[pouslytut]

We may be working with conflicting definitions of 'reasoning

yes I wasn't aware you consider "reasoning" to mean "mental perceiving".

upon what direct personal experience do you base your denial of this possibility?

The reason why I don't think it is possible to gain complete cessation just through abstract thought is because it just doesn't fit in with what the suttas say about Nibbhana or the practice towards Nibbhna. I haven't come across statements like "Sariputta was sitting under a tree thinking about not-self and suddenly it struck him".

You don't have to personally realize the highest attainment to consider scriptural citations as "fact available to you at the moment" and go from there. How do Buddhist think Nibbhana is even possible before attaining it? This is what we all do when learning Dhamma. You listen to someone, take that upon faith, practice and verify it for yourself. I don't think we always have to base our statements on personal attainments and nothing else.

I'm not very fond of linguistic or doctrinal/scriptural hair-splitting.

Really? Considering your active, enthusiastic participation in the same I thought you were enjoying it.

[wepoiyub]

yes I wasn't aware you consider "reasoning" to mean "mental perceiving".

I see a difference between perceiving and processing the raw data that is perceived. When that data is put into a larger framework, it is reasoning. Without being placed in a larger framework, it is meaningless.



The reason why I don't think it is possible to gain complete cessation just through abstract thought is because it just doesn't fit in with what the suttas say about Nibbhana or the practice towards Nibbhna. I haven't come across statements like "Sariputta was sitting under a tree thinking about not-self and suddenly it struck him". I think it's very likely that Gautama was sitting under a tree thinking about it when it struck him, seeing as how disciplined, focused thinking and processing of experience is integral to the jhanas, as described above.

You don't have to personally realize the highest attainment to consider scriptural citations as "fact available to you at the moment" and go from there. How do Buddhist think Nibbhana is even possible before attaining it? This is what we all do when learning Dhamma. You listen to someone, take that upon faith, practice and verify it for yourself. I don't think we always have to base our statements on personal attainments and nothing else. Personal statements, no. Knowledge, yes. Otherwise, it's belief. I don't take anybody's teachings on faith, including that of the Pali Canon. I'm a fan of the Kalama Sutta because my experience has verified it so many times. I suspend judgement about any teaching until direct experience has verified it. Until it does, it's just a hypothesis or an anecdote.


Really? Considering your active, enthusiastic participation in the same I thought you were enjoying it. Therein lies a couple of the dangers that come along with personalizing and assuming. I haven't particularly enjoyed this discussion. I thought we might both benefit from it, that's all. Discussion is not always hair-splitting, but if you feel that that's what I'm doing, then I'm fine with dropping it and moving along. I don't see much chance of anything positive coming from the discussion as I see it going so far, anyway. We're each working with different understandings of what the reasoning process involves and it doesn't look like either of us is willing to redefine. No sweat. Happens all the time. Whatever you believe is fine with me. I'm not proselytizing.

[elects]

I think it's very likely that Gautama was sitting under a tree thinking about it when it struck him

I don't quite get where you stand so let me ask you again. Do you think it is possible, according to your knowledge of Dhamma, that a person can realize nibbaha just by thinking about not-self and logically analyzing what it is?

As for the rest of your answers, I repeatedly said my answers are based on what I have read and not my personal experiences. I did not make any personal statements. I agree with verifying what you have learned with direct experience. But, unless either one of us is enlightened, we both should be speaking of knowledge and not direct experience. This is perfectly fine for me. I don't have a problem with that

Discussion is not always hair-splitting, but if you feel that that's what I'm doing...

I don't know. You were the one who brought up something about not liking "hair-splitting debates" lol

[Ad0i89Od]

I don't quite get where you stand so let me ask you again. Do you think it is possible, according to your knowledge of Dhamma, that a person can realize nibbaha just by thinking about not-self and logically analyzing what it is?

I'm saying that I don't know for a fact that it is impossible that rational analysis is insufficient to know anatta. What I do know is that the suttas portray the Buddha as telling "study monks" and "meditation monks" to respect each other equally. If he had known that either analysis or meditation alone was inferior, I think he would have made that clear. I tentatively conclude that more possibilities are open. Perhaps either is sufficient, perhaps neither alone is, or perhaps both are necessary.

As for the rest of your answers, I repeatedly said my answers are based on what I have read and not my personal experiences. I did not make any personal statements. I agree with verifying what you have learned with direct experience. But, unless either one of us is enlightened, we both should be speaking of knowledge and not direct experience. This is perfectly fine for me. I don't have a problem with that First of all, who is there to be enlightened? Also, now there seems to be a distinction between "knowledge" and "direct experience" in your argument. Earlier you seemed to equate them. If it isn't direct experience, it's belief, isn't it? Faith? That's not equivalent to knowledge. What I mean is, there's a difference between knowing that the teacher said X and knowing that X is true. If you jump from knowing that the teacher said it to believing that it's true, without the intervening direct experience, it's not knowledge at all. It's knowledge after you've directly experienced it, processed it by means of reasoning into the larger framework and found that it fits into and supports the larger framework without contradiction. Experience processed through reason.


I don't know. You were the one who brought up something about not liking "hair-splitting debates" lol For me, hair-splitting involves heated debate over trivial detail that leads nowhere. Discussion of the Dhamma can either lead to insight or to a fruitless contest of wits based on sutta-thumping. If this discussion were to show signs of the former, I'd be interested in continuing, but if it's doing neither of us any good, I'd rather just walk away.

As it is now, it seems that what I've said has challenged what you believe and that you're dead-set on defending your belief. I'm trying to say that your belief includes ruling out something that you have no rational or empirical basis to rule out. Whether or not reason alone is sufficient doesn't matter much to me, but I'm convinced by my own experience that meditation without reasoning is, if not impossible, at least fruitless.

When I was ordained in the Thai forest monastery, where they don't study the suttas, I saw a lot of monks who were guided by emotional attachments to tradition and veneration of the teacher. They wouldn't question what the teacher said, even to the point that they believed that Ajahn Chah's decades-old turds had turned into sariras. That degree of credulity is only possible in the absence of rational analysis and healthy skepticism. I'm not willing to go there and believe what anyone tells me. Until I've verified something through direct experience, I suspend judgement on it altogether.

Thus, when you declare that reason/analysis alone is insufficient, but that thoughtless/unreasoned meditation is, I'm unwilling to agree until I've experienced this for myself. I've already done a lot of both, so I may never be in a position to say for sure. But based on what some suttas suggest, there is adequate reason to doubt your assertion. If you're inflexible and determined to believe that only through thoughtless/unreasoned meditation can one achieve an understanding of anatta, I ask you to support this dogmatic assertion. If you can't, then I will maintain my posture of suspended judgement until better information/experience comes along.

If you present something definitive, I'll gladly agree with you. This isn't a battle of egos for me. But I'm not going to agree to something when I don't know that it's true. This is just a matter of intellectual integrity/honesty. You're ruling something out without substantial support for doing so, and I'm saying keep the possibility open unless you have credible evidence to support your claim. You seem to think that absorption and one-pointedness is thoughless and unreasoning; I cast doubt on this.

Experience only has meaing only after it has been processed and fitted into a larger framework, and this process is the very process of reasoning. In my experience, it sometimes involves an internal dialog and sometimes it doesn't. Yet, the processiong of empirical data into a larger framework is the rational function, nevertheless. Without empirical data, reasoning is impossible; without reasoning, empirical data is meaningless. In my experience, that is.

[PickEmUp]

I'm saying that I don't know for a fact that it is impossible that rational analysis is insufficient to know anatta.

According to suttas, mere vitacca/vicara do not bring enlightenment. A person abandons directed thought and evaluation in jhana (2nd jhana onwards). Or are you saying Jhana is not required to enlightenment?

What I do know is that the suttas portray the Buddha as telling "study monks" and "meditation monks" to respect each other equally...

Irrelevant to this discussion as pointed out few posts before.

Also, now there seems to be a distinction between "knowledge" and "direct experience" in your argument.

I haven't changed my standpoint. There is knowledge gained from rational analysis. There is also the knowledge and awareness of direct experience. The former alone is not sufficient to enlightenment. That is what this discussion is about.

fruitless contest of wits based on sutta-thumping...

Funny, you have quoted more suttas and commentaries than anyone else who has commented on this thread so far.

I'm trying to say that your belief includes ruling out something that you have no rational or empirical basis to rule out.

Actually I have. I have done a great deal of rational analysis of not-self and done more thinking on it (under trees) than an average monk in the Thai frost. Yet I am not enlightened.

But based on what some suttas suggest, there is adequate reason to doubt your assertion.

Please quote

If you're inflexible and determined to believe that only through thoughtless/unreasoned meditation can one achieve an understanding of anatta, I ask you to support this dogmatic assertion.

Directed thought and evolution are abandoned in jhana, which are merely stages of letting go and peaking concentration. A mind concentrated, and stilled in jhana does not "think". It may perceive.

This isn't a battle of egos for me.

Let's stick to the topic shall we?

[Malinguenem]

He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him. Jhana + reasoned processing.

Sustained Thought (vicara)

Vicara seems to represent a more developed phase of the thought process than vitakka. The commentaries explain that it has the characteristic of "continued pressure" on the object (Vim. 142; PP.148). Applied thought is described as the first impact of the mind on the object, the gross inceptive phase of thought; sustained thought is described as the act of anchoring the mind on the object, the subtle phase of continued mental pressure. Buddhaghosa illustrates the difference between the two with a series of similes. Applied thought is like striking a bell, sustained thought like the ringing; applied thought is like a bee's flying towards a flower, sustained thought like its buzzing around the flower; applied thought is like a compass pin that stays fixed to the center of a circle, sustained thought like the pin that revolves around (Vism. 142-43; PP.148-49).

These similes make it clear that applied thought and sustained thought functionally associated, perform different tasks. Applied thought brings the mind to the object, sustained thought fixes and anchors it there. Applied thought focuses the mind on the object, sustained thought examines and inspects what is focused on. Applied thought brings a deepening of concentration by again and again leading the mind back to the same object, sustained thought sustains the concentration achieved by keeping the mind anchored on that object. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...351.html#ch1.3

I don't see how reasoning/thinking is superfluous to the process. But again, my mind is open to definitive support for the assertion that it is unnecessary/useless/irrelevant.

[Flieteewell]

...Dhamma exists independent of our your perceptions...

How do you know this to be true? How do you know anything at all about anything outside your perception?

[SpeavaJap]

double post

[Oriesssedleli419]

I don't see how reasoning/thinking is superfluous to the process.

"Discerned" does NOT mean thoughts. It means perceiving. The kind of reasoning/thinking you describe is already abandoned and not possible specially in higher jhanas. As the meditator reaches higher jhanas, recognition or "reasoned processing" in your words happen in the immediate neighborhood, that is upon abandoning the direct experience of the jhana.

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' .... Bottom line is, it just doesn't strike because you are sitting under a tree thinking about it as you seem to suggest or suggested earlier...

[spoddersedpn]

How do you know this to be true? How do you know anything at all about anything outside your perception?

Read the post you picked the quote from again

[klubneras]

This discussion was split from the Anatta analysis thread, as it had strayed too far off-topic and was also no longer suitable for the Beginners' sub-forum. It looks like some posts were lost in the transition. I accept responsibility and apologize for any that disappeared. Looks like I accidentally deleted a whole page of posts instead of moving them. Sorry. FBM.

[Reocourgigiot]

In a post of mine that seems to have been accidently deleted, I was trying to explain how in a conversation with Ajahn Sumedho last year, he said to me anatta, emptiness and the unconditioned are all the same thing.

My approach to this comes from previous Vajrayana practice and more recent Theravada practice. I don't know much about the Jhanas other than what I've read about them in the Pali suttas, and don't know what the equivalent terminology in Vajrayana would be, or if it even matters anyway.

My point is that one needs the experiential clarity, emptiness, wisdom and intuitive awareness etc gained from meditation practice, together with study, in order to have a complete understanding. This non-verbal understanding from meditation to me isn't the same as intellectual understanding because its beyond thoughts and concepts - and intellectual understanding isn't enough in itself.

In 'Don't take your life personally' Ajahn Sumedho states :

"What does it mean to realise desirelessness, cessation, emptiness or non-self (viraga,nirodha, sunnata, anatta) ? These are all abstractions; they are words that point to but cannot define. Realisation therefore has to come through intuition.

This is what I emphasise and encourage now in the way I teach. I see that people often don't have enough confidence in their own experience of emptiness and non-self. It's so easy to fall back into the questioning mode -' What is it?' - and want to objectify it in some way, want to pin it down or turn it into some mental object that can be verified and proven, maybe scientifically."


Ajahn Buddhadasa discusses emptiness with references to the suttas here:

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/bo...SENTIAL_POINTS

.

[nanyaHgoc]

Sorry again for the accidental deletes. I hope most of them were mine.

[nursopoutaras]

According to suttas, mere vitacca/vicara do not bring enlightenment. A person abandons directed thought and evaluation in jhana (2nd jhana onwards). Or are you saying Jhana is not required to enlightenment?

I'm 100% with Deshy on this point. FBM, if those monks you mentioned were just mindlessly following tradition, then they lacked correct instruction, which was the fault of their teacher.

There's nothing anti-intellectual about Jhana but the process of abandoning discursive thought within it is clearly outlined. This doesn't mean that a meditator slides into a zombie-like stew, rather that things which were formerly hidden by the turbulence of the mind become manifest and are directly seen.

When I was a kid, I was warned not to reach up and touch the hot vent of a boiler - I was told that it would burn my hand. Still, one day I deliberately reached up and touched it. I will never forget the pain or the water-filled blisers on my hand. The adults were astonished and asked me why I'd done it when I'd been already warned.

The truth was, I didn't actually know what it was to be burned and my curiosity got the better of me... it was a case of getting direct experience, if you see what I mean. Instructions can take you only so far, after that it's down to experience.

Whether people can get enlightened by other means, I don't know. Some schools teach instant satori and I have heard about the so-called dry-insight way. I can't judge either. If they work, then good for them but there seems to be an absence of instruction pertaining to either in the suttas.

On the other hand, the suttas are replete with instructions on Jhana.

[POMAH_K]

As far as I can tell, most of the posts I accidentally deleted were mine. They were pretty long and included a lot of stuff that I really don't want to try to reproduce in full. I'll try to condense my main points.

1) I don't claim to know that reason alone is sufficient; only that there is sufficient reason to leave the possibility open.

2) As Kaarine pointed out, there are many, many depictions of people becoming arahants in the suttas by hearing and understanding the dhamma, with no jhana practice mentioned. To speculate that they must have had prior training is just that; speculation, and insufficient justification to base a categorical and dogmatic knowledge claim upon.

3) Thanissaro Bhikkhu practically states outright that it is possible to attain arahantship after having experience only with the first jhana, in which calmed, focused, directed rational thought is a central feature. (At the end of the Translator's Note. Thanissaro Bhikkhu is a relevant authority, and I think it is reasonable to at least consider the possibility that he is right, and therefore suspend judgement on the sufficiency of rational thought until more complete information comes in. When something decisive and irrefutable comes along, it will be reasonable to claim it as knowledge. Until then, it's just opinion and/or speculation.

4) We may have some different definitions of what "reason" involves and entails that might be fueling much of this disagreement. When I say "reasoning", I don't restrict that to internal dialog or syllogism-building. When I say "reason", I'm talking about the conscious processing of experience, which is significantly different. For example, years ago I trained myself to shut off the internal dialog for extended periods of time. At first it was just during sitting, but eventually I was able to do it when I was walking around and going about routine activities. There was no dialog, but there was reasoning (and heightened awareness, but that's a different story). So, when I say reasoning may be sufficient, I'm not talking about just academic studies, as Deshy seems to think. I think that we could clear up a lot of our disagreement and mutual misunderstanding if we cleared up this discrepancy in definitions of "reason".

There may have been more, but that's all I can come up with atm. Hope the Cliff's Notes version is enough.

[arindiruppya]

As far as I can tell, most of the posts I accidentally deleted were mine. They were pretty long and included a lot of stuff that I really don't want to try to reproduce in full. I'll try to condense my main points.

Yes... unfortunately one of them was a post I brought here about the importance that Bhikkhu Bodhi gives to the fact that a careful examination of suttas can lead us to consider that the posibility of becoming an Arahat with out the Jhana absorptions is there, mostly for monks (or lay) that have that special temper of understanding directly through "hearing" the Dhamma.

I will post it again just to give some material for its consideration and the consideration for those with experience in Sutta contemplation.

[feAilei1]

Sorry, Kaarine!!! I promise to be more careful about which little dot I tick from now on...

[barsikjal]

I'd be interested to know what the eqivalent of the Jhanas is in Vajrayana. I've read that a Stream Winner in Theravada is the equivalent to first Bhumi (Bodhisattva level), so presumably such stages as 'once returner' and 'non returner' also might have an equivalent term.

As far as becoming an arahant through listening to the Buddha is concerned, I'm sure if that was the case, then the actual transmission from being in the presence of the Buddha when he was speaking would have something to do with it too. I find it difficult to believe that one could spontaneously become an arahant in the present day just from reading suttas.

However, if anyone does suddenly feel that they're an arahant, do please tell me!

[neonasafluni]

Bhikkhu Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words", Chapter VIII gives us a wonderful introduction about "Mastering the Mind". On of the chosen Suttas is AN 4.170 "Yugananda Sutta: In Tandem".

He comments this very special sutta:

However, because the aptitudes of meditators differ, several suttas allow for alternative approaches to mental cultivation:

1) The first approach, the classical one, is to develop serenity first and insight afterwards. By "serenity" it is meant the jhanas or (according to the Pali commentaries) a state bordering on the jhanas called "access" or "threshold" concentration (upacarasamadhi).

[...]

The description of the fourth approach is somewhat obscure. The sutta says that a monk's mind is seized by agitation about the teachings, and then some time later he gains concentration and attains the supramundane path. The statement suggests a person initially driven by such intense desire to understand the Dhamma that he or she can not focus clearly upon any meditation object. Later, with the aid of certain supporting conditions, this person manages to subdue the mind, gain concentration, and attain the supramundane path.

Up here the commentary at the introduction for Chapter VIII.

Then his translation of such sutta:

"Or again, friends, a monk's mind is seized by agitation about the teaching.11 But there comes a time when his mind becomes internally steadied, composed, unified, and concentrated; the path arises in him. He now pursues, develops, and cultivates the path, and while he is doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated.

"Friends, whatever monks or nuns declare before me that they have attained the final knowledge of arahantship, all these do so in one of these four ways."

Bhikkhu Bodhi gives a footnote for this sutta, as # 11:

Dhammuddhaccaviggahitam manasam hoti. Mp says that "agitation" (uddhacca) arises here as a reaction to the ten "corruptions of insight" (vipassanaupakkilesa) that one misunderstands as indicating path attainment (On the corruptions of insight, see Vism 663-38; Ppn 20:105-28.) It is possible, however, that the "agitation about the teaching" is mental distress brought on by eagerness to realize the Dhamma. This state of spiritual anxiety, when suddenly resolved, can sometimes precipitate an instantaneous experience of awakening. For an example, see the story of Bahiya Daruciraya at Ud 1:10.

Bahiya, in desperation of hearing the Dhamma from Buddha:

A third time Bahiya said to the Lord: "It is difficult to know for certain... Teach me Dhamma, Sugata, so that it will be for my good and happiness for a long time."

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering." After this, Bahiya accidentally dies, so:

Taking Bahiya's body, they put it upon a litter, carried it away and burnt it, and made a stupa for it. Then they went to the Lord, prostrated themselves, and sat down to one side. Sitting there those bhikkhus said to the Lord: "Bahiya's body has been burnt revered sir, and a stupa has been made for it. What is his destiny, what is his future birth?"

"Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was a wise man. He practiced according to Dhamma and did not trouble me by disputing about Dhamma. Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth has attained final Nibbana."

Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance:

Where neither water nor yet earth
Nor fire nor air gain a foothold,
There gleam no stars, no sun sheds light,
There shines no moon, yet there no darkness reigns.

When a sage, a brahman, has come to know this
For himself through his own wisdom,
Then he is freed from form and formless.
Freed from pleasure and from pain.
This inspired utterance was spoken by the Lord also, so I did hear.

[CesseOveldset]

Sorry, Kaarine!!! I promise to be more careful about which little dot I tick from now on...

No prblem at all FBM,