Going be the Pali texts, I meet with contradictions on the matter. Is they due to later developments ? Is it just my lack of capacity to understand thereMessage 1 of 37 , Sep 7View SourceGoing be the Pali texts, I meet with contradictions on the matter. Is they due to later "developments"? Is it just my lack of capacity to understand there isn't any contradiction actually?
I've given up trying to figure it out. I've taken the Buddha's advice:
Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.
With that peace, who cares if there's a self or anything that's left that can't even be called "self"?
Well, I think some people do care: those who cling to a sense of self.
The Path is not for the faint-hearted.
Nina van Gorkom wrote thus at 04:45 PM 07-09-13:
Op 4 sep 2013, om 05:46 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:
"The processes arise and the processes cease,-------
they arise with causes, and they cease with causes,
with causes for the process of rebirth, [thus] monks, does the Realised One [explain] âselfâ and âthe one who takes up.â" And then again, he repeats the nidÄnas.
The phenomenologists assert that there must be some basic subjectivity which realizes these truths (not an atta, but nevertheless some fundamental awareness or beingness). Khristos has a very good article on this subject in the current issue of the Buddhist Studies Review.
Nina, perhaps this question is addressed in the Abhidhamma?
N: Suppose, there would be a basic subjectivity, is it conditioned or unconditioned? Nibbaana is the unconditioned element. Other phenomena, apart from nibbaana are conditioned. This means, they are dependent on other realities for their arising. Nobody can make them arise at willl, whenever one wishes. Understanding this must lead to detachment.
If one takes awareness for self, the "I" will grow bigger and bigger and it will lead one away from the truth of <all dhammas are anattaa>.
Dharma Friends, I want to address only one interesting point, that is, Stefan s remark about difficulty of watching the present moment. The main difficultyMessage 37 of 37 , Sep 17View SourceDharma Friends,I want to address only one interesting point, that is, Stefan's remark about difficulty of watching the "present moment."The main difficulty here is that we are watching the "views" of the present moment, watching them as contents, rather than as process itself.If we watch the process, then all we see the rise and fall. (Emphasis is on "see" not "note," although this term can be helpful in its right context.)If we keep watching the rise and fall of the mind, then the mind should be able to calm itself in due course.Indeed, if we reflect on M 131, "past" and "future" are simply our views of them, We think that thought A is something about the past, thought B is about the future. These "past" and "future" are themselves concepts, not helpful here. In meditation, we need to clear the mind of all views, but gently (we cannot wish for it). Just let go. (See SD 40a.1)The "present" is our mental directing to whatever is going on, the passing of mental events, if you like. This is the so called "present moment awareness" (useful concept but don't get caught up with its philosophy).Dh 348 does not contradict M 131, but speaks in another way, reminding us that even the present moment should not be taken as a view. Let that go, too. M 131 lists the 15 wrong views, which is a sort of abridged version of the 16 doubts mentioned in M 2 (Sabbasava Sutta), etc (see Intro to SD 8.9). The 16 doubts deal with past, present and future: let go of all such thoughts in meditation.The 15 wrong-view method of M 131 exhorts us to let go of the past and future. For the present, we regard the 5 aggregates (one by one or as necessary) as impermanent.The bottom line is that we need to let go of all conceiving and thinking. Only when the mind if free from thoughts will the hindrances go away. Even if dhyana cannot be attained, the momentary stillness is itself of such profound joy. We use this to study the suttas, which are very useful in our understanding of meditation theory.I have two offerings, a translation of M 131 (SD 8.9) and an essay, "Notion of di.t.thi" (SD 40a.1), about letting go of views. Contact me offline if you want these files. Taste the joy of meditation, and the suttas becomes clearer. Enjoy the suttas, and meditation theory becomes easier.Hope this is helpful.With metta and mudita,PiyaOn Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Kumara Bhikkhu <kumara.bhikkhu@...> wrote:
One word for now/present in Pali is
"paccuppanna", which can be literally translated as "just occurred".
wrote thus at 06:37 PM 20-08-13:
>I wonder if 4 years is a record delay on this group!
>As I have found the attempt to focus on the present moment unhelpful in
>my own meditation practice, I've had my doubts that the Buddha ever
>referred to living in the moment or awareness of the present moment or
>present moment awareness. My problems are: sometimes the mind works so
>fast that the experience I am being aware of has gone by the time I am
>aware of it; also, if the past or future is in awareness now, I don't
>see that present moment awareness adds anything to my practice. I was
>tying myself in knots trying to achieve present-moment awareness that
>made any difference.
>I think Dhammapada Verse 348. Reaching The Further Shore, advises
>against present moment awareness:
>Let go before, let go the after,
>let go the middle, beyond the becoming.
>With mind released in every way
>you'll come no more to birth, decay.
>348. muñca pure muñca pacchato, majjhe muñca bhavassa
> sabbattha vimuttamÄ naso, na punaá¹ƒ jÄ tijaraá¹ƒ
>Here I am taking 'majjhe' as meaning what is between the present and
>past, i.e. the present moment, which Joseph Goldstein does.
>Joseph Goldstein in the first 10 minutes of his Talk 21 of the
>Satipatthana series examines the advantages and disadvantages of present
>moment awareness and concludes that he does not want a construct like
>'present moment', he wants reality.
><http://dharmaseed.org/teacher/96/talk/300/> This where I got the
>Dhammapada quote from.
>Christopher Titmuss critiques present moment awareness in Dharma Enews
>12 August 2007 in "Is the Now a lot of hype?"
>So does Georges Dreyfus in "Is mindfulness present-centred and
>There seems to be a view around of the Buddha as a kind of ancient
>Eckhart Tolle and some translations seem to support this. Bhikkhu Bodhi
>regularly translates 'dhammo.....sandit.t.hiko' as 'the dhamma visible
>here and now' eg MLDB page 358 MN 38.25. However, 'sandit.t.hiko' is
>literally 'completely visiible', which I interpret as 'obvious',
>'transparent', 'open'; there is certainly no 'here' or 'now in the Pali.
>Now I have used Dhp 348 to say the Buddha did not advocate present
>moment awareness, but others in this group have used MN 131
>Bhaddekaratta Sutta to claim the opposite. !f you look closely, there is
>an ambiguity; the translation of 'paccuppannam' as 'presently-arisen'
>(MLDB page 1039) can mean (1) 'present in awareness' or (2) ' in
>present-moment awareness', as the English 'present' can refer to
>existence or to time; meaning (1) supports my stance against present
>moment awareness and meaning (2) supports the opposite! To be honest,
>given Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of 'sandit.t.hiko', I think he
>intended meaning (2), but did the Buddha? The PED gives for
>'paccuppanna' 'what has arisen (just now), existing, present (as opposed
>to .. past and... future)', but still I doubt: PED gives the derivation
>of 'paccuppanna' as 'pat.i + uppajjati' and the article on 'pat.i' does
>not offer the meaning 'now' and only offers 'again' in a temporal sense;
>so I wonder if the PED inadvertently slipped from meaning (1),
>'existent', to meaning (2), 'present-moment', never imagining that a
>whole philosophy of the now and present-moment awareness would be
>hooked onto this anomalous interpretation of 'pat.i' as 'now' !
>To sum up: either the Buddha contradicts himself between Dhp 348 and
>MN131 on present-moment awareness or the PED contradicts itself in its
>understanding of 'pat.i' and 'paccuppanna'. At the moment, PG, I can't
>see MN 131 as supporting the modern idea of present moment awareness,
>but that puts me in the difficult position of agreeing with the PED on
>'pat.i', but disagreeing with the PED on 'paccuppanna', which I take to
>mean 'come to mind, the contents of mind' without any temporal
>reference; if temporal reference to 'now' were seriously meant, the Pali
>would surely use 'vuttamaana'. I would really appreciate some feedback
>on this point.
>I'm sorry if I have muddied the waters for you and, if you find
>'present-moment awareness' a useful concept, please keep it. But it is
>not useful for me or some others and I genuinely doubt that the Buddha
>taught it. I wonder if those who do see this concept in the Buddha's
>teachings are projecting a modern zeitgeist onto the Buddha.
>Better late than never,
hp (65) 8211 0879
The Minding Centre
170 Upper Bukit Timah Road
#11-04 Bukit Timah Shopping Centre
Meditation courses & therapy: http://themindingcentre.org
Sutta translation: http://dharmafarer.org