Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Greetings,

Sylvester wrote:

retrofuturist wrote: You've clearly got a different take on some key terminology to me, so it makes sense for you to define this yourself, I think. For what it's worth, your saññā seems more similar to my nama-rupa (i.e. name and form, or as Sylvester called it elsewhere, naming and form).

But which vortex do you refer to? The point at paṭighasamphassa (bare/initial sensory contact, which afflicts even Arahants) or adhivacanasamphassa (designation contact, which Arahants continue to use as as part of naming) or the sequel paññapeti (which Arahants continue to do as part of the sphere of wisdom/paññāvacara so necessary to communicate the reality of suffering)?

Your questions always hurt my head Sylvester.

I don't think I mean any of those, because I understand phassa in accordance with Nanavira Thera's description of it. I'd source the definition for you now, but the site in question is blocked at my present location.

Given that the mutual reinforcement of the experience of nama-rupa (the naming of forms of the naming of forms of the naming of forms...) is occasionally depicted in sutta depictions of paticcasamuppada, I think that's adequate vortex enough without necessitating any kind of 1:1 mapping to any of those three low-level phenomena you mention... none of which I'm particularly familiar with.

Metta,
Retro.

Sylvester wrote:

But which vortex do you refer to? . . .

Good stuff. I greatly appreciate your input here.

Very interesting Sylvester. Can I summarize your point as something like the following?

1. There are some passages in the suttas that seem to be very difficult to interpret.
2. Some scholars, such as Ven Nanananda, have reasoned out particular interpretations and they feel that the Theravada have erred on some key points.
3. Other scholars, while agreeing that the Commentators missed the point, would argue that the key problem is actually not understanding the Upanishadic background. When that is factored in, they become much simpler. As Sylvester explains, if you take Upanishadic references (e.g. the "All" not being the Buddha's usual "All", as Ven Thanissaro assumes, but the Upanishadic "Ground of Existence") then much of MN1 looks less mysterious.

It is fortunate that we have access to various perspectives.


Mike

retrofuturist wrote:

Spiny Norman wrote:I'm not sure about your definition of sanna, because I think there's a distinction between perception and apperception. As I understand it, sanna is perception while apperception is what follows - conceiving and proliferating. So perception would be "chair" while apperception would be "nice chair", "my chair" etc.

You've clearly got a different take on some key terminology to me, so it makes sense for you to define this yourself, I think. For what it's worth, your saññā seems more similar to my nama-rupa (i.e. name and form, or as Sylvester called it elsewhere, naming and form).

I think "sanna" is difficult to pin down because there's little description of it in the suttas - and it seems to be closely tied in with vedana. But on the basic point, are we in agreement that papanca follows sanna - that's how Nananda seems to describe it at the beginning of Concept and Reality.

mikenz66 wrote:It is fortunate that we have access to various perspectives.

I sometimes just wish that everyone would agree on something.

Thanks Mike. I could not have summarised it better.

I get the sense that many modern commentators do not resort to the Upanisadic background, even if it is glaringly obvious. One reason could be deference to "orthodoxy". But another might be the concern that if Buddhism becomes nothing more than reaction to Upanisadic thought, that could potentially mean that Buddhism is not a universalisable remedy to the problems of existence. To that, we have more than enough suttas which showed that the Buddha was not restricted to the problems posed by His contemporary seekers, but finding keystones to a universal problem, ie rebirth.

Sylvester wrote:Thanks Mike. I could not have summarised it better.

I get the sense that many modern commentators do not resort to the Upanisadic background, even if it is glaringly obvious. One reason could be deference to "orthodoxy". But another might be the concern that if Buddhism becomes nothing more than reaction to Upanisadic thought, that could potentially mean that Buddhism is not a universalisable remedy to the problems of existence. To that, we have more than enough suttas which showed that the Buddha was not restricted to the problems posed by His contemporary seekers, but finding keystones to a universal problem, ie rebirth.

And it also could simply be a lack of knowledge of the historical context of the Buddha.

Considered me "attached" for the next couple of months... Lol ... thanks for sharing, I am learning an immense amount and this has been insightful in my practice.

Well, I'm all for simplicity, and it is possible that the historical context may provide simpler explanations than Ven Nanananda's often rather difficult (to me) expositions. For example, Prof Gombrich and others argue that the first four links of the Dependent Origination sequence may be interpreted a parody the Rig Veda sequence http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7464 That argument, if correct, is very helpful in clarifying the meaning of nama-rupa.


Mike

Spiny Norman wrote: But on the basic point, are we in agreement that papanca follows sanna - that's how Nananda seems to describe it at the beginning of Concept and Reality.

And just to be clear, where does papanca sit within the aggregates? I assume it's in the formations ( sankhara ) aggregate?

kirk5a wrote: "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."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

I'm not atall clear what mode of experience this is describing. If for example I'm experiencing in this mode, and I see a colour which I previously recognised as "blue", what am I now seeing? Do I still register "blue"?

Spiny Norman wrote:

kirk5a wrote: "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."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

I'm not atall clear what mode of experience this is describing. If for example I'm experiencing in this mode, and I see a colour which I previously recognised as "blue", what am I now seeing? Do I still register "blue"?

I think it's a matter of clearly seeing the sensory input just as it is, and discerning that any cognizing (such as the conceptual name, re-cognition, memory, label, perception - "blue") is added on. That is separate. So there isn't an unrecognized "mixing" of the conceptualizing (cognizing) with the basic sensory stimulation. In other words, what that passage seems to suggest is that we normally do not have merely the seen in the seen. Well, we don't probably experience the heard in the seen. So that means there is the cognized, in the seen. Unrecognized. Mixed in, as it were, and forming the basis for clinging.

See, for example, Ven. Mahāsi Sayādaw's explanation:

So, if you note the moment that you see, hear, touch, or perceive, no subsequent consciousness will arise to bring about grasping. “... when you see, you just see it; when you hear, you just hear it; when you think, you just think it; and when you know, you just know it.” As this extract from the Mālukyaputta Sutta shows, the mere sight, the mere sound, the mere idea is there. Recall them and only the real nature you have understood will appear, and no grasping. The meditator who notes whatever arises as it arises, sees how everything arises and passes away, and it becomes clear how everything is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. The meditator knows this directly — not because a teacher has explained it. Only this is real knowledge.

http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Mahasi/Fun ... ntals.html

kirk5a wrote:I think it's a matter of clearly seeing the sensory input just as it is, and discerning that any cognizing (such as the conceptual name, re-cognition, memory, label, perception - "blue") is added on. That is separate.

Yes, that makes sense - I've had occasional glimpses of this while doing kasina practice.

Thanks Kirk,

Ven Nananada's meditation instructions use the same approach, with the same aim, to see through the concept of self. See, for example http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 64#p224927

Nanananda wrote:Now, if perception is a mirage, in order to get at this mirage nature, one has to be content with attending simply as `seeing, seeing'. One way or the other it is just a seeing or just a hearing. Thereby he stops short at the bare awareness. He stops short at the bare seeing, bare hearing, bare feeling and bare thinking. He does not grant it an object status. He does not cognize it as an object existing in the world. He does not give it a name. The purpose of this method of mental noting or attending, is the eradication of the conceit `AM', which the meditator has to accomplish so a to attain release. The conceit `AM' is `asmi-màna'.

Mahasi Sayadaw wrote:So, if you note the moment that you see, hear, touch, or perceive, no subsequent consciousness will arise to bring about grasping. “... when you see, you just see it; when you hear, you just hear it; when you think, you just think it; and when you know, you just know it.” As this extract from the Mālukyaputta Sutta shows, the mere sight, the mere sound, the mere idea is there. Recall them and only the real nature you have understood will appear, and no grasping. The meditator who notes whatever arises as it arises, sees how everything arises and passes away, and it becomes clear how everything is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. The meditator knows this directly — not because a teacher has explained it. Only this is real knowledge.

''


Mike

Greetings,

Spiny Norman wrote:

Spiny Norman wrote: But on the basic point, are we in agreement that papanca follows sanna - that's how Nananda seems to describe it at the beginning of Concept and Reality.

And just to be clear, where does papanca sit within the aggregates? I assume it's in the formations ( sankhara ) aggregate?

I think you could make an argument for saying that in fact fits within all five (depending on whether rupa is regarded as form or materiality)... but they're certainly by no means mutually exclusive categories, the point of the classification seems to be that there's no samsaric experience outside of them. i.e. All inclusive, yet overlapping...

P.S. And again, well said above, Kirk.

Metta,
Retro.