suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoherence (

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Ceisiwr »

Ratnakar wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 8:39 am ...

So where does one do vippassana in access or in jhana ?
Insight occurs upon leaving access or the jhāna. For example, to achieve access or jhāna there has to be a letting go. There is a natural flow of conditions, without a "self" or controller there. If we stick to access concentration, upon leaving this can be reviewed and can become the basis for insight and the obtaining of the path of stream-entry along with insight into the impermanence and dukkha of such a state.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Ratnakar
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:34 am

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Ratnakar »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 10:58 am
Ratnakar wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 8:39 am ...

So where does one do vippassana in access or in jhana ?
Insight occurs upon leaving access or the jhāna. For example, to achieve access or jhāna there has to be a letting go. There is a natural flow of conditions, without a "self" or controller there. If we stick to access concentration, upon leaving this can be reviewed and can become the basis for insight and the obtaining of the path of stream-entry along with insight into the impermanence and dukkha of such a state.
Do you argue outside of access and jhana one can do vippassana ?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Ceisiwr »

pitithefool wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:30 pm
Again, MN 20 would beg to differ. This is so dumb it's ridiculous. You know what the problem is? You're still subdividing what I call the first jhana into access concentration and absorption, which I don't do and for various reasons I argue against.
A sotāpanna has practiced the Noble Eightfold Path and has glimpsed nibbāna, yet they have not experienced the otherworldly state of Jhāna. It follows that their Right Samādhi is free of the hindrances but "looser" than Jhāna. You may not wish to call it "access concentration", but this is just quibbling about labels. The Right Samādhi of the sotāpanna is what the commentaries are referring to by "access concentration". I would ask you to review your position on this matter. It will greatly aid you.
Maybe we're not on the same page here as to what "discursive thought" is. When I say "verbal thinking", I'm meaning vitakka-vicara that uses words. For example, we could have the thought "this is impermanent" and it's verbal and I would argue that it meets our purposes. Or conversely you could be having a hard time getting the mind to settle on the breath, so you say to yourself, "okay let's stay with the breath, it's nice, it's peaceful" and that helps our purpose.
That will have the opposite effect. Remember, Right Samādhi must be supported by Right View. Instead of trying to control the process from a position of a self or discursive thoughts you need to go in the opposite direction. You need to let go.
But you could. As long as those jhana factors are strong and thinking a verbal thought doesn't damage but rather helps it, then I see no reason not to.
Again this would be like trying to make a pool still by whacking it with a paddle. It's counter productive. You need to let go.
Again, please read what I actually said. Dhammavicaya, vitakka-vicara, and vipassana and not the same thing nor are they mutually exclusive.
What you're describing is true and you must have discursive thinking to set it up but once it's associated with the stable and pervasive pleasure of jhana, vitakka-vicara is no longer required to sustain it. This may be a little confusing, but the action of attending to the object and returning to it with vitakka-vicara is actually what's doing this, not necassarily thinking "I will set up the proper perceptions necessary to attain absorption", (although this can be of use). No it generally occurs more on a visceral level as the proper perceptions necessary for jhana become associated with pleasure, the calm and equanimity, then stillness. Those perceptions definitely have to happen in order to stay in jhana, but we don't have to split our attention with the object to be with them, rather it's staying with the object that actually sets up and perpetuates those perceptions. That's vipassana and it is aided by recollecting the three marks, etc. Am I making sense?

What you're talking about as willed dhammavicaya is a little bit different. If I were to place it, it would go best after the mind is concentrated but it also fits in with vitakka-vicara as discursive thought. It's better to do it with a very concentrated mind, and as you've pointed out, between partaking of distinction to apply insight into the jhana factors and set intention to abandon them. Or conversely, it can be used to settle a distracted mind or to further settle a mind that is partially settled. That's all willed though.
Insight requires paṭisañcikkhati:

Paṭisañcikkhati: (paṭi+saṃ+cikkhati of khyā; cp. paṭisaṅkhāti & BSk. pratisañcikṣati MVastu II. 314) to think over, to discriminate, consider, reflect Vin. I, 5; D. I, 63; M. I, 267, 499; III, 33; S. I, 137; A. I, 205; Pug. 25; Vism. 283. (Page 400)

This would require normal thinking and pondering. Normal discursive thought. Dhamma-vicaya is the investigation of dhammas with wisdom. It involves said discursive and investigative thought, thus being heavily tied to yoniso manasikāra. Insight in any Jhāna is thus impossible on an absorbed model, and impossible from the 2nd Jhāna onwards for a Jhāna-lite model.
Please listen. Dhammavicaya is willed, vipassana is not necessarily so. Insight does not require discursive thought apart from setting up the conditions the first jhana. In the second, it's still happening but our job is not to "tend" to anything, much less that process. It's there whether we pay attention to it or not, and paying attention to the object is what strengthens it.
I never said insight is willed. I specifically said the dhamma which is a condition for it is not present in any Jhāna or, for the Jhāna-lite folks, from the 2nd Jhāna onwards. The condition not being present, insight does not occur.
One of the things that gets me is that if we had to leave every jhana to perform insight on it, then it would have said so. In fact, there are attainments that insight cannot happen in and the canon explicitly states so, for example...It should be noted that in that same sutta, none of the attainments up to the dimension of nothingness are stated to require emergence from the in order to practice insight on them, only neither perception nor non-perception and nirodha samapatti.

If the Buddha wanted to specify that insight cannot happen within an attainment, he would have. And not only that, he did, but not for any attainment prior to neither perception nor non-perception.

AN 9.36 reiterates this point and specifically leaves out neither perception nor non-perception and cessation when instructing. Insight cannot be done while in those two attainments, and the suttas actually say so explicitly. If it couldn't be done in the other attainments, it would have also stated so explicitly as it has done in these two suttas.

My fear is that some people may be rejecting these two suttas as non-canonical and that it's because of confirmation bias and not anything else. If we believe something very firmly, we will willfully ignore or discount evidence to the contrary.
The suttas do say that insight has to occur outside of Jhāna, once you investigate what they are saying. The Noble Sangha has also stated that insight occurs outside of Jhāna, at least for Theravāda. Regarding MN 111 I find it dubious not because of confirmation bias but because it has all the hallmarks of being a later sutta. I'm not adverse to changing my mind. I used to take the view of Jhāna-lite. Now I do not, and have every reason not to change my mind. Going back to MN 111, even if we accept it the insight always comes after every attainment in that sutta. Obviously it treats the last two differently since there is either only semi-consciousness or total lack of consciousness there. In relation to AN 9.36, as has already been pointed out, nothing in the grammar indicates that insight is occurring whilst in any of those meditations.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri May 07, 2021 11:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Ceisiwr »

Ratnakar wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 11:37 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 10:58 am
Ratnakar wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 8:39 am ...

So where does one do vippassana in access or in jhana ?
Insight occurs upon leaving access or the jhāna. For example, to achieve access or jhāna there has to be a letting go. There is a natural flow of conditions, without a "self" or controller there. If we stick to access concentration, upon leaving this can be reviewed and can become the basis for insight and the obtaining of the path of stream-entry along with insight into the impermanence and dukkha of such a state.
Do you argue outside of access and jhana one can do vippassana ?
In terms of the suttas the only insight before any access or Jhāna is in relation to wholesome and unwholesome mental states and insight into the mind in terms of succeeding in entering the Jhāna and what holds one back. The commentaries do acknowledge an insight-only approach all the way up to Arahantship, as does 1 āgama.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Ratnakar
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:34 am

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Ratnakar »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 11:44 am
Ratnakar wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 11:37 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 10:58 am

Insight occurs upon leaving access or the jhāna. For example, to achieve access or jhāna there has to be a letting go. There is a natural flow of conditions, without a "self" or controller there. If we stick to access concentration, upon leaving this can be reviewed and can become the basis for insight and the obtaining of the path of stream-entry along with insight into the impermanence and dukkha of such a state.
Do you argue outside of access and jhana one can do vippassana ?
In terms of the suttas the only insight before any access or Jhāna is in relation to wholesome and unwholesome mental states and insight into the mind in terms of succeeding in entering the Jhāna and what holds one back. The commentaries do acknowledge an insight-only approach all the way up to Arahantship, as does 1 āgama.
Oh so you argued that with dry insight one can still attain enlightenment, didn't you ?

Did I misunderstood you or not ?

And What Do you think is it much easier to do vippassana in a state with hindrances or in a state without hindrances ?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pondera wrote: Thu May 06, 2021 5:57 pm
The Buddha has said that one would be better off considering the body as self because at least the body (ie. form) lasts up to one hundred years.
It's not the kāya-aggregate. It's the rūpa-aggregate. As MN 28 shows, the rūpa-aggregate refers to any object of the 6th senses. In the Jhāna the 5 aggregates are there because there is a mental dhamma present. This fulfils the role of the rūpa-aggregate which the other 4 aggregates are standing in relation to.
You should (for example) be able to look at a rock and see the marks of existence in that rock.
Yes, which is reflective and discursive thinking.
But, so you say. How are the skhandas more obviously impermanent by virtue of entering and emerging from jhana? What attribute of the jhana experience points out the rise and fall of the skhandas so much more than if jhana had not been achieved?
The direct experience of the Jhāna abolishes lust, upon review, since sense objects that were once craved simply cannot compare. A diminishing of lust for sensual objects can also occur post access concentration, although not given up entirely. The once-returner has weakened it to a great degree. I would argue that the sotāpanna has at least some small diminishing of said lust. Apart from lust, there can be insight upon leaving and reviewing in terms of how in the access or Jhāna there was no self. No controller. There were merely dhammas, aggregates, that arose and fell away due to conditions which also gives insight into their impermanence and dukkha thus reinforcing how they are not-self.
Discursive thinking? I said “discernment”. It is obvious in many suttas that “discernment” occurs with cessation. For example, the suttas constantly repeat “And he sees with discernment: the task is done. The burden is laid down. This will be my last becoming.”
What Pāli word are you using for "discernment" here?
Careful. Now you are dabbling in Abhidhamma. Later in this post you vilify Abhidhamma for the sake of dismissing a certain MN 111.

But so you say.
No, because the suttas themselves show that vitakka-vicāra are intentions.
The rupa jhanas and the arupa jhanas (up to nothingness) are “perception attainments”. One need not think discursively in order to perceive.
The formless are never called Jhāna in the suttas. Careful now, you are dabbling in the Abhidhamma ;). Even if we accept that sañña just means "perceive" (it doesn't) it does not follow that this alone is enough for insight. Once again, as the suttas have shown, what is also required is paṭisañcikkhati.
In that case, does the nāmakāya (whatever that is :tongue: ) hold on to pain? And do you think that if it let go of pain, it would feel pleasure?
I would say equanimity.
Serenity is a feeling. Not an absence of thought.
I'm not aware of any sutta which includes samatha under vedanā. It appears samatha refers to the state of mind as a whole, whilst neutral vedanā is something else. Regarding the absence of thoughts, the Buddha said that for there to be Jhāna there needs to be sannisīdati. Sannisīdati means "calm". The causative is sannisīdāpeti, which means "to cause to halt". Having normal and discursive thoughts its the very opposite of calming the mind, of brining it to a halt. It moves against the stillness required for Jhāna. They are ripples on the mind.
Insight is a penetrating perception. Not a stillness of thoughts.
I never said that insight is a stillness of thoughts.
In fact stillness, steadiness, and solidity are all the same. Focus is steady thought, solid thought, still thought. Discursive thinking becomes focused thinking. Thinking does not disappear, as you seem to suggest. Discernment is only made possible when the namakaya lets go of painful feelings. It is at this point that it can review its own nature and see the marks of existence.
Focused discursive thinking is not tranquility since it is activity.
And, why was that again? Briefly, for the sake of a solid discussion.
Because insight requires discursive thought. On an absorbed model this cannot occur, since vitakka-vicāra are intentions. On a Jhāna-lite model they cannot occur post the 2nd Jhāna, because vitakka-vicāra are given up there (defined as normal discursive thinking on such a model).
Sure. And how many other suttas would you say bare those same hallmarks? Has anyone made a list? That would be an interesting read?
DN 33 comes to mind.
This implies that you know nothing about the development of samadhi.

ALL samma samadhi develop with the prior development of piti and sukha.

But, so you say. How in fact does jhanic piti and sukha arise otherwise?
At this point I would be repeating myself. The piti and sukha that arises before Jhāna is not the same as the otherworldly piti and sukha of the 1st Jhāna, which comes from being secluded from the world of the 5 senses.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri May 07, 2021 1:15 pm, edited 4 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Ceisiwr »

Ratnakar wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 12:05 pm
Oh so you argued that with dry insight one can still attain enlightenment, didn't you ?
No.
Did I misunderstood you or not ?
It seems so.
And What Do you think is it much easier to do vippassana in a state with hindrances or in a state without hindrances ?
There will be some insight prior to the hindrances being dropped, but this centres around wholesome and unwholesome states in relation to one's welfare and what is conductive to meditation. In other words, what feeds and what starves the hindrances and the 7 awakening factors. This insight centres around virtue, sense restraint and satipaṭṭhāna and so aids in achieving Right Samādhi. The insight of the sotāpanna & sakadāgāmin can only occur post access concentration. The insight of the anāgāmī and Arahant can only occur post Jhāna.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Ratnakar
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:34 am

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Ratnakar »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 12:23 pm
Ratnakar wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 12:05 pm
Oh so you argued that with dry insight one can still attain enlightenment, didn't you ?
No.
Did I misunderstood you or not ?
It seems so.
And What Do you think is it much easier to do vippassana in a state with hindrances or in a state without hindrances ?
There will be some insight prior to the hindrances being dropped, but this centres around wholesome and unwholesome states in relation to one's welfare and what is conductive to meditation. In other words, what feeds and what starves the hindrances and the 7 awakening factors. This insight centres around virtue, sense restraint and satipaṭṭhāna and so aids in achieving Right Samādhi. The insight of the sotāpanna & sakadāgāmin can only occur post access concentration. The insight of the anāgāmī and Arahant can only occur post Jhāna.
That's interesting, can you quote the visuddhimagga where buddhaghosa said The insight of the sotāpanna & sakadāgāmin can only occur post access concentration. The insight of the anāgāmī and Arahant can only occur post Jhāna ?
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by pitithefool »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 11:41 am
A sotāpanna has practiced the Noble Eightfold Path and has glimpsed nibbāna, yet they have not experienced the otherworldly state of Jhāna. It follows that their Right Samādhi is free of the hindrances but "looser" than Jhāna. You may not wish to call it "access concentration", but this is just quibbling about labels. The Right Samādhi of the sotāpanna is what the commentaries are referring to by "access concentration". I would ask you to review your position on this matter. It will greatly aid you.
This has nothing to do with the original discussion, but more about this later.
That will have the opposite effect. Remember, Right Samādhi must be supported by Right View. Instead of trying to control the process from a position of a self or discursive thoughts you need to go in the opposite direction. You need to let go.
So you're saying that having the thoughts of letting go because of insight into the three marks takes you farther away from concentration? That's patently absurd and you must be arguing from a synthetic a priori. Also, saying that you aren't controlling the process is equally absurd. Letting go is a fabrication, it's willed. As long as we are willing actions, there is becoming and the taking on of a self, even when that action has the characteristic of realizing non-self. Only when the raft has been abandoned at the far shore is Anatta fully realized. Jhana is not free from that process nor is it meant to be and it would be ludicrous to say so. The path is fabricated. Again, if you were actually reading anything that I said, you would have noticed that under most circumstances it would be better to fabricate an intention in a non-verbal way, however as MN 20 points out (unless that's a fake sutta too), you can and should use verbal fabrications when they are necessary in order to settle the mind.
Again this would be like trying to make a pool still by whacking it with a paddle. It's counter productive. You need to let go.
Again, are you listening to anything I'm saying or are you just arguing because you enjoy wallowing in disagreement? Most of the time, a pistol will do just fine in a fight. But if your opponent brings a pistol as well, you're better off with a shotgun and so on. Again, MN 20 lays this out perfectly clearly. Whether or not that's occuring in jhana is a rather arbitrary assessment at this point, but again I argue that it is jhana so long as the jhana factors are present. Also, how the heck does a sotapanna have right concentration and it isn't the four jhanas? The canon defines right concentration as nothing other than the four jhanas. Nowhere in the canon is there special sotapanna concentration. No if we go be the sutta pitaka's definitions, if it is right concentration, it is jhana. Haven't we gone over this before?
Insight requires paṭisañcikkhati:

Paṭisañcikkhati: (paṭi+saṃ+cikkhati of khyā; cp. paṭisaṅkhāti & BSk. pratisañcikṣati MVastu II. 314) to think over, to discriminate, consider, reflect Vin. I, 5; D. I, 63; M. I, 267, 499; III, 33; S. I, 137; A. I, 205; Pug. 25; Vism. 283. (Page 400)

This would require normal thinking and pondering. Normal discursive thought. Dhamma-vicaya is the investigation of dhammas with wisdom. It involves said discursive and investigative thought, thus being heavily tied to yoniso manasikāra. Insight in any Jhāna is thus impossible on an absorbed model, and impossible from the 2nd Jhāna onwards for a Jhāna-lite model.
Alright I'm gonna say this one more time, It does require vitakka-vicara to set it up, but once in jhana, it's free standing as long as the jhana is maintained. The type of vipassana that happens in the first jhana is something like "sensuality is course, impermanent, an arrow etc, the first jhana is blissful, peaceful, a shelter" when the fabrications leading to that jhana are an act of discernment. We see the drawbacks of the five aggregates (vipassana), see the rewards in jhana (also vipassana), and choose to fabricate the path (panna). For the second jhana, we see the drawbacks of vitakka-vicara (vipassana), the reward of unification (vipassana), and choose to fabricate the path (panna). For the third jhana, we see the drawbacks of piti (vipassana), the rewards of equanimity (vipassana), and choose to fabricate the path(panna). This process continues until there is no further escape and we've abandoned everything we can abandon.

I've laid out the entire path here, quite clearly. Again, this is parallel to MN 111. Do you see how trifling and ridiculous is is to say that thoughts regarding the drawbacks of sensuality, the drawbacks of form, the drawback of the five aggregates are farther from the path, farther from concentration? These fabrications form the path and you are here saying that they are a hindrance.
I never said insight is willed. I specifically said the dhamma which is a condition for it is not present in any Jhāna or, for the Jhāna-lite folks, from the 2nd Jhāna onwards. The condition not being present, insight does not occur.
This statement is self contradictory. You say insight isn't necessarily will, but the requisite condition for the second jhana is the absence of skillful resolves. If both of these statements are true, then it does NOT follow that insight is not present in the jhanas hogher than the first.

Look at this sutta quote, from AN 11.2:
"For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.
We don't need to fabricate vipassana directly, as it's inherent to concentration. Nor do we need to leave the jhana to "see things as they are". The mind is already doing so.

The suttas do say that insight has to occur outside of Jhāna, once you investigate what they are saying. The Noble Sangha has also stated that insight occurs outside of Jhāna, at least for Theravāda. Regarding MN 111 I find it dubious not because of confirmation bias but because it has all the hallmarks of being a later sutta. I'm not adverse to changing my mind. I used to take the view of Jhāna-lite. Now I do not, and have every reason not to change my mind. Going back to MN 111, even if we accept it the insight always comes after every attainment in that sutta. Obviously it treats the last two differently since there is either only semi-consciousness or total lack of consciousness there. In relation to AN 9.36, as has already been pointed out, nothing in the grammar indicates that insight is occurring whilst in any of those meditations.
AN 4.170:
"There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

"Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.

"Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight. As he develops tranquillity in tandem with insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.
One last question, why does it specify in MN 111 that the last two attainments must be emerged from in order to have insight on them, while it does not specify this for the other 7 attainments?
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Pondera »

Oh man!

pitithefool wrote:
Look at this sutta quote, from AN 11.2:
"For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.
I have never read this sutta up until now! I have never seen the fact that insight happens in jhana stated more clear. 🧐
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Coëmgenu »

pitithefool wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 4:42 pmLook at this sutta quote, from AN 11.2:
"For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.
We don't need to fabricate vipassana directly, as it[, i.e. "vipassanā," i]s inherent to concentration.
Emphasis and square brackets added, obv.

The Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma version of the above is that smṛti and samādhi are universal to all cittas. You are always engaged in mindfulness and you are always in some form of samādhi, however scattered. "Samādhi" as a universal caitasika is the Sarvāstivādin version of ekaggatā as a universal cetasika, and it is similar but not identical. The Sarvāstivādin conception of samādhi itself is that it is closer to manasikāra than a trance or absorption. It is "concentration," "focus," in general for them, and supramundane samādhis are simply all the more concentrated and focused. I'm not sure of how "trance-like" they thought of first dhyāna still, because I am getting mixed messages from what I read. I suspect the issue was subject to lively inter-Sarvāstivādin debate.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
pitithefool
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:39 am

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by pitithefool »

Pondera wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:03 pm Oh man!

pitithefool wrote:
Look at this sutta quote, from AN 11.2:
"For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.
I have never read this sutta up until now! I have never seen the fact that insight happens in jhana stated more clear. 🧐
Yes! I think what's happened is that the definition of the word vipassana over the years shifted meaning from "clear seeing" to a meditation
technique, i.e. 3 marks, 6 sense media, 5 aggregates, etc. Those are all instrumental in gaining vipassana but they are not vipassana themselves.

From looking in the canon, I have to draw three conclusions:

First, that vipassana is an inherent aspect of right concentration.

Second, that in its original meaning, vipassana is a mode of perception.

Third, that it most certainly must occur while in concentration, whether it's willed or not.
Please note: This profile picture is not actually a picture of the user.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by DooDoot »

Ratnakar wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 8:39 am So where does one do vippassana in access or in jhana ?
Both and after. However, the vipassana in jhana will be limited to the jhana itself. In other words, it won't be vipassana into the breathing, or vipassana of dependent origination, or vipassana of each of the five aggregates rising & falling, or of the six sense bases. However it will be vipassana of the nature of rapture, feelings, etc. Plus the jhana will have lots of selflessness or anatta of both the jhana itself and the 'observer' ('consciousness') of the jhana. The suttas clearly say in jhana there will be vipassana of the jhana itself; how the factors of jhana are discerned as impermanent, unsatisfactory, not-self, alien, impinging (a dart), etc, and how the (vipassana) Noble mind can separate/distinguish the jhana itself from the Deathless Element (Nibbana).

Unlike the drunken fools drunk on whatever piti they can Brasingtonally volitionally concoct, the Noble Disciples in real jhana view the piti (rapture) as unsatisfactory, alien, impinging, etc, because the Noble Disciple's mind is rooted in the peaceful letting go of the Deathless Element.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Pondera »

pitithefool wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:41 pm
Pondera wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:03 pm Oh man!

pitithefool wrote:
Look at this sutta quote, from AN 11.2:
"For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.
I have never read this sutta up until now! I have never seen the fact that insight happens in jhana stated more clear. 🧐
Yes! I think what's happened is that the definition of the word vipassana over the years shifted meaning from "clear seeing" to a meditation
technique, i.e. 3 marks, 6 sense media, 5 aggregates, etc. Those are all instrumental in gaining vipassana but they are not vipassana themselves.

From looking in the canon, I have to draw three conclusions:

First, that vipassana is an inherent aspect of right concentration.

Second, that in its original meaning, vipassana is a mode of perception.

Third, that it most certainly must occur while in concentration, whether it's willed or not.
:goodpost: the book of elevens is a thorn to those who claim emergence from jhana is the only way to achieve insight. An even further example:
When there is no bliss, one who lacks bliss has destroyed a vital condition for right immersion. When there is no right immersion, one who lacks right immersion has destroyed a vital condition for true knowledge and vision.
https://suttacentral.net/an11.3/en/sujato

I just feel sorry for our opponents at this juncture :tongue:
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: suttas where mind and body (31 body parts of meditator) dichotomy is incontrovertible, exposing Abhidhamma incoheren

Post by Pondera »

:coffee:
Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:

Could it be, sir, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this? They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.”

“It could be, Ānanda, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this.
They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.
“But how could this be, sir?”
“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
That’s how a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this.
https://suttacentral.net/an11.7/en/sujato

More fuel for the fire :spy:

https://suttacentral.net/an11.8/en/sujato

Same as above, but replace “perceive” with “be aware”.
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
Post Reply