Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

nathan wrote:

mikenz66 wrote: And what about the concept "my self"? Is that an "object of mind-conciousness". Kind of, but it's built from complex interactions analysable into all khandhas or sense bases.

Assuming this is a serious question I'll attempt an answer. The arising, appearance and passing of the concept: "one plus one is two" is subject to the perception of the three characteristics in manifold ways. A concept is composed of a mind object(s) which arises in co-dependence together with the supporting mental qualities ...

dhamma follower wrote: Again, the key point is to see that concepts come as a result of a sequence of processes, they are not object of panna, they are object (or content) of sanna. Panna is not concerned with the content of sanna, it is concerned with its individual characteristics (sabhava) and general characteristics (tilakkhana). That's why the distinction between the two are necessary, so that yonisso manasikara can arise.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

Vitakka. . .

dhamma follower wrote:There's not yet an agreement that the content of Abhidhamma contradicts the sutta.

mikenz66 wrote:I agree, and that's how I understand it. The concept is "processed" by a complicated stream of mind objects, it's not a "single object".

Kenshou wrote:Dividing things into smaller bits is probably more useful as a basis for discerning anicca. Though I doubt that the more detailed designations are more "ultimate" than the vaguer ones, all being just labels when you get down to it..

Alex123 wrote:

Kenshou wrote:Dividing things into smaller bits is probably more useful as a basis for discerning anicca. Though I doubt that the more detailed designations are more "ultimate" than the vaguer ones, all being just labels when you get down to it..

Division (analysis) is a mental activity just as much as synthesis (making wholes out of parts). It is conceptual. Wholes and parts is mental division.

Are parts or wholes given in 5 sense experience? No.

Alex123 wrote:Division (analysis) is a mental activity just as much as synthesis (making wholes out of parts). It is conceptual. Wholes and parts is mental division.

tiltbillings wrote:As an an intellectual practice, but not necessarily as a meditative practice.

There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.

"Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal...

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,

Alex123 wrote:Division (analysis) is a mental activity just as much as synthesis (making wholes out of parts). It is conceptual. Wholes and parts is mental division.

tiltbillings wrote:As an an intellectual practice, but not necessarily as a meditative practice.

Not inadmissible though until the second jhana...

There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.

"Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal...

Does abiding in the first jhana qualify as "meditation practice"?

Metta,
Retro.

tiltbillings wrote:Of course, it always depends upon what is meant by jhana, but I am not necessarily talking about jhana practice.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

tiltbillings wrote:Of course, it always depends upon what is meant by jhana, but I am not necessarily talking about jhana practice.

Good to see the qualification - any inference that something is not "meditative practice" simply because it doesn't reflect our own personal "meditative practice" is fraught with danger.

Much of what is admissable in the first jhana gets unfairly dismissed at times as "mere thinking", "just thinking", "an intellectual exercise", "philosophy" etc.

Metta,
Retro.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote:....But if you look directly at the Pali discourses — the earliest extant sources for our knowledge of the Buddha's teachings — you'll find that although they do use the word samatha to mean tranquillity, and vipassana to mean clear-seeing, they otherwise confirm none of the received wisdom about these terms. Only rarely do they make use of the word vipassana — a sharp contrast to their frequent use of the word jhana. When they depict the Buddha telling his disciples to go meditate, they never quote him as saying "go do vipassana," but always "go do jhana." And they never equate the word vipassana with any mindfulness techniques. In the few instances where they do mention vipassana, they almost always pair it with samatha — not as two alternative methods, but as two qualities of mind that a person may "gain" or "be endowed with," and that should be developed together. One simile, for instance (SN 35.204), compares samatha and vipassana to a swift pair of messengers who enter the citadel of the body via the noble eightfold path and present their accurate report — Unbinding, or nibbana — to the consciousness acting as the citadel's commander. Another passage (AN 10.71) recommends that anyone who wishes to put an end to mental defilement should — in addition to perfecting the principles of moral behavior and cultivating seclusion — be committed to samatha and endowed with vipassana. This last statement is unremarkable in itself, but the same discourse also gives the same advice to anyone who wants to master the jhanas: be committed to samatha and endowed with vipassana. This suggests that, in the eyes of those who assembled the Pali discourses, samatha, jhana, and vipassana were all part of a single path. Samatha and vipassana were used together to master jhana and then — based on jhana — were developed even further to give rise to the end of mental defilement and to bring release from suffering. This is a reading that finds support in other discourses as well.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings DF,

dhamma follower wrote:There's not yet an agreement that the content of Abhidhamma contradicts the sutta.

For you maybe (if you don't see all the implicit philosophical baggage it drags to the table) but it doesn't matter because simply, that's not what this niche sub-forum is about.

If you wish to explore things from an Abhidhammic perspective you've got many sub-forums here in which it would be appropriate. This, is not one of them.

If you wish to explore the Abhidhammic concept of concepts please do so in an appropriate sub-forum - you may also link to it from this topic for the benefit of those who might be interested in it. There's a time and a place for everything.

See also: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=10222" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Until then...



Metta,
Retro.

dhamma follower wrote:Don't you think it is arbitrary and unfair to assume THE right understanding of the sutta is not found in the Abhidhamma?