🟩 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Weeks of November 14 and 21, 2021)

Where we gather to focus on a single discourse or thematic collection from the Sutta Piṭaka (new selection every two weeks)
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by ssasny »

All great questions, and worthy of extended contemplation.

This seems related to the four ways taught to establish mindfulness, in order of increasing refinement.

Can we bend back the beam of awareness we have of external objects towards our own minds? to know the knower?

We can toggle between the active awareness of an object (a foreground) to a deeper general way things are for us (background/ peripheral). If we place attention onto this 'background' it will then become the 'foreground.'

This seems some ways we can know the citta.
Last edited by ssasny on Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by mikenz66 »

Thanks for these comments:
asahi wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:39 pm Lets formulate our mind simple as below .
If we talk about mind per mano , we are referring to a base or door . If mind per citta , then mind included the mind objects as one unit . :smile:
Pulsar wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:11 pm We need the tool of language to communicate, but we also need to be aware of its limitations. So when Buddhist traditions speak of "Mind" or "citta" Reader Beware! There is no steady entity called the "Mind" or "Citta" or "self".
Aggregates arise and fade away (five murderous enemies) making us believe that there is a "Mind" or "Citta". ...
:heart:
Mike
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by SDC »

Pulsar wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:06 pm MN 10 or its larger cousin MN 22 are later additions to the Sutta pitaka. These have been often labelled as fraudulent. 
Can we rely on these to explain "mind?" What is "mind?"
Something fascinating that I think is worth noting is the similarity between cittānupassanā from MN 10/DN 22:
Monks, how does a monk abide observing the mind as the mind?
“Monks, a monk understands a lustful mind as a lustful mind.
“He understands a lust-free mind as a lust-free mind.
“He understands a hate-filled mind as a hate-filled mind.
“He understands a hate-free mind as a hate-free mind.
“He understands a delusional mind as a delusional mind.
“He understands a delusion-free mind as a delusion-free mind.
“He understands a focused mind as a focused mind.
“He understands a scattered mind as a scattered mind.
“He understands an expanded mind as an expanded mind.
“He understands an unexpanded mind as an unexpanded mind.
“He understands a surpassable mind as a surpassable mind.
“He understands an unsurpassable mind as an unsurpassable mind.
“He understands a concentrated mind as a concentrated mind.
“He understands an unconcentrated mind as an unconcentrated mind.
“He understands a liberated mind as a liberated mind.
“He understands an unliberated mind as an unliberated mind.
And this from MN 6, MN 12, MN 77, MN 108, AN 5.23, AN 5.28, AN 3.101, AN 9.35, SN 12.70, AN 6.2, with respect to one of the six higher knowledges:
… Monks, if a monk wishes, ‘Using my own mind, may I know the minds of other beings and other individuals: may I know a lustful mind as a lustful mind, or a lust-free mind as a lust-free mind; may I know a hate-filled mind as a hate-filled mind, or a hate-free mind as a hate-free mind; may I know a delusional mind as a delusional mind, or a delusion-free mind as a delusion-free mind; may I know a contracted mind as a contracted mind, or a scattered mind as a scattered mind; may I know an expanded mind as an expanded mind, or an unexpanded mind as an unexpanded mind; may I know a surpassable mind as a surpassable mind, or an unsurpassable mind as an unsurpassable mind; may I know a concentrated mind as a concentrated mind, or an unconcentrated mind as an unconcentrated mind; may I know a liberated mind as a liberated mind, or a non-liberated mind as a non-liberated mind
And considering there are many descriptions of mindfulness of the body all over the suttas, I’m not exactly sure what the issue is with MN 10/DN 22. How much later could it be if the different parts are scattered throughout other suttas?
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by ssasny »

I think the term 'fraudulent' is a bit strong.

What is sometimes said is that perhaps MN 10/DN 22 are composite suttas, not teachings given by the Buddha verbatim but rather amalgams of various bits of teachings. So, in my understanding, what is taught is certainly genuine, and as you have done, easily found in other parts of the Canon.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by mikenz66 »

SDC wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:12 pm And considering there are many descriptions of mindfulness of the body all over the suttas, I’m not exactly sure what the issue is with MN 10/DN 22. How much later could it be if the different parts are scattered throughout other suttas?
It seems plausible that the sutta was added to over time (there are several book-length studies on this by Vens Sujato, Analayo, and probably others) but as you (and they) point out, the additions are found in many suttas.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
equilibrium
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by equilibrium »

AN 1.49-52:

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind."

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind."
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by Pulsar »

ssasny Wrote In a Discuss and Discover thread, Ven. Sujāto gave a very helpful way of mapping these three aspects of 'mind' on to the four noble truths.
"Viṇṇāṇa is part of the khandhas and āyatanas, and hence pertains to the first noble truth: it is suffering.
Mano is typically used in an active sense of will or volition, closely related to kamma, and hence pertains to the second noble truth, the cause of suffering.
Citta is to be developed and thus pertains to the fourth noble truth.
The cessation of all these is, of course, the third noble truth."
can you explain how the above helped you?
I find it baffling.
It writes "Viṇṇāṇa is part of the khandhas and āyatanas, and hence pertains to the first noble truth"
Doesn't vinnana pertain to all the four noble truths?
3rd Noble truth if correctly understood is the cessation of Vinnana.
4th Noble truth outlines the steps leading to the cessation of Vinnana.
How suffering arises, the 2nd Noble Truth...the author equates Mano with active volition, the karmic component of the aggregates. I thought when one intends it is always active? that intention always generates karma?
But in the same comment author also admits Mano is a synonym of vinnana????
V. Sujato begins the above quote...by saying Mano, citta, and vinnana, are all synonyms.
My Dear ssasny... can you help unconfuse me? In which way did you find the above comment helpful.
Buddha in the original sutta pitaka never admitted anything other than 5 aggregates and 6 types of consciousness, ayatanas, elements and DO, for the relief of dukkha. Theravada abhidhamma admitted a Mind base. That was an invention of the Abhidhammikas.
Where exactly does Citta and Mano fit, in the sequence od Dependent Origination? or among the aggregates?
It is true that the 5 aggregates project a fake person. A person with a fake mind? fake citta????
Getting rid of vinnana of the 6 varieties, by not feeding our hunger?? is not that the goal of Samma Sati and Samma Samadhi.
When using terms like Mano, citta and Vinnana, and saying in some situations they are the same, and in other situations they are not, is not that confusing?
If they are synonyms, then, does that not make 4th aggregate Volition the same as Vinnana, in some situations???
Pl. explain.
With love :candle:
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by ssasny »

I have found this essay by Ven. Sujāto on the 'cittaṃ pabhassaraṃ' (luminous mind) helpful.
The Pāli text is a bit obscure and hard to interpret.

https://sujato.wordpress.com/2014/10/29 ... iant-mind/

"It is not that it is “naturally” radiant or defiled: it is naturally conditioned. When the conditions for darkness are there, it is dark, when the conditions for light are there, it is light. Our passage, which is unique, without parallels in any early Suttas, syntactically awkward, clearly the subject of editing, can be read as suggesting a different take on things, that the mind is somehow “radiant” even when covered by defilements. Or it can be read in line with the other, more clear suttas.

In either case, there is no suggestion here that the “radiant mind” be connected with Nibbana. "
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by ssasny »

Hi Pulsar,
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying, my apologies.

Yes, Ven. Sujāto in the thread I linked to described the 3 words being discussed as,
"The terms are, generally speaking, synonyms, and their usage overlaps to some degree, but they tend to be used in different contexts"

And his description, (I believe I have heard Ven. Bodhi describe them in a similar way) was helpful to me when reading the Pāli texts.
The contextual use is important, I believe the 3 terms point to various aspects of 'mind.'

But would you mind restating things a bit more concisely?
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by Pulsar »

ssasny wrote
I think the term 'fraudulent' is a bit strong.

What is sometimes said is that perhaps MN 10/DN 22 are composite suttas, not teachings given by the Buddha verbatim but rather amalgams of various bits of teachings. So, in my understanding, what is taught is certainly genuine,
They are composites of Buddha's words. Compilers also describe DN 22/MN10 as a One way path to Nibbana?
Ekayana???
Can one build a bridge to Nibbana by connecting some things that Buddha said, and some things that the Buddha did not say?
I think not. What was the fancy name used for DN 22.. like a skull of a man created by real stuff and some fake stuff?.. Fakeness never leads to Nibbana.
The four aspects of Body, feeling, sanna, and Mind's principles have to be rightly understood, and rightly discarded to build that bridge. Have you read SN 47. 42? Check it out when you have a moment. It is worth your while.
With love :candle:
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by ssasny »

H Pulsar,'

I'm afraid you have misunderstood what I wrote if you think,

"some things that the Buddha did not say?"

is what I meant.

What I tried to say is that contemporary scholarship sometimes claims that those texts are composites, amalgams, of things the Buddha did say.

As Mike wrote above,
"there are several book-length studies on this by Vens Sujato, Analayo, and probably others"

about this subject, I would refer you to them as I am no expert.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by mikenz66 »

ssasny wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 8:43 pm Hi Pulsar,
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying, my apologies.

Yes, Ven. Sujāto in the thread I linked to described the 3 words being discussed as,
"The terms are, generally speaking, synonyms, and their usage overlaps to some degree, but they tend to be used in different contexts"

And his description, (I believe I have heard Ven. Bodhi describe them in a similar way) was helpful to me when reading the Pāli texts.
The contextual use is important, I believe the 3 terms point to various aspects of 'mind.'

But would you mind restating things a bit more concisely?
Yes, Bhikkhu Bodhi says basically the same thing when discussing the ones section of the AN. They tend to be used in particular contexts.

I think it's important to note that "synonym" does not mean "identical meaning".

See also: viewtopic.php?t=37053

:heart:
Mike
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by ssasny »

mikenz66 wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:16 pm
Yes, Bhikkhu Bodhi says basically the same thing when discussing the ones section of the AN. They tend to be used in particular contexts.

I think it's important to note that "synonym" does not mean "identical meaning".
Thanks, Mike, for this clarification.
I attended his lectures on the book of Ones.

The contextual usage is very important. Plucking Pāli words out and discussing them in a decontextualized way has very limited benefit.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by Pulsar »

SDC wrote 
And considering there are many descriptions of mindfulness of the body all over the suttas, I’m not exactly sure what the issue is with MN 10/DN 22. How much later could it be if the different parts are scattered throughout other suttas?
True! there are many descriptions of mindfulness in the suttas.
Some of these are the ideas of the later teachers.  DN22/MN10 were fabricated around the third council. Many other suttas would have borrowed these ideas. Quite possibly, how these ideas got scattered in the sutta pitaka.
My issue with  DN 22/MN10? These do not teach the right way to mindfulness.
  • True, some things in DN 22 are nicely targeted, Turner's simile, if followed accordingly, walks one through (Ajahn Sona has a video on Turner's simile) correct navigation of breath.
But some things are outrageously misleading. Let us take body meditation for instance to keep it brief.
In DN 22/MN10, body is taught as a physical body. How does this help? 
Now consider SN 47.42 It describes the first meditation body in this format.
How does the body come to be? It is due to the gathering of nutrients.
The entire teaching of Ahara comes into play in the first meditation of the body.
Talking of Ahara, in that discussion, under sutta study few weeks back Nirodh27 wrote 
This week topic should be changed to this year topic since there's so much nutriment for discussion, for insight and for dispassion that at least a year would be needed to comment everything to pay homage to the teachings here.
The understanding of body meditation involves the understanding of what brings the body about. 
This is not the physical body as implied in DN 22/MN10, the meditator should be focussed on how form/body aggregate is brought about.
SN 47.42 writes: when the feeding ends, the body ceases.
What is the implication here? Our challenge is to stop the mental proliferation that allows forms, from arising, during mental proliferation.
The first establishment is not about the physical body as many in the Theravada tradition believe, thanks to DN 22/MN10 but it is about how the sense bases come into play. 
It is purely a mental event. How do we stop forms, sounds, tastes, touches, tastes, and memory from contacting us. 
Contact leads to feeling, the next establishment.
You brought us an excerpt from several suttas... it began
as  Monks, if a monk wishes, ‘Using my own mind, may I know the minds of other beings and other individuals:
Just think about this, is this even practically possible?
I would dismiss these kinds of statements as mental proliferation of abhidhammikas.
Analyzing this...
Using my own mind? what is "mind?" it is what is reflected by my five aggregates, right?...may I know the minds of others... that means what is projected by the five aggregates of others...
How on earth is this possible? To put it simply, by the time I know my aggregates, they have arisen and vanished, the next set is appearing and and vanishing. Meanwhile I am supposed to monitor dynamics of another's aggregates???
Of course a Buddha or an Arahant may be privy to this, because their heads are clear, it is a landscape where their own aggregates are absent.
That amazing clarity that results in some moments of Samadhi, bereft of aggregates.
With love :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 📍 Mind doesn't obsess the mind (Week of November 14, 2021)

Post by Pulsar »

The issue with DN 22...
DN 22 has been called
Piltdown sutta.
As to the definition of Piltdown...here is an excerpt from Wikepedia
The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.
Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning,
the remains were still broadly accepted for many years,
and the falsity of the hoax was only definitively demonstrated in 1953.
With love :candle:
Locked