anatta and cetana and conditions for right view

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: anatta and cetana and conditions for right view

Post by robertk »

Try focussing on any part of the body or breath or feelings now. Very easy to do isn't it. Anyone, even a child, can do it.

But it is very different for genuine sati samajana to be present.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: anatta and cetana and conditions for right view

Post by Spiny Norman »

robertk wrote:But it is very different for genuine sati samajana to be present.
So sati sampajana is a "result" of sati?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: anatta and cetana and conditions for right view

Post by robertk »

Sati and sampajana arise together.
In the context of satipatthana it always talks about sati-sampajana and sampajana means non- delusion or wisdom, specifically that right ipunderstanding that only a buddha can teach: anatta.

Sati can arise without sampajana but in that case it is not the sati of satipatthana. Moreover - sanna- which may arise with kusala or akusala can arise without sati but of course it still marks hardness, heat, pain etc: thus the common mistake of doing some technique where one focuses on some part of the body thinking that there is sati when it it is merely sanna.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: anatta and cetana and conditions for right view

Post by Spiny Norman »

robertk wrote:Sati and sampajana arise together.
In the context of satipatthana it always talks about sati-sampajana...
Robert, could you say exactly what you're basing this assertion on? When I read the Satipatthana Sutta I see both sati and sati-sampajana being described.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
dhamma follower
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: anatta and cetana and conditions for right view

Post by dhamma follower »

porpoise wrote:
SamKR wrote:Why would then the Buddha say these:
"And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness...
Passages like this do give the distinct impression of sati as an activity rather than as a result of practice.
Greeting Porpoise,

What is an "activity" in terms of paramatha dhammas?

Best regards,
D.F
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: anatta and cetana and conditions for right view

Post by Spiny Norman »

dhamma follower wrote:
porpoise wrote:Passages like this do give the distinct impression of sati as an activity rather than as a result of practice.
Greeting Porpoise,

What is an "activity" in terms of paramatha dhammas?
I'm not sure - do you know?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
dhamma follower
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: anatta and cetana and conditions for right view

Post by dhamma follower »

porpoise wrote:
dhamma follower wrote:
porpoise wrote:Passages like this do give the distinct impression of sati as an activity rather than as a result of practice.
Greeting Porpoise,

What is an "activity" in terms of paramatha dhammas?
I'm not sure - do you know?
Dear Porpoise,

As far as I understand, "activity" is perceived by memory of momentary arising and falling of cittas, just like story appearing on the movie screen are actually 24 images succeeding each other.

Because of delusion, moha, we believe that there is someone doing some activity. In reality, there are only successions of cittas arising and falling by conditions. Sati is a cetasika which may or may not accompany a particular citta, by conditions, nothing to do with an activity.

When we read a sutta, we might read it with our habitual, deluded understanding, then the path taught by the Buddha is not known. But the Buddha has taught us right view, i.e right understanding about realities. Without that right understanding, we might read Tipitaka maintaining our delusion and "self-view".

Best regards,
D.F
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: anatta and cetana (will, intention): Kamma negated?

Post by Alex123 »

mikenz66 wrote: Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:14 am
dhamma follower wrote: It is the view which is wrong. "I shall walk and sit maintaining sati". Sait does'nt arise because one decides to have it, but because of its own conditions.
This is not controversial, and is exactly what one hears from many teachers. The point of departure for KS (and/or her followers) appears to be in the insistence that it is not possible to have any influence on those conditions.

To me, the argument over-reaches by over-simplifying. That one cannot have direct control over the cells in one's body does not man that diet and exercise can not influence body structure and health. Similarly, that one cannot "will understanding" or "control cittas" does not, in itself, rule out the possibility of influencing mental development.

:anjali:
Mike
Good point!

I'd like to add that it seems that "no control, thus no practice" teaching verges too close to Jain fatalism, which the Buddha skilfully refuted in approximately this style, as I understand it:

"Yes, painful feelings arise due to kammavipaka conditions. If you cut yourself, you will feel pain. If you don't you will not feel pain.".

IMHO, If one disbelieves the above, then that is wrong view preventing one from practice.

In the same way, practice arises because one practices, and will never happen if one never practices. Obviously. You will never have right practice if you avoid learning mistakes from your starting practice. If a boxer refuses to go into the ring until one is an expert boxer, one will never beome an expert. Same principle is here.
Post Reply