SN 12.10 & SN 12.65: Did Gotama use yoniso manasikara to attain full enlightenment??

[budo]

The 5 hindrances prevent one from focusing (yoniso maniskara) on the nimitta:

"But before long the light and the vision of forms vanish.

We haven’t worked out the pattern of that.”
tañca nimittaṃ nappaṭivijjhāmā”ti.

“Now you should work out the pattern of that.
“Taṃ kho pana vo, anuruddhā, nimittaṃ paṭivijjhitabbaṃ.

...

Before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I too perceived both light and vision of forms. But before long my light and vision of forms vanished. It occurred to me:


'What’s the cause, what’s the reason why my light and vision of forms vanish?’

‘ko nu kho hetu ko paccayo yena me obhāso antaradhāyati dassanañca
rūpānan’ti?

It occurred to me:
Tassa mayhaṃ, anuruddhā, etadahosi:

‘Loss of focus arose in me, and because of that my immersion fell away.
‘amanasikāro kho me udapādi, amanasikārādhikaraṇañca pana me samādhi cavi.

-MN 128

Yoniso Manasikara is needed from beginning to end from Right View to Right Concentration

The 5 hindrances pull attention away from good objects (satipathana, one pointedness, single objectness, nimitta) to bad objects (objects of sensual desire, doubt, etc..)

[DooDoot]

This suggests that appropriate attention is more than the initial intellectual understanding based on thought.

I already wrote:

The above text appears to clearly describe Gotama was "thinking" rather than exclusively "directly seeing".

What is the point of quoting my entire post when it is not even read clearly?

Of course Gotama was both thinking & observing when he made his discovery. Gotama was directly sensing/feeling the emotional impact of ideas of "birth" & "death".

It would be interesting to explore the relationship between anupassi and yoniso manaskira.

Very good Dinsdale

It appears the philosophical hypotheses above by Dinsdale & Budo have no relevance to the discussion about "anupassi" ("direct seeing"), that is, these philosophical hypotheses are illogical contradictions. Why?

Because both Dinsdale & Budo appear to believe "jati" & "marana" are "physical birth" & "physical death". If "jati" & "marana" are "physical birth" & "physical death", as Dinsdale & Budo appear to believe, then it appears not possible Gotama "observed" ("anupassi") "jati" & "marana". Instead, Gotama would have been exclusively "thinking".

Note: Before Budo replies with some hocus pokus, the 1st knowledge of recollecting past abodes (while appearing to not actually mean "past lives") is not described as using any psychic power (unlike the 2nd knowledge that uses psychic power of the Eye of Yahweh). In other words, the "yoniso manasikara" used by Gotama do discover Dependent Origination appeared to be with a normal mind.

...people with no [intellectual] integrity, will protect their projecting and defend their egoes.

I think I clearly demonstrated the arguments of Dinsdale & Budo lack intellectual rigor or coherence. Dinsdale & Budo claim "jati" & "marana" are "physical birth" & "physical death" yet they appear to also claim Gotama directly observed (anupassi) "physical birth" & "physical death" when he made his breakthrough.

[Srilankaputra]

"jati" & "marana" mean "ego-birth" and "ego-death"

Hi DD,

How would you define 'Jarā' ?

[DooDoot]

How would you define 'Jarā' ?

Hi SLP. I recall Jara is defined in SN 12.2 as the aging, greying, wrinkling, etc, of “beings”. I remember we discussed together what “a being” is; as defined in SN 23.2. Regards

[Srilankaputra]

How would you define 'Jarā' ?

Hi SLP. I recall Jara is defined in SN 12.2 as the aging, greying, wrinkling, etc, of “beings”. I remember we discussed together what “a being” is; as defined in SN 23.2. Regards

May I just point out that Sn23.2 does not say 'what a being is' rather it discusses 'how a being is defined' or to what degree the Designation 'being' can be used.

Do both the physical kandhas and mental kandhas under go jara?

[Alex123]

It appears the philosophical hypotheses above by Dinsdale & Budo have no relevance to the discussion about "anupassi" ("direct seeing"), that is, these philosophical hypotheses are illogical contradictions. Why?

Because both Dinsdale & Budo appear to believe "jati" & "marana" are "physical birth" & "physical death". If "jati" & "marana" are "physical birth" & "physical death", as Dinsdale & Budo appear to believe, then it appears not possible Gotama "observed" ("anupassi") "jati" & "marana". Instead, Gotama would have been exclusively "thinking".

If one recollects one's past lives, then by definition one recollects physical birth & death. But that is not what I wanted to say,

Re-reading the suttas, it appears that it is a matter of intellectual wisdom & contempative understanding of necessity of death always following birth, etc. Whatever arises, ceases. When birth is, death is (as an inevitable outcome).

The observation isn't and can't be "real-time".
How would one then explain numerous passages about seeing all [5 aggregates, links of DO] in the past, future and present as: anicca, dukkha anatta , etc. You can't and shouldn't literally see them in real-time.

"Therefore, Susima, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all form should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self .’ "