Now I publish my insights on my Academia page.
One of the latest ones is: https://www.academia.edu/30808011/Who_Sees_Dependent_Origination_Sees_Dhamma_-_Comparative_Chart
Email to Ven Sujāto:
On Jun 21, 2012 5:24 PM, “Dhammadarsa” <email@example.com> wrote:
I hope this email finds you in good health and peace of mind.
I have, for a while now, thought that the divisions of sutta and veyyaakara.na were the early divisions of concise words of the Buddha and commentary/detailed explanation mostly by diciples. In this light it is interesting to read two consecutive sentences from the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta:
Attamanaa pañcavaggiyaa bhikkhuu bhagavato bhaasitang abhinandunti. [Normal end of suttas.]
Imasmiñca pana veyyaakara.nasming bhaññamaane aayasmato ko.n.daññassa virajang viitamalang dhammacakkhung udapaadi–
“yang kiñci samudayadhammang, sabbang tang nirodhadhamman”ti.
So is the Dhammcakka…sutta or veyyaakara.na, or a mixture of both? As we know from the Vinaya details, Kondanya realised first, then after more instruction, Vappa and Bhaddiya. Then the six lived on the alms food those three realised people had brought back. So the Buddha stayed teaching and did not go on alms round and the remaining two Mahanama and Assaji took at least one more day. For a while I thought they all took turns to go on alms food, but the Vinaya passage shows the realised ones supported the Buddha and others, so they could focus on realisation.
[BD Vol IV pg 9]:
Then the Lord, eating the food brought back by these, 3 exhorted, instructed those remaining monks with dhamma-talk, saying : ” Let the group of six 4 live on whatever the three monks 3 bring when they have walked for almsfood.” 1135 II
Then while they were being exhorted, instructed by the Lord with dhamma-talk, dhamma-vision, dustless, stainless, arose to the venerable Mahandma 5 and to the venerable Assaji,6 that “whatever is of the nature to uprise, all that is of the nature to stop.” II 36 11
How compassionate! But how I think this relates is, that the Dhammacakka…sutta could be a compilation of sutta and veyyakara.na to cover what happened over the at least two days. Could it be that the talk on the extremes was enough for Kondanya to realise the Dhammacakkhu?
On 27/06/2012 6:58 PM, Sujato Bhikkhu wrote:
That’s a great idea. I’d noticed the mention of veyyākarana in the Dhammacakka, but hadn’t thought to connect that with the extended teaching over a few days. Perhaps this idea could be investigated further in light of your analysis of the 17 versions…
PTS Vin 2.27
Ācariyānaṃ vibhajjapadānaṃ [vibhajjavādīnaṃ (sī.)], tambapaṇṇidīpapasādakānaṃ;
Mahāvihāravāsīnaṃ, vācanā saddhammaṭṭhitiyāti.
I think the sī stand for the Siam/Thai edition, not so sure about that.
PTS M 2.197
463. ‘‘Vibhajjavādo kho ahamettha, māṇava; nāhamettha ekaṃsavādo. Gihissa vāhaṃ, māṇava, pabbajitassa vā micchāpaṭipattiṃ na vaṇṇemi. Gihī vā hi, māṇava, pabbajito vā micchāpaṭipanno micchāpaṭipattādhikaraṇahetu na ārādhako hoti ñāyaṃ dhammaṃ kusalaṃ. Gihissa vāhaṃ, māṇava, pabbajitassa vā sammāpaṭipattiṃ vaṇṇemi. Gihī vā hi, māṇava, pabbajito vā sammāpaṭipanno sammāpaṭipattādhikaraṇahetu ārādhako hoti ñāyaṃ dhammaṃ kusala’’nti.
‘‘Brāhmaṇā, bho gotama, evamāhaṃsu – ‘mahaṭṭhamidaṃ mahākiccaṃ mahādhikaraṇaṃ mahāsamārambhaṃ gharāvāsakammaṭṭhānaṃ mahapphalaṃ hoti; appaṭṭhamidaṃ appakiccaṃ appādhikaraṇaṃ appasamārambhaṃ pabbajjā kammaṭṭhānaṃ appaphalaṃ hotī’ti. Idha bhavaṃ gotamo kimāhā’’ti.
“Student, I speak about this after making an analysis;
Vibhajjavādo kho aham ettha. Such statements account for the later designation of Buddhism as vibhajjavāda, “the doctrine of analysis.” As the context makes clear, the Buddha calls himself a vibhajjavādin, not because he analyses things into their constituents (as is popularly believed), but because he distinguishes the different implications of a question without answering one-sidedly.
I do not speak about this one-sidedly. I do not praise the wrong way of practice on the part either of a householder or one gone forth; for whether it be a householder or one gone forth, one who has entered on the wrong way of practice, by reason of his wrong way of practice, is not accomplishing the true way, the Dhamma that is wholesome. I praise the right way of practice on the part either of a householder or one gone forth; for whether it be a householder or one gone forth, one who has entered on the right way of practice, by reason of his right way of practice, is accomplishing the true way, the Dhamma that is wholesome.”
5.“Master Gotama, the brahmins say this: ‘Since the work of the household life involves a great deal of activity, great functions, great engagements, and great undertakings, it is of great fruit. Since the work of those gone forth involves a small amount of activity, small functions, small engagements, and small undertakings, it is of small fruit.’ What does Master Gotama say about this?”
“Again, student, I speak about this after making an analysis; …
PTS A 5.190
The Blessed One criticizes what deserves criticism and praises what is praiseworthy. By criticizing what deserves criticism and praising what is praiseworthy, the Blessed One speaks on the basis of distinctions; he does not speak about such matters one-sidedly.”
Vibhajjavādī bhagavā, na so bhagavā ettha ekaṃsavādī. The expression vibhajjavādī, used to describe the Buddha, is sometimes understood to mean that the Buddha analyzes things into their component parts. But the use of the term here (and elsewhere in the Nikāyas) shows that it actually means that the Buddha draws the distinctions needed to avoid making broad generalizations that overlook important ambiguities. See how the term is employed at MN 99.4, II 197,10–18. (above)
Are you creating your own religion?
= LOL. Yes, but I’m trying not to. It seems to me we all are, unless we are following the Truth 100%, I think we will be interpreting and bending things according to our imperfect understanding.
Do you have an authority that directs you in your life?
= yes, lived experience, as it says in the Bible, test all things and keep what is good. it is the testing in life which seems to me to be the best authority. As it says in the Bible, God’s might is seen in creation, so they have no excuse. There is also the idea, of “actions speak louder than words”, which may be related to the verse “they will know you are my disciples if you love each other and your neighbour”. “love” for me is not only by thought, but also word and deed.
Do you have faith in something outside of yourself or your beliefs?
= yes, the Truth, which can be seen in lived experience. I believe it can be seen by anyone at any time. To me: it is far superior to belief; belief is not the same as Truth; our beliefs change over time, the Truth does not. Hopefully we change our beliefs over time to more accurately match the Truth, which will be evidenced in lived experience.
Where or how would a higher being or God direct you?
= through quite reflection on my (and other’s) action, you can call it prayer, or meditation. To see if those actions harm myself or others, in the short or long-term.
= and to give up those that do and commit to not doing them again, that can be expressed as, “conform my life to the example of Jesus” or “give Jesus kingship”. “be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind”, this is how I see it works practically.
I asked you once if you believed in a creator God and your answer was no.
= yes, I remember. That hasn’t changed, but I think that is not a very important belief. Previously I did, now I don’t. Whether I do or not, I still harm myself and others. I still sin. So that belief itself does not keep me from sin. Therefore, I don’t consider it as a core belief. If I did and when I did, it formed a barrier to loving unconditionally others, who did not believe it.
I feel and relate to a loving creator God.
= Glad to hear it. I wonder if there are any feelings you have that I don’t.
What is your view of salvation?
= “love the lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself”
As man is in need of a saviour from ourselves.
= yes, I think/believe MOST men do. It would seem Jesus, a man, did not. So I challenge your absolute statement, your belief expressed as an unquestionable truth, to be only PARTLY true. The Devil uses half-truths to capture the foolish. I think man needs examples of and encouragement to love and Jesus was such an example and gave such encouragement. “No greater love has a man than he gives up his life for a friend.”
= many beliefs can be taken as the core of salvation, but I think love is. Love, for me, is much more (powerful) than belief/s. The first fruit of the Spirit is…. love… not belief.
Do you think Jesus sacrifice and blood is our redeeming substance?
= no. I think Jesus love is our redeeming substance. “Love the lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself” it was because of his love, that he sacrificed himself. I don’t follow the Old Testament way of blood sacrifice, any kind of sacrifice will show love and may save, depending on how stupid/arrogant people are. If they are very stupid, people die.
If not how would you explain Jesus sacrifice and its value?
= his action was an expression of his love
One core belief I can’t escape, a major truth that is unchangeable is…
= belief is not Truth, for me, but it seems we disagree = you believe otherwise. Belief is a mental action that happens in our heads, a type of thought. I wonder if you disagree with that. When we stop believing, Truth does not end or change, in my opinion.
That there is no other name by which we are saved (from sin), but by the name of Jesus.
= Yes, this is a belief I don’t accept as core. It contradicts other things in the Bible, which seemingly show there is another way, or, there is a way without knowing Jesus name: “God’s might is seen in creation, so they have no excuse.” If you think everyone MUST hear and use Jesus name, I think you will judge those that don’t do so, as somehow not saved. But JUDGEMENT is not ours to do. It is the work of Jesus on JUDGEMENT DAY. Do you wish to assume his role, his place, his duty?
= I see, this is the effect of taking fringe beliefs as core beliefs, which I have given up. It stopped me loving fully, which is the summary of the law: “love the lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself”. This, for me, is essential and core. Whatever stops me doing so, must be given up, no matter how hard it is, due to my attachment to men’s traditions/teachings.
= I formerly wanted to belong to a community, I had low self-esteem, but now, I am willing to give up all. I can lose brother, (father, mother, sister), friend. I have already sacrificed personal sexual relationships, because I see the Devil uses them to pull me down. As I see him using them to pull Michael down too. I think we must not get into sexual relationships due to low self-esteem, we should grow up first, become adults, mature.
= Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth and the Light, no one comes to the Father, but by me.” If you really believe that, when I say I follow the Truth, then that MUST mean to you, “I follow Jesus”. If it does not mean that to you, then you do NOT really believe Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth and the Light, no one comes to the Father, but by me.”
= you can dismiss what I say as the work of the Devil using logic, if you wish. That’s up to you. That’s what ego/the Devil likes. You can continue judging and not fully loving others. For me, logic is God-given and I should use my gifts well. Men’s traditions (various religions or branches of religion) also use logic to justify their interpretations, but they use it partially, unskilfully.
= Another problem I see with believing Jesus’ name must be known and used, it makes the Truth cultural and therefore changing with time and place, which for me, is impossible. Surely one must not need to speak English to be saved. Jesus is the English form of a Hebrew name Yeshua, Eashoa in Aramaic and Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous) in Greek. The Hebrew could also be read Joshua.
= If you think any form of the name would be fine, then I think the belief should express that, “(I believe) any form of Jesus name must be known and used” and maybe the original absolute statement should be changed from: “That there is no other name by which we are saved” to “Only Jesus’ name, in whatever language, can save us”. So the original statement turns out to be also a half/partial truth.
= Foolish dogma, beliefs taken as Truth, have to have so many workarounds like this. For me God’s Truth does not need that, vis the Sermon on the Mount, it is pure and simple, but deep.
= In any case, I don’t believe Jesus name saves us, it is his life and death which was based on love. If Jesus name saved, then we just have to recite his name, as the Hare Krishna’s believe, reciting the name of god, will save one. Hare (praise) Krishna (name of god), hare (praise) Rama (name of god).
= What I think IS important, is to reflect on the QUALITIES of God, to develop awe and respect and that doesn’t require knowing his name. Those qualities can even be seen in nature.
Thanks for your interest, but I’ve decided to decommission this blog, as I now have another place to discuss my insights which maintains a high academic standard also, that is mainly, giving references and credit to those I know of, who have worked before me, or who are working on the same topics. This for me is part of showing gratitude or appreciation and avoiding giving the wrong impression that all the work is/ideas are mine and original.
That other place is: https://mcu.academia.edu/BhikkhuDhammadasa. If you want to read any of my work there and you click a link and are asked to log in or join, just ignore/close it and the item should then load in your browser or download.
I intend to keep my other blog open: http://dhammadarsanews.wordpress.com/.
I suggest reading anthologies, if you want, or someone new wants to read the Pali canon (early texts of Buddhism), such as:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ is a kind of anthology.
I discourage you from reading: the translator’s introductions, or at least do so, AFTER you do your own uninfluenced reading; the book of verses in, e.g. the Samyutta Nikaya or sections of verses thrown into prose discourses of the Buddha. It doesn’t mean there would be NO benefit from reading them, just less benefit than reading more authentic teachings and they can support wrong view.
Even anthologies will usually be influenced by traditional interpretations and can mislead, but at least a lot of very doubtful material is omitted.
One of the common ways to mislead is to translate, lobha, dosa and moha as desire, aversion and ignorance. This gives the idea, e.g. that there are no wholesome desires. Hinduism teaches that all desires are the cause of suffering. The Buddha realised that there are wholesome and unwholesome desires, the same with anger, and ignorance of certain facts of the external universe is not the cause of suffering. Delusion is eradicated with Right View and then work has to be done to eradicate confusion, which, as Dr Peter Masefield points out, is an apt translation for moha. So the three would best be translated, greed, hatred and confusion.
At the Buddha’s time there were probably just those disciples who had understood his teaching/the path (those on/in the stream to Awakening) and those who had not. They were both laypeople or mendicants (monks or nuns). There were probably no “vehicles” or sects, such as Mahayana, Hinayana… There was just Dhamma. There may have been junior monks staying with various accomplished monks, but they would have all looked to the Buddha as the teacher, not the monk they were staying with. This idea is even questionable, since the Buddha instructed monks to go and wander, no two in the same direction.
There is a story of the Buddha asking permission to stay in someone’s barn and they said yes, but told him that there was another monk there already. When the Buddha entered the barn, he saw the monk practising meditation very well. So he joined him. After some time they both stopped meditating and the Buddha asked him who was his teacher. The monk said “the Buddha is my teacher”. The Buddha asked, “but have you ever met or seen the Buddha?” and the monk said “no”. So the Buddha said, “attend carefully and I’ll teach you the Dhamma” and the monk said “ok”. After the talk the monk realised that this monk in front of him was the Buddha. This says two things. The Buddha didn’t look special and some people took him as the teacher, even though they had never met him.
I want to let you know, that all authentic teachings of the Buddha contain all other authentic teachings. We have seen that to some extent in what I shared about the teaching of Mindfulness of Breathing. There I pointed out that the Buddha showed that the Four Foundations of Mindfulness are covered by the practice of Mindfulness of Breathing. I also showed how Calm and Insight (Samatha, Vipassanaa) are also covered by it. Here I’d like to show how Dependent Origination is also covered by it.
Now you may be surprised to know that there are many versions of Dependent Origination. You can see a discussion of some in Dr Rod Bucknell’s article: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/ojs/index.php/jiabs/article/view/8891/2798. But not all of them fit into other teachings, like Mindfulness of Breathing. The one that does fit into other teachings is the one found in this discourse: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.023.than.html. There it is put together with the “standard” Dependent Origination, but we notice that the standard one does not match Mindfulness of Breathing. This makes it questionable. In fact I haven’t found any teaching matches the standard Dependent Origination. That makes it VERY questionable.
Here they are together:
So now we can compare the side on the right, what I have called “The Way Out” with the teaching of Mindfulness of Breathing, which is just a different way to teach the Path, which is the way out of suffering.
So this is how the authentic teachings of the Buddha protect and support each other.
This was a reply to a 25/10/2012 post from a Tibetan Buddhist monk on an online discussion group:
We have to be careful when we talk about “negative emotions”. Are we talking from reaction and judgement, which is harmful?
Throughout history, people have judged things, people, emotions and actions as bad, evil, negative. In other religions it is because GOD or some other external authority says they are so. It is called “demonising”. When we look deeper we usually find there is some good/useful/positive aspect to them all. This would be why “deities” have a wrathful face in Tibetan Buddhism. If we don’t understand the needs behind our emotions, then not following “negative” ones can turn on us and create suffering. They are suppressed and eventually explode. This is a danger in emphasising “calm and peace”. They must come from understanding and transcending, not pretending and suppressing. The latter comes when we are trapped in ego games of identity. Trying to prove we are not bad (in whatever way), that we are good. It is the belief itself that is the problem/false.
Truth is often not such a simple thing as our judgements suggest.
According to the early recorded teachings of the Buddha, there are only a very few ACTIONS that are evil/unwholesome (in themselves). These are reflected in the five/eight/ten precepts and the four fundamental rules of monks (which nuns have too). And they are taught as things to avoid in the major religions of the world. I believe they are called “evil/sin” because they cannot be done with a pure motivation. (This may go against later interpretations of the Bodhisattva ideal and skilful means.) The four are:
- Killing a human being
- Stealing to the value of which your society rules would execute, jail or banish
- Sexual misconduct, which varies according to the lifestyle of a mendicant or layperson. For a mendicant: intentional sexual activity with the opposite sex, human or animal; for a layperson: avoiding rape, pedophilia and sex with those who are dependent on others for their livelihood (which of course would be covered by the monks’ and nuns’ practice). (Crazy later explanations of the Buddha’s teaching only say “adultery” or “cheating”, so rape and pedophilia would be ok! Thus there is SO much sex between monks and novices in all traditions. No the Catholics are not the only ones to blame!)
- Spiritual fraud – claiming to be more advanced than one really is
All lesser variations of these are covered by all the other training rules. Those lesser ones may be subject to the situation and could be considered under “skilful means”, but I don’t believe a bodhisattva would break the four above, no matter what. This is basic morality or ethics, without which one cannot progress on the path (according to early teachings). Killing mosquitoes to prevent malaria could be considered out of compassion for suffering beings, but the wiser person would encourage preventing the growth of mosquitoes by avoiding standing water without fish! Maybe introduce fish!
Yes, we should know of negative emotions ‘their deceptive nature, their true colors, and their harmful character,’ (quoted from the Tibetan Buddhist monk on the online discussion group) but we should also know what needs are they trying to fulfil and how can they be fulfilled in a wholesome way. Once we know and deal with that, we have liberation. Thanks to the wisdom and compassion of the Buddha, who showed us the way.
The Buddha praised mindfulness of breathing as the general practice he developed on his path to enlightenment. Of course, he taught other practices also, but those other practices were to be used to deal with specific short-term problems. For example, the perception of loathsomeness of the body was to be used to overcome lust.
The Buddha taught a study method for his teaching in the following quote:
“… All you to whom I have taught these truths that I have realised by super-knowledge should come together and recite them, setting meaning beside meaning and expression beside expression, without dissension, in order that this holy life may continue and be established for a long time for the profit and happiness of the many…” (D 29 : D iii 127).
The Discourse on Mindfulness of Breathing, given by the Buddha, is an example of the Buddha applying this method himself. The Buddha would not give advice and then not follow it himself, that is, he would not be a hypocrite. How is this discourse an example? The discourse gives 16 steps, which details the practice of Mindfulness of Breathing, but then it compares the 16 steps to the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (I’m sure the Buddha taught these, but there is a lot of evidence – a link to a 1.85MB PDF study – to show that the two discourses that elaborate the Four Foundations of Mindfulness have been changed a great deal over 2.5 millennia). The following table shows the comparison, also showing how Mindfulness of Breathing covers the two types of meditation: Calm and Insight. Some summaries of the discourse (as on Wikipedia linked to above as at 16th Feb 2012) miss the first step below and divide the second step into two parts.
It is healthy to doubt that the texts are 100% accurate. The Buddha does not expect blind faith and in applying his study method, one sees that his teaching is logical and consistent. The Stream-Enterer does not doubt the Buddha, Dhamma and Sa’ngha. Dhamma is not the same as the text or Buddhist Scripture (Tipi.taka) or the Words of the Buddha (Buddhavacana), just like speaking the word “water” into an empty glass, does not mean you can drink water from the glass. Dhamma is said to be timeless (akaaliko). Each new Buddha and Arahanta (perfected disciple) realise the same Dhamma, but Buddhist Scripture (Tipi.taka) or the Words of the Buddha (Buddhavacana) arise and pass away, along with Buddhism (Buddhasaasana). So they are kaaliko – affected by time.
I have faith that Dhamma can be found through studying Buddhist Scripture (Tipi.taka) or the Words of the Buddha (Buddhavacana), but I do not believe the Buddhist Scripture (Tipi.taka) has, or the Words of the Buddha (Buddhavacana) have been, maintained 100% purely. The main reason is, disciples have not applied the study method the Buddha gave above. The records of the Buddhist Councils do not even mention the study method, let alone apply it and the quote was the Buddha’s instruction to hold council to ensure his teaching would be maintained well. If we don’t study as he taught us to, how can expect to understand his teaching properly?
What we find in the discourse is a very neat comparison of the 16 steps and Four Foundations of Mindfulness. The 16 steps are put into four groups each with four steps and each group matches the consecutive Four Foundations of Mindfulness. I doubted various aspects of these 16 steps over the years and experimented with them, but in the end I think they have been maintained properly.
Traditionally it is understood that the topics of steps 11 and 12 are part of Calm practice and the topics of steps 13-16 are part of Insight practice. (The Theravadin commentator Buddhaghosa says Mindfulness of Breathing is ONLY Calm practice, which the evidence above shows to be wrong.) Some translators add the word “ever” to the first step to get “ever mindful s/he breathes in or out”. This word “ever” is not in the original text and it makes the practice impractical. One would STILL have wandering thought until one had mastered the eleventh step, which is unification of thought – samaadhi! Sometimes the third step is interpreted as “sensitive to the whole BREATH body (or whole body OF THE BREATH)”, but this cannot be so, because knowing that the breath is long or short, must involve knowing the whole breath (body). Therefore we can just understand it literally – “knowing the whole body”.
This links to the meditation practice, taught by S N Goenka, of scanning the whole body and shows this is only an elementary practice and NOT yet Insight (Vipassanaa). It is either only mindfulness of body, as indicated by the text, or additionally, mindfulness of sensations. So the furthest that practice would go, is the second foundation of mindfulness, which are both in the realm of Calm practice only.
My explanation of the practice above is intended to make it very practical. Since the Buddha indicated this was his general practice, we need to know how it can be applied practically. I have taken “citta” to mean “thought”, as this makes the teaching more practical. Some evidence to support this from the texts and the tradition is the Discourse on the Benefits of Friendliness. There friendliness is said to be the practice for liberation of ‘citta’ (ceto-vimuttiyaa). The 12th step in this teaching of 16 steps, is about liberation of citta (ceto-vimutti). The practice of friendliness (mettaa) is traditionally taught as developing friendly thought (good or best wishes) towards all beings.
Insight about the teaching from comparing the Four Foundations of Mindfulness
As can be understood by the term “foundations”, one is not given up to move on the next, but each becomes established in our awareness, which gets deeper, so we can see subtler things. We see the body clearly, then, in the body we see sensations. Later related to sensations we see thoughts. Later related to the body, sensation and thought we see the underlying processes (dhammaa). In this way we see the Buddha’s teaching values the body (sensation – feeling) and mind (thought) unlike other philosophies or religions, which may blame the body for peoples’ suffering. (Some later interpretations of the Buddha’s teaching do this, when they say the Buddha attained the complete ending of suffering at the *end of his life* – not under the Bodhi Tree 45 years earlier – that earlier attainment is explained as only the *partial* ending of suffering due to *still having a body*.) The body is the basis of our practice. We are not trying to have an “out of body experience” but a fully embodied one, but one that clearly understands and values the mind/spirit/emotions also.
Now that we looked at some background, let’s look at the practice.
Prior to enumerating the 16 steps, the Buddha provides the following preparatory advice:
- seek a secluded space (in a forest or at the foot of a tree or in an empty place) – this indicates the restraint of the senses, which is part of morality (which is taught to precede meditation practice), it is an expression of renunciation of the pleasures of the five senses, which is part of Right Aspiration.
- sit dow to meditate – this comes from the aspiration to be kind to oneself, non-ill-will is also part of Right Aspiration
- keep your body erect and cross your legs – this comes from the aspiration to not harm oneself, a poor posture and discomfort is not good for oneself, so this is also part of Right Aspiration.
So, as we see with other teachings about the Path, Right Aspiration precedes Right Action.
One should sit up straight, but relaxed. It can also be done sitting in a chair, but the floor would be best. It may take some time to train to do so. Western people are not used to sitting on the floor after a few years of primary school. One’s back may ache after a short time, then just rest back against the wall or the chair for a little while and try again. After some time the muscles in one’s back will strengthen and one can sit independently.
Having done this, we can follow the steps as they appear, sequentially. The first two are just noticing. From the third the discourse says “s/he trains…” So from step three starts the training of meditation. As we become more aware of the whole body in step three, we notice stress or tension in some places, so step 4 would be relaxing the body. At this time we may become more aware of the heat in the body and, or the heartbeat.
At step five one would feel energised and may have goose-bumps and some jolts of the body, like minor electric shocks, as we feel the breath go very deep and we are relaxed. The breath supplies oxygen to the body and that is a pleasant thing, but we are usually not aware of the body’s response. (If you doubt breathing is pleasant, just try to stop breathing for a while and see what it feels like! Later texts say breathing is “neutral” because they have not developed this practice and are speaking from theory.) After that one may automatically breath a deep sigh and a have a light smile (happiness – step 6). In steps 7 & 8 one gets a clearer sense of emotion.
It is in the next sextionthat we directly start to train thought (the mind). To give up the unwholesome and develop the wholesome in the realm of thought is purifying the mind. This becomes very interesting and empowering.
In step 9 one becomes more aware of one’s wandering mind. In step 10 one encourages oneself with the reflection that one is developing oneself (body and mind) in a wholesome way that one had not before, or simply that one had noticed the wandering mind in step 9 and let go of it, something one would not usually do. In step 11 one determines to give up unwholesome, distracted thinking. One turns the thought back to the breath, going through the steps up to 8 again.
How we focus on the breath is by using three aspects of experience (two of thought and one of body). We use the power of thinking by: 1. directing our internal vision to an area of the body where we feel the breath (visual) and 2. by making a mental note “in/out” – we think “in/out” to ourselves (audio). We try to integrate thinking with feeling by focusing on the sensations (of the movement) of breathing (kinesthetic). As one’s mind focuses, one will see a light. The Buddha told monks to “develop the perception on light”. So this refers to step 11 of the 16 steps. One should focus on the breath, not on the light. We can focus on the breath and see the light as a background, but we cannot have wandering mind and see the light. It is one or the other. This is like when the film ends in the cinema, if the projectionist is too slow, we see a white light on the screen. We can’t have the movie images, and the white light. It’s one or the other.
As we become more aware of wandering thought, we see it is like being in a lit room at dusk and standing in front of a window. You can see your reflection in the window (wandering thought), but you can also focus on the objects outside. Most of the time we only focus on things outside then slip into automatic pilot. Then we are focusing on the reflections in the window.
In step 12 one is aware of the calm body and mind and develops the wish that all beings be well and happy, just as one is right now.
Steps 13 to 16 are Insight practice. This is not restricted to sitting meditation. We take time out to review what we have seen about the body, sensations and thought. We reflect that they are impermanent and not useful to cling to, actually clinging to them IS suffering (not causes suffering) within ourselves and would lead us to harm others. We consider how these three and interrelated.
Here we try to develop understanding of the causes of both negative and positives states of body and mind. As we understand them more, we put our energy into the positive ones, those that do not harm oneself or others and we can skilfully give up the negative ones – not by suppression, but by understanding and disenchantment and they gradually lose their power. We start to question, for example, “Is there any pattern or relationship between wandering thought and the breath?”
These are the sixteen steps in summary:
As you become more aware of your wandering mind, you may see that it is practically continuous. Have you ever felt the calming effect of the sound of waves breaking on the sea-shore? Well such is the effect of awareness of breathing and the breath is with us all the time. Imagine if you could swap the incessant wandering-mind-background-noise, which is so stressful, as much of it is worry about the future or sadness about the past, for the calming to and fro of the breath!! It can be done and will best be done following the general principles of the teaching above. There must be awareness of the body posture, developing a good (relaxed) posture, either sitting, standing, walking or lying down. One should develop awareness of ones sensations, if one is getting tired or there is pain, one should respond appropriately, change posture.
We don’t just sit and watch the pain, as pain is a message that something is wrong. If we really believe the Buddha’s teaching is compatible with science, then we must listen to doctors who say just that. Sitting a long time when the body is not used to it, is a form of self punishment. The only pain we must “bear” is that pain of aging or that which is inflicted by others e.g. that of hearing unpleasant speech or being beaten. To show that the pain of sitting a long time is created by our intention to sit and is not intrinsic to life, we can just stand up and see if the pain lasts. That the pain goes away doesn’t prove it is harmless. People have suffered trouble with their sciatic nerve due to not listening to the body, to pain and acting appropriately.
Mindfulness of breathing does not have to stop with sitting, or only be done in sitting. There have been Buddhist teachers who teach it in all activities. I heard of a famous monk in Myanmar who did so, but I’ve forgotten his name. Of course there is also Ven Thich Nhat Hanh, who introduces the idea of bringing mindfulness of breath into everyday life with the use of the Mindfulness Bell (or mindfulness clock program – for PC, there is also an online version which is cross-platform and you can get it for Android Mobile Phones and for iPhone).
This bell rings every now and then during meetings or general activities in the Plum Village communities of Ven Thich Nhat Hanh. He teaches to stop what one is doing when one hears the bell and to breathe mindfully three times. That is a nice practice, but does not yet incorporate the practice of mindful breathing fully into everyday life. One must stop one’s everyday activity to mindfully breathe. We need to become aware of our breath while we continue to do the very same activity. (I don’t know if Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh teaches this.) That way one can see very clearly that it is not the activity that causes the suffering, but the uncontrolled mind. When the body and mind are working together (whatever we are doing) we are relaxed and peaceful. (There are a few activities, that I believe cannot be done without suffering, such as killing another human being. That would be why the major religions and civilised societies teach against it.)
In walking meditation, one should be aware of sensations and make a mental note of one’s “left (step), right (step)”. One will start to notice how one is walking (quickly, heavily…), just like above, one started to notice how one was breathing (long, short). One should try to walk lightly not walking on one’s heals with a “thump, thump”. We might not be aware we are doing this in the start. This is actually not good for the body – jarring the joints. We should use our whole foot to cushion our step. One should become aware of the whole body walking, but we may start with the touch of the feet on the floor and increase to the touch of clothes, wind, sun etc. on one’s skin and one can progress through the steps as detailed above. The following table shows how the first four steps are different for walking:
So what would it mean ‘walking aware of the whole body’? It would mean walking and not only being aware of the foot touching the floor, but of other bodily functions, the most obvious being breathing. So, one would start to notice how long the in- and out-breaths last in relation to walking, e.g. now I’m walking and breathing in, now I’m walking and breathing out. The Buddha saw that we can be aware of more than one thing at a time, though we can think of only one thing at a time. It’s a bit like specific focus (which we label or make a mental note of, which is also the major physical activity) and background, which we can be aware of at the same time (but not focused on it).
There are some activities, such as typing on a computer (what I’m doing now ) that preclude making a mental note, because I am dealing with words, but I still can develop awareness of my posture and sensations in my body (the background). (And of course, I should place the computer screen, keyboard and mouse at the right (ergonomic) height and take proper breaks using such programs as: Workrave.)
Good luck in your practice. May you attain the total ending of suffering in this very life.
Recently I was trying to explain the difference between re-becoming and re-birth, as I understand the terms. The latter term, in my opinion, is from a misunderstanding of the Buddha’s teaching, but it has become generally accepted, without reflection. The Paali term in question is “punabbhava”. You will not find the Buddha talking about “puna-jaati” at all in the Paali Canon. These days you can search the whole text for particular words or phrases using digital copies. Puna-jaati would be the Paali translation of “re-birth”. Punabbhava on the other hand, is often spoken about by the Buddha in the Paali texts and I think would be best translated “re-becoming”.
Due to all conditioned things being impermanent, it is impossible that something could experience the same birth again. No, each birth is different, or the being born each time, is different. Therefore a being could not have a “re-birth”. Of course one could be born as a human, angel, demon etcetera many times, but one would be (the birth would be) different each time.
If we understand “becoming” as a process which leads to birth, each time a different birth, we could see that the process of becoming could be the same each time. Therefore we can undergo the process many times, again and again, thus “re-becoming” or “again-becoming” leading to a different birth each time.
This can be likened to the process of cooking a cake. The process has to be repeated each time one wants to cook a cake. The ingredients may change a little depending on the type of cake one wanted, but even if we wanted to cook a banana cake every time, the resulting cake would never be the same as the one before. Though of course there would be basic similarities, otherwise we couldn’t call it a “banana” cake.
Thus we would have “re-becoming” leading to a different birth each time and many births [and deaths] in the cycling within Sa.msaara.
The common “translation” of the three knowledges includes such terms as “re-birth” and “past lives.” (See my previous post.) We should look closely at the text and put aside extra ideas, avoid reading our interpretations into the text. This is what a translator tries to avoid. When we avoid doing that we will see that “re-“ is not mentioned regarding “birth” and “lives” is not mentioned at all. Making such (minor?) changes or adjustments is very dangerous, because the Buddha said his teaching is very subtle. It is certainly not correct to translate the idea of “many past births”, which the Buddha spoke of in the first of the three knowledges, as “many past lives”. Even a renowned Paali scholar uses the term “re-birth” in translations dated 2005.
I’d encourage you all to stop practising Parrot Buddhism and start making a “thorough investigation” as the Buddha encouraged intelligent people to do. Of course, we may generally be doing so, but slip up on certain occasions, but if we have a highly respected position we must be very careful, as we could easily mislead people. Thus, I think it is always best to keep in mind, that we are not experts in Dhamma, even if we have PhD’s, until we are fully enlightened. Even then, the discourses say that those on the path only take the Buddha as the teacher. That leaves all the rest, including ourselves as good friends helping each other to understand the Buddha’s teaching.