Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:07 am

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
beeblebrox wrote: This is a bit off-topic, (so I'll bring it back in a bit...) but I think that the toddler's behavior has nothing to do with "self"... that's only your view of it.
He said, expressing his own view of it all. Thanks, but I do not buy any of it.
The Buddha has stated that the toddler does not behave with self view, lust or anger. Toddler is too undeveloped for that, though a toddler does have underlying tendency toward that. But toddler has to mature first.
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ta-e1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me it suggests that bare awareness (if it is even possible), is NOT necessarily an indicator of awakening.
Whether a "toddler" is being accurately portrayed here or not is beside point. What has been pointed out, Alex, is that you are not accurately presenting bare attention, but presist as you will. I have no further interest in this thread.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by Alex123 » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:12 am

tiltbillings wrote: What has been pointed out, Alex, is that you are not accurately presenting bare attention, but presist as you will. I have no further interest in this thread.
How exactly do you understand bare attention? Can you, please, briefly explain it in your own words? Then we can compare .
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:19 am

Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: What has been pointed out, Alex, is that you are not accurately presenting bare attention, but presist as you will. I have no further interest in this thread.
How exactly do you understand bare attention? Can you, please, briefly explain it in your own words? Then we can compare .
No. You are the one who made the claim about bare attention, it should be you who explains first what you mean by it. The heavy lifting goes in your direction first. I have already pointed you to a thread that discusses this debate: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 33#p161833" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by Alex123 » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:51 am

tiltbillings wrote:
Alex123 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: What has been pointed out, Alex, is that you are not accurately presenting bare attention, but presist as you will. I have no further interest in this thread.
How exactly do you understand bare attention? Can you, please, briefly explain it in your own words? Then we can compare .
No. You are the one who made the claim about bare attention, it should be you who explains first what you mean by it. The heavy lifting goes in your direction first. I have already pointed you to a thread that discusses this debate: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 33#p161833" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And how do you, in brief, understand that writing (Alan Wallace's dialogue with Ven Bodhi:) ? What is "bare attention" in your own words?
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by ground » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:09 am

Perhaps I may help to unblock this communiation with the following suggestion:

"bare attention" is mere receptivity not volitionally directed to any contents of the sphere of (potential) perception and lacking contact (phassa). Lacking contact neither perception, nor feeling, nor conceivings (papanca) can be present. Since perception, feeling and consciousness cannot be separated, consciousness is absent as well.


Kind regards

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:51 am

TMingyur wrote:Perhaps I may help to unblock this communiation with the following suggestion:

"bare attention" is mere receptivity not volitionally directed to any contents of the sphere of (potential) perception and lacking contact (phassa). Lacking contact neither perception, nor feeling, nor conceivings (papanca) can be present. Since perception, feeling and consciousness cannot be separated, consciousness is absent as well.


Kind regards
I would also suggest that you read this link:

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p160162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

dhamma follower
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by dhamma follower » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:12 am

beeblebrox wrote:
dhamma follower wrote: Of course it is not linear. When citta arises with one object, many cetasikas arise also at the same time. I understand that. But when the object changes, that means it is not the same citta any more, right? Visible object is not the same than sound, smell,...or thoughts. The sanna that arises and recognize someone is not the same than the ones that are are involved in thinking about how to avoid him. Because the objects are many, cittas must be many too.
The only thing that is really shown here is that the citta changes... not that there are many cittas.

:anjali:
Hi,

Are you saying it is the same citta that changes object?

It reminds me of the error of Sati, the son of a fisherman:
Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. �As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else�?"

"Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."

"Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven�t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."
http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards,

dhamma follower
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by dhamma follower » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:26 am

Dear all,

This is quite nice:
But sati as memory operates differently from sañña. It is built upon sañña, for according to the Abhidhamma one of its immediate causes is “strong perception” (thira-sañña). This is the direct, face-to-face encounter with experience which generates mindfulness — as we saw in the entry Establishing mindfulness. Mindfulness begins with our normal, everyday encounters with the world, but made clear, sharp, by a direct and energetic encounter with this present experience. This encounter cuts through the baggage of habitual associations that are a normal aspect of perception. In Satipatthana Sutta the Buddha suggests this with the formula describing the meditator as “contemplating body as body … mind as mind.” This sight is just this sight; these thoughts and judgements are just these thoughts and judgements. That’s all. Normally, perception takes the package of experience — sights, sounds, thoughts, emotions — and recognises them through their habitual associations as inherited from the past, containing little or nothing that is new, and so conditions us to react to the experience habitually, without sensing the possibilities within it. Mindfulness implies an encounter that is so direct and clear that these habitual associations don’t have the opportunity to take over. They arise, of course, but can be recognised, remembered, as just associations, nothing else.

Mindfulness then continues to “remember” this encounter, by returning again and again to its directness, not forgetting what is so easy to forget — that which we assume we already know. So we don’t just know the world; in mindfulness, we know that we know. When our habitual perceptions take over, they do so through forgetfulness. We forget, slip into habit. In this state we know, but don’t know that we know, and in losing touch with this reflexivity we find our ready-made perceptions again defining reality for us. Then, we remember. Mindfulness returns, and we remember that body is just body, mind is just mind, and we find ourselves in a world that is new, no longer the product of habit.

This activity of mindfulness provides the foundation for judgement, for the gatekeeper’s job. The gatekeeper learns to recognise who to admit, and who to refuse. This recognition is sañña, perception, but a perception reshaped, educated, by mindfulness. Both mindfulness and perception are based on memory, and it is memory which allows a judgement. And of course, we are always making judgements. Even the notion that we should not be making judgements is a judgement. Mindfulness allows the emergence of judgement partnered with wisdom, understanding, discernment. This is a judgement that is more in tune with reality than our habitual judgements, the long-standing products of our delusion.
http://www.dharmasalon.net/Dharma%20Sal ... 0d2-5.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In my understanding, this " This encounter cuts through the baggage of habitual associations that are a normal aspect of perception" is what is meant by "bare attention".

Regards,

User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by ground » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:35 am

tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote:Perhaps I may help to unblock this communiation with the following suggestion:

"bare attention" is mere receptivity not volitionally directed to any contents of the sphere of (potential) perception and lacking contact (phassa). Lacking contact neither perception, nor feeling, nor conceivings (papanca) can be present. Since perception, feeling and consciousness cannot be separated, consciousness is absent as well.


Kind regards
I would also suggest that you read this link:

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p160162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Obviously my suggestion does not comply with B. Bodhi's explanation (B. Bodhi: “Sati, as bare attention, is never completely bare.") . Nevertheless I would prefer to stay with the understanding suggested. For me this is just evidence that I have no shares in the controverse about the expression "bare attention" in this context which seems to be caused by verbal inconsistency.


Kind regards

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:20 pm

TMingyur wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
TMingyur wrote:Perhaps I may help to unblock this communiation with the following suggestion:

"bare attention" is mere receptivity not volitionally directed to any contents of the sphere of (potential) perception and lacking contact (phassa). Lacking contact neither perception, nor feeling, nor conceivings (papanca) can be present. Since perception, feeling and consciousness cannot be separated, consciousness is absent as well.


Kind regards
I would also suggest that you read this link:

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p160162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Obviously my suggestion does not comply with B. Bodhi's explanation (B. Bodhi: “Sati, as bare attention, is never completely bare.") . Nevertheless I would prefer to stay with the understanding suggested. For me this is just evidence that I have no shares in the controverse about the expression "bare attention" in this context which seems to be caused by verbal inconsistency.


Kind regards
Given that Ven Bodhi in the link given is reflecting Ven Nyanaponika understanding of bare attention, and given it was Ven Nyanaponika who coined the term and defined it, I would prefer to ignore the "understanding suggested," since it really is not addressing "bare attention" as defined by Vens Bodhi and Nyanaponika.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:25 pm

Alex123 wrote:And how do you, in brief, understand that writing (Alan Wallace's dialogue with Ven Bodhi:) ? What is "bare attention" in your own words?
I am still not going to answer that question, Alan, for the same reasons I have already given. Before I say anything further, given that you are the one who introduced the issue into this sub-discussion, it is up to you to define what you mean by "bare attention."
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

cittaanurakkho
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:12 pm

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by cittaanurakkho » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:31 pm

May this link be helpful. Ven. Analayo himself mentioned a little bit about the term mindfulness in this talk, about minute 59 onward.

http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/208/ ... tation.mp3

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:09 pm

cittaanurakkho wrote:May this link be helpful. Ven. Analayo himself mentioned a little bit about the term mindfulness in this talk, about minute 59 onward.

http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/208/ ... tation.mp3
Thanks. Great talk.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by Alex123 » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:34 pm

Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Before I say anything further, given that you are the one who introduced the issue into this sub-discussion, it is up to you to define what you mean by "bare attention."
By bare attention I mean: "attention to the present moment without evaluating it as kusala/akusala, and without trying to change it."

How do you, Tilt, interpret "bare attention". I've answered your question, now please answer mine.


Alex
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Objection to the Views of Venerable Analayo

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:14 pm

Alex123 wrote:Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Before I say anything further, given that you are the one who introduced the issue into this sub-discussion, it is up to you to define what you mean by "bare attention."
By bare attention I mean: "attention to the present moment without evaluating it as kusala/akusala, and without trying to change it."

How do you, Tilt, interpret "bare attention". I've answered your question, now please answer mine.


Alex
As for how I understand bare attention, carefully read this: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p160162" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, let us process this. You are sitting and a lustful thought pops up, what do you do?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests