Vipassana

shanyin

I would like to practice vipassana at some point.

How do you practice vipassana?

It's not concentrating on the breath is it?

not1not2

This was posted on another thread recently:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html

It's a very good read and it's all about vipassana. I'm making my way through it right now. To give you a brief answer, the way I was taught is that we start off by bringing our attention to the breath, but then as other thoughts, perceptions, judgements, etc come, we bring our awareness to those things. As those formations subside, we note that they've subsided and come back to the breath until other things arise. Nowhere do we force our attention anywhere, we just be aware of what we are being aware of, gently coming back to the breath as things arise and fall away.

DhammaDhatu

Vipassana cannot be practised

Only concentration can be practised

When we look with dedicated single focus at an object, that is concentration

When the mind sees the inherent characteristics of the object, that is vipassana

For example, we look at a tree. that is concentration

Then we see the impermanence of the leaves falling from the tree, that is vipassana

We cannot 'practise' seeing leaves fall from the tree because it is the leaves doing the falling, not us

The five aggregates are the same. they are by their very nature impermanent & selfless. all we can do is look in the right way to see the impermanence & selflessness

It is the looking in the 'right way' which is the difficult part

If we try too hard, that very effort obscures/hinders the mind's clarity to see clearly

Regards

not1not2

The conventional practice of Vipassana Bhavana can and is practiced. Insight itself must be realized.

DhammaDhatu

Vipassana itself is insight

"Vipassana" = "seeing clearly" or "insight"

There is no such thing as vipassana method or technique

The Burmese (such as Mahasi & Goenka) who hijacked the term use it incorrectly

Vipassana cannot be taught

Spaceless

Vipassana cannot be practised

Only concentration can be practised

When we look with dedicated single focus at an object, that is concentration

When the mind sees the inherent characteristics of the object, that is vipassana

For example, we look at a tree. that is concentration

Then we see the impermanence of the leaves falling from the tree, that is vipassana

We cannot 'practise' seeing leaves fall from the tree because it is the leaves doing the falling, not us

The five aggregates are the same. they are by their very nature impermanent & selfless. all we can do is look in the right way to see the impermanence & selflessness

It is the looking in the 'right way' which is the difficult part

If we try too hard, that very effort obscures/hinders the mind's clarity to see clearly

Regards

:thumbsup: exactly :coffee: . Vipassana is taughtible :screwy: ! Cannot be taught, it requires concentration to develop the inherently vipassana. May all be vipassana in perspective :wave:

not1not2

Vipassana itself is insight

"Vipassana" = "seeing clearly" or "insight"

There is no such thing as vipassana method or technique

The Burmese (such as Mahasi & Goenka) who hijacked the term use it incorrectly

Vipassana cannot be taught

It can be cultivated and the Suttas explain the methodology. Of course insight itself cannot be taught, but we can create the inner conditions to increase the likelihood that insight will occur.

DhammaDhatu

It can be cultivated and the Suttas explain the methodology.

where? how? please quote?

For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.'

It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.

AN 11.2

Spaceless

Another term for methodology on cultivation is concentration, as and when all "non-insight" become insight known as vipassana. BTW, why not you take it out for us to see or feel

not1not2

It can be cultivated and the Suttas explain the methodology.

where? how? please quote?

here you go:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html

I'll post the table of contents because the text is very long:

Contents

Message by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Foreword by Dr. Cassius A. Pereira
Translator's Note
Introduction by the Translator
The Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness

The Commentary to the Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness
The Section of the Synopsis

The Contemplation of the Body
The Section on Breathing
The Section on the Modes of Deportment
The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension
1. Clear comprehension in going forwards and backwards
2. Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front
3. Clear comprehension in the bending and the stretching of limbs
4. Clear comprehension in wearing shoulder-cloak and so forth
5. Clear comprehension in the partaking of food and drink
6. Clear comprehension of cleansing the body
7. Clear comprehension of walking and so forth

The Section of Reflection on Repulsiveness

The Section of the Reflection on the Modes of Materiality

The Section on the Nine Cemetery Contemplations

The Contemplation of Feeling

The Contemplation of Consciousness

The Contemplation of Mental Objects

The Five Hindrances
1. Sensuality
2. Anger
3. Sloth and torpor
4. Agitation and worry
5. Doubts

The Aggregates

The Sense-bases

The Factors of Enlightenment
1. Mindfulness
2. Investigation of mental objects
3. Energy
4. Joy
5. Calm
6. Concentration
7. Equanimity

The Four Truths

DhammaDhatu

here you go:

this theory does not really support your statement

it is just mostly long winded Satipatthana theory

sati (mindfulness) is not exactly vipassana

:wtf:

not1not2

here you go:

this theory does not really support your statement

it is just mostly about Satipatthana theory

:wtf:

And what exactly have you presented to support your theory other than your own opinion?

I just provided you with the way that the Suttas describe how an individual practitioner can cultivate the inner conditions for developing insight and all you say is "it is just mostly about Satipatthana theory" along with a wtf emoticon.

Perhaps you should spend a bit more time evaluating your own arguments and less time dismissing the valid points of others.

DhammaDhatu

And what exactly have you presented to support your theory other than your own opinion? Perhaps you should spend a bit more time evaluating your own arguments and less time dismissing the valid points of others.

i offered the quote below, which sealed the discussion:

For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.'

It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.

AN 11.2

i have not dismissed any "valid" points you have made because you have not made any. you seem to be just regurgitating text books

just face it. your strong objections against how others speak here is because others keep pointing out what you are posting does not conform with reality

others disagree with the view of Dhamma you are presenting but then you start to blame them for harsh speech and attacking you personally

there is no benefit in posting rhetoric by the scholar monks such as Bhante Gunarattane and Bodhi Bhikkhu when it does not really conform with reality

these scholars and career monks are just using the word "vipassana" or "insight" as a trendy marketing tool

the word "vipassana' is relatively quite rare in the suttas. the Buddha did not use the word in a sloppy manner

not1not2

btw, cultivation is different than practice, in case that is not clear. Here's another reference:

http://www.buddhanet.net/develop.htm

Satipatthana vipassana is the penetrating vision which arises from the cultivation of awareness. Note the essential simplicity of the practice: knowing mind as mind and body as body; knowing this experience, now, as it is. Satipatthana practice involves the simplicity of direct experience, rather than the complexity of thinking about experience. All we do in the practice is watch our experience, and all our experience is the experience of the mind-body process.

The sati of satipatthana is awareness, or mindfulness. Awareness is that which knows what is happening, now. The first thing to notice about awareness is that awareness always refers to what is happening right now. I cannot be aware of what will happen; it’s impossible. I cannot be aware of what did happen; that also is impossible. I can only be aware of what is happening, right now. The field of meditative investigation is right now. The second characteristic of awareness is that awareness always has an object. Awareness is always awareness of some specific thing, some specific aspect of my experience, now. Hence the importance of investigation in the cultivation of awareness. In the process of satipatthana meditation I am always concerned with the question: what is the predominant aspect of my experience, now?

Vipassana means seeing separately, distinctly, penetratingly; seeing with discrimination. Wisdom involves learning to discriminate regarding our experience. The meditator learns to recognise a thought as just a thought; an emotion as just an emotion; pain as just pain, pleasure as just pleasure. Normally we are not satisfied with experiencing things as they simply are. An experience arises, and we project onto it. Anger arises, and we think of some situation which made us angry. We think of how we were victimised or abused, and this feeds the emotion of anger; the emotion of anger then feeds the drama in our heads, the story-line, in which we are the abused victims and what we did or should have done about this. Drama feeds emotion, and emotion feeds drama. The drama - the days of my life - is endlessly fascinating for me, because it stars the person I love most in the world: me!

It is important to realise here that we are not denying our story: we are not, for example, pretending we have never been victimised. What we are doing is denying are a victim. That is, we are not denying our experience, but we are refusing to identify with our experience. This is a subtle but fundamental point. When we investigate the body and mind we experience it as a process. When we experience ourselves and our world as pure process, we do not stop anywhere in this process, freeze this process, and call this frozen point: me; mine; you; yours.

There's more on the link, but it explains what I'm getting at. If you don't agree, I'll leave that to you. Just consider the possibility that the error is not mine.

DhammaDhatu

btw, cultivation is different than practice, in case that is not clear. Here's another reference:

you originally said your viewpoint was from the suttas

i asked you to offer a reference from the suttas to substantiate your view

you last quote is just more Mahavihara Sinhalese dribble

:wtf:

not1not2

And what exactly have you presented to support your theory other than your own opinion? Perhaps you should spend a bit more time evaluating your own arguments and less time dismissing the valid points of others.

i offered the quote below:

For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.'

It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.

AN 11.2

i have not dismissed any "valid points" you have made because you have not made any. you seem to be just regurgitating text books

just face it. your strong objections against how others speak here is because others keep pointing out what you are posting does not conform with reality

there is no benefit in posting rhetoric by the scholar monks such as Bante Gunarattane and Bodhi Bhikkhu when it does not really conform with reality

And by what authority do you disregard the opinions of practiced, respected monks that have arguably made attainments beyond yours? The points are logical, well formed and conform with experience. Your assertions that they do not are merely assertions. You do not meet the same requirements you ask of me, you posted one sutta reference that was not even applicable to the argument I or you were making. And my quote was not merely the opinion of Bhikkhu Bodhi, but the actual Sutta from the Tipitaka, accepted by Buddhists worldwide.

And I have offered my own reasoning, but you asked for a reference when you questioned my assertion that the Suttas say there is a means for cultivating the conditions for insight? Do you think that contemplating the Four Frames of Reference don't lead to insight? Really? That's a tall statement. It's worked for me and many others. Why does everyone get discounted when you aren't?

You talk a lot about questioning the attainments of others, but what attainment do you speak from that negates thousands of practitioners who are further along the path than yourself. Or do you think you ARE further along the path than Bhikkhu Bodhi and others?

What reasoning do you have to offer that negates the fact that the Suttas describe practices that lead to insight? You have yet to offer any. Just a bunch of rigid semantics that frames the argument in your favor.

DhammaDhatu

Just consider the possibility that the error is not mine.

Dhamma Dhatu does not post errors. The "error" is definitely yours :eek2:

not1not2

btw, cultivation is different than practice, in case that is not clear. Here's another reference:

you originally said your viewpoint was from the suttas

i asked you to offer a reference from the suttas to substantiate your view

you last quote is more Mahavihara Sinhalese dribble

:wtf:

Dribble? You make a lot of statements, ask for evidence, yet refuse to do the same. I am posting multiple sources from practitioners and teachers that support my argument. You merely hand-wave them aside as a Buddhist forum poster. This is not argumentation. This is not intellectually honest. This is hypocritical. Feel free to dig your heels in and disregard any and all arguments that do not make you right while failing to actually refute the points I've made, but that won't make you right.

DhammaDhatu

And by what authority do you disregard the opinions of practiced, respected monks that have arguably made attainments beyond yours?

Just more blind faith... :skeptic:

not1not2

Just consider the possibility that the error is not mine.

Dhamma Dhatu does not post errors. The "error" is definitely yours :eek2:

Is this sarcasm?

DhammaDhatu

Dribble? You make a lot of statements, ask for evidence, yet refuse to do the same.

if have said already, i did not refuse to do the same

i offered a quote from the Buddha. you did not

it was you who claimed your viewpoint was from the suttas

but you can only quote scholar monks

DhammaDhatu

is this sarcasm?

definitely not :-/

what i posted was from the Buddha's lips

it was not in "error"

for a 3rd time

For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.'

It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.

AN 11.2

not1not2

is this sarcasm?

definitely not :-/

Good luck

DhammaDhatu

The sati of satipatthana is awareness, or mindfulness. Awareness is that which knows what is happening, now.

this writer is totally confused

sati = "mindfulness" or "recollection"

sati has its root in memory rather than in consciousness (sense awareness)

:eek2:

DhammaDhatu

Good luck

not needed...

not1not2

Good luck

not needed...

And I truly hope your confidence is not misguided.

I will offer one last point on this matter. I consider your absolute confidence in these matters in a similar regard to the way you consider Vincenzi's self-assessment that he is a non-returner. I may be right or wrong, but I hope you can understand why I would have my doubts.

DhammaDhatu

The meditator learns to recognise a thought as just a thought; an emotion as just an emotion; pain as just pain, pleasure as just pleasure. Normally we are not satisfied with experiencing things as they simply are. An experience arises, and we project onto it. Anger arises, and we think of some situation which made us angry. We think of how we were victimised or abused, and this feeds the emotion of anger; the emotion of anger then feeds the drama in our heads, the story-line, in which we are the abused victims and what we did or should have done about this. Drama feeds emotion, and emotion feeds drama. The drama - the days of my life - is endlessly fascinating for me, because it stars the person I love most in the world: me!

It is important to realise here that we are not denying our story: we are not, for example, pretending we have never been victimised. What we are doing is denying are a victim. That is, we are not denying our experience, but we are refusing to identify with our experience. This is a subtle but fundamental point. When we investigate the body and mind we experience it as a process. When we experience ourselves and our world as pure process, we do not stop anywhere in this process, freeze this process, and call this frozen point: me; mine; you; yours.

the above is not really vipassana. it sounds like some kind of self-administered psychotherapy

vipassana is not "learning to recognise" (or brainwashing our mind). it is actually recognising. it is clear seeing

most of all, vipassana is seeing the three characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self

vipassana is not having an angry mind then somehow trying to not get involved in the anger

vipassana means: "passa" = to see; and "vi" = clearly

the angry mind cannot see clearly

:rant:

DhammaDhatu

And I truly hope your confidence is not misguided.

I will offer one last point on this matter. I consider your absolute confidence in these matters in a similar regard to the way you consider Vincenzi's self-assessment that he is a non-returner. I may be right or wrong, but I hope you can understand why I would have my doubts.

the above quote is meaningless. non-sequitur. your mind sure gets caught up in "personalities" :facepalm:

it short, on a theoretical basis, the viewpoints presented by you have been invalidated

the excerpt below is not vipassana. it is dealing with discursive thoughts

the mind that is "aware" does not need to "come back"

the mind may become "aware" when it becomes aware of its own unawareness

when it remembers its meditative intent (rather than wandering off in la la land)

we just be aware of what we are being aware of, gently coming back to the breath as things arise and fall away.

not1not2

And I truly hope your confidence is not misguided.

I will offer one last point on this matter. I consider your absolute confidence in these matters in a similar regard to the way you consider Vincenzi's self-assessment that he is a non-returner. I may be right or wrong, but I hope you can understand why I would have my doubts.

the above quote is meaningless. non-sequitur. your mind sure gets caught up in "personalities" :facepalm:

it short, on a theoretical basis, the viewpoints presented on your behalf have been invalidated

On a practical basis, by following the instructions of the satipatthana sutta and my meditation teachers I have brought about the conditions which have lead to many genuine insights into anicca, anatta and dukkha. So, I'm going to have to say that you are talking past me and not really understanding what I'm saying. I guess I can live with that.

DhammaDhatu

you have not demonstrated understanding anicca, dukkha & anatta because you have not expressed them in the correct order. why did you place "dukkha" after "anatta" when the Buddha placed "dukkha" after "anicca"?

further, you have declared you are at least a stream-enterer

i am understanding what you are posting and your declarations of enlightenment are tenuous

not1not2

you have not demonstrated understanding anicca, dukkha & anatta because you have not expressed them in the correct order. why did you place "dukkha" after "anatta" when the Buddha placed "dukkha" after "anicca"?

Does it matter that I didn't put them in the correct order. I can state from memory, sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta". I know that the basis of dukkha is anicca and that anatta follows from anicca. It appears you have a lot of formulas that you've created in order to assess things and if people don't meet those formulas, that you will assume they don't understand things.

further, you have declared you are at least a stream-enterer

This is something that I have never stated, so this is a place where you are in the wrong. I am no stream-enterer, nor any of the other 3 noble types of beings and I have never even implied otherwise. If you can provide me with a quote that gave that impression, i'd appreciate it.

i am understanding what you are posting and your declarations of enlightenment are tenuous

Considering I've never claimed enlightenment, but actually stated that I am not enlightened, haven't even attained the jhanas, you should reflect on the fact that you do make errors from time to time.

not1not2

i am understanding what you are posting and your declarations of enlightenment are tenuous

Beyond the fact that I've never declared enlightenment or anything of the sort, I would consider you assuming you are in the position to judge my place on the path to be tenuous as well.

not1not2

Anyway, sorry for the derail. I'll try not to let that happen in the future.

DhammaDhatu

Does it matter that I didn't put them in the correct order. I can state from memory, sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta". I know that the basis of dukkha is anicca and that anatta follows from anicca. It appears you have a lot of formulas that you've created in order to assess things and if people don't meet those formulas, that you will assume they don't understand things.

In the scriptures, monks always question eachother to test/affirm the realisations.

So, in what way is anicca the basis of dukkha?

Apart from my question, the quote below sounded like a declaration to me because a stream-enterer realises anatta. I apologise if I misinterpreted :bawl:

I have brought about the conditions which have lead to many genuine insights into anicca, anatta and dukkha.

not1not2

Does it matter that I didn't put them in the correct order. I can state from memory, sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta". I know that the basis of dukkha is anicca and that anatta follows from anicca. It appears you have a lot of formulas that you've created in order to assess things and if people don't meet those formulas, that you will assume they don't understand things.

In the scriptures, monks always question eachother to test the realisations.

So, in what way is anicca the basis of dukkha?

The fact that conditioned objects are anicca is a cause of their unsatisfactory nature. Positive, happy experiences are unsatisfying due to the unenlightened mind's habitual tendency to grasp those experiences, mis-perceive them as permanent things that will not go away, and to assume that the acquisition of such experiences is the basis of contentment. Anicca is related to dukkha in this sense. They are still separate issues beyond this correlation, but I am not the first to make such a correlation and from my readings, this is an implication found in the suttas themselves.

This is once again a derail to OP about the practice of vipassana bhavana, but that's my answer. If you don't feel it's adequate and don't share my correlation between anicca and dukkha, then I suggest you start a separate thread to expound further. If you want to expose my 'kindergarten' understanding of the dhamma further, this is not the place to do it.

Anyway, if one practices vippassana bhavana in the correct manner, regarding the body, feeling, consciousness, and mental objects in the manner prescribed in the suttas, that help bring about the conditions which lead into direct insight into the Four Frames of Reference. If one practices vipassana bhavana in the manner prescribed, they will see the impermanent nature of body, feelings, consciousness and mental objects and therefore not incorrectly ascribe lasting satisfaction to any of them, nor ascribe a lasting, self-existing essence to any of them. That has been my experience and it has led to many insights of that nature, regardless of how advanced those insights may or may not be.

DhammaDhatu

This is once again a derail to OP about the practice of vipassana bhavana, but that's my answer.

I think your view above is the basis of our conflicting views

The question I asked you is directly about vipassana

You continue to give the impression of regarding vipassana as something distinct from insight

Vipassana is insight

Seeing anicca-dukkha-anatta is vipassana

I have never read the term 'vipassana bhavana' is the suttas

I have only read 'citta bhavana' and 'samadhi bhavana'



BTW. You type fast

DhammaDhatu

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, samādhibhāvanā bhāvitā bahulīkatā āsavānaṃ khayāya saṃvattati?

And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents?

There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'

This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.

AN 4.41: Samādhibhāvanāsuttaṃ

zenff

I would like to practice vipassana at some point.

How do you practice vipassana?

It's not concentrating on the breath is it?

No, vipassana, the way I was taught, was not about concentration.
In Vipassana everything that happens in the mind is simply noted. It would even be given a name.
One would notice pain; then mentally say: “pain..pain..” Or one could notice bliss and simply note “bliss.. bliss”.

The practice of mentally wording everything I found distracting personally…
But what I liked about it –and learned from it – is observing the mind’s stuff in a neutral non-judgmental way.
Just seeing anger (for instance) and not running away from it or suppressing it; and also not being identified with it; is calming. We can see anger (for instance) coming, not do anything about it, and then it goes away; just like everything else.

Vipassana calms the mind in a natural way.

Imho !

DhammaDhatu

If one practices vipassana bhavana in the manner prescribed, they will see the impermanent nature of body, feelings, consciousness and mental objects and therefore not incorrectly ascribe lasting satisfaction to any of them...

Your post seems to highlight "no lasting satisfaction"...

An arahant has extinguished all craving.

Rather than seeing no 'lasting' satisfaction, do you think an arahant sees any satisfaction at all in the impermanent five aggregates?

In other words, do you think an arahant abiding with Nibbana mind still experiences the dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) of the five aggregates?

In other words, when the Buddha used the word 'dukkha' (suffering) in the 1st Noble Truth, to mean the experience of mental torment or mental tribulation, do you think this meaning of 'dukkha' in the 1st Noble Truth differs from the meaning of 'dukkha' in the 2nd Characteristic?

not1not2

This is once again a derail to OP about the practice of vipassana bhavana, but that's my answer.

I think your view above is the basis of our conflicting views

The question I asked you is directly about vipassana

You continue to give the impression of regarding vipassana as something distinct from insight

Vipassana is insight

Seeing anicca-dukkha-anatta is vipassana

I have never read the term 'vipassana bhavana' is the suttas

I have only read 'citta bhavana' and 'samadhi bhavana'



BTW. You type fast

Okay, I think I see where our conflict came from. I do feel that vipassana, as I've been taught, is a valid form of meditation, though I can see why you don't like regarding it as such.

not1not2

If one practices vipassana bhavana in the manner prescribed, they will see the impermanent nature of body, feelings, consciousness and mental objects and therefore not incorrectly ascribe lasting satisfaction to any of them...

Your post seems to highlight "no lasting satisfaction"...

An arahant has extinguished all craving.

Rather than seeing no 'lasting' satisfaction, do you think an arahant sees any satisfaction at all in the impermanent five aggregates?

In other words, do you think an arahant abiding with Nibbana mind still experiences the dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) of the five aggregates?

In other words, when the Buddha used the word 'dukkha' (suffering) in the 1st Noble Truth, to mean the experience of mental torment or mental tribulation, do you think this meaning of 'dukkha' in the 1st Noble Truth differs from the meaning of 'dukkha' in the 2nd Characteristic?

Well, one an object of desire is attained, there is some temporary relief, but it isn't real, and it isn't lasting. So, in answer to your question, no, I don't think an arahant sees ANY satisfaction in the aggregates.

DhammaDhatu

ok..thanks

but does any arahant still experience the 2nd characteristic?

or does the 2nd characteristic end in the experience of the arahant?

not1not2

ok..thanks

but does any arahant still experience the 2nd characteristic?

I've gotten the discussion muddled a bit. I'm taking the first characteristic to be "the experience of mental torment or mental tribulation". What is the second characteristic?

DhammaDhatu

the 3 characteristics are impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self

the 1st characteristic is anicca (impermanence)

does an arahant continue to see the anicca in conditioned things?

if so, does an arahant continue to see the unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) of conditioned things, even though their mind does not suffer (dukkha) about those conditioned things?

if so, does the term 'dukkha' (unsatisfactoriness) in the 2nd characteristic have a different meaning to the term 'dukkha' (suffering) in the 1st Noble Truth. i.e., the suffering of craving & attachment?

thanks

not1not2

the 3 characteristics are impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self

the 1st characteristic is anicca (impermanence)

does an arahant continue to see the anicca in conditioned things?

yes, I believe an arahant would continue to see that conditioned objects as anicca.

if so, does an arahant continue to see the unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) of conditioned things, even though their mind does not suffer (dukkha) about those conditioned things?

Of course an arahant would see that conditioned objects are unsatisfactory.

if so, does the term 'dukkha' (unsatisfactoriness) in the 2nd characteristic have a different meaning to the term 'dukkha' (suffering) in the 1st Noble Truth. i.e., the suffering of craving & attachment?

thanks

I don't see how the meaning or qualities associated with the term dukkha would change from Noble Truth to Noble Truth. The way I see it is that the 1st NT is the bare recognition that there is dukkha. The 2nd NT is the recognition that clinging is the cause for experiencing dukkha. The 3rd is the recognition that experience of dukkha can be relinquished. The 4th is the means of relinquishment.

DhammaDhatu

Of course an arahant would see that conditioned objects are unsatisfactory.

cool

on this thread http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=41&start=2480, 13th post down, there is a Buddhist scholar than keeps insisting the contrary

given you have such good manners and the administrators of this forum consider morality & rebirth belief to be the path to Nirvana, maybe you could share your opinion there

nice to discuss dhamma with you, to see your interest & devotion to dhamma

may all beings find freedom from suffering

If your husband is still dukkha to you, that is because you are still clinging to him. Don’t cling to what changes, no dukkha. What is compounded is dukkha to cling to. Dukkha is an experiential quality -- that is, it is has meaning only in terms of someone experiencing it. Cling to what changes and you get dukkha, thus all compounded this are dukkha.

not1not2

Of course an arahant would see that conditioned objects are unsatisfactory.

cool

on this thread http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=41&start=2480, 13th post down, there is a Buddhist scholar than keeps insisting the contrary

given you have such good manners and the administrators of this forum consider morality & rebirth belief to be the path to Nirvana, maybe you could share your opinion there

nice to discuss dhamma with you, to see your interest & devotion to dhamma

may all beings find freedom from suffering

If your husband is still dukkha to you, that is because you are still clinging to him. Don’t cling to what changes, no dukkha. What is compounded is dukkha to cling to. Dukkha is an experiential quality -- that is, it is has meaning only in terms of someone experiencing it. Cling to what changes and you get dukkha, thus all compounded this are dukkha.

Hmm, this is an interesting point of discussion, perhaps one of nuance. I can see that clinging to conditioned objects is the source of actually experiencing dukkha. Do not cling to that which will not satisfy unless you want to experience dissatisfaction. Perhaps, though, the problem is in the expression. I dunno. But even without clinging, one can see that conditioned objects are unsatisfactory. Not sure whether Titlbillings would disagree there.

shanyin

Posted this about some 10 hours ago... 46 replies!!! wow!!

now is not the best time to go over it but thank you all!

I'll have read it all tommorow thank you

DhammaDhatu

possibly 6 replies and 40 rants :dunce:

shanyin

Yes I saw that pretty quickliy haha!! However DD you seem to have good reasons behind your suttra quoting and I always look forward to that sort of thing.

I just came back on to share that this video inspired me to take interest and learn into Vipassana meditation:




I think you're a Sam Harris fan DD.

Anways, as he said, it is common to have constant thoughts/white noise get to the point of 'chasing us out of bed'. I experience the chatter all day and the chasing me out of bed.

He describes vipassana as starting out with focusing on the breath. I have heard this before, starting out with watching the breath. But they don't really go on from there.

I've been having trouble concentrating. Alot of trouble trying to concentrate on the breath. Perhaps a teacher would be very helpful.

Metta meditation is wonderful for me but I have racing thoughts alot and it's very distracing.

It's kind of funny that I have had what I think is alot of success with meditation on breathing yet I can't really do it anymore.

Anyway... I will go back to your actual replay tommorow DD, It's 5 am and I was drinking some wine with my friend so tomomrow is better!!

Be well!!

I'll go back to your reply later

shanyin

looking forward to his new book that's for damn sure.