Have you read Early Buddhist Meditation Studies (Analayo)?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Post Reply
Padmist
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:10 am

Have you read Early Buddhist Meditation Studies (Analayo)?

Post by Padmist »

Could you please help me out on this thread.
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=39638&p=612916#p612916
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Have you read Early Buddhist Meditation Studies (Analayo)?

Post by Coëmgenu »

I'm going to respond here instead of in the meditation subforum to avoid muddying the waters there, but I will, if I may be so bold, migrate part of Ven Dhammanando's response there to this thread so that readers of the Early Buddhism subforum will have the context to what I am about to respond to. I don't think I have anything out of order, but there are "[...]," so if they want to read the entire post in context readers will need to follow the link.
Dhammanando wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:25 am
Padmist wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:55 amWhat does "mind-moments" and "wholesome" mean?
In the Abhidhamma's account of cognitive experience, mind-moments are the evanescent conscious units that make up the mind-stream or mental continuum.

"Wholesome" and "unwholesome" are translations of kusala and akusala. Other translators use skilful and unskilful, moral and immoral, profitable and unprofitable or healthy and unhealthy. Translators of Tibetan texts mostly seem to favour virtuous and non-virtuous or positive and negative.
Padmist wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:55 amOlendski 2011: 61 explains that, from the perspective of later Theravāda tradition, “as a universal wholesome factor, mindfulness is exclusive of restlessness, delusion and all other unwholesome states, and cannot co-arise with these in the same moment.”
What does this all mean?
In Abhidharma systems the mental factors that colour consciousness are divided into those which can only arise with a wholesome consciousness, such as faith; those which can only arise with an unwholesome consciousness, such as greed; those which can arise with both, such as initial application of thought; and those which are always present in both, such as feeling.

The Theravāda Abhidhamma classifies mindfulness as a "beautiful mental factor". As such, in a non-arahant it can only be present in wholesome consciousnesses. The non-Theravādin Abhidharma systems that Tibetans follow classify it as a factor that can arise with both wholesome and unwholesome consciousnesses. Analayo appears to favour the non-Theravādin view.

[...]
Padmist wrote: Mon Mar 22, 2021 12:55 am 10. What does this mean?

instructions give the impression that, from an early
Buddhist perspective, mindfulness of defiled states of mind was not envisaged as merely retrospective.
A classical Theravādin would argue thus:

Since mindfulness is a beautiful mental factor, and since beautiful mental factors and defilements cannot be present in the same moment of consciousness, it follows that one cannot be simultaneously greedy and mindful of one's greed, hateful and mindful of one's hate, slothful and mindful of one's sloth, etc. Therefore in dhammānupassanā, mindfulness of the hindrances is retrospective. That is, one is mindful that a certain hindrance did arise and has now just passed away.

Analayo, however, is rejecting this argument. He believes that the suttas show contemplation of the hindrances as something that may be practised while the hindrances are present. If this is so, then according to his argument it will follow that the Theravāda is mistaken to classify mindfulness as a beautiful mental factor.
[...]
Dhammanando wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:22 am
simsapa wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 12:11 amSo then one cannot be mindful of simultaneous defilements...
No. There might, however, be the illusion of being simultaneously mindful and hindrance-afflicted.

Suppose the mental continuum underwent a prolonged oscillation between hate-rooted unwholesome javana processes and wholesome javana processes in which the preceding hate-rooted cittas were the object. If the wholesome processes involved mahākusala cittas *dissociated* from knowledge, then the absence of paññā in such cittas might later lead one to misconstrue what had happened and fall into the Sarvāstivāda error of non-retrospective mindfulness of defiled states.
Out of curiosity, if you think this is useful to respond to bhante, what do you think of this passage in relation to the above?
Micchādiṭṭhikassa, bhikkhave, micchāsaṅkappo pahoti, micchāsaṅkappassa micchāvācā pahoti, micchāvācassa micchākammanto pahoti, micchākammantassa micchāājīvo pahoti, micchāājīvassa micchāvāyāmo pahoti, micchāvāyāmassa micchāsati pahoti, micchāsatissa micchāsamādhi pahoti, micchāsamādhissa micchāñāṇaṁ pahoti, micchāñāṇissa micchāvimutti pahoti.
Wrong view gives rise to wrong thought. Wrong thought gives rise to wrong speech. Wrong speech gives rise to wrong action. Wrong action gives rise to wrong livelihood. Wrong livelihood gives rise to wrong effort. Wrong effort gives rise to wrong mindfulness. Wrong mindfulness gives rise to wrong immersion. Wrong immersion gives rise to wrong knowledge. Wrong knowledge gives rise to wrong freedom.
(AN 10.103 Ven Sujato translation)

Obviously the proper Theravadin exegesis on this passage is such that there is no such thing as "wrong mindfulness" in the sense of mindfulness as an akusala. Some Sarvastivadin elder must have read material in parallel with this to come up with the theory of "wrong mindfulness." It strikes me that there are at least two ways you can read "wrong mindfulness." It is "wrong" in the sense that it is not truly mindfulness or it is wrong in the sense that it is a kind of mindfulness that is unskillful/negative/etc. Is there anywhere close to what Theravada argues, namely that "wrong mindfulness" in AN 10.103 is not actually a kind of mindfulness at all?

The argument from ekaggatā if I understand it correctly is quite convincing, you need to observe after it happens but the observation itself is always wholesome, but the Sarvastivadins do not have ekaggatā as a universal caitasika. I don't know how much merit this argument has precisely though because I am also quite sure that the Sarvastivadins believe the same "one dhamma at a time is experienced" that the Theravadins do.

The basic question is: if you are mindful "wrongly," are you truly mindful at all? The Sarvastivadins include "wrong contemplation" basically, it seems to me I should say, as a subset of "correct contemplation."
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Post Reply