I have this definition; but maybe you could provide us with something else.
Friends, what is right effort? Here, the bhikkhu arouses interest, puts forth effort and makes the mind spring forward. For the non arising of non-arisen evil thoughts of demerit, for the dispelling of arisen evil thoughts of demerit, for the arousing of non arisen thoughts of merit and for the non deluded establishment, development and completion of arisen thoughts of merit. This is called right effort.
This definition is also a little bit vague, as far as my "paraphrase" is concerned; I mean as far as the hindrances especially, are concerned. Moreover, I see no enlightenment factors in that.
Anyway, when an hindrance comes in satipaṭṭhāna, where does it says not to act with it with right effort, in the canonical?
But where in the Satipaṭṭhānā Suttas does it say to apply Right Effort? If you're going to fall back on your ātāpī
argument again, you're demanding that the suttas be understand by their English translations, instead of what ātāpī
implies in Pali.
Let me ask you a simple question - does a Non-Returner keep "doing" Non-Return? Like ātāpī
, the Non-Returner is described by another substantive noun in the nominative case, ie anāgāmī
from the adjective anāgāmin
(not returning). Persisting in misunderstanding this simple point in Pali and demanding that ātāpī
implies exerting oneself in satipaṭṭhāna
to destroy the defilements misses the point completely. An ātāpī
(a person accomplished in ardency) is called as such, as he has already fulfilled the vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ
qualification through sense-restraint. What is left for him to do when he has given up grief and covetousness with reference to the world is to establish mindfulness.
The suttas gives 4 loci where mindfulness is to be developed. But more importantly, we have this very important signpost in SN 46.51 on how to nourish the Awakening Factors and denourish the hindrances - yonisomanasikāra
(attention that goes to the source). Where exactly in SN 46.51 is one supposed to get rid of the defilements, when it is enough to allow yonisomanasikāra
to denourish them?
Does the noble eightfold path stops at mindfulness. Do we have to dispense with sammādiṭṭhi-right view, sammāsaṅkappo-right thought, sammāvācā-right speech, sammākammanto-right action, and sammā-ājīvo-right livelihood; because right effort has been done away with?
Do we have to dispense with right thought, once we have come up with right speech, for instance?
And can't we have still a bad thought; while we are working on right speech.
While you may find it incredible, parts of the Noble Eightfold Path will disappear as one gets into more refined practices. Eg
SN 36.11 - speech has ceased in 1st Jhana, let alone Right Speech
MN 78 - Right Intention has ceased in 2nd Jhana
DN 9 - even mental kamma has ceased in the Jhanas, as thinking and intending brings one crashing out of an attainment.
AN 3.101 - thoughts about the Dhamma must disappear, in order for one to be able to hold back the hindrances without will.
What's the big deal about Right Effort ceasing at the right time?
But why are there hindrances that pop up when you reach the dwelling in the dhammas (fourth tetrad)?
For what reason a thing comes up, if it has been thoroughly eradicated through the "accomplishment" of right effort, (or mindfulness as in MN 125)?
Because Right Effort can only eradicate certain types of gross roots. Just as in a Jhana, certain latent tendencies cannot anuseti
(MN 44), in the same way, sense restraint can lead to the eradication of certains types of obsessions that are activated by the anusayas
. But, applying Right Effort when one is trying to be established in mindfulness is simply nourishing the hindrance of ill-will. There is simply no way one can pretend that any form of intention or effort founded in extermination (instead of understanding and the brahmavihāras
) is not the latent tendency of aversion anuseti
-ing. Right Effort is essential, but beyond a certain point, it becomes part of a vicious cycle that feeds aversion.
And why should you let them without restraint?
What would be the purpose of getting rid of the preliminary hindrances mindfully (like in MN 125), or with right effort; if it is to let them come back full speed; without intervention?
That is for me the epitome of a strange logic.
Because you are using the wrong tools.
Now, If you were to give me a good reason why I should let the hindrances, or even an unpleasant feeling, (like in the second tetrad), without intervening, that would be nice.
Actually, all of the meditation teachers I know teach "bare attention" to mean "without craving", instead of "without intervention". Even being equanimous towards the hindrance is an intention, an intervention.