Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
elcfa
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:29 pm

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by elcfa » Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:40 am

retrofuturist wrote:
I ask because I've always wanted a comprehensive text on the subject of meditation that looked at the subject exclusively from the perspective of the suttas, devoid of the original insertions of commentators (either modern or ancient, Theravadin or other). Alas to date I've found nothing that satisfied this requirement.
Not sure whether this is what you are looking for but here is one scholarly alternative
Buddhist Meditation An Anthology of Texts from the Pali Canon By Sarah Shaw,Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism - Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies

May be too basic or expensive for most, but if you can borrow from a library...

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by Sylvester » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:07 am

Ñāṇa wrote:Hi Sylvester,

Piya Tan is a fan of Ajahn Brahm's "ambulance jhāna." As such, his presentation doesn't take into consideration a sufficient survey of Pāḷi source materials which comment upon and clarify the meanings of terms. The so-called "technical analysis" in his survey is quite unconvincing -- amounting to nothing more than wordplay. His appeal to personal experience is also without merit. Numerous meditators have experienced the absorptive states Ajahn Brahm teaches as "jhāna," complete with light nimittas etc., etc. Moreover, if I remember correctly Ajahn Brahm has a few other idiosyncratic interpretations of the dhamma, for example, that nibbāna is equivalent to the attainment of the cessation of apperception and feeling.

That said, anyone who has confidence in Ajahn Brahm's teaching style should certainly follow his instructions and find out for themselves if it's helpful.

All the best,

Geoff
Well, Geoff, as we have seen from our previous discussion, your insistence on your unjustifiably restrictive reading of kayika/cetasika vedanas and your discounting MN 43's disallowance for the external ayatanas feeling dhammas has little to recommend for it. You've repeated even the fallacy of denying the antecedent in relying again on MN 43's and AN 9.37's examples of the dimensions in which one is not sensitive to that dimension. I don't propose to rehash those, unless you wish to offer fresh arguments.

If Piya's treatment were nothing more than wordplay, surely it would be fairly easy to dismantle. Another ex cathedra proclamation is not going to make an elephant disappear from the room. And since when does an argumentum ad hominem (ie Piya's affiliation and AJ Brahm's "idiosyncracies") address the issue of Jhana? I should have thought name-calling would be beneath you.

The reality is, unless some serious attempt is made to address the "present tense" problem in our reliance on English translations, I would suggest you're simply glossing over a genuine issue because it happens to be inconvenient to the English way you read the suttas and encourage others to apply. Can we be certain that you are not taking liberties with the intended Pali meanings of the translations? Why should the commonly applied English sense be preferred over the other senses provided by the Pali grammars? I hope you're not going to suggest that the Kaccayana Vyakarana was guided by Mahavihara dogma in stretching the grammatical rules to be applied to the suttas?

I think your insistence for a direct and explicit declaration in the suttas that Jhana entails cessation of experience of the 5 material ayatanas is not something that the Canon itself posits as healthy. If your insistence were sound, this must mean that the Neyyattha Nitattha Sutta (AN 2.25) should be consigned to the rubbish heap.

It's OK if you reject wholesale what I had previously pointed out about your limiting kayika to only vedanas arising from body-contact. But that's not going to make those suttas go away wherein kayika have been clearly extended to vedana arising from mind-contact as well.

With metta

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by Nyana » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:46 am

Sylvester wrote:It's OK if you reject wholesale what I had previously pointed out about your limiting kayika to only vedanas arising from body-contact.
Yes it is okay. Glad we can agree on that. Now you can continue with your trivial wordplay....

All the best with that,

Geoff

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20173
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:21 am

Greetings Geoff,

Thank you for sharing this. As far as I am able to understand and relate to it, I concur with what has been said above.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by Nyana » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:29 am

Sylvester wrote:The reality is....
The reality is that in our previous conversations you've repeatedly insisted that the discourses in question do not mean what they say. But there is nothing esoteric about these discourses. They aren't employing some sort of twilight language which relies on a hidden code to draw out some meaning obscured by the terminology being used. This is why the Buddha is recorded as stating that the discourses should be taught using the language of the people being addressed. They don’t require a highly specialized technical vocabulary. Nor do they require a priestly or scholarly elite to decode obscured meanings. Your entire argument throughout has amounted to nothing more than an attempt to draw out conclusions to support your preconceived thesis regarding feeling as it pertains to jhāna. Not only does your hermeneutic have little to recommend for it – I would suggest that you’re grasping the wrong end of the snake. And for what purpose? In support of an interpretation of jhāna which refuses to accept the explicit teachings of a vast number of discourses, as well as the majority of early ābhidhammika commentaries? An interpretation of mental factors in the context of jhāna which refuses to survey and acknowledge the full register of how these terms are designated, defined, and differentiated throughout the canon?

During our entire conversation you never once produced a single source from the discourses to support your interpretation of SN 36.6 Salla Sutta that bodily feeling as it is used in this sutta is meant to include feeling born of mind contact. In fact, your entire premise in this case is just one example of your stretching the meaning of two terms to the point where there is no meaningful differentiation between them. Moreover, in your zeal to sustain your thesis your interpretation fails to recognize the soteriological import of this discourse: the distinction between how a noble disciple (ariyasāvaka) experiences bodily pain in comparison to a common person.

Piya Tan would be well advised to study MN 111 more closely, as well as the Dhammasaṅgaṇī and the Paṭisambhidāmagga Ānāpānassatikathā in order to understand that the mental factors mentioned in MN 111 are fully accounted for as being present and known through the mental factor of vipassanā while one is correctly abiding in jhāna as the proper training of heightened mind (adhicittasikkhā).

There are basically three approaches to mental development in the context of meditation:
  • (i) attention training where one absorbs into a single object and thereby stills all mental factors to the point where, as Ajahn Brahmavamso explains, “Consciousness is so focused on the one thing that the faculty of comprehension is suspended … there is no comprehension of what is going on.”

    (ii) attention training where one attends to a single object and thereby calms and unifies all mental factors to the point where, as Leigh Brasington explains, “It is possible to examine the experience because the state is so stable and self sustaining on its own.”

    (iii) attention training where one attends to whatever occurs in the present moment (either with the aid of a support object such as abdominal movement, or choiceless awareness without the aid of a support object).
It is only in the first of these three approaches that the five senses must necessarily be shut down and ceased for that resultant state to be entered and sustained. However, the lack of comprehension in this state makes it impossible for vipassanā to occur while abiding therein.

The resultant state of the second approach allows for the mind to be internally unified while still fully comprehending the mental factors present. Thus vipassanā can be fully present and functional while abiding therein. Ajahn Chah describes the resultant state of this second approach as follows:
  • In appana samadhi the mind calms down and is stilled to a level where it is at its most subtle and skilful. Even if you experience sense impingement from the outside, such as sounds and physical sensations, it remains external and is unable to disturb the mind. You might hear a sound, but it won't distract your concentration. There is the hearing of the sound, but the experience is as if you don't hear anything. There is awareness of the impingement but it's as if you are not aware. This is because you let go. The mind lets go automatically. Concentration is so deep and firm that you let go of attachment to sense impingement quite naturally. The mind can absorb into this state for long periods. Having stayed inside for an appropriate amount of time, it then withdraws.
Ajahn Thanissaro describes what Ajahn Fuang considered to be wrong concentration as follows:
  • The best state of concentration for the sake of developing all-around insight is one that encompasses a whole-body awareness. There were two exceptions to Ajaan Fuang's usual practice of not identifying the state you had attained in your practice, and both involved states of wrong concentration. The first was the state that comes when the breath gets so comfortable that your focus drifts from the breath to the sense of comfort itself, your mindfulness begins to blur, and your sense of the body and your surroundings gets lost in a pleasant haze. When you emerge, you find it hard to identify where exactly you were focused. Ajaan Fuang called this moha-samadhi, or delusion-concentration.

    The second state was one I happened to hit one night when my concentration was extremely one-pointed, and so refined that it refused settle on or label even the most fleeting mental objects. I dropped into a state in which I lost all sense of the body, of any internal/external sounds, or of any thoughts or perceptions at all — although there was just enough tiny awareness to let me know, when I emerged, that I hadn't been asleep. I found that I could stay there for many hours, and yet time would pass very quickly. Two hours would seem like two minutes. I could also "program" myself to come out at a particular time.

    After hitting this state several nights in a row, I told Ajaan Fuang about it, and his first question was, "Do you like it?" My answer was "No," because I felt a little groggy the first time I came out. "Good," he said. "As long as you don't like it, you're safe. Some people really like it and think it's nibbana or cessation. Actually, it's the state of non-perception (asaññi-bhava). It's not even right concentration, because there's no way you can investigate anything in there to gain any sort of discernment. But it does have other uses." He then told me of the time he had undergone kidney surgery and, not trusting the anesthesiologist, had put himself in that state for the duration of the operation.

    In both these states of wrong concentration, the limited range of awareness was what made them wrong. If whole areas of your awareness are blocked off, how can you gain all-around insight? And as I've noticed in years since, people adept at blotting out large areas of awareness through powerful one-pointedness also tend to be psychologically adept at dissociation and denial. This is why Ajaan Fuang, following Ajaan Lee, taught a form of breath meditation that aimed at an all-around awareness of the breath energy throughout the body, playing with it to gain a sense of ease, and then calming it so that it wouldn't interfere with a clear vision of the subtle movements of the mind. This all-around awareness helped to eliminate the blind spots where ignorance likes to lurk.
The third of the three approaches outlined above can eventually lead to the resultant state of the second approach, but it isn’t a direct pathway to that state of mental unification.

All the best,

Geoff

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by Sylvester » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:16 am

Dear Geoff

That's only your inability to confront the evidence that I presented in the form of the few Majjhima suttas where mind-contact feelings were described to give rise to cetasika feelings couched in the same stock formula employed by the Salla Sutta. I don't intend to gloss that over as amnesia. Nor do I see any point in responding to yet another ex cathedra pronouncement on the perceived failings of my argument. I could just as easily pronounce that you've failed to rebut any of my arguments...

As for the accusation of my employing esoteric readings, well, pls produce the evidence using the Pali grammars to demonstrate that your reliance on plain English grammar to understand Pali is not the more bizarre.

Since you're so fond of citing the Vimuttimagga (in that other thread), perhaps you may like to explain why you cherry pick what works for your thesis, but conveniently not mention those bits in the Vimuttimagga that deal with Nimittas, Upacara, Appana, and the need to emerge from Appana to exercise the iddhis etc. That presumes that we are both looking at the same primary source which was translated.

Another example of more cherry-picking would be your insistence that we resort to the Dhammasangani. Well, why not import the entire Abhidhammic analysis of the rupajhanacitta and how that is totally bereft of the kamavacaracittas?

You also dismissed Piya's "appeal to personal experience". Fair enough but you do not hold yourself to the same high standard when you cite AJ Chah's and AJ Thanissaro/AJ Fuang's experiential accounts. What makes you feel privileged to be immune from the yardstick that you apply to others?

I'm only adopting your tactics in asking me and Piya to go back and re-consider. Since you seem to view that this kind of tactic is suitable in evading the substantive issues raised, well, what's sauce for the goose...

Seriously, instead of dismissing Piya's or my arguments with nothing more than a limp suggestion that we need to brush up on our suttanta and Abhidhamma, cite those references for the benefit of everyone else to see. If you felt that the suttas and the Abhidhamma support you, cite them. I'm not going to declare that I have demonstrated the errors of your interpretations (ex cathedra is not my forte and that thread is still available http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 7&start=60" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for anyone interested). But if you wish to rehash our previous discussion, let's revive it.

Very simply put Geoff, it matters little to me how venerable you think your research is. Your self belief does not endow your pronouncements with any weight. You either take the trouble to demonstrate or run the risk that I would bluntly point out how meaningless your statements are to the issue.

With metta

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by Nyana » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:32 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
Sylvester wrote:The reality is....
The reality is that in our previous conversations you've repeatedly insisted that the discourses in question do not mean what they say. But there is nothing esoteric about these discourses. They aren't employing some sort of twilight language which relies on a hidden code to draw out some meaning obscured by the terminology being used. This is why the Buddha is recorded as stating that the discourses should be taught using the language of the people being addressed. They don’t require a highly specialized technical vocabulary. Nor do they require a priestly or scholarly elite to decode obscured meanings. Your entire argument throughout has amounted to nothing more than an attempt to draw out conclusions to support your preconceived thesis regarding feeling as it pertains to jhāna. Not only does your hermeneutic have little to recommend for it – I would suggest that you’re grasping the wrong end of the snake. And for what purpose? In support of an interpretation of jhāna which refuses to accept the explicit teachings of a vast number of discourses, as well as the majority of early ābhidhammika commentaries? An interpretation of mental factors in the context of jhāna which refuses to survey and acknowledge the full register of how these terms are designated, defined, and differentiated throughout the canon?

During our entire conversation you never once produced a single source from the discourses to support your interpretation of SN 36.6 Salla Sutta that bodily feeling as it is used in this sutta is meant to include feeling born of mind contact. In fact, your entire premise in this case is just one example of your stretching the meaning of two terms to the point where there is no meaningful differentiation between them. Moreover, in your zeal to sustain your thesis your interpretation fails to recognize the soteriological import of this discourse: the distinction between how a noble disciple (ariyasāvaka) experiences bodily pain in comparison to a common person.

Piya Tan would be well advised to study MN 111 more closely, as well as the Dhammasaṅgaṇī and the Paṭisambhidāmagga Ānāpānassatikathā in order to understand that the mental factors mentioned in MN 111 are fully accounted for as being present and known through the mental factor of vipassanā while one is correctly abiding in jhāna as the proper training of heightened mind (adhicittasikkhā).

There are basically three approaches to mental development in the context of meditation:
  • (i) attention training where one absorbs into a single object and thereby stills all mental factors to the point where, as Ajahn Brahmavamso explains, “Consciousness is so focused on the one thing that the faculty of comprehension is suspended … there is no comprehension of what is going on.”

    (ii) attention training where one attends to a single object and thereby calms and unifies all mental factors to the point where, as Leigh Brasington explains, “It is possible to examine the experience because the state is so stable and self sustaining on its own.”

    (iii) attention training where one attends to whatever occurs in the present moment (either with the aid of a support object such as abdominal movement, or choiceless awareness without the aid of a support object).
It is only in the first of these three approaches that the five senses must necessarily be shut down and ceased for that resultant state to be entered and sustained. However, the lack of comprehension in this state makes it impossible for vipassanā to occur while abiding therein.

The resultant state of the second approach allows for the mind to be internally unified while still fully comprehending the mental factors present. Thus vipassanā can be fully present and functional while abiding therein. Ajahn Chah describes the resultant state of this second approach as follows:
  • In appana samadhi the mind calms down and is stilled to a level where it is at its most subtle and skilful. Even if you experience sense impingement from the outside, such as sounds and physical sensations, it remains external and is unable to disturb the mind. You might hear a sound, but it won't distract your concentration. There is the hearing of the sound, but the experience is as if you don't hear anything. There is awareness of the impingement but it's as if you are not aware. This is because you let go. The mind lets go automatically. Concentration is so deep and firm that you let go of attachment to sense impingement quite naturally. The mind can absorb into this state for long periods. Having stayed inside for an appropriate amount of time, it then withdraws.
Ajahn Thanissaro describes what Ajahn Fuang considered to be wrong concentration as follows:
  • The best state of concentration for the sake of developing all-around insight is one that encompasses a whole-body awareness. There were two exceptions to Ajaan Fuang's usual practice of not identifying the state you had attained in your practice, and both involved states of wrong concentration. The first was the state that comes when the breath gets so comfortable that your focus drifts from the breath to the sense of comfort itself, your mindfulness begins to blur, and your sense of the body and your surroundings gets lost in a pleasant haze. When you emerge, you find it hard to identify where exactly you were focused. Ajaan Fuang called this moha-samadhi, or delusion-concentration.

    The second state was one I happened to hit one night when my concentration was extremely one-pointed, and so refined that it refused settle on or label even the most fleeting mental objects. I dropped into a state in which I lost all sense of the body, of any internal/external sounds, or of any thoughts or perceptions at all — although there was just enough tiny awareness to let me know, when I emerged, that I hadn't been asleep. I found that I could stay there for many hours, and yet time would pass very quickly. Two hours would seem like two minutes. I could also "program" myself to come out at a particular time.

    After hitting this state several nights in a row, I told Ajaan Fuang about it, and his first question was, "Do you like it?" My answer was "No," because I felt a little groggy the first time I came out. "Good," he said. "As long as you don't like it, you're safe. Some people really like it and think it's nibbana or cessation. Actually, it's the state of non-perception (asaññi-bhava). It's not even right concentration, because there's no way you can investigate anything in there to gain any sort of discernment. But it does have other uses." He then told me of the time he had undergone kidney surgery and, not trusting the anesthesiologist, had put himself in that state for the duration of the operation.

    In both these states of wrong concentration, the limited range of awareness was what made them wrong. If whole areas of your awareness are blocked off, how can you gain all-around insight? And as I've noticed in years since, people adept at blotting out large areas of awareness through powerful one-pointedness also tend to be psychologically adept at dissociation and denial. This is why Ajaan Fuang, following Ajaan Lee, taught a form of breath meditation that aimed at an all-around awareness of the breath energy throughout the body, playing with it to gain a sense of ease, and then calming it so that it wouldn't interfere with a clear vision of the subtle movements of the mind. This all-around awareness helped to eliminate the blind spots where ignorance likes to lurk.
The third of the three approaches outlined above can eventually lead to the resultant state of the second approach, but it isn’t a direct pathway to that state of mental unification.

All the best,

Geoff
I think you failed to comprehend this post Sylvester.

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by Sylvester » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:43 am

More pronouncements, Geoff. You do amuse me.

With metta

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by Nyana » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:54 am

Sylvester wrote:That's only your inability to confront the evidence that I presented in the form of the few Majjhima suttas where mind-contact feelings were described to give rise to cetasika feelings couched in the same stock formula employed by the Salla Sutta.
Your analysis of these suttas suffers from your same hermeneutic blunders as does your interpretation of the Salla Sutta. I previously addressed all of your fanciful interpretations in far more detail than should have been required. Your agenda is obvious.
Sylvester wrote:reliance on plain English grammar to understand Pali is not the more bizarre.
Seriously, go read MN 111 carefully as well as the Dhammasaṅgaṇī and the Paṭisambhidāmagga Ānāpānassatikathā.
Sylvester wrote:Since you're so fond of citing the Vimuttimagga (in that other thread), perhaps you may like to explain why you cherry pick what works for your thesis, but conveniently not mention those bits in the Vimuttimagga that deal with Nimittas, Upacara, Appana, and the need to emerge from Appana to exercise the iddhis etc. That presumes that we are both looking at the same primary source which was translated.... Well, why not import the entire Abhidhammic analysis of the rupajhanacitta and how that is totally bereft of the kamavacaracittas?
I can fully account for the ābhidhammika model of perception in terms of nimittas without ever falling into the trap of Ajahn Brahmavamso's ambulance jhāna.
Sylvester wrote:You also dismissed Piya's "appeal to personal experience". Fair enough but you do not hold yourself to the same high standard when you cite AJ Chah's and AJ Thanissaro/AJ Fuang's experiential accounts. What makes you feel privileged to be immune from the yardstick that you apply to others?
The citations presented from Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Thanissaro, and Ajahn Fuang can be accounted for with reference to the discourses. Piya Tan's analysis and Ajahn Brahmavamso's samadhi cannot.
Sylvester wrote:Seriously, instead of dismissing Piya's or my arguments with nothing more than a limp suggestion that we need to brush up on our suttanta and Abhidhamma, cite those references for the benefit of everyone else to see. If you felt that the suttas and the Abhidhamma support you, cite them.
Read page one of this thread.
Sylvester wrote:You either take the trouble to demonstrate or run the risk that I would bluntly point out how meaningless your statements are to the issue.
I've already addressed your feeble hermeneutic strategy ad nauseum. I don't play games -- word games or any other -- as a rule. And I've already given your interpretations more time than they warrant without even going into your interpretation of terms such as vitakka, etc..

All the best,

Geoff

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by Nyana » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:57 am

Sylvester wrote:More pronouncements, Geoff. You do amuse me.
And I have already suggested that you, good man, are grasping the wrong end of the snake.

All the best,

Geoff

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by Sylvester » Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:33 am

Yes, Geoff, you attempted to address my propositions, but whether you succeeded is not a matter of your fiat. Ad nauseum is not proof of success, but merely of persistent disagreement.

You're still evading the invitation to lay bare your Abhidhammic and Vimuttimagga materials while demonstrating how you are not guilty of cherry picking. Surely it would be an easy task to reconcile your interpretation of the above 2 with contrary propositions therein? You've sought to tantalise an audience by saying that A & V will justify your treatment of Jhana, so surely it's not too much to ask that you demonstrate it.

I think I did not bother to reiterate the arguments against yours, since it should be obvious that I am not persuaded by your persistence in denying the kayika treatment in the Majjhima and your predilection to proclaim and your application of English grammar to Pali texts (Obvious agenda to justify your experience. Oops! Where did I pick up that ad hominem tactic?)

If you wish to set standards and then change them later, perhaps your standards should all be accompanied by a caveat.

I'm sure it's not a snake I caught but an eel.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:41 am

Ñāṇa wrote: I've already addressed your feeble hermeneutic strategy ad nauseum. I don't play games -- word games or any other -- as a rule.
Sylvester's is raising legitmate questions, but one thing I have noticed, Geoff, you do not know how to debate, you do not how engage the other person's argument. It is one thing to carpet bomb us with information, but it wholly another to actually engage the opposing argument and to answer in detail the points that question something you have said. That I have not seen you do well.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by Nyana » Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:53 am

tiltbillings wrote:Sylvester's is raising legitmate questions
No -- they are agenda driven and quite pointless as to the context of this thread.
tiltbillings wrote:Geoff, you do not know how to debate, you do not how engage the other person's argument.
This is the meditation forum not the debate forum. If I wanted to debate the issue I'd have posted this thread in the debate forum.
tiltbillings wrote:It is one thing to carpet bomb us with information, but it wholly another to actually engage the opposing argument and to answer in detail the points that question something you have said. That I have not seen you do well.
That's somewhat accurate. I'm here at DW to share information, not debate everyone who disagrees with me. As for Sylvester, I played quite nice for a number of weeks on that previous thread. And I didn't start that previous thread. In fact I had never posted or replied to anything on DW until that thread was posted and someone told me that it was here. And I never sought out Sylvester's 2 cents.

All the best,

Geoff

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by tiltbillings » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:01 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Sylvester's is raising legitmate questions
No -- they are agenda driven and quite pointless as to the context of this thread.
Not that you have shown.
tiltbillings wrote:Geoff, you do not know how to debate, you do not how engage the other person's argument.
This is the meditation forum not the debate forum. If I wanted to debate the issue I'd have posted this thread in the debate forum.
But your OP clearly is a debate from the very beginning.
tiltbillings wrote:It is one thing to carpet bomb us with information, but it wholly another to actually engage the opposing argument and to answer in detail the points that question something you have said. That I have not seen you do well.
That's somewhat accurate. I'm here at DW to share information, not debate everyone who disagrees with me. As for Sylvester, I played quite nice for a number of weeks on that previous thread. And I didn't start that previous thread. In fact I had never posted or replied to anything on DW until that thread was posted and someone told me that it was here. And I never sought out Sylvester's 2 cents.
It is an open forum. Sylverster's $0.02 goes with the terrotory.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Jhāna According to the Pāḷi Nikāyas

Post by Nyana » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:22 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:This is the meditation forum not the debate forum. If I wanted to debate the issue I'd have posted this thread in the debate forum.
But your OP clearly is a debate from the very beginning.
I tried to make it as explicit as language would allow in the OP that I was not starting this thread to argue with anybody:
  • I’m well aware that this subject matter may not be of interest to some people. It’s posted here for those who are interested. For anyone who doesn’t find the contents of this thread informative or helpful, I respectfully and wholeheartedly agree that they would be better served to follow whatever interpretation of the dhammavinaya that they have faith in and find helpful. It runs counter to the intent of the dhamma for anyone who isn’t fully awakened to maintain definite conclusions that “Only this is true; anything else is worthless” (MN 95).
I read all sorts of threads and posts on DW that I don't necessarily agree with. But I try my best not to reply to threads unless I feel that I have something constructive to add to the discussion. It would be senseless for me or anyone else to chime in on a thread discussing the Burmese vipassanā method, for example, and derail the conversation by insisting that the Burmese vipassanā method is somehow wrong (which I don't believe to be the case BTW).

All the best,

Geoff

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests