What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 811
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by Nicolas » Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:35 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:05 am
In the 1st ever sutta, the sotapanna realised all that is subject to arising is subject to cessation. If a sotapanna changed this view of 'cessation' to a view of seven more lifetimes, this would become very confusing. The sotapanna would start to have thoughts of "I", which are contrary to the yoniso manasikara in MN 2. For exampel, in suttas like MN 143, a sotapanna is literally reincarnated in a brahma world & returns to earth to pay respects to Sariputta. Yet this sotapanna appears to be still clutching at views about self. In addition, the sotapanna is said to be the very same person [...]
At least to me, which is why I originally questioned Zom, all of this is very confusing. How can the mind attain stream-entry with all of these views of self reincarnated over 7 lifetimes, similar to the views of self & personhood in MN 143?
A sotapanna is reborn because they have not eliminated all craving, have not eradicated the fetters, haven't uprooted the conceit "I am" -- the Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89) which I previously quoted clarifies that.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:05 am
Thus, returning to the only sutta in the entire Nikayas that refers to "eight bhava"
There are other suttas that don't mention "eighth bhava", but "at-most-seven-times" (sattak­khat­tu­paramatā).
SN 13.1-10
SN 48.24
SN 56.49-60
AN 3.87-88
AN 9.12
AN 10.63-64
Iti 24
... and probably others as well.

Let's look at Iti 24:
Sa sattakkhattuṃ paramaṃ,
sandhāvitvāna puggalo;


[the person] Having merely run on
Seven times at the most,
Compare with suttas from SN 15:
Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjā­nīvara­ṇā­naṃ sattānaṃ taṇhā­saṃ­yoja­nā­naṃ sandhāvataṃ saṃsarataṃ.

A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
... which shows that the sandhāvati (& declensions) refers to transmigration from life to life.

But even more clear are AN 3.87 & AN 3.88:
AN 3.87 wrote:So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattak­khat­tu­paramo hoti. Sattak­khat­tu­paramaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a seven-at-most attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among devas and humans seven times at most, makes an end of suffering.
Which, if that is not enough, is placed in context with others:
AM 3.87 wrote:So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā kolaṃkolo hoti, dve vā tīṇi vā kulāni sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti. So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti. So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā rāgado­samohā­naṃ tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti, sakideva imaṃ lokaṃ āgantvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a family-to-family attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among good families two or three times, makes an end of suffering. With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a one-seed attainer who, after being reborn once more in human existence, makes an end to suffering. With the utter destruction of three fetters and with the diminishing of greed, hatred, and delusion, he is a once-returner who, after coming back to this world only one more time, makes an end to suffering.
And similarly with AN 3.88:
AN 3.88 wrote:Taṃ vā pana anabhi­sam­bha­vaṃ appaṭivijjhaṃ tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā, rāgado­samohā­naṃ tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti, sakideva imaṃ lokaṃ āgantvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti. Taṃ vā pana anabhi­sam­bha­vaṃ appaṭivijjhaṃ tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti. Taṃ vā pana anabhi­sam­bha­vaṃ appaṭivijjhaṃ tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā kolaṅkolo hoti, dve vā tīṇi vā kulāni sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti. Taṃ vā pana anabhi­sam­bha­vaṃ appaṭivijjhaṃ tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattak­khat­tu­paramo hoti, sattak­khat­tu­paramaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

If he does not attain and penetrate this, with the utter destruction of three fetters and with the diminishing of greed, hatred, and delusion, he is a once-returner who, after coming back to this world only one more time, makes an end of suffering. If he does not attain and penetrate this, with the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a one-seed attainer who, after being reborn once more in human existence, makes an end of suffering. If he does not attain and penetrate this, with the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a family-to-family attainer who, after roaming and wandering .on among good families two or three times, makes an end of suffering. If he does not attain and penetrate this, with the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a seven-times-at-most. attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among devas and humans seven times at most, makes an end of suffering.

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:05 am
At least to me, which is why I originally questioned Zom, all of this is very confusing. How can the mind attain stream-entry with all of these views of self reincarnated over 7 lifetimes, similar to the views of self & personhood in MN 143?
A sotapanna doesn't need to have the view that they will be reborn at most seven times, it just happens. That knowledge doesn't have to be there for one to be a sotapanna.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:05 am
Since a sotapanna has seven more fetters to break through to arahantship, possibly this is the meaning, but who knows?
The idea that "seven-at-most" refers to the seven remaining fetters is incorrect, since "seven-at-most" implies the possibility of less than seven.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:05 am
The following sutta is the closest i could find; since it contains both the words "bhava" and "nibbatte". It appears to be about producing (nibbattati) views of self-existence (attabhāvo) in the here & now (diṭṭhe vā dhamme).
Yaṃ, bhikkhave, lobhapakataṃ kammaṃ lobhajaṃ lobhanidānaṃ lobhasamudayaṃ, yatthassa attabhāvo nibbattati tattha taṃ kammaṃ vipaccati. Yattha taṃ kammaṃ vipaccati tattha tassa kammassa vipākaṃ paṭisaṃvedeti, diṭṭhe vā dhamme upapajja vā apare vā pariyāye.

Any action performed with greed — born of greed, caused by greed, originating from greed: wherever one's selfhood turns up [is produced], there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in the here & now that has arisen or further along in the sequence.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Right, either in the here & now that has arisen or further along in the sequence.


P.S. Since we are veering off-topic, perhaps it is best to create another thread about the sotapanna being reborn at most seven times?
(edit: I reported some posts here asking to move the off-topic posts to a new topic.)

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 811
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by Nicolas » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:39 pm

DooDoot's deleted post wrote:[...]
I made the case for the argument I put forward. Others that read these exchanges will make up their own mind.

Also, it is worth moving these messages to a new topic, as these exchanges of ours (including Zom) are numerous and off-topic.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2950
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:44 pm

Nicolas wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:35 pm
A sotapanna is reborn because they have not eliminated all craving, have not eradicated the fetters, haven't uprooted the conceit "I am" -- the Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89) which I previously quoted clarifies that.
In the suttas, not one sotapanna was reincarnated back to earth.
There are other suttas that don't mention "eighth bhava", but "at-most-seven-times" (sattak­khat­tu­paramatā).
SN 13.1-10
SN 48.24
SN 56.49-60
AN 3.87-88
AN 9.12
AN 10.63-64
Iti 24
... and probably others as well.
Yes, as I posted, no other suttas that mention "eighth bhava". As for "sattak­khat­tu­paramatā", the Pali word for this differs in these suttas (look closely), which shows a possible lack of authenticity. Regardless, sattak­khat­tu­paramatā merely means "7 times at most". It could mean "7 more fetters to break".
Let's look at Iti 24:
Sa sattakkhattuṃ paramaṃ,
sandhāvitvāna puggalo;


[the person] Having merely run on
Seven times at the most,
The above appears to say nothing about reincarnation.
Compare with suttas from SN 15:
Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjā­nīvara­ṇā­naṃ sattānaṃ taṇhā­saṃ­yoja­nā­naṃ sandhāvataṃ saṃsarataṃ.

A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
... which shows that the sandhāvati (& declensions) refers to transmigration from life to life.
The translation of "transmigration" is dodgy. Refer to SN 22.99, which explains what samsara means:
Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
:alien:
But even more clear are AN 3.87 & AN 3.88:
No. It was not clear above therefore it cannot be "more clear". Craving for personal reincarnation is a primary obstacle to stream-entry because it is stuck in views about self & cannot lead to the penetration of impermanence & not-self. As I posted, the authentic stream-enterers in the suttas saw everything is subject to cessation.
AN 3.87 wrote:So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattak­khat­tu­paramo hoti. Sattak­khat­tu­paramaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a seven-at-most attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among devas and humans seven times at most, makes an end of suffering.
So? If I meet moral people in this life ("humans") or spiritual mystics with psychic powers ("devas"), these are devas and humans. Regardless, these verses are from the AN, which appears questionable in much of its authenticity. Also, as I previously posted, there is not one single account of a stream-enterer returning to earth to live among people in the suttas.
Which, if that is not enough, is placed in context with others:
AM 3.87 wrote:So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā kolaṃkolo hoti, dve vā tīṇi vā kulāni sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti. So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti. So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā rāgado­samohā­naṃ tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti, sakideva imaṃ lokaṃ āgantvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a family-to-family attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among good families two or three times, makes an end of suffering. With the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a one-seed attainer who, after being reborn once more in human existence, makes an end to suffering. With the utter destruction of three fetters and with the diminishing of greed, hatred, and delusion, he is a once-returner who, after coming back to this world only one more time, makes an end to suffering.
The above quote sounds ridiculous. I doubt there is one Buddhist in the world that can provide a satisfactory explanation of it. Why would a stream-enterer wanderer among families? Again, this bizarre idea is found in the AN.
And similarly with AN 3.88:
AN 3.88 wrote:Taṃ vā pana anabhi­sam­bha­vaṃ appaṭivijjhaṃ tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā, rāgado­samohā­naṃ tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti, sakideva imaṃ lokaṃ āgantvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti. Taṃ vā pana anabhi­sam­bha­vaṃ appaṭivijjhaṃ tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti. Taṃ vā pana anabhi­sam­bha­vaṃ appaṭivijjhaṃ tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā kolaṅkolo hoti, dve vā tīṇi vā kulāni sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti. Taṃ vā pana anabhi­sam­bha­vaṃ appaṭivijjhaṃ tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattak­khat­tu­paramo hoti, sattak­khat­tu­paramaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

If he does not attain and penetrate this, with the utter destruction of three fetters and with the diminishing of greed, hatred, and delusion, he is a once-returner who, after coming back to this world only one more time, makes an end of suffering. If he does not attain and penetrate this, with the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a one-seed attainer who, after being reborn once more in human existence, makes an end of suffering. If he does not attain and penetrate this, with the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a family-to-family attainer who, after roaming and wandering .on among good families two or three times, makes an end of suffering. If he does not attain and penetrate this, with the utter destruction of three fetters, he is a seven-times-at-most. attainer who, after roaming and wandering on among devas and humans seven times at most, makes an end of suffering.
None of the above necessarily implies reincarnation; despite its questionable character. As i posted, there is not one example of a stream-enterer reincarnated back to earth to live in a family in the suttas.

The above sutta appears to merely refer to lay stream-enterer that has not ordained & wanders around in life amongst good people & worldly devas (unless eventually realising the unsatisfactoriness of it all). Obviously, some stream-enterers still have not seen the world clearly or believe they have social obligations, such as looking after their families, working for charities or evangelising dhamma to lay people. For example, many lay stream-enters, such as Nakula's Mother, were married; thus remained "wandering among families"; such as in the sutta were Nakula's Mother must admonish Nakula's Father for worrying about her when he might pass away.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 3:05 am
At least to me, which is why I originally questioned Zom, all of this is very confusing. How can the mind attain stream-entry with all of these views of self reincarnated over 7 lifetimes, similar to the views of self & personhood in MN 143?
A sotapanna doesn't need to have the view that they will be reborn at most seven times, it just happens. That knowledge doesn't have to be there for one to be a sotapanna.
No. What is occurring here is:

1. I am promoting the original authentic stream-entry; namely, the realisation that all that is subject to arising is subject to cessation.

2. You are promoting what are arguably later ideas found in the AN, which has many teachings for faith followers about different realms.
The idea that "seven-at-most" refers to the seven remaining fetters is incorrect, since "seven-at-most" implies the possibility of less than seven.
Not really. It means "maximum". The teaching is no more than seven.
The following sutta is the closest i could find; since it contains both the words "bhava" and "nibbatte". It appears to be about producing (nibbattati) views of self-existence (attabhāvo) in the here & now (diṭṭhe vā dhamme).
Yaṃ, bhikkhave, lobhapakataṃ kammaṃ lobhajaṃ lobhanidānaṃ lobhasamudayaṃ, yatthassa attabhāvo nibbattati tattha taṃ kammaṃ vipaccati. Yattha taṃ kammaṃ vipaccati tattha tassa kammassa vipākaṃ paṭisaṃvedeti, diṭṭhe vā dhamme upapajja vā apare vā pariyāye.

Any action performed with greed — born of greed, caused by greed, originating from greed: wherever one's selfhood turns up [is produced], there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in the here & now that has arisen or further along in the sequence.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Right, either in the here & now that has arisen or further along in the sequence.
Tomorrow is not the here & now.
P.S. Since we are veering off-topic, perhaps it is best to create another thread about the sotapanna being reborn at most seven times?
(edit: I reported some posts here asking to move the off-topic posts to a new topic.)
Personally, i see little point in this because, to me, everything you post is an obstacle to stream-entry. I find it strange to see such devotion to sutta study that is unlikely to bring any profound result; apart from hopefully develop morality.

In summary:

1. 'Samsara' appears to refer to the continued cycling in self-views, as explained in SN 22.99.

2. "Beings" ("satta") that wander & run around (not "transmigrate") in samsara similarly appear to be the production of self-views, as explained in SN 23.2.

3. Stream-enterers that wander among good families & devas are possibly lay stream-enterers living in this life.

:mrgreen:
Last edited by DooDoot on Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:23 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2950
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:07 pm

Nicolas wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:39 pm
I made the case for the argument I put forward. Others that read these exchanges will make up their own mind.
I think it was a weak argument and not even an argument. You appeared to be merely cutting & pasting sutta translations and not offering any realistic explanation of those suttas that contain quite unusual ideas. SN 13.1 says a stream-enterer has destroyed 99% of the whole mass of suffering yet you claim the stream-enterer will be reincarnated into different families. Why would that be? Why would a stream-enterer be inclined for many reincarnations into families or into the household life? Possibly you should think more thoroughly (yoniso manasikara) about what you read.

This is why these posts are not off-topic but apply to this topic of yoniso manasikara. In AN 10.61, yoniso (wise; thorough; careful) manasikara (attention; reflection: consideration) is said to be engaged after hearing the teachings.

Zom asked me to post about ayoniso manasikara from MN 2, which says giving attention to the future is wrong attention. Yet you & Zom are zealously posting here about the future.
Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Last edited by DooDoot on Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 811
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by Nicolas » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:24 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:44 pm
In the suttas, not one sotapanna was reincarnated back to earth.
I didn't make any claim as to where sotapannas are reborn. Birth occurs in other realms, cf. mundane right view.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:44 pm
Yes, as I posted, no other suttas that mention "eighth bhava". As for "sattak­khat­tu­paramatā", the Pali word for this differs in these suttas (look closely), which shows a possible lack of authenticity. Regardless, sattak­khat­tu­paramatā merely means "7 times at most". It could mean "7 more fetters to break".
You mean "7 fetters at most". But a sotapanna needs to eradicate 7 other fetters exactly.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:44 pm
Compare with suttas from SN 15:
Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjā­nīvara­ṇā­naṃ sattānaṃ taṇhā­saṃ­yoja­nā­naṃ sandhāvataṃ saṃsarataṃ.

A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
... which shows that the sandhāvati (& declensions) refers to transmigration from life to life.
The translation of "transmigration" is dodgy.
I refer you to the penultimate sentence in each sutta from SN 15:
For such a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced suffering, anguish and disaster, and swelled the cemetery.
But also:
SN 15.3 wrote: The stream of tears that you have shed as you roamed and wandered on through this long course, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable—this alone is more than the water in the four great oceans.
SN 15.13 wrote: The stream of blood that you have shed as you roamed and wandered on through this long course—this alone is more than the water in the four great oceans
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:44 pm
So? If I meet moral people in this life ("humans") or spiritual mystics with psychic powers ("devas"), these are devas and humans.
Devas are not human beings.
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 9:44 pm
None of the above necessarily implies reincarnation; despite its questionable character.
What about "after being reborn once more in human existence"?
Not really. It means "maximum". The teaching is no more than seven.
Saying "a maximum of seven" implies the possibility of less than seven, otherwise, one would have simply written "seven".
Last edited by Nicolas on Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 811
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by Nicolas » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:24 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:07 pm
Why would a stream-enterer be inclined for many reincarnations into families or into the household life?
A stream-enterer still has sensual desire.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2950
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:28 pm

Nicolas wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:24 pm
A stream-enterer still has sensual desire.
No. How can a stream-enterer have such a quantum of sensual desire that they need to engage in sex & reproduction; when SN 13.1 says the stream-enterer has destroyed 99% of the whole mass of suffering? :shrug:

The mind of the stream-enterer obviously still can have sensual desire but I doubt the bona fide stream-enterer, such as when Kondanna or Sariputta, had the quantum of sexual desire to incline them to the household life & engage in the act of sexual intercourse.
Nicolas wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:24 pm
I refer you to the penultimate sentence in each sutta from SN 15:
For such a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced suffering, anguish and disaster, and swelled the cemetery.
I suggest to yoniso manasikara about what you post. I visited a large cemetery recently, with my cousin, who wished to see the grave of my grandfather (which has my name on it, since I was named after my grandfather). My cousin was crying & suffering in the cemetery but I was not crying & suffering because she knew my grandfather well where as I hardly knew him at all (due to age). I cannot even remember him. Since my mind had no conception (sañjāti) of those five aggregates as "my grandfather in the cemetery", i.e., khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo did not occur to produce (abhinibbatti) the idea of "a being" (sattānaṃ), my mind did not experience suffering, anguish and disaster in the cemetery. The conception (sañjāti) of my grandfather (sattānaṃ) did not enter (okkanti) my mind in the cemetery. :roll:
Katamā ca bhikkhave, jāti? Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti nibbatti abhinibbatti, khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho, ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave, jāti.

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 811
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by Nicolas » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:45 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:28 pm
Nicolas wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:24 pm
A stream-enterer still has sensual desire.
No. How can a stream-enterer have such a quantum of sensual desire that they need to engage in sex & reproduction; when SN 13.1 says the stream-enterer has destroyed 99% of the whole mass of suffering? :shrug:
The mind of the stream-enterer obviously still can have sensual desire but I doubt the bona fide stream-enterer, such as when Kondanna or Sariputta, had the quantum of sexual desire to incline them to the household life & engage in the act of sexual intercourse.
I didn't say anything about engaging in sex and reproduction. I said a stream-enterer still has sensual desire (one of the fetters they haven't eradicated yet), [edit: removed “which tends to leads to birth in a sense-realm”, as I realized it was a wrong statement.]
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:28 pm
I visited a large cemetery recently, with my cousin, who wished to see the grave of my grandfather (which has my name on it, since I was named after my grandfather). My cousin was crying & suffering in the cemetery but I was not crying & suffering because she knew my grandfather well where as I hardly knew him at all (due to age). I cannot even remember him. Since my mind had no conception of those five aggregates as "my grandfather in the cemetery", my mind did not experience suffering, anguish and disaster in the cemetery. :roll:
I don't understand why you are talking about your experience in a cemetery as a response to what I wrote.
The following seems pretty clear to me, implying a wandering and roaming from life to life:
A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
[...]
The stream of tears that you have shed as you roamed and wandered on through this long course, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable—this alone is more than the water in the four great oceans.
[...]
For such a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced suffering, anguish and disaster, and swelled the cemetery.
A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
[...]
The stream of blood that you have shed as you roamed and wandered on through this long course—this alone is more than the water in the four great oceans.
[...]
For such a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced suffering, anguish and disaster, and swelled the cemetery.
At this point I think it makes more sense for me to agree to disagree, as there seems to be a barrier on my end, your end, or both ends.
If your interpretation is the correct one, may others see it as correct.
If my interpretation is the correct one, may others see it as correct.
Last edited by Nicolas on Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2950
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:58 pm

Nicolas wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:45 pm
I didn't say anything about engaging in sex and reproduction.
You were asserting a stream-enterer is reincarnated into families; despite zero evidence of this in the suttas or in life. There is not one account, I am aware of, of a new born child being a sotapanna from child birth or from infanthood.
Nicolas wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:45 pm
I said a stream-enterer still has sensual desire (one of the fetters they haven't eradicated yet), which tends to leads to birth in a sense-realm.
Bhava in the sensual realm is not necessarily related to reincarnation. If the mind thinks: "I feel sexy; she is sexy; he is sexy", that itself is bhava in the sensual realm. If the mind is eating delicious food, thinking: "This food is delicious; I wish to have more", this is bhava in the sensual realm. Ajahn Chah, for example, said:
'Becoming'' (bhava) means ''the sphere of birth.'' Sensual desire is born at sights, sounds, tastes, smells, feelings and thoughts, identifying with these things. The mind holds fast and is stuck to sensuality.

For example, suppose we had an orchard of apple trees that we were particularly fond of. That's a bhava for us if we don't reflect with wisdom. How so? Suppose our orchard contained a hundred or a thousand apple trees... it doesn't really matter what kind of trees they are, just so long as we consider them to be ''our own'' trees... then we are going to be ''born'' as a ''worm'' in every single one of those trees. We bore into every one, even though our human body is still back there in the house, we send out ''tentacles'' into every one of those trees.

Now, how do we know that it's a bhava? It's a bhava (sphere of existence) because of our clinging to the idea that those trees are our own, that that orchard is our own.

http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Flood_Sensuality1.php
The word 'bhava' does not appear to mean 'reincarnation' in the suttas because bhava is classified as an "asava" in the suttas.
Nicolas wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:45 pm
I don't understand..
:anjali: :bow:
Nicolas wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:45 pm
why you are talking about your experience in a cemetery as a response to what I wrote. The following seems pretty clear to me:
It is obviously not "clear". It is merely your personal idiosyncratic subjective intepretation. If it was clear, you could provide real evidence for it; similar to providing me God's telephone number if God really existed.
Nicolas wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 10:45 pm
At this point I think it makes more sense for me to agree to disagree, as there seems to be a barrier on my end, your end, or both ends.
If your interpretation is the correct one, may others see it as correct.
If my interpretation is the correct one, may others see it as correct.
Your interpretation without doubt has little basis in both the Pali & knowable reality. Yet, you seem to insist I believe in what you write? In the Pali, the impression is it is Mara that believes "a being" ('satta') is a living thing or the five aggregates (refer to SN 5.10). In the Pali, it appears "a being" is merely an "idea" or "view" (SN 5;10; SN 23.2). Therefore, it appears the "beings" roaming around in samsara might merely be ideas, thoughts or monkey-mind roaming around within the mind of puthujanna (as described in SN 22.99).

The Buddha taught his Dhamma is visible & verifiable in the here & now. Since everything you write is not visible in the here & now and is not verifiable, yes, there is probably a barrier. Since you were unable to comprehend the validity of my experience of non-suffering in the cemetery, yes, there is certainly a barrier. The cemetery only gives rise to the experience of suffering when there are idea of "self" in the cemetery; when there is the thought: "my father, my mother, my son, my daughter, my grandfather, my grandfather" are buried in the cemetery. If such wrong views about "self" ("atta") or "beings" ("satta") are not overcome, there can be no stream-entry.

Best wishes :anjali:

paul
Posts: 1270
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: Vietnam

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by paul » Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:47 pm

SarathW wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:21 am
Asuba.
Beginning with the skeleton, it is easy to visualise, can be easily studied on the internet and in SL one could be obtained from a hospital, don't know if that still applies.

User avatar
Kumara
Posts: 672
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:14 am

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by Kumara » Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:50 am

Prompted by a student of mine, I recently gave "yoniso manasikāra" much thought, and made my conclusion here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6006&p=481382#p481382
I'm not just a monk. I'm a human being. — Sayadaw U Jotika

SarathW
Posts: 10125
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

Post by SarathW » Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:03 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:20 am
Hi Sarath,

Regarding yonisomanasikara, there is a nice little article by Piya Tan that might interest you.

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 5-piya.pdf

As the "yoni" part means "womb" or "origin", it is possible to read this as "deep attention" or "thorough attention" (I have heard Ajahn Sucitto call it "fathoming attention") but also as attention paid to the origin or antecedents of things; for example how they are dependently arisen. In most of the contexts I have seen it used, it could quite plausibly work like that.
Above comments are confirmed by the discussion about the late Most Ven. Katukurunde Nyanananda Maha Thero Nibbana sermon.
Basically, Yoniso Manasikara is the drill down to the root cause of the suffering.
That is contemplating on Dependent Origination and especially the link between Vinnana and Namarupa. That is to see how Vinnana and Namarupa conditions each other.

The discussion is in the Sinhalese language.

https://damsara.org/damsara_dhamma/Most ... 7-2018.mp3
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SarathW and 100 guests