If have a plane to board.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:28 pm Arising is dependent origination, per SN 12.10 or any other Sutta where you see the phrase "arising, arising".
Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
It satisfies the desire to do so.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:35 pm 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?
Even though mentality is reflexive it isn't possible that a particular mentality aspect "paññā" may be regarded by another particular mentality aspect "yoniso manasikāra".retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Sep 12, 2022 7:35 pm Accordingly, how should paññā (wisdom) itself be regarded with yoniso manasikāra (appropriate attention)?
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Maybe but the physical arising of bread in an oven due to yeast is different than the mental arising of craving for bread. If all sankata is caused by ignorance, it means the Buddha's mind did not conceptualize sankata; the Buddha did not have a sankhara aggregate.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:28 pm Arising is dependent origination, per SN 12.10 or any other Sutta where you see the phrase "arising, arising".
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Greetings Alrac,
Metta,
Paul.
retrofuturist wrote: ↑Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:28 pm Arising is dependent origination, per SN 12.10 or any other Sutta where you see the phrase "arising, arising".
Yes, the former has nothing to do with arising in the Dhamma, whereas the latter does. I invite you to show an example of arising in the discourses that is disconnected from fabrication.
The aggregates are whatever has or will be taken up and bundled to form a sense of self. Once the Buddha became enlightened, he no longer took anything as self, but he still recalls having done so formerly, and does not lose that memory, and so is able to speak of past abodes and such. A Buddha lays down the burden.
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."
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Didn't you previously say wisdom was sankhata fabricated? If paticca-arising is fabricated from ignorance, how can wisdom, being a sankhata fabricated thing, also be paticca-fabricated from ignorance. You appear to be saying wisdom is paticca-fabricated from ignorance. You appear to be saying ignorance is the cause of wisdom. You appear to be saying the Noble Eightfold Path is sankhata-fabricated from paticca-ignorance.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:21 amI invite you to show an example of arising in the discourses that is disconnected from fabrication.
Are you saying Buddhism only teaches there are clinging-aggregates? Are you saying there are no aggregates free from clinging? Are you saying when those five arahants realized the aggregates were impermanent, dukkha & not-self, they stopped perceiving "aggregates"?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:21 amThe aggregates are whatever has or will be taken up and bundled to form a sense of self.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Greetings Alrac,
Metta,
Paul.
Because the avijja of paticcasamuppada is not having the Right Knowledge of the arahant. It is not merely synonymous with moha.Alrac wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 8:43 am Didn't you previously say wisdom was sankhata fabricated? If paticca-arising is fabricated from ignorance, how can wisdom, being a sankhata fabricated thing, also be paticca-fabricated from ignorance. You appear to be saying wisdom is paticca-fabricated from ignorance. You appear to be saying ignorance is the cause of wisdom. You appear to be saying the Noble Eightfold Path is sankhata-fabricated from paticca-ignorance.
retrofuturist wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:21 amThe aggregates are whatever has or will be taken up and bundled to form a sense of self.
No. The arahant has no clinging aggregates as there is no clinging. Aggregates (alone) for the arahant are as explained in my previous post. These are not the same.
I'm saying that they stopped aggregating, but we appear to have drifted somewhat from the topic.
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."
- AlexBrains92
- Posts: 1211
- Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
It's not merely synonymous with moha, yet avijjā is a presence just like that, and just like papañca. They are all different expressions of the same condition. It's illogical to consider avijjā as a mere absence of sammā-ñāṇa (see also: the term 'vijjā' is very rarely used in the sutta-s), since avijjā is part of paṭiccasamuppāda, whereas sammā-ñāṇa is the "result" of the cessation of that. Rather it's sammā-ñāṇa that is an absence of avijjā. Sammā-ñāṇa is not magga (which culminates in sammā-samādhi): it's nirodha, just like sammā-vimutti. Would you also consider sammā-vimutti as fabricated? I don't think so. Furthermore, if sammā-ñāṇa was fabricated, nibbāna would be conditioned. It's just illogical.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 9:30 am Because the avijja of paticcasamuppada is not having the Right Knowledge of the arahant. It is not merely synonymous with moha.
«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
Misty wrote
Misty continues
Does manasikara identify and define only one action/movement of consciousness or does it encompass several functional actions/movements of consciousness?[/quote]
Wise manasikara guides the entire process, it is the ultimate diligence, avoidance of distraction. Forms appear in the mind incessantly via the six consciousnesses.
Consciousness births and dies constantly, Eye consciousness? ear consciousness, nose, tongue, touch, mind consciousness!
Misty wrote
If an object comes to attention, the process of DO has already come into play, identification has already begun.
Misty wrote:
Yoniso Manasikara would be similar to diligently paying attention to a process that creates suffering, the wisdom in that process, would be the avoidance of suffering.
Whatever the eye consciousness, ear consciousness (all the 6 senses) fetch labeled as "I see" "I hear" with an "I" attached, create problems. Remember the advice to Malunkayputta? SN 35.95.
Misty continues
Gombrich has done a great service by pointing out where the Pali tradition was influenced by other traditions.
One who wisely pays attention, will attend to the first step of DO and avoid the origination of suffering.
If you read suttas of Samyukta agama, a recurrent theme found there is "Don't touch the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, mind" which has a metaphorical implication.
If you understand this brief advice and learn how to execute it, you are practising Yoniso Manasikara. When you practice this for a few min of the day, that is ultimate Samadhi, for those few min of the day. Outside of those few min, you will spend quite some time, reflecting on
"how to improve this practice"
Also to give you an excerpt from a text
it is one of the nicest things to be hooked on, to be curious about, soteriologically speaking, ie it is how to "release the self from suffering"Manasikara has hooked my curiosity.
Misty continues
It is the wisdom part of the process that is addressed."I’m struggling to sort out and understand what part of the process is being addressed with manasikara."
- The term appears frequently in the Suttas as yoniso-manasikāra, 'wise (or reasoned, methodical) attention' or 'wise reflection'.
Does manasikara identify and define only one action/movement of consciousness or does it encompass several functional actions/movements of consciousness?[/quote]
Wise manasikara guides the entire process, it is the ultimate diligence, avoidance of distraction. Forms appear in the mind incessantly via the six consciousnesses.
Consciousness births and dies constantly, Eye consciousness? ear consciousness, nose, tongue, touch, mind consciousness!
Misty wrote
Although there are descriptions like this which makes the reader think that the process is supposed to focus on an object (which can be misleading), however, if the object is understood as Nibbana, no problem.Is manasikara the movement of consciousness focusing in on an object that has already been foregrounded as most relevant?
If an object comes to attention, the process of DO has already come into play, identification has already begun.
Misty wrote:
I already answered this.Is manasikara the movement of consciousness that somehow scans for or somehow finds relevance which determines an object that is then isolated or selected out from all the possibilities that can be taken as an object?
Yoniso Manasikara would be similar to diligently paying attention to a process that creates suffering, the wisdom in that process, would be the avoidance of suffering.
Whatever the eye consciousness, ear consciousness (all the 6 senses) fetch labeled as "I see" "I hear" with an "I" attached, create problems. Remember the advice to Malunkayputta? SN 35.95.
implying things would be constantly seen, heard, or sensed, but as long as you don't claim ownership, you are free."you are not in the seen, you are neither here, nor there, nor in the in between"
Misty continues
I don't think your curiosity has gone astray. I recall Dr. Richard Gombrich mentioning Yoniso Manasikara. He finally understood it with the help of one of his graduate students, Huang? he admits.Has my curiosity gone astray here? Is this line of inquiry picking up the scent of its meaning?
Gombrich has done a great service by pointing out where the Pali tradition was influenced by other traditions.
One who wisely pays attention, will attend to the first step of DO and avoid the origination of suffering.
If you read suttas of Samyukta agama, a recurrent theme found there is "Don't touch the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, mind" which has a metaphorical implication.
If you understand this brief advice and learn how to execute it, you are practising Yoniso Manasikara. When you practice this for a few min of the day, that is ultimate Samadhi, for those few min of the day. Outside of those few min, you will spend quite some time, reflecting on
"how to improve this practice"
Also to give you an excerpt from a text
- Manasikara appears frequently in the Suttas as yoniso-manasikāra, 'wise (or reasoned, methodical) attention' or 'wise reflection'. Wise reflection counteracts the asavas, or thirst, or longing.
- Unwise attention Ayoniso-manasikara leads to the arising of Five hindrances.
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Interesting. Can you please explain what exactly do you mean when you say "don't touch the eye..."?Pulsar wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 12:28 pm If you read suttas of Samyukta agama, a recurrent theme found there is "Don't touch the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, mind" which has a metaphorical implication.
If you understand this brief advice and learn how to execute it, you are practising Yoniso Manasikara. When you practice this for a few min of the day, that is ultimate Samadhi, for those few min of the day. Outside of those few min, you will spend quite some time, reflecting on
"how to improve this practice"
What exactly do you mean by "touch"?
Thank you,
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Touch is a simple translation of the word Phassa. If Phassa does not come into play, the process of DO does not come into play.Alex123 wrote
Pulsar wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 12:28 pm
If you read suttas of Samyukta agama, a recurrent theme found there is "Don't touch the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, mind" which has a metaphorical implication.
If you understand this brief advice and learn how to execute it, you are practising Yoniso Manasikara. When you practice this for a few min of the day, that is ultimate Samadhi, for those few min of the day. Outside of those few min, you will spend quite some time, reflecting on
"how to improve this practice"
Interesting. Can you please explain what exactly do you mean when you say "don't touch the eye..."?
What exactly do you mean by "touch"?
This is what happens in an Arahant. Arahant sees, hears, senses, but does not touch the things seen, heard or sensed.
If you need further elaboration please ask.
Regards
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
This is nonsensical.Pulsar wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 3:42 pmTouch is a simple translation of the word Phassa. If Phassa does not come into play, the process of DO does not come into play.Alex123 wrote
Pulsar wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 12:28 pm
If you read suttas of Samyukta agama, a recurrent theme found there is "Don't touch the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, mind" which has a metaphorical implication.
If you understand this brief advice and learn how to execute it, you are practising Yoniso Manasikara. When you practice this for a few min of the day, that is ultimate Samadhi, for those few min of the day. Outside of those few min, you will spend quite some time, reflecting on
"how to improve this practice"
Interesting. Can you please explain what exactly do you mean when you say "don't touch the eye..."?
What exactly do you mean by "touch"?
This is what happens in an Arahant. Arahant sees, hears, senses, but does not touch the things seen, heard or sensed.
If you need further elaboration please ask.
Regards
“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.”
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.”
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Isn't avijja the most important factor bringing D.O. into play?Pulsar wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 3:42 pmTouch is a simple translation of the word Phassa. If Phassa does not come into play, the process of DO does not come into play.Alex123 wrote
Pulsar wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 12:28 pm
If you read suttas of Samyukta agama, a recurrent theme found there is "Don't touch the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, mind" which has a metaphorical implication.
If you understand this brief advice and learn how to execute it, you are practising Yoniso Manasikara. When you practice this for a few min of the day, that is ultimate Samadhi, for those few min of the day. Outside of those few min, you will spend quite some time, reflecting on
"how to improve this practice"
Interesting. Can you please explain what exactly do you mean when you say "don't touch the eye..."?
What exactly do you mean by "touch"?
This is what happens in an Arahant. Arahant sees, hears, senses, but does not touch the things seen, heard or sensed.
If you need further elaboration please ask.
Regards
Also, I understand that D.O. deals with arising/ceasing of dukkha , not with ontology or bare perceptual process of an Arahant. If D.O. even applies to arahant, it is only in the sense of momentum/results from past causes that no longer produce new suffering. IMHO.
Re: Paññā and yoniso manasikāra
Alex123 wrote
Contact involves asava, to say it briefly.
SN 14.1-SN 14.9 elaborates on this process vividly, beginning with the diversity of elements (elements are the different kinds of consciousness), diversity of contacts, intentions, desires, quests.
Alex wrote
Your comment
I don't quite understand what you mean by
Regards
It is true, avijja gives rise to sankhara. From those sankharas (mental formations that would not exclude underlying tendencies) arise the desire to touch, or phassa, or commonly called contact.Isn't avijja the most important factor bringing D.O. into play?
Contact involves asava, to say it briefly.
SN 14.1-SN 14.9 elaborates on this process vividly, beginning with the diversity of elements (elements are the different kinds of consciousness), diversity of contacts, intentions, desires, quests.
Alex wrote
DO deals with the arising of dukkha, not with the ceasing of dukkha. I have not made any reference to ontology in my comments.Also, I understand that D.O. deals with arising/ceasing of dukkha, not with ontology or bare perceptual process of an Arahant. If D.O. even applies to arahant, it is only in the sense of momentum/results from past causes that no longer produce new suffering. IMHO.
Your comment
I do not say DO applies to an Arahant, (I said an Arahant does not engage in phassa) simply because we know that Arahant has cut off ignorance, and has no underlying tendencies.If D.O. even applies to arahant, it is only in the sense of momentum/results from past causes that no longer produce new suffering. IMHO.
I don't quite understand what you mean by
Arahant is free of mind-created suffering. DO does not apply to the Arahant. DO is about the Origination of Suffering cyclically, stated simply."If Do even applies to an Arahant it is only in the sense of momentum/results from past causes that no longer produce new suffering. IMHO"
Regards