Sylvester wrote:Could you explain your points pls? I can't follow.
That post doesn’t specify to what it's referring, but was posted, with no intervening posts, 45 minutes after this post by myself:
Re: Mindfulness of defilements - gently accept or vanquish? (#p395330)
Postby cjmacie » Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:46 am
(concerning "dwelling" and two uses of "cause")
More detailed explanation:
1) re "dwelling"
ToVincent wrote:There is control of the hindrances at the beginning, so as to be able to plunge later on, in the four dwellings (viharati) of the body, feeling, mind & dhamma; within the best conditions possible.
This is shown in the following sutta: "Here some foolish, incompetent, unskilful bhikkhu dwells contemplating…
… Pure contemplation being the act of dwelling and observing…
How in the world does the verb viharati (dwells)
become the substantive noun "dwellings" (vihāra)?
Must you clutch at such desperate measures? The only dwellings in satipaṭṭhāna
It seems quite clear that "four dwellings (viharati)
" means not "dwelling"
in the sense of the noun for a place of residence (i.e. vihāra
); but rather the participial noun meaning, as more explicitly later, "the act of dwelling
2a) Use of "cause"
As far as SN 48.50 is concerned,... vossaggārammaṇaṃ
The "object" being a bit vague, let's however consider it
Well, actually there's nothing vague about ārammaṇa
. To the Abhidhammika, it
means the 6 external bases. To a suttantika, it means "cause
(ārammaṇa -- nt. a sense-object. (A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera's "Concise" dictionary))
More intuitive seems, IMO, "ārammaṇa
" as "support", or "basis", as, for instance, V. Thanissaro has used it. Hence, and in particular, the "object" that "supports" a meditation.
Mahasi Sayadaw elaborates on this ("Treatise on Vipassana
", p, 120):
"With regard to the grammatical expression of ''Vosagga" in the word 'Vosaggā-rammanato' its meaning can be taken in both ways as pariccāga and pakkhandana, just as the phrase which runs as "vosagga-pariṇāmiṃ". In the two meanings just stated, if the intention conveyed has reference to pariccāgattha (the meaning as pariccāga), it is to be spoken as 'ārammaṇānaṃ vosaggo pariccāgo.' Also according to Arammaṇa, it should be taken as an external sense object…
In this regard, the only difference in respect of both the two shades of meaning lies in the grammatical sense. However, they convey the same meaning. The similarity may be explained thus. It would fully imbibe the meaning of "abandoning the external objects", and that means “if there is no arising of reflective thoughts, imagination and planning without contemplating and noting, it rushes into the internal objects (Gocarajjhatta), i.e. contemplating and noting is being done continually without any interval on the objects which ought to be contemplated and noted. Moreover, if it is stated as " rushing into Ajjhatta or internal objects, nay, if contemplation
and noting is made continuously, it would embrace the meaning of "abandoning the bahiddha or external objects, nay, an absence of reflective thoughts, imagination and planning without contemplating and noting. " Hence, the meaning conveys the same sense."
(A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera's "Concise" dictionary:
pariccāga -- m. giving up; abandonment; bestowal; renunciation. (m.) donation; charity.
pakkhandana -- nt. leaping; springing; chasing.)
2b) Another use of "cause"
Sylvester wrote: ToVincent wrote:
... MN 44 -
cattāro satipaṭṭhānā samādhinimittā
The 4 establishments of mindfulness are the nimitta of concentration.
Here, I follow the interpretation that nimitta means "cause"
Read with SN 48.50, about vossagga
being the "basis" for concentration.
as cause (as well as ārammaṇa
as cause) might seem rather problematic, For the reasons:
i) Though "cause" is often used in translations, in Dhamma
it's widely considered that the meaning, e.g. in Paticcasamuppāda
, is more along the lines of "when this, then that; not this then not that" – i.e. more a sense of "association".
As in the scientific sense where research findings are s/t taken as "x causes y", where in fact, at best can be asserted "y associates with x". Particularly medical research, where it's asserted that this or that microbe ("germ") is the "cause" of this or that medical condition. More realistically, the presence of the microbe IN A PARTICULAR HOST ENVIRONMENT results in the medical condition. This or that "plague" that kills, e.g. "20%" of those exposed to it – why aren't the other 80% affected? In the 20% the microbe "causes" it, but in the 80%, their more robust immune systems "causes" not contracting the disease?
ii) A penetrating analysis of use (and abuse) of the word and idea of "causation" in the modern mind found the "Epilogue: The Art and Science of Cause and Effect " to J. Pearl's Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
(2009). The use of "cause" in translation and discussion of the Pali Canon is clearly under the influence of this "modern" notion (and with its problems).
3) Btw. re (above under (2b))
"Read with SN 48.50, about vossagga being the "basis" for concentration"
, examining that sutta, I find, in B. Bodhi's translation as well as the Pali, no reference to either "vossagga
" or concentration, other than perhaps in:
‘‘Idha, bhante, khīṇāsavo bhikkhu saddhindriyaṃ bhāveti upasamagāmiṃ sambodhagāmiṃ, vīriyindriyaṃ bhāveti…pe… satindriyaṃ bhāveti…pe… samādhindriyaṃ
bhāveti…pe… paññindriyaṃ bhāveti upasamagāmiṃ sambodhagāmiṃ.
(Here, venerable sir, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed develops the faculty
of faith … of energy … of mindfulness … of concentration