[asypecresty]

In numerous suttas we are taught that a vital part of the training is "not to grasp and the signs and features of forms, odours, sounds etc and to hold the senses restrained"



Any advice on this, i'm particually having trouble understanding the "grasping at signs and features". What does this mean, does it mean perception of something as desirable or undesirable?




any help and advice would be greatly appreciated


metta and thanks

[hotsaucemidl]

Hi Craig,

Would it be possible for you to give a sutta reference, please?


Kind wishes,

Aloka

[codecouponqw]

An important question!

AN 10.13:
"And which are the five lower fetters? {Self-identity views, uncertainty, grasping at precepts & practices}, sensual desire, & ill will. These are the five lower fetters. And which are the five higher fetters? Passion for form, passion for what is formless, conceit, restlessness, & ignorance. These are the five higher fetters."

MN 118:
"In this community of monks there are monks who, with the total ending of [the first] three fetters, are stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening..."

(via ATI)

Thanissaro there notes:

"The fetter of grasping at precepts and practices is often described in the Pali canon with reference to the view that one becomes pure simply through performing rituals or patterns of behavior. This view in turn is related to the notion that one's being is defined by one's actions: if one acts in accordance with clearly defined precepts and practices, one is ipso facto pure. Although the Canon recognizes the importance of precepts and practices in the attaining the stream, the experience of the Deathless shows the person who has attained the stream that one cannot define oneself in terms of those precepts and practices. Thus one continues to follow virtuous practices, but without defining oneself in terms of them."

These remarks are simply a preliminary designation; discussion should follow.

[Zavdpacq]

In numerous suttas we are taught that a vital part of the training is "not to grasp and the signs and features of forms, odours, sounds etc and to hold the senses restrained"

Any advice on this, i'm particually having trouble understanding the "grasping at signs and features". What does this mean, does it mean perception of something as desirable or undesirable?




any help and advice would be greatly appreciated


metta and thanks

Hi alright, I'll have a go
We "grasp" features and hold onto them, fixating them as if they are real and independent of each other (and us). This is not necessarily the case, that things do not influence each other - including the expectations that we have (things do influence each other, and this is called "dependent origination"; a self fulfilling prophecy is an example: you make - often negative - things happen by your expectation - good example of Karma!).

Unfortunately this is the only way we can think about things: by creating expectations or concepts about them and pretend these represent reality. Subsequently we may behave as programmed robots, our thinking being the program. But in this way we cannot take into account things that we had not thought of, that were not in the super-simple program (most things).

The real world we cannot "mentalise" or grasp, we can only live, and then experience from the feed-back whether we live constructively. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in thinking or arguing about it. To get into that space of living-in-the-moment we have to let-go of the expectations.

Yes I would say it is about interpreting "things" a priori as desirable or undesirable. You don't know whether they can be positive or negative! If you do not not classify things in that way, you will become open to see how things really unfold (because you are not trying to will them in one direction or another which highly distorts what you see, and prevents you from seeing how things actually unfold/take effect). This openness will allow you much better to take advantage of opportunities as they unfold.

It is a bit like the Judoka who does not have pre-conceived ideas how to tackle his opponent so he can use what happens, a movement by his opponent, to his own advantage. In real life we do not have such opponents but we do give away arising opportunities for beneficial developments by have expectations about them.

Metta,
jan

[MaigicyuNinia]

(via ATI)

I.e., Access to Insight, for anyone who does not know.

[lagunaEl]

Heya Craig,

Here is a bit of a different translation that seems to me to clear things up, from MN 38:




"On seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him.

On hearing a sound with the ear...

On smelling an odor with the nose...

One tasting a flavor with the tongue...

On touching a tactile sensation with the body...

On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the intellect -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him.

Endowed with this noble restraint over the sense faculties, he experiences within himself an unblemished happiness.


So, one does not grasp at details inherent to the object itself, nor does one grasp at ideas, mental impressions, associated memories or fantasies with regard to that object or similar objects. Extremely simple example: one sees a sports car and does not marvel over details of its form, nor does one fantasize about the experience of driving it, showing it off, etc.

[eladiopsislab]

"not to grasp and the signs and features of forms, odours, sounds etc and to hold the senses restrained"

I think "Not to grasp" means not to take them as self or belonging to self. Take them for what they are. Just form, just sound etc. Do not identify with them as self or things belong to self. It is the practice

Friends, these six are the conscious bodies:

eye-consciousness,
ear-consciousness,
nose-consciousness,
tongue-conscioussness,
body-consciousness and
mind-consciousness.

With the arising of determinations arise consciousness, with the cessation of determinations consciousness ceases. This same noble eightfold path is the path to the cessation of consciousness, namely, right view, right thoughts, right speech, right actions right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. When the noble disciple knows consciousness thus, the arising of consciousness thus, the cessation of consciousness thus and the path to the cessation of consciousness thus, he gives up the latent tendencies to greed, drives out the latent tendencies to aversion, and, completely destroying the latent tendency to measure as `I be', dispels ignorance, arouses science, and here and now makes an end of unpleasantness.

MN 9

[Faigokilix]

Here is a bit of a different translation that seems to me to clear things up, from MN 38:

Does the translation make a big difference (in general)?

It's what I would expect. I mainly speak modern European languages, but even there ...

[TimEricsson]

Heya Craig,

Here is a bit of a different translation that seems to me to clear things up, from MN 38:




"On seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him.

On hearing a sound with the ear...

On smelling an odor with the nose...

One tasting a flavor with the tongue...

On touching a tactile sensation with the body...

On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the intellect -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him.

Endowed with this noble restraint over the sense faculties, he experiences within himself an unblemished happiness.


So, one does not grasp at details inherent to the object itself, nor does one grasp at ideas, mental impressions, associated memories or fantasies with regard to that object or similar objects. Extremely simple example: one sees a sports car and does not marvel over details of its form, nor does one fantasize about the experience of driving it, showing it off, etc.

Thanks Stuka, that example you gave helped me get a handle on this teaching

Thanks to the other replies as well helpful as always

[kylsq0Ln]

Originally Posted by stuka
Here is a bit of a different translation that seems to me to clear things up, from MN 38:

Does the translation make a big difference (in general)?

It's what I would expect. I mainly speak modern European languages, but even there ... Sometimes a different word can make things a bit clearer to someone


For example I never knew what "imperturbable" meant, so the sutta "the way to the imperturbable" meant nothing to me

However when i seen different translations, the sutta made perfect sense

[xanaxist]

Originally Posted by jan Originally Posted by stuka
Here is a bit of a different translation that seems to me to clear things up, from MN 38:

Does the translation make a big difference (in general)?

It's what I would expect. I mainly speak modern European languages, but even there ... Sometimes a different word can make things a bit clearer to someone


For example I never knew what "imperturbable" meant, so the sutta "the way to the imperturbable" meant nothing to me

However when i seen different translations, the sutta made perfect sense I never knew what unfettered meant, it wasn't on google at the time - 19th century stuff

I think many translations have been carried over from the 19th century, reflecting our understanding of "life" at the time (Thank God I didn't grow up then! pfew! - rather fettered ...)

[deermealec]

I never knew what unfettered meant, it wasn't on google at the time - 19th century stuff

I think many translations have been carried over from the 19th century, reflecting our understanding of "life" at the time (Thank God I didn't grow up then! pfew! - rather fettered ...)

Just stepping aside from Theravada for one moment, Jan, I don't think the term 'unfettered' is quite so obscure as you imagine. The well known American Mahayana teacher Ken Mcleod named his website "Unfettered Mind"


http://www.unfetteredmind.com/

[zzarratusstra]

The well known American Mahayana teacher Ken Mcleod named his website "Unfettered Mind"
http://www.unfetteredmind.com/

I can't make head or tail of this guy, I bought his book years ago, (and tried to read it), no idea what it's about.
But translation, in general, is a BIG issue. See for instance the new thread in the Mahayana Buddhism Forum - called: Lost in translation where the argument is recounted that "noble truths" means in fact "pure philosophies", and that there's nothing noble about them, apart from the last one.

Metta

[viiagrag]

See for instance the new thread in the Mahayana

But why...?

the argument is recounted that "noble truths" means in fact "pure philosophies"

That's not how the Buddha explained them.

and that there's nothing noble about them, apart from the last one.

Nor is that.

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

[desmond001]

There's not just one angle.

[Si8jy8HN]

There's not just one angle.

You look at a rock from where you stand, jan, and I look at it from where I stand, and it might appear differently to each of us. However, it is still the same rock. The Buddhadhamma is the same way. I have presented the rock of the Buddhadhamma for you to examine.

You can look at it from any angle you want to, jan, but the Buddha presented it as shown above. This revisionism, with no reference at all to how the Buddha presented it, is just so much wallowing in denial and self-delusion.

[stastony]

Originally Posted by jan There's not just one angle.

You look at a rock from where you stand, jan, and I look at it from where I stand, and it might appear differently to each of us. However, it is still the same rock. The Buddhadhamma is the same way. I have presented the rock of the Buddhadhamma for you to examine.

You can look at it from any angle you want to, jan, but the Buddha presented it as shown above. This revisionism, with no reference at all to how the Buddha presented it, is just so much wallowing in denial and self-delusion. Cute. No it's not a personal angle I'm talking about.

[shemadagaswer]

Cute. No it's not a personal angle I'm talking about.

I gave you the "Buddha's angle". That is what is relevant here.

[amotoustict]

Originally Posted by jan Cute. No it's not a personal angle I'm talking about.

I gave you the "Buddha's angle". That is what is relevant here. Right on!

[RicyReetred]

Right on!

The point remains that the Buddha was clear in his teaching. This "three ignoble truths and a Noble One" garbage is irrelevant.