Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you. I am not particularly attached to my above views, I just recently thought of these points which contradict my current understanding from the posts, but i think they are worth being raised.
If my suggestion of breath meditation throws you off, we can also reject this interpretation first. I know that this site strongly discourages it, so let’s leave it blank for now, and use the interpretation provided on this site. There is no need to provide an alternative yet, we can just consider the issues. I do still see value in contemplating the above points about the meaning of kaya and the structure of the sutta in creating a more precise interpretation of this sutta.
If you or anyone has comments on the other points, please do not hold back and speak your mind.
Lal: “I don’t think we can take that translation seriously. What do you think?
I agree that it is not 100% correct. But I also believe that we cannot rule out observing the breath as a tool to gain insight. For example, one can observe that it is the body that automatically breathes, not the mind that is controlling it. Hence it will help you not take the body as my own. This is similar to the rest of the kaya section where we contemplate what happens to the body after death, what the body is actually made of. One can also observe the anicca and fleeting nature of each breath, rising and passing
Lal: As you pointed out, a small part of the Satipatthana Sutta is allocated to patikulamanasikāra pabba, dhātumanasikāra pabba, and navasivatika pabba (focused on the physical body.)
Length wise it is more than half of the kaya segment! In fact Iriyāpathapabbaṃ and Sampajānapabbaṃ are one of the shortest.
Lal: The word “kaya” (“collection of parts”) can mean the physical body as well as the panca upadanakkhandha (PUK) (commonly translated as “grasping five aggregates.”)
I agree that the word kaya has multiple meanings. However, why would the Buddha/ Arahant council use 2 different meanings of kaya in the same kayanupassana section, without clarifying that they are switching meanings? It spells a recipe for misunderstanding. If we take the later 3 sections to be at least half of kayanupassana, then observing what the body is made of, how the body is discarded, is an important part of kayanupassana.
Which is why I think an interpretation of the Ānāpānapabbaṃ can be observing how the breath arises, falls, with intention of the fleeting nature of each breath, and observe what cause it to arise and fall. Iriyāpathapabbaṃ can be observing how the body is like at every stationary posture, Sampajānapabbaṃ can be observing how the body is like at every movement (whether he is looking straight ahead or looking sideways, he does so with constant thorough understanding of impermanence; while he is bending or stretching, he does so with constant thorough understanding of impermanence;) – I do not think impermance is the right word, but at least there is some insight to be gained from observing how the body moves. Then we move on to Paṭikūlamanasikārapabbaṃ, Dhātumanasikārapabbaṃ and Navasivathikapabbaṃ, about what the body is made of and how it is discarded. Here is a proposed, consistent flow of intepreting kaya as the body
Lal: Satipatthana is definitely not about just observing.
- It is about “being mindful” about how (i) the PUK arises, (ii) how vedana (and sanna) turn into “mind-made vedana” or “samphassa-ja-vedana“, (iii) how citta (thoughts) involving raga, dosa, moha arise, and (iv) making connections to above with Paticca Samuppada, anicca, dukkha, anatta, etc. (Of course, it also involves controlling one’s actions, speech, and thoughts based on that understanding.)
Yes, I agree with this. However I want to question the part on whether the focus is to gain insight on how all these things arise, rather than controlling actions speech and thoughts. From earlier discussion, it seems that this is not the focus.
Lal: Since vedana and citta are also included in PUK, kayanupassana actually includes how cittas arise with different types of vedana. As we know, PUK includes rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana. This is a deeper aspect that I will write about later.
Let’s say kaya does mean PUK in this context. It could be possible, but it seems doesnt seem structurally logical for the sutta. If we take the very first part of the sutta, to be to observe “how cittas arise with different types of vedana” , then the sutta already starts off with a complex and deep concept! Then it moves on a relatively simpler concept, eg observing what the body is made of and how it is discarded, and then a little more complex on how feelings arise, then more complex on how thoughts arise, and contemplation of the dhamma as the most complex. Suttas tend to go from easy concepts to complex ones as we read on, why throw in this complex concept encompassing everything at the start, and sudden drop in complexity, and then gradually increase in complexity again? Again, if we take kaya to be just the body, and we start by observing the breath first, then stationary postures, then actions, then what the body is made, how it is discarded, it is starting the sutta off easy and slowly increase in complexity.
Thank you, I am now clearer on the implications for the arahant. I came up with the following thoughts from the discussion:
In the scientific community it is quite established that the prefrontal cortex is responsible for planning and decision making. Hence it seems like the prefrontal cortex plays an “output, executive function”, eg other parts of the brain receives sights, sounds, then the prefrontal cortex carries out the decision.
dosakkhayo:
- The brain sends sensory signals to the manomaya kaya.
- The signals reach the hadaya vatthu.
- It reads the signals and make responds.
Damage to the brain alters the system in step 1.
Gati should be dealt with in step 3. Because it is a mental quality.
—
From what you say it seems that even the prefrontal cortex plays a “receiving” function instead of an executive, decision making one! To try to fit in the context of dhamma, Gage could have become “a surly, aggressive heavy drinker who was unable to hold down a job” with damage to the prefrontal cortex because the inputs to his mind has be tweaked, eg the inputs to his mind does not have the long term consequences.
His gati has not changed, just that whatever his mind is receiving changes. Hence it is not that his sanna changed even though he is seeing less long term consequences, it is that the input to the mind itself does not have long term consequences. Which is why for an arahant, even with damage to the prefrontal cortex, he does not need input of long-term consequences because his mind would inherently know what is the right thing to do. Would this be an accurate explanation?
1 user thanked author for this post.
Then why isit possible for the biochemistry to change the gati?
There is a famous example of a huge personality change of Gage after an accident of a rod passing through his skull:
“Popular reports of Gage often depict him as a hardworking, pleasant man before the accident. Post-accident, these reports describe him as a changed man, suggesting that the injury had transformed him into a surly, aggressive heavy drinker who was unable to hold down a job.”
”In a 1994 study, researchers utilized neuroimaging techniques to reconstruct Phineas Gage’s skull and determine the exact placement of the injury. Their findings indicate that he suffered injuries to both the left and right prefrontal cortices, which would result in problems with emotional processing and rational decision-making.9”
Would you say that it is a kamma vipaka to change his gati? If an arahant is subject to the same accident, would he have a similar result?
2 users thanked author for this post.
Thank you! I guess a more “targeted” approach then would be to contemplate the anicca, dukkha, anatta moments whenever we venerate the self. Eg dressing up, putting on makeup, staring at yourself in the mirror, doing things to impress others.
Hi Lal, I have understood the above, but I was wondering if there are direct methods to reduce asmi mana.
For example to reduce lobha, we can try to give more (dana). To reduce dosa, we can do more metta bhavana. We can also contemplate the anicca, dukkha anatta nature to reduce attachments to wordly things.
In that sense, are there any contemplation practices to reduce asmi mana head on?
I have the same problem as Aniduan. I find that a lot of suffering i face is due to ego. However it’s not like contemplating on sense pleasures – here i can say that ice cream is anicca and hence not worth pursuing. But for pride and ego, it is not something that i willingly grasp in the first place, I would be more than happy to let it go! I know very well that my sense of self is of anicca, dukkha and anatta nature, but i automatically still hold on to it.
Eg if my boss scolds me, it would be wonderful if I have no ego. Or if someone spreads falsehoods about me.
In this case, how will yall contemplate on things that affect your ego? Is there a form of meditation that we can do to actively target this sense of self/ego?
Thank you Yash for this insightful conversation! Im just not sure of one thing though:
Yash: We don’t need if something is impermanent or not, even if we were immortal and everything was there with us forever, the above mentioned things would still apply to them! They would still be unsatisfactory!
Arent things of anicca nature because they rise and pass away? (See Anicca – Repeated Arising/ Destruction), and hence we cannot maintain them to our liking?
Let’s say we can be born a brahma and live as a brahma permanently (no rebirth), would you still say that this is anicca?
2 users thanked author for this post.
Hmm i guess to relate it to us as an extreme example if we see someone spit on a buddha statue that we visit often then we wouldn’t like it too! At that moment some of us can be quite agitated, if we are not well practiced on the path then all hell can break loose. Although it is more extreme than the 2 examples you’ve mentioned, we don’t know how much value they put into these symbols.
Something that helps me get less agitated is to try and understand the causes, eg reason why they are acting this way. Is not just for religious beliefs but anything in general! From the dhamma we are further equipped with the knowledge that they are acting based on the gati and 5 aggregates, but even without that by learning the “mundane causes” eg they grew up with it, their parents told them about it, they respect their parents too, their whole community cares about it, you insult this you insult their community, they are close to their community etc can make you less angry!
Also when I find myself angry I try to think of it as “my fault” for being angry. How can we let our anger or happiness be subject to the external conditions! We have learned that it is in the mind. Then it becomes a “test” that i have failed, an area for improvement. It lets me learn “hmm something is still wrong with my understanding here.” then I try to reflect with dhamma principles until I am not annoyed. But it is still difficult because my puthujjana instincts kick in.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Thank you taryal. In that case i’m quite comfortable with switching around meanings, but i’m starting to doubt if it is the right approach. As mentioned then it would become “many characteristics of nature” instead of just 3.
To make the point clearer, if we give a name to each of the different meanings of anicca, then there will be more than 3 words to describe nature! Not sure if that’s what they intended for when they try to name it “tilakkhana”, I would interpret that they did intend for 3 characteristics.
An interesting point to note is that in Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta – Distortion Timeline
Post:
- The TipiṭakaCommentary Paṭisambhidāmaggapoints out (in the “Vipassanākathā” section) that the following words can be used to represent “anicca” nature: Palokatoti (subject to destruction), Calatoti(unsteady/shaky), Pabhaṅgutoti(breakable), Vipariṇāmadhammatoti(subject to unexpected change), Vibhavatoti (tendency to wear out), Saṅkhatatoti (prepared – by the mind), Maraṇadhammatoti (subject to inevitable death), Addhuvatoti(not permanent).
These words all point towards the meaning of “deterioration”, not so much on “vexation” or “leading to more suffering in the future”. Although these other meanings can be derived. Here I would then infer that the above synonyms should be taken as the root meaning of anicca.
However anatta here has 2 rather distinct meanings:
post:
Paratoti (not belonging to oneself), Rittatoti (devoid of value/meaningless), Tucchatoti (to be looked down upon), Suññatoti(devoid of anything meaningful), Asārakatoti (devoid of anything useful.) The translation of “anatta” as “no-self” is also only close to Paratoti (not belonging to oneself) in the above list.
Here I would be wrong in saying that there is a root meaning as there are 2 rather distinct ones, on ownership and on value. Or it is also possible that the word anatta itself is supposed to capture both, instead of “either or”. I am uncertain about that too as mentioned with my chinese example, but I cannot rule out that possibility still.
All the best! And please do it tactfully with minimal pressure!
Jethavanarama Buddhist Monastery explains buddhist concepts very clearly without invoking kamma and rebirth at the start. I found their explanations very good when trying to explain things with my friends, didn’t even have to call it “buddhism” in the first place, just using logic and personal induction. This Sermon is one of my favorite explanations to get started, on the cycle of wanting.
It would be good to have some understanding of Christianity too. All religions have morality as a common point so it can be discussed as well. But you need to be ready that some christians view buddhism as “demonic”, and not be upset and turn it to a heated discussion. Some just have strong views like that. Don’t come in with too much expectations!
Also to fully comprehend the dhamma we need to learn the wider world view, but that can be later if she is receptive.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Taryal: It is worth learning Pali if one is serious about practicing Dhamma!
It’s not about learning Pali, but rather which meaning to use for that word. As mentioned each of them can have quite different (but related) meanings!
Lal: As one’s understanding increases, one can see the applications of such different meanings in different contexts.
Yes, but I was afraid that the “three characteristics” would suddenly become “many characteristics.” Hence I had the interpretation that there should be a meaning that stands out more than the others, the meaning that should be contemplated more often.
Eg if we take anicca to be “Cannot be kept to liking” as one meaning and “vexatious and causing pilana” as another, then it becomes 4 characteristics of nature! Or anatta as “Of no benefit” or “Cannot be fully controlled” then that becomes 5 characteristics. I have listed more above, the meanings are quite distinct.
I also found it unlikely that the meanings are stacked on top of each other. Copied from my other post:
eg for chinese, to say both “not yours” and “not to your benefit” I have to use 2 separate phrases “不属于你 (bù shǔyú nǐ) and 对你没有好处 (duì nǐ méiyǒu hǎochù). Because they are 2 distinct set of meanings! It is possible that one word has 2 meanings and used either/or (like a pun), but rarely are 2 meanings stacked on each other.
Or should we not worry too much about sticking to 3, as long as however we contemplate leads to reduction of tanha then it’s alright?
1 user thanked author for this post.
I can only give my 2 cents here but after learning the dhamma I found some of my friendships “burdensome”, particularly those that I am not close to. I am also in a relationship but I do not fully perceive it as anicca, dukkha and anatta (sanna wise), even though the ultimate reality as preached says it should be so (I entered the relationship before learning dhamma).
But I also realised that some of my hobbies have fallen away, there maybe fewer things of common interest eventually. Now the sankhara dukkha becomes more obvious to me, I become less enthusiastic for activities requiring more preparation/ planning, just to see a trace amount of “sights”, but i would still be ok with it (aversion is bad too!)
I wouldn’t discourage it just because we have to see everything as worthless, one has to believe it for themselves and let go slowly, not forcefully. If not that might cause you more suffering. But it is good to communicate how the dhamma might change you as well, because it can change a person drastically. Eg she may be happy to be with you because for now you still share common interest, but learning of the dhamma will fade that away. It is good to manage expectations too! We all know what happens when people see things as nicca instead of anicca! Ideally if she learns the dhamma then it is fantastic.
Just my personal experience and thoughts! Not sure on the perspective of before entering a relationship with dhamma knowledge tho.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Perhaps not “incompatible”, but clear fit, since the rest of the sutta does not talk about benefit. On second thoughts, you are right that there’s no harm adding the meaning of “benefit” to it as well.
Similarly to a query on the tilakkhana forum, I find it not intuitive how we can pack so many distinct meanings into one word (attā): those entities are not to be taken as yours (1) because they provide no value/benefit (2). It seems like more of an either/ or thing. But this is only my intuitive sense of languages! I am also well versed in another language (chinese) and I found it hard to find a word that contains 2 distinct meanings together, not either or (eg 1 and 2 instead of 1 or 2). Normally you can translate a word with few characters/ words of another language, but they both usually just carry one meaning. eg for chinese, to say both “not yours” and “not to your benefit” I have to use 2 separate phrases “不属于你 (bù shǔyú nǐ) and 对你没有好处 (duì nǐ méiyǒu hǎochù). Because they are 2 distinct set of meanings! It is possible that one word has 2 meanings and used either/or (like a pun), but rarely are 2 meanings stacked on each other.
Of course Pali could work differently and there could be multiple meanings stacked on top of each other.
Will select the target “new window” next time. Also got your point on why ahme should not be “us”
Lal: “Amhe” means “belonging to us/ of value to us/ ours” and NOT “us.”
“belonging to us” and “of value to us” is quite different in meaning. In this case should ahme be taken as “belonging to us” instead of “of value to us”, since the sutta is about giving up what’s not yours? The sutta did not mention anything about “benefit”. In that case, the subsequent meaning of attā will have to be adjusted as well, to more of ownership rather than benefit.
I understand that attā could mean “of benefit” in other cases, but it does not seem applicable here based on the rest of the sutta.
