Not-self, meditation, and awakening.

Jason

While I am not a qualified teacher, or even an experienced meditator, I do not agree that the Buddha's position was that one cannot actively develop ... Continue reading

federica

It works it works!! Thankyew lawrd....!!

(That would be Matt, I think!)....
OK everyone, try again now..........

Iawa

Is there supposed to be a congratulations in here somewhere?;)

Brigid

Great post, Jason. It's a wonderful synthesis of the teachings, a concise and understandable synthesis. Thanks for sharing it.

federica

Jason - here's a loaded question for you.....

How much did you 'feel' whilst you wrote and posted that for us?
How deeply did that cut with you?

Jason

Fede,

To be honest, the post was originally intended as a response to a dilemma that someone is having with their meditation practice, and I thought that it would be a good idea to share it here. The part that I was really replying to was:

"On my return to Thailand I once again had the opportunity to join in the English language Dhamma discussion groups with the Abhidhamma teacher Ajan Sujin Boriharnwanaket. She teaches Abhidhamma as a practice: and insists that meditation without proper understanding of present moment realities is a waste of time. There is no self; all that arises does so because of conditions. One cannot make mindfulness, concentration, wisdom etc arise; nor can one develop or force them. There is no “I” and so it is impossible to control anything; including mind and mind states. All one can do – if one has the necessary wholesome accumulations – is to listen to Dhamma talks, read and study the teachings of the Buddha, and attend Dhamma discussions. From this base of sutta maya panna one can then begin to understand present moment realities on the intellectual level (cinta maya panna). Eventually wisdom will arise by itself. When this happens a Satipatthana moment is possible; as Satipatthana moments increase, insight (or Vipassana) may follow. In short, there is nothing I can do because there is no”I” to do anything" (source).

Intellectually, I understand what Sujin Boriharnwanaket means, and it accords well with what science has to say regarding determinism and the illusion of free-will; however, I find such views to be counterproductive to the practice.

Jason

federica

Ok, thanks.... but that's not what I meant...... :-/ :cool:

srivijaya

Elohim wrote: »

There is no “I” and so it is impossible to control anything; including mind and mind states.

Hi Jason,
Thanks for posting the source. I disagree with the author in all respects. This is exactly the kind of nihilistic stance which I find so unwholesome and "life denying" in some sections of Buddhism. It's also entirely misguided.

Eventually wisdom will arise by itself.

For whom? When there is no being within the aggregates in the first place? A self-contradictory statement if ever there was one.

I find such views to be counterproductive to the practice.

So do I mate.

Regarding the 'free will' debate, I also think that some pretty obvious stuff is omitted from the rather defeatist attitude pushed by the author. Firstly we can have some influence over our actions (albeit from a limited menu of possibilities). We can't just sprout wings or wish ourselves rich but we can and do make countless decisions every day, most motivated by the three poisons, but not exclusively.

This whole debate fails to address the main act of will. Whether it is free or not, does not come into it. It simply IS. Namely the volitional thought consciousness from which our rebirth arises. The single most significant ACT of creation. The limits upon a sentient being's possible actions arise within that act - we are the result of that and by feeding the process of ego provide fuel for the fire which consumes even ourselves. Within a deluded context this act is a locking-in to samsara, for an enlightened being it is the illusory play of the clear light mind.

Anatta (Not-Self) remains the finest meditative tool we have, as it does not allow us to anticipate anything. We do not need to cling to any ideas about a soul or self - the release can be total. To reify this into an ultimate philosophy of (No-Self) is to do something the Buddha never did.

Namaste
Kris

Nirvana

Elohim wrote:

The Buddha taught that whatever is impermanent is stressful, and whatever is stressful is not-self.

I wanna bookmark that thought. Thanks, Jason.

(Too bad you also have to be SMART to be Buddhist.)

Simonthepilgrim

Nirvana wrote: »

.......................
(Too bad you also have to be SMART to be Buddhist.)

..........but you don't have to be smart to be free and happy.

Jason

Kris,

srivijaya wrote: »

Thanks for posting the source. I disagree with the author in all respects. This is exactly the kind of nihilistic stance which I find so unwholesome and "life denying" in some sections of Buddhism. It's also entirely misguided ... Regarding the 'free will' debate, I also think that some pretty obvious stuff is omitted from the rather defeatist attitude pushed by the author. Firstly we can have some influence over our actions (albeit from a limited menu of possibilities). We can't just sprout wings or wish ourselves rich but we can and do make countless decisions every day, most motivated by the three poisons, but not exclusively.

I have found that simply disagreeing with another person's views tends to put that person into a defensive position. That is why I merely attempted to shift the focus back to a more pragmatic view of the Buddha's teachings on not-self and meditation rather than attack his understanding. Furthermore, to be fair to the author, a Buddhist monk in Thailand, he was simply sharing his meditative experiences with various methods (e.g., Mahasi, Goenka, et cetera), teachings that he has received from Sujin Boriharnwanaket (a well-respected Abhidhamma teacher in Thailand), his current lack of progress and whether or not he should disrobe.

Jason

Jason

federica wrote: »

Ok, thanks.... but that's not what I meant...... :-/ :cool:

My apologizes Fede, I'm not sure what you mean. I suck at koans.

federica

That's OK... We Great Japanese Masters are used to having to explain ourselves!

What I meant was, that given your recent, unfortunate mental turbulence, unrest and confusion, and given the personal trials you're experiencing, of having met a Dhamma-wall and banged head-on into it at too-many-miles-per-hour....

How much of what you're studying at the moment, resonates with you through the heart?
How much of it fills you with 'feeling?

because If you feel that it's all just 'cerebral' and it doesn't resonate with you, I'm just wondering if you don't need to take a break....?

Jason

Fede,

Well, I felt that I needed to write it at the time. Not only did I have the desire to help, but I wanted to express a point of view that is generally over-looked by many "orthodox" Theravadins. In other words, it can be easy to take the Buddha's teachings on not-self as a metaphysical assertion rather than something to be used in the practice. This can lead to unproductive views, views such as one cannot develop things like mindfulness, concentration, wisdom, and those views can lead to confusion and discouragement. It certainly resonated with me because (i) I do not want to see this person disrobe and (ii) I feel that unproductive views like this need to be addressed by shifting the focus back to a more pragmatic view of the Buddha's teachings on not-self and meditation.

Jason

TheIrreverentBuddhist

Jason wrote: »

While I am not a qualified teacher, or even an experienced meditator, I do not agree that the Buddha's position was that one cannot actively develop ... Continue reading

Jason,

Know this is an old thread yet it's still on the frontpage under meditation. You are absolutely right. The Anapanasati Sutta (mindfulness of breathing) states this categorically, repeatedly asserting the meditator "develops" the seven factors for awakening (emphasis mine):

The Seven Factors for Awakening

"And how are the four frames of reference developed & pursued so as to bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination?
"[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is steady & without lapse. When his mindfulness is steady & without lapse, then mindfulness as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.
"[2] Remaining mindful in this way, he examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment. When he remains mindful in this way, examining, analyzing, & coming to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, then analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.
"[3] In one who examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, persistence is aroused unflaggingly. When persistence is aroused unflaggingly in one who examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, then persistence as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.
"[4] In one whose persistence is aroused, a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises. When a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises in one whose persistence is aroused, then rapture as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.
"[5] For one enraptured at heart, the body grows calm and the mind grows calm. When the body & mind of an monk enraptured at heart grow calm, then serenity as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.
"[6] For one who is at ease — his body calmed — the mind becomes concentrated. When the mind of one who is at ease — his body calmed — becomes concentrated, then concentration as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.
"[7] He carefully watches the mind thus concentrated with equanimity. When he carefully watches the mind thus concentrated with equanimity, equanimity as a factor for awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.
(Similarly with the other three frames of reference: feelings, mind, & mental qualities.)
"This is how the four frames of reference are developed & pursued so as to bring the seven factors for awakening to their culmination.

From: "Anapanasati Sutta: Mindfulness of Breathing" (MN 118), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, June 7, 2009, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html.

Warmly,

In the Dhamma,

Matthew

Iawa

It is the ego that does not develop, ie. improves.

Iawa

it is also more of the same because there is this, there is that.
Is it really 'developed' or is the passage to perception merely opened where before it didn't exist.

It sounds like someone's mind is wanting to take credit for the rewards of merit.

DhammaDhatu

Sujin Boriharnwanaket wrote:

There is no “I” and so it is impossible to control anything; including mind and mind states.

The arguement is flawed here.

The "I" is not the mind.

The mind can control itself.

:smilec:

Iawa

I, the desire of the field of awareness for a name.

Iawa

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

The arguement is flawed here.

The "I" is not the mind.

The mind can control itself.

:smilec:

The brain is a gland that secretes thought based on perception, memory, and conditioning. The result of these processes is mind.

I can control my mind as well as I can control my bowels, or my hearts beating.

Valtiel

I can control my mind as well as I can control my bowels, or my hearts beating.

Do you control your bowels as well as you control your heart beating? Yikes.

DhammaDhatu

Iawa wrote: »

The brain is a gland that secretes thought based on perception, memory, and conditioning. The result of these processes is mind.

The Buddha taught uncontrolled thought ultimately arises from ignorance.

For example, when I was young, I used to have thoughts about certain pleasures that I one day learned were harmful.

When I learned those pleasures or actions were harmful, my mind's thoughts about them stopped.

Iawa

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

The Buddha taught uncontrolled thought ultimately arises from ignorance.

For example, when I was young, I used to have thoughts about certain pleasures that I one day learned were harmful.

When I learned those pleasures or actions were harmful, my mind's thoughts about them stopped.

Ahhhh, your perception changed about the things you thought were pleasurable/ beneficial thereby changing the conditioning of the mind perceiving the object.

So you prove my point. Thanks.

DhammaDhatu

Iawa wrote: »

So you prove my point.

I thought your point was secretions from the brain produce thoughts.

The Buddha taught perceptions arise from ignorance and full comprehension (enlightened perception) arises from wisdom.

Simonthepilgrim

Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »

I thought your point was secretions from the brain produce thoughts.

The Buddha taught perceptions arise from ignorance and full comprehension (enlightened perception) arises from wisdom.

Is there any real problem with an understanding the role of the chemical activity of the brain? Both ignorance and wisdom, as abstract experiences, arise as a result of or resulting in changes in body chemistry, do they not? As for which is chicken and which is egg, this may be a matter of choice of belief.

The same, I suggest, can be said of "full comprehension (enlightened perception)" and wisdom. Which 'proceeds' from which? Or is this as 'useful' a question as that of the Procession of the Holy Spirit in Christian theology?