Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Right Concentration
pegembara
Veteran
What are your opinions regarding samatha meditation?
(Right Concentration) by Bhante Vimalaramsi
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Ven_Vimalaramsi_Noble_Eightfold_Path_and_Visuddhimagga.htm
Now, the last factor--I've got a lot to say about that one--"Right Concentration." One of the observations that Rhys Davies made about the word "concentration" (or "samadhi" in Pali) was that that word was never used in the time of the Buddha. The Buddha made this word up to describe a particular kind of mental development. But Rhys Davies, because of his ignorance, called it "concentration," and it's been called "concentration" ever since. And any time anybody thinks about "concentration," they think about one-pointedness of mind. Because there were a lot of practices that were being practiced during the time of the Buddha, a lot of different kinds of meditation, and they were all one-pointed concentration. The Buddha could have picked up one of those other Pali words that meant one-pointed concentration, but he didn't. He made up a word to describe something different. So my definition of "samadhi" is "collectedness." Collectedness has stillness, calm, and composure.
Now, the "Harmonious Collectedness" is letting go of these hindrances, and finally starting to get you to the jhanas. The "jhanas" mean different meditation levels, different stages of meditation. "Jhana" does not mean concentration. In the suttas, when asked what kind of meditation the Buddha taught, in Pali, he called it "samatha." Now, "samatha" has been translated as "concentration." "Samatha" means tranquility, calm, peace. And sometimes--in the Pali, in the Digha Nikaya--he calls his meditation "Samatha vipassana": "tranquility insight." And he goes on to describe all of the different jhanas.
So there's some real misunderstanding of what happened after the Buddha died. About 230 years, 220 years after the Buddha died--there was, in India, there was a whole lot of Brahmins that started taking on the robes but then teaching their Brahmanism. They didn't know anything about what the Buddha taught at all. And they started using a lot of the words that the Buddha used. "Samadhi" is one of them. But they were describing the Vedas; they were describing what was in the Brahmin texts. Then along came King Asoka, and he wanted the sangha to be pure again. So he started disrobing anybody that didn't know what the four noble truths were.
But a lot of those [Brahmin] teachings still got stuck in with the Buddhist ideas. And then, five hundred years after the Buddha died, they had the fourth Buddhist council where they wrote everything down. Now this Brahminism had been handed down verbally, and there's a lot of things that got changed around in the Buddhist texts. And then when the first council came up, they took out some of the Brahminism, but some of it still got stuck in there. So there's still some Brahmin ideas--Hindu ideas--that are mixed up in the Buddhist texts. There's one in particular that really stands out. It's in the Anguttra Nikaya. Here, the Brahmins were very much against women being leaders of anything. In one of the texts it says that the Buddha said that women would never be able to run a country--be a President or whatever. And that's obviously nonsense, because there's a lot of women that are very capable and do run stuff. That's part of the Hindu texts, the Brahmin texts that got mixed up, and it's still there because nobody thought it was important enough to take it out.
Now, about a thousand years after the Buddha died, there was another Brahmin by the name of Buddhagosa, and he had memorized all of the Vedic texts. A Buddhist monk came around, and he started talking about Buddhism, and he became real enthusiastic about Buddhism. Now Buddhagosa was an excellent scholar; he was really a top-notch scholar, very intellectual. He became so impressed with the Buddhist teaching that he took on the robes, and went to one of the Buddhist schools--they had colleges there at that time. But the only thing he really studied was the Pali language, and he became very proficient at that--very good Pali scholar. And he started getting a little bit prideful, and he started thinking, "You know, I bet I know Pali better than my teacher does now." And the teacher read his mind. And the teacher said, "Now you have to pay for that. Now, in Sri Lanka, they have been teaching and writing commentaries for five hundred years, but they're writing the commentaries in Sri Lankan; they're not writing them in Pali. I want you to go to Sri Lanka and change all those commentaries back into Pali."
Now he was a scholar and an intellectual and didn't know a thing about meditation. The first book he wrote when he went to Sri Lanka was the Visuddhimagga. The Visuddhimagga is called "The Path of Purification," and he wrote that the Buddha had forty different meditations. And this book was done in such a scholarly way. He divided it up into three different sections. First, is morality, and that's reasonably good. Then he wrote about concentration. Now here's a monk that doesn't know anything about meditation. And he starts thinking, "You know, I don't know what the Buddha taught about meditation, but I know what is says in the Vedas, and all meditation is the same, right? So he wrote about meditation by using the Vedas and mixing in Buddhist words. So it sounds right. He was very skillful at taking parts of a sutta that was just one line that made it sound perfect. Then he wrote another section on insight. And he divided the two kinds of meditation; he said, "This is one kind of meditation, this is another kind of meditation."
Now at the time, in Sri Lanka, the monks had been kind of lazy. They weren't very good at meditation; they didn't do it very much, and they didn't keep up their scholarship. Now he comes along with this book that's very scholarly, and they started reading that, and they started saying, "This is right! This is it!" And they went off, and they started practicing on their own. And because of the scholarship that he had and put in that book, they started picking up their scholarship and after ten or fifteen years, they started going, "Wait a minute. This isn't right. It says this in the text, and is says this here, and this is definitely not the same thing." But this book had become so popular that they couldn't stop it.
About this time, there was a real corrupt time in Burma for the monks. They were--monks were doing all kinds of things that they shouldn't have been doing. So they wanted to purify the sangha, so they had two boatloads of monks go to Sri Lanka and disrobe and re-ordain. Now they happened to run across this Visuddhimagga, and they got real excited because their sangha had been real corrupt--they hadn't been keeping their practices pure, they hadn't been doing much in the way of meditation--so they run across this, and now they're all excited about this Visuddhimagga, and they brought it back to Burma. And they've kept it in Burma for a thousand years--1500 years, something like that--I don't know how long it was. A real long time. And they've used that book as the basis of all meditation in Burma. But when you start looking at that as compared with the original suttas, you start seeing that they're not quite the same. They're not teaching quite the same thing that the Buddha was teaching. This is why it's real important to go back to the original texts.
Now, how did I find out about this? I'm a dumb American. I wanted to find out about meditation, and the first book I read about meditation was a Burmese book on meditation. It was real clear--do it this way. So that's what I picked up, and that's what I stuck with. And I got real interested in the Burmese and all of their forms of meditation. And that's why I went to Burma. I spent almost three years in Burma, and I practiced their form of meditation. And I went to the end of their meditation, and I found out this doesn't lead to the same place that the Buddha was talking about. So I became real disheartened.
And about that time, I was invited to go to a real big monastery in Kuala Lumpur. The head monk there had been real old--he was 75 or 76 years old--and he was used to giving two or three talks to three or four hundred people every time--every day. Two or three talks a week--I should say it that way. But every time he gave a talk, there was a lot of people that came, so he invited me to come there and to give dhamma talks and to teach meditation. And as it turned out, there was a Sri Lankan monk that came through, and he said, "Oh, I understand that you teach meditation. How do you teach it?" Now, I had given up on vipassana at that point, because I saw that it didn't lead to what I wanted it to lead to, or what I thought the Buddha was talking about. So I was teaching loving-kindness meditation, and I started telling him how I was teaching it, and he said, "You're teaching it just exactly right. The only thing you're doing is you're using the language of the Visuddhimagga. Throw the Visuddhimagga away. Just use the language of the suttas."
As soon as I did that--as soon as I let go of the Visuddhimagga--all of the suttas just--bang!--I could understand them. Now before, I was reading the Visuddhimagga, and I'd read the suttas, and I couldn't understand the suttas, so I put it down and went back to the Visuddhimagga. Now, I put down the Visuddhimagga and picked up the suttas, and it's plain what they're talking about. And I've tried to encourage as many teachers as possible to start using the original texts and let go of all of the ideas in the Visuddhimagga. Now Buddhagosa says that there's forty different meditations that the Buddha taught, and I've found fifty-two. So who am I going to believe?
So, I would very much like to encourage you to start practicing the way that the Buddha was talking about rather than people that have studied the Visuddhimagga. And there was a friend that came and listened to one of the dhamma talks, and I was going straight--it's not like we've talked tonight, it's like we talked last night when I was reading straight from the sutta. And they came to me--and they were a teacher--and they came to me after the dhamma talk, and they just kind of shook their head, and they said, "You know, I've been teaching a watered-down Buddhism." When you go back to the suttas themselves, and you start using the suttas, what happens is your teaching becomes much more systematic and easier to understand. And because of the attachment to the Visuddhimagga, that's hard for a lot of people to hear--unfortunately.
But as you become more successful in your meditation, and other people around you start seeing that you're smiling and you're laughing and you're not getting caught by such heavy emotional states and you have more balance in your life, you're the best advertisement that there is. And that is--don't do anything special, just be happy. Practice you meditation. Keep going on it, don't stop. If you experience one jhana, you have the potential to experience Nibbana--if you don't stop.
(Right Concentration) by Bhante Vimalaramsi
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Ven_Vimalaramsi_Noble_Eightfold_Path_and_Visuddhimagga.htm
Now, the last factor--I've got a lot to say about that one--"Right Concentration." One of the observations that Rhys Davies made about the word "concentration" (or "samadhi" in Pali) was that that word was never used in the time of the Buddha. The Buddha made this word up to describe a particular kind of mental development. But Rhys Davies, because of his ignorance, called it "concentration," and it's been called "concentration" ever since. And any time anybody thinks about "concentration," they think about one-pointedness of mind. Because there were a lot of practices that were being practiced during the time of the Buddha, a lot of different kinds of meditation, and they were all one-pointed concentration. The Buddha could have picked up one of those other Pali words that meant one-pointed concentration, but he didn't. He made up a word to describe something different. So my definition of "samadhi" is "collectedness." Collectedness has stillness, calm, and composure.
Now, the "Harmonious Collectedness" is letting go of these hindrances, and finally starting to get you to the jhanas. The "jhanas" mean different meditation levels, different stages of meditation. "Jhana" does not mean concentration. In the suttas, when asked what kind of meditation the Buddha taught, in Pali, he called it "samatha." Now, "samatha" has been translated as "concentration." "Samatha" means tranquility, calm, peace. And sometimes--in the Pali, in the Digha Nikaya--he calls his meditation "Samatha vipassana": "tranquility insight." And he goes on to describe all of the different jhanas.
So there's some real misunderstanding of what happened after the Buddha died. About 230 years, 220 years after the Buddha died--there was, in India, there was a whole lot of Brahmins that started taking on the robes but then teaching their Brahmanism. They didn't know anything about what the Buddha taught at all. And they started using a lot of the words that the Buddha used. "Samadhi" is one of them. But they were describing the Vedas; they were describing what was in the Brahmin texts. Then along came King Asoka, and he wanted the sangha to be pure again. So he started disrobing anybody that didn't know what the four noble truths were.
But a lot of those [Brahmin] teachings still got stuck in with the Buddhist ideas. And then, five hundred years after the Buddha died, they had the fourth Buddhist council where they wrote everything down. Now this Brahminism had been handed down verbally, and there's a lot of things that got changed around in the Buddhist texts. And then when the first council came up, they took out some of the Brahminism, but some of it still got stuck in there. So there's still some Brahmin ideas--Hindu ideas--that are mixed up in the Buddhist texts. There's one in particular that really stands out. It's in the Anguttra Nikaya. Here, the Brahmins were very much against women being leaders of anything. In one of the texts it says that the Buddha said that women would never be able to run a country--be a President or whatever. And that's obviously nonsense, because there's a lot of women that are very capable and do run stuff. That's part of the Hindu texts, the Brahmin texts that got mixed up, and it's still there because nobody thought it was important enough to take it out.
Now, about a thousand years after the Buddha died, there was another Brahmin by the name of Buddhagosa, and he had memorized all of the Vedic texts. A Buddhist monk came around, and he started talking about Buddhism, and he became real enthusiastic about Buddhism. Now Buddhagosa was an excellent scholar; he was really a top-notch scholar, very intellectual. He became so impressed with the Buddhist teaching that he took on the robes, and went to one of the Buddhist schools--they had colleges there at that time. But the only thing he really studied was the Pali language, and he became very proficient at that--very good Pali scholar. And he started getting a little bit prideful, and he started thinking, "You know, I bet I know Pali better than my teacher does now." And the teacher read his mind. And the teacher said, "Now you have to pay for that. Now, in Sri Lanka, they have been teaching and writing commentaries for five hundred years, but they're writing the commentaries in Sri Lankan; they're not writing them in Pali. I want you to go to Sri Lanka and change all those commentaries back into Pali."
Now he was a scholar and an intellectual and didn't know a thing about meditation. The first book he wrote when he went to Sri Lanka was the Visuddhimagga. The Visuddhimagga is called "The Path of Purification," and he wrote that the Buddha had forty different meditations. And this book was done in such a scholarly way. He divided it up into three different sections. First, is morality, and that's reasonably good. Then he wrote about concentration. Now here's a monk that doesn't know anything about meditation. And he starts thinking, "You know, I don't know what the Buddha taught about meditation, but I know what is says in the Vedas, and all meditation is the same, right? So he wrote about meditation by using the Vedas and mixing in Buddhist words. So it sounds right. He was very skillful at taking parts of a sutta that was just one line that made it sound perfect. Then he wrote another section on insight. And he divided the two kinds of meditation; he said, "This is one kind of meditation, this is another kind of meditation."
Now at the time, in Sri Lanka, the monks had been kind of lazy. They weren't very good at meditation; they didn't do it very much, and they didn't keep up their scholarship. Now he comes along with this book that's very scholarly, and they started reading that, and they started saying, "This is right! This is it!" And they went off, and they started practicing on their own. And because of the scholarship that he had and put in that book, they started picking up their scholarship and after ten or fifteen years, they started going, "Wait a minute. This isn't right. It says this in the text, and is says this here, and this is definitely not the same thing." But this book had become so popular that they couldn't stop it.
About this time, there was a real corrupt time in Burma for the monks. They were--monks were doing all kinds of things that they shouldn't have been doing. So they wanted to purify the sangha, so they had two boatloads of monks go to Sri Lanka and disrobe and re-ordain. Now they happened to run across this Visuddhimagga, and they got real excited because their sangha had been real corrupt--they hadn't been keeping their practices pure, they hadn't been doing much in the way of meditation--so they run across this, and now they're all excited about this Visuddhimagga, and they brought it back to Burma. And they've kept it in Burma for a thousand years--1500 years, something like that--I don't know how long it was. A real long time. And they've used that book as the basis of all meditation in Burma. But when you start looking at that as compared with the original suttas, you start seeing that they're not quite the same. They're not teaching quite the same thing that the Buddha was teaching. This is why it's real important to go back to the original texts.
Now, how did I find out about this? I'm a dumb American. I wanted to find out about meditation, and the first book I read about meditation was a Burmese book on meditation. It was real clear--do it this way. So that's what I picked up, and that's what I stuck with. And I got real interested in the Burmese and all of their forms of meditation. And that's why I went to Burma. I spent almost three years in Burma, and I practiced their form of meditation. And I went to the end of their meditation, and I found out this doesn't lead to the same place that the Buddha was talking about. So I became real disheartened.
And about that time, I was invited to go to a real big monastery in Kuala Lumpur. The head monk there had been real old--he was 75 or 76 years old--and he was used to giving two or three talks to three or four hundred people every time--every day. Two or three talks a week--I should say it that way. But every time he gave a talk, there was a lot of people that came, so he invited me to come there and to give dhamma talks and to teach meditation. And as it turned out, there was a Sri Lankan monk that came through, and he said, "Oh, I understand that you teach meditation. How do you teach it?" Now, I had given up on vipassana at that point, because I saw that it didn't lead to what I wanted it to lead to, or what I thought the Buddha was talking about. So I was teaching loving-kindness meditation, and I started telling him how I was teaching it, and he said, "You're teaching it just exactly right. The only thing you're doing is you're using the language of the Visuddhimagga. Throw the Visuddhimagga away. Just use the language of the suttas."
As soon as I did that--as soon as I let go of the Visuddhimagga--all of the suttas just--bang!--I could understand them. Now before, I was reading the Visuddhimagga, and I'd read the suttas, and I couldn't understand the suttas, so I put it down and went back to the Visuddhimagga. Now, I put down the Visuddhimagga and picked up the suttas, and it's plain what they're talking about. And I've tried to encourage as many teachers as possible to start using the original texts and let go of all of the ideas in the Visuddhimagga. Now Buddhagosa says that there's forty different meditations that the Buddha taught, and I've found fifty-two. So who am I going to believe?
So, I would very much like to encourage you to start practicing the way that the Buddha was talking about rather than people that have studied the Visuddhimagga. And there was a friend that came and listened to one of the dhamma talks, and I was going straight--it's not like we've talked tonight, it's like we talked last night when I was reading straight from the sutta. And they came to me--and they were a teacher--and they came to me after the dhamma talk, and they just kind of shook their head, and they said, "You know, I've been teaching a watered-down Buddhism." When you go back to the suttas themselves, and you start using the suttas, what happens is your teaching becomes much more systematic and easier to understand. And because of the attachment to the Visuddhimagga, that's hard for a lot of people to hear--unfortunately.
But as you become more successful in your meditation, and other people around you start seeing that you're smiling and you're laughing and you're not getting caught by such heavy emotional states and you have more balance in your life, you're the best advertisement that there is. And that is--don't do anything special, just be happy. Practice you meditation. Keep going on it, don't stop. If you experience one jhana, you have the potential to experience Nibbana--if you don't stop.
0
Comments
Thanks for sharing your story and experiences!
Right samadhi is 'collectness' because it is comprised of the seven factors of the Noble Eightfold Path which have gathered together to bring it into manifestation. The Blessed One said:
However, unlike Vimalaramsi, the Buddha above described samadhi as 'singleness of mind'.
Also, Vimalaramsi has not distinguished between concentration and samatha/vipassana. Both samatha & vipassana are fruits of concentration, as clearly explained in the Samadhi Sutta.
I agree with Vimalaramsi in that it is best to avoid the Visuddhimagga and Buddhaghosa.
The first jhana, as described by the Buddha, has five factors, the last being ekkagattacitta or one-pointed mind. So that cannot be denied by Vimalaramsi.
Ultimately, right samadhi is a more open, pliant state of mind. Based on the suttas, this is the fourth jhana.
Quote:
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain.
"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability....
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Hey, if deluding yourself that the Buddha spoke Pali leads to enlightenment, maybe I should try it. ;-)
In other words, right concentration has its foundation in abandonment.
I would be interested to know why you would suggest avoiding the Visuddhimagga. I read what Vimalaramsi says in the copy offered by the OP, but instead, I want to know from your own experience and perspective.
Considering the form of Metta taught in the Visuddhimagga, I would assess it to be an excellent reflection of what the Buddha taught, and it more or less mirrors the words in the suttas perfectly while also expanding on them in very clear language. Sharon Salzberg mentioned that she learned Metta using the Visuddhimagga's format, which included the exceptional practices of visualizing metta toward oneself, a friend, neutral person, a person we have had conflict with, and also through an incredible inner reflection story of meeting bandits in the forest. She documents this here...
"Loving-kindness: The Revolutionary Art of Happiness" by Sharon Salzberg, 1995, Shambala Publications.
If there is something wrong with reading the Visuddhimagga, or if Buddhagosa was as inept as Vimalaramsi's words suggest, I really want to know what it is and why, because I have always found this work to be of tremendous quality. Maybe I'm just a fool.
I am concerned about some statements made by Pegembara on Vissudhimagga (Path of Purification) and hence like to clarify few things, although he has written in length and I sincerely thank him for that.
</O:p
During the time of Buddhaghosa, in Jumbudeepa (India) there was a Lankadeepa (Sri Lanka) monastery in Buddha Gaya(Uruvela) in Maghada (Bihar). Since he could not follow the native language of Lanka, Sinhalese or Sinhala or Hela (the language is not called Sri Lankan) he did find it difficult to understand the concepts of Dhamma although he was a scholar of Paali. This was the very reason he decide to visit Lanka and learn the dhamma under the supervision of Mahavihara elders of Anuradhapura, the citadel of Theravada Buddhism. He wrote Vissudhimagga and a whole heap of other commentaries in PALI and burnt all the books written by mostly Arahant Mahinda(son of king Asoka) in Sinhala, as the text were not clear and were muddled up. Today we utter sutras in Pali, mainly due to this turning point or we would be uttering sutras in Sinhala, a primitive language even currently in use in Sri Lanka. Buddha by the way spoke neither Paali nor Sanskrit but the commoners language called Prakrit, a mixture of Paali andd Sanskrit)<O:p></O:p>
<O:p</O:p
Few so called neo-scholars in Buddhism, both in west and east, mostly I believe are a bit pedantic, do criticise Buddhaghosa for his own INTERPRETATION of concepts on Dhamma. The fact is he ELABORATED concepts rather than interpreted and always with the guidance of Arahants or Noble Ones resided at Mahavihara, he based his writing on Suttras(quoted at every instant applicable) and Abhidamma. A book of this nature can be only written by a super human brain which he possessed (he became a Sotapane before death) which is apparent in his analytical approach in his works. To understand statements in this book takes several readings, especially the section on Dependant Origination. Lanka monks were not too lazy as claimed by Pegambara and there were thousands of arahants and noble ones during this period.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p</O:p
The division of Dhamma into Dhaaner (giving), Seela (virtue), Samaadhi (concentration) and Pannyaa (wisdom) was absolutely not his creation but was already in place as the ladder to enlightenment and further Buddha clearly explains the two kinds of Meditation in Kimsuka Suttra under Samyutta Nikaye and few others and as claimed by Pegambara was not his own idea of dividing into concentration and meditation.<O:p></O:p>
<O:p</O:p
You guys are fortunate to have some Bhikkus(monks) in this forum to clarify difficult concepts in Buddhism and for Buddha’s sake when you address them show some courtesy and always address them as Venerable Sir or Ven. (name of monk)
I was just quoting Bhante Vimalaramsa and wanted the opinions of some of the seasoned Dhamma practitioners on this forum. I do not have a Christian nor Western background.
Thanks for your clarification on Buddhagosa's role.
With Metta,
My opinion is that it's wonderful that you're practicing with so much sincerity and effort. Until we have Right View, we have to stumble around with Not Quite Right View, so nothing we do is entirely correct. Please keep making mistakes until liberation is attained!
I personally follow the tradition of honoring the contribution Buddhaghosa has made to our understanding and practice of the Buddha Dhamma. I could spend the next 20 years on it there is so much to study within! I am really not sure how to take Vimalaramsa's rather scathing critique, which is why I await the insight of other's here. Until then, I still consider my copy of the Visuddhimagga to be a dhamma treasure.
<o></o><o></o>
He seems to be suggesting that Buddhaghosa is teaching successive transmigration. I disagree with this assessment, and see the past, present, and future contexts as useful descriptors of Buddhist cosmology.. Bhikkhu Bodhi summarizes the Buddhist position on re-birth better than perhaps anyone I have ever read. He suggests that re-birth and kamma...<o>
</o><o></o>
”...show us not only that our personal lives are shaped by our own kammic past, but also that we live in an ethically meaningful universe. Taken in conjunction, they make the universe a cosmos, an orderly, integrated whole, with dimensions of significance that transcend the merely physical.<o>
</o><o></o>
Bhikkhu Bodhi also offers this as well…
<o></o>
Though the moral law that links our actions with their fruits cannot be demonstrated experimentally in the same way that physical and chemical laws can be, this does not mean it is not real.
<o></o>
This is why I view Buddhaghosa’s writings as promoting classic Buddha dhamma, and not promoting successive migration or reincarnation, which is what Buddhadasa seems to suggest. While I agree with his thesis in terms of what re-birth is and truly appreciate his teaching on dependent origination and dependent arising, I disagree with the underpinnings of his essay that Buddhaghosa is necessarily teaching something radically different then he is! <o></o>
<o></o>
However, it is clear that what Buddhadasa is actually disagreeing with here is not Buddhaghosa but the classic Vajrayana teaching of reincarnation. I am not sure what positive fruit this will bear for him, but he obviously feels strongly about it. <o></o><o>
</o>
I think he's dead, so if we could track down his new body, we could ask him. :-)
Just to clarify another point. Buddhagosa never distorted Dhamma but the readers of Vissudhimagga distorted what Buddhagosa stated, due to inability to comprehend the exact meaning or coming to hasty conclusions etc. On Page 494 P. 32 in Visuddhimagga, Buddagosa writes ' And the Blessed one who was desirous of eliminating the long-inheretent perception of a soul, has expounded the eighteen elements.........'.
Fundamentally there is conditional arising of elements and that is all - ABSOLUTELY. The condition or CAUSE being Kamma or Action or Volition of Past giving rise to 5 aggregates, the RESULT in future. What continues is not Consciousness, not Feelings, not Perception, not Mental Formations, not Form (materiality) but just SUFFERING. Volitions or Kamma conditioning a new birth(suffering), new disease, new aging, new pain and so on ending in 5 clinging aggregates. So no 'being' continues in sansaara but only suffering continues and to END this suffering was the essence of Buddha's teaching. If one reads most Suttras in Majjhima nikaya and Anguttara nikaya, you come across instances where Buddha reprimanded bhikkus who distorted his teachings, especially on the subject of Self and Soul, which was fundamental to his teaching.
Do you mean nothing at all survives after death?
Does samsara end with physical death for the unenlightened?
Are we all equal upon breakup of the body?
What Buddhists Believe? by the late Chief Venerable Dhammananda
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Bo...ts_Believe.htm
Eternalism and Nihilism
The Buddha rejected both extremes of eternalism and nihilism.
To develop Right View or Perfect View, we must first be aware of two views which are considered imperfect or wrong.
The first view is eternalism. This doctrine or belief is concerned with eternal life or with eternal things. Before the Buddha's time, it was taught that there is an abiding entity which could exist forever, and that man can live the eternal life by preserving the eternal soul in order to be in union with Supreme Being. In Buddhism, this teaching is called sassata ditthi ----the view of eternalists. Such views still exist even in the modern world owing to man's craving for eternity.
Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the eternalist view is considered wrong or false.
The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality. To subscribe to a philosophy of materialism is to understand life only partially. Nihilism ignores the side of life which is concerned with mental conditionality. If one claims that after the passing away or ceasing of a life, it does not come to be again, the continuity of mental conditions is denied. To understand life, we must consider all conditions, both mental and material. When we understand mental and material conditions, we cannot say that there is no life after death and that there is no further becoming after passing away. This nihilist view of existence is considered false because it is based on incomplete understanding of reality. That is why nihilism was also rejected by the Buddha. The teaching of kamma is enough to prove that the Buddha did not teach annihilation after death; Buddhism accepts 'survival' not in the sense of an eternal soul, but in the sense of a renewed becoming.
With Metta
Itivuttaka: The Group of Twos
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
§ 41. {Iti 2.14; Iti 35}
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Those beings are truly deprived who are deprived of noble discernment. They live in stress in the present life — troubled, distressed, & feverish — and at the break-up of the body, after death, a bad destination can be expected.
"Those beings are not deprived who are not deprived of noble discernment. They live in ease in the present life — untroubled, undistressed, & not feverish — and at the break-up of the body, after death, a good destination can be expected.
Look at the world
— including its heavenly beings:
deprived of discernment,
making an abode in name-&-form,
it conceives that 'This is the truth.'
The best discernment in the world
is what leads
to penetration,
for it rightly discerns
the total ending of birth & becoming.
Human & heavenly beings
hold them dear:
those who are self-awakened,
mindful,
bearing their last bodies
with joyful discernment.
Most Buddhists accept this metta teaching is excellent.
Kind regards
DD
The three life-times model cannot assist human beings in this task. It can only promote morality.
<O></O><O></O>
For me, the above is delusion, to think there is some kind of 'cosmic justice'. Evolution itself is rooted in ignorance & craving.
<O></O> In my opinion, morality & justice have little to do with Buddha-Dhamma.
Actually...in my view you do not truly appreciate it. If you did, you would possess unsurpassed gratitude from realising freedom from suffering.
As above.
Kind regards
<O></O><O>:)
</O>
For most Buddhists, nihilism is believing their is no life after death.
But in the suttas, nihilism generally refers to two beliefs.
On the mundane level, it is to hold their are no results of karma. For example, if I kill, it will not affect me. Men are often like this before they go to war, thinking it will be a merry party (until they return home with mental illness and even suicidal tendencies).
On the supramundane level, nihilism is to believe death will make all of my problems peaceful and go away. In other words, one does not comprehend the way to solve their problems today.
For example, if I am a lover, I have the body of a lover. Physically, I groom myself to look attractive and beautiful. My mentality, my delight and confidence also conditions the state of my body. My shoulders become broad, my chest is out, my skin is radiant.
But at the break up of this body - such as when my lover leaves me - there is a result.
Bodies due to good kamma.
Bodies due to unskilful kamma.
It is impossible that Buddhagosa was an sotapane. All sotapane have penetrated dependent origination (more or less).
<O:p</O:p
Monks on forums generally promote morality.
Monks are taught from the outset of their training there are two kinds of human beings: (1) monks; and (2) householders.
Traditionally, monks are taught to instruct laypeople in morality but not higher dhamma.
Thus the internet monks cannot help people understand dependent origination. This is impossible.
With much metta
DDhatu
:buck:
Actually, courtesy and respect are what we would expect everyone to demonstrate to everyone else, regardless of their vocation.
Irrespective of whether a person is a 'venerable' or not, manners count for a lot round here.
I've met some extremely polite and reverent laypeople.
I've also encountered more than one ordained person who could have been taught a thing or two about interacting with others.....
"Clothes do not make the man."
If I understand you correctly belief in literal rebirth is mundane knowledge and this entails a form of clinging to a "self" that receives results of one's actions in this and the "next" life. On the supramundane level when all grasping has stopped and there is no wanting "to get" or "to be" conceit there was never any "self" in the first place, so what is there to be born, to die or to receive the effects of karma.
So birth is ended and there is no more coming or going.
Did I get it right?
How about the different levels of "sainthood" ie. sottapan, sakadagamin, anagamin ,the supposed seven times, once returner, nonreturner and arahant ? How does it fit into the overall scheme?
Please enlighten me, friend.
:-/
The essays about the speculative virtues of Buddhagosa on this thread have no bearing on ending suffering.
Buddhagosa taught dependent origination occurs over three life-times thus the causes in the past and results in the future he asserted cannot be managed or overcome.
Thus your advice is excellent if followed.
It is best to refrain from 'name calling'. This is noble.
I am in no way suggesting that Dhamma Datu is wrong...I am just trying to understand why Buddhagosa's position is so off-base? I do not view the past-present-future birth position to be taken literally or in reference to a persistent "self", and therefore I do not, at this point, concur with how Buddhadasa framed it, which was to suggest that Buddhagosa would have agreed with the later historical teachings of Vajrayana about successive transmigration. I do not see Buddhagosa's words as teaching this at all, and I have the passages right in front of me. I also do not see how making a claim that Buddhagosa was not a stream-winner is a call anyone alive today should be making. Am I missing something here??
My point being...since Dhamma Datu is suggesting that the only thing which matters is the elimination of suffering, then how does the denigration of Buddhagosa's writing eliminate human suffering, and by extension, how is a fellow dhamma brother or sister from mahayana supposed to react to this attitude? Is there really such a huge divide between us?
Sorry for asking a lot of questions...I am just trying to engage in discussion for my own understanding. I want to make sure I have the best information possible when I deliver dhamma talks to the sangha as a basic layperson, so I thank you in advance for any and all direction, instruction, and guidance from my more learned brothers/sisters here on newbuddhist. Thank you.
Vissudhimagga was supplementary to Suttras and Abhidamma. It never contradicts anything stated in the Suttras. In fact it quotes from suttras and elaborate statements. This book is the only text which shows the A - Z way to end suffering or awakening or Nibbana whatever the 'end' people define, which no other book does and no single suttra does. The closest suttra being Mahasatipattana suttra, and here too it doesn't mention the fabric of all effort viz. Virtue. The Noble 8 fold path too gives a very basic teaching, without detail. Suttras are collections of Buddha's sermons and Buddha did not cover all subjects in a single sermon. Besides Osbert Moore (Ven. Nanamoli) who painstakenly translated Vissudhimagga into English would have not being foolish to spend his whole life on a book of no value.
Since the thread deals with meditation its best to revert back to the subject. Since I mentioned Satipattana Suttra I would like to share some views and open a discussion. The day, for some of us who have retired from active work, begins with a meditation or concentration session. You may begin with spreading Metta, which calms your mind and switch to Kayanupassana based on Mahasatipattana Suttra, to contemplate on elements or dhatu. Extending this to contemplation(touching on Vipassana) to realise its only the dhatu that change, age, die (impermanent), its dhatu that undergo pain (suffering) and its dhatu that is subjected to all this and not a being, or 'I' (self) and you let go everything that is taken as 'mine'. Now this is early morning and by the time you go to bed in the night your 'self' is right back where it belonged. And the process begins the next morning and shedding this self is a difficult thing to do and thats where Sati comes into play where every activity and every movement needs to be carried out with mindfulness, without the mind going astray and sampajjhana or change from one to another need to be observed, again a very difficult thing to do. Especially people who fall asleep reading this.
Achan Cha's practical experience suggests at the ABSORPTION stage (impulsion stage in Citta Vitthi) you have no control over the mind and you become an OBSERVER. Now 'who is observing?' if there is no-self. Is it the mind itself which is observing? Is there a dichotomy of Moral mind and Immoral mind and the moral mind taking over at this vital point. As every one knows all the vital activities of our body, like metabolism, neuro sensory and respiratory activities etc. go on without intervention. If we did intervene, which of course some do with drugs, it would end up in a chaotic situation. Some who had observed the nimitta or sign at least was/is fortunate to reach the stage of ACCESS in impulsion stage but the curiosity is the stage of Absorption. Any one like to share any thoughts?
I could be wrong however in my interpretation.
About Depenent Origination, the Buddha taught as follows. It is up to you to reconcile it with Buddhagosa.
So, in respect of the above, where the Buddha is reported to have said rebirth view is not a factor of the path and sides with effluents (mental pollution), how can Buddhagosa's rebirth view of Dependent Origination be the dhamma the Lord Buddha is referring to?
Where the Buddha is reported to have said dependent origination is something to "be seen", "the be seen here & now", "to be the dhamma itself", how can Buddhagosa's rebirth view of Dependent Origination be the dhamma the Lord Buddha is referring to?
Kind regards
DDhatu
<O:p></O:p>
It allows one to focus on the dhamma that can elimate suffering.
In the Buddha's time, when various sectarians met eachother, they would ask eachother: "To whose dhamma do you profess?" Each Indian religion is a "dhamma".
That we are all human brothers & sisters is true. We are only common humanity. But we are not all brothers & sisters in the same dhamma.
The divide is reconciled through a democratic spirit & acceptence. Please try to see diversity as something good & beneficial.
Kind regards
DDhatu
In the suttas, dependent origination is as follows:
Ignorance > Bodily, verbal & mind conditioner, namely, breathing in & out, vitakka & vicara and perception & feeling > six kinds of consciousness > mind-body > sense bases > contact > feeling > craving > clinging > becoming > birth of self-image or identification & kamma > aging & death > sorrow lamentation pain grief despair & suffering.
In the suttas, dependent origination is also as follows:
Ignorance >conditions> Bodily, verbal & mind conditioner, namely, breathing in & out, vitakka & vicara and perception & feeling >conditions> six kinds of consciousness > mind-body > sense bases > contact > feeling > craving > clinging > becoming > birth of self-image or identification > suffering > faith > joy > concentration > etc > etc > insight > Nibbana
Buddhagosa taught the following:
ignorance > past kamma > rebirth consciousnes > new body & mind > sense organs > contact > feelings > craving > attachment > becoming > another rebirth birth > dukkha
So if ignorance occurs in a past life, how will it be overcome in this life???
So if dukkha occurs in the next life, how can it be experienced and motivate us to overcome it this life???
Buddha said:
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0 1pt inset; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #eef0f2; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .75pt">To become glad, is to be born; to become dejected, is to die. Having died, we are born again; having been born, we die again. This birth and death from one moment to the next is the endless spinning wheel of samsara.
Reflections <O:p</O:p
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Quote:<O:p</O:p
<TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%; mso-cellspacing: 0cm; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt 4.5pt" class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0 1pt inset; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0 1pt inset; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4.5pt; PADDING-LEFT: 4.5pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 4.5pt; BACKGROUND: #eef0f2; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0 1pt inset; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0 1pt inset; PADDING-TOP: 4.5pt; mso-border-alt: inset windowtext .75pt">It's likewise with the teaching of dependent origination (paticca-samuppāda): deluded understanding (avijjā) is the cause and condition for the arising of volitional kammic formations (sankhāra); which is the cause and condition for the arising of consciousness (viññāna); which is the cause and condition for the arising of mentality and materiality (nāma-rūpa), and so on, just as we've studied in the scriptures. The Buddha separated each link of the chain to make it easier to study. This is an accurate description of reality, but when this process actually occurs in real life the scholars aren't able to keep up with what's happening. It's like falling from the top of a tree to come crashing down to the ground below. We have no idea how many branches we've passed on the way down. Similarly, when the mind is suddenly hit by a mental impression, if it delights in it, then it flies off into a good mood. It considers it good without being aware of the chain of conditions that led there. The process takes place in accordance with what is outlined in the theory, but simultaneously it goes beyond the limits of that theory.
Ajahn Chah Unshakeable Peace
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
One night, Hongren received Huineng in his abode, and expounded the Diamond Sutra to him. When he came to the passage, "to use the mind yet be free from any attachment," Huineng came to great enlightenment—that all dharmas are inseparable from the self nature. He exclaimed, "How amazing that the self nature is originally pure! How amazing that the self nature is unborn and undying! How amazing that the self nature is inherently complete! How amazing that the self nature neither moves nor stays! How amazing that all dharmas come from this self nature!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dajian_Huineng
The mind must be free from all attachments including views. If I am not mistaken the Buddha taught that even his Dhamma must ultimately be let go of after crossing the river of samsara. {sorry no quote}
There is also a story about a Zen master who wanted to pass all his precious teachings from his older masters to and enlightened student. The student promptly threw all the teachings into the fire.
The above appears to assert the Buddha was an imperfect teacher. MN 141 is a detailed exposition of the N8FP. Most Buddhists chant each day: "Svakatto bhagavata dhamma: The Dhamma, perfectly spoken by the Blessed One". Often people heard the Buddha speak a few sentences of Dhamma, from which they attained path, fruit & Nibbana.
Meditation is about abandoning attachment & craving, having mindfulness at contact & feeling and using conscious awareness to calm the kaya, vaca & citta sankhara until ignorance is uprooted via vipassana.
Meditation is turning the spinning of dependent origination backwards.
The Buddha's understanding of dependent origination is not separate from meditation but Buddhaghosa's is.
In the Vibhangasuttam, the Buddha said:
In the Ānāpānassatisuttam, the Buddha said: In Sri Lanka, monks such as Nanavira and Bhikkhu Nanananda had understandings completely divorced from Buddhagosa but close to the Buddha.
Kind regards
DD
At this point, the mind is free from the five hindrances or 'surface defilements'.
Buddha taught at the fourth jhana, the breath has been completely calmed.
For the matter above, I speak not agreeing with Buddhagosa's dependent origination because it does not elucidate how the 'self' arises, how the 'self' ceases and how the 'self' is related to the occuring of suffering.
Kind regards
DD
Buddhagosa had no version of his own on Dependant origination yet had the brilliance to analyse it further to bring in the three periods of time. Buddha mentions in many suttras the three divisions of time pertaining to various subjects. I don't see any reason why Dhamma Dhatu has taken exception to this and so passionate about it. Although commentaries need to be read with caution, they help people like myself to further understand concepts deep in meaning, which of course DD has no problem as his capacity probably exceeds Buddhagosa, Bhikku Bodhi and Ven. Nanamoli, a tremendous achievement in deed. We need to be blessed to have his company in this forum at least I do.
I was more into finding answer to 'who observes the mind' under absorption or samadhi or samatha. Of course some of his explantion was common knowledge to people who have read suttras and vissudhimagga. Nowhere I suggested the existance of a 'self', if I did its my poor English to be blamed. If complex functions go on unabatted inside our body without the intervention of a 'being' is it the extension of this complexity to exteria which is needed? However a degree of control is needed and at the same time to be mindful ALL THE TIME until we go to sleep. DD explanations just don't hit the point(partially did) I really raised but again I thank him for his effort. If your mind becomes an observer from been the actor you have no control over at the stage of samadi i.e. you reach the consciousness of realm of fine material.
The mind is at the stage of Anindriyapatibaddha, a state of consciousness unrelated to the SENSES.
Once there, as you have a relatively purified, unblemished mind than before, you need to come out of absorption (as you have no control!) and continue on Vipassana, with full control. There need no place for a SELF for all this to happen and one must let the mind do the home work, let it flow on its own so to speak, ored by itself. Now will this lead to Nibbana or end of suffering ? overcoming defilements one by one or do have to do consciously. Theory is fine mentioned in all dhamma text but when it comes to practice you face all these hurdles and queries.
Finally few Sri Lankan monks do reject Visuddhimagga. They and DD have the right for their views and some Sri Lankan monks do reject Samatha Bhavana too as it deals with Jhana a connotation of Hindu practices. However Samma Samadhi the 8th Noble step is reaching 4th Jhana explained in Sacca Vibhanga Suttra. Does this mean those SL monks who oppose Samatha Bhavana do contradict even Buddha? These monks might have been mislead by Dry Insight meditators mentioned in the Susima Suttra who reached Nibbana without gaining powers. The question Susima raised with arahants was pertaining to powers and NOT JHANA. Now going back to SL monks who oppose Vissudhimagga and Samatha Bhavana - are they more wiser than the rest I wonder?