Deconstruction; butcher metaphor etc

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: New book: The Only Way to Jhāna by Ajahn Nyanamoli

Post by robertk »

nirodh27 wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:47 pm

But what I'm doing, maybe this comment is not needed, is not simply to criticize the approach for unuseful reasons or because I have time to spare, I'm asking Robert and I've asked multiple times to explain the rationale behind the approach (which is not found in the suttas, and so we should, imho, to be way more cautios in his acceptance since the disciples are not the Buddha) since there should be one if one practice that approach instead of another.

An excellent approach. :sage:

I also add something about the 'deconstruction' approach which might clarify more how I see this.

This is something Jon Abbot of DSG group wrote that I concur with.
QUESTION: Hello all In observing realities, am I right to think that what one sees generally is more the khandhas than the individual citta, etc.? It seems to me that what I take to be "citta" is actually a very complex manifestation of innumerable cittas - more on the lines of "aggregates" (khandas) than as single realities. Even isolating rupa from concept of rupa seems almost impossible to my mind - what I notice as "hardness", etc. is already elaborated into something quite different from plain hardness - it's more like "hardness" + sanna + vedana + vinnana, +/- recollection of & comparison with other experiences of "hardness" and even expectations of "hardness" becoming softer and warmer...instead of looking at one door, I'm looking at a whole building plus the surrounding gardens, parks and streets...

What you are describing is I think a fairly common experience, namely, that a practice of 'observing realities' does not result in a breaking down of the present moment experience into its component realities. To put it another way, it does not seem possible by such a practice to 'deconstruct' the ongoing present moment experience into the various parts that are described in the teachings.

The reason this is so (at least, according to my understanding of the teachings) is that the underlying realities that constitute the present moment can only be directly observed as they are by awareness and insight, and the conditions for the the happening of these particular factors do not include the intentional observation of realities.

Let me hasten to add here, since I am likely to be misunderstood on that last point, that I am not saying that the intention to observe realities is either a positive or a negative factor. I am saying it is not given in the texts as one of the *necessary i.e., indispensable*, factors in the development of insight. I presume this is because, when you think about it, kusala of any kind canand does occur both with and without the 'assistance' of volitional intention, and presumably the stronger one's kusala tendencies the more likely those tendencies are to manifest without the 'prompting' of a self-administered reminder.

To answer your question, then, I think that what one sees when trying to observe realities is neither individual cittas not khandhas. Anything we try to 'see' in this way has actually gone before we 'see' it. My understanding is that what we see at those times is not different *qualitatively* (in the terms we are discussing here -- awareness, panna or other kinds of kusala) from what we see at any other time, although it is no doubt different in the sense that we do not normally turn our attention to those particular matters.

QUESTION So, I wonder, does the practice of satipatthana lead to discriminating individual realities? What's the process by which the aggregates disaggregate and an individual citta or rupa becomes manifest?
I suppose theshort answer to the first of these questions is found in the Satipatthana Sutta itself, where it says in the section on mind- objects (which I quoted in a recent post to Howard), that 'contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects' means in fact 'knowing as they really are' those mind-objects. In other words, it's not that there is a practice of satipatthana that *leads to* the discriminating of individual realities, but satipatthana itself *is* the discriminating of individual realities. If individual realities are not being discriminated, then it's not satipatthana; only by satipatthana can individual realities be discriminated.


As to individual cittas or rupas becoming manifest, it depends on what you mean by 'individual' here. True, awareness knows *only one reality at a time*, but this does not mean that it knows *a single moment of that reality*, followed by a single moment of some other reality (only great minds such as those of a Buddha can know realities to that level of detail). As I understand it, there may be several moments of awareness of the same particular reality, and in this way the individual reality becomes discriminated for a brief period.

What is the process by which this happens? According to the texts, it cannot happen without a thorough grasp of the theory of the present moment, otherwise one will be trying to see things that are not there to be seen. Nor can it happen without an appreciation that it cannot be made to happen, but can only come about (but nevertheless will surely come about) if the right conditions for its happening are developed.

Some consider this to be mere randomness, but properly understood it just means that if the right environment is provided, awareness will sprout in due course (can anyone *make* a tree grow??). And awareness needs the most delicate of nurturing!
sunnat
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:08 am

Post by sunnat »

Attadanda sutta


Fear is born from arming oneself.
Just see how many people fight!
I’ll tell you about the dreadful fear
that caused me to shake all over:

Seeing creatures flopping around,
Like fish in water too shallow,
So hostile to one another!
—Seeing this, I became afraid.

This world completely lacks essence;
It trembles in all directions.
I longed to find myself a place
Unscathed—but I could not see it.

Seeing people locked in conflict,
I became completely distraught.
But then I discerned here a thorn
—Hard to see—lodged deep in the heart.

It’s only when pierced by this thorn
That one runs in all directions.
So if that thorn is taken out—
one does not run, and settles down.



Who here has crossed over desires,
the world’s bond, so hard to get past,
he does not grieve, she does not mourn.
His stream is cut, she’s all unbound.

What went before—let go of that!
All that’s to come—have none of it!
Don’t hold on to what’s in between,
And you’ll wander fully at peace.

For whom there is no “I-making”
All throughout the body and mind,
And who grieves not for what is not
Is undefeated in the world.

For whom there is no “this is mine”
Nor anything like “that is theirs”
Not even finding “self-ness,” he
Does not grieve at “I have nothing”


Mahasi Sayadaw
“Nothing can remain even for the blink of an eye. Changes are taking place very swiftly and they will be perceived in due course”

Ajahn Thate
Yet then, within the blink of an eye, with all the things still fresh and new, aniccaa or impermanence intrudes. Ah, impermanence! All abruptly breaks down ...”


sectarian leader who was free of passion for sensual pleasures. He had many hundreds of students and he taught them the Dhamma in this way: 'Next to nothing, brahmans, is the life of human beings — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.

"'Just as a dewdrop on the tip of a blade of grass quickly vanishes with the rising of the sun and does not stay long, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a dewdrop — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.

"'Just as when the rain-devas send rain in fat drops, and a bubble on the water quickly vanishes and does not stay long, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a water bubble — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.

"'Just as a line drawn in the water with a stick quickly vanishes and does not stay long, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a line drawn in the water with a stick — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.

"'Just as a river flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it, so that there is not a moment, an instant, a second where it stands still, but instead it goes & rushes & flows, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a river flowing down from the mountains — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.

"'Just as a strong man forming a drop of spit on the tip of his tongue would spit it out with little effort, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a drop of spit — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.

"'Just as a sliver of meat thrown into an iron pan heated all day quickly vanishes and does not stay long, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a sliver of meat — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.

"'Just as a cow to be slaughtered being led to the slaughterhouse, with every step of its foot closer to its slaughtering, closer to death, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a cow to be slaughtered — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.'

"Now at that time, monks, the human life span was 60,000 years, with girls marriageable at 500. And at that time there were [only] six afflictions: cold, heat, hunger, thirst, defecation, & urination. Yet even though people were so long-lived, long-lasting, with so few afflictions, that teacher Araka taught the Dhamma to his disciples in this way: 'Next to nothing, brahmans, is the life of human beings — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.'

"At present, monks, one speaking rightly would say, 'Next to nothing is the life of human beings — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death.'
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: New book: The Only Way to Jhāna by Ajahn Nyanamoli

Post by Ceisiwr »

nirodh27 wrote: Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:47 am

Since I have the feeling that we are not understanding each other for some difference of understanding of what is what, please define "clinging" at the best of your ability. Maybe here lies the problem. How do you cling to the body and how do you let go of the clinging?
Clinging is when we see permanence, sukha and substance in sense experience. We crave for something, come into contact with it and misperceive it in the aforementioned manner. In terms of it's form there is clinging to desire (we might say here both the desire for and the objects of), views, self-theories and to rites and rituals. When we cling to sense pleasures it's because we think they are permanent, sukha and substantial/belong to a self. When we cling to views it's because they are permanent (this is how the world is!), sukha (we adopt views that we like, and reject views that we dislike) and are substantial (or belong to a self). We cling to self-views because we believe there is a permanent "me" which is sukha and is the Self, and so these views are substantial. We cling to rites and rituals because we think that by having good virtue we can arrive at that which is permanent, sukha and the self.

I disagree here. Please stick to the meditation on the elements of MN140. It is speaking about things and sensations of the body, the perimeter is clear. What is internal and it is appropriated as "mine". So kidneys, breath, fevers, goosebumps, legs, hands, eyes, etc. The Buddha is using the knowledge of the time to concentrate yourself on what you have taken as yours and, by taking something at yours, separation and change (For the worse) will make lament, anguish, displeasure arise at the moment of separation. One is attached to the body and the parts of the body as well, just like it is attached to sensations being in equilibrium. If I threaten you to remove your hand, you will think "oh no, my hand will be no more!". That is a form of despair btw and it is despair because you took it as mine. You will not despair if you remove the clinging, the "mineness" that you have already attribuited to your hand.

You cannot instead use the knowledge of our time (Atoms) or the knowledge of the Abdhidhamma never spoken by the Buddha that is about something even more minute of atoms to point to things you have actually appropriated and you care about (like your hand). You cling to hands, mental states, sensations being in equilibrium, those are the things appropriated and that create Dukkha when they change for the worse, the body is just a way to summarize them.
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that we cling to the body, and if we were to have bits of it chopped off we would become distraught (because it's part of "me"). What I'm saying is that the vast majority of people, then and now, did not go around thinking "this is my earth element, this is my fire element, this is my space element". They went around thinking "this is my body". What the Buddha taught then was to see the body not as a substantial thing, but merely a collection of impermanent parts. To see that the body which is clung to is nothing but these material substances, and that the stuff you are made out of is the same as what everything else out there is made up of. You then see it is only by clinging that we come to label this arrangement of stuff as "my body" and that arrangement of stuff as "that tree". It is a method then to deconstruct that notion, so that instead of seeing "my body" you just see it in terms of primary material elements. Now in truth, there is no such things a the 4 elements. We aren't actually made up of "earth, air, fire and wind" elements. If we were to discuss matter, to discuss primary elements today, we would do so in terms of atoms. The Buddha taught that way because that was the generally accepted theory of the world at the time. That is how everyone thought about the material world, in terms of elements. It doesn't matter though if the 4 element theory is now out of date (very out of date) because the point is not to analyse the body in terms of true existents, but to deconstruct our false notions and perceptions. Our body is made out of the same stuff as what is out there. It is via clinging (a mental formation) that we come to believe that this is "my body" and that is "your body". It doesn't matter then if you break this notion down via way of elements, rūpa-kalāpas or modern atoms as long as by doing so the self notion is undermined. As long as you stop seeing things in terms of "I and mine" and instead just see impersonal dhammas, in terms of "there is just this". If you want to argue that it can only be done via way of the elements then you have to argue that there is something truly substantial to these elements, it seems to me. That they are true existents that have to be understood, rather than being merely useful concepts to use.

No, it is the question of the usefulness of breaking down the body into parts that are not appropriated and we don't feel as "mine" or "I am". But the questions I've made will bring clarity in the disagreement I think.
Before you encountered the Dhamma in this life you grasped the body as self. I imagine you did so without thinking in terms of the Iron Age theory of the 4 elements. The usefulness of element meditation is in it's ability to diminish clinging, rather than elucidating some ontology. Its to say "this body you cling to, it's just made of this impersonal stuff which you find out there too". As of yet I can't see why only doing that in terms of the no defunct 4 element theory is the only way. If someone things there are only 4 elements, sure it will work fine. For many Buddhists this is true, because we adopt the now out of date theory of matter. If someone sees things in terms of atoms however or rūpa-kalāpas, then it can also work for them IMO. It's only if the practice is about arriving at some real-existents that it becomes and issue, it seems. Then it wouldn't work, because the elements would be true and real whilst rūpa-kalāpas and atoms are not.

How can one break down the body and let go of it? I mean, specifically. Describe your experience of letting go by breaking down the body into parts.


I feel I've addressed this by now.

I think that what distinguish the Dhamma is that you uproot and not manage the Dukkha. Btw as long as the points above are not cleared, it is not wise to progress this route.
I would say what makes the Dhamma unique is emptiness, and that the Dhamma eventually abolishes itself.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: New book: The Only Way to Jhāna by Ajahn Nyanamoli

Post by mikenz66 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 8:22 pm
How can one break down the body and let go of it? I mean, specifically. Describe your experience of letting go by breaking down the body into parts.


I feel I've addressed this by now.
As have I. As I said above (or it may have been moved to another thread), many of us find this deconstuction process (which was obviously taught by the Buddha) helpful. Others don't seem to, which is presumably why there are various possible options sketched in the suttas for reducing clinging, and seeing through the sense of self.

And I agree with that there is doesn't seem to be anything special about using a particular mode of deconstruction - body parts, (ancient) elements, (modern) atoms, etc. The message I take from the Elements passage in MN140 (and similar passages elsewhere) is that the stuff inside is no different from the stuff outside. I actually use that (loosely following Bhikkhu Analayo's Satipatthana suggestions) to examine the experience of, for example earth element (hardness, etc) discerned inside my body and discerned outside, for example the hardness of the floor I'm sitting on. [MN140 is a quite inspriring guided meditation, as I see it...]

:heart:
Mike
Post Reply