Greetings Geoff,
Thanks for sharing that Ajahn Chah quote... what a star.
Metta,
Retro.
SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
Ok, but when Thai masters say "the citta is constant" they're the ones making statements, it's not me reading into anything.mikenz66 wrote:Hi Kirk,
But the Suttas do speak of "mind and mind objects". Whether "mind" is something constant or not is a different question that doesn't seem to me to affect Ajahn Chah's statement. Like Geoff, I wouldn't try to read metaphysics into such statements.
Mike
"But the citta, the true knowing essence, does not arise and pass away like the body and the feelings do. The citta’s knowing presence is the one stable constant."
- Ajahn Maha Boowa
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ntship.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So. If "mind" is defined in one place as inconstant, and here as constant, that requires some explanation, I would say. That is not resolved by admonitions not to "papanca-ize" Seems to me like an important point of the Dhamma.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
Hi Kirk,
I don't have the reference handy but Ajhan Maha Bua does say in one of his books that his terminology and descriptions are non-standard (as many others would also point out!).
That doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong, he's presumably describing his experience, but it does means that trying to reconcile his statements with Suttas is bound to be problematical. Perhaps a discussion about that would be better in another section of the Forum.
Mike
I don't have the reference handy but Ajhan Maha Bua does say in one of his books that his terminology and descriptions are non-standard (as many others would also point out!).
That doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong, he's presumably describing his experience, but it does means that trying to reconcile his statements with Suttas is bound to be problematical. Perhaps a discussion about that would be better in another section of the Forum.
Mike
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
Sure no problem Mike, thanks for the discussion.mikenz66 wrote:Hi Kirk,
I don't have the reference handy but Ajhan Maha Bua does say in one of his books that his terminology and descriptions are non-standard (as many others would also point out!).
That doesn't necessarily mean that he's wrong, he's presumably describing his experience, but it does means that trying to reconcile his statements with Suttas is bound to be problematical. Perhaps a discussion about that would be better in another section of the Forum.
Mike
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
What is being referred to is the lucidity, clarity, and suppleness of mind. When one meditates a lot the mind can become incredibly lucid and clear. This vivid presence of mind can be mistaken for an unchanging quality. But the mind must necessarily change along with its perceptions. If the mind didn't change along with its perceptions then either:kirk5a wrote:So. If "mind" is defined in one place as inconstant, and here as constant, that requires some explanation, I would say. That is not resolved by admonitions not to "papanca-ize" Seems to me like an important point of the Dhamma.
(a) the mind would forever be frozen exclusively perceiving one unchanging object, or
(b) the mind would continuously perceive every single object cognized.
If we take visual consciousness for example: If you turn your head from right to left (with eyes open), your entire visual field changes as your head moves. When your head is to the left you are no longer cognizant of what was cognized in the beginning position to the right. Therefore, both (a) and (b) above are refuted, and we can correctly discern that visual consciousness changes along with its perceptions. And what is true for visual consciousness is also true for the other five consciousnesses. There can be no unchanging, permanent consciousness.
All the best,
Geoff
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
So are these qualities of lucidity, clarity and suppleness impermanent? In nibbana are they not stabilised?Ñāṇa wrote:What is being referred to is the lucidity, clarity, and suppleness of mind. When one meditates a lot the mind can become incredibly lucid and clear. This vivid presence of mind can be mistaken for an unchanging quality. But the mind must necessarily change along with its perceptions. If the mind didn't change along with its perceptions then either:kirk5a wrote:So. If "mind" is defined in one place as inconstant, and here as constant, that requires some explanation, I would say. That is not resolved by admonitions not to "papanca-ize" Seems to me like an important point of the Dhamma.
(a) the mind would forever be frozen exclusively perceiving one unchanging object, or
(b) the mind would continuously perceive every single object cognized.
If we take visual consciousness for example: If you turn your head from right to left (with eyes open), your entire visual field changes as your head moves. When your head is to the left you are no longer cognizant of what was cognized in the beginning position to the right. Therefore, both (a) and (b) above are refuted, and we can correctly discern that visual consciousness changes along with its perceptions. And what is true for visual consciousness is also true for the other five consciousnesses. There can be no unchanging, permanent consciousness.
All the best,
Geoff
_/|\_
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
Consciousness is impermanent. Therefore, any qualities of consciousness are also impermanent.Dan74 wrote:So are these qualities of lucidity, clarity and suppleness impermanent? In nibbana are they not stabilised?
All the best,
Geoff
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
Ñāṇa wrote:There are plenty of other suttas which, if properly considered, safeguard against such notions.
Ven. Ṭhānissaro's latent fire theory really cannot be sustained. The fire metaphor most commonly refers to the three fires of passion, aggression, and delusion. If the Indian Buddhist understanding of fire was really that an extinguished fire goes into a "latent state," then these three fires could re-combust within an arahant's mind as long as there is fuel remaining (i.e. saupādisesa nibbānadhātu: nibbāna element with fuel remaining). Of course, this would render nibbāna quite meaningless.
All the best,
Geoff
After all our Jhana debates, I'm glad there's at least this thing we can agree on.
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
More synonyms for Nippapañcañca popping up.Ñāṇa wrote:As for the view expressed there, I'd suggest that it's far more skillful to follow the advise of the Buddha as recorded in the Pāḷi Canon. This will safeguard against engaging in pointless mental proliferation (papañca). Suttanipāta 5.6:
All the best,
- [Upasiva:] He who has reached the end: Does he not exist, or is he for eternity free from dis-ease? Please, sage, declare this to me as this phenomenon has been known by you.
[The Buddha:] One who has reached the end has no criterion by which anyone would say that — for him it doesn't exist. When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well.
Geoff
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
I suspect that there may be a fair bit that we can agree on.Sylvester wrote:After all our Jhana debates, I'm glad there's at least this thing we can agree on.
All the best,
Geoff
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
mikenz66 wrote:Hi Kirk,
But the Suttas do speak of "mind and mind objects". Whether "mind" is something constant or not is a different question that doesn't seem to me to affect Ajahn Chah's statement. Like Geoff, I wouldn't try to read metaphysics into such statements.
Mike
And this is one of the most enduring and frustrating mysteries for me - the equivalence of mano, citta and vinnana. In particular, the necessity for mano-ayatana to touch dhammas in order to establish phassa with a manosamphassa vinnana.
Perhaps the subject for a future Sutta study?
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
There might be something that could be done with a metaphor involving light and that which it falls upon to get around this - change in object does not change light - but probably getting outside the scope of this thread.Ñāṇa wrote:What is being referred to is the lucidity, clarity, and suppleness of mind. When one meditates a lot the mind can become incredibly lucid and clear. This vivid presence of mind can be mistaken for an unchanging quality. But the mind must necessarily change along with its perceptions. If the mind didn't change along with its perceptions then either:kirk5a wrote:So. If "mind" is defined in one place as inconstant, and here as constant, that requires some explanation, I would say. That is not resolved by admonitions not to "papanca-ize" Seems to me like an important point of the Dhamma.
(a) the mind would forever be frozen exclusively perceiving one unchanging object, or
(b) the mind would continuously perceive every single object cognized.
If we take visual consciousness for example: If you turn your head from right to left (with eyes open), your entire visual field changes as your head moves. When your head is to the left you are no longer cognizant of what was cognized in the beginning position to the right. Therefore, both (a) and (b) above are refuted, and we can correctly discern that visual consciousness changes along with its perceptions. And what is true for visual consciousness is also true for the other five consciousnesses. There can be no unchanging, permanent consciousness.
All the best,
Geoff
But if there was a consciousness that did not "fall" upon anything, there would be no objects, which would make that analysis inapplicable.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All
kirk5a wrote:There might be something that could be done with a metaphor involving light and that which it falls upon to get around this - change in object does not change light - but probably getting outside the scope of this thread.Ñāṇa wrote:What is being referred to is the lucidity, clarity, and suppleness of mind. When one meditates a lot the mind can become incredibly lucid and clear. This vivid presence of mind can be mistaken for an unchanging quality. But the mind must necessarily change along with its perceptions. If the mind didn't change along with its perceptions then either:kirk5a wrote:So. If "mind" is defined in one place as inconstant, and here as constant, that requires some explanation, I would say. That is not resolved by admonitions not to "papanca-ize" Seems to me like an important point of the Dhamma.
(a) the mind would forever be frozen exclusively perceiving one unchanging object, or
(b) the mind would continuously perceive every single object cognized.
If we take visual consciousness for example: If you turn your head from right to left (with eyes open), your entire visual field changes as your head moves. When your head is to the left you are no longer cognizant of what was cognized in the beginning position to the right. Therefore, both (a) and (b) above are refuted, and we can correctly discern that visual consciousness changes along with its perceptions. And what is true for visual consciousness is also true for the other five consciousnesses. There can be no unchanging, permanent consciousness.
All the best,
Geoff
But if there was a consciousness that did not "fall" upon anything, there would be no objects, which would make that analysis inapplicable.
Just note that what Ven Thanissaro translates as "land" is translated as "established" by BB.