not mean that the mind (citta), which is a process, ceases to be a dynamic intedependent flow. It means - in the case of the arahant - it is no longer agitated by greed, hatred, and delusion.

Exactly! One kind of agitation still there but the other is gone. Looks like we are in agreement again.

[Freawaru]

Hi Christopher,

That may be more of a Zen/Dzogchen view, which can also be effective (at least in J. Goldstein's opinion) when put into practice. The challenge is to cultivate an alert and tranquil mind that does not cling to anything...

As I said to see change one needs some kind of fix point or coordinate system. Because change is defined in regard to stability. In the context of Dhamma I think there are two ways how to stabilise Awareness, either by recognising Awareness or by staying Aware of change. As far as I understand dzogchen uses the first and Theravada the second. Both work because they are the same mechanism. But there is a difficulty with the Dzogchen variation: as far as I know the "pointing out" is done during zhine (samatha) and during samatha both kinds of consciousness are calm. Both are not agitated. During samatha the concentration is stable on one object and the other stability, the Awareness, arises, too. So it is easy to confuse the two kinds of calm. Which is why the teacher is so important in these traditions. The Theravadan way is less easily misinterpreted because one has to stay stable to see directly change. The instruction: "stay aware of the change in form, perception, fabrication, and consciousness the moment they happen" can't be misinterpreted as far as I can see. What remains is how to arise and stabilise this Awareness...

[Yodsak]

Stability. Non-agitation due to non-clinging/

Stability does not mean that the mind (citta), which is a process, ceases to be a dynamic intedependent flow. It means - in the case of the arahant - it is no longer agitated by greed, hatred, and delusion.

Let's all just let Arahang Tiltbillings win this one.
Sucitto and Thanissaro are 'obviously' well out of order. How dare they!

[Freawaru]

Stability. Non-agitation due to non-clinging/

Stability does not mean that the mind (citta), which is a process, ceases to be a dynamic intedependent flow. It means - in the case of the arahant - it is no longer agitated by greed, hatred, and delusion.

Let's all just let Arahang Tiltbillings win this one.
Sucitto and Thanissaro are 'obviously' well out of order. How dare they!

Hi Yodsak,

I do not understand you. Tilt said exactly what Vens. Sucitto and Thanissaro said, too. Different words, same meaning. I don't see any disagreement any more.

[Yodsak]

Freawaru

It's OK to not understand.

I'm happy for you.

Just keep breathing, not papanca'ing.

[tiltbillings]

Stability. Non-agitation due to non-clinging/

Stability does not mean that the mind (citta), which is a process, ceases to be a dynamic intedependent flow. It means - in the case of the arahant - it is no longer agitated by greed, hatred, and delusion.

Let's all just let Arahang Tiltbillings win this one.
Sucitto and Thanissaro are 'obviously' well out of order. How dare they!

Oh, dear, and this furthers the conversation how?

Just because some one is a bhikkhu you cannot disagree with them?

[Goofaholix]

Oh, dear, and this furthers the conversation how?

Actually that's the exact same point I was trying to make when I butted into the thread.

If somebody wants to discuss a passage that contains a phrase that just doesn't seem to fit do we make that phrase the topic of the thread? or do we take it out and put it aside and discuss the passage as a whole without it?

I'd think the latter is more constructive and better for the discussion board and I'm surprised you don't see it that way, of course it doesn't help when people like me continue to feed it rather than ignore it and hope it goes away.

Christopher liked something about the passage and wanted to discuss it, 5 pages later I'm not sure whether he's had that opportunity.

Just because some one is a bhikkhu you cannot disagree with them?

I don't think he meant that.

However I do think 32 years of full time practice entitles him to the benefit of the doubt, not the assumption that he is pursuing a strategy of subliminally inserting non Buddhist concepts into the Buddhadhamma.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Goofaholix,

If somebody wants to discuss a passage that contains a phrase that just doesn't seem to fit do we make that phrase the topic of the thread? or do we take it out and put it aside and discuss the passage as a whole without it?

I'd think the latter is more constructive and better for the discussion board and I'm surprised you don't see it that way, of course it doesn't help when people like me continue to feed it rather than ignore it and hope it goes away.

I haven't really been following the topic but my preference is for looking at the inconsistencies rather than brushing over them. Untangling the inconsistencies is often a very good way of learning, and for challenging our assumptions.

I'm sure Jesus said some pretty cool things, but you can't just take the good things and try to see them independently aside from the uncool things he said, or else you'll never understand the bigger picture they are intended to represent. If there is something flawed in the 'part', there is something flawed in the 'whole'.

To quote something Cooran just quoted elsewhere...

The Buddha always told people not to take his word, not to just believe because learned teachers taught something ~ he said "ehipassiko" ~

Ehipassiko
Ehipassiko constitutes an open invitation to all to come and see, to inspect, to scrutinize and if need be, even to criticize the Dhamma before accepting it because there is nothing mythical or mysterious about it.

The Dhamma is pure and crystal clear. It is as pure as solid gold. The Buddha Himself declared: "Do not accept what I say through mere respect towards me. Just as purity of gold is ascertained by melting or rubbing on a touchstone, likewise the Dhamma should be accepted only after very close scrutiny." This fearless assertion of allowing the teaching to be closely examined marks the greatness of the Buddha and the unwavering truth of the sublime Dhamma.
http://www.purifymind.com/Introduction.htm

Not only should we critically inspect the Buddha's words, but of anyone who purports to be speaking the Dhamma.

Metta,
Retro.

[Goofaholix]

I haven't really been following the topic but my preference is for looking at the inconsistencies rather than brushing over them. Untangling the inconsistencies is often a very good way of learning, and for challenging our assumptions.

I'm sure this is a good way of interpreting and understanding scripture. However a dhamma talk delivered from the heart without much preparation and transcribed without editing is bound to be riddled with inconsistencies, so what, it is meant to be inspiring rather than doctrine setting.

If one focusses on the inconsistencies one loses sight of the whole, if one loses sight of the whole how will one know what the inconsistencies were inconstistent with, one just loses the plot.

I'm sure Jesus said some pretty cool things, but you can't just take the good things and try to see them independently aside from the uncool things he said, or else you'll never understand the bigger picture they are intended to represent. If there is something flawed in the 'part', there is something flawed in the 'whole'.

The above is a good example, Ajahn Sucitto said nothing about Jesus.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Goofaholix,

Whether I listen to our read Dhamma, I'm interested in edification moreso than inspiration.

I grant that for others it may be different.

Metta,
Retro.

[Goofaholix]

Greetings Goofaholix,

Whether I listen to our read Dhamma, I'm interested in edification moreso than inspiration.

I grant that for others it may be different.

Metta,
Retro.

I would have said those two terms were virtually synonymous. You are welcome to replace "inspiration" with "edification" in my post if you find it an inconsistency because to my mind the thrust of what I'm saying remains unchanged.

Certainly there would be no point in making an issue out of it would there? Doesn't Ajahn Sucitto deserve the same?

ed·i·fy 
–verb (used with object), -fied, -fy·ing.
to instruct or benefit, esp. morally or spiritually; uplift.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Goofaholix,

As mentioned earlier, I haven't been following the topic, I haven't even seen what Ajahn Sucitto said... I'm just saying that something shouldn't be exempt from critical examination simply because it is a bhikkhu speaking those words. I don't endorse or support Yosdak's indignance at critical examination of the Dhamma.

Let's all just let Arahang Tiltbillings win this one.
Sucitto and Thanissaro are 'obviously' well out of order. How dare they!

Metta,
Retro.