On Tradition

[mjaviem]

what if practice is more like learning to ride bicycle or swim, less like assembly a Ikea furniture. Maybe all we need is to keep at it and exhausts our wits, then it clicks.
...

[SDC]

The Buddha did that in cases of those who had no desire to practice towards the goal, though it was super rare that he would do so without at least prioritizing virtue. This topic, as I understood from the OP, is about the response from the community when pressed for clarification about the suttas from those who want to practice towards the goal. I'm positing that when pressed, the majority of the community fails to prioritize freedom from suffering for the individual.

That has been my experience. Maybe I'm too focused subtext and intention, which is where the impression usually comes from. I tend to think you are far more trusting, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I'm not though. I find that a majority of the Buddhist community is jaded and bitter and I feel bad for those who get gathered up in the community's baggage.

It's not simply that I'm trusting, it's that people I've interacted with or listened to carefully have sometimes come up with amazingly helpful suggestions about how to proceed. At other times they might talk about social issues, which is a good thing - the Buddha himself spoke in favour of a well-functioning, fair society. Without some social stability Dhamma practice is not actually sustainable. Besides, as you've often pointed out, without sorting out one's worldly issues, further progress is unlikely.

Sure, and it is always a good thing to get the appropriate advice for a particular concern. I’ve seen people from all walks of life give great advice on how to live good, and it is certainly an important part of any community that it be able to offer ordinary, day to day advice on how to live. When it comes to that sort of advice, the Buddhist community is second to none. There is a ton of good advice on how to live better and make the world better. The doors are wide open in that respect and people are always welcome at that level.

However, when it comes to transitioning into a more serious pursuit of Dhamma, attitudes change, and to @ceisiwr’s point, things are far less welcoming and often grow in ambiguity. Before, it is as if people are guiding you to where they are, but when it comes to the Dhamma it is more like being directed into a gray area. In that respect, most remain more comfortable with the day to day instructions on how to live good and make the world better, which is absolutely not in the direction of Dhamma. Yes, the Buddha spoke about how to live good, but it is very clear that in order to develop towards freedom from suffering, hopes and dreams about a nice life in a safe world are secondary at best, and if one were to hold only to that it would be impossible to contemplate some of the harsher realities, which undermine that type of lifestyle in every way.

[mikenz66]

Greetings Mike,

I guess what I particularly object to in this thread (especially in Paul's posts) is the idea that there are a handful of insightful truth tellers, and the rest are are a complete waste of time.

Oh, that's interesting. I don't recall saying anything of the sort. Last time I checked, I was arguing in favour of the sufficiency of the Sutta Pitaka.

Please point me to the origin of this papanca.

Metta,
Paul.

You go far beyond that. You are implying that almost everyone else, from the ancients to the present, have misinterpreted the suttas.

And in this other thread you imagined you were pointing out things that most others had missed:

Hi Retro,

By undertaking this investigation for ourselves and by learning how objects come to be, it may now be clearer to us why it is not enough simply to watch objects as they rise and pass away. ...

Sure, that's the key, and it's what most of the teachers I've paid attention to teach, so I'm surprised that you think you're explaining something special. I've pointed this out many times, for example in the context of Bhikkhu Nanananda's teachings, which are loosely based on the Mahasi approach.

I suspect that in assembling your critique you have paid too much attention to introductory instructions, and not enough to what is actually taught on retreats and in personal interactions. [That's a common problem with such surveys, especially ones by famous monastics....] Of course, it really doesn't matter. The key is the insights into how phenomena arise, not the particular approach that one takes to getting to that.

In any case, it really doesn't matter, since I (and various teachers) have no disagreement with your conclusions.


Mike

I don't actually have many disagreements with your understanding. I just don't think it's particularly unique. Which is logical, since everyone is working from the same source.


Mike

[mikenz66]

However, when it comes to transitioning into a more serious pursuit of Dhamma, attitudes change, and to @ceisiwr’s point, things are far less welcoming and often grow in ambiguity. Before, it is as if people are guiding you to where they are, but when it comes to the Dhamma it is more like being directed into a gray area. In that respect, most remain more comfortable with the day to day instructions on how to live good and make the world better, which is absolutely not in the direction of Dhamma. Yes, the Buddha spoke about how to live good, but it is very clear that in order to develop towards freedom from suffering, hopes and dreams about a nice life in a safe world are secondary at best, and if one were to hold only to that it would be impossible to contemplate some of the harsher realities, which undermine that type of lifestyle in every way.

Perhaps our experience has been different. I'm talking about people who really have helped me with serious pursuit. That they also help people in more mundane ways is not a fault, it's a result of the depth of their understanding.


Mike

[SDC]

However, when it comes to transitioning into a more serious pursuit of Dhamma, attitudes change, and to @ceisiwr’s point, things are far less welcoming and often grow in ambiguity. Before, it is as if people are guiding you to where they are, but when it comes to the Dhamma it is more like being directed into a gray area. In that respect, most remain more comfortable with the day to day instructions on how to live good and make the world better, which is absolutely not in the direction of Dhamma. Yes, the Buddha spoke about how to live good, but it is very clear that in order to develop towards freedom from suffering, hopes and dreams about a nice life in a safe world are secondary at best, and if one were to hold only to that it would be impossible to contemplate some of the harsher realities, which undermine that type of lifestyle in every way.

Perhaps our experience has been different. I'm talking about people who really have helped me with serious pursuit. That they also help people in more mundane ways is not a fault, it's a result of the depth of their understanding.


Mike

Yes, I think our experiences have been too different to see this issue in the same light.

We'll work it out over coffee in 2026 when the virus finally goes away

[mikenz66]

We'll work it out over coffee in 2026 when the virus finally goes away

That sounds like a good plan...


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

Please point me to the origin of this papanca.

You go far beyond that. You are implying that almost everyone else, from the ancients to the present, have misinterpreted the suttas.

Wrong again. As predicted, what you're quibbling about spawned in your mind, not from what I actually said. Sorry to inform you but that makes for boring conversation for someone who does not share of the paranoia.

Given your track record of miscomprehension of my posts, please desist from attempting to represent my position in your own words. Instead, if something is actually said that you deem requires a response, quote it. At least have the decency to address my own words, rather than your papanca, tarted up as a strawman.

That will avoid your miscomprehension from derailing future topics. Please stop treating your papanca as my argument.



Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

Here we go. You're back to insisting as an article of faith (or faithlessness, perhaps), that there's more "details" required, and no doubt you have an army of sectarians willing to "fill in those details" with unbounded proliferation.

I mean, I never stopped making the argument. We know from the texts themselves that suttas do not contain everything. I do look to the masters of old for guidance, from a few traditions, yes. How is this different to you reading Ven. Ñāṇavīra or Ven. Ñāṇananda?

Taken seriously, the preservation of the four great references would have prevented the rise of differentiable traditions.

I don't see how that follows? Part of the reason as to why we ended up with different traditions had to do with being separated by geography. How do the 4 references protect against that?

I don't remember seeing any advice on boiling eggs, and that's a big failing of the Suttas. Surely there's many factors to take into account such as the size of the egg, the initial temperature of the egg, the colouring of the egg, the type of bird that the egg came from, how runny the yolk should be, and how long to cook the egg if you're making Scotch eggs. And as for the precise yellow of the egg yolk... surely there's a hundred similes missing from the Suttas which could have laboriously compared the yolk to an entire assortment of flowers, grains, seeds, scented timbers, birds, clays, cosmetics, body parts, and broken household utensils.

I demand answers to my irrelevant questions!

Asking how to boil an egg is irrelevant. Asking for further instruction regarding practice or doctrine isn't. It's perfectly reasonable to ask just what a Kasiṇa is and how to practice them, or how sympathetic joy leads to infinite consciousness. None of that is addressed in the suttas. I don't see how these fall under MN 63 either?

I'd also like to address an earlier comment you made here

As for kasinas, the Buddha would often allow people to repurpose their existing traditions and practices, so as they could become more aligned with the Dhamma. Perhaps one of the more famous examples of this repurposing is outlined in the Sigalovada Sutta. I'm inclined to think kasinas are simply meditation tools that some people wanted to continue using to support their meditation. That's not me, so I don't care. I assume that's not you, so I don't understand why you care, other than out of some desire for everything to be explained with even more words.

The Jhānas weren't invented by the Buddha. Other ascetics knew of them. The same with the kasiṇas, which seem to have been seen as a way of merging the self with some fundamental reality in a non-dual state. The Buddha took this and re-purposed them, so I'm interested in the kasiṇas for the same reason I'm interested in the Jhānas.

A bit more on how other ascetics viewed and used the kasiṇas, for those interested, is found in the northern SA.

“How does he see bodily form as the self? Having attained the earth kasiṇa and contemplated it, he thinks: ‘Earth is the self, the self is earth, the self and earth are just one, not two, they are not different, they are not separate.’

“In the same way having attained the water … fire …. wind … blue … yellow … red … white kasiṇa and contemplated it, he thinks: ‘White[ness] is the self, the self is white[ness], they are just one, not two, they are not different, they are not separate.’ In this way he conceives of a self in relation to each of the kasiṇa s. This is called [seeing] bodily form as the self."

https://suttacentral.net/sa109/en/analayo

[Ceisiwr]

That famous utterance is in one suttas about sense restraint, and part of an instruction to dying monk. There are another thousand suttas about restraint without it.

SN 35.95 is what I am drawing on here.

Signs are described in SN 47.8 (the cook). The cook learns the preferences of his king by how he treats the dishes. The bhikkhu is instructed to see the preferences of his own mind, a mind that has preferences that the monk may want to develop away from, and despite the direction his mind is beckoning, he keeps the setup of proper mindfulness and only does what is in the direction of wholesome. (See Thag 19.1 for a mind with its own agenda).

It talks about the sign of preference, not that preferences are signs.

Kasina practice is just one way to develop dispassion. It is necessary to go at insight from every available direction. If it doesn't resonate at all, don't waste your time with it.

I think you are missing my point. If suttas contain everything, and so we don't need to consult monks and nuns at all for further instructions, then based on the suttas alone we should know just what kasiṇa's are, what the practice entails and so on. That we can't answer these satisfactory based on the suttas shows that they do not contain all relevant details. You agree with me below on this point.

I agree there is a lot missing in the suttas, but there is also a lot in the suttas that most people do not want to do, which would open up alot space that they have filled with gratification. They don't want to test out the eight precepts. They don't want to stop satisfying themselves with good food. Stop getting sexual gratification. They don't want to get away from entertainment. The want Dhamma while they stay in sensuality. What we do know about the context of ancient India is that there weren't endless ways to treat the body like a carnival the way we do in the modern world, and that is why Dhamma was much closer. We are soaked in sensuality, don't want to do the work to dry ourselves out, and then get frustrated that we aren't becoming the noble GIANTS we read about in the suttas. That is the part that is missing in my opinion. For the record, this is directed at everyone, even me.

I can't see anything I object to here.

[Ceisiwr]

Ceisiwr wrote

What is the sutta definition of a sign and where does it explain not grasping signs and features?

Definition of signs and features are found in Sutta on Dependent Origination. Explanations on grasping signs and features are found in Salayatana Samyutta.

Do then please give us a quote.

You wrote

the eight bases of overcoming no one really has a clue

perhaps no one has a clue since that has been rejected, just as much as DN 22 and MN 10 have been rejected.

You reject those texts, yes. On what basis do you reject the 8 bases etc, apart from not understanding them?

In which suttas do you find the phrase "8 bases of overcoming?"

Here is one. I'll quote the whole sections regarding the different meditations I have been discussing

The Eight Liberations
Furthermore, I have explained to my disciples a practice that they use to develop the eight liberations.

Having physical form, they see visions. This is the first liberation.

Not perceiving form internally, they see visions externally. This is the second liberation.

They’re focused only on beauty. This is the third liberation.

Going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, they enter and remain in the dimension of infinite space. This is the fourth liberation.

Going totally beyond the dimension of infinite space, aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’, they enter and remain in the dimension of infinite consciousness. This is the fifth liberation.

Going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, they enter and remain in the dimension of nothingness. This is the sixth liberation.

Going totally beyond the dimension of nothingness, they enter and remain in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is the seventh liberation.

Going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, they enter and remain in the cessation of perception and feeling. This is the eighth liberation.

And many of my disciples meditate on that having attained perfection and consummation of insight.

The Eight Bases for Overcoming/Mastery
Furthermore, I have explained to my disciples a practice that they use to develop the eight dimensions of mastery.

Perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, limited, both pretty and ugly. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the first dimension of mastery.

Perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, limitless, both pretty and ugly. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the second dimension of mastery.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, limited, both pretty and ugly. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the third dimension of mastery.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, limitless, both pretty and ugly. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the fourth dimension of mastery.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, blue, with blue color, blue hue, and blue tint. They’re like a flax flower that’s blue, with blue color, blue hue, and blue tint. Or a cloth from Bāraṇasī that’s smoothed on both sides, blue, with blue color, blue hue, and blue tint. In the same way, not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, blue, with blue color, blue hue, and blue tint. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the fifth dimension of mastery.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are yellow, with yellow color, yellow hue, and yellow tint. They’re like a champak flower that’s yellow, with yellow color, yellow hue, and yellow tint. Or a cloth from Bāraṇasī that’s smoothed on both sides, yellow, with yellow color, yellow hue, and yellow tint. In the same way, not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are yellow, with yellow color, yellow hue, and yellow tint. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the sixth dimension of mastery.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are red, with red color, red hue, and red tint. They’re like a scarlet mallow flower that’s red, with red color, red hue, and red tint. Or a cloth from Bāraṇasī that’s smoothed on both sides, red, with red color, red hue, and red tint. In the same way, not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are red, with red color, red hue, and red tint. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the seventh dimension of mastery.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are white, with white color, white hue, and white tint. They’re like the morning star that’s white, with white color, white hue, and white tint. Or a cloth from Bāraṇasī that’s smoothed on both sides, white, with white color, white hue, and white tint. In the same way, not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are white, with white color, white hue, and white tint. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the eighth dimension of mastery.

And many of my disciples meditate on that having attained perfection and consummation of insight.

The Ten Kasiṇas
Furthermore, I have explained to my disciples a practice that they use to develop the ten universal dimensions of meditation.

Someone perceives the meditation on universal earth above, below, across, non-dual and limitless.

They perceive the meditation on universal water … the meditation on universal fire … the meditation on universal air … the meditation on universal blue … the meditation on universal yellow … the meditation on universal red … the meditation on universal white … the meditation on universal space … the meditation on universal consciousness above, below, across, non-dual and limitless.

And many of my disciples meditate on that having attained perfection and consummation of insight.

The Four Jhānas
Furthermore, I have explained to my disciples a practice that they use to develop the four absorptions.

https://suttacentral.net/mn77/en/sujato ... ript=latin

[Ceisiwr]

The Sarvāstivādins taught that these meditations are gradual. One starts with the eight liberations, which then culminate in the totalities (Kasiṇas). The idea seems to be that there is a gradual development in being able to extend the perceptual image that is generated from the meditation, comparable to the nimittas talked about in the Vimuttimagga and Visuddhimagga. I say the Sarvāstivādins taught, by which I mean whichever Sarvāstivādin tradition the author of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sastra belonged to. From what I know of Theravāda, it's Theras seem to describe a similar sort of relationship but in a different way. Based on the suttas and sutras alone of course we really wouldn't know any of this at all.

[SDC]

Signs are described in SN 47.8 (the cook). The cook learns the preferences of his king by how he treats the dishes. The bhikkhu is instructed to see the preferences of his own mind, a mind that has preferences that the monk may want to develop away from, and despite the direction his mind is beckoning, he keeps the setup of proper mindfulness and only does what is in the direction of wholesome. (See Thag 19.1 for a mind with its own agenda).

It talks about the sign of preference, not that preferences are signs.

Exactly, the sign is what indicates preference in the case of SN 47.8. Whether we are talking about the cook or the bhikkhu, the goal is to recognize the sign of preference coming from elsewhere. In the case of the cook, it is coming from the master, in the case of the bhikkhu it is coming from the mind. The fascinating part of Thag 19.1 is that Tālapuṭa struggled to align with the preference of the mind. When he was in the city, the mind pulled to the forest, once in the forest the mind wanted the city. Finally, Tālapuṭa had enough, and opposed the mind until it was tamed. And, again we have case of restraint. Even though the pull went one way, Tālapuṭa endured it, which is what provided the opportunity to see that the preference of the mind was not necessarily what he understood to be most beneficial. It created a rift of sorts, and within that rift is the space for wisdom. That's how I read at least.

[Ceisiwr]

Exactly, the sign is what indicates preference in the case of SN 47.8. Whether we are talking about the cook or the bhikkhu, the goal is to recognize the sign of preference coming from elsewhere. In the case of the cook, it is coming from the master, in the case of the bhikkhu it is coming from the mind. The fascinating part of Thag 19.1 is that Tālapuṭa struggled to align with the preference of the mind. When he was in the city, the mind pulled to the forest, once in the forest the mind wanted the city. Finally, Tālapuṭa had enough, and opposed the mind until it was tamed. And, again we have case of restraint. Even though the pull went one way, Tālapuṭa endured it, which is what provided the opportunity to see that the preference of the mind was not necessarily what he understood to be most beneficial. It created a rift of sorts, and within that rift is the space for wisdom. That's how I read at least.

This doesn't tell me what a nimitta is.

[SDC]

Exactly, the sign is what indicates preference in the case of SN 47.8. Whether we are talking about the cook or the bhikkhu, the goal is to recognize the sign of preference coming from elsewhere. In the case of the cook, it is coming from the master, in the case of the bhikkhu it is coming from the mind. The fascinating part of Thag 19.1 is that Tālapuṭa struggled to align with the preference of the mind. When he was in the city, the mind pulled to the forest, once in the forest the mind wanted the city. Finally, Tālapuṭa had enough, and opposed the mind until it was tamed. And, again we have case of restraint. Even though the pull went one way, Tālapuṭa endured it, which is what provided the opportunity to see that the preference of the mind was not necessarily what he understood to be most beneficial. It created a rift of sorts, and within that rift is the space for wisdom. That's how I read at least.

This doesn't tell me what a nimitta is.

I think it does, but perhaps you’ll find MN 20 a bit clearer:

Here, bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu is giving attention to some sign, and owing to that sign there arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then he should give attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome. When he gives attention to some other sign connected with what is wholesome, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside.

In this case, the sign is what indicates a direction of thought. Giving attention to a certain aspect of experience leads to thoughts of an unwholesome kind. The perfect example is difference between beauty and ugly. Focusing on certain signs and features of beauty leads to lust. What is a sign exactly? Different for everyone. What is provocative of lust for you may not be for me. Point is, we have a general idea where following a certain direction of thought will take us. A sign, in this case, is what indicates the availability of that direction. How a person moves. How they smile. For an arahant it may just be a sign of beauty that is provocative of lust. For the ordinary person, could lead to full-blown lust.

[Ceisiwr]

In this case, the sign is what indicates a direction of thought. Giving attention to a certain aspect of experience leads to thoughts of an unwholesome kind. The perfect example is difference between beauty and ugly. Focusing on certain signs and features of beauty leads to lust. What is a sign exactly? Different for everyone. What is provocative of lust for you may not be for me. Point is, we have a general idea where following a certain direction of thought will take us. A sign, in this case, is what indicates the availability of that direction. How a person moves. How they smile. For an arahant it may just be a sign of beauty that is provocative of lust. For the ordinary person, could lead to full-blown lust.

The point being that you have to extrapolate a fair bit of this from the text.