Tang for Dummies
Dayamati Dharmachari
chance of being perplexed by the misleading language of Tang Huyen,
who has reduced the entirety of the Buddha-dharma to two Pali words,
which he then seriously misinterprets. The following tour through the
two terms in question is offered as a means of helping a few
bewildered people out of the Tang-made fog.
All of Buddhism, according to Tang, can be understood as variations on
the theme of what he calls `mentation'. Tang's Buddhism (hereafter
called Tangism) can be summarised in the mantra `Mentation Bad.' Now
the word `mentation', according to Webster's Third New International
unabridged dictionary, means mental activity. So what the principal
doctrine of Tangism really amounts to is the dictum `Any kind of
mental activity is bad.'
In classical India there was a school of philosophy that held exactly
this doctrine. The school was known as the Yoga school. The opening
sutra in the Yoga-sutras says `Yoga is the cessation of mental
activity' (yoga.h citta-v.rttir-nirodha.h). The entire Yoga system is
designed to show yogins how to bring all mental activity to a complete
stop in the belief that by so doing a yogin can experience the
radiantly blissful conscious existence of the Purusha, the Inner Man,
who can gain blisful freedom only when he is finally divorced from his
seductive wife, Nature (prak.rti). So another name for Tangism would
be Yoga, a system of thought that was thoroughly repudiated by
Buddhists in India.
Now it remains to be seen just how Tang manages to find Yoga
philosophy in the words of Buddhist texts. He does it, ladies and
gentleman, by a consistent distortion of two key verbs, and the nouns
and participles derived from them. Those two verbs (given here in
their Pali forms) are MA~N~NATI and CETETI. Let's examine how those
versb are used in Pali.
CETETI (or CINTETI) is an transitive verb that, according to the Pali
Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary, means when it has no direct
object to think, to reflect, to have an opinion. Idiomatically it is
often used in the phrase `maa cintayittha', which means `don't
worry'. When the verb is used with a direct object, expressed by an
accompanying accusative case, it means to ponder, to think about, to
imagine, to plan, to design, to scheme, to intend, to plot. When the
verb is used with an indirect object, expressed by an accompanying
dative case, it means to desire, to strive after, to long for.
There are various nouns derived from CETETI, all of which Tang Huyen
translates as `mentation'. It may be helpful to bear in mind that in
most contexts when this family of terms occur in the Pali canon, they
mean striving, scheming, and plotting. So whenever you see Tang use
the term `mentation', it may be helpful to translate it into the
more suitable English word `striving' or even `fixation'. If we
bear that in mind, then it turns out that the warnings against what
Tang calls mentation are actually warnings against fixation and
obsessive striving.
It should also be borne in mind that the Pali canon does not issue an
absolute warning against ALL striving. On the contrary, it speaks
highly of some kinds of striving. People are encouraged, for example,
to strive for liberation, to strive for renunciation and to strive for
purity of conduct. One also finds lists of principles that ought to be
striven for (cettabba-dhamma). The only kind of striving that is
warned against is striving after harm and evil. So one can find the
Buddha saying things like `maa paapakam akusalam cittam
cinteyyaatha' (Do not strive for harmful unhealthy mental states).
But one cannot find the Buddha saying `maa cinteyyaatha' (Do not
think at all).
Everything that can be said about CETETI and its derivatives can be
said of MA~N~NATI. This verb also means to think, to imagine, to
fancy, to have an opinion. It also means to be proud, to be arrogant,
to be boastful, to be conceited. It is from this verb that one gets
such important terms as MAANA, which is one of the ten principal
afflictions (kilesas). As a kilesa, MAANA is described as the
compulsion to compare oneself to others and to see one's conduct,
thinking and learning either as superior to others or as inferior to
others. So whenever someone says something like `I do virtuous deeds,
and I have a correct understanding of Dharma, but you do vicous things
and you distort the Dharma', then that person is engaging in MAANA
and is thereby doing something that causes unnecessary and avoidable
harm either to himself or to others. MAANA is both a cause of dukkha and
an effect of dukkha. It is said that only arahants are free of it, but
even ordinary people can strive (ceteti) to reduce it in their
mentalities.
MAANA, which Tang also translates as `mentatation' is best
understood as, as pride, arrogance, bragging. So when the Buddha urges
peopole to cultivate the opposite of MAANA, he is not saying to
cultivate `non-mentation' (absence of mental acitvity of any kind)
but rather to cultivate humility. The best sign of humility is an
ability to appreciate the good qualities in others without envy and
without pettiness. A humble person has no need to humiliate others. So
when Tang talks of `non-mentation' it may help to translate the
phrase into standard English `non-humiliation' or `non-arrogance'.
Tang has provided a useful service by showing how important these two
Pali terms are in Theravada Buddhism. Unfortunately, he has undone
part of the benefits of that service by systematically miscontruing
what those terms mean in many key contexts.
Now that "Tang for Dummies" has appeared, some people will be asking
whether a sequel, entitled "Tang for People with IQs Over 85" will
soon be available. This is not yet known. Our market researchers have
yet to discover any people with IQs over 85 who find Tang interesting
enough to try to understand him better.
With humble and obsession-free mentation,
Dayaamati Dharmachari
boj...@my-deja.com
"Tang for Dummies". Now!, there's an understatement! -- even after
a year and a half of being pummelled with it, Dayaamati still
doesn't get it!
How is a garden variety social butterfly ever going to fathom
Buddha-Dhamma?
-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Nevermind
<daya...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>CETETI (or CINTETI) is an transitive verb that, according to the Pali
>Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary, means when it has no direct
>object to think, to reflect, to have an opinion.
Quick question: Is "ceteti" related in any way to "cetana?" Also,
what are some of the other derivations of this? I quite enjoy
these sorts of etymologies. One of my teachers went on in
great detail about the "sam" prefix one time, relating it to
all sorts of words related to pacification, like samatha, etc.
What a fantastic mnemonic technique for these things!
Are there any good sources that discuss these and other
Sanskrit roots in relation to the Buddhist tradition? I'd
love to have a reference I could crack to check out
a word's etymology(ies)?
I find myself constantly amazed at Sanskrit's flexibility and
its capacity for conveying incredible subtlety with these
etymologies and puns (what few derivations I've come across
not yet knowing the language, that is). I particularly enjoy
competing interpretations of etymologies, such as for the
word "mantra," which I've seen broken out as "manas" +
"trana" and in another case as "manas" + the suffix "tra,"
leading to entirely different interpretations of the same word.
Dayamati Dharmachari
> Quick question: Is "ceteti" related in any way to "cetana?"
Yes. CETANAA is an abstract noun usually translated as "volition". It
means setting out to do something and is, as you know, the principal
form that karma takes. This noun is derived from CETETI in the sense
of "to fix one's mind [on a particular course of action], to
purpose".
> Also, what are some of the other derivations of this?
CETO means thought, mind, heart, feeling. The instrumental singular of
the negative of this term is ACETASAA, which means "without feeling"
or "insensitively". (No doubt some would insensitively translate it as
"without mentation" and mistkenly think it was therefore a positive
ascription.)
> One of my teachers went on in great detail about the "sam" prefix
> one time, relating it to all sorts of words related to pacification,
> like samatha, etc. What a fantastic mnemonic technique for these
> things!
Yes, that sort of playfulness is commonly used by commentators.
Buddhaghosa was a master of the playful etymology. Some of them are
quite outrageous and were obviously meant to crack a smile, but also
to enable to student to remember an important doctrinal point. This
technique of making points by playful etymology was also used by the
Upanishadic sages and to some extent by the Buddha himself. Some of
the puns reportedly made by the Buddha are amazingly clever, and very
funny.
> Are there any good sources that discuss these and other Sanskrit
> roots in relation to the Buddhist tradition? I'd love to have a
> reference I could crack to check out a word's etymology(ies)?
A standard Pali-English dictionary, or Apte's Sanskrit-English
dictionary, is the place where I always go. It takes a bit of
knowledge of basic Sanskrit/Pali to use a dictionary.
> I find myself constantly amazed at Sanskrit's flexibility and its
> capacity for conveying incredible subtlety with these etymologies
> and puns (what few derivations I've come across not yet knowing the
> language, that is).
Sanskrit is a wonderfully expressive language, very rich in nuance and
subtlety. Pali is somewhat more pedestrian and less subtle, but it's a
nice enough language.
> I particularly enjoy competing interpretations of etymologies, such
> as for the word "mantra," which I've seen broken out as "manas" +
> "trana" and in another case as "manas" + the suffix "tra," leading
> to entirely different interpretations of the same word.
These etymologies are not necessarily in competition. They simply have
different purposes. The verb MAN (to consult) plus the locational
suffix TRA is the etymology given by grammarians, who explain the word
as meaning the locus of a consultation with the gods. In the Vedic
system of rituals, MANTRAS were recited as a means of seeking
communication with deities. When the Vedic ritual system fell out of
favour, the practice of reciting mantras continued in all Indian
religions, including Buddhism and Jainism. Then the word was
reinterpreted to be a contraction of MANAS and TRA.NA, which was then
explained to mean "protecting the mind". In bhakti, a MANTRA is again
a method of consulting with a deity, but on a personal level, rather
than through the meditation of a purohita (sacrificial priest). The
point is that words are very flexible and constantly adapt to new
practices and ways of seeing the structure of the cosmos.
--
Dayaamati
Tang Huyen
Dayamati Dharmachari wrote: <<But one cannot find the Buddha saying `maa
cinteyyaatha' (Do not think at all).>>
The Buddha says: "do not mentate the world!" (maa loka-cinta.m cintetha),
SA, 407, 109a, SN, V, 448 (56, 41).
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Dayamati Dharmachari wrote: <<But one cannot find the Buddha saying `maa
cinteyyaatha' (Do not think at all).>>
Tang: <<The Buddha says: "do not mentate the world!" (maa loka-cinta.m
cintetha), SA, 407, 109a, SN, V, 448 (56, 41).>>
Day-a-matic: <<maa loka-cinta.m cintetha: Do not think wordly thoughts. That
is, do not strive after possessions, fame, approval and comfort.
So what exactly is your point, except that you agree with me that the Buddha
does not say "Do not think at all"? When he says not to think (or strive) he
specifies what kinds of things one should not strive after. In other passages
he specifies what kinds of things one should think about and strive after. This
important distinction between wholeseom and unwholesome striving (and thinking)
is entirely lost by portraying the Buddha as warning against non-mentation tout
court.>>
Hahahahaha!!!
When presented direct evidence against your contention, you beat around the
bush, eh?
The Buddha teaches skilful thoughts, for sure, to counteract unskilful ones,
the former leading to pleasant results, the latter to unpleasant ones. They all
belong to mentation or volition. But he also teaches the eradication of *both*
skilful and unskilful thoughts, the eradication of all thought or volition, so
that there is no more composition (sankhara).
The Buddha says that a person composes harmful body compositions, harmful
speech compositions, harmful mind compositions, and having composed them he
arises in a harmful world. Ditto with harmless compositions, and both harmful
and harmless compositions. AN, I, 122-123 (3, 23), Samtani,
Arthaviniscaya-Sutra, 115, also Zitate, 232. The Buddha says that there are
four kinds of deeds, the black deed with black result (vipaka), the white deed
with white result, the black and white deed with black and white result, and
the neither black nor white deed with neither black nor white result, it has no
result (Skt. a-vipaka). The first three are the same as those of the preceding
text; the fourth and last (which is, though this is left implicit, neither
harmful nor harmless, and therefore not deed at all, and which will not lead to
any re-arisal in any world, harmful or harmless) is the volition (cetana) to
cut all three other kinds of deed, leading to the ending of deed (kamma-kkhaya,
Skt. karma-ksaya). AN, II, 230-231 (4, 232), MA, 111, 600a26-28, Zitate, 312,
Stache-Rosen, Sangiti-sutra, 113, Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646,
281a23-24, Maha-vibhasa, T, 27, 1545, 589c. At AN, III, 387 (6, 57), the
blowing-out (nibbana) is called neither black nor white. The Buddha says: "By
the cutting of craving, deed is cut; by the cutting of deed, suffering is cut."
SN, V, 86 (46, 26).
Every activity before the attainment of arhatship is composed (sankhata), and
produces deed, which will entail the return of deed. After the attainment of
arhatship, the person no longer composes, i. e., no longer composes
compositions (the fourth aggregate), and therefore no longer produces deed
(kamma, from the same root as sankhara). The deed that leads to liberation is
of the "neither black nor white" kind, with neither black nor white result, it
has no result. It is the volition (cetana) to cut all three other kinds of
deed, leading to the ending of deed. The arhat is still subject to result of
past deed until his death, though he produces no new deed. Due to our
compositions, we deludeds link on to another life at death, but due to his
absence of the compositions, the arhat will not link on.
This last and fourth kind of deed -- the volition to cut all three other kinds
of deed, leading to the ending of deed -- is not commensurate with the first
three. The first three are composed (sankhata), and will bring results. The
last is uncomposed (asankhata) and will not bring results, but on the contrary
will *stop* all results. The deeds that have not been returned at the death of
the arhat simply dissipate because they have no object (arambana).
Son, this eradication of volition is the same as the radication of
*all*thought, unless thinking is needed, but then it is reactivated only for a
time, while it is actively needed. By it, *both* skilful and unskilful thoughts
are eradicated, leaving experience free of thought entirely.
Tang Huyen
Dayamati Dharmachari
> Dayamati Dharmachari wrote: <<But one cannot find the Buddha saying `maa
> cinteyyaatha' (Do not think at all).>>
>
> The Buddha says: "do not mentate the world!" (maa loka-cinta.m cintetha),
> SA, 407, 109a, SN, V, 448 (56, 41).
maa loka-cinta.m cintetha: Do not think wordly thoughts. That is, do
not strive after possessions, fame, approval and comfort.
So what exactly is your point, except that you agree with me that the
Buddha does not say "Do not think at all"? When he says not to think
(or strive) he specifies what kinds of things one should not strive
after. In other passages he specifies what kinds of things one should
think about and strive after. This important distinction between
wholeseom and unwholesome striving (and thinking) is entirely lost by
portraying the Buddha as warning against non-mentation tout court.
--
Dayaamati
Dayamati Dharmachari
> Hahahahaha!!!
A most intelligent and well-considered response.
> When presented direct evidence against your contention, you beat around the
> bush, eh?
You presented evidence that confirmed my contention. What I claimed
was that the Buddha does not say "Do not think". When he uses the verb
CETETI in a negative command, he specifies what kind of thoughts not
to have and what kind of striving not to do. He does not give absolute
injunctions against thinking as such.
> The Buddha teaches skilful thoughts, for sure, to counteract
> unskilful ones, the former leading to pleasant results, the latter
> to unpleasant ones. They all belong to mentation or volition.
Yes, pleasant feelings CAN lead to clinging, unless one is
mindful. And unpleasant sensations CAN lead to anger, unless one is
mindful.
> But he also teaches the eradication of *both* skilful and unskilful
> thoughts, the eradication of all thought or volition, so that there
> is no more composition (sankhara).
That is sheer nonsense, which arises from your misunderstanding of a
few simple passages of Pali.
> Son, this eradication of volition is the same as the radication of
> *all*thought, unless thinking is needed, but then it is reactivated
> only for a time, while it is actively needed.
Sorry, father, but you have no evidence at all for that claim. It is
pure fancy on your part, kept alive by your stubborn ignorance.
> By it, *both* skilful and unskilful thoughts are eradicated, leaving
> experience free of thought entirely.
Wrong again, my child. You have forced that interpretation onto the
texts that you cite. Your crippled intellect crams every text into the
same Procrustean bed of "non-mentation".
--
Dayaamati
Jigme Dorje
>
> >Tang > Hahahahaha!!!
>
>Dayaamati> A most intelligent and well-considered response.
>
> >Tang > When presented direct evidence against your contention, you beat
around the
> > bush, eh?
>
>Dayaamati> You presented evidence that confirmed my contention. What I
claimed
> was that the Buddha does not say "Do not think". When he uses the verb
> CETETI in a negative command, he specifies what kind of thoughts not
> to have and what kind of striving not to do. He does not give absolute
> injunctions against thinking as such.
>
> > unskilful ones, the former leading to pleasant results, the latter
> > to unpleasant ones. They all belong to mentation or volition.
>
> mindful. And unpleasant sensations CAN lead to anger, unless one is
> mindful.
>
> > But he also teaches the eradication of *both* skilful and unskilful
> > thoughts, the eradication of all thought or volition, so that there
> > is no more composition (sankhara).
>
of a
> few simple passages of Pali.
>
> > Son, this eradication of volition is the same as the radication of
> > *all*thought, unless thinking is needed, but then it is reactivated
> > only for a time, while it is actively needed.
>
It is
> pure fancy on your part, kept alive by your stubborn ignorance.
>
> > experience free of thought entirely.
>
the
> texts that you cite. Your crippled intellect crams every text into the
> same Procrustean bed of "non-mentation".
Jigme>For me, this illustrates one of the dangers inherent in imputing one's
own coined terminologies to Buddhism. The coinage "mentation", which could
only logically signify mental activity suggests that nibbana signifies the
simple cessation of all mental activity as opposed to the cessation of
desire. This not only widely misses the point of mental deconditioning in
Buddhism but cheapens Buddhism into mere reductionist philosophical musing,
as opposed to a vital empirical practice.
The triumph of intellect in Tangism directly contradicts the pragmatic
thrust of Buddhism in which the primacy of mindfulness is emphasized over
the defence of views. Even the mythical figure of the Buddha is warped in
Tangism into a beligerent personality who apparently had nothing better to
do than argue views and downgrade philosophical opponants. Given the fact
that religious tradition has the imperitive to portray its founder in the
best possible light, the Buddha was still human and did on one occasion
purportedly refer to someone as a fool in an apparent lapse of mindfulness.
Yet, the sutras remain unequivicle on the injunction to drop the human
tendency of clinging to views. What is missing from the picture Tang paints
is a fundamental understanding of practice and what it entails, and this
results from wrong understanding.
Tang Huyen
Jigme Dorje wrote: <<Given the fact that religious tradition has the imperitive
to portray its founder in the best possible light, the Buddha was still human
and did on one occasion purportedly refer to someone as a fool in an apparent
lapse of mindfulness. Yet, the sutras remain unequivicle on the injunction to
drop the human tendency of clinging to views.>>
The Buddha scolded monks as "foolish man" with full mindfulness -- in Western
terms, in full presence of mind. It is you, Jigme, who are scattered all over,
with bits and pieces floating around independently of each other and not knowing
each other.
The word is "unequivocal". Your English spelling and syntax have both
deteriorated appreciably of late.
Tang Huyen
Dayamati Dharmachari
> Even the mythical figure of the Buddha is warped in Tangism into a
> beligerent personality who apparently had nothing better to do than
> argue views and downgrade philosophical opponants.
Yes, Tangism is a creedal religion, like Christianity and quite unlike
Buddhism. Tangism, like any creed-based religion, divides the word
into believers (both of them) and heretics (the rest of us).
> Given the fact that religious tradition has the imperitive to
> portray its founder in the best possible light, the Buddha was still
> human and did on one occasion purportedly refer to someone as a fool
> in an apparent lapse of mindfulness.
The one occasion on which the Buddha called someone a fool was
probably not a lapse of mindfulness. The monk in question had
persistently taught something as the Buddha's doctrine when in fact
the Buddha had explicitly taught just the opposite. The monk had been
reprimanded many tiems by Saariputta and other senior monks, but he
refused to alter his teachings until the Buddha himself told him he
was salndering the Buddha through misrepresentation. It was not an
entirely trivial matter, and the monk in question was so stubborn that
he would have felt right at home on this news group.
One of my favourite suttas is one in which the Buddha refutes a
Brahmin on the issue of caste. Then the other Brahmins begin to
ridicule the Brahmin who lost the debate. The Buddha responds to this
by chastising the other Brahmins for making fun of a good man whose
only fault was being wrong on the issue of caste. This kind of thing
shows to my satisfaction that the Buddha was a real Mensch. It would
be nice to see some of his self-proclaimed disciples follow his
example in this respect.
> Yet, the sutras remain unequivicle on the injunction to drop the
> human tendency of clinging to views.
Repeatedly, right view (sammaa di.t.t.hi) is said to consist of a
correct understanding of the nature of dukkha, the cause of dukkha,
the elimination of dukkha and the path leading to the elimination of
dukkha. That's all there is to right view. So if someone wishes to
argue that another's view is wrong, then one has to show how the view
in question gives a wrong analysis of the nature of dukkha, mistakenly
identifies the cause of dukkha, denies that dukkha is eliminable or
shows a path that leads to more dukkha rather than to less. It is very
difficult to prove any of those things, therefore quite difficult to
prove that any view is wrong.
> What is missing from the picture Tang paints is a fundamental
> understanding of practice and what it entails, and this results from
> wrong understanding.
Perhaps. Suffice it to say that Tang does not set an example of verbal
conduct that inspires me. If it inspires others, then I am happy for
them, for it is good to be inspired.
--
Dayaamati
Dayamati Dharmachari
> The word is "unequivocal". Your English spelling and syntax have both
> deteriorated appreciably of late.
His thinking, however, remains quite clear. Your thinking, on the
other hand, is as defective as ever, and your choice of words is
substandard, but I have to agree with you that your spelling of badly
chosen words is excellent, and the syntax of the sentences in which
you present your mangled thoughts is flawless. You would probably make an
excellent proofreader, but I would leave the thinking and scholarship to
those who have a better facility for it. So don't quit your day job, boy.
--
Dayaamati
Lee Dillion
>
> Dayamati Dharmachari wrote: <<But one cannot find the Buddha saying `maa
> cinteyyaatha' (Do not think at all).>>
>
> cintetha), SA, 407, 109a, SN, V, 448 (56, 41).>>
>
> is, do not strive after possessions, fame, approval and comfort.
>
> does not say "Do not think at all"? When he says not to think (or strive) he
> specifies what kinds of things one should not strive after. In other passages
> he specifies what kinds of things one should think about and strive after. This
> important distinction between wholeseom and unwholesome striving (and thinking)
> is entirely lost by portraying the Buddha as warning against non-mentation tout
> court.>>
>
> Son, this eradication of volition is the same as the radication of
> *all*thought, unless thinking is needed, but then it is reactivated only for a
> time, while it is actively needed. By it, *both* skilful and unskilful thoughts
> are eradicated, leaving experience free of thought entirely.
Once again we go round this issue. All I can suggest is that for those
readers who would like a clear and precise description of the Buddha's
mental "state" according to the early canon, you can do no better than
Nanananda's two thin books, Magic of the Mind and Concept and Reality.
I will soon need to buy new copies since I have spilled at least three
cups of coffee and dropped two pizza slices on both.
The following is a brief passage from Magic of the Mind that I think I
may have posted earlier. It describes quite nicely the
non-manifestative mind of the Buddha as described in the early canon.
Later traditions greatly expanded/altered this description given their
different understanding of Buddhahood, but I prefer this one:
----
"Here we have an extraordinary level of perception which has fully
extricated itself from the obsession of form, so basic to the structure
of perception. The negative formulation indicates that the transcendence
is not by temporary or permanent suppression of perception. Rather, it
suggests a case of seeing through perception so that if anyone had
enquired whether he was conscious of any sense-data or whether he was
unconscious or non-conscious or completely without consciousness at the
time he was in this level of perception, he would have replied in the
negative. Once, when the Buddha was staying in the chaff-house, there
was a torrential downpour of rain accompanied by lightning and thunder,
in the course of which two farmers and four bulls at the chaff-house
were struck down by lightning. A big crowd of people had gathered at the
place of accident and the Buddha, coming out of the chaff-house, was
pacing up and down by its gate. A man from that crowd came up to him and
saluted him and then this dialogue followed
"Why, friend, has this big crowd gathered here ?"
"Just now, lord, when it was raining in torrents with flashes of
lightning and peals of thunder, two farmers — brothers — and four bulls
were killed. That is why this big crowd has gathered. But where were
you, lord?" "I was here, brother."
"Why, lord, didn t you see (what happened)?" "No friend, I did not see."
"But, lord, didn t you hear the sound?" "No, friend, I did not hear the
sound."
"Why, lord, were you asleep (at the time)?" "No, friend, I was not
sleeping."
"Why, lord, were you conscious (at the moment)?" "Yes, friend."
"So then, lord, you being conscious and awake neither saw nor heard
anything though it was raining in torrents with flashes of lightning
arid peals of thunder !" "That is so, friend."
D. II l31f. Mahaparinibbana Sutta
This dialogue might not appear so strange to you since you have had a
foretaste of it at the ‘magic show . Nevertheless, that state of
concentration which partakes of such a paradoxical character, did appear
strange not only to ‘a-man-from-the-crowd but even to monks and nuns
who were not yet arahants. Time and again we find them enquiring from
the Buddha or from the senior disciples about the possibility and nature
of such a concentration. Once the venerable Ananda put the following
question to the Buddha
"Could there be, lord, for a monk such an attainment of concentration
wherein he will not be conscious of earth in earth, nor of water in
water, nor of fire in fire, nor of air in air, nor will he be conscious
of the sphere of infinity of space in the sphere of infinity of space,
nor of the sphere of infinity of consciousness in the sphere of infinity
of consciousness, nor of the sphere of nothingness in the sphere of
nothingness, nor of the sphere of neither perception nor non perception
in the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, nor will he be
conscious of a ‘this world in this world, nor of a ‘world beyond in a
world beyond— and yet he will be conscious?"
The Buddha replies that there could be such a state of concentration for
a monk and on being questioned as to how it is possible, he explains
"Herein, Ananda, a monk is thus conscious: ‘This is peace, this is
excellent, namely, the calming down of all formations, relinquishment of
all assets (or substrata), destruction of craving, detachment,
cessation, Nibbana. It is thus, Ananda, that there could be for a monk
such an attainment of concentration" — A. V. 7f.
From this explanation it appears that perception is *not* completely
rescinded here, only it has now discovered some kind of quasi-object
worth attending to, instead of the usual objects such as earth, water,
fire and air. It is none other than the cessation aspect of Dependent
Arising, in the contemplation of which all formations that go to
compound ‘things are completely calmed down. Consequently, all assets
get liquidated, craving loses its sanction and supreme detachment, as
the transcendental experience of the cessation of all existence, is
thereby realized even here and now. That this is a dynamic vision in
which all percepts and concepts are deprived of their object-status, is
revealed by the following explanation given by the venerable Sariputta
when the venerable Ananda put the self-same question to him
‘Cessation of becoming is Nibbana, cessation of becoming is Nibbana
thus, friend, one perception arises in me, another perception fades out
in me. Just as, friend, when a faggot-fire is blazing, one flame arises
and another flame fades out, even so, friend, one perception arises in
me‘Cessation of becoming is Nibbana and another perception fades out in
me. ‘Cessation of becoming is Nibbana. At that time, friend, I was
conscious of this ‘Cessation of becoming is Nibbana." — A. V. 9f
Here, then, is a consciousness of the very cessation of consciousness.
Though well nigh a contradiction, it is yet a possibility because of the
reflexive character of consciousness. Instead of a consciousness of
objects, here we have a consciousness which is without an object or
support. Whereas, under normal circumstances, consciousnes ‘mirrors~ or
manifests something, in this concentration it is ‘non-manifestative . It
is as though, in a moment of detached contemplation, one has become
aware of a raging fire, where formerly one had noticed only stock-piles
of fire-wood.
"Form, monks, is on fire; feeling is on fire; perception is on fire;
formations are on fire; consciousness is on fire. Thus seeing, monks,
the instructed noble disciple gets disgusted with form; gets disgusted
with feeling; gets disgusted with perception gets disgusted with
formations; gets disgusted with consciousness. Being disgusted, he
becomes dispassionate; through dispassion he is released; and in release
there comes the knowledge of release. Extinct is birth, lived out is the
holy-life, done is the task, and he understands ‘There is nothing beyond
this for (a designation of) the conditions of this existence." — S. III
71 A.
That there is a radical change of attitude resulting in a shift of focus
from fuel to fire or from nutriment to its significance, is well
illustrated by the Buddha s discourse to the venerable Sand ha on this
subject. There he draws a distinction between the musing of an unruly
horse and that of a thoroughbred. An unruly horse tethered to the trough
does not think "What step of training will the trainer make me undergo
today ? How best should I respond to him ?" Instead, it goes on musing
Fodder, fodder. An excellent thoroughbred horse, on the other hand,
does not muse ‘Fodder, fodder even though it is tethered to the trough,
but goes on musing "What step of training will the trainer make me
undergo today? How best should I respond to him?" Such a horse considers
it as a debt, a bond, a misfortune or bad-luck, to get whipped. With
this simile the Buddha illustrates the difference between the worldly
musing of an untrained man and the transcendental musing of ‘a good
thoroughbred-of-a-man . The former, gone into solitude, does not
understand as it really is the stepping-out from sensuous lust,
ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness-and-worry, and doubt, and
dwells with a mind obsessed with those five hindrances, brooding on
them. And he muses on earth, water, fire, air, sphere of infinity of
space, sphere of infinity of consciousness, sphere of nothingness.
sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; he muses dependent on
this world, on the world beyond, on whatever is seen, heard, sensed,
cognized, attained, sought after and traversed by the mind—dependent on
all that he muses. But a good thoroughbred-of-a-man-gone into solitude,
does not dwell obsessed with the hindrances, brooding on them, as he
understands the ‘stepping-out from them. And he does not muse dependent
on earth, water, fire, air and other ‘objects above mentioned.
‘Nevertheless, it is said, ‘he does muse .. This musing which is not
dependent on any object is said to be so strange that even gods and
Brahmas from afar bow down saying
‘We worship thee, thou thoroughbred of men,
We worship thee, most excellent of men.
For what it is whereon depending thou
Art musing — that we cannot comprehend. 1
—A. V. 323ff.
Objects play no part in this ‘perception precisely for the reason that
the subject is missing. This experience of the cessation of existence,
which is none other than ‘Nibbana here-and-now , is the outcome of the
eradication of the conceit 'I am.' It is the element of egotistic
measuring or reckoning present in a perceptual situation that results in
full-fledged concepts. "What, monks, is the result of perception ?
Monks, I say that perception has usage as its result. As one perceives
so one expresses it, saying ‘I was of such a perception (i.e. ‘thus
conscious ) ."‘Reckonings characterized by conceptual proliferation have
perception as their source When name-and-form which stands in the
relation of ‘object to concepts is transcended, the latter lose their
point of reference—their foothold. Hence earth, water, fire and air,
together with such relative distinctions as long and short, subtle and
gross, pleasant and unpleasant ‘find no footing in that
non-manifestative consciousness. The fecundity of concepts which
manifests itself in normal perception as the ‘essence or ‘substance, is
thereby destroyed.
----
--
Lee Dillion
Jigme Dorje
imperitive
> to portray its founder in the best possible light, the Buddha was still
human
> and did on one occasion purportedly refer to someone as a fool in an
apparent
to
> drop the human tendency of clinging to views.>>
>
Western
> terms, in full presence of mind. It is you, Jigme, who are scattered all
over,
> with bits and pieces floating around independently of each other and not
knowing
> each other.
>
> deteriorated appreciably of late.
>
Jigme>What message does your inability to parse clearly stated and properly
constructed English exposition convey about your credibility as an
interpreter?
Jigme Dorje
still human and did on one occasion purportedly refer to someone as a fool
the injunction to
drop the human tendency of clinging to views.>>
Tang> The Buddha scolded monks as "foolish man" with full mindfulness -- in
Western terms, in full presence of mind. It is you, Jigme, who are scattered
all over, with bits and pieces floating around independently of each other
and not knowing each other.
Jigme>I'm afraid you have once again missed my point, too wrapped up in ad
hominem argument to probe the connotation of rhetorical commentary. That's
alright; subtle linguistic clues are a challenge to many hasty readers.
May I submit for your approval, a nice bit of irony - a transliteration into
literalist terms of an ironic indictment of literalist thinking rendered for
the benefit of the ironically challenged:
Conjecture about the Buddha's state of mind when he "spoke" these words is
pointless. He may never have spoken them at all. The intent is to call
attention to flaws inherent in literalist interpretations of translations
into contemprary languages of translations of ancient languages deriving
from lost transcriptions of long orally transmitted ancient lore.
Theravad
<daya...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>Repeatedly, right view (sammaa di.t.t.hi) is said to consist of a
>correct understanding of the nature of dukkha, the cause of dukkha,
>the elimination of dukkha and the path leading to the elimination of
>dukkha. That's all there is to right view.
I know the Buddha said this but he was only fooling around, he sent all those
with too much dust in their eyes off on a wild goose chase. I see he caught
you too. You are correct in saying that understanding dukkha is an important
part of right view not because suffering is bad but because it spurs us on to
the end of the Path. Suffering is the greatest ally we have just as hunger
might make a man go to work.
I know this sounds a bit weird but at least think about it. Because of dukkha
we are forced to examine our situation. This is where contemplation comes in.
After a lifetime, perhaps many, many lifetimes, sooner or later we figure it
out. We observe that no one escapes suffering in this world. Now we have to
make a decision, if it is impossible to escape suffering than nothing really
matters in this life so we must take the only route open to us, we must believe
that suffering can be ended.
Now we must take a very close, contemplative look at suffering. We notice that
people do not suffer the same or from the same causes so suffering cannot
likely be something that comes from our environment. It must come from inside
us but what is the mechanism that causes us to suffer?
As we sit and watch suffering arise and fall, we look at our mental states and
discover that two factors seem always to be accompanied by suffering. The
first is when we view the world as real and the second is when we view
ourselves as real. We are tricked by ignorance and a craving to become to
fashion an Ego whose job it is to keep the world in the order we think it
should be in. Of course, the world does not cooperate and the dissonance
between the world as we want it to be and the world as it is is the source of
our suffering.
Now we are ready to take on that rascal, suffering, on our own terms. But that
comes in the next chapter.