What is the difference between Samma Sati and Yoniso Manasikara?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Saengnapha
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:39 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:27 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:07 am
All I can tell you is that your definitions are being re-evaluated. Attention is esssential with satipatthana. I think I will side with Bhante P rather than your literal, traditional, translations which you seem very attached to. There is a movement that has been occurring in Sri Lanka which is unsatisfied with the traditional translations that have been made and used by non-Pali speakers and translators. I'm not making this stuff up. Being rigid is not an issue with proper attentiveness.
This is a thread to distinguish finer details where as your posts are mere common language. You seem to be oblivious what is being discussed here; let alone comprehend what satipatthana is. The Buddha advised to give attention to satipatthana. Thus attention & sati here obviously two different things. Its like saying give attention to listening & give attention to helping. The attention is the same but the objects of attention are different. Similarly, giving attention to satipatthana is different to giving attention to studying the teachings. Mindfulness is not attention & attention is not mindfulness. To assert otherwise is simply to have no respect for the Dhamma of the Buddha.
Please disregard anything I say as it is not going to make any difference to you or anyone else. All language is common and unable to convey what things really are. Perhaps you'll argue about that, too?

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2090
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 2:43 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:39 am
Please disregard anything I say as it is not going to make any difference to you or anyone else. All language is common and unable to convey what things really are. Perhaps you'll argue about that, too?
This is a study thread. Since you appear to have no interest in the Pali suttas whatsoever, why are you post here & vilifying with U.G violence those who are interested in studying Pali, making slanderous remarks like below? :|
than your literal, traditional, translations which you seem very attached to

Saengnapha
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:46 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:43 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:39 am
Please disregard anything I say as it is not going to make any difference to you or anyone else. All language is common and unable to convey what things really are. Perhaps you'll argue about that, too?
This is a study thread. Since you appear to have no interest in the Pali suttas whatsoever, why are you post here & vilifying with U.G violence those who are interested in studying Pali, making slanderous remarks like below? :|
than your literal, traditional, translations which you seem very attached to
Oh, please. Look in the mirror.

I quoted what the old Sri Lankan monk said but you don't accept that either.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2090
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 2:49 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:46 am
Oh, please. Look in the mirror.

I quoted what the old Sri Lankan monk said but you don't accept that either.
I am not trashing a thread therefore i don't need to look into any mirror. This thread is not about what an old monk believes. It is an examination of the sutta teachings. Regardless, it is not for insulting people who study the suttas.

You did not quote the old monk anyway. You just provided a 2nd hand opinion of what you think the old monk said.

:focus:

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2090
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 2:59 am

paul wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:33 pm
Answering the OP question: Mindfulness is a factor of enlightenment and yoniso manasikara is the nutriment for the factors of enlightemnent:

“When one attends carefully, bhikkhus, unarisen sensual desire does not arise and arisen sensual desire is abandoned. When one attends carefully, unarisen ill will … sloth and torpor … restlessness and remorse … doubt does not arise and arisen doubt is abandoned. Also, the unarisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness arises and the arisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness comes to fulfilment by development … the unarisen enlightenment factor of equanimity arises and the arisen enlightenment factor of equanimity comes to fulfilment by development.”---SN V 84, Sutta Central.
This quote is similar to another quote (below). Since I cannot access SC, I cannot confirm if it is the same quote. However, as you suggested, these quotes appear to demonstrate yoniso manasikara & sammasati are definitely two different things.
And what, bhikkhus, is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness and for the fulfilment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness? There are, bhikkhus, things that are the basis for the enlightenment factor of mindfulness: frequently giving careful attention to them is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness and for the fulfilment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness.

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn46.51
Now, what is the food for the arising of unarisen mindfulness as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening once it has arisen? There are mental qualities that act as a foothold for mindfulness as a factor for Awakening [well-purified virtue & views made straight]. To foster appropriate attention to them: This is the food for the arising of unarisen mindfulness as a factor for Awakening, or for the growth & increase of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening once it has arisen.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2090
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 3:05 am

Nicolas wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:35 pm
DooDoot, do you mean to say that a sotapanna has ended birth?

Also, in reference to the sotapanna, this at-most-seven bhava, what does it refer to if not future being/becoming/existence/manifestation?
Thanks N

I think i posted before that I have read words such as 'becoming'', 'production' & 'manifestation' used in the Pali suttas in ways that are definitely not about reincarnation. While I have no conflict with the assumption these matters pertain to 'the future', I think there is no real evidence this future is about reincarnation. Suttas are diverse. 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, as follows:
That is what the deva's son said. And [thinking], 'The Teacher has approved of me,' he bowed down to me, circled me three times, and then disappeared right there.

Very good, Ananda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced what can be arrived at through logic. That was Anathapindika the deva's son, and no one else."

MN 143
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?

It seems Buddhism changed a lot over time thus these matters do not appear to be anything definite to me. Due to contradictions in the suttas, i think we cannot be certain that each suttas was spoken by the Buddha. Thus, returning to the only sutta in the entire Nikayas that refers to "eight bhava", it appears to be merely a guess or speculation this refers to reincarnation, let alone was spoken by the Buddha. In my personal opinion, obscure hidden suttas like this probably should not be used to define the entire teaching & are possibly best ignored. Since a sotapanna has seven more fetters to break through to arahantship, possibly this is the meaning, but who knows? However, I think it does not really matter because the following phrase is simply too obscure to mean anything certain.
Paṭhamaabhabbaṭṭhāna Sutta (AN 6.92) wrote:
abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo aṭṭhamaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetuṃ.
One accomplished in view is incapable of undergoing an eighth existence [bhava]. (Bodhi)
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

paul
Posts: 1095
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: Vietnam

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

Post by paul » Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:48 am

SarathW wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 12:32 am
When one attends carefully
Could you give me an example?
“Especially wise attention directed to the impermanent nature of the five aggregates [affected by] clinging has a considerable potential of leading to the destruction of lust and therewith to liberation (SN III 52). It goes without saying that a similar outcome can also be attained if wise attention is directed to the impermanent nature of the senses or their objects (SN IV 142). […]

Cultivated in this way, wise attention can become a powerful tool for de-conditioning the way perception misinterprets the world of experience. The operational mechanism of perceptual misinterpretations through unwise attention is based on the very nature of perception (saññā), whose task is to match information received through the sense doors with mental labels and concepts, leading to various associations and memories.
These concepts and associations are only too often tinged by desire, aversion and delusion, being the outcome of habitual reactions under the influence of defilements. Such habits have been built up throughout the past and continue to be fortified in the present, whenever such reactions recur.
Due to the influence of these habitual reactions and associations, whatever is experienced will be apprehended together with the subjective notions the mind projects onto the data of the senses. Both come together in an almost inextricable mix, and the perceiver is mostly unaware of the degree to which his or her experience is influenced by preconceived notions and thereby mirrors and confirms subjective prejudices.
Unwise and perhaps also somewhat `superficial' attention perpetuates this state of affairs, where the falsification of data through perception remains unquestioned. The remedy here is a wise and penetrative form of attention that goes beyond the
superficial appearance of things in order to come to know their true nature, however much disappointing this may be. Continuous training in wise attention will eventually change the way perception apprehends the world, whereby awareness of the true characteristics of reality will gradually become as ingrained in perceptual appraisal as the earlier habitual reactions.
In view of this potential, it comes as no surprise that wise attention is a central condition for the arising of the awakening factors, just as its opposite unwise attention is responsible for the arising of the hindrances (SN V 94 and SN V 84).”—-“From Grasping to Emptiness”, Analayo.

SarathW
Posts: 9412
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

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

Post by SarathW » Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:21 am

Especially wise attention directed to the impermanent nature of the five aggregates [
So, Yonisomanasikara is the attention cultivated with Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Asuba.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Saengnapha
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

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

Post by Saengnapha » Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:39 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:49 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:46 am
Oh, please. Look in the mirror.

I quoted what the old Sri Lankan monk said but you don't accept that either.
I am not trashing a thread therefore i don't need to look into any mirror. This thread is not about what an old monk believes. It is an examination of the sutta teachings. Regardless, it is not for insulting people who study the suttas.

You did not quote the old monk anyway. You just provided a 2nd hand opinion of what you think the old monk said.

:focus:
You think what I said was an insult? Were you hurt by it?

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2090
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 11:05 am

paul wrote:
Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:48 am
Especially wise attention directed to the impermanent nature of the five aggregates [affected by] clinging has a considerable potential of leading to the destruction of lust and therewith to liberation (SN III 52).
This translation appears confusing. The Pali appears to say to pay careful attention to form (rūpaṃ yoniso manasi karotha) in order to see the impermanence of form as it really is (rūpāniccatañca yathābhūtaṃ samanupassatha). It appears it is not yoniso manasikara that "sees" the impermanent nature of form. Instead, it appears yoniso manasikara intentionally directs the mind towards the general direction of form & it is vinnana that sees with wisdom.
Discernment & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.

MN 43

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 760
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: 760
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: 2090
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: 2090
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: 760
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Javi, purist_andrew, Yahoo [Bot] and 57 guests