[pathfinder]

We can find similarities in Buddha dhamma. For example, the 4 unthinkables – eg the power of the Buddha. from our perspective, we accept it wholly. Likewise for christians, they would accept it wholly that God’s wisdom is far superior.

Taryal: ”How is this not a quintessential case of an ad hominem attack?”

We need not see it as an ad hominem attack. You can also visualise a humble christian who would say “to be honest, it does not seem logical to us now, but we know that god loves us and wants the best for us, therefore he creates our world as it is”

They key is to understand the core concepts of the religion. After that you can understand how and why they answer questions this way.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[pathfinder]

I am also quite conflicted with this. On one hand, if there are texts around like this website, and one understands it, that means that one can become a sotapanna without listening. This is logical because the dhamma is meant to be understood.

However, if the last ariya dies while this site is still available, does it make sense that this site magically becomes unreadable? Yet we cannot comprehend the dhamma without a living ariya!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[pathfinder]

I reflected that as long as you have a believe system, you can typically reason out anything based on that believe system. 

I was reading a book on questions which non believers typically asked christians, it is written by a christian.

One of them was “why is there good and bad in the world where there is god?” And his answer is

• we dont know for sure what is good and bad, his divine wisdom is greater than our wordly one
• so the bad can actually be helping us in god’s view

So you can see that they are able to answer questions, somewhat logically, if you accept their world system. Same for the good and bad problem in buddhism, we explain using kamma. Likewise for science, they would explain it with physical means. Eg before i came across this site when people tell me about ghosts or paranormal things I would explain it with physical explanations, eg maybe he was hallucinating, not enough sleep, so happen that the lamp stop working etc. and that’s because my believe system is as such.

That’s why it is extremely difficult to see the other view as logical, once we believe in a system, we can be quite stuck because all our explanations are satisfactory as long as we believe in the system mechanics. eg for buddhism is kamma, paticca samuppada etc, in christianity it is god and christ. 

Would like to take this time to remind ourselves that we must not be complacent and believe that we have found the absolute truth! That is not to say i don’t believe in the Buddha, I do, but we must remind ourselves that we could well be in the trap of our believe systems just like anyone else and any religion! And even if we believe in the Buddha, we could well be wrong with the interpretations of his teachings.

Which is why we must keep an open mind, not reject opinions and try to see their side, and at the same time rigorously investigate our own.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[pathfinder]

Thank you Lal, for making it very clear on how to reflect on bahiddha and ajjhatta for PUK. I fully agree on the logic and process. From there, I would like to clarify the following:

• How is reflecting on impurities (Paṭikūlamanasikārapabbaṃ), elements (Dhātumanasikārapabbaṃ) and dead body (Navasivathikapabbaṃ) related to bahiddha and ajjhatta?

—–

It is easy to link from the vedana and cittanupassana sections. Eg in the vedana section we are told:

Here, monks, a monk, while experiencing a pleasant sensation, understands properly, “I am experiencing a pleasant sensation” (…words in between…) “I am experiencing a pleasant sensation with attachment” (…so on and so forth…)  followed by

“Iti ajjhattaṃ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, bahiddhā₁₃ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati.”

It is then natural to think about “experiencing a pleasant sensation” as bahiddha, and “experiencing a pleasant sensation with attachment” as ajjhattam

—-

Same for cittanupassana 

Here, monks, a monk understands properly mind with craving as mind with craving, he understands properly mind free from craving as mind free from craving, (…so on and so forth…) followed by

Iti ajjhattaṃ vā citte cittānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā citte cittānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā citte cittānupassī viharati,

It is also natural as we can see  and “mind free from craving” as bahiddhā  “mind with craving” as ajjhattaṃ

—–

BUT for kaya section, let’s say for the verse from Paṭikūlamanasikārapabbaṃ:

Again, monks, a monk reflects on this very body, that is covered with skin and full of impurities of all kinds from the soles of the feet upwards and from the hair of the head downwards, considering thus: “In this body, there are hairs of the head, hairs of the skin, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidney, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, stomach with its contents, faeces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucus, synovial fluid and urine.” (…so on and so forth…) followed by

Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati,

• What is the ajjhattaṃ and bahiddhā here?
• Where is the link between PUK and the body of impurities?
• Why is it not linked so seamlessly like vedana and cittanupassana?

In the above post you shared, you talked about how to apply ajjhattaṃ and bahiddhā to any PUK in general. I agree with you fully on the logic. But I my main concern is how is this directly linked to the above contemplations. If it is not directly linked, then why isit written after every contemplation? Is there something we are missing? (same goes for Dhātumanasikārapabbaṃ and  Navasivathikapabbaṃ)

Again, I am grateful that you for your patience with my repeated questioning.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Waisaka, dosakkhayo

[pathfinder]

Thank you for clarifying and taking the time to answer lines of questions. And thank you to those who have kindly shared in the forum as well. It is clearer now 🙏

[pathfinder]

I have read the posts. I have given an example of how i would apply bahidda and ajjhata in vedananupassan in the above comment, they are similar to what you said as sukha and somanassa vedana, i just did not write these 2 terms down. Please correct me if i interpret wrongly.

However i say that i still struggle to find the link with contemplation of impurities etc. As you can see my attempt is forced. It would be great if you can give an example how to link them. Linking to the vedana part is easier, since sukha and somanassa links quite well to bahiddha and ajjhattam. but dead bodies and impurities doesnt seem to link directly.

I pointed out: Iti ajjhattaṁ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati (or kāye kāyānupassī viharat)

Here it is more of questioning the exact words. Since  only the words “kaye kaya” is swapped with “vedanasu vedana” in the vedana section, if you say that “kaye kaya” means “a part of kaya” then would “vededanasu vedana” also mean “a part of vedana”? Or, what is the precise meaning of vedanasu vedana?

 

[pathfinder]

I also found it weird that simple words were translated in great detail in the tipitaka, eg  old age in Mahasatipatthana sutta, but not more complex words like anatta

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jarā? Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jarā jīraṇatā khaṇḍiccaṃ pāliccaṃ valittacatā āyuno saṃhāni indriyānaṃ paripāko, ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, jarā.

And what, monks, is old age? If there is old age for all kinds of beings in whatever kind of existence, their getting frail and decrepit, the breaking [of their teeth], their becoming grey and wrinkled, the running down of their life span, the deterioration of their sense faculties – this, monks, is called old age.

If i were to try and reason it, it could be the case that there was no need to translate them. Let’s say I write a book now and say “the future is unpredictable”. Need I explain “unpredictable”? But let’s say 2500 years later, when technologies improve, things are almost fully predictable, there may be no more words to fully capture this meaning of unpredictability.

I heard of linguistic studies to show that the words in the language we speak reflects the culture and its focus. I do not have the study, but one example I can raise is “Karoshi”, which means death by overwork in Japanese. This word exists for them but not in english because it is more common in Japan.

Likewise, anatta maybe more common in Buddha’s time, and the culture would have more easily grasped the word, so it could have been not necessary to explain it.

[pathfinder]

Thank you TripleGemStudent for your kind words, we are all striving hard here. 

And thank you for the reference! It is very helpful to think of dhatu meditation this way.

—

I find it easier to link “Iti ajjhattaṁ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati” in the Vedanānupassanā section. Eg we can say when experiencing a pleasant taste of ice cream, it is bahiddhā, but when we start to want more bites from the ice cream and crave the next bite, it is ajjhattaṁ. Would it be alright to say that?

However, I struggle with applying it for the kaya section:

Lal: Here, “kāye kāyānupassī viharati” refers to “a part of the pancupadanakkhandha (PUK).”

• Kaya = PUK.  
• “kāye kāya” refers to other kāya within the PUK. It is the initial stage of PUK, which starts with an arammana. The bahiddha kaya arises first (with “distorted sanna“) and is immediately followed by the ajjhatta kaya (according to the samyojana/anusaya present in that mind.)

Perhaps then, a possible connection between the contemplation how the body consist of what was described, eg hairs of the head, hairs of the skin, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones… and how it links to“Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati” could be the following:

If I realise that this body is only made of those impurities, it becomes easier to differentiate what is ajjhattaṁ and bahiddhā. Since in reality, the body only consist of hair, skin, nail etc, whatever sights and sounds that we cling on to are ajjhatam since they do not make up the body.

Seems a bit forced and not correct. It would be great if anyone could present how they would link the impurities to ajjhattabahiddhā.

Lal: Here, “kāye kāyānupassī viharati” refers to “a part of the pancupadanakkhandha (PUK).”

Then, in vedana section:

Iti ajjhattaṃ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, bahiddhā₁₃ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati,

Does “vedanāsu vedanā” mean “a part of vedana”? If yes then which part?

[pathfinder]

Lal: In the “Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta (DN 22)” the following verse appears repeatedly: “Iti ajjhattaṁ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati” in the Kāyānupassana section.

Thank you, this clarifies a lot.

Qns 1:

Several translations interpret ajjhattaṁ and bahiddhā as internal and external, it could well be wrong. I know you have written posts about ajjhattaṁ and  bahidda vinnana (as you have given here: Purāna and Nava Kamma – Sequence of Kamma Generation, under “Bahidda and Ajjhatta Viññāṇa”). Could you explain how you managed to derive these meanings?

Qns 2:

Additionally, “Iti ajjhattaṁ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati” also comes right after contemplating about the dead body, for example

“Again, monks, a monk, when he sees a dead body that has been thrown in a charnel-ground, being eaten by crows, being eaten by vultures, being eaten by falcons, being eaten by herons, being eaten by dogs, being eaten by tigers, being eaten by leopards, being eaten by jackals and being eaten by different kinds of creatures, regarding his own body considers thus: “Indeed, this body is of the same nature, it will become like that and cannot escape it.”, followed by Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati,

What is the possible ajjhatam and bahidda part we are supposed to contemplate about the dead body?

Qns 3:

‘atthi kāyo’ ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti. This appears in all 6 contemplation of kayanupassana. Would you say “kāyo” here refers to 5 aggregates or the physical body?

Qns 4:

“samudayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, vayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, samudayavayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati” – This is also repeated right after “Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati…”

I know it is something about rising (samudaya) and cessation (vaya) of phenomona. Howeverver, are we supposed to

1. Merely observe and note down that the phenomena is arising and falling. This could potentially cultivate anicca sanna. OR
2. Investigate why the phenomena is rising and falling? (This could potentially lead to further investigation of Paticca Samuppada)

I gave example 1 because it normally taught in Goekna Vipassana meditation.

[pathfinder]

Thank you TripleGemStudent, Waisaka, Skywander and Lal for sharing. I agree with your posts thus far, and they are very helpful for me.

TripleGemStudent: In the sutta’s the formula for any dhatu meditation is always  Etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti in the end. 

This is interesting and it makes sense to me. could you share a sutta reference?

—-

I notice that we have somewhat different opinions regarding breath meditation. Instead of focusing on that, I hope I can point you towards the following issues instead, and see if they are valid.

The issue I want to clarify is about the Ānāpānapabbaṃ section within kayanupassana section in Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta.

 Kāyānupassanā

1. Ānāpānapabbaṃ
2. Iriyāpathapabbaṃ
3. Sampajānapabbaṃ
4. Paṭikūlamanasikārapabbaṃ
5. Dhātumanasikārapabbaṃ
6. Navasivathikapabbaṃ

I am taking the meaning of anapana from this post: 7. What is Ānāpāna?

Issue 1: Dual meanings of Kaya

Let’s say a basketball coach is writing a book. He says

“Players, this is a guaranteed way to be a good basketball player.”

The outline of the book is as follows:

Chapter 1: Form

Chapter 2: Mindset

Chapter 3: Strategy

Chapter 4: Basketball philosophy

In chapter 1 he talks about the different forms: shooting form, running form, dribbling form. In this case form refers to something like posture. Then in the same chapter 1, he talks about how to form a strategy. Would the coach write the book like that?

Saying that kaya means PUK (pancauppadanakhanda) in one part of kayanupassana section, and kaya means the body in the other part of the section, is similar to the simile I gave above. I am not saying the same word cannot have 2 diff meanings together. Eg “The cook will season the dish this season” However, if you have a chapter about something, eg basketball form chapter, kaya chapter, I find it strange that “form” or “kaya” will have 2 diff meanings in the same chapter.

Issue 2: Structure of sutta.

Using the simile of the basketball book:

Chapter 1: Form

Chapter 2: Mindset

Chapter 3: Strategy

Chapter 4: Basketball philosophy

 In Chapter 1 (Form) he says: You need to practice the good basketball habits, and discard the bad basketball habits. These habits refer to everything, eg habits for mindset, form and strategy. In the same chapter he talks about shooting form, running form and dribbling form. Why does he give this large overview of good and bad habits in chapter 1? It is understandable if he says it before chapter 1, as an overview, but saying within chapter 1 is strange.

Likewise, if you look at the sutta, Ānāpānapabbaṃ is within kayanupassana. If we take the meaning of anapana to be what is explained here (7. What is Ānāpāna?), then we have a problem – why does one part of the kaya section talk about keeping good and discarding bad, which is relatively broad based, and the other part talks about the body, which is more specific? It is like the coach in his form chapter talking about keeping good habits and discarding bad habits, and then talking about dribbling, shooting forms, within the same chapter about forms!

For now, I am not suggesting that we take anapana as breath/ respiration, but I would like to point out the above issues first if we take anapana to be what is mentioned here 7. What is Ānāpāna?. 

[pathfinder]

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. 

[pathfinder]

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.

[pathfinder]

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:

1. The brain sends sensory signals to the manomaya kaya.
2. The signals reach the hadaya vatthu.
3. 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.

dosakkhayo

[pathfinder]

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.

Yash RS, Jittananto

[pathfinder]

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.

[Author]

Posts