Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi zerotime,

Thank you for this, and the previous posts:
zerotime wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:13 am You mention nama-rupa. "Nama" means volition, feeling and etc. "Rupa" means the 4 elements and its production. There is not any place in the Canon where it is said rupa it's the origin of nama neither the "mind". What we find is the teaching in where both (nama and rupa) arise because vijnana, the consciousness. And the inverse thing.

So there is no space for a materialism. Materialism it would mean the arising of nama and also consciousness from rupa.
This is one of the points I was trying to stress in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30921#p451130
Unfortunately, that thread seemed to wander off into other issues, and into blanket assertions that: "namarupa means XXX", rather than a careful discussion of what the suttas actually say.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by zerotime »

Hi Mike,
mikenz66 wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:46 am This is one of the points I was trying to stress in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30921#p451130
Unfortunately, that thread seemed to wander off into other issues, and into blanket assertions that: "namarupa means XXX", rather than a careful discussion of what the suttas actually say.
thanks to you for that thread, very interesting! :smile: I will read it with calm.
Agree, the word "nama-rupa" we find inside the Suttas appears everywhere and it is deeper of what it seems in a first view.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by DooDoot »

mikenz66 wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:46 am You mention nama-rupa. "Nama" means volition, feeling and etc. "Rupa" means the 4 elements and its production. There is not any place in the Canon where it is said rupa it's the origin of nama neither the "mind". What we find is the teaching in where both (nama and rupa) arise because vijnana, the consciousness. And the inverse thing.
No. That nama and rupa arise because vijnana is only the order provided in dependent origination (however, there are versions of D.O. where consciousness arises dependent on nama-rupa; e.g, SN 12.67). But in other places, consciousness is caused by the mind & body (nama & rupa). MN 43 appeared to totally refute Ajahn Brahm. MN 43 says in Nirodha Samapatti when mind ends, the body remains (similar to people in a coma or in deep sleep).
Nāmarūpaṃ hetu, nāmarūpaṃ paccayo viññā­ṇak­khan­dhassa paññāpanāyā ti

Nama-and-rupa is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.

SN 22.82
Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises

Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...

Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises.

MN 18
:alien:
mikenz66 wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:46 am This is one of the points I was trying to stress in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30921#p451130
Unfortunately, that thread seemed to wander off into other issues, and into blanket assertions that: "namarupa means XXX", rather than a careful discussion of what the suttas actually say.
I recall this thread was about the interpretations of Nyanananda. Yesterday, I read Nyanananda appear to say the 'sankhara' include the 'kaya-sankhara', namely, the in & out breathing. Therefore, it seems Nyanananda teaches consciousness arises dependent upon the in & out breathing, which is material.
Nyanananda wrote:“And what, monks, are preparations? Monks, there are these three preparations. Body preparation, speech preparation, thought preparation. These, monks, are called preparations.”

It is noteworthy that in this definition, the term saṅkhāra is used in the singular as Kāyasaṅkhāro (body preparation), vacīsaṅkhāro (speech preparation) and cittasaṅkhāro (thought preparation). These three are defined in the Dhamma [MN 44] as follows:

Body preparation – in breath and outbreath
Speech preparation – thinking and pondering
Thought preparation – perception and feeling

So then in the Vibhaṅga Sutta 12 where the Buddha defines each of the twelve links, the term saṅkhāra is defined as threefold. In breathing and out breathing cannot be taken as kamma that prepares another birth. Likewise thinking and The Law of Dependent Arising pondering generally rendered as initial and sustained thought as well as perception and feeling are not reckoned as kamma. In fact whoever is wishing to put an end to existence (bhava) has to appease them. That is why they are called preparations.
:heart:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by mikenz66 »

DooDoot wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:27 am
mikenz66 wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:46 am You mention nama-rupa. "Nama" means volition, feeling and etc. "Rupa" means the 4 elements and its production. There is not any place in the Canon where it is said rupa it's the origin of nama neither the "mind". What we find is the teaching in where both (nama and rupa) arise because vijnana, the consciousness. And the inverse thing.
No. That nama and rupa arise because vijnana is only the order provided in dependent origination (however, there are versions of D.O. where consciousness arises dependent on nama-rupa; e.g, SN 12.67). But in other places, consciousness is caused by the mind & body (nama & rupa). MN 43 appeared to totally refute Ajahn Brahm. MN 43 says in Nirodha Samapatti when mind ends, the body remains (similar to people in a coma or in deep sleep).
I didn't write that. Please be more careful in your posts. But I will say that you seem to miss zerotime's point the the suttas do not make rigid distinctions between mind and body. I'll leave you to argue it out.

:heart:
Mike
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by Saengnapha »

Meezer77 wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:44 pm
Zom wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:26 pm
Say for instance someone has dementia and forgets they are Buddhist. How does it work then? The chemistry in brain affects your intelligence, moods, behaviours, etc. Golly I'm confused
Yes, it affects. As I said, there is strong interconnection. If you have dementia or smth, it ruins all the system (psychophysical organism, mind+matter) and you've got a total malfunction which affects all your "components" - not only 1 component .) Imagine a knotted ball which consists of 2 threads, lets say, red and yellow. If you strongly pull only yellow one, you affect all the ball as a whole, that is, a red one is also pulled.

However, with the power of jhana you can lessen this interconnection. Certain material things won't affect your jhanic mind - like, for example, physical pain, which totally disappears even in the 1st jhana. It seems like you can release your mind to a certain extent there, free it a bit from materiality (full release though doesn't happen until you reach 1st immaterial jhana known as "sphere of infinite space").
So can it be said then that if you master the Jhanas you're immune from ever getting dementia?
I wouldn't take his word for this. 1st jhana is not going to immune you from all pain. Jhanas are temporary states, wholesome, but temporary. Let's not start believing that jhanas are the answer to everything. It is much deeper than this.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by aflatun »

zerotime wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:39 pm
“Materialism seeks the primary and most simple state of matter, and then tries to develop all the others from it; ascending from mere mechanism, to chemism, to polarity, to the vegetable and to the animal kingdom. And if we suppose this to have been done, the last link in the chain would be animal sensibility - that is knowledge - which would consequently now appear as a mere modification or state of matter produced by causality. Now if we had followed materialism thus far with clear ideas, when we reached its highest point we would suddenly be seized with a fit of the inextinguishable laughter of the Olympians. As if waking from a dream, we would all at once become aware that its final result - knowledge, which it reached so laboriously, was presupposed as the indispensable condition of its very starting-point, mere matter; and when we imagined that we thought matter, we really thought only the subject that perceives matter; the eye that sees it, the hand that feels it, the understanding that knows it. Thus the tremendous petitio principii reveals itself unexpectedly.”

Schopenhauer was a force of nature, one of my favorite passages :twothumbsup:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by DooDoot »

mikenz66 wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:47 am But I will say that you seem to miss zerotime's point the the suttas do not make rigid distinctions between mind and body. I'll leave you to argue it out.
Maybe. But ZT appears to be using this absence of rigid distinctions to make a solipsist or spiritualist case.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by DooDoot »

aflatun wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:50 am“Materialism seeks the primary and most simple state of matter, and then tries to develop all the others from it; ascending from mere mechanism, to chemism, to polarity, to the vegetable and to the animal kingdom. And if we suppose this to have been done, the last link in the chain would be animal sensibility - that is knowledge - which would consequently now appear as a mere modification or state of matter produced by causality. Now if we had followed materialism thus far with clear ideas, when we reached its highest point we would suddenly be seized with a fit of the inextinguishable laughter of the Olympians. As if waking from a dream, we would all at once become aware that its final result - knowledge, which it reached so laboriously, was presupposed as the indispensable condition of its very starting-point, mere matter; and when we imagined that we thought matter, we really thought only the subject that perceives matter; the eye that sees it, the hand that feels it, the understanding that knows it. Thus the tremendous petitio principii reveals itself unexpectedly.”
But, again, this argument above is mere word-play. It has no basis in evidence or reality. Knowable reality is:

1. When the body is fatigued, due to a lack of food, the mind becomes fatigued.

2. When the body is exhausted due to sleep deprivation, the mind will collapse into unconsciousness sleep.

3. When the body lacks certain hormones & chemicals, the mind becomes depressed.

4. When the body is charged with certain hormones & chemicals, the mind becomes animated.

5. While Ajahn Brahm may discern the mind expands in clarity in rupa jhanas as the body ceases impingement as a stressful sense object, thus believing body & mind are separate, once the mind enters into arupa jhana the mind starts to fade in the the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, until disappearing in nirodha samapatti. In other words, when totally divorced from the physical body & feeling (vedana), according to MN 43, the mind cannot arise.
Last edited by DooDoot on Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by mikenz66 »

DooDoot wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:56 am
mikenz66 wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:47 am But I will say that you seem to miss zerotime's point the the suttas do not make rigid distinctions between mind and body. I'll leave you to argue it out.
Maybe. But ZT appears to be using this absence of rigid distinctions to make a solipsist or spiritualist case.
I don't think so. He is simply pointing out, as I, and many others have, in these various thread, that western philosophical disctinctions (particuarly rather old ones, such as mind-body duality) are not always relevant to the Dhamma.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by DooDoot »

mikenz66 wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:09 am I don't think so. He is simply pointing out, as I, and many others have, in these various thread, that western philosophical disctinctions (particuarly rather old ones, such as mind-body duality) are not always relevant to the Dhamma.
Unless I heard incorrectly, Ajahn Brahm seemed to strongly argue the mind-body duality, namely, the mind is independent of the physical body.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by aflatun »

DooDoot wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:04 am
But, again, this argument above is mere word-play. It has no basis in evidence or reality. Knowable reality is:

1. When the body is fatigued, due to a lack of food, the mind becomes fatigued.

2. When the body is exhausted due to sleep deprivation, the mind will collapse into unconsciousness sleep.

3. When the body lacks certain hormones & chemicals, the mind becomes depressed.

4. When the body is charged with certain hormones & chemicals, the mind becomes animated.

5. While Ajahn Brahm may discern the mind expands in clarity in rupa jhanas as the body ceases impingement as a stressful sense object, thus believing body & mind are separate, once the mind enters into arupa jhana the mind starts to fade in the the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, until disappearing in nirodha samapatti.
Schopenhauer would certainly concede your points 1 through 4 my friend! In fact he argued the significance of these things quite forcefully. (As for Ajahn Brahm I don't care much for his approach in general, so I don't have anything to add there.)

Schopenhauer's take on these things was actually quite complex, and in my opinion ultimately inconsistent and untenable, but I won't get into all that as its off topic and I'm fairly certain no one cares all that much what the old curmudgeon thought :) (readers digest version: he rejected personal immortality, he rejected a "subject without an object," and he didn't hold consciousness to be some kind of "fundamental reality" or the creator of all...in fact he rather violently criticized the german idealists, Hegel, Fichte, et al for all this).

Nevertheless as a general critique of naive realism and materialism I have to disagree with you, the principle underlying the argument is quite profound and devastating to those theses, but not so clear if you haven't struggled with his entire corpus as the passage is embedded in a great deal of context. Apologies for the derail, I was just expressing my excitement that someone else enjoyed the passage.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by DooDoot »

aflatun wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:27 am Schopenhauer's take..
OK. Thanks for the (secular) education. :)
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by Bundokji »

It would have been more fruitful if there is an agreement between discussants about the meaning of mind. Nevertheless, we seem to have a first hand knowledge of our consciousness, not of our brain, and even when we think about the interdependence or the relationship between the two, the idea would be accepted, rejected or negotiated always as a first hand knowledge through self-consciousness.

Imagine someone who have never seen a brain nor encountered the term itself, would he be able to fabricate and hold a belief that consciousness has a material origin?

Is it possible for someone who believes that the mind can ultimately be reduced to matter to change his belief/mind, or vice versa? is not the open possibility that our views or theories can be changed according to circumstances/evolving evidence, but that those changing beliefs will always appear in consciousness as a first hand knowledge, seem to give the mind the upper hand over matter, at least for all the practical reasons!
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by DooDoot »

I suppose my personal objections were not to Buddhists who chose to believe what Ajahn Brahm teaches but to Buddhists using these beliefs to attack science; similar to how fundamentalist Xtians attack science. In my opinion, it makes Buddhism look really stupid in the eyes of the humanity.

It is similar to those who use Buddhism to attack Islam; which is not the purpose of the Buddhist teachings.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
SarathW
Posts: 21243
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Ajahn Brahm Responds To "Secular Mindfulness"

Post by SarathW »

Buddha never said which came first, consciousness or the rupa.
Only thing what Buddha said was,

"It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form."

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

The problem I have here is:
Isn't Name-&-form already conscious?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply