StormBorn wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:24 pm
Please search the word “anupada” in Mahasi Sayadaw’s Manual of Insight. There are four occurrences of “Anupada Sutta” and one occurrence of “anupadadhamma-vipassanā”. Below is one example:
Instead of insight arising as my head hit the pillow last night (when my mind said MN 111 is "ridiculous non-sense"); insight just arose with the rapture of relief that arises from the morning toileting.
The sutta says:
And he distinguished the phenomena in the first absorption one by one:
Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana — he ferreted them out one after another.
To make a positive case for dhammic authenticity, what might possibly be described above is as follows:
1. Naturally, in jhana, the respective factors each jhana (vitakka vicara, piti, sukha, ekaggata, equanimity) are the predominant object and naturally manifest/constitute the jhana (as was argued by Tilman Vetter).
2. However, the nama-dhammas (namely, contact, feeling, perception, intention, mind, enthusiasm, decision, energy, mindfulness and attention) naturally also exist, even though they are not the predominant objects and may not ordinarily be discerned in jhana (due to the predominance of the jhana factors).
3. So in this sutta, Sariputta inclines his mind (somehow
) to examine the existence of each of the nama-dhamma.
4. Each nama-dhamma comes into play
as Sariputta inclines the mind to examine/ferret each single nama-dhamma and each nama-dhamma ceases to be the object of attention when Sariputta moves on to distinguishing or ferreting the next nama-dhamma.
Friends, all dhammas come into play through attention.
5. Thus, Sariputta is not distinguishing all of the nama-dhamma at the same time. He distinguishes each nama-dhamma one by one (even though the factors of each jhana remain the predominant objects of mind).
6. In other words, the factors of jhana always remain, in each jhana. Their coming to be was already known and the ceasing will be later known. But to examine each nama-dhamma, the mind inclines (very subtly) and asks very intuitively: "Where is the mindfulness?" and examines it; "Where is the zeal?" and examines it; "Where is the energy?" and examines it, etc.
7. After mindfulness is examined, it ceases as the object of attention when the next dhamma, example, zeal, is examined. So each nama-dhamma comes into play when paying attention to it and each nama-dhamma ceases to be in play when attention moves onto ferretting out the next nama-dhamma.
8. While it remains questionable such intuitive decision making can occur in the 2nd jhana
, I think MN 111 is saying what I suggested.
9. Its the same as meditating upon Dependent Origination. First, the mind must know the theory of each dhamma and sub-dhamma listed in SN 12.2. Then the mind turns/inclines itself to ferreting out those Dependently Originated dhammas. The scholars don't do this because generally their minds hold strong doctrinal bias that prevents an open mind of inquiry.
10. If you read my posts on how to meditatively
distinguish "nama-rupa" from "sankhara" in Dependent Origination, I explain it exactly the same way as above but no-one bothers to listen and practise what I post because most people have strong doctrinal views about Dependent Origination and are not willing to suspend those doctrinal views in order to ferret out the conditions and sub-conditions of Dependent Origination.
Dhammanando wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 10, 2018 3:21 pm
The idea is conveyed most often by adhimuccati
, the verb from which adhimokkha
Thank you for that Venerable.