One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
Pulsar
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by Pulsar »

Srilankaputra wrote
I try not comment on practice topics because each persons practice is such a subjective experience But one person cannot deny another person's experience.
The question was not about personal experience? OP was merely asking about ekaggata mentioned in reference to jhanas? SDC gave an excellent reply by clarifying the meaning of Kammaṭṭhāna. For all intents and purposes it said samadhi is not about dwelling on the nose tip. Op's question was about the soteriological meaning of One pointedness.
You wrote
Personally I think it's best to put away technical words when practicing Samatha and keep it simple.
Don't you think that simplicity can only be found in the Similes that Buddha used to clarify "breath meditation' using Turner Simile, or the jhana similes (soap, spring, lotus in a pond, shrouded in white cloth) to communicate the 4 buddhist jhanas wordlessly.
You wrote
Samatha literaly means calm or calming. Calming successively coarser phenemona and going deeper and deeper in the heart.
Samatha and insight go hand in hand. When you say Samatha do you mean samadhi?
Is there a point in becoming calmer and calmer without accompanying wisdom?
You wrote
The thing is, mind jumping from arammana to arammana like a monkey from branch to branch is not pleasant but tiring.
Sandha sutta that SDC brought up, clearly says the wise meditator does not do this. Only the inexperienced meditator reflects "Barly grain, barley grain"
when offered food. He cannot see beyond the pleasurable sensations of food.
The wise meditator (or thoroughbred is not concerned with food)
Don't you think this is an amazing simile, to show that Samadhi is not about an object.
You wrote
It is natural for a calm mind to settle on one spot. Usually on the breath which is the most prominent phenemona about the body when there is a degree of mental and bodily calm. And it is clearest near the nose. The thing is the breath is a whole world in it self.
  • Are you speaking based on the sutta pitaka or based on the commentaries?
I know you are not saying this based on your personal experience. You wrote 'you stay away from personal experience when commenting'
The following sounds like speculative personal experience.
May be its better to say instead of focusing or concentrating on the breath(or whichever arammana) just become more and more interested in the breath.
With love :candle:

auto
Posts: 1628
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by auto »

Pulsar wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:42 pm
For all intents and purposes it said samadhi is not about dwelling on the nose tip.
i would like to comment on the 'nose tip' one,
Visu.. wrote:113. The rest need not be extended likewise. Why? When a man extends the sign
of in-breaths and out-breaths, only a quantity of wind is extended, and it has a
definite location, [the nose-tip]. So it need not be extended because of the
disadvantage and because of the definiteness of the location.
If you focus on the sign(windy sensation, etc) of the breath, then you are only focusing on some part of the breath. Idea is not to focus on the sign.
There will arise counterpart sign what has that extendable function.

The nose-tip is for to fix attention to somewhere. When starting meditation you don't even have mindfulness(what arises thanks to the meditation object(breath)) for to have concentration.

quote 1, counterpart being extendable
116. The rest need not be extended because they have no sign. For it is the
counterpart sign33 that would be extendable, and the object of the recollection of
the Buddha, etc., is not a counterpart sign. Consequently there is no need for
extension there.
quote 2, breath has counterpart sign
117. 6. As to object: of these forty meditation subjects, twenty-two have counterpart
signs as object, that is to say, the ten kasióas, the ten kinds of foulness, mindfulness of
breathing, and mindfulness occupied with the body; the rest do not have counterpart
signs as object.
sign,
33. The word “nimitta” in its technical sense is consistently rendered here by the word
“sign,” which corresponds very nearly if not exactly to most uses of it. It is sometimes
rendered by “mark” (which over-emphasizes the concrete), and by “image” (which is
not always intended). The three kinds, that is, the preliminary-work sign, learning sign
and counterpart sign, do not appear in the Piþakas. There the use rather suggests
association of ideas as, for example, at M I 180, M I 119, A I 4, etc., than the more
definitely visualized “image” in some instances of the “counterpart sign” described in
the following chapters.
you could skip the reasoning of the nose tip and even write off the counterpart sign as it isn't in the Pitakas. But still your methodless method(your jhana thread) does need sign(from what you know you doing methodless method)..
Pulsar wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:00 pm
SDC wrote
You're going to appreciate this:
Sandha Sutta, that is one sutta that cleared all my doubts. It gladdens my heart that you noticed this.
Once earlier too you pointed out MN 19. That is another remarkable sutta that makes one walk thru the jhanas without words... just similes.
This kind of discussion gets complicated when people refer to Buddhaghosa or commentaries and suttas at the same time. Buddhaghosa or non-Arahants when they approach Samadhi, have quite a different approach.
Buddha the Arahant had a different approach.
yea you can write it all off when it is too demanding for you to understand, but like if you would get into second class then you could look back it was easy compared to what i do now in the second class.
And you are trying here to skip class, like you would understand what they do, sound like dunning kruger effect,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect wrote: In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability.
--
also you are in a Theravada forum where commentaries are allowed. But nothing stop you to interpret Suttas without any comparative study only using your brain.

*someone correct me, if i have completely wrong idea about the 'extendable'. Also would like to know the pali word and if it is in Suttas. As i am projecting here understanding which could be completely off target.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6006
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by SDC »

mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:12 pm
Forgot to comment on this:
SDC wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:28 pm
... in MN 44 satipaṭṭhānā is a "sign of concentration" and in AN 4.14 that "striving by protection" is a prerequisite; ...
Sure, various people (including Ven Sujato) have argued that satipaṭṭhānā is what you do to get to samādhi.

:heart:
Mike
Hi Mike, I know it comes across as almost habitual that I would tweak language for such subtle differences in meaning, but in terms of "doing", that is a key word that really alters the meaning of picking up these various signs. If we back up to "sign of the mind" (cittanimitta), that is the basis for satipaṭṭhānā. Picking up that sign is not exactly an act, it is recognition of what is already present, in the same way that the practice of mindfulness is the recollection of those four foundations. Again, the recollection of what is already there. So there is nothing to create. There is nowhere to go. In fact, it is the stopping of going into the sensual world and trying to find objects that would generate a sensual experience, because it is the discernment of the nature sensuality, which is precisely that seclusion from it. Again, apologies for the nitpick.

Pulsar
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by Pulsar »

SDC wrote
"So there is nothing to create. There is nowhere to go. In fact, it is the stopping of going into the sensual world and trying to find objects"
You are so right, that is my kinda language. Stop doing, stop chasing after sensory objects. The nose tip, that bellybutton, are these not sensory objects?
Be well :candle:

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17740
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by mikenz66 »

SDC wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:12 pm
mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:12 pm
Forgot to comment on this:
SDC wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 5:28 pm
... in MN 44 satipaṭṭhānā is a "sign of concentration" and in AN 4.14 that "striving by protection" is a prerequisite; ...
Sure, various people (including Ven Sujato) have argued that satipaṭṭhānā is what you do to get to samādhi.

:heart:
Mike
Hi Mike, I know it comes across as almost habitual that I would tweak language for such subtle differences in meaning, but in terms of "doing", that is a key word that really alters the meaning of picking up these various signs. If we back up to "sign of the mind" (cittanimitta), that is the basis for satipaṭṭhānā. Picking up that sign is not exactly an act, it is recognition of what is already present, in the same way that the practice of mindfulness is the recollection of those four foundations. Again, the recollection of what is already there. So there is nothing to create. There is nowhere to go. In fact, it is the stopping of going into the sensual world and trying to find objects that would generate a sensual experience, because it is the discernment of the nature sensuality, which is precisely that seclusion from it. Again, apologies for the nitpick.
Well OK, satipaṭṭhānā is a precursor to samādhi. Is that OK?

I do realise that there is a lot of subtlety in dealing with experience, and the Hillside Hermitage Bhikkhus do have some nice ways of examining them. However, when you say:
Picking up that sign is not exactly an act, it is recognition of what is already present, ...
there is still an "action" in that recognition.

:heart:
Mike

Srilankaputra
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by Srilankaputra »

Pulsar wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:42 pm
Don't you think this is an amazing simile, to show that Samadhi is not about an object.
See! words you use mean what YOU mean. Since I can't read minds, can you please explain what you mean by 'object' or your understanding of 'arammana' in the texts. I tried having this conversation with you before, I was promised a response but it never materialised. ;)

Pulsar wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 12:42 pm
I know you are not saying this based on your personal experience. You wrote 'you stay away from personal experience when commenting'
The following sounds like speculative personal experience.
May be its better to say instead of focusing or concentrating on the breath(or whichever arammana) just become more and more interested in the breath.
Oh! What can I say, since you appear to be able to read minds, maybe a further written response is not necessary.

What I would like to see, if you are willing is you sharing your personal experience. That would be most useful for the OP I think.
O seeing one,we for refuge go to thee!
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!

Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati

“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.

Pulsar
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by Pulsar »

Srilankaputra wrote
"See! words you use mean what YOU mean"
when I referred to the simile of the unwise meditator vs wise meditator. What do I mean? I meant Buddha's teaching. A simile that means there is no object, the meditator is thinking of ....simply that?
What I mean? is what the Arahant meant? To me it means the meditator is not focussed on the object of food. Whatever else I say may be a personal experience. Let us discuss this in the context of Sandha Sutta.
How do you understand the sutta? Do you think Buddha was advising Sandha to rely on an object for meditation?
You said you tried to have this conversation with me before? When was this? Can you pl copy that?
You wrote
Oh! What can I say, since you appear to be able to read minds, maybe a further written response is not necessary.
No I cannot read minds, my comment was based on your comment. You are the one who said I am using personal experience, my comment was purely based on the doctrinal message embedded in Sandha Sutta.
You wrote
What I would like to see, if you are willing is you sharing your personal experience. That would be most useful for the OP I think.
  • For sharing personal experience is there not another forum?
The OP has not asked for my personal experience, if he does I shall tell him/her to bring that query to the Personal Experience Forum.
Buddha comes across clear as the light of day in Sandha Sutta, if one cannot understand that,
how can my personal experience help one like that? Besides my personal experience is very personal (and anyone's for that matter), restricted to my struggled progression. It would hold no value when it is unattached to a personal biography.
With love :candle:

Srilankaputra
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by Srilankaputra »

Pulsar wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:33 am
when I referred to the simile of the unwise meditator vs wise meditator. What do I mean? I meant Buddha's teaching. A simile that means there is no object, the meditator is thinking of ....simply that?
What I mean? is what the Arahant meant? To me it means the meditator is not focussed on the object of food.
Still did not answer my question. But please don't take it as me pressuring you. As you wish.
Pulsar wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:33 am
How do you understand the sutta? Do you think Buddha was advising Sandha to rely on an object for meditation?
I know how this is game played. I am asking the questions. I have no problem in saying I am just a student of Dhamma. But on the other hand don't scientists have defend their thesis? (rhetorical question)
Pulsar wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:33 am
You said you tried to have this conversation with me before? When was this? Can you pl copy that?
Do you deny you are bird of paradise on sutta central forum? No need to answer. I feel this conversation is going in an unskillful direction, atleast for me. I would like to make a formal request not to engage me further on this topic. Thank you.
O seeing one,we for refuge go to thee!
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!

Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati

“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6006
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by SDC »

mikenz66 wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:24 pm
SDC wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 5:12 pm
mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:12 pm
Forgot to comment on this:

Sure, various people (including Ven Sujato) have argued that satipaṭṭhānā is what you do to get to samādhi.

:heart:
Mike
Hi Mike, I know it comes across as almost habitual that I would tweak language for such subtle differences in meaning, but in terms of "doing", that is a key word that really alters the meaning of picking up these various signs. If we back up to "sign of the mind" (cittanimitta), that is the basis for satipaṭṭhānā. Picking up that sign is not exactly an act, it is recognition of what is already present, in the same way that the practice of mindfulness is the recollection of those four foundations. Again, the recollection of what is already there. So there is nothing to create. There is nowhere to go. In fact, it is the stopping of going into the sensual world and trying to find objects that would generate a sensual experience, because it is the discernment of the nature sensuality, which is precisely that seclusion from it. Again, apologies for the nitpick.
Well OK, satipaṭṭhānā is a precursor to samādhi. Is that OK?

I do realise that there is a lot of subtlety in dealing with experience, and the Hillside Hermitage Bhikkhus do have some nice ways of examining them. However, when you say:
Picking up that sign is not exactly an act, it is recognition of what is already present, ...
there is still an "action" in that recognition.

:heart:
Mike
Mike, I apologize for a loaded use of the word "action". What I meant was, typical action is sensual on account of the body already "taken up", whereas the direction of samādhi is discernment at the expense of the act of taking it up. I think this is why Ven. Nyanamoli would call it tertiary and a consequence, because it is thrice removed from a typical point of view (pleasure on account of object acquired by the body already taken up). Perhaps this is also why these things cease as that direction is discerned.
SN 36.11 wrote:Then, bhikkhu, I have also taught the successive cessation of determinations. For one who has attained the first jhana, speech has ceased. For one who has attained the second jhana, thought and examination have ceased. For one who has attained the third jhana, rapture has ceased. For one who has attained the fourth jhana, in-breathing and out-breathing have ceased.
Again, I understand it may seem like a petty nitpick, but I think the distinction is important. Obviously one has no choice but to start with the body already taken up, but that effort to not conceive it further, to not act on account of it, is the effort to be secluded from sensuality.

I realize I'm out on a limb and my direct knowledge of jhana is severely limited.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6006
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by SDC »

Srilankaputra wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:05 pm
I feel this conversation is going in an unskillful direction, atleast for me. I would like to make a formal request not to engage me further on this topic. Thank you.
Duly noted.

Bear in mind it is a ToS violation to pursue a member who has declined further participation within a particular topic:
j. Pressuring members to engage, despite them having already explicitly declined such engagement in the current topic

Pulsar
Posts: 786
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by Pulsar »

Srilankaputra wrote
Do you deny you are bird of paradise on sutta central forum? No need to answer. I feel this conversation is going in an unskillful direction, atleast for me. I would like to make a formal request not to engage me further on this topic. Thank you.
You made a formal request, but it is not fair, if I cannot defend my position. I am not engaging you anymore, but simply explaining my position. I do not like to say anything negative about a website I might have contributed something to. That would be an ingratitude. If i participate in a website, and a moderator ties my hands as to what I can say and not say... then that site is not for me.
Freedom of speech, it is written into the American constitution, and I do not abuse those
privileges.
An incident however at SC,
I enjoyed the back and forth there, and met some really nice people who engaged with me, and I am the better for it, and I am grateful to them.
Unfortunately, I asked a person who was engaging, "Do you practice Samma Samadhi?" A moderator berated me. To her it was a personal question. The question was not personal at all. It is like asking "Do you practice Right Effort or right speech?" in a discussion on 8-fold path. Without that exchange the discussion is futile, a waste of time.
If that is considered personal, then that circle was not for me, even though I dearly miss some of them.
It was a thread on 4 jhanas and four foundations of mindfulness, using the right protocols. The website made it clear the discussions are based On EBTS.
But it turned out several folks introduced quotes from VSM. Now the moderator simply had no problem with that, but they had a problem with OP asking do you practice Samma samadhi?
To mix VSM and Buddha's suttas is a nightmare for me
Either you discuss VSM or Buddha the Arahant: teachings. To me there is a big difference here.

Plenty of times in the past I have addressed these concerns on my jhana thread. Recently I spoke of Turner simile, which
clearly shows right samadhi is not about an object, but about a dynamic situation.
More than once I have spoken of Sandha sutta on my thread on DW. It is critical, for in there Buddha clearly points out that only the unwise engage in Arupas, and that thread is on 4 jhanas.
VSM has a totally different commentary on Arupas, in fact it says these Arupas are meant for the anagamis and Arahants. They reach Sannavedayitanirodha via these? A comatose state?
What a contradiction?
A rhetorical question is not necessarily a bad thing
Buddha often employed this in order to get a point across, for instance in his exchange with Malunkyaputta or Vaccagotta.
My apologies to the OP for this diversion. To the moderators: this was not written with the intention of engaging Srilankaputra anymore, but he had publicly made a comment, which required a public response to the others on the thread.
With love :candle:
Last edited by Pulsar on Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6006
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by SDC »

Pulsar wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:58 pm
To the moderators: this was not written with the intention of engaging Srilankaputra anymore, but he had publicly made a comment, which required a public response to the others on the thread.
With love :candle:
Also noted.

auto
Posts: 1628
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by auto »

Pulsar wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:58 pm
More than once I have spoken of Sandha sutta on my thread on DW. It is critical, for in there Buddha clearly points out that only the unwise engage in Arupas, and that thread is on 4 jhanas.
other people who read Sandha Sutta might not interpret it like you do

i assume it is this quote,
"He is absorbed dependent on earth... liquid... fire... wind... the sphere of the infinitude of space... the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness... the sphere of nothingness... the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... the next world... whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect. That is how an unbroken colt of a man is absorbed.
i don't know how you got out of that quote that the arupa "jhanas" are for idiots.

read MN 1 sutta for entire list, which points out vinnanam anidassanam(sorry it doesn't i remembered other Sutta, here is the All*.) at the end.
https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato wrote: They perceive the seen as the seen.Diṭṭhaṃ diṭṭhato sañjānāti;
But then they identify with the seen …diṭṭhaṃ diṭṭhato saññatvā diṭṭhaṃ maññati, diṭṭhasmiṃ maññati, diṭṭhato maññati, diṭṭhaṃ meti maññati, diṭṭhaṃ abhinandati.Why is that?Taṃ kissa hetu?
Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.‘Apariññātaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi. (17)
and list geos on, i think that is the context of that Sandha Sutta quote. And doesn't seem like what you try to convey with your interpretation.

*
He directly knows water …Āpaṃ … pe …
fire …tejaṃ …
air …vāyaṃ …
creatures …bhūte …
gods …deve …the Creator …pajāpatiṃ …Brahmā …brahmaṃ …the gods of streaming radiance …ābhassare …the gods replete with glory …subhakiṇhe …the gods of abundant fruit …vehapphale …the Overlord …abhibhuṃ …
the dimension of infinite space …ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ …
the dimension of infinite consciousness …viññāṇañcāyatanaṃ …
the dimension of nothingness …ākiñcaññāyatanaṃ …the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception …nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ …the seen …diṭṭhaṃ …the heard …sutaṃ …the thought …mutaṃ …the known …viññātaṃ …oneness …ekattaṃ …diversity …nānattaṃ …all …sabbaṃ …He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment.nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhijānāti;But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment.nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṃ na maññati, nibbānasmiṃ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṃ meti na maññati, nibbānaṃ nābhinandati.Why is that?Taṃ kissa hetu?Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,‘Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti—and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies.iti viditvā ‘bhavā jāti bhūtassa jarāmaraṇan’ti.
dependence vs directly knowing.

auto
Posts: 1628
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by auto »

adding for above post,
https://suttacentral.net/sn47.3/en/sujato wrote:“Sir, may the Buddha please teach me Dhamma in brief. When I’ve heard it, I’ll live alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute.”“sādhu me, bhante, bhagavā saṃkhittena dhammaṃ desetu, yamahaṃ bhagavato dhammaṃ sutvā eko vūpakaṭṭho appamatto ātāpī pahitatto vihareyyan”ti.

“This is exactly how some foolish people ask me for something. But when the teaching has been explained they think only of following me around.”“Evameva panidhekacce moghapurisā mañceva ajjhesanti, dhamme ca bhāsite mameva anubandhitabbaṃ maññantī”ti.
the term maññantī.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17740
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: One "Point" which includes vs. excludes

Post by mikenz66 »

SDC wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:31 pm
Again, I understand it may seem like a petty nitpick, but I think the distinction is important. Obviously one has no choice but to start with the body already taken up, but that effort to not conceive it further, to not act on account of it, is the effort to be secluded from sensuality.
Yes, I do think it is important. There is a progression of depth in in understanding experience.

:heart:
Mike

Post Reply