"Knowable here and now" as a criterion for Dhamma

[Yundi]

'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness.' ...

"'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' ...

These teachings involve inferential knowledge. I'm not sitting here experiencing death right now. At least I hope not... Is the Buddha teaching speculation here?

Mike

Beyond death does not mean like being in a spaceship in outerspace.

'Beyond death' means the mind is unaffected by death.

This is a simple reflection to Buddha advised to both laypeople & ordained.

I am subject to death, have I gone beyond death?

I would recommend reading the Nakula Sutta, where a wise female householder consoles her worried husband as he faces death from a grave illness.

With metta

[Yundi]

You seem to be saying that the key thing is the knowledge being here and now, not the causes and effects being here and now.

Mike

The cause of suffering is always here & now, even though some mind objects may arise influenced from the past.

The Buddha taught us the cause of suffering is craving & attachment.

The Buddha taught patient endurance burns up defilements supremely.

“On cognizing a mind-object with the mind, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned favoring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant, painful, or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.

Mahātanhāsankhaya Sutta

"Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that — when cross-examined, pressed for reasons & rebuked by wise people — even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three?

"There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by what was done in the past.

"Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?"'

Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.'

Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.'

When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative.

This was my first righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

Tittha Sutta: Sectarians

With metta

[Yundi]

Well, of course, I don't claim to be able to do this, but the Buddha often describes it:

"Now when the disciple of the noble ones has arrived at this purity of equanimity & mindfulness, he recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand....

Mike

What the Buddha experienced above, was the experience in the present???

For example, if I think about my childhood, are my memories experienced in the present or am I transported back in time in some time machine???



With metta

[alan]

Hi Yundi. You're right if you were meaning to point out that:
Contemplation of death is reflection, not speculation.
Not sure about the spacecraft bit. Or your understanding of the purpose of the reflection.
Welcome to DW. There are a lot of smart people here and most of them are nicer than me!

[alan]

"Patient endurance burns up defilements extremely" ???
No.

[Yundi]

Kanti paramam tapo titikkha.

Nibbaram paramam vandati Buddha

Enduring patience is the highest austerity.

"Nibbana is supreme," say the Buddhas.

Dhammapada

Tapa & Tapo [from tapati, cp. Lat. tepor, heat]

[pt1]

Hi retro, Mike and all, just my thoughts on the topic and discussion so far.

As a definition for 'speculative', how about "view (ditthi) that is not experientially verified as knowledge (nana)"?

I too find this a bit confusing. I think in the suttas, abhidhamma and commentaries, ditthi refers to wrong view, which is directly opposed to right view (sammaditthi in the suttas, wisdom cetasika in abhidhamma, and I've also seen sanditthi (proper view) in commentaries). So I would say, ditthi is not equivalent to thinking/speculation per se, i.e. thinking can run on the back of both right and wrong view, so to speak, so the path is not about stopping thinking.

Tying this back to dependent origination, which Mike enquired about in the original post, the structural links between any nidanas which are not yet experientially known fall into that category of "view (ditthi) that is not experientially verified as knowledge (nana)" and are therefore speculative.

Not sure about d.o, but in general terms, the distinction you make between thinking (regardless of whether it's accompanied by ditthi or not) and direct insight (knowledge/nana) is important, imo. And what's directly related to Mike's original question I think is the difference between thinking which is not accompanied by ditthi, and, direct insight. Which would make a case that there can be a "right" sort of thinking even if it's not direct insight (or one of the nanas). I would personally subscribe to such interpretation, especially considering that most of us can't go from hearing dhamma to direct insight immediately - i.e. first we ponder what we hear/read, and then hopefully that results in/conditions direct insight sometimes later, at which point hearing dhamma might inspire/condition direct insight immediately.

So, in answer to Mike's original question, I'd say that those passages in the canon which seem to be inferential can really inspire/condition both the pondering - wisely thinking about Dhamma, as well as exhortation that would inspire heedfulness and direct insight in the present moment. And both are important and "speak" to us on different stages of understanding a certain aspect of the Dhamma. E.g. if I was to hold onto (cling to) the wrong view (ditthi) like Baka brahma that I am permanent, then hearing from someone that I am not free from death can possibly inspire/condition both pondering wisely first on the topic (thus for the moment not holding onto the ditthi), as well as direct insight into the nature of a dhamma as impermanent, etc.

Yet, "this Dhamma is visible here-&-now, not subject to time, inviting all to come & see, pertinent, to be known by the wise for themselves."

This quote imo relates to the original question in many ways. E.g. notice that it says that all these things are to be "known by the wise". Who are "the wise"? Those who have experienced direct insight? Those who have experienced one of the insight knowledges (as in one of the nana stages)? Or maybe only Ariyas? (I might be wrong, but I think that according to Vsm, this whole sentence relates to Ariyas only - see chapter VII, 69, 76 and 85). Regardless, even if we take the most inclusive interpretation that it relates to anyone who can experience a moment of direct insight, for most of us (at least true for me) direct insight is not experienced 99.99..% of the time, what would mean that we can't really experience Dhamma directly most of the time. Other than through thinking and pondering wisely, which hopefully conditions direct insight at some point.

Best wishes

[chownah]

"Only those things that are directly knowable in this moment are useful Buddha-Dhamma".

I think that this is saying that only things knowable in this moment are useful....and that it does not mean that one can only know about things that are happening in this moment by contemplating things that are happening in the present moment....for example....by contemplating what has happened in the past one can come to a realization in the present moment that can be useful as a Buddha-Dhamma.....one contemplates that past (for example) but some realization that happens in the present moment is useful.....so....contemplating the past is ok but only useful if it creates direct knowledge in the present moment.....I guess...don't know for sure in the present moment.....
chownah

[ground]

"Only those things that are directly knowable in this moment are useful Buddha-Dhamma".

What are those "things"? Objects of the senses or objects of mind? Can those two hypothetical kinds of objects be discerned?
And what is "directly knowing"? Is it metaphorically "knowing" without mediating thought? Are there bare sense data or is there already some "meaning"? If it is bare sense data how can there be "knowing"? And if there is some sort of "meaning" isn't this synthesised on the basis of bare sense data?

If one considers inference to be a means to "indirectly" obtain knowledge isn't the very final concluding moment when the last line of reasoning just ends and culminates in "freshly seeing [something new]" an instance of a moment of "directly knowing"?

Kind regards

[retrofuturist]

Greetings TMingyur,

To be fair, Chownah was only quoting Mike's summary made in the original post.

Metta,
Retro.

[alan]

I don't get it.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Alan,

When Chownah wrote "Only those things that are directly knowable in this moment are useful Buddha-Dhamma" he was only quoting Mike's original post... these aren't Chownah's own words.

Get it now?

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

A few off-topic posts have been removed.



(Alan - as for what's Chownah's and what's Mike's, you can simply read and compare the two posts... not surprisingly, that which is in "quotation marks" is a quotation and that which isn't isn't)

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Thanks everyone for the interesting contributions.

The original question was a little vague, and some of the comments have helped to firm up how I see some aspects. While the emphasis in insight is, of course, on the rapid rising and falling of phenomena in the present moment, it seems obvious that there are some aspects that seem to me are not "in the present moment". Here are some comments/questions.

1. Some knowledges, such as the Buddha's description of recollection of past lives is clearly not about something happening in the present moment. And it's not necessary to go that far. On the more mundane level we remember things from seconds, minutes, days, or years ago. In Pali there does not seem to be separate term for memory - memory is part of perception, sanna http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... 3%B1%C4%81). Even when observing the changing "present moment" phenomena isn't it short term memory that allows us to see the changes?

2. To what extent is inferential or semi-inferential knowledge "enough" to qualify as "knowing"? Does observing death inevitably following birth qualify? Having burnt ourselves once do we "know" enough that we don't have to put our hand in a different fire? Or do we have to test every fire?

3. On a slightly different issue, gabrielbranbury raises the question of whether, to "know" Dependent Origination one needs to have direct knowledge of every connection, or is the point to know enough of the many and various connections in the different versions given in the suttas to "know" about DO causality?

In the end, apart from setting up the basic parameters for practise, in terms of what phenomena one is "looking for" or "looking at" perhaps it doesn't matter too much. I don't believe I could be following rapidly rising and falling phenomena while I was considering this stuff intellectually...

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

In Pali there does not seem to be separate term for memory - memory is part of perception, sanna

These notes on sati from Dmytro might be of relevance, in identifying a connection between memory and sati too...

Pali Term: Sati
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=4299" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.