Re: Anatta vs contemplations of death & metta vs merits making
Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:56 am
Hi starter,
The 'development of the mind' which the putajjanas don't have is 'citta visuddhi' or 'adhicitta sikkha'. When the mind is purified it emanates a kind of luminosity much like the moon at night. What is taught as nimittas is this. This can be arrived at, in a temporary manner, by samatha alone. IMO this corresponds to 'breathing in sensitive to the mind' bit. However when a mind is purified both through samatha and vipassana, and defilement are abandoned, it must be a glorious sight.
For nibbana (extinguishment) to happen, the mind must be free from akusala in terms of precepts, then in terms of the five hindrances, then many upakilesa, before a luminous mind can be reached. It is this pure mind which takes up vipassana, then cuts through avijja. It must be said that no other mind can reach stream entry.
When the mind (Nama components- phassa, vedana, sanna, cetana, manasikara) are seen for what they truly are, as anicca, dukkha and anatta, they are abandoned. Even the luminous mind is dukkha. Ven Sariputta says even 'anantarika samadhi' the highest form of samadhi, which happens immediately before the moment of attainment, must be let gone of. (dasuttara sutta/DN).
The Buddha has used the terms nibbana dhathu etc. Yet he has also said:
1) nibbana is beyond sense objects
2) beyond designation
3) beyond discernment
4) beyond description/expression
The only way to reconcile this conundrum is to take the stance that the Buddha had to call it something (nibbana, that is). Otherwise there would be no way to communicate it to the masses. However this runs the risk of reifying it, but that was probably a risk worth taking as when people understand, using concepts, get drawn into the practice they can see it for themselves. He even called it the highest bliss, knowing fully well that nothing could be felt in nibbana! This is clearly being aware of his purpose- being a Sammasambuddha and the role of the teacher to devas and men- that was foremost in his mind. Accuracy was/seems to be, of secondary importance, when he did speak in those terms. He clearly knew that people are initially drawn into the dhamma based on defilements like craving and ego. He must have also seen that human beings cannot grasp nibbana in its pure form, but needed approximations based on their current delusions. Especially those alluding to nicca (undecaying), Sukha (highest bliss), atta (merging into the ocean). If it is beyond description, we shouldn't attempt to describe it. However, the Buddha's job was somewhat different IMO. I realise that this might not be satisfactory to you, but this is the dhamma.
With metta
The 'development of the mind' which the putajjanas don't have is 'citta visuddhi' or 'adhicitta sikkha'. When the mind is purified it emanates a kind of luminosity much like the moon at night. What is taught as nimittas is this. This can be arrived at, in a temporary manner, by samatha alone. IMO this corresponds to 'breathing in sensitive to the mind' bit. However when a mind is purified both through samatha and vipassana, and defilement are abandoned, it must be a glorious sight.
For nibbana (extinguishment) to happen, the mind must be free from akusala in terms of precepts, then in terms of the five hindrances, then many upakilesa, before a luminous mind can be reached. It is this pure mind which takes up vipassana, then cuts through avijja. It must be said that no other mind can reach stream entry.
When the mind (Nama components- phassa, vedana, sanna, cetana, manasikara) are seen for what they truly are, as anicca, dukkha and anatta, they are abandoned. Even the luminous mind is dukkha. Ven Sariputta says even 'anantarika samadhi' the highest form of samadhi, which happens immediately before the moment of attainment, must be let gone of. (dasuttara sutta/DN).
The Buddha has used the terms nibbana dhathu etc. Yet he has also said:
1) nibbana is beyond sense objects
2) beyond designation
3) beyond discernment
4) beyond description/expression
The only way to reconcile this conundrum is to take the stance that the Buddha had to call it something (nibbana, that is). Otherwise there would be no way to communicate it to the masses. However this runs the risk of reifying it, but that was probably a risk worth taking as when people understand, using concepts, get drawn into the practice they can see it for themselves. He even called it the highest bliss, knowing fully well that nothing could be felt in nibbana! This is clearly being aware of his purpose- being a Sammasambuddha and the role of the teacher to devas and men- that was foremost in his mind. Accuracy was/seems to be, of secondary importance, when he did speak in those terms. He clearly knew that people are initially drawn into the dhamma based on defilements like craving and ego. He must have also seen that human beings cannot grasp nibbana in its pure form, but needed approximations based on their current delusions. Especially those alluding to nicca (undecaying), Sukha (highest bliss), atta (merging into the ocean). If it is beyond description, we shouldn't attempt to describe it. However, the Buddha's job was somewhat different IMO. I realise that this might not be satisfactory to you, but this is the dhamma.
With metta