Goenka on elimination of sankharas

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
SarathW
Posts: 2737
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby SarathW » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:51 am

Does past Sankhara = past Kamma?
Does both mean the same?
:thinking:

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14812
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby retrofuturist » Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:31 am

Greetings,

pilgrim wrote:Is there any sutta reference that clearly states that PAST, EXISTING sankharas can be eliminated through mindfulness of sensations?
If so, why did the arahants still have to suffer for their past kamma?

More fundamentally, are there suttas that even talk about the notion of "PAST, EXISTING sankharas" (i.e. specific sankharas that existed, and continue to exist through to the present), nevermind the means for their elimination?

The closest I can think of is this...

SN 35.145: Kamma Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.

"And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma.

"And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

"So, monks, I have taught you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you."

It seems the Noble Eightfold Path is the answer to a lot of questions!

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
pilgrim
Posts: 997
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby pilgrim » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:38 am

I believe Goenka's method is firmly within Vedananupassana. I am trying to understand his explanation of the mechanics behind its efficacy.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 10788
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:43 am

suttametta wrote:[Regarding Anapanasati and where to watch the breath...]
Yes it does. Parimukham. Mukha is face. Pari is in front. I'm sorry we can't get along. I don't agree with many things. I respect your opinions. I suppose, because this is a Theravada site, it is nt appropriate to challenge the Theravada vision of dharma. I revere the suttas. The other stuff, not so much.

I'm sure we can get along.

Regarding Anapanasati, your interpretation is the interpretation of the Theravada Commentaries. Some modern commentators disagree:
Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote:To the fore (parimukham): The Abhidhamma takes an etymological approach to this term, defining it as around (pari-) the mouth (mukham). In the Vinaya, however, it is used in a context (Cv.V.27.4) where it undoubtedly means the front of the chest. There is also the possibility that the term could be used idiomatically as "to the front," which is how I have translated it here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-2


See also this thread:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5636

In any case, my point is that there is almost nothing in the suttas that read like the meditation instructions in the books and talks by modern teachers such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Ajahn Brahm, Mahasi Sayadaw, Goenka, Ajahn Buddhadasa, and so on.

I don't actually see that as a problem. The satipatthana suttas say to be aware of vedena. Whether you do that by scanning (as in Goenka's instructions), or observing it whenever it becomes prominent, without specifically looking for it (as in, for example, Mahasi Sayadaw's approach) doesn't imply a disagreement over Dhamma. These teachers simply offer practical advice on how to implement the sutta instruction:
Herein, monks, a monk when experiencing a pleasant feeling knows, "I experience a pleasant feeling"; when experiencing a painful feeling, he knows, "I experience a painful feeling"; ...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nysa.html

:anjali:
Mike

Sylvester
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby Sylvester » Fri Feb 07, 2014 5:14 am

I'm rather inclined to agree with Mr Goenka, as what he says about saṅkhāra looks like a discussion of the anusaya. Here's a fairly standard exhortation regarding the establishment of equanimity (as a cetasika/emotional response) in reaction to the different types of feelings felt as pleasure and pain (as kāyika/hedonic tone)-

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's resistance-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. That a person — without abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, without abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, without uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, without abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing isn't possible.

etc etc for the other 5 sense faculties, followed by the contra-case:

Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person — through abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing is possible.

MN 148 - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


What Ven Thanissaro translates as "obsession" are rendered elsewhere as "latent tendency" (anusaya).

Take a look at SN 12.38 for the role of the anusaya as the most basic and fundamental form of saṅkhāra that drives rebirth - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

These sort of "temporary" samatha moments, when one's anusaya (tendency) does not anuseti (underlie) the feeling would qualify as the case praised in SN 12.38 -

But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness.

NB - "obsess" here is anuseti, the operative verb for anusaya)


Take a close look at AN 4.233 if you can at the Pali. 4 types of kamma are described - dark kamma, light kamma, light-&-dark kamma, and kamma that leads to the destruction of kamma. The first 3 are described by the verb abhisankharoti, but no such verb is applied to the 4th. Its usage in the suttas suggests that abhisankharoti is one of the verb forms associated with saṅkhāra.

One's anusaya are moulded by one's habits that develop into one's character (whether in this life or the next). Notwithstanding the Western view that portrays the Buddhist theory of kamma as requiring intentional action to be ethically significant, this is actually not borne out by the suttas. Even "unconscious" habitual responses that are not "intentional" or made unawares qualify as saṅkhāra that push one into rebirth. Look at SN 12.25 where abhisankharoti is again implicated with the saṅkhāra, even if done asampajāna (unconsciously).

What Mr Goenka presents actually has doctrinal support, but it does require one to look at the most subtle form of saṅkhāra to make sense.

User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: England

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby gavesako » Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:23 am

In his comments on MN 101, Ven. Thanissaro is at pains to emphasise the difference between the Jain and the Buddhist approach to overcome all pain:

The second important point touched on in this sutta — how to put an end to pain and suffering — relates to the first. If the cause of present suffering were located exclusively in the past, no one could do anything in the present moment to stop that suffering; the most that could be done would be to endure the suffering while not creating any new kamma leading to future suffering. Although this was the Jain approach to practice, many people at present believe that it is the Buddhist approach as well. Meditation, according to this understanding, is the process of purifying the mind of old kamma by training it to look on with non-reactive equanimity as pain arises. The pain is the result of old kamma, the equanimity adds no new kamma, and thus over time all old kamma can be burned away.

In this sutta, however, the Buddha heaps ridicule on this idea. First he notes that none of the Niganthas have ever come to the end of pain by trying to burn it away in this way; then he notes that they have based their belief in this practice entirely on their faith in their teacher and their approval of his ideas, but neither faith nor approval can act as guarantees of the truth. As he illustrates with his simile of the man shot with an arrow, only a person who has succeeded in going beyond pain would be in a position to speak with authority of the method that actually puts an end to pain. (What is not mentioned in this sutta is the Nigantha idea that the practice of austerities, to succeed completely in burning away old kamma, must culminate in a suicide by starvation. Thus there could be no living person who would be able to vouch for the efficacy of their method.)

The Buddha then provides his own account of how meditation actually works in putting an end to pain and suffering. His discussion shows that the problem underlying pain is not past action, but passion — in the present — for the causes of pain. In other words, pain is not inevitable. Present suffering can be prevented by changing one's understanding of, and attitude toward, the cause of suffering in the present. The Buddha illustrates this principle with the simile of a man in love with a woman: As long as he feels passion for her, he will suffer when he sees her enjoying the company of another man; when, seeing the connection between his suffering and his passion, he abandons that passion, he will no longer suffer from that cause.

Thus the practice must focus on ways to understand and bring about dispassion for the causes of stress and pain here and now. As the Buddha points out in MN 106, equanimity plays an important role in this practice, but it can also become an object for passion and delight, which would then stand in the way of true release. Thus he notes here that, in some cases, dispassion can arise simply from on-looking equanimity directed at the causes of stress. In other cases, it can come only through exertion: the mental effort — through the fabrications of directed thought, evaluation, and perception — to develop the discernment needed to see through and abandon any and all passion.

The remainder of the sutta is devoted to a standard map of how the practice develops over time, showing how the proper mixture of on-looking equanimity combined with fabrication and exertion can lead to dispassion, and through dispassion to release from all stress and suffering.


"And how is striving fruitful, how is exertion fruitful? There is the case where a monk, when not loaded down, does not load himself down with pain, nor does he reject pleasure that accords with the Dhamma, although he is not fixated on that pleasure. He discerns that 'When I exert a [physical, verbal, or mental] fabrication against this cause of stress, then from the fabrication of exertion there is dispassion. When I look on with equanimity at that cause of stress, then from the development of equanimity there is dispassion.' So he exerts a fabrication against the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the fabrication of exertion, and develops equanimity with regard to the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the development of equanimity. Thus the stress coming from the cause of stress for which there is dispassion through the fabrication of exertion is exhausted & the stress resulting from the cause of stress for which there is dispassion through the development of equanimity is exhausted.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

ajahnchah.org - Teachings of Ajahn Chah in many languages
Dhammatube - Videos on Buddhist practice
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts

Sylvester
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby Sylvester » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:55 am

Good grief. As if the establishment of equanimity by overcoming 2 anusayas is -

1. Equivalent to burning up old kamma; and
2. One does not strive to do so.

Sometimes I wish the good ajahn would desist with these strawman attacks.

User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1416
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: England

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby gavesako » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:20 pm

I think he does this on purpose after hearing from many Goenka practitioners who use this kind of language ("letting the old sankharas become exhausted" etc.) implying that it is the best way to reach liberation, whereas for some people other methods might be necessary. One technique does not fit all individuals, that is his main criticism probably.
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

ajahnchah.org - Teachings of Ajahn Chah in many languages
Dhammatube - Videos on Buddhist practice
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1825
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby kirk5a » Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:35 pm

Sylvester wrote:I'm rather inclined to agree with Mr Goenka, as what he says about saṅkhāra looks like a discussion of the anusaya.

Great analysis Sylvester, that's really interesting thanks. The anusaya are an Important topic in my estimation.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

User avatar
Monkey Mind
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:56 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby Monkey Mind » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:18 pm

Pilgrim, if you are looking for Mr. Goenka's explanation, you might benefit from reading his discourses on the Satipatthana Sutta:
http://store.pariyatti.org/Satipatthana ... _1814.html
"As I am, so are others;
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.

Sutta Nipāta 3.710

User avatar
Monkey Mind
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:56 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby Monkey Mind » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:25 pm

Regarding the other comments about focusing exclusively on the past kamma or sankharas, that is not what Mr. Goenka is suggesting. You have to develop equanimity with current experiences first, before you are able to interact with past sankharas.
"As I am, so are others;
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.

Sutta Nipāta 3.710

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 4154
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: California, USA

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby Mkoll » Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:35 pm

Sylvester wrote:One's anusaya are moulded by one's habits that develop into one's character (whether in this life or the next). Notwithstanding the Western view that portrays the Buddhist theory of kamma as requiring intentional action to be ethically significant, this is actually not borne out by the suttas. Even "unconscious" habitual responses that are not "intentional" or made unawares qualify as saṅkhāra that push one into rebirth. Look at SN 12.25 where abhisankharoti is again implicated with the saṅkhāra, even if done asampajāna (unconsciously).


Thank you for presenting that sutta.

Habits are in turn moulded by one's intentional actions. The unconscious habitual responses I have developed out of ignorance have at their root volitional actions of the past. If prompted by others and undeliberately, I perform an action out of habit, there is ignorance present in that action and thus past volitional actions (dependent origination). From past intention arises habit which may become unconscious, undeliberate, and prompted by others. Ethical significance does require intentional action, just not necessarily in the present. That's my interpretation after reading the sutta. So I would amend (as emphasized) your statement as follows.

Notwithstanding the Western view that portrays the Buddhist theory of kamma as requiring present intentional action to be ethically significant, this is actually not borne out by the suttas.


What do you think?

:anjali:
Peace,
James

suttametta
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby suttametta » Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:04 am

Feelings (vedanā) of pleasure, pain or neutral are the ripening (phala) of past actions (kamma). Sankhara are not the past. They are present intentions about the future. Sankhara is, as they say in the South, "fixing to," when we are about to do something. Sankhara are the present volitions of body, speech and mind conditioned by lobha, dosa and moha, which are in turn conditioned by vedanā. The moha is the most important part, the moha is papanca about past, present and future kamma phala (which are unreal), based on lobha and dosa (and all kilesa) about the vedanā. Vedanā are always the main experience, bc these are the phala.

I don't understand the terminology that says these rise to the surface. I don't understand where they are arising from or to what surface. I've heard the Hindu masters speak in this way, as if there is a deep cleaning to do. Yogacara also have an idea of layers over a storehouse where seeds of habits dwell. I don't accept this idea. Buddha said all 12 links are unreal. If you are sitting and start to get up, it's the body sankhara. The reason one is getting up is lobha, dosa or moha, and often papanca, which is an outgrowth of these. But if you have sati, then these don't continue. Sati short circuits that loop. If you keep sati it develops into the bhojanga and jhana.

It makes more sense to me to say the asavas try to flow out. The urges (tanha) of body, speech and mind appear and cause one to want to leave the seat and externalize inner experience. By keeping four foundations then these also don't develop. This is basic 12 links. Anapanasati is the best tool against this I know. The breath need is the most basic vedanā/tanha.

:anjali:

SarathW
Posts: 2737
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby SarathW » Sat Feb 08, 2014 4:17 am

Hi SM
I like your line of thinking, which will support from the attched.

P337:

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddh ... gsurw6.pdf


It seems U Ba Khin is not technically correct, though he seems to expereince what he says.
(See my previous link)
In the same link Goenka very clearly showed us how this technic works.
Basically he said that the objective is to understand the no self nature of the process.
Which is Inline with the following.

==============
Feeling (vedanaa)
In the Abhidhamma context the word "feeling" signifies the affective experience of an object; it does not imply emotion, which comes under a different heading. Feeling is associated with every type of consciousness. Like the citta itself it is of momentary duration, arising and perishing in an instant. This arising and perishing occur in rapid succession, so much so that they create an illusion of compactness and stability obscuring the momentariness. But the momentariness can be experienced through the practice of mindfulness. It will then be realized that there is no self or agent that experiences the feeling. There is only the arising and disappearing of an impersonal process. As long as we do not see how this impersonal process occurs we will be led to believe that feeling is the self, or the self possesses feeling, or feeling is in the self, or the self is in feeling. These beliefs keep us bound to suffering — to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el322.html

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 4154
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: California, USA

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby Mkoll » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:11 am

suttametta wrote:Buddha said all 12 links are unreal.

Hi SM,

Can you explain what you mean by this and provide a reference if possible?

Thank you.
Peace,
James

Sylvester
Posts: 1644
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby Sylvester » Sat Feb 08, 2014 7:42 am

Mkoll wrote:
Sylvester wrote:One's anusaya are moulded by one's habits that develop into one's character (whether in this life or the next). Notwithstanding the Western view that portrays the Buddhist theory of kamma as requiring intentional action to be ethically significant, this is actually not borne out by the suttas. Even "unconscious" habitual responses that are not "intentional" or made unawares qualify as saṅkhāra that push one into rebirth. Look at SN 12.25 where abhisankharoti is again implicated with the saṅkhāra, even if done asampajāna (unconsciously).


Thank you for presenting that sutta.

Habits are in turn moulded by one's intentional actions. The unconscious habitual responses I have developed out of ignorance have at their root volitional actions of the past. If prompted by others and undeliberately, I perform an action out of habit, there is ignorance present in that action and thus past volitional actions (dependent origination). From past intention arises habit which may become unconscious, undeliberate, and prompted by others. Ethical significance does require intentional action, just not necessarily in the present. That's my interpretation after reading the sutta. So I would amend (as emphasized) your statement as follows.

Notwithstanding the Western view that portrays the Buddhist theory of kamma as requiring present intentional action to be ethically significant, this is actually not borne out by the suttas.



What do you think?

:anjali:


Hi ya.

For me, ethical significance finds expression in rebirth. So, what drives rebirth? Only intentional actions (be it past or present) or even unintentional formations? For me, SN 12.38 suggests the latter.

That sutta discusses 3 verbs that lead to/cause rebecoming, ie ceteti (intends) pakappeti (arranges/designs), and anuseti (lies with/underlie). When faced by a listing, the first thing I normally do is to ask if they might be synonyms arranged according to the waxing syllable rule. The syllable count suggests that this might be possible (3 - 4 - 4).

However, the structure of the sutta displaces the waxing syllable presumption. It says that even if one does not intend and does not arrange, but one lies with (the feeling), it creates the basis for the stationing of consciousness. That last culprit would be the anusaya (the substantive noun from the verb anuseti).

SN 12.25 is not the only sutta that discusses unconscious formations. Take a look at MN 64's simile of the infant being beset by all the different types of anusaya, despite not having any conception or complex ideas about the "object" towards which the emotional response is directed.

I suspect the obsession with "intentional" kamma stems from how AN 6.63's maxim is understood "Intention, I tell you, is kamma" (Cetanāhaṃ bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi). I do not follow the interpretation that this declaration by the Buddha was intended to be an exhaustive definition of kamma. It could well have been a statement in reaction to the Vedic idea of karma as ritual, rather than karma as intention.

Secondly, AN 6.63's universe of factors responsible for rebirth is not limited to kamma. The immediately preceding list discusses the āsavā (taints, outflows). This is a term that is used broadly to capture everything in the formations, all the way down to the anusaya.

So, on balance, I think the suttas do have a place for those defilements over which we are seldom conscious, except under the full glare of meditation.

:anjali:

culaavuso
Posts: 1247
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby culaavuso » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:14 pm

Sylvester wrote:However, the structure of the sutta displaces the waxing syllable presumption. It says that even if one does not intend and does not arrange, but one lies with (the feeling), it creates the basis for the stationing of consciousness. That last culprit would be the anusaya (the substantive noun from the verb anuseti).

SN 12.25 is not the only sutta that discusses unconscious formations. Take a look at MN 64's simile of the infant being beset by all the different types of anusaya, despite not having any conception or complex ideas about the "object" towards which the emotional response is directed.

I suspect the obsession with "intentional" kamma stems from how AN 6.63's maxim is understood "Intention, I tell you, is kamma" (Cetanāhaṃ bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi). I do not follow the interpretation that this declaration by the Buddha was intended to be an exhaustive definition of kamma. It could well have been a statement in reaction to the Vedic idea of karma as ritual, rather than karma as intention.

Secondly, AN 6.63's universe of factors responsible for rebirth is not limited to kamma. The immediately preceding list discusses the āsavā (taints, outflows). This is a term that is used broadly to capture everything in the formations, all the way down to the anusaya.


Sylvester, thank you for these informative posts. I'm curious what you would say about the relationship between these factors, however. Are anusaya fed or starved through intentional action? Are the āsavā fed or starved through intentional action? If the future condition of the anusaya and āsavā depends on our present intentions, as the notion of right effort seems to suggest, then to what extent should the anusaya and āsavā in the present be viewed as the result of past intentions?

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 4518
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby daverupa » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:34 pm

Perhaps some useful bits for this exploration:

SN 35.146 wrote:And what, bhikkhus, is old kamma? The eye is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. The ear is old kamma … The mind is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt. This is called old kamma.


AN 3.34 wrote:Bhikkhus, there are these three causes for the origination of kamma. What three? Greed is a cause for the origination of kamma; hatred is a cause for the origination of kamma; delusion is a cause for the origination of kamma.

...

Bhikkhus, there are these three other causes for the origination of kamma. What three? Non-greed is a cause for the origination of kamma; non-hatred is a cause for the origination of kamma; non-delusion is a cause for the origination of kamma.

...any kamma that is fashioned through non-greed … non-hatred … non-delusion, born of non-delusion, caused by non-delusion, originated by non-delusion, is abandoned when delusion has vanished; it is cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that it is no more subject to future arising.”
    "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]

suttametta
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby suttametta » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:43 pm

Mkoll wrote:
suttametta wrote:Buddha said all 12 links are unreal.

Hi SM,

Can you explain what you mean by this and provide a reference if possible?

Thank you.


His famous saying, see the world as foam.

culaavuso
Posts: 1247
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Goenka on elimination of sankharas

Postby culaavuso » Sat Feb 08, 2014 6:17 pm

suttametta wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
suttametta wrote:Buddha said all 12 links are unreal.

Hi SM,

Can you explain what you mean by this and provide a reference if possible?

Thank you.


His famous saying, see the world as foam.


By this saying, do you mean SN 22.95? It seems this sutta is saying to view form as foam in the context of the five aggregates.

SN 22.95: Phena Sutta wrote:Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —


Return to “Theravada Meditation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DhammaOS, Majestic-12 [Bot], nintendo and 6 guests