Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation
Nyana
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby Nyana » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:46 pm

Alex123 wrote:IMHO it is this kind of dukkha that really matters

Yes, I agree.

chownah
Posts: 3030
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby chownah » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:31 am

Alex123 wrote: Empirically (not metaphysically!) we can see bodies growing older, aging and dying. This does not have to imply any metaphysics, just what can be empirically observed.

I want to point out that we can not see bodies growing older. As a first approximation what we do is to observe a body at different points of time and note differences....then we use these differences to support a fabricated concept of "aging" or "growing older". Also, I think that people would agree that as time passes everything gets older whether there is an observed change or not.....so then "getting older" is just another way of saying that time has passed.
chownah

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14815
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby retrofuturist » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:34 am

Nice observation, Chownah.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)

User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 687
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Cyberia

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby ancientbuddhism » Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:18 pm

The Early Buddhist Notion of the Middle Path – David J. Kalupahana


In addition to discussing the Middle Way intrinsic to teachings of the early schools, there is discussion of ‘theories of moments (kṣaṇa)’ from page 3.
Last edited by ancientbuddhism on Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Anuvicca papañca nāmarūpaṃ
ajjhattaṃ bahiddhā ca rogamūlaṃ,
sabbarogamūlabandhanā pamutto
anuvidito tādi pavuccate tathattā
.

“Having known the naming of objects,
With its proliferation, its root in illness – within and without;
One is released from bondage to the root of all illness.
And thus is called the Knowing One – the Such.

– Sn. 3.6 (Sabhiyasuttaṃ)

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves

dhamma follower
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby dhamma follower » Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:46 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:
dhamma follower wrote:I was not talking about alteration, but about momentary dhammas rising and falling in rapid succession.

I know you were. And "momentary dhammas rising and falling in rapid succession" is a conceptual fiction.


which is an opinion of yours, an opinion strongly defied by Dependent Origination.

Regards,

dhamma follower
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby dhamma follower » Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:58 pm

Alex123 wrote:
"this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

IMHO it is this kind of dukkha that really matters, not the "it is all an illusion" or "rupas change and die every second".


Hi Alex,

The first sacca, sacca dukkha includes aging, but extends far beyond than that.

The five aggregates of clinging are the last to be mentioned. Without knowing directly the characteristics of each khanda, as dhammas, how can you know them by your own experience as anicca, dukkha, anatta?

Regards,

Nyana
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby Nyana » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:00 am

dhamma follower wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:I know you were. And "momentary dhammas rising and falling in rapid succession" is a conceptual fiction.


which is an opinion of yours, an opinion strongly defied by Dependent Origination.

Oh? How so?

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 4540
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Satipatthana: The direct path to realization

Postby daverupa » Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:41 am

Mindfulness and Awareness, by Ñāṇavīra Thera

The Pali word for awareness is sampajañña. In the suttas it is frequently linked with mindfulness (sati) in the compound sati-sampajañña, mindfulness and awareness. In the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, awareness (of bodily actions) is included in the section on mindfulness of the body, so we can perhaps conclude that, while it is not different from mindfulness, awareness is rather more specialised in meaning. Mindfulness is general recollectedness, not being scatterbrained; whereas awareness is more precisely keeping oneself under constant observation, not letting one’s actions (or thoughts, or feelings etc.) pass unnoticed.


source
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

dhamma follower
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby dhamma follower » Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:42 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:
dhamma follower wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:I know you were. And "momentary dhammas rising and falling in rapid succession" is a conceptual fiction.


which is an opinion of yours, an opinion strongly defied by Dependent Origination.

Oh? How so?


I had presented my reasoning earlier:

Just consider how much information you can get in a second: seeing someone, knowing the details of his/her face, recognizing who is the person, wanting to avoid, designing a scheme to do it...All of that involve so many mind processes and different sense-doors and kinds of consciousness, in just a second. That much already tells us how quickly dhammas rise and fall. Because consciousness arises dependently on the bases and objects, how many consciousness must rise and fall before all that information is perceived and processed?


Regards,

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 4540
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby daverupa » Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:25 pm

dhamma follower wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:
dhamma follower wrote:I was not talking about alteration, but about momentary dhammas rising and falling in rapid succession.

I know you were. And "momentary dhammas rising and falling in rapid succession" is a conceptual fiction.


which is an opinion of yours, an opinion strongly defied by Dependent Origination.

Regards,


Well, paticcasamuppada is a process, while discreet momentary dhammas form an event-series (with concomitant problems to do with continuity). So, in fact, the Buddha's preference for talking in terms of paticcasamuppada (or rather, idapaccayata) - instead of via a theory of innumerable dhammas - is noteworthy in this context. A lot of people think momentary dhammas are what the Buddha was really talking about, but he never actually does so. It's all process-based language, never event-based.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Nyana
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby Nyana » Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:39 pm

dhamma follower wrote:I had presented my reasoning earlier:

Just consider how much information you can get in a second: seeing someone, knowing the details of his/her face, recognizing who is the person, wanting to avoid, designing a scheme to do it...All of that involve so many mind processes and different sense-doors and kinds of consciousness, in just a second. That much already tells us how quickly dhammas rise and fall. Because consciousness arises dependently on the bases and objects, how many consciousness must rise and fall before all that information is perceived and processed?


This sounds to me like an interpretation of experience based on a profusion of mental proliferation.

alan
Posts: 2624
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:14 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Miramar beach, Fl.

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby alan » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:19 am

More to the point, it assumes the conclusion, which is a logical fallacy.

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 4540
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby daverupa » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:27 pm

alan wrote:More to the point, it assumes the conclusion, which is a logical fallacy.


:clap:
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

User avatar
Dmytro
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby Dmytro » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:30 pm

Hi Dhamma Follower,

dhamma follower wrote:Just consider how much information you can get in a second: seeing someone, knowing the details of his/her face, recognizing who is the person, wanting to avoid, designing a scheme to do it...All of that involve so many mind processes and different sense-doors and kinds of consciousness, in just a second. That much already tells us how quickly dhammas rise and fall. Because consciousness arises dependently on the bases and objects, how many consciousness must rise and fall before all that information is perceived and processed?


The key feature of Conditioned Arising is that, in full complexity, it is non-linear. Recognition (sanna), feeling (vedana) and will (cetana) happen in parallel, being conditioned by contact (phassa), which requires consciousness (vinnana):

Phuttho bhikkhave vedeti, phuttho ceteti, phuttho sañjānāti...

Contacted, monks, one feels; contacted, one intends; contacted, one recognizes;...

SN35.93

http://dhamma.ru/lib/paticcas.htm

So the linear model of "consciousness moments" is, in my opinion, an oversimplification.

Regards,
Last edited by Dmytro on Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

dhamma follower
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby dhamma follower » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:28 pm

Dmytro wrote:Hi Dhamma Follower,

dhamma follower wrote:Just consider how much information you can get in a second: seeing someone, knowing the details of his/her face, recognizing who is the person, wanting to avoid, designing a scheme to do it...All of that involve so many mind processes and different sense-doors and kinds of consciousness, in just a second. That much already tells us how quickly dhammas rise and fall. Because consciousness arises dependently on the bases and objects, how many consciousness must rise and fall before all that information is perceived and processed?


The key feature of Conditioned Arising is that, in full complexity, it is non-linear. Recognition (sanna), feeling (vedana) and will (cetana) happen in parallel, being conditioned by contact (phassa), which requires consciousness (vinnana):

Phuttho bhikkhave vedeti, phuttho ceteti, phuttho sañjānāti...

Contacted, monks, one feels; contacted, one intends; contacted, one recognizes;...

SN35.93

http://dhamma.ru/lib/paticca.htm

So the linear model of "consciousness moments" is, in my opinion, an oversimplification.

Regards,


Hi Dmytro,

Of course it is not linear. When citta arises with one object, many cetasikas arise also at the same time. I understand that. But when the object changes, that means it is not the same citta any more, right? Visible object is not the same than sound, smell,...or thoughts. The sanna that arises and recognize someone is not the same than the ones that are are involved in thinking about how to avoid him. Because the objects are many, cittas must be many too.

Regards,

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby beeblebrox » Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:11 pm

dhamma follower wrote:Of course it is not linear. When citta arises with one object, many cetasikas arise also at the same time. I understand that. But when the object changes, that means it is not the same citta any more, right? Visible object is not the same than sound, smell,...or thoughts. The sanna that arises and recognize someone is not the same than the ones that are are involved in thinking about how to avoid him. Because the objects are many, cittas must be many too.


The only thing that is really shown here is that the citta changes... not that there are many cittas.

:anjali:

User avatar
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby beeblebrox » Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:51 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And if you think a toddler or a baby does not have wrong view and or "directly cognizes without any subjective comments," there is a great deal about a great deal you do not understand about babies and the Dhamma.


"to a toddler who moves about with difficulty, there are not even thoughts. How could doubts arise to him about thoughts? The latent tendency to doubt, filter to him. To a toddler who moves about with difficulty there are not even virtues. How could there be a holding to virtues as high? The latent tendency to hold to virtues as high filter to him. Malunkhyaputta, to a toddler there is not even sensual desires. How could there be interest for sensual desires? The latent tendencies to greed for sensual interest filter to him. Malunkhyaputta, to a toddler beings don't matter. How could he have anger towards beings? The latent tendencies to get angry filter to him. "
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ta-e1.html

Toddler does not have thoughts about self, doesn't have doubts, etc. So his/her awareness is bare of them. Why doesn't his bare attention to the present moment eliminate the fetters? Toddler can't have distracted thoughts, doubts or wrong views arise.
A toddler does not have thoughts about self? You have never heard a toddler wail: "I WANT!!!!" Or cry when something they like is taken away from him or her? Thoughts about self do not have to be well-formed conceptual structures for there to be a concern about wanting what pleases and not wanting what hurts. Though this translation say "toddler," "baby" might be more accurate, but even still babies seriously want what they want, seriously do not want what they do not want, even though do not have the words or concept to say so, which is indicative of a sense of self at play.

So, again your comment about "bare attention" is ill-placed.


This is a bit off-topic, (so I'll bring it back in a bit...) but I think that the toddler's behavior has nothing to do with "self"... that's only your view of it. (Basically using your own doctrine of self, so to speak...) The behavior (including your own perception of it) would be all D.O., which was started with ignorance... it then progressed on to constructing some more sankharas, and so on.

The toddler, out of his ignorance, would get his sankharas from the people who are around him (including you)... such as the reactions to his existence, their behaviors, in response to his own behavior, etc. That is basically why the dukkha ensues.

If you just see the toddler for what he is... see your own aversion to him for what it is... along with your own delusion of why you think that is (as in, trying to view the toddler as a separate self, or even trying to attribute this dukkha to the delusion of a self that you think you perceive in the toddler); then maybe the dukkha will be mitigated. Don't just blame the poor toddler... blame yourself.

I remember when I was little (yes, my memory goes that far back) I really had no concept of "self," but my behavior was still the same as any other kid's. I would attribute that to the ignorance (since I'm a Buddhist now)... or to put that in other words, I didn't know better at the time. :)

To bring it back to topic... this is where the Bahiya Sutta really comes in handy. It isn't really about keeping your mind in the present moment, or to keep the presence of a mind on something, but it's really more about seeing things for what they are, without any distortion of greed, hatred and/or delusion, as much as possible... and then you'll see.

That is what will lead to the end of dukkha... not just the "presence of mind," or paying attention to the "present moment," but with the Right Mindfulness, or paying attention without the greed, hatred, or delusion.

:anjali:

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2979
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby Alex123 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:20 pm

Hi Beeblebrox,

beeblebrox wrote:To bring it back to topic... this is where the Bahiya Sutta really comes in handy. It isn't really about keeping your mind in the present moment, or to keep the presence of a mind on something, but it's really more about seeing things for what they are, without any distortion of greed, hatred and/or delusion, as much as possible... and then you'll see. That is what will lead to the end of dukkha... not just the "presence of mind," or paying attention to the "present moment," but with the Right Mindfulness, or paying attention without the greed, hatred, or delusion.


I think that what the Buddha means in Bahiya sutta is to avoid adding extra interpretations to what is seen, heard, sensed or cognized.

Often it occurs that if one is in foul mood, one sees only the negative features of something and gets even more irritated. Similar for lust and delusion.

IMHO.
"dust to dust...."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20089
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:49 pm

beeblebrox wrote: This is a bit off-topic, (so I'll bring it back in a bit...) but I think that the toddler's behavior has nothing to do with "self"... that's only your view of it.
He said, expressing his own view of it all. Thanks, but I do not buy any of it.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 2979
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Postby Alex123 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:35 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
beeblebrox wrote: This is a bit off-topic, (so I'll bring it back in a bit...) but I think that the toddler's behavior has nothing to do with "self"... that's only your view of it.
He said, expressing his own view of it all. Thanks, but I do not buy any of it.


The Buddha has stated that the toddler does not behave with self view, lust or anger. Toddler is too undeveloped for that, though a toddler does have underlying tendency toward that. But toddler has to mature first.
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ta-e1.html

To me it suggests that bare awareness (if it is even possible), is NOT necessarily an indicator of awakening.
"dust to dust...."


Return to “Open Dhamma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron