Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

[tiltbillings]

Have you read anything Ven Analayo has written on the subject?

No, but I would like to.

I hope you do. You may not agree with him, but I hope you can appreciate his point of view.

The post was directed at Dukkhanirodha.

And I responded.

There is no fixation on the "present moment." It is a matter of staying present with the experience of the rise and fall of one's mind/body process, as the Buddha said: "you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself."

Exactly... there is no present moment, only what is experienced.

"Present movement" is a way of talking about things, just like the "I" in saying "'I' need to practice meditation more."

What you seem to be doing here, as several folks are, is trying to make concrete some thing that is quite fluid.

My intention was to show how fluid it can be.

That is a good thing, but please be open to the fact that vipassana-wallahs might be a little more sophisticated in their understanding of things than: 'Trying to fixate oneself in the "present moment".'

[tiltbillings]

It is not about defend or attack.

Given the amount of criticism directed at the Burmese vipassana traditions, often by folks who really do not have a clue about what they are talking, it looks like attack, and feels like defense.

[tiltbillings]

There's nothing to be gained by waffling. At some point one either buys into the view and system presented in the Visuddhimagga and post-Visuddhimagga treatises and commentaries or one doesn't.

Waffling? You should talk. Sorry (not really) that I do not buy into your black and white -- either/or -- view of things.

Back top the topic, please.

[tiltbillings]

I do not believe that the Buddha asks us to produce passion, an akusala state. Never! Same with other akusala states.

The question is what do you do with already arisen passion?

[tiltbillings]

I do not believe that the Buddha asks us to produce passion, an akusala state. Never! Same with other akusala states.

The question is what do you do with already arisen passion?

Practice to remember that it is anicca, dukkha, anatta, that body is just the body, feelings are just the feelings, mental states are just mental states, etc to make it less likely to arise, or not arise at all, in the future.

I suppose that is one thing to do, or one could simply pay attention to it without comment, seeing directly its nature, as it rises and falls.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

Re: nama-rupa...

Name and form

However what is not a joke, when I refer to the mind/body process...

psychophysical personality

Yes - very different to how I regard it, and consequently exponentially different when looked at from the POV of the "'whirlpool" with vinnana. Very different implications, especially when working out how to regard Bhikkhu Nanananda's comments (which is how we set off down this path in the first place).

Metta,
Retro.

Of course, this tells me nothing. Do you have a problem with actually spelling out yout point here so it can be discussed? "consequently exponentially" What the heck does that mean? Are you at all interest in discussing this? As it is stand this response of yours is nothing more than copping an attitude.

[tiltbillings]

Perhaps this is relevant to our discussion here:

http://nibbanam.com/?p=49

Oh, dear, "bare attention." I wonder what kind of response this would have gotten had this been put out there without Ven Nanananda's name. The practice he is describing is Burmese vipassana. This talk by Ven Nananada is, for me, an excellent capper to this rather fruitless thread. Thanks for finding and sharing this.

And here we have a highly sophisticated translator giving us: "the factors are `sati’ (mindfulness)."

That is, by accelerating the mental noting in such a way as not to get caught in the net of perception or saññà. In other words, to stop short at bare awareness. It is by such a technique that one can get an insight into the back stage workings of consciousness. Really good stuff.

[tiltbillings]

Hello Tilt, all,

I suppose that is one thing to do, or one could simply pay attention to it without comment, seeing directly its nature, as it rises and falls.

Even a little toddler or an animal directly cognizes without any subjective comments, opinions and wrong views.

This less than accurate notion about "bare attention" has been discussed and put to rest in the thread discussing Alan Wallace's dialogue with Ven Bodhi: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=4623" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if you think a toddler or a baby does not have wrong view and or "directly cognizes without any subjective comments," there is a great deal about a great deal you do not understand about babies and the Dhamma.

[tiltbillings]

Oh, dear, "bare attention." I wonder what kind of response this would have gotten had this been put out there without Ven Nanananda's name. The practice he is describing is Burmese vipassana. This talk by Ven Nananada is, for me, an excellent capper to this rather fruitless thread. Thanks for finding and sharing this.

And here we have a highly sophisticated translator giving us: "the factors are `sati’ (mindfulness)."

That is, by accelerating the mental noting in such a way as not to get caught in the net of perception or saññà. In other words, to stop short at bare awareness. It is by such a technique that one can get an insight into the back stage workings of consciousness. Really good stuff.

While Ven. Ñāṇananda has been a pioneer in challenging some of the assumptions of classical Theravāda, it's well known that his teacher Ven. Ñāṇārāma had trained in Burmese Vipassanā, and it's quite clear that Ñāṇananda was never able to extricate himself from these assumptions.

Why extricate yourself from a practice that works. Good on Ven Nananada.

[tiltbillings]

While Ven. Ñāṇananda has been a pioneer in challenging some of the assumptions of classical Theravāda, it's well known that his teacher Ven. Ñāṇārāma had trained in Burmese Vipassanā, and it's quite clear that Ñāṇananda was never able to extricate himself from these assumptions.

Why extricate yourself from a practice that works. Good on Ven Nananada.

The Burmese Vipassanā of Mahāsi Sayādaw and Sayādaw U Paṇḍita, et al, is at a minimum, predicated on at least three related propositions: (i) the primary function of sati is bare awareness; (ii) reality is actually comprised of discrete momentary dhammas which rise and fall in rapid succession, and therefore the recognition of impermanence requires directly perceiving the individual characteristics of these discrete momentary dhammas via bare awareness; and (iii) reality and truths pertaining to reality are objectively established through epistemological realism.

Ven. Ñāṇananda significantly contributed to questioning and criticizing the historicity and veracity of the third proposition, but continued to tacitly accept and employ the second proposition in his analysis, and to explicitly acknowledge and employ the first.

And although these theories were first introduced in the commentaries and became dominant in the sub-commentarial texts, they aren't to be found in the suttas and have been criticized by a number of scholars and scholar-monks for not accurately representing the teachings contained in the suttas.

But, of course, the reality is that "ii" anf"iii" don't really matter in terms of actual experience, nor are they as rigid as Ñāṇa tries to make them out to be.

The thing is, during the second half of the 20th century one could hardly turn around in any Theravāda setting without encountering these propositions and being told that this was indeed the view and the unique practice of Theravāda Buddhism. During this period Burmese Vipassanā found its way into every Asian Theravāda country and was also exported to Western countries, and for the most part was uncritically accepted. Fortunately, we now know that prior to the widespread ascendancy of Burmese Vipassanā in the 20th century, the Theravāda was far more dynamic than this. And in certain remote places other Theravāda practice traditions managed to survive.

Naughty Burmese vipassana, it works.

[tiltbillings]

But, of course, the reality is that "ii" anf"iii" don't really matter in terms of actual experience, nor are they as rigid as Ñāṇa tries to make them out to be.

I don't think it's too much to ask that a teaching be coherent and based on what is found in the suttas themselves, and not be predicated on fictions.

It is too bad Ven Dhammanando is not still here, but I do not need to defend what you are attacking, In part, as you have said, despite some of the clumsy stuff found in the VM, Buddhaghosa got it right. The issue is not a bleak as you try to paint it, and this is especially so given that the Burmese vipassana practice works.

[tiltbillings]

And also from the same text:

• Immediately after the last consciousness in this series of accelerated noting has ceased, magga and phala (path and fruition) arises, realizing nibbāna, the cessation of all formations.... After the last act of noting, the cessation of the formations and realization of nibbāna become manifest. This is why those who have realized nibbāna would say: "The objects noted and the consciousness noting them cease altogether...." He knows that the cessation of material process noted and the mental process noting them is the realization of nibbāna. Those who are well informed know that the cessation of the formations is nibbāna.... They would say inwardly: "I have now realized nibbāna and have attained sotāpatti magga-phala."

So if you weed out the realist epistemology, the theory of radical momentariness, and the wrong view that the noble path attainment is the cessation of all formations, what are you left with that is especially meaningful and coherent?

Formations [fabrications] here is saṅkhāra:

"Following it, I [the Buddha] came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings." -- SN ii 106 • Nagara Sutta

And since no Theravāda commentator would agree that "moments exist," I don't think we need to worry about the other two issues.

[tiltbillings]

And if you think a toddler or a baby does not have wrong view and or "directly cognizes without any subjective comments," there is a great deal about a great deal you do not understand about babies and the Dhamma.

"to a toddler who moves about with difficulty, there are not even thoughts. How could doubts arise to him about thoughts? The latent tendency to doubt, filter to him. To a toddler who moves about with difficulty there are not even virtues. How could there be a holding to virtues as high? The latent tendency to hold to virtues as high filter to him. Malunkhyaputta, to a toddler there is not even sensual desires. How could there be interest for sensual desires? The latent tendencies to greed for sensual interest filter to him. Malunkhyaputta, to a toddler beings don't matter. How could he have anger towards beings? The latent tendencies to get angry filter to him. "
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ta-e1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Toddler does not have thoughts about self, doesn't have doubts, etc. So his/her awareness is bare of them. Why doesn't his bare attention to the present moment eliminate the fetters? Toddler can't have distracted thoughts, doubts or wrong views arise.

A toddler does not have thoughts about self? You have never heard a toddler wail: "I WANT!!!!" Or cry when something they like is taken away from him or her? Thoughts about self do not have to be well-formed conceptual structures for there to be a concern about wanting what pleases and not wanting what hurts. Though this translation say "toddler," "baby" might be more accurate, but even still babies seriously want what they want, seriously do not want what they do not want, even though do not have the words or concept to say so, which is indicative of a sense of self at play.

So, again your comment about "bare attention" is ill-placed.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings,

Of course, this tells me nothing. Do have a problem with actually spelling out yout point here so it can be discussed?

It's only of relevance to your confusion about Nanananda's quote - since you seem to have moved on from that, perhaps it's best to move on from asking me about it.

"consequently exponentially" What the heck does that mean?

It's only of relevance to your confusion about Nanananda's quote - since you seem to have moved on from that, perhaps it's best to move on from asking me about it.

Are you at all interest in discussing this?

I'm not really clear what "this" you're talking about.

As it is stand this response of yours is nothing more than copping an attitude.

As you wish, Tilt.

Metta,
Retro.

Again, just recalcitrant obfusaction.

[tiltbillings]

Tilt,

A toddler does not have thoughts about self?

Not before they learn the language. And even then, higher reasoning faculties are required to form a solid conception of Self. Even some adult people may not have fully worked out speculative ideas about Self, nothing to say about toddler.

And your basis for this astounding claim?

You have never heard a toddler wail: "I WANT!!!!" Or cry when something they like is taken away from him or her?

After child learn English, maybe. But it is unlikely that a child has a strong enough conception of Self. The Buddha clearly stated that a toddler does not have active 5 fetters. Toddler's faculties are too immature to behave with Self Views, Sensual Desire or Anger. Crying, screaming, etc doesn't have to be an expression of understanding something. Animals may show emotion and yet have no possibility of creating wrong views. Language and advanced thinking is required.

Best then the child learn French. There is obviously a wanting for what supports one's self, and a pushing away of what threatens one's self, and the inchoate assumption of self in babies and young childern.

Just because a person doesn't express or think in wrong ways, it doesn't mean that s/he doesn't have underlying tendency toward it. Person can have bare attention, and observe something in inner silence and still have all 10 fetters underlying the observation.

Again, you are using "bare attention" in a way that is not consistent with how it used by Vens Analayo, Bodhi, and Nyanaponika.