Greetings,
If all sankhata-dhamma or paticcasamuppanne-dhamma (fabricated things) are to be let go of, then what use or benefit is there in systematizing them?
Accordingly, how should paññā (wisdom) itself be regarded with yoniso manasikāra (appropriate attention)?
Metta,
Paul.
Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
"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."
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Retro wrote
OP continued
Sensory data entering via eye, ear, nose, tongue, body surface (touch), mind, when identified as I, me and mine, create suffering.
Most appropriate attention will succeed in blocking that suffering.
Cool question Retro, thanks.
Regards
Absolutely none, but it may please those who have a scholarly approach to the teaching.If all sankata-dhamma or paticcasamuppanne-dhamma (fabricated things) are to be let go of, then what use or benefit is there in systematizing them?
OP continued
Wisdom should be regarded as that which enables the guarding of the sense doors, initially.Accordingly, how should paññā (wisdom) itself be regarded with yoniso manasikāra (appropriate attention)?
- When properly guarded, no forms arise in the mind, to be named.
Sensory data entering via eye, ear, nose, tongue, body surface (touch), mind, when identified as I, me and mine, create suffering.
Most appropriate attention will succeed in blocking that suffering.
Cool question Retro, thanks.
Regards
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
The way I understand that Manasikara is the choosing an object or turning towards an object.
For example, when we go to a park we see many objects. trees. lowers. men, women play ground.
Out to them, you chose one as Manasikara.
Yonis Manasikara means being aware of this process in your mind. Are you aware of the attachment aversion and ignorance that arise within.
If Yoniso Manasikara (samma Nana) is the path the fruit is wisdom. (samma Vimukti)
Yoniso Manasikara have many levels. First, it appears in Sotapanna.
Manasikara is a universal mental faculty so it exists in every mind. In Buddha's the Manasikara is consist with wisdom.
The way I understand when you become an Arahant Yoniso Manasikara combined with wisdom.
I may be wrong.
For example, when we go to a park we see many objects. trees. lowers. men, women play ground.
Out to them, you chose one as Manasikara.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manasik%C4%81raBhikkhu Bodhi states:[3]
The Pali word literally means “making in the mind.” Attention is the mental factor responsible for the mind’s advertence to the object, by virtue of which the object is made present to consciousness. Its characteristic is the conducting (sāraṇa) of the associated mental states towards the object. Its function is to yoke the associated states to the object. It is manifested as confrontation with an object, and its proximate cause is the object. Attention is like the rudder of a ship, which directs it to its destination, or like a charioteer who sends the well-trained horses (i.e. the associated states) towards their destination (the object). Manasikāra should be distinguished from vitakka: while the former turns its concomitants towards the object, the latter applies them onto the object. Manasikāra is an indispensable cognitive factor present in all states of consciousness; vitakka is a specialized factor which is not indispensable to cognition.
Yonis Manasikara means being aware of this process in your mind. Are you aware of the attachment aversion and ignorance that arise within.
If Yoniso Manasikara (samma Nana) is the path the fruit is wisdom. (samma Vimukti)
Yoniso Manasikara have many levels. First, it appears in Sotapanna.
Attention (manasikāra), the mind’s spontaneous turning to the object which binds the
associated mental factors to it.
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books13/Men ... actice.pdfFeelings are commonly classified into three types: Pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral. Pleasant
feeling, in the absence of wise consideration (yoniso manasikāra), leads to attachment, unpleasant
feeling to repugnance, and neutral feeling to ignorance.
Manasikara is a universal mental faculty so it exists in every mind. In Buddha's the Manasikara is consist with wisdom.
The way I understand when you become an Arahant Yoniso Manasikara combined with wisdom.
I may be wrong.
Last edited by SarathW on Mon Sep 12, 2022 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
It seems the order of things is critical to setting up that attention. Prior to the gain of the right view it would be routine and practical to presume an inversion is in place, but from there, ensure that any effort in contemplation takes the broader, correct view as first.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:35 pm Greetings,
If all sankata-dhamma or paticcasamuppanne-dhamma (fabricated things) are to be let go of, then what use or benefit is there in systematizing them?
A favorite that I quote often:
The unattractive, for example, doesn’t imply removal of attractive, but only to make sure that unattractive is discerned as having the priority. Like many suttas say, there are beautiful things in the world, but not only are those things made up of what is not attractive, they are each bound to fall apart, which is ultimately unattractive. From an even more urgent point of view, this wrong priority can also be a matter of great danger: keeping the mind in place where it is not safe from the endless round. Like the simile of the mango tree. Literally get caught on the wrong side of things when the senses break down at death.AN 4.49 wrote:“Bhikkhus, there are these four inversions of perception, inversions of mind, and inversions of view. What four? (1) The inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes the impermanent to be permanent; (2) the inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes what is suffering to be pleasurable; (3) the inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes what is non-self to be self; (4) the inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes what is unattractive to be attractive. These are the four inversions of perception, mind, and view.”
Without a proper arrangement of what matters, there is no assurance the development is being pushed in the right direction. As I see it, this does imply acknowledgment of the tendency towards permanence, pleasure, self and attractive as a benchmark for what must be looked through to set up the counterpart. See AN 7.49, a great companion to the orders described in the above sutta. In it you will see how the right order is contemplated. As I read it, this must start with what is most immediately apparent; with what is seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched and thought.
In short, “the fabricated”, understood with the correct priority, is required. It is the field of work.
“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
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
The way I understand it is that the attractive is kind of a product of ignorance, the result of not perceiving the unattractiveness. The inversion is not a matter of inverted priorities to me. It's a matter of miscalculating that we are in front of a good dog when in fact it's a hyena.
I don't see it as unattractive prioritized over atractive, death over life and so on. I understand it as you perceive it or you don't, the latter meaning the perception is underdeveloped and the delusion is high. Unattractiveness, death, repugnancy of food, discontentment with the world, impermanence, suffering, not-self, all this is what really is going on and you perceive it or you still don't.SDC wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 10:24 pm ... See AN 7.49, a great companion to the orders described in the above sutta. In it you will see how the right order is contemplated. As I read it, this must start with what is most immediately apparent; with what is seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched and thought.
In short, “the fabricated”, understood with the correct priority, is required. It is the field of work.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
It may be drifting from the topic, but there are numerous accounts of the Buddha acknowledging beauty. Numerous. So, I think it is safe to say it is not a product of ignorance.
“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
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Would love to see but a few. Who cares if off-topic. You and retro have superpowers and can cut and move to a new thread if you wish so.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
I haven’t had those privileges for years.
I don’t have the time to do the cutting and pasting right now. Do a search on suttacentral. There’s dozens. The issue is giving the wrong attention to the beauty, not the beauty itself.
“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
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
You have such powers too. Start a thread, quote this one, and include at the beginning a link to the post in this thread that you are quoting. Then put at the start of your thread "Split from:"
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.
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.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
If we ignore the need of beauty, we find ourselves in a spiritual desert. -Roger Scruton
- AlexBrains92
- Posts: 1211
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
The Arahant still pays attention to sankhata-dhamma:
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.122/en/suddhaso“But, Venerable Sāriputta, what phenomena are to be paid wise attention to by a monk who is an Arahant?”
“Arahatā panāvuso sāriputta, katame dhammā yoniso manasi kātabbā”ti.
“Venerable Koṭṭhita, a monk who is an Arahant is also to wisely pay attention to the five components of attachment as impermanent, unsatisfactory, disease, cancer, stabbing, misfortune, affliction, alien, disintegrating, empty, and impersonal. Venerable, it is not there is anything more for an Arahant to do or to accumulate; however, when these are developed and cultivated, they are conducive to a pleasant life here and now, and to mindfulness and clear awareness.”
“Arahatāpi kho, āvuso koṭṭhika, ime pañcupādānakkhandhe aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato yoniso manasi kātabbā. Natthi, khvāvuso, arahato uttari karaṇīyaṁ katassa vā paticayo; api ca ime dhammā bhāvitā bahulīkatā diṭṭhadhammasukhavihārāya ceva saṁvattanti satisampajaññāya cā”ti.
«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?
They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»
- Snp 4.5 -
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Greetings retro,retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:35 pm Greetings,
If all sankata-dhamma or paticcasamuppanne-dhamma (fabricated things) are to be let go of, then what use or benefit is there in systematizing them?
Through systematizing them, one is able to untangle the mind as to how it came to identifying dhammas as this and that. The systemization is merely a conventional tool, which one will let go of in the end when DO (non-essence) is understood.
Understanding paññā as 'intellect' will give a different dimension to the word. Especially in relation with the term paññāvimutti. Liberation through the intellect is also liberation of the intellect, which is achieved through understanding your first question.Accordingly, how should paññā (wisdom) itself be regarded with yoniso manasikāra (appropriate attention)?
Warm regards,
Peter
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Peter wrote:
Any system built on a false premise is bound to be flawed.
Don't you think so Dear Peter?
You wrote
You constantly say there is no "self" even though Buddha did not say so, in the forceful fashion you do.
Your "It" sounds like a self.
It is as if you are saying there is no self (elsewhere), but there is a it, stable?
a continuing process (without a stable it), dependently arising based on underlying tendencies.
Buddha did not deny the process, nor the underlying tendencies,
the bane of existence.
The struggle of a meditator is to abolish the underlying tendency.
In a way the teaching is simple, it is profoundly simple. Yet that simplicity has been wiped out by the scholars who did not understand its simplicity.
They present us with a system of analyses of the Buddha Dhamma of origination of suffering by saying Suffering originates when the process encounters a physical object.
What point is that systematization?
Regards
Systematizing? You mean at the very beginning by taking nama-rupa of DO and changing rupa of DO (a mental impression) into a physical entity, from which it was derived?Through systematizing them, one is able to untangle the mind as to how it came to identifying dhammas as this and that.
Any system built on a false premise is bound to be flawed.
Don't you think so Dear Peter?
You wrote
What is the mind but the constantly arising consciousness (6 types) that result from initially labelling a rupa that is arising, due to craving?untangle the 'mind'
- An acquisition in other words, a collection that results in suffering.
What is IT? What is the "it" that is identifying dhammas as this and that?one is able to untangle the mind as to how 'it' came to identifying dhammas as this and that.
You constantly say there is no "self" even though Buddha did not say so, in the forceful fashion you do.
Your "It" sounds like a self.
It is as if you are saying there is no self (elsewhere), but there is a it, stable?
a continuing process (without a stable it), dependently arising based on underlying tendencies.
Buddha did not deny the process, nor the underlying tendencies,
the bane of existence.
The struggle of a meditator is to abolish the underlying tendency.
In a way the teaching is simple, it is profoundly simple. Yet that simplicity has been wiped out by the scholars who did not understand its simplicity.
They present us with a system of analyses of the Buddha Dhamma of origination of suffering by saying Suffering originates when the process encounters a physical object.
What point is that systematization?
Regards
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
AlexBrains92 wrote
Maybe I misunderstand? What do you mean when you say
Regards
The passage in SN 22.122 appear to contradict what is presented elsewhere. I checked out its agama parallel too, less confusing, but its presentation is not all that clear.The Arahant still pays attention to sankhata-dhamma
Maybe I misunderstand? What do you mean when you say
Are you implying Sankhata-dhammas still arise in the Arahant? Or that he is aware that sankhata-dhmmas arise in non-Arahants?Arahant still pays attention to Sankhata-dhamma?
Regards
- AlexBrains92
- Posts: 1211
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Maybe the editors of the sutta made a mistake writing 'pancupadanakkhanda' instead of 'pancakkhanda'
I think sankhata-dhammas still arise in the Arahant, why not? The cessation of DO sankhara is not the cessation of every sankhara (see sankhara in pancakkhanda), just like the cessation of DO vinnana and DO vedana is not the cessation of every vinnana and vedana. That nibbana is asankhata doesn't imply the Arahant only experience that dhamma. He experiences every dhamma wisely.
«He does not construct even the subtlest apperception with regard
to what is seen, heard or thought; how would one conceptualise
that Brahmin in this world, who does not appropriate a view?
They do not fabricate, they do not prefer, they do not accept any
doctrine; the Brahmin cannot be inferred through virtue or vows,
such a person has gone to the far shore and does not fall back.»
- Snp 4.5 -