Senses and the Thought Part I (Ven. NN)

[aflatun]

Hello all.

This is a part of a transcription I'm working on, of this talk by Venerable Ninoslav Nanamoli as found here:

https://nyanamolibhikkhu.wordpress.com

I will hopefully have the time to keep going and finish this one out, if not perhaps transcribe snippets of his other talks that I've found interesting in their own respective threads for conversation, assuming anyone is interested. This segment really grabbed me, and so I will put it here for your enjoyment. I have a dozen questions and much of this went right over my head, but I'll hold off for now as its digesting.

I take full responsibility for any errors I've made and would welcome them being pointed out to me.

I tried not to 'correct' grammar too much. When I couldn't discern the word(s) I used an "X," and any parenthetical remarks are my own. Any and all feedback, thoughts, questions or concerns are welcome.

I don't know how long the "edit" option remains open but I hope I can return to the OP to expand and modify as needed.

Have a wonderful evening !


42:37:

NN: And you don’t establish it (mindfulness) by going somewhere deep inside of your head or whatever else. You establish it by recognizing your general experience right now as you speak, fully determined by this positioned matter of your body on that chair while we’re speaking while you’re asking these questions. That body remains there, seated. Or whichever situation its in. And you have no control over the material aspect of that. I mean you have no control to such an extent that you can’t even think matter. You can think in regard to that which matter is. And even that which you think that matter is …in regard to which you’re thinking, that’s also a thought. That’s how inaccessible elements are. And consciousness is out there with them, equally inaccessible. And then you will realize that whatever comes as a result of conscious matter, namely, feeling, perception, intentions…are equally inaccessible. So, my sense of my self… me, volition, intention, determination…are not mine. Inconceivable to be mine. Which is…remember we spoke about it few days ago…We said when its so… fundamentally inconceivable…death as I…is absolutely nothing to grieve over…its impossible to even conceive a notion of grief…sadness… all of it. Which is why, in that Udana the Buddha said there is the Unborn…the Undetermined…

Q1: (X)?

NN: Yeah all of those…like there is…and that’s that inaccessible thing. Because if there wouldn’t be…Nibbana is the inaccessible. It’s real, in…in every experience… In experience of (a) Buddhist, Non Buddhist, Puthujjana, Arahant…Nibbana is there. It’s just whether it’s fully understood or not. If there wouldn’t be inaccessible, means, access would be there. And freedom from it would not be possible. But because there is inaccessible, freedom from anything that you could have accessed before is possible. And accessible is anything that appears. Means you can access it, you can take it. You can appropriate it. Hence birth, aging, death and so on… as a result of it. But if you fully understand that its rooted upon something you can’t even think, and you know that, means you know what inaccessible is, without conceiving it in your thoughts. Its absolutely like…no room for emotion, its just… inconceivable. Which is why Arahant doesn’t feel anything. And that’s how, as well, you can resolve upon that with wisdom, long enough to become an Arahant. Because if you keep that image long enough, correctly, without conceiving it, all of the factors will fall away…which is what Sekkha is supposed to do. “Not me, not mine, not I am.” Not access it here, not access it there, not assume access about this, not assume access about that. That’s what the element of Nibbana…Nibbana-dhatu, that’s what it means. Its there, as a possibility, as an element, but…needs to be understood.

Q1: It has to get established…

NN: Yeah…and that’s why you can conceive it as well. In that other sutta it says “he thinks oh, yeah, I am in Nibbana, I’m entering Nibbana.” “That” which he refers to is actually Nibbana. But he’s not entering it, or attaining it, because he’s thinking, “I am.” He’s conceiving it. So it’s nothing magical, its nothing hidden in that sense, like… what you have as Puthujjana is five aggregates…what you have as Arahant is five aggregates…Its within that, that the whole Dhamma is contained. Basically it pertains to the way you take them, or not: The five aggregates. And you take them, for as long as you don’t fully understand…that it’s impossible to take them in the first place. They’re inaccessible. Not knowing that they’re inaccessible, you access them…through that lack of knowledge. So there is no room for it, but it has always been there. So its beginningless but actually its not supposed to be there. Its not needed, its not necessary, it’s a parasite as Nanavira referred to it…but beginningless. Something you know before, because if you knew before you couldn’t have fallen onto this not knowing. Because once you know, you cannot not know anymore. So this lack of knowledge is beginningless, yet completely gratuitous. Not knowing that they’re inaccessible. That’s it.

Q2: And with general mindfulness we can begin to recognize the khandas are inaccessible…

NN: Well you recognize that any thought…any notion…any X, any designation, no matter how subtle, how remote, how general, how ambiguous…you recognize it as such, and by recognizing it as such you don’t take it to stand…you don’t take it to access that which is inaccessible. Which is back onto the principle of meditation I was telling you about before: Whatever arises you include it. You recognize it as such. And that’s what I mean, when you say “ah the matter is inaccessible,” that thought of that inaccessible matter is also your thought, which you then think that matter to be, so you…that matter has access to you, or you access the matter so “he conceives in matter, matter in me, I am in matter, I’m left, I’m right…he conceives matter.” But if you know that matter is inaccessible, and then that thought doesn’t stand for that which matter is, and that thought that says “that which matter is” also doesn’t stand for that which matter is…and that…there’s no end to it…so you leave the whole infinite kind of domain…well sorry you don’t leave it, but you kind of understand that whole infinite domain as basically inaccessible: It cannot access matter, matter cannot access it. No matter how far you go, what next thought comes, it cannot stand for that which matter is because that’s another thought that …can’t stand for what matter is. So you realize that whatever I think, quickly or slowly, remotely, ambiguously, it would be on the level of thought. Thus, that which matter is cannot manifest itself in my thought, because what I think, are my thoughts. Which is why, what I perceive are my perceptions, what I feel are my feelings, I don’t feel my thoughts. I don’t perceive my feelings. That confusion means confusion in regard to the basic nature of phenomena. So needs to be clarified to that point, when what I’m saying now can make more sense. But…if you think matter, you direct your … matter…that’s a thought. You recognize no matter how far it goes, you recognize it within the domain of thought. Next thought, still shares the same nature of thought. And you get to understand that when you start concerning yourself with nature of things, as opposed to the particularity of things. So you don’t care what you think, you care “thought is there.” You don’t care what you see you, care “sight is there.” You start recognizing the nature of things, by being established in the nature of thought…nature of the…of the, of the thought domain, which is basically the nature of everything…means…whatever you think, will be seen in its nature, which means, it will be seen in its arising, ceasing, and persisting while changing…for as long as its persisting, but it will not be…umm…confused, it will not be assumed, to stand for that which is outside of the domain of thought. And even the thought “outside of the domain of thought” cannot actually be outside of the domain of thought because its another thought. So you can’t step outside of it. Inconceivable.

Q1: So while…I’ll, ah… being mindful of that nature…thought. You…you have to recognize…you have to see it as…

NN: Well no, it arises on its own. You didn’t create that thought. So if you recognize it to the extent which it has arisen, you’re not adding anything to it, there’s no assumption to it, you’re not taking anything away from it, so that’s why, by contemplating, …X…or even the the bodhisattva…previous Buddha Vipassi before he became the Buddha…while he was still bodhisattva, he recognize that and then all he done, was contemplating arising, manifestat...arising, appearance, and disappearance, persisting or changing in regard to five aggregates. Things in their arising…things manifesting in their arising, things manifesting in their ceasing. And that’s it. He done that long enough, he became samma sambuddha. And the same principle works for anyone who wants to become an Arahant. Because things do arise on their own. If they weren’t, means you would be their master.

Q1: Then…so that’s…if I…recognize feeling… I say that’s just a thought

NN: Well, yeah, feeling is mental. But if you say, “that’s just a thought,” as opposed to what else? What else is not just a thought?

Q1: OK…

NN: Even “just a thought” is just a thought.

Q1: Yeah that’s what I…eh…it’s a thought.

NN: Well everything is a thought, so instead of “that’s just a thought,” no, “that’s a thought.” Which means mastering your thoughts, you’ll be an Arahant. And funny enough there is a sutta that says that. But you don’t master your abstract, scholarly proliferation thoughts, you master the phenomenon of thoughts. Because everything is mental in that sense. You wouldn’t be able to discern anything if it…if it doesn’t …kind of …pertain to your mind. It might come from different directions, but that’s where you know it. You just couldn’t. So feeling is mental.

Q1: So you say whatever…whatever arises…is a…

NN: Well mental means it’s…mental means its phenomena. It’s a phenomenon. That’s what mind is: the domain of the phenomena is what citta is. And when the Buddha asked “well what are those dhammas,” it’s the five aggregates. What else can it be? “What are those sankharas?” It’s the five aggregates. What else can it be?

Q1: So…so how…

NN: So if you use “thought” to describe your discursive thinking…proliferation, then you shouldn’t use the same word to describe this, you can refer to it as “phenomenon” or a mental image. And everything is a mental image. Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to discern it as anything. It would not manifest. So, the mental image of “this is just a thought” is a mental image…of “this is just a thought.” So thoughts are mental images. Perceptions are mental images. Feelings are mental images. Or, thoughts are dhammas, feelings are dhammas, perceptions are dhammas. They are phenomena.

Q2: So contemplating arising and falling, you’re contemplating arising and falling of…of mental images

NN: Yeah. The experience as a whole in its foundations. It has arisen. Basically, arising…is already persisting or changing. It’s just increasing in its presence. But increased, but fading in means “Ah, its already changing while its increasing. So the the three character….arising, persisting and uh, sorry…arising, ceasing, and persisting while changing fully understood and so on, what the suttas talk about, its not like three things in a sequence. And its certainly not what Bhikkhu Bodhi and many others say like arising, persisting, changing, ceasing…that’s like a linear observation of something that fully pertains to time, something that you can measure: “oh it started, now its lasting, now its gone.” And I’m fully out of it. No. Arising is already the persisting or changing. Ceasing is already the persisting or changing. So it’s just like fading in or fading out…while persisting or changing…its on two completely different levels. Arising and ceasing is on one level, persisting or changing is another level. So that already means you cannot not include yourself in that form of contemplation. So if your general experience as a whole is arising in a certain way, its persisting or changing, and if you’re aware of that, well you’re aware of you being within that. “Oh this is arising for me, or to me, or left of me or right of me” well its all persisting or changing and you’re mindful of that. And then in the same sense when something is fading away, its still there, its still a form of appearance…that’s what I mean…you won’t find impermanence at the ending of the thing. That’s just another thing then. You’ll find it within the appearance, within the persistence of that thing you’ll find that’s why it’s impermanent. Because it persists on its own.

Dog 1: ROOOOO, RUH ROOOO! RUF! RUF! RUF!

Dog 2: Grrrrr.

[aflatun]

EDIT: I removed some of the implied pausing, stammering etc for readability. The conversation as recorded is much more smooth and comprehensible then some of my renderings would have implied. I have a musical background and having done a lot of transcription (jazz) I tend to strive for precision rather than "what was intended" which I think isn't always useful here!

The barking remains unedited, those dogs are so cute

[aflatun]

That body remains there, seated. Or whichever situation it’s in. And you have no control over the material aspect of that. I mean you have no control to such an extent that you can’t even think matter. You can think in regard to that which matter is. And even that which you think that matter is …in regard to which you’re thinking, that’s also a thought. That’s how inaccessible elements are. And consciousness is out there with them, equally inaccessible. And then you will realize that whatever comes as a result of conscious matter, namely, feeling, perception, intentions…are equally inaccessible. So, my sense of my self… me, volition, intention, determination…are not mine. Inconceivable to be mine. Which is…remember we spoke about it few days ago…We said when it’s so… fundamentally inconceivable…death as I…is absolutely nothing to grieve over…it’s impossible to even conceive a notion of grief…sadness… all of it. Which is why, in that Udana the Buddha said there is the Unborn…the Undetermined…

…Yeah all of those…like there is…and that’s that inaccessible thing. Because if there wouldn’t be…Nibbana is the inaccessible. It’s real, in…in every experience… In experience of (a) Buddhist, Non Buddhist, Puthujjana, Arahant…Nibbana is there. It’s just whether it’s fully understood or not. If there wouldn’t be inaccessible, means, access would be there. And freedom from it would not be possible. But because there is inaccessible, freedom from anything that you could have accessed before is possible. And accessible is anything that appears. Means you can access it, you can take it. You can appropriate it. Hence birth, aging, death and so on… as a result of it. But if you fully understand that its rooted upon something you can’t even think, and you know that, means you know what inaccessible is, without conceiving it in your thoughts.

I find the entire exchange very rich and challenging. Hopefully a few of our phenomenological gurus will feel like chatting about this, as I’m having some difficulty grasping what he’s getting at.

1) Is it correct to understand the inaccessibility of the aggregates as the fact that they can’t be truly appropriated? I’m assuming that’s what he means? However some of the other statements seem to imply some epistemic inaccessibility, rather than ownership (see 3 below)?

2) I lose him somewhat when he says, “Nibbana is the inaccessible.” Perhaps it’s the way he’s phrasing it. As stated it sounds like he’s referring to some unknowable substratum, but I don’t think that’s what he means…

Does he rather mean perhaps, phrased somewhat clunkily: “Nibbana is knowing the inaccessibility of the aggregates?” So maybe we can paraphrase the Udana verse as:

“Because appropriation of/access to the aggregates was never really possible, freedom from (illusory) appropriation/access and its sequelae can be known.”

3) Later on he tells us:

Well you recognize that any thought…any notion…any X, any designation, no matter how subtle, how remote, how general, how ambiguous…you recognize it as such, and by recognizing it as such you don’t take it to stand…you don’t take it to access that which is inaccessible…

So you realize that whatever I think, quickly or slowly, remotely, ambiguously, it would be on the level of thought. Thus, that which matter is cannot manifest itself in my thought, because what I think, are my thoughts. Which is why, what I perceive are my perceptions, what I feel are my feelings, I don’t feel my thoughts. I don’t perceive my feelings.

So thoughts, perceptions, feelings, etc cannot really mingle or cross into their respective spheres. Normally we think that we’re thinking and feeling the same thing, or that we are the thing that both thinks and feels, but both situations are literally impossible as these different, shall we say, functions have different targets, objects, I’m not sure what the right word is, but as he says, “what I perceive are my perceptions, what I feel are my feelings.” How does this lead to the conclusion that I therefore cannot access them?

As I play with this in my imagination, I’m wondering if the implications are the same for the sense bases? As in, I can’t see and hear the same thing (object) any more so than hearing and seeing can be for the same thing (subject), they don’t actually mingle. If this is true it would basically destroy the intelligibility of any notion of substance in an interesting way...

[aflatun]

Placing this here as I believe its related to part of what Ven. NN is talking about above, neither of which I understand yet

Although one cannot help but have thoughts in regards to one’s experience, the Buddha provides us with thoughts, teachings, ways of regarding experience which correspond with the nature of that experience. If they did not correspond with the nature of experience then it would not be possible to fully understand that experience, but because they do correspond, it is possible to fully understand that experience. Therefore, it is possible for a bhikkhu to take on, cultivate and develop the thought: “Such is matter” such that that thought begins to stand for that which is the material basis for that experience. This will only be the case when he ceases to assume the existence of that matter—when the thought: “Such is matter” no longer determines that matter dependent upon which that thought is there. Such a bhikkhu understands that any relationship, any directionality, any assumption whatsoever between these two things (the thought: “Such is matter” and the matter because of which that thought: “Such is matter” is there) is inconceivable. They are two completely separate heaps that cannot possibly cross over into each other’s domain. Therefore, he no longer assumes that the matter which he thinks about is, is not, both is and is not, neither is nor is not that matter because of which the thought: “Such is matter” is there. In this way, he no longer conceives matter. The thought: “Such is matter” no longer determines matter as such. All that can be said is that it is simply simultaneously present with it—nothing more. The nature of that matter because of which the thought: “Such is matter” is there is now directly seen. And it is by seeing this that he now knows what his task is: to abandon it.

https://pathpress.wordpress.com/2017/02 ... ndfulness/

EDIT: I can't get the URL to work, I'm really good at this forum

[SDC]

EDIT: I can't get the URL to work, I'm really good at this forum

I fixed it for you.

Quote your post to see the html code.

[aflatun]

EDIT: I can't get the URL to work, I'm really good at this forum

I fixed it for you.

Quote your post to see the html code.

HAH Thank you SDC!

[aflatun]

When I paste it, there seems to be an extra bit that is missing from your edit:

https://pathpress.wordpress.com/2017/02 ... #more-2060[/u][/b]

This is more complicated than existential dhamma

[chownah]

........
.........
…Yeah all of those…like there is…and that’s that inaccessible thing. Because if there wouldn’t be…Nibbana is the inaccessible. It’s real, in…in every experience… In experience of (a) Buddhist, Non Buddhist, Puthujjana, Arahant…Nibbana is there. It’s just whether it’s fully understood or not. If there wouldn’t be inaccessible, means, access would be there. And freedom from it would not be possible. But because there is inaccessible, freedom from anything that you could have accessed before is possible. And accessible is anything that appears. Means you can access it, you can take it. You can appropriate it. Hence birth, aging, death and so on… as a result of it. But if you fully understand that its rooted upon something you can’t even think, and you know that, means you know what inaccessible is, without conceiving it in your thoughts.

I think this is mostly just a restatement of the third noble truth with him using "the inaccessible" as yet another nickname for nibhanna....like the unborn, the deathless, the blah, the blah, and the blah. Sorry if I seem cynical about these nicknames....it is just that when they get read off rapidly it reminds me of the wild west snake oil sales men who went around selling miracle cures......actually it strikes me as more comical than cynical.....I don't mean to offend anyone so please don't take this comment too seriously...
chownah

[SDC]

When I paste it, there seems to be an extra bit that is missing from your edit:

https://pathpress.wordpress.com/2017/02 ... #more-2060[/u][/b]

This is more complicated than existential dhamma

You have to make sure you put the address within the "". Click the "URL" above.

[aflatun]

........
.........
…Yeah all of those…like there is…and that’s that inaccessible thing. Because if there wouldn’t be…Nibbana is the inaccessible. It’s real, in…in every experience… In experience of (a) Buddhist, Non Buddhist, Puthujjana, Arahant…Nibbana is there. It’s just whether it’s fully understood or not. If there wouldn’t be inaccessible, means, access would be there. And freedom from it would not be possible. But because there is inaccessible, freedom from anything that you could have accessed before is possible. And accessible is anything that appears. Means you can access it, you can take it. You can appropriate it. Hence birth, aging, death and so on… as a result of it. But if you fully understand that its rooted upon something you can’t even think, and you know that, means you know what inaccessible is, without conceiving it in your thoughts.

I think this is mostly just a restatement of the third noble truth with him using "the inaccessible" as yet another nickname for nibhanna....like the unborn, the deathless, the blah, the blah, and the blah. Sorry if I seem cynical about these nicknames....it is just that when they get read off rapidly it reminds me of the wild west snake oil sales men who went around selling miracle cures......actually it strikes me as more comical than cynical.....I don't mean to offend anyone so please don't take this comment too seriously...
chownah

Thank you for your thoughts Chownah, no offense taken. If we can't have a laugh we're probably doing something very wrong

I do agree with you, as you can probably see from my post and blasphemous ( ) attempt to reword the Udana. The confusion for me was that he was using the same word for the aggregates.

Despite Ven. Ninoslav Nanmoli's and the other phenomenological writers disdain for 'mysticism' and apparently some Mahayana formulations, I can't help but see the similarity between what he's saying here and some Mahayana formulations, e.g. all dharmas are unborn, etc, but that would take this thread way out into left field and won't help me understand him on his own terms, so I'll shut it! For now...