Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

I can assure that how ever I regard nama-rupa, it is the correct way.

... and I am equally sure that that is how you will continue to regard it.

Metta,
Retro.

It was a joke, son, a joke, However what is not a joke, when I refer to the mind/body process, if I were to be asked what I mean, though this all can be talked about in various, and sometime very complex ways, I would say, keeping it simple, just six things: the conditioned rise and fall what is seen, what is heard, what is smelled, what is tasted, what is touched, what cognized, as the Buddha said: "you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself."

[tiltbillings]

You seem to be implying that apologetics is not a good thing, but like anything it depends.

Of course.

As far as my protest and complaints go, they certainly are a valid response to the those who are, to use your word, unconcerned about accurately portraying the Burmese vipassana traditions.

I was speaking of a lack of interest in Burmese vipassanā in general. If one isn't tied to the thought-world of the Vissudhimagga, then Burmese vipassanā doesn't really have much to offer that's especially interesting or important.

So, your opinion, but the reality is very different, thank the Buddha.

[tiltbillings]

I certainly do not know of any Buddhist meditation practice that advocates taking what is experienced as objectively real....

This is either a disingenuous statement or you are uninformed (or misinformed) about the Vipassanā meditation traditions which are based upon the view presented in the Visuddhimagga and further elaborated in post-Visuddhimagga commentaries.

And this enters into a set of topics the moves far afield from the OP, but has been discussed at length here, and, of course, it never, ever is so black and white as what you are trying to make it.

In his study of Mahasi Sayadaw vipassana practice STRONG ROOTS, Jake Davis, page 190-1, states:

Recall that from the perspective of the Buddha’s teachings in the Pali, the ‘All’ {SN IV 15} is composed entirely of phassa, contact between sense base and sense object. We can only directly know phenomena within this ‘world of experience’, so from the Theravadin perspective, we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness, of seeing (the image of a brain), and so on. The discourses of the Pali describe an individual world of experience as composed of various mental and physical factors, nama and rupa. These two are not the separate, independent worlds that Rene Descartes envisioned.

"…the Buddha spoke of the human person as a psychophysical personality (namarupa). Yet the psychic and the physical were never discussed in isolation, nor were they viewed as self-subsistent entities. For him, there was neither a ‘material-stuff’ nor a ‘mental-stuff’, because both are results of reductive analyses that go beyond experience."53

The physical and mental aspects of human experience are continually arising together, intimately dependent on one another.

53 Kalupahana 1976: 73, refers to D.15{II,62}, where the Buddha speaks of both
physicality and mentality mutually dependent forms of contact (phassa).
Physicality is described as contact with resistance (pat.ighasamphassa),
mentality as contact with concepts (adhivacanasamphassa).

[tiltbillings]

What does it mean to be "mindful"of something? What does that entail to you? To me, it means that you're holding something "in mind" as consistently as possible. This is what the word "remembrance" means. In the context of Dhamma, you're always mindful of the Buddha's teachings. You're mindful about doing your practice in the context of the Dhamma. That is "remembrance."

Have you read anything Ven Analayo has written on the subject?

Also, I think another issue in here might have to do with time... some people seem to think that "remembrance" implies that one is dwelling in the past, and that the "mindfulness" implies that one is living in present. This is in error. There is actually no such thing as a "present moment"... it's all impermanence.

Trying to fixate oneself in the "present moment" is to risk grappling with eternalism. The "present moment" (or "time," actually, as it is divided up by people in the past, present, and future) is to anicca in the same way that "self" is to anatta.

There is no fixation on the "present moment." It is a matter of staying present with the experience of the rise and fall of one's mind/body process, as the Buddha said: "you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself."

For the longest time, I would be a bit confused why many people seem to want define the "mindfulness" as (solely) being aware of the present moment. If you actually paid attention to your practice, you can clearly see that it's an illusion. It's exactly the same as trying to find a "self".

Trying to cultivate the "awareness of the present moment" seems to be the same as trying to cultivate a "self". You're basically trying to see the permanence of something that just isn't there. I guess that's maybe why these people want to define "mindfulness" in that way... they want to find some comfort by finding some permanence in the present moment. It's very subtle... and causes a lot of dukkha, as can be seen in this thread.

When you "remember" something, it always becomes a part of the "present moment" anyway. So what's the issue, really?

What you seem to be doing here, as several folks are, is trying to make concrete some thing that is quite fluid.

[beeblebrox]

Have you read anything Ven Analayo has written on the subject?

No, but I would like to. The post was directed at Dukkhanirodha, not him.

There is no fixation on the "present moment." It is a matter of staying present with the experience of the rise and fall of one's mind/body process, as the Buddha said: "you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself."

Exactly... there is no present moment, only what is experienced.

What you seem to be doing here, as several folks are, is trying to make concrete some thing that is quite fluid.

The intention was to show how fluid it can be.

[tiltbillings]

Have you read anything Ven Analayo has written on the subject?

No, but I would like to.

I hope you do. You may not agree with him, but I hope you can appreciate his point of view.

The post was directed at Dukkhanirodha.

And I responded.

There is no fixation on the "present moment." It is a matter of staying present with the experience of the rise and fall of one's mind/body process, as the Buddha said: "you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself."

Exactly... there is no present moment, only what is experienced.

"Present movement" is a way of talking about things, just like the "I" in saying "'I' need to practice meditation more."

What you seem to be doing here, as several folks are, is trying to make concrete some thing that is quite fluid.

My intention was to show how fluid it can be.

That is a good thing, but please be open to the fact that vipassana-wallahs might be a little more sophisticated in their understanding of things than: 'Trying to fixate oneself in the "present moment".'

[beeblebrox]

What you seem to be doing here, as several folks are, is trying to make concrete some thing that is quite fluid.

My intention was to show how fluid it can be.

That is a good thing, but please be open to the fact that vipassana-wallahs might be a little more sophisticated in their understanding of things than: 'Trying to fixate oneself in the "present moment".'

Of course... but I get that impression from Dukkhanirodha. Apologies in advance if that wasn't the case for him.

[Assaji]

and can you explain how then you understand "remembrance in the present" as being fundamentally different from "awareness in the present"?

In the context of samadhi practice, remembrance in the present is practiced as any of "recollections" (anussati), for example, the recollection of the Buddha, etc., or remembrance of the basis of concentration (arammana), perceptual image (nimitta).

Remembrance in the present is also directed to abandoning unskillful and developing the skillful, e.g.:

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's obviously not an awareness of something presently happening.

Goenka:
There are certain passages in the Buddha’s discourses where sati has the meaning of "memory." (Dīgha-nikāya: VRI I. 411; II. 374; PTS I. 180; II. 292). This is especially true when he refers to the special ability of remembering past lives which is developed by means of the practice of the jhānas (deep absorption concentration). But in the context of Satipaṭṭhāna, the practice of Vipassana, leading not to the jhānas but to purification of mind, sati can only be understood to mean awareness of the present moment rather than a memory of the past (or a dream of the future).

Thank you for the quote, it's interesting. I agree that in the context of Satipatthana, sati does not mean a memory of the past.

For Pa Auk there is probably no particular definition given by him. As stated above, he uses the word "mindfulness" to translate sati in the context of meditation practice and that seems to be good enough for him.

It seems you grant a lot of credit to the late Theravada tradition. I don't see any valid ground for this. Rather, the only thing I consider as highly relevant and reliable is right practice with aroused effort for a long time.

I highly respect both practice and the Theravada tradition, which is still alive.

and I repeat again: you are not able to provide a proper translation of 'parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā' since it would look like:

'setting the recollection/remembrance at the moustache area'

I don't see any problem with this. Obviously the object of remembrance is omitted here, and is implied:

"setting the remembrance (of the air as a basis of concentration) at the moustache area".

I think i will stop trying to argue with you because you openly refuse to admit the evidence, which reveals your lack of intellectual honesty.

I am also inclined to stop the converstion with you, since your replies are consistently disrespectful, and arguments are directed at my personality.

[Assaji]

Hi Dhamma Follower,

I didn't say that sati was "being focused". What i said was that sati doesn't only mean to remember to distinguish the wholesome from the unwholesome, but also means remembering ( i'd call it recording, actually) the working of the five khandas as they arise. It is not so much about the remembrance aspect of sati, but about the object of this "remembrance" .

Your words remind me of several relevant phrases:

"Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance.

Or his mindfulness that 'There are feelings' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance.

Or his mindfulness that 'There is a mind' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance.

Or his mindfulness that 'There are mental qualities' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Just as in the last month of the hot season, when all the crops have been gathered into the village, a cowherd would look after his cows: While resting under the shade of a tree or out in the open, he simply keeps himself mindful of 'those cows.' In the same way, I simply kept myself mindful of 'those mental qualities.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Without this "recording" of the arising of different dhammas here and now, how sampajana can come to know the characteristics of reality?

In my opinion, sati helps to keep in mind the precise sphere of practice, and its purpose, so that sampajana can be used to observe what's going on in that sphere, what arises and ceases there, how close is the goal.

Regards,

[tiltbillings]

It is not about defend or attack.

Given the amount of criticism directed at the Burmese vipassana traditions, often by folks who really do not have a clue about what they are talking, it looks like attack, and feels like defense.

[Nyana]

I certainly do not know of any Buddhist meditation practice that advocates taking what is experienced as objectively real....

This is either a disingenuous statement or you are uninformed (or misinformed) about the Vipassanā meditation traditions which are based upon the view presented in the Visuddhimagga and further elaborated in post-Visuddhimagga commentaries.

And this enters into a set of topics the moves far afield from the OP, but has been discussed at length here, and, of course, it never, ever is so black and white as what you are trying to make it.

There's nothing to be gained by waffling. At some point one either buys into the view and system presented in the Visuddhimagga and post-Visuddhimagga treatises and commentaries or one doesn't.

[tiltbillings]

There's nothing to be gained by waffling. At some point one either buys into the view and system presented in the Visuddhimagga and post-Visuddhimagga treatises and commentaries or one doesn't.

Waffling? You should talk. Sorry (not really) that I do not buy into your black and white -- either/or -- view of things.

Back top the topic, please.

[Nyana]

Sati functions to direct awareness away from the five strands of sensual pleasure and place.

The above seems to conflict with what we read here:

Bhikkhus, the bhikkhu following my Teaching knows the mind accompanied by passion, as 'Mind with passion'....

Are you suggesting that this is an injunction to simply sit wallowing in passion and other defilements? I don't think it is. SN 47.6 Sakuṇagghi Sutta:

• Do not stray, monks, into what is not your own range and is the domain of others. Māra will gain access to those who stray into what is not their own range and is the domain of others. Māra will get a hold on them.
  
  And what, for a monk, is not his own range and is the domain of others? The five strands of sensual pleasure.... These, for a monk, are not his own range and are the domain of others.
  
  Move, monks, in what is your own range, your own ancestral domain. Māra will not gain access to those who move in their own range, their own ancestral domain. Māra will not get a hold on them.
  
  And what, for a monk, is his own range, his own ancestral domain? The four applications of mindfulness. Which four? Here monks, a monk remains contemplating the body in the body, ardent, fully aware, mindful, having removed covetousness and unhappiness with regard to the world. He remains contemplating feelings in feelings ... mind in mind ... phenomena in phenomena, ardent, fully aware, mindful, having removed covetousness and unhappiness with regard to the world. This, for a monk, is his own range, his own ancestral domain.

We have to remember that sammāsati is an integral member of a group: the aggregate of meditative composure (samādhikkhandha). This group also includes right effort (sammāvāyāma) and right meditative composure (sammāsamādhi). And as the Vibhaṅga informs us, the function of remaining ardent within the sammāsati instruction, means applying appropriate effort and exertion as one practices. Therefore, sammāsati isn't so passive as Ven. Anālayo would have us believe.

By Inferential, do you mean through a kind of mental process, no direct understanding?

Saññā is a mental process. As is ñāṇa and all other mental phenomena. And as Sn 4.13 tells us, an arahant doesn't follow views (na diṭṭhisāri) and isn't tied even to gnosis (napi ñāṇabandhu). Also, AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:

• Whatever is seen or heard or sensed
  and fastened onto as true by others,
  One who is Such — among the self-fettered —
  wouldn't further claim to be true or even false.
  
  Having seen well in advance that arrow
  where generations are fastened & hung
  — 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' —
  there's nothing of the Tathāgata fastened.

Would you provide textual support for this?

Regarding saññā, SN 22.95 Pheṇapiṇḍūpama Sutta:

• Recognition (saññā) is like a mirage.

Regarding the entire complex of name-and-form (nāmarūpa), Sn 3.12: Dvayatānupassanā Sutta:

• Whatever is transitory certainly has a false nature.

[Alex123]

The above seems to conflict with what we read here:
Bhikkhus, the bhikkhu following my Teaching knows[49] the mind accompanied by passion,[50] as 'Mind with passion'; he knows the mind unaccompanied by passion, as 'Mind without passion';

Since sati is or includes memory, one remembers the past instance of passion or one analyzes the nature of passion in general.

I do not believe that the Buddha asks us to produce passion, an akusala state. Never! Same with other akusala states.

[tiltbillings]

I do not believe that the Buddha asks us to produce passion, an akusala state. Never! Same with other akusala states.

The question is what do you do with already arisen passion?