I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about here, but I was trying to be specific about the context, which was practice-oriented sessions.
Mike
I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about here, but I was trying to be specific about the context, which was practice-oriented sessions.
I missed the original point being made only in that context. I thought it was more about what you get when you look for answers when you press the community in general about what is described in the suttas. My point there was that those in positions of influence tend not to prioritize freedom from suffering.mikenz66 wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:00 amI'm not sure exactly what you are talking about here, but I was trying to be specific about the context, which was practice-oriented sessions.
Mike
I believe that what seems vague today will be crystal clear one day. As we follow what today is understandable to us the path will eventually open where before only bushes were seen. For example as we perfect our morality and understanding, the right way to developing concentration will be clearer.
I think you'd have to provide some actual examples. Do you mean that some teachers sometimes comment on how to live a good life or about social issues? The Buddha did that... so...
Amusing that you direct me to a small essay on how to practice when suttas contain everything one needs to know.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:45 pm Greetings,
I've spoken previously on this topic in Vipassana Technique Revisited , but in short, the fundamental problem that people make is to assume they must be "doing" meditation, failing to recognise that what sankharas they're experiencing are attributable to that doing.
There are plenty of meditations where you do things. Element practice, foulness of the body, mindfulness of the Buddha and so on. Regarding sense restraint, the suttas do not explain exactly how to not grasp at signs and they don't give much detail as to what a sign means.Buddhist meditation, as taught in the Suttas is mostly about stopping doings, rather than creating more doing. Hence why there aren't lengthy directions on (to use an example above), sense restraint. We're told not to grasp at signs... so don't.
As the Venerable points out in the video, the Buddha's first sermons to the 5 ascetics were a lot more detailed than what is recorded in the suttas. This makes sense, since suttas aren't supposed to be recordings of full conversations. Suttas capture the essential meaning, the bare bones of what was being taught. None of that means that the Buddha's teachings weren't comprehensive. It simply means that we need the suttas and the Sangha's explanations, clarifications, guidance etc.The urge to add complexity and to explain, takes us away from the teaching. Worse, it makes people committed to the belief that the Buddha's teachings weren't comprehensive, and need to be supplemented by sectarian works.
A distinction without a difference.
Ok, and? You seem to be going off on a tangent here.And sure, they do need to read and learn, but they also need to reflect on what they want from the Dhamma. Are they just going to use it the way they've used everything else so far? Are they using it to cope with the world? Or for something more? They need to develop the reasons why they want to practice and develop the faith that is going to help move them along. Then they'll have a reason to follow precepts.
I'm not a fan of what you are referring to, but even those monks and nuns do apply the suttas to one's own suffering in my experience.No, they don't. Half of them are telling us to save the world first. Either you're being disingenuous or don't read what is coming from the broader community off of the forum.
You didn't answer the question, and I'm not sure how any of this is relevant anyway to my OP?Again, you must be shielding yourself from the broader message of the Buddhist community (smart move btw), which is who I was speaking about. I wasn't talking about this forum or even Theravadins.
The suttas talk of "in the seen, only the seen" when it comes to sense restraint. How does that work, and what exactly is a sign according to the suttas? Any definition of it there?There is. There are signs that will take the thinking in the direction of wholesome, and signs that will take the thinking in the direction of unwholesome. If a person wants to restrain and not act when they are assailed with thoughts related to sensuality, they will look for signs of danger instead of gratification. Literally if we are getting hammered by that prospect for a lustful act, we have the option to either reflect on its danger and restrain or try to act in a manner that gets rid of it, which is usually engagement, which usually ends in gratification.
No one is arguing that you can't work somethings out by referencing other suttas. I agree with what you say about context etc.Check out the post I drop in a few hours. I think you'll be pleased. In your defense, these things are strewn across many suttas and to @santa100's point, it isn't going to be completely recounted each time. We have no idea the context of the situation in which every sutta is uttered and if another instruction followed or even if a certain thing preceded the day before. We just don't know.
This does not tell us just what exactly Kasiṇa practice consists of, nor how they fit into the path as a whole. You reference MN 62 and give us a theory based on that, but this proves my point. The suttas do not state it, so you have to make and educated guess.The kasinas correspond with the broadest aspect of perception, which is color, and also with elements. I'm not super familiar with kasinas, but looks to be notions of the complete extent of things. For earth, described as solidity, is about gathering the extent of solidity in the whole experience and bringing that in line with the earth element in the body. I think you'll find most of this MN 62. I don't have the time to find it now.
The point being that based on the suttas alone, regarding the the eight bases of overcoming no one really has a clue what they mean yet the Buddha considered them to be important. No doubt his audience would have known what they were and how the practice works, and if they didn't no doubt he would have explained it, but none of that is in the suttas. We do find it however in the commentaries, which is where you would expect to find it. If we want to know how a meditation practice actually works suttas give the outline whilst commentaries give the details based on the experiences of masters who practiced them, who in turn learnt it from their masters and so on stretching back to the time of the Buddha. I think that is a safer source on how to practice meditation, or how to find out other details regarding what the suttas say, than modern guesswork and general fumbling around. Of course, not all commentarial sources both southern and northern agree on everything but there is a broad consensus on quite a lot of issues nonetheless.I've never dug too deep into these. I do think it is relevant for those who are approaching from kasinas, but that is not the only way to approach things.
Unsurprisingly, what you've failed to discern is that it's a deconstruction and refutation of the accretions that have rusted themselves onto Theravada Vipassana.
They give more than enough. Adding words does not make things more meaningful nor profound. The "commentarial obligation" to do so has led to unnecessary obfuscation.Regarding sense restraint, the suttas do not explain exactly how to not grasp at signs and they don't give much detail as to what a sign means
In juxtaposition to your criticism you also made claims regarding proper interpretation and practice. Anything to say regarding the other points I put to you?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:31 pm
Unsurprisingly, what you've failed to discern is that it's a deconstruction and refutation of the accretions that have rusted themselves onto Theravada Vipassana.
Such is the problem in trying to explain anything to someone who is attached the idea that the best exegesis should be followed.... they cannot make head to tail of something which is simply negation of exegeses.
Metta,
Paul.
What is the sutta definition of a sign and where does it explain not grasping signs and features? How does one stay at the seen when seeing according to the suttas? In my experience you yourself have had to rely upon Ven. Ñāṇananda's exegesis to explain this. I'd also like to know the sutta answer to what the 8 liberations, the basis for overcoming and the kasiṇas are how they are all related and how they all relate to the NEFP?They give more than enough. Adding words does not make things more meaningful nor profound. The "commentarial obligation" to do so has led to unnecessary obfuscation.
No. It means showing the fault in an exegesis without the compulsion to advance an alternative exegesis, because exegesis is not necessary.
I did briefly edit my earlier post to include one thing, but most of it is irrelevant to my position, because you're insistent that more words and explanation are required, when all I have to say to the various flavours of that argument is "No, I don't think so."