Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“May I ask about walking meditation techniques that Tipitaka approves or in line with?”
Meditation can and should be done in all four postures.
– The key here is to understand what is meant by “meditation” or “Bhavanā”Bhavanā is to cultivate the Eightfold Noble Path. That can be done in various ways but is based on two things.
(i) One must understand the Dhamma (which involves learning/contemplation.) That cultivates Samma Ditthi.
(ii) Live one’s life accordingly (in particular pay attention to Samma Sankappa, Samma Vaca, Samma Kammanta, and Samma Ajiva.) Make effort in a sensible, consistent manner (Samma Vayama) and one will automatically get to Samma Samadhi. Samma Samadhi is not necessarily jhana, but that could happen too. That will definitely happen (getting to jhana) when one gets to the Anagami stage.That needs to be done in all four postures and at all times.
It seems to me you (and most people) believe that Bhavanā requires one to sit down like a statue or to just walk up and down calmly (which could be called “formal meditation”). One can contemplate on Dhamma concepts in those two modes. That could be an essential part of the whole process.
– But Bhavanā is NOT limited to those two.
– One must be engaged at all times, making sure to avoid dasa akusala and to cultivate dasa kusala. That is complete Bhavanā or “following the path.”Regarding Ven. Sona’s account: He got “burned up” mentally by making too much of an effort (probably by doing too much of “formal meditation”).
– That could be stressful to the mind.Others just do “formal meditation” for an hour a day or go to a retreat once in several months, and assume that is enough. That is the other extreme.
One needs to stay away from both those extremes and be consistent.
Explanation of Sakkāya Diṭṭhi by Sachi Samidu
Following are my notes on the above video, which is #13 of the series of videos mentioned in my previous post.
1. She starts by saying that Sakkāya Diṭṭhi arises via 20 ways. She will explain that deeper explanation in a future video.
2. For now, the following is a simpler analysis.
Sakkāya = six senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind) My comment: This is a bit simplified version. Sakkāya is defined as “pañca upādānakkhandhā” in the “Sakkāyapañhā Sutta (SN 38.15).” Of course, the six senses are included in pañca upādānakkhandhā.
Diṭṭhi = the way one looks at an issue (or the way one “sees”)
– Thus Sakkāya Diṭṭhi is to”see” (or “take”) those six senses as “mine”.
3. She reminds her Dad how he describes his experiences.
It is common for us to say, “I see person X”, “I hear a sound”, “I taste a food”, “I smell an odor”, “I touched X”, and ‘I thought about X”.
She tells her father that is not the right way to look at those situations at a deeper level. (Of course, we all make such statements in our daily lives).
@ 6 minutes: The father says, “But isn’t it “I” who can see you now?”
– She explains with the following example: “When I put my finger on this cushion (on the sofa) you see the shadow of my finger on the cushion. Does that shadow belong to the finger?”
– Dad says, “yes. It belongs to the finger”. She says that is not really correct.
– She asks, “Would you be able to see the shadow if we turn off the light (it is nighttime)?” Dad says, “No”
– Then she asks: “What if I am still holding the finger in the place, but there is no cushion or something for the shadow to fall on? Would you be able to see a shadow?” He says “No”.
– Finally, she says, “If I remove the finger, again you will not see a shadow” and Dad agrees.
She points out that a shadow can be seen ONLY IF all three conditions are there: finger, light, and the cushion.” That is why it is not correct to say that the shadow belongs to the finger.
– So, the father agrees that it is really not correct to say that the shadow belongs to the finger.
4. @9 minutes: The father again brings up the question: “But isn’t it “I” who can see you now?”
She asks:” OK. If this light is turned off, will you still see me?” No.
– “If the light is on, but if I go out of the room, will you still see me?” No.
– “If the I am here and the light is on, but if you close your eyes would you see me?’ No.
– “Furthermore, if you are sitting down here with eyes open, but thinking deeply about something, would you notice me if I come into the room?” The father admits that if he is deep thought, he may not see her, i.e., cakkhu viññāṇa would not arise (Note: I have added this part from the 12:20 minute-segment; see #6)
– Therefore, several conditions must be satisfied for the father to see her. Any sensory experience arises when ALL necessary conditions are present: an object (rupa), enough light, a sentient being with faculty of vision, AND attention of that sentient being to that object (i.e., cakkhu viññāṇa would not arise without attention).
– If all those conditions are satisfied, vision results. But it is not correct to say that, “I saw it”. It is just “seeing”. The mistake is to add “I” and say, “I saw it.”
5. @ 11:30 minutes: To provide further evidence, she recites and explains the meaning of the verse, “Nayidaṃ attakataṃ bimbaṃ,nayidaṃ parakataṃ aghaṃ; Hetuṃ paṭicca sambhūtaṃ,hetubhaṅgā nirujjhati.” (This verse is from the Selā Sutta (SN 5.9)).
– This is related to the fact that those six sense faculties arise with the birth (jāti) with a human body. That birth did not arise “due to something (kamma) that oneself did”. They also did not arise due to someone else’s actions. They did not arise spontaneously either. They arose (i.e., one was born) due to causes and conditions per Paṭicca Samuppāda.
(My comment: the kamma that gave rise to the father’s body was not done by the father. It was done in a previous life. That previous life is NOT the same as the current life. However, the two lives are not completely separate either. These are deeper points that may not be obvious at first).
6. @ 12:20 minutes: Now she goes back to close the explanation. I have included this part in #4 above (regarding cakkhu viññāṇa.)
The following are my comments.
In a deeper sense, it is not “I” seeing any object. It is just “a seeing event” that takes place if those conditions are met. This is what the Buddha explained to Bāhiya in the “Bāhiya Sutta (Udāna 1.10)” with the verse, “Tasmātiha te, bāhiya, evaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ: ‘diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṃ bhavissati..”
“diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati” needs a lot of explanation by itself. But it is translated as just one sentence in English: “In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen.” There is no need to add an “I”. Her above explanation has this very basic idea.
– Of course, only an Arahant would see the world that way (without adding “I” or “me” or “mine”)
– But a Sotapanna can “see” the truth of that verse. She apparently can, because she explains with nice analogies. That is amazing considering that she is only three-and-a-half-years old!I stopped “translating” 15 minutes into the video. This should be enough to get an idea.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I have revised the post “Saṅkhāra – What It Really Means” again today.
It is a good idea to read that and the links provided there. This basic understanding of saṅkhāra can resolve many issues.
Thanks!
Just fixed it. The link above works now.
– I may have moved the post to a different section.Thanks. It turns out that I had temporarily removed the page to re-write.
Just finished it and it should be available now:
Thanks!
Please let me now the original post where you tried to access the link:
“What are Rupa? Dhamma are Rupa too.”– If you don’t remember that is fine.
Yes. This could be a jhanic experience (or getting close to it).
See, “Jhānic Experience in Detail – Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2)“
“I used to feel very cold right after meditation and its winters”
– Is it because it is Winter?
It is also possible that one’s body responds to meditation with one becoming cold, thirsty, sweaty, frozen, etc.
– Those can be good signs indicating that the body can feel the effects of meditation.In any case, one needs to take appropriate actions to remove any discomfort.
For example, wear something warm, drink water, turn on cooling correspondingly. If one’s body becomes “frozen”, one can just get up and do a walking meditation.
– There is no need to sit like a statue in any of those cases. Getting up to drink water will not disturb an “effective samadhi.”
– One can do mediation in all four postures (sitting, standing, walking, and lying down).The ultimate goal of meditation is to cultivate Panna (wisdom) and realize the unfruitfulness AND dangers in the rebirth process.
OK. You are right. I was in a hurry and made a mistake.
Vinipatika means apayas or the four lowest realms.
– I got confused between “vinipatika” and “asura”.
– There are two types of asura, one being “asura deva” (who go into wars with other devas) and the other “vinipatika asura” who belong to the apayas.In that verse, it basically says when one gets attached to sensory pleasures one can be born in the kama loka (4 realms of vinipata or apaya, human, and 6 Deva realms).
I just revised #11.
I think this refers to the vinipatika devas, not vinipatika asuras in apaya.
– I will make it clear in the post. Thanks!What we need to focus on is not a particular type of vedana.
– We need to see the root cause of dukkha (suffering). How those vedana can lead to suffering.1. There are things in the world that bring us sukha vedana. For example, eating certain foods lead to sukha vedana. There is nothing wrong or unnatural about it.
– But if we get attached to that sukha vedana, we start generating “mind-made” or “samphassa-ja-vedana.” Those are “greedy thoughts” and can lead to dasa akusala by the mind, speech, and deeds.2. There are things in the world, that when experienced, give dukha vedana. For example, if one sees an enemy, one generates a dukha vedana instantaneously. We need to let it go right there.
– But if we get attached to that dukha vedana, we start generating “mind-made” or “samphassa-ja-vedana.” Those are “angry thoughts” and can lead to dasa akusala by the mind, speech, and deeds.3. There are things in the world, that when experienced, give neutral vedana. But one may not quite understand what is experienced and may respond foolishly. Here, uddacca, kukkucca, or vicikicca (basically not sure about what to do.) For example, one may be asked to learn Dhamma by a parent or a friend. But one may not see any benefit in that and not follow-up. One has doubts (vicikicca) about the benefits of learning Dhamma.
– So, one may even generate bad thoughts about it and may even argue that “it is useless to spend time on learning Dhamma.”
– Another example is not believing in rebirth. One may try to argue saying that there is no evidence for rebirth, etc.
– One may treat another person badly (without any reason), just because that person is poor/ugly, etc. That involves uddacca/kukkucca.
– Again, one would start generating “mind-made” or “samphassa-ja-vedana.” Depending on each of the above situations they are various types of “foolish thoughts” and can lead to dasa akusala by the mind, speech, and deeds.4. All those situations involve generating sankhara via “avijja paccaya sankhara.” They INEVITABLY lead to other steps in Paticca Samuppada (PS) and end up with the last step, “jati paccaya jara, marana, etc., i.e., “the whole mass of suffering.”
– Thus it is not about feelings, but how those “mind-made feelings” (“samphassa-ja-vedana”) lead to suffering.
5. No matter how much I try, people do not tend to realize what is meant by sankhara. They are our thoughts!
– We speak based on our thoughts. Those thoughts are vaci sankhara.
– We act based on our thoughts. They are kaya sankhara.
– We can control both those by being mindful, and avoiding “bad sankhara” and cultivating “good sankhara”. “Bad sankhara” are involved in the “akusala-mula PS” AND “good sankhara” are involved in the “kusala-mula PS”6. Those thoughts that automatically come to the mind are mano sankhara. To change those we need to change our gati (character/habits). Those will gradually change when we focus on vaci and kaya sankhara.
7. So, I suggest learning more about “san”, sankhara, and Paticca Samuppada.
May be a good start is:
“What is “San”? Meaning of Sansāra (or Saṃsāra)”Hello Lang,
Another way to think about ārammaṇa is “whatever the mind is focusing on”.
– If you are looking at a picture, that picture is the ārammaṇa.
– If you are thinking about a mathematical problem, that is the ārammaṇa at that time, etc.
– So, an ārammaṇa can be anything that comes through any one of the six senses.A saṅkhata means “some entity that came to existence”.
– Normally a saṅkhata comes into existence due to saṅkhara. That is a very deep meaning.
– Think about it this way. “sankhara paccaya vinnana” eventually leads to jati. The “arising of ANYTHING” is due to sankhara. That may not be obvious right away.
– But, you see, vinnana is also a sankhata, “an entity prepared via sankhara”.As we know sankhara (mano, vaci, and kaya sankhara) are our thoughts. Read the most recent posts again and you will see that.
We are getting into deep fundamentals. But it is not hard if you can make the connections to real life.
You wrote: “In #6 you explain how saññā works with the aid of the manasikāra cetasika, and that saññā is loosely translated to “perception”. It looks to me like the English word “perception” is equivalent to saññā + manasikāra.’
– That is true. In fact, all 7 universal cetasika that arise with ANY citta work in collaboration. Vedana arises because one has recognized the arammana. As you pointed out that recognition (sanna) cannot happen without the manasikara cetasika. A citta cannot arise if the life is not there, i.e., jivitindriya. A coherent citta would not form unless the ekaggata cetasika is there, etc.You asked: “In #8, you explain the making of a “cittaja rupa” or the “mental picture”. Is “cittaja rupa” another way of saying “ārammaṇa“? Or does a cittaja rupa arise because of an ārammaṇa?”
– A cittaja rupa arises DUE TO an ārammaṇa.
– Cittaja rupa is the mind’s own version (replica) of the external rupa. For example, person X’s enemy will form a “bad replica of X” in his mind. On the other hand, person X’s wife or a child will form a “good replica of X” in their minds.
– Another important fact is that what we “see” is really that cittaja rupa formed in the mind. At the beginning of the post, “How Do We See? – Role of the Gandhabba” the question was asked: “How does the brain “see” the tree using that chemical/electrical signal?” What we “see” is that cittaja rupa, the replica created by the mind! If you read that post now, it will become clear.Yes. There are several issues where CURRENT science does not agree with Buddha Dhamma.
But the number of such disagreements have shrunk over the past few hundreds of years.
– In each case, science came to agree with Buddha Dhamma.
– The track record is on the side of Buddha Dhamma.I have discussed this in several posts. See the recent post, “Interpretation of the Tipitaka – Gandhabba Example”
– Especially see #7, #8 and the references in #8.I had watched the above video a couple of years ago and had forgotten the details. I watched it again yesterday.
Key points from the video:
1. The author, Eben Alexander, is a neurosurgeon whose brain was attacked by a bacterium and the neocortex was “virtually destroyed.”
2. Thus, his brain COULD NOT have made up any illusions, according to the attended doctors.
3. He had been adopted at an early age, but he found the biological parents later in his life.
4. He describes the NDE experience as a “visit to heaven” because of his faith in Christianity.
5. He met a “beautiful girl” during the NDE experience. She was a total stranger to him.
6. AFETR the NDE experience, he was shown a picture of a biological sister of his who had died many years ago, BEFORE he met his biological parents. Then he recognized that girl as the “beautiful girl” that he saw during the NDE experience.
That last revelation comes at the very end of the video. I think it is worthwhile to watch the whole video carefully.
