Vipassanā Technique Revisited

On the cultivation of insight/wisdom
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Vipassanā Techniques Revisited

Post by Sam Vara »

retrofuturist wrote: Fri May 15, 2020 4:56 am The Inner Workings of Attention

By teaching that “with the arising of attention is the arising of objects, and with the ceasing of attention is the going down of objects" , the Buddha espoused a mode of phenomenology that radically challenges the conventional worldly way of understanding and relating to objects.

The word phenomenology is derived from the Greek words phainómenon ("that which appears") and lógos ("study"). As such, it is the study of what appears subjectively to the consciousness of an individual, within the internal world of their experience. The phenomenological approach of the Buddha can be juxtaposed most clearly against the philosophy of naïve realism, which holds that objects are objectively real, independently of whether or not they are being observed.

To illustrate the distinction, imagine that you are standing in a location where you can see either a building or a tree. Wherever you cast your attention will determine what arises for you. If you attend to the tree, a tree will arise. If you were to then move attention to the building, from the perspective of your present moment experience, the tree will cease and the building will arise. Hence, “with the arising of attention is the arising of objects, and with the ceasing of attention is the going down of objects". What is being shown here is a mode of viewing and relating to the world, which enhances our understanding of the role we each play in constructing our own present moment experience.

It is important to understand that this mode of viewing does not involve making any ontological determinations about whether trees or buildings objectively exist (i.e. realism) or do not exist (i.e. idealism). The Buddha was quite insistent that implicit or explicit views pertaining to existence and non-existence should be deliberately set aside and released, lest they interfere with this correct mode of present-moment attention. The importance of this correct mode of viewing is detailed in the following discourse…

“Venerable Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (i.e. takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings and biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle.”

What the Buddha has done here, completely re-orientes how we typically view “the world”. Rather than taking it to be the Earth and its material contents, “the world” depicted here in the discourses is an internal world of subjective experience, comprising the realms of the five senses and the mind. For all the speculation that could be had debating the merits of external existence or non-existence all that can actually be known is that which is sensed by the individual…

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavours, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Nanananda clarifies the role of attention in manufacturing experience by explaining that “we see because we look. We hear because we listen. It is not the other way around”, and this advice certainly holds true in relation to our example of the tree and the building. In his discourses, the Buddha taught that “all things are rooted in interest, they originate with attention” , thereby showing us that the things we experience come to be through a conscious choice, rooted in interest, to shift attention to particular forms.

As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains, “This is why what may appear to be a simple act of attention is anything but simple, and anything but bare. It’s shaped, consciously or not, by views and the intentional actions informed by those views. If those views are ignorant, the act of attention is conditioned to be inappropriate: applied to the wrong things, in the wrong framework, and for the wrong reasons, aggravating the problem of stress and suffering rather than alleviating it.”

A fuller understanding of mindfulness therefore includes awareness of the role that attention is playing in the creation of present moment experience. Through mindful observation of attention, and the way it is dragged around by interest and craving, we see how the present experience is concocted. The following lines of inquiry may be followed, if you wish to develop your own experiential understanding of what has been explained above.

Mindfulness of attention – developing insight and wisdom through direct observation

• What determines where attention is placed?
• What happens when we choose to fix attention on a specific object?
• Can attention be placed in multiple directions simultaneously?
• How does the mind feel when the factors that drive attention are calmed?
• Can we sustain the phenomenological mode of viewing that is independent of the polarity of existence and non-existence?
• Does viewing experience in this way change the way we relate to objects?
• What role do we play in the arising of things?
• What role do we play in the ceasing of things?
• Can we skilfully manage attention in order to prevent the fabrication of things?
I like this post a lot, and would welcome some advice from you phenomenological adepts on deepening my understanding. I'm happy with the process described here being "a mode of viewing and relating to the world, which enhances our understanding of the role we each play in constructing our own present moment experience". But how much of a role are we playing here? Are we to take this as meaning that we merely apply a label to something which is presented to us prior to the act of attention? Take, for example, the claim:
Wherever you cast your attention will determine what arises for you. If you attend to the tree, a tree will arise. If you were to then move attention to the building, from the perspective of your present moment experience, the tree will cease and the building will arise.
If I attend to the tree, then the tree has already arisen in order for me to attend to it; if I then move my attention to the building, that is only possible because there is (in some sense) another arisen thing which can "catch" my attention. This might just be a quibble on my part as to what "arising" means, and I should be content that what "arises" is merely an overlay consisting of saññā - the label "tree" that we contribute by an act of apperception, the mental relating of the thing in the field of vision to a mental conception of what trees are. We can easily see this in action with regard to details; I perceive a tree, and my repeated acts of attention and volitional apperception then allow me to identify it as an oak, belonging to Farmer Giles, probably about 300 years old, etc. But what is the thing to which I attend, prior to, or outwith, the arising of attention?

As per my earlier post in the Abhidhamma thread, this is not a question which relies upon ( :spy: ) naïve realism. What there is prior to my attending to it does not have to be a "real common sense tree" existing as a lump of matter independent of experience. But in terms of the Buddha's teaching:
with the arising of attention is the arising of objects
what is it that we attend to? In terms of the Ñānananda quote:
"we see because we look. We hear because we listen"
What determines the direction of vision or the selection of sound, or, to put it another way, what do we look at in order to see, or listen to in order to hear? Which brings us to the first of the bullet points in Retro's post above. If attention gives rise to objects in the sense of objects of consciousness (i.e. anything whatsoever which can be known in any way whatsoever) then to what is it attending? Is the claim here that we create everything ab nihilo by means of attention, or the weaker claim that we contribute to that experience of everything?

I suspect that one way out of this will be to suggest that consciousness and rupa arise simultaneously, but to confidently follow that line of enquiry I would probably need some more input from Robert on this specific issue (i.e. as opposed to the abstract...). I'm thinking of rupa as "the given" here. Meanwhile, I'll take refuge in Sue Hamilton's account of how transcendental idealism deals with this:
...we only experience the world at all because Reality is actually there: what we are experiencing is our interpretation of a transcendentally existent reality.
I might post on another bit soon, as there is lots more I like here...
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Vipassanā Technique Revisited

Post by Ceisiwr »

Hi Sam,

what is it that we attend to? In terms of the Ñānananda quote

What determines the direction of vision or the selection of sound, or, to put it another way, what do we look at in order to see, or listen to in order to hear? Which brings us to the first of the bullet points in Retro's post above. If attention gives rise to objects in the sense of objects of consciousness (i.e. anything whatsoever which can be known in any way whatsoever) then to what is it attending? Is the claim here that we create everything ab nihilo by means of attention, or the weaker claim that we contribute to that experience of everything?
Its my understanding that we acknowledge nimittas, and that for the puthujjana their saññā acknowledges unwholesome nimitta such as "permanent", "beautiful" and "self" which have been formed by sankhara in relation to vedanā due to the taints/underlying tendencies. We then intend (cetanā) towards and focus attention upon/relfect upon (manasikāro) these nimittas in the image (rūpa). All of this draws in viññāṇa into a limited self made world of the self, or to put it another way viññāṇa "lands" upon nāmarūpa and comes to growth. In relation to rūpa all we can say is that it is a phenomenon that we experience.

Just my two cents.

Metta

:)
“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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Vipassanā Technique Revisited

Post by Ceisiwr »

To carry a bit further, and to use an example I like, when i'm practicing anapanasati i'm aware of the wind element, the body and resistance contact. This is the body, or rūpa. I'm also aware of designation contact via nama (vedanā, saññā, cetanā and manasikāro), which together with viññāṇa is the mind body. Resistance contact depends on designation contact and designation contact depends upon resistance contact (as per DN 15). Mind depends upon body, body depends upon mind. With such a view I can't say that one exists over the other. I can't say that one is an ultimate foundation of reality over the other. They are both mutually interdependent and so unstable, anicca, and void. What then is a "tree"? It is a phenomenon that depends on mind and body. What is my breath? A phenomenon that depends on mind and body. What are my thoughts? A phenomenon that depends upon mind and body. No more, no less. I can't claim the tree to be ultimately "real" and "out there" anymore than I can do with my mind, as I can't have one without the other. There is no foundation upon which to build a realist ontology or an anti-realist idealism. I can't say that matter comes first or that mind comes first, that the tree comes first or my mind comes first.

Once again, just my understanding.
“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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Vipassanā Techniques Revisited

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sam Vara,
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:52 am I like this post a lot, and would welcome some advice from you phenomenological adepts on deepening my understanding.
Thanks. I'm happy to explain things as they appear to me (pun intended).
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:52 am I'm happy with the process described here being "a mode of viewing and relating to the world, which enhances our understanding of the role we each play in constructing our own present moment experience". But how much of a role are we playing here? Are we to take this as meaning that we merely apply a label to something which is presented to us prior to the act of attention? Take, for example, the claim:
Wherever you cast your attention will determine what arises for you. If you attend to the tree, a tree will arise. If you were to then move attention to the building, from the perspective of your present moment experience, the tree will cease and the building will arise.
If I attend to the tree, then the tree has already arisen in order for me to attend to it; if I then move my attention to the building, that is only possible because there is (in some sense) another arisen thing which can "catch" my attention.
You touch on this in your next paragraph when you speak of saññā, but what does all of this is nama, of which saññā is one component ... which is precisely why I spent time analyzing and looking into each of the constituent components. After all, if this is indeed how all ignorantly fabricated things are formed in this life, I would assume they warrant detailed attention! Ven. Nanananda speaks at length on this, and I would happily defer to his analysis on all such matters, should you dive further into his works.

Speaking of which, on page one I also quoted the Buddha as saying “all things are rooted in interest, they originate with attention”. The footnotes didn't copy across when I posted that, so I'll mention that this is from Kiümålakasutta (A IV 338 - Nanananda translation). You can read more about the broader sutta and its context in Nibbana Sermon 9 - recommended reading given the territory we are in.

In AN 10.58 Mula Sutta, Thanissaro translates the relationship from Pali as "'All phenomena are rooted in desire. 'All phenomena come into play through attention." So, to blend their translations, it's interest/desire which prompts origination of things via attention.
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:52 am This might just be a quibble on my part as to what "arising" means, and I should be content that what "arises" is merely an overlay consisting of saññā - the label "tree" that we contribute by an act of apperception, the mental relating of the thing in the field of vision to a mental conception of what trees are.
Yes, agreed... an on account of that, I picked this up in the section entitled The Inner Workings of Perception. Although it was labelled as perception in the original text, I totally agree saññā is most accurately described as apperception.
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:52 am We can easily see this in action with regard to details; I perceive a tree, and my repeated acts of attention and volitional apperception then allow me to identify it as an oak, belonging to Farmer Giles, probably about 300 years old, etc. But what is the thing to which I attend, prior to, or outwith, the arising of attention?
Do you mean to see a certain tree, prior to either (i) seeing it, or (ii) knowing its whereabouts? If this remains a question for you, feel free to ask in another way.
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:52 am What determines the direction of vision or the selection of sound, or, to put it another way, what do we look at in order to see, or listen to in order to hear? Which brings us to the first of the bullet points in Retro's post above. If attention gives rise to objects in the sense of objects of consciousness (i.e. anything whatsoever which can be known in any way whatsoever) then to what is it attending? Is the claim here that we create everything ab nihilo by means of attention, or the weaker claim that we contribute to that experience of everything?
I think the earlier suggestion that "it's interest/desire which prompts origination via attention" covers this - but by all means let me know if it doesn't.
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:52 am I suspect that one way out of this will be to suggest that consciousness and rupa arise simultaneously
I would be wary of that, in light of how paticcasamuppada is explained. Better IMO, to focus on the nama-rupa / vinnana whirlpool described in the discourses.

To explain it as succinctly as I can:

- We apply the apparatus of "nama" to what forms we are conscious of (with consciousness as condition, name-&-form arises)
- We are conscious of what has been named, or more precisely nama-ed (with nama-rupa as condition, consciousness arises)
- Repeat
- Repeat
- Repeat
- Repeat
- ....

When that spins out if control, unchecked... it's papanca.

Image

This part of Sue Hamilton's quote... "what we are experiencing is our interpretation of a transcendentally existent reality" is accurate and symptomatic of the avijja, which allows the whirlpool to spin. It highlights the false, empty nature of nama-rupa, and that nama-rupa is all to often mistaken for something more substantial.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Vipassanā Techniques Revisited

Post by Sam Vara »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 9:05 am
You touch on this in your next paragraph when you speak of saññā, but what does all of this is nama, of which saññā is one component ... which is precisely why I spent time analyzing and looking into each of the constituent components. After all, if this is indeed how all ignorantly fabricated things are formed in this life, I would assume they warrant detailed attention! Ven. Nanananda speaks at length on this, and I would happily defer to his analysis on all such matters, should you dive further into his works.

Speaking of which, on page one I also quoted the Buddha as saying “all things are rooted in interest, they originate with attention”. The footnotes didn't copy across when I posted that, so I'll mention that this is from Kiümålakasutta (A IV 338 - Nanananda translation). You can read more about the broader sutta and its context in Nibbana Sermon 9 - recommended reading given the territory we are in.
Many thanks for your really helpful reply; I've got a better sense of it now, I think. Regarding the Nibbana Sermons, I had a look once, and I much prefer your micro summaries! (There was a debate a few weeks ago where someone said they couldn't get on with Ñānananda; and Ceisiwr, I think it was, said they liked his style...)

Regarding the above point, what I am getting at is whether nāma is solely responsible for the arising of phenomena. The things which constitute nāma (feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention) all seem to require an object of their activity. Just as attention, as per my previous post, requires an object to attend to, and saññā requires something to be apperceived; so feeling is of a cognised object; volition aims at one thing rather than another; and contact is - as you say - dependent upon forms. None of them seem to be able to operate without an object (in the most basic, not necessarily material sense) as a precondition for their arising. When you say
it's interest/desire which prompts origination of things via attention.
presumably one needs to include apperception (and maybe feeling) but are they sufficient for the origination of things? Do they need rupa as a precondition, a necessary referent? To return to the example of the tree, what is required for me to see any tree, either if I go in search of a certain tree which has a known location, or one that I inadvertently walk into because I am thinking of something else. I can understand how attention arises, and feeling, and perception, and volition, leading me to have the experience of "tree" rather than something like raw sense data; but is the occasion - or a necessary condition - for that to happen the existence of something like rupa? Or a thing of which we can predicate nothing other than ithe fact of its existence?

As for the "whirlpool" - is this saying that one's experience of the tree is already determined by the arising of nama-rupa, but each new experience is the occasion for further proliferation and a consolidation of the problems which this causes? If so, that sounds fine to me!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Vipassanā Technique Revisited

Post by Sam Vara »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 8:05 am Hi Sam,

what is it that we attend to? In terms of the Ñānananda quote

What determines the direction of vision or the selection of sound, or, to put it another way, what do we look at in order to see, or listen to in order to hear? Which brings us to the first of the bullet points in Retro's post above. If attention gives rise to objects in the sense of objects of consciousness (i.e. anything whatsoever which can be known in any way whatsoever) then to what is it attending? Is the claim here that we create everything ab nihilo by means of attention, or the weaker claim that we contribute to that experience of everything?
Its my understanding that we acknowledge nimittas, and that for the puthujjana their saññā acknowledges unwholesome nimitta such as "permanent", "beautiful" and "self" which have been formed by sankhara in relation to vedanā due to the taints/underlying tendencies. We then intend (cetanā) towards and focus attention upon/relfect upon (manasikāro) these nimittas in the image (rūpa). All of this draws in viññāṇa into a limited self made world of the self, or to put it another way viññāṇa "lands" upon nāmarūpa and comes to growth. In relation to rūpa all we can say is that it is a phenomenon that we experience.

Just my two cents.

Metta

:)
Thanks for the helpful reply, C. I posted a response to this earlier today, but obviously I pressed the wrong key or something, as I just realised that there is no reply there!

The idea of nimittas is interesting, especially as they (seem to?) lead into the area of vipallāsa, if I have understood correctly. I'm happy to say that nimittas arise, but in the context of my quote above, of what are they the sign or portent, what do they signify? more importantly, how do they arise? Is this a purely mental process, nimittas all the way down, or do they require a referent as a precondition?
I can't claim the tree to be ultimately "real" and "out there" anymore than I can do with my mind, as I can't have one without the other. There is no foundation upon which to build a realist ontology or an anti-realist idealism. I can't say that matter comes first or that mind comes first, that the tree comes first or my mind comes first.
My point is that if things are created or brought into existence or arise due to our mental factors of nāma, then all of them appear to need a pre-existing referent for us to make sense of them.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Vipassanā Techniques Revisited

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sam Vara,
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:24 pm Regarding the above point, what I am getting at is whether nāma is solely responsible for the arising of phenomena. The things which constitute nāma (feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention) all seem to require an object of their activity. Just as attention, as per my previous post, requires an object to attend to, and saññā requires something to be apperceived; so feeling is of a cognised object; volition aims at one thing rather than another; and contact is - as you say - dependent upon forms. None of them seem to be able to operate without an object (in the most basic, not necessarily material sense) as a precondition for their arising.
Indeed. Forms. Rupa is the "object" in all of the above. Consider here that form can be a visual form, a sound form, a thought form etc. Then consider how a traditional focus on rupa as materiality may have neutered traditional appreciation of this key paticcasamuppada activity.
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:24 pm When you say
it's interest/desire which prompts origination of things via attention.
presumably one needs to include apperception (and maybe feeling) but are they sufficient for the origination of things?
The interplay of nama-rupa described above is sufficient for the origination of things, but interest/desire will influence cetana's role in directing attention. Evidently that will determine what things arise, are subject to alteration, and ultimately pass away.
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:24 pm Do they need rupa as a precondition, a necessary referent? To return to the example of the tree, what is required for me to see any tree, either if I go in search of a certain tree which has a known location, or one that I inadvertently walk into because I am thinking of something else. I can understand how attention arises, and feeling, and perception, and volition, leading me to have the experience of "tree" rather than something like raw sense data; but is the occasion - or a necessary condition - for that to happen the existence of something like rupa? Or a thing of which we can predicate nothing other than ithe fact of its existence?
I am reminded here of the sutta (and apologies, it would be too hard to search for on my phone, and thus my recollection may be wobbly) where it says that even if an unenlightened man were without ears, eyes, nose etc. he would still not be enlightened, because that is not how to transcend the world of craving for form.

Merely a thoughtform is enough to kick-start creation of a thing (i.e. an idea).
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:24 pm As for the "whirlpool" - is this saying that one's experience of the tree is already determined by the arising of nama-rupa, but each new experience is the occasion for further proliferation and a consolidation of the problems which this causes? If so, that sounds fine to me!
What one experiences is the nama-rupa. The form component of that nama-rupa can be the form already generated via that whirlpool and/or new fresh rupa derived from sensory input.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Vipassanā Techniques Revisited

Post by Sam Vara »

retrofuturist wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 9:56 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 7:24 pm Regarding the above point, what I am getting at is whether nāma is solely responsible for the arising of phenomena. The things which constitute nāma (feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention) all seem to require an object of their activity. Just as attention, as per my previous post, requires an object to attend to, and saññā requires something to be apperceived; so feeling is of a cognised object; volition aims at one thing rather than another; and contact is - as you say - dependent upon forms. None of them seem to be able to operate without an object (in the most basic, not necessarily material sense) as a precondition for their arising.
Indeed. Forms. Rupa is the "object" in all of the above. Consider here that form can be a visual form, a sound form, a thought form etc. Then consider how a traditional focus on rupa as materiality may have neutered traditional appreciation of this key paticcasamuppada activity.
Excellent - that makes sense. The alternative would have been some kind of idealism.
I am reminded here of the sutta (and apologies, it would be too hard to search for on my phone, and thus my recollection may be wobbly) where it says that even if a man were without ears, eyes, nose etc. he would still not be able enlightened, because that is not how to transcend the world of form.

Merely a thoughtform is enough to kick-start creation of a thing (i.e. an idea).
Indeed, even people like Helen Keller are, presumably, as enmeshed as we are. I guess that a person who has no thought-forms along with no contact at the other five sense-doors would be an impossibility, or at least something that has no application here.

Again, thanks for your clarifying responses here, Retro. :anjali:
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Vipassanā Techniques Revisited

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 10:11 pm Again, thanks for your clarifying responses here, Retro. :anjali:
It's a pleasure. It's a very good "recollection of the Dhamma" exercise to be asked by others for clarification of the finer details of one's own Dhamma understanding. So, thank you.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Vipassanā Technique Revisited

Post by Ceisiwr »

Hi Sam,
The idea of nimittas is interesting, especially as they (seem to?) lead into the area of vipallāsa, if I have understood correctly. I'm happy to say that nimittas arise, but in the context of my quote above, of what are they the sign or portent, what do they signify? more importantly, how do they arise? Is this a purely mental process, nimittas all the way down, or do they require a referent as a precondition?
Well Ven. Sariputta said that greed, hate and delusion are a "maker of signs". If this only refers to the signs of permanence, beauty and self or to all signs i'm not so sure. My current understanding is that the passage refers only to those unwholesome signs, so within that context the nimitta is simply the sign of the taints instead of being something "out there". That of course leaves open the question of nimitta in general, via which sanna works to give us a mental image or something. So, when looking at a picture in a newspaper sanna will form a mental image of "man and car" based on the nimitta of "man" (mascluine features, shape) and "car" (4 wheels, shape etc). These nimitta then have nothing to do with the taints and simply refer to the characteristics of sense phenomena by which i recognise and make sense of them, thus forming concepts.

Its interesting that the Buddha said here:
“But, venerable sir, how should a bhikkhu know, how should he see, for ignorance to be abandoned by him and true knowledge to arise?”

“Here, bhikkhu, a bhikkhu has heard, ‘Nothing is worth adhering to.’ When a bhikkhu has heard, ‘Nothing is worth adhering to,’ he directly knows everything. Having directly known everything, he fully understands everything. Having fully understood everything, he sees all signs differently. He sees the eye differently, he sees forms differently … whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition … that too he sees differently.

“When, bhikkhu, a bhikkhu knows and sees thus, ignorance is abandoned by him and true knowledge arises.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.80/en/bodhi

I think this shows that nimitta can be either unwholesome or neutral, and that the problem is the taints and unwholesome nimitta which distort our perception of the world. These signs signify defilements. As for neutral signs, it seems they signify sense phenomena as a sign is that by which we recognise and understand (sanna) forms, sounds etc. One possible explanation is that for the Arahants phenomena now have the sign of impermanence, suffering and not-self. With these signs sense phenomena would then be sensed detached, with no notions forming around them in terms of conciet, craving or views. They just simply "are", unless in one of the signless attainments. Signs then become something not worth seeing.

Personally I think its best just to understand that what we perceive relies upon signs, and that due to the taints there will be unwholesome and distorted signs. If these signs refer to phenomena that actually exist out there would be, for me, to go beyond the Dhamma and into the realms of speculative philosophy.

My point is that if things are created or brought into existence or arise due to our mental factors of nāma, then all of them appear to need a pre-existing referent for us to make sense of them.
That would be the body and forms.

Metta

:)
“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
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Vipassanā Technique Revisited

Post by Sam Vara »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 10:25 pm
That would be the body and forms.

Metta

:)
Yes, that's mainly what I was getting at. I'll have to read up on nimitta in order to catch up with the rest. Retro's answer was essentially the same, so I hereby infer that you guys have been reading the same Dhamma books!

Metta to you too, and thanks again! :anjali:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Vipassanā Technique Revisited

Post by Ceisiwr »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 10:45 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 10:25 pm
That would be the body and forms.

Metta

:)
Yes, that's mainly what I was getting at. I'll have to read up on nimitta in order to catch up with the rest. Retro's answer was essentially the same, so I hereby infer that you guys have been reading the same Dhamma books!

Metta to you too, and thanks again! :anjali:
Possibly. I know that Retro has read “With the Right Understanding” by Bhikkhu Akiñcano which I finished last week. We both have read Ven. Nanananda too. So, I guess we will overlap quite a bit lol. Although not a Dhamma book I’ve just started “Phénoménologie de la perception” by Merleau-Ponty. I’m not sure if retro has read that or not.

DN 15 and the anapanasati practice laid out in the Patisambhidamagga have also helped to forge my current understanding. In terms of nimittas that’s mostly from my own reading of the texts, with some slight influence from the Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra by Harivarman.

Metta

:)
“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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Vipassanā Technique Revisited

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Craig,
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:03 pm Possibly. I know that Retro has read “With the Right Understanding” by Bhikkhu Akiñcano which I finished last week.
You're beating me then... I only just finished reading the section on Citta last night. Recent discussions here and on Robert's Zoom sessions have rekindled my interest and prompted me to re-open the book. (Ironic given the above discussion about "interest" and its role in generating rupa).
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:03 pmWe both have read Ven. Nanananda too. So, I guess we will overlap quite a bit lol.
Guilty as charged.
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:03 pmAlthough not a Dhamma book I’ve just started “Phénoménologie de la perception” by Merleau-Ponty. I’m not sure if retro has read that or not.
No. I usually leave it to the Path Press lineage to offer up any extra-canonical references from the field of phenomenology that may be of interest, rather than seek them out directly. However, if you wish to discuss it in Connections, I'd be keen to see what connections you've discerned.
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:03 pm In terms of nimittas that’s mostly from my own reading of the texts
On that, nimitta is obviously related to form, and I admit I do often focus on rupa to the exclusion of nimitta, given that it is rupa that is mentioned in paticcasamuppada, so I'd be interested to hear of any thoughts you have as to the relationship and/or overlap of rupa and nimitta.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Vipassanā Technique Revisited

Post by Ceisiwr »

retrofuturist
You're beating me then... I only just finished reading the section on Citta last night. Recent discussions here and on Robert's Zoom sessions have rekindled my interest and prompted me to re-open the book. (Ironic given the above discussion about "interest" and its role in generating rupa).
Tut tut lol, then again I do have a ridiculous amount of free time on my hands atm.
No. I usually leave it to the Path Press lineage to offer up any extra-canonical references from the field of phenomenology that may be of interest, rather than seek them out directly. However, if you wish to discuss it in Connections, I'd be keen to see what connections you've discerned.
It looks promising. Bhikkhu Akiñcano recommended it.
On that, nimitta is obviously related to form, and I admit I do often focus on rupa to the exclusion of nimitta, given that it is rupa that is mentioned in paticcasamuppada, so I'd be interested to hear of any thoughts you have as to the relationship and/or overlap of rupa and nimitta.

Well first I would have to discuss saññā, which I don't think means perception simpliciter. I've copied this from some personal notes i've made:

Saññā
“Idha, bhikkhave, tadevekaccesu janapadesu ‘pātī’ti sañjānanti, ‘pattan’ti sañjānanti, ‘vittan’ti
sañjānanti, ‘sarāvan’ti sañjānanti ‘dhāropan’ti sañjānanti, ‘poṇan’ti sañjānanti, ‘pisīlavan’ti
sañjānanti. Iti yathā yathā naṃ tesu tesu janapadesu sañjānanti tathā tathā thāmasā parāmāsā abhinivissa voharati: ‘idameva saccaṃ, moghamaññan’ti. Evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, jana¬pada¬niruttiyā ca abhiniveso hoti samaññāya ca atisāro.

Here, bhikkhus, in different localities they call the same thing a “dish” (pāti) or they call it a “bowl” (patta) or they call it a “vessel” (vittha) or they call it a “saucer (sarava) or they call it a “pan” (dhāropa) or they call it a “pot” (poṇa) or they call it a “mug” (hana) or they call it a “basin” (pisīla). So whatever they call it in such and such a locality, he speaks accordingly, firmly adhering to and insisting on that, “Only this is true, anything else is wrong.” This is how there comes to be insistence on local language and overriding of normal usage.”
MN 139

The pali word used here “sañjānanti” is the verb of saññā and is usually translated as “perceives” or “perceiving”. However, here we clearly do not have a case of perceiving simpliciter. Instead sañjānanti is being used in naming or designating. In other words, in using concepts in relation to X form. This is indicating that saññā is more along the line of interpretation, appellation or apperception. This is similar to the definition of saññā found in the “Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra” by Harivarman, which is a Bahuśrutīya or Sautrāntika text. Here Harivarman defines saññā as that which “seizes the nimitta (sign) of the empirical things”:
“The lion, king of animals conceiving from this side of river a nimitta (a prey) on the other shore crosses over the flood. If he does not find the nimitta there, coming back to this shore he does not forget that nimitta until his death”
- Tattvasiddhi-Śāstra

He goes on to say that a tree and other things are nimittas, that the dress of an ascetic is the nimitta, that the butcher collects the nimitta that is desired for the royal dish or that the early light is the nimitta of the dawn. From Harivarman then saññā is that which acknowledges the sign, which is a mark on a phenomenon making it a “thing”. This can be based in desire (the butcher and the meal, the lion and its prey) or neutral (first light and dawn, the dress of an ascetic). What is key here is that saññā identifies a phenomenon via the use of concepts. They can either be in relation to one’s desires or they can be neutral. They can also be wholesome. Such signs then stay with said person, so that they can be recognised again (the lion and the nimitta of prey). Saññā then is involved in narrowing down sense experience by picking up that which is marked with a sign. When the taints are present these signs can based on desire, which then goes on to become the focus of one’s intentions (cetanā) and attention (manasikāro). This seems the more logical explanation of saññā in light of DN 15, where nama in namarupa provides designation. From this interpretation the deeper meaning of these passages can be brought forward:
“Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of limits. A mendicant who has ended the defilements has given these up, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, and obliterated them, so they are unable to arise in the future. The unshakable heart’s release is said to be the best kind of limitless heart’s release. That unshakable heart’s release is empty of greed, hate, and delusion.

Greed is something, hate is something, and delusion is something. A mendicant who has ended the defilements has given these up, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, and obliterated them, so they are unable to arise in the future. The unshakable heart’s release is said to be the best kind of heart’s release through nothingness. That unshakable heart’s release is empty of greed, hate, and delusion.

Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of signs. A mendicant who has ended the defilements has given these up, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, and obliterated them, so they are unable to arise in the future. The unshakable heart’s release is said to be the best kind of signless heart’s release. That unshakable heart’s release is empty of greed, hate, and delusion.”
- Mahāvedalla Sutta

It becomes clear that the sutta is teaching that when there are the underlying tendencies of greed, aversion or delusion then, when touched by vedanā, there will be a recognising of signs (permanence, beautiful and self) via saññā. This then “makes a limit, makes something, makes a sign” in sense experience. For the worldling it is a limiting of sense experience in line with one’s desires. The construction of one’s own inner world. Based off these explanations, as mentioned prior, a better definition of saññā would be “acknowledgement of signs” or “apperception” or "appellation" or “concept designation and acknowledgement”.


Nimitta

Nimitta then are “signs”, “marks”, “concepts” or "appellations" that are acknowledged by saññā. They can be defiled nimitta (pleasurable, beautiful, permanent, self) or undefiled (sign of samadhi etc). It stands to reason then that nimitta are that by which we recognise and designate something, making it a percept. Perception simpliciter is thus an aspect but not the whole of saññā. By paying attention to the sign of feeling, vedana is perceived. By paying attention to the sign of self in my reflection, a visible sight is perceived as “me”. Saññā is then the acknowledgment of signs in sense experience and the perception of said experience. It is a mental image of chair, reflection, me. Nimitta are the perceptible or conceivable qualities of a thing. When breathing in, the motion and sensations therein are the nimitta of the air element and breath thus leading to the concept of "breath" and "form". There is then a fully formed mental representation of “breath”. This representation can then be subjected to intention, attention and so on. Another example, when looking at a chair the dimensions, colour and overall shape (its earthiness) are the nimitta of “chair”. These signs are then picked up by saññā, thus forming the mental image of “chair”. Interestingly, when looking at the Sanskrit we find that the Monier Williams dictionary has the following defintions:

1. a butt, mark, target (MhB)
2. sign, omen (Manu Smrti, MhB)
3. cause, motive, ground, reason (Upanisads, MhB, Manu Smrti)
4. instrumental or efficient cause (later philosophers)

In the pre-buddhist literature nimitta then means cause, motive, ground or reason (and rarely used). Even within the suttas we can see it being used as “reason”:
“uppannaṃ kho me idaṃ dukkhindriyaṃ, tañca kho sanimittaṃ sanidānaṃ sasaṅkhāraṃ sappaccayaṃ

The faculty of pain has arisen in me. And that has a precursor, a source, a condition, and a reason.”
SN 48.40:


Nimitta can then mean “cause and sign”. In terms of sense experience I therefore take nimitta to be the signs which causes perception via saññā. For the Arahant, instead of the unwholesome nimitta of "permanent, beautiful and self" he experiences the world chiefly through the signs of "anicca, dukkha and anatta". Signs then in general, such as the nimitta of earthly qualities like that of shape which give rise to "chair" are then understood, seen through and experienced detached.
“Here, bhikkhu, a bhikkhu has heard, ‘Nothing is worth adhering to.’ When a bhikkhu has heard, ‘Nothing is worth adhering to,’ he directly knows everything. Having directly known everything, he fully understands everything. Having fully understood everything, he sees all signs differently. He sees the eye differently, he sees forms differently … whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition … that too he sees differently.

“When, bhikkhu, a bhikkhu knows and sees thus, ignorance is abandoned by him and true knowledge arises.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.80/en/bodhi


By abolishing the taints he feels vedanā detached. There are no defiled nimitta of permanence, beauty and self. There are wholesome nimittas of anicca, dukkha and anatta. There is no longer a "thing worth seeing". By seeing signs and the things they signify as being anicca, dukkha and antta the forms that saññā constructs through nimitta are also seen through. Form can then not get a full foot in in name and name cannot fully recognise form. Without full designation contact there is no full resistance contact and without full resistance contact there is no full designation contact. Contact is held in check, albeit with dying embers through trace amounts of vedanā and saññā that remain due to being simply alive with a body. Consciousness then does not land on namarupa and come to growth. It isn't confined inside a self made world of the self, hemmed in and limited by the nimittas and assailed by dukkha. It is stilled (nirodha).

That's currently where i'm at at the moment.

Metta

:)
Attachments
Dep Ori.jpg
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Tue May 19, 2020 1:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
“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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Vipassanā Technique Revisited

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Craig,

Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!

An excellent analysis, and a veritable joy to read.

:anjali:

You are evidently putting your "ridiculous amount of free time" to profitable use!

Thank you for sharing.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Post Reply