Samma samadhi: Sujin Boriharnwanaket

[tiltbillings]

OK. I give a few brief quotes from the Vism to show this. . . .

Nothing new here. You are just repeating the VM. Again, see what retro is up to and give this a rest.

[Virgo]

OK. I give a few brief quotes from the Vism to show this. . . .

Nothing new here. You are just repeating the VM. Again, see what retro is up to and give this a rest.

They explain the necessity of the "soil" in developing wisdom. And I use them to show what the soil is to show that Mahasi doesn't teach it.

Then they explain what the "trunk" is and how each part of it is approached. I use them to show exactly what the trunk is and show they are absent from Mahasi.

Take care,

Kevin

[tiltbillings]

They explain the necessity of the "soil" in developing wisdom. And I use them to show what the soil is to show that Mahasi doesn't teach it.

Then they explain what the "trunk" is and how each part of it is approached. I use them to show exactly what the trunk is and show they are absent from Mahasi.

You give us no reason why we should read the text the way you do. You do not tell us what Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings are in his words (accurately reflecting MS's position) and you do not tell us why the one is not congruent with the other. In other words, you have not told us any thing. Nothing new. Best at this point to move on.

[Virgo]

They explain the necessity of the "soil" in developing wisdom. And I use them to show what the soil is to show that Mahasi doesn't teach it.

Then they explain what the "trunk" is and how each part of it is approached. I use them to show exactly what the trunk is and show they are absent from Mahasi.

You give us no reason why we should read the text the way you do. You do not tell us what Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings are in his words (accurately reflecting MS's position) and you do not tell us why the one is not congruent with the other. In other words, you have not told us any thing. Nothing new. Best at this point to move on.

You asked for quotations to disproved that Mahasis way is not in line with the Vism. I spent time compiling many quotes to show first the imprtance of the soil according to the Visuddhimagga and then the importance of the trunk. I gave quotes that showed what they are to show that they are absent in Mahasi system. This shows that his system is not in line with the Visuddhimagga. Apparently the page with the quotes is gone now as you feel there were too many. That is fine.

Kevin

[mikenz66]

I gave quotes that showed what they are to show that they are absent in Mahasi system.

Where did you show that they were absent? Many of the quotes are almost exactly what my teachers tell me.

Mike

[Virgo]

Greetings,

materiallity and mentallity

Whether nama-rupa is understood as above or as name-and-form, seems as if it would have a pretty big bearing on these purifications of wisdom.

Metta,
Retro.

In Visuddhimmaga it is defined as materiallity, mentallity.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Virgo,

In Visuddhimmaga it is defined as materiallity, mentallity.

In Nanamoli Bhikkhu's translation it is mentality and materiality... but is there certainty that his translation accurately reflects the pre-translated Visuddhimagga text? When he speaks thus, are the words he is translating 'nama' and 'rupa'?

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

You asked for quotations to disproved that Mahasis way is not in line with the Vism. I spent time compiling many quotes to show first the imprtance of the soil according to the Visuddhimagga and then the importance of the trunk. I gave quotes that showed what they are to show that they are absent in Mahasi system. This shows that his system is not in line with the Visuddhimagga.

You seem not to quite get it that is not quite enough to simply say that something does not fit with this or that.

Apparently the page with the quotes is gone now as you feel there were too many. That is fine.

This page? http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5167&start=60&sid=ebd8976b408797b996478a3ff92de1b5#p80816 It is still there. Any other page, I know nothing about.

[Virgo]

I gave quotes that showed what they are to show that they are absent in Mahasi system.

Where did you show that they were absent? Many of the quotes are almost exactly what my teachers tell me.

Mike

Does your meditaiton teacher (Mahasi style right?) tell you to explore the first purification of the five purifications of the trunk through The Four Elements, The Eighteen Elements, the Twelve Bases, The Aggregates, or in Brief with the Definition Based on the Four Primaries?

Does he teach you when you are done with that to review the conditions through those by ways of D.O (Dependent Origination) in Reverse, Forwards, by Kamma and Fruition, by why which way?

Also, how does he teach the soil?

I am not trying to be sarcastic Mike. I am just trying to see which ways of these he teaches so as to be in line with the traditional way of development as laid out in the Visuddhimmaga.

Thanks,

Kevin

[Virgo]

You asked for quotations to disproved that Mahasis way is not in line with the Vism. I spent time compiling many quotes to show first the imprtance of the soil according to the Visuddhimagga and then the importance of the trunk. I gave quotes that showed what they are to show that they are absent in Mahasi system. This shows that his system is not in line with the Visuddhimagga.

You seem not to quite get it that is not quite enough to simply say that something does not fit with this or that.

Apparently the page with the quotes is gone now as you feel there were too many. That is fine.

This page? http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5167&start=60&sid=ebd8976b408797b996478a3ff92de1b5#p80816 It is still there. Any other page, I know nothing about.

When these things (the soil and the trunk) are said to be the way in Visuddhimagga, it is a bit curious when they are absent from methods people claim are in line with it.

The page didn't appear for me at first. Sorry about that.

Kevin

[Virgo]

Greetings Virgo,

In Visuddhimmaga it is defined as materiallity, mentallity.

In Nanamoli Bhikkhu's translation it is mentality and materiality... but is there certainty that his translation accurately reflects the pre-translated Visuddhimagga text? When he speaks thus, are the words he is translating 'nama' and 'rupa'?

Metta,
Retro.

I haven't read the Pali text Retro. But what he translates here as materiallity he defines as the four primary elements and the derived elements,etc. And what he translates as mentallity he lists as the different mental elements, cittas and cetasikas. He defines in them in various ways, but it always matches materiallity and mentallity in the text.

Kevin

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Kevin,

I know I wouldn't trust one single translator to accurately translate the suttas, so if I placed as heavy emphasis on the Visuddhimagga as you do, I certainly wouldn't be relying exclusively upon a single English translation, without knowing the Pali underlying it. This is especially so given the regard in which venerable Nanamoli is reported to have viewed the work - viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4648 . Furthermore, post Visuddhimagga translation, Nanamoli Bhikkhu's understanding of the Dhamma changed somewhat and when translating the Majjhima Nikaya, he translated certain terms in a different way to what he had done when translating the Visuddhimagga. Bhikkhu Bodhi didn't approve however, and took it upon himself to re-translate parts of Nanamoli Bhikkhu's original translation manuscript, back in line with the earlier precedents... hence the dual translatorship attributed to the Wisdom Books translation of the Majjhima Nikaya.

I guess how much confidence you place in Nanamoli Bhikkhu's translation is up to you to discern.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

When these things (the soil and the trunk) are said to be the way in Visuddhimagga, it is a bit curious when they are absent from methods people claim are in line with it.

Are you saying that the particulars of the practice outlined by Buddhaghosa is the only it can be or should be in put into practice in a particular order with absolutely no variation? Did the Buddha teach that? As for soil and trunk (a lovely anology), that is hardy neglected in the Mahasi Sayadaw training I have had. One of my first teachers, a direct student of Mahasi Sayadaw, knew sections of the VM by heart and used it frequently to make points. Nothing unusual in that.

[Virgo]

Greetings Kevin,

I know I wouldn't trust one single translator to accurately translate the suttas, so if I placed as heavy emphasis on the Visuddhimagga as you do, I certainly wouldn't be relying exclusively upon a single English translation, without knowing the Pali underlying it. This is especially so given the regard in which venerable Nanamoli is reported to have viewed the work - viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4648 . Furthermore, post Visuddhimagga translation, Nanamoli Bhikkhu's understanding of the Dhamma changed somewhat and when translating the Majjhima Nikaya, he translated certain terms in a different way to what he had done when translating the Visuddhimagga. Bhikkhu Bodhi didn't approve however, and took it upon himself to re-translate parts of Nanamoli Bhikkhu's original translation manuscript, back in line with the earlier precedents... hence the dual translatorship attributed to the Wisdom Books translation of the Majjhima Nikaya.

I guess how much confidence you place in Nanamoli Bhikkhu's translation is up to you to discern.

Metta,
Retro.

We can be sure it is nama and rupa. Why? Because he doesn't just translate words here and there he translates whole paragraphs that detail the definitions with many words and terms. It would be odd if the original text said name and form (which it doesn't) if it then defined name through various cetasikas mental phenomena again and again through out the whole text such as when it takes about nama and how it is to be regarded by way of the sense bases as just the mental parts, or how 'mentallity' is all mental activity when it talks about the mental aggregate and mind objects, etc. These things are laid out with detail again and again so even if it was "name and form" which it is not, they are always defined respectively in the texts as mental things and physical things without consciousness.

[tiltbillings]

I am at work, so I do not have the book in front of me, but there is a detailed translation glossary in the back of the book listing the Pali terms and Ven Nanamoli's chosen translation for any particular term. While it may not be perfect, it is a very carefully done translation.

[Virgo]

I am at work, so I do not have the book in front of me, but there is a detailed translation glossary in the back of the book listing the Pali terms and Ven Nanamoli's chosen translation for any particular term. While it may not be perfect, it is a very carefully done translation.

nama—(1) mentality, (2) name

rupa—(1) materiality (aggregate), fine materiality
of fine-material BrahmA-world, matter
in general, material form, (2) visible
datum, visible object, visible matter, visible
form

Kevin

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Very interesting - thanks Kevin.

Personally I'd go with the 2nd definition of each term, though for 'rupa', not in a way that seems to restrict it exclusively to the visual channel. This being the Classical forum, it's not my perspective that holds sway though, however I find it heartening that Bhikkhu Nanamoli included and accepts the name-and-form rendering. He seems to be taking a bet either way.

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

I don't quite see the point that Retro was trying to make.

It was clearly nama-rupa that Kevin was referring to, and whether one chooses to render that in English as name and form or materiality and mentality doesn't matter, any more than whether they choose to render dukkha as suffering, stress, or satisfactoriness.

I'm not saying that there could not be problems with the translation of some passages in the Visuddhimagga (or the Suttas), but I don't see the relevance of this line of discussion, unless it is to suggest that the translation is so unreliable that we should simply ignore it, which seems unlikely and rather off the point of this particular conversation.

Mike

[mikenz66]

Hi Kevin,

Does your meditaiton teacher (Mahasi style right?) tell you to explore the first purification of the five purifications of the trunk through The Four Elements, The Eighteen Elements, the Twelve Bases, The Aggregates, or in Brief with the Definition Based on the Four Primaries?

Aggregates, elements, sense bases. The sort of thing you have quoted. And there is certainly sila and concentration involved. So I still fail to see your point.

Perhaps you are assuming that what is being taught to relative beginners such as myself is supposed to be advanced insight stuff. I think much of what is taught is rather preliminary development of sila, concentration and mindfulness, and some basic stuff about the aggregates, elements, and sense bases. The Vism passages on practical application of dependent origination are much later in the stages of insight.

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

I don't quite see the point that Retro was trying to make.

It was clearly nama-rupa that Kevin was referring to, and whether one chooses to render that in English as name and form or materiality and mentality doesn't matter, any more than whether they choose to render dukkha as suffering, stress, or satisfactoriness...

I don't see the relevance of this line of discussion, unless it is to suggest that the translation is so unreliable that we should simply ignore it, which seems unlikely and rather off the point of this particular conversation.

The point around nama-rupa revolves around the focus Kevin places upon it in this post ( viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5167&start=60#p80798 ) and subsequent posts.

If nama-rupa is mentality-materiality, then that's fine, no worries... what Kevin is proposing seems quite coherent.

However if nama-rupa is name-and-form, it's a different story altogether, because there's a much clearer pathway by which the Mahasi method regarding labelling would be shown to be in accord with the Visuddhimagga method. I'll connect the dots, as I understand them...

Name-and-form needs to be explained with reference to consciousness. In the suttas (DN 15 for example), it is stated that the two are mutually dependent regarding their role in facilitating dukkha... other suttas speak of their relationship as a vortex or a whirlpool. There is also the classic reference of the two bundles of reeds supporting each other. So, in the Dhamma there are the six-consciousnesses - eye, ear, nose, body, tongue and mind. The consciousness is the raw unprocessed sensory input only... it is what is presented to the mind. Name-and-form is that active process of perceiving the raw input as a form, and conceptualising/bracketing it... or if you will, labelling it.

The Mahasi method of labelling helps to differentiate between name and form and consciousness. The labelling constitutes the name (concept) applied to the sensory form. It is useful to samma samadhi (hence the relationship of this to the overall topic) in the sense of curtailing conceptual proliferation by stopping at the label (name). By inhibiting papanca via labelling, samadhi is strengthened and in time, the act of labelling itself is dropped because it involves comparatively more papanca than the concentrated mind would naturally possess. With the cultivation of samma samadhi and the dismantling of name-and-form, consciousness will be seen as such, without the nama-rupa overlay. Or, as the Buddha said to Bahiya...

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

I hope that clears up the reasons behind my line of enquiry. I accept that it might seem rather abstract if one did not know where I was going with it.

Metta,
Retro.