Buddhadasa vs Hillside interpretation

Discussion
7

It is interesting to me how the Ajahn seems to manufacture these new concepts. The above is not comprehensible to me therefore I will add:

Thus, something one attends to directly is what a foreground is at the time.

For example, my computer screen.

It can be anything that is the current object of one’s attention.

For example, my computer screen.

That thing has manifested, and it is enduring as such.

Eye meets form + consciousness

That’s the basic structural property of one’s experience, there is no problem with this.

OK

However, if one wants to develop mindfulness, a step further is necessary.

Mindfulness means remembering to govern experience with Dhamma.

That step is developing the peripheral “vision” in regard to that very same foreground object, but without making that peripheral vision the new object by directly attending to it.

If I am comprehending the above accurately, I think i disagree with it. To me, mindfulness does not mean attending to the computer screen but means keeping the mind undefiled while experiencing the computer screen. Here, observing the mind is the primary/foreground object and the computer screen is the background/secondary object.

For me, the same applies in Satipatthana. Keeping the mind undefiled is the foreground object and the breathing, feelings, mental states & realities are the “background” objects.

The Buddha referred to this as “yoniso manasikara ”, which is often translated as “proper attention”.

I cannot recall the Buddha referring to yoniso manasikara apart from as a preliminary practice prior to Satipatthana

Yoniso manasikara is the correct way of attending to the peripheral.

:saluting_face:

Manasikara means “attention”. Yoni means “womb”. So when a thing is present in the front, in the foreground, its peripheral background is that very “womb” the thing has “came from”, so to speak. Yoniso manasikara is womb-attention, or less literally: a peripheral attention.

I’m totally lost now… :face_with_diagonal_mouth: The above seems to solipsismically say objects are born from attention yet this does not seem to distinguish between ayoniso and yoniso.

Let’s continue:

The catch is in persistent effort of repetition of learning how to attend to things peripherally, without having to “directly” look at them.

Consciousness is always aware of the most coarse object. For example, to listen to a sound, all I need to do is keep the mind silent. I do not need to direct my ear at the sound.

Therefore, attending to keeping the mind silent is the primary/foreground object and the sound to be listened to is the background object.

For a mind affected with avijja, the “direct look”, the “ayoniso manasikara” always involves appropriation and the Self-view.

OK. It involves craving; like craving for samadhi or craving to watch the breathing.

And “learning to attend” things peripherally can be done on many different “bases” or “domains” that are structurally present as the background of our attended experience. These domains are the domain of feelings, thoughts, and even one’s intentions (bodily, verbal and mental).

So is the “background” above the feelings, thoughts & intentions? :saluting_face: I doubt intention can be the “background”. Dhp1 says mano is the forerunner. In other words, it seems the establishment of mindfulness first requires an underlying intention to be mindful.

For example, being aware of the general feeling present, without trying to perceive it as “sensation” (i.e. “in” the body), is another way of establishing the proper mindfulness.

My impression is an “ideal” has been created above, where a general feeling MUST BE attended to. Personally, my view is establishing proper mindfulness has no relationship whatsoever to awareness of feelings. For me, mindfulness (maintaining an undefiled mind) is simply established as the primary/foreground object. If feelings pop into that undefiled mind, OK. But if they don’t, it does not matter.

It seems the Ajahn has made body, feelings & mental states into sacred holy objects. :banana:

1 Like
8

That’s really not what “peripheral” means. The periphery of vision is the things on the outside of the central focus, which are most definitely not the things that caused the central focus.

The whole argument seems to be a real stretch, I’ve never heard these ideas before but I’m wondering whether there’s a translation problem.

3 Likes
9

Hello again. I always found Buddhadasa’s explanation of mindfulness (‘recollection’) to accord with my own. However I have noticed many Western Buddhists, including Buddhadasa’s own translator, who regard mindfulness to mean ‘observing objects’. Buddhadasa’s view of mindfulness is summed up briefly in the following:

We also will get what I like to call the “Four Comrade Dhammas.” I came up with this name myself in order to discuss them more easily. The four comrade dhammas are sati, panna, sampajanna and samadhi. You will recall from the first lecture that while we live within this world the four comrade dhammas will enable us to subdue all threats. With them we can get rid of dukkha . Whether inside or outside the monastery, we must use these four comrades to live. First, we have sati (reflective awareness mindfulness). When a sense object makes contact, sati is there and brings panna (wisdom) to the experience. Once it arrives, panna transforms into sampajanna (wisdom-in-action), the specific application of wisdom required by the situation. Then, samadhi’s power and strength are added to sampajanna. With them we are able to conquer every kind of object that comes in through the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind. The four comrade dhammas are unsurpassed guardians.

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa - Anapanasati Mindfulness with Breathing

In more detail here:

SATI

Sati (mindfulness, reflective awareness, recollection) is the quick awareness and recall of the things which must be recalled. It must be as quick as an arrow. We also can describe sati as a vehicle or transport mechanism of the fastest kind. This most rapid transport doesn’t carry material things, it carries wisdom and knowledge. Sati delivers paññä (wisdom) in time to meet our needs. Through the practice of mindfulness with breathing, sati is trained fully.

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa - Natural Cure for Spiritual Disease

At I have always found the above type of explanation easy to understand. Where as the Hillside interpretation took me a long time to liguistically comprehend because it seems Hillside is caught up in dual different interpretations of mindfulness. But, as already said, the convoluting of terms such as mindfulness (sati) & attention/observing (anupassi) is so common in Buddhism. :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes
10

Hi Bhante,

A very simple example:

Amid such splendor and a delicate life, it occurred to me: ‘An uninstructed worldling, though himself subject to old age, not exempt from old age, feels repelled, humiliated, and disgusted when he sees another who is old, overlooking his own situation. Now I too am subject to old age and am not exempt from old age. Such being the case, if I were to feel repelled, humiliated, and disgusted when seeing another who is old, that would not be proper for me.’ When I reflected thus, my intoxication with youth was completely abandoned. -AN 3.39

The insight of being subject to old age came “amid splendor”. That is what Ajahn Nyanamoli would describe as being peripheral. This principle applies to much of what is uprooted and discerned as right throughout development in Dhamma.

2 Likes
11

Hello. The Pali above is “paṭisañcikkhato”, which seems to refer to thinking rather than observing.

But is not Nyanamoli referring to "peripheral vision” as some type of state of mind? If so, the “amid splendor” in that sutta seems to be referring to various material & sensual luxuries. :saluting_face:

12

It has nothing to do with “vision”. The insight is described as a “divine messenger” in other suttas. We are subject to old age, sickness and death, but that has to be thoroughly understood in order for it to be impactful. The point of AN 3.39, as you said, is that this can be known if it properly attended to. Why does it require such effort? Because, as the suttta says, the intoxication is more prominent, i.e. sensuality is the forefront, while the truth is in the background. It has to be drawn out through effort in reflection.

3 Likes
13

AN 3.39 seems to say the puthujjana with self-view is subject to old age, sickness and death. :banana:

Seeing the danger in grasping,
Upādāne bhayaṁ disvā,
the origin of birth and death,
jātimaraṇasambhave;
the unattached are freed
Anupādā vimuccanti
with the ending of birth and death.
jātimaraṇasaṅkhaye.

MN 130

I said AN 3.39 refers to reflective thought (paṭisañcikkhato); where as Hillside seem to be referring to observation (anupassana), despite Hillside using the term ‘yoniso manasikara’.

I didn’t gain the impression of any great effort in AN 3.39. My recollection of AN 3.39 is Gotama quickly lost intoxication with his youth. AN 3.39 says:

Reflecting like this, I entirely gave up the vanity of youth.
Tassa mayhaṁ, bhikkhave, iti paṭisañcikkhato yo yobbane yobbanamado so sabbaso pahīyi.

15

Why would I listen to papanca of convoluting various Pali terms & concepts?

16

I have no idea. You do seem have expressed great interest in Ajahn NN over the years, so perhaps you want to know just enough so you can perform in threads such as this.

1 Like
17

My great interest is to help people avoid Ajahn NN. Its bedtime here. :pray: :speak_no_evil: :hear_no_evil: :see_no_evil: :banana: :surfing_man:

18

I’m sure the forum(s) are eternally grateful for your efforts…

1 Like
19

@Thito

Another sutta that illustrates an inverted order that must be “untwisted” is AN 4.49:

“Bhikkhus, there are these four inversions of perception, inversions of mind, and inversions of view. What four? (1) The inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes the impermanent to be permanent; (2) the inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes what is suffering to be pleasurable; (3) the inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes what is non-self to be self; (4) the inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes what is unattractive to be attractive. These are the four inversions of perception, mind, and view.

“There are, bhikkhus, these four non-inversions of perception, non-inversions of mind, and non-inversions of view. What four? (1) The non-inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes the impermanent to be impermanent; (2) the non-inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes what is suffering to be suffering (3) the non-inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes what is non-self to be non-self; (4) the non-inversion of perception, mind, and view that takes what is unattractive to be unattractive. These are the four non-inversions of perception, mind, and view.”

Perceiving permanence in the impermanent,
perceiving pleasure in what is suffering,
perceiving a self in what is non-self,
and perceiving attractiveness in what is unattractive,
beings resort to wrong views,
their minds deranged, their perception twisted.

Such people are bound by the yoke of Māra,
and do not reach security from bondage.
Beings continue in saṃsāra,
going to birth and death.

But when the Buddhas arise in the world,
sending forth a brilliant light,
they reveal this Dhamma that leads
to the stilling of suffering.

Having heard it, wise people
have regained their sanity.
They have seen the impermanent as impermanent
and what is suffering as suffering.

They have seen what is non-self
as non-self and the unattractive as unattractive.
By the acquisition of right view,
they have overcome all suffering. ”

With perception, mind and view inverted/perverted, the wrong things are most prominent. So, it is not to say that permanence, pleasure, self and attractive are simply “not there”, as much as they are not more fundamental than impermanence, suffering, not-self and unattractive. (See AN 7.49)

Drawing out the more fundamental (more true) counterpoint is the only way to set it rightly. For one immersed in sensuality/wrong view, those truths are being ignored. They are not as influential as those that twist the mind. Drawing them out not only requires virtue and restraint, but also requires consistent remembering that they endure there. The mind must become “accustomed” (Bodhi) to these rightly ordered perceptions. Again, it seems the phrase “peripheral awareness” was one of convenience to describe this principle.

2 Likes
20

Yes, in one of their recent videos they speak about balancing the scales. For a long time I thought they meant that the background becomes the “truth” but then understood what they said when then you’re just making the old background the new foreground.

So instead it’s about balancing the scales, that way you don’t reject the gratification and instead see the whole picture by including the drawbacks, in a balanced perception, which should be enough to get the ball of dispassion rolling at the same moment craving for sensuality is present and right in front of you.

As I understand it, Improper attention ignores the drawbacks and favours gratification, thus creating a distorted perverted perception.

I believe this is the video where they talk about balancing the scales, I thought it was pretty insightful Abandoning the All - YouTube

2 Likes
21

Yes, it is a balance to set up the right order amid the inversion as far as I understand it. Though there is no use denying the wrong order to do so. It is established and it needs to be worn away. It is one thing to accept the possibility of the right order, but it is a further step to go about setting it rightly. I think “beauty” is one of the easier examples to contemplate, and AN 7.49 is a real good description of this. It isn’t that beauty doesn’t exist, it is just that ugly is more significant and practically useful in terms of development. It is the aspect that can undermine lust and lead to that necessary dispassion.

Again, this knowledge is not a priority for one without virtue and sense restraint - without the goal of Dhamma practice - and is not easily taken seriously. Obviously everyone knows they are going to die, but not everyone is impacted as deeply. AN 5.48 is another good one on the subject. The point is that this knowledge is off to the side, or more accurately, sitting within, when the inversion is in place and perceptions are not developed.

2 Likes
22

My impression from that sutta is that when the Puthujjana reflects on the exact same line of thought as an Ariyan he chooses to ignore the topic and the dispassionate outcome whereas the Ariyan sees the dispassionate outcome as a reason for contemplation to happen.

E.g. “If I think about this, I won’t get work done”, both groups have this reasoning, the difference is the Ariyan sees that as a good thing so he does contemplate the subject, and the Puthujjana sees that as a bad thing so he ignores the subject, because the Puthujjana wants to get more of pleasure and get rid of discomfort/pain whereas the Ariyan will take on more discomfort if it means more dispassion.

That’s how I interpret that passage: same thoughts, different motivations. I guess the Ariyan’s motivation is rooted in seeing the whole mass of suffering caused by craving and thus desires dispassion, whereas the Puthujjana is ignorant of the four noble truths and doesn’t see anything wrong with craving and passion.

1 Like
23

Unlikely. MN 61 says:

So you should train like this: ‘I will not tell a lie, even for a joke.’

MN 26 says:

This teaching is not easily understood

:surfing_man:

These ideas sound like American McMindfulness, where there is the self-suggested hallucination that insight (vipassana) is occurring while simultaneously drowning in defilements. AN 4.49 says:

They have seen what is non-self
as non-self and the unattractive as unattractive.
By the acquisition of right view,
they have overcome all suffering. ”

AN 4.49 does not say:

They have seen what is self as non-self
and the attractive as unattractive.

In other words, the ‘self’ & the ‘not-self’ are not discerned simultaneously.

Mindfulness remembers & brings to mind learned past knowledge. Mindfulness does not directly “see” the unrevealed/unseen truth.

I think the onus falls upon the supporters of Hillside to substantiate their ideas about the role of mindfulness via sutta quotes.

The above is a strange idea. Is there a sutta to support this idea?

It seems the notion of STREAM-ENTRY means the mind INCLINES towards Nibbana therefore there is no “resistance” requiring becoming “accustomed”. :slightly_smiling_face:

Personally, the above attempted connection between the unwholesome & the wholesome seems tenuous. To reiterate, from my reading of Hillside, the impression is:

  1. There is mind that discerns
  2. There are objects discerned.

Hillside said:

Mindfulness done correctly is when the mind is anchored in something. That something must be a thing that is not directly attended to, but instead, has to be a reference point to the attended thing (hence we call it “anchor”). If a thing is not directly attended to but there, we call that thing to be a “background”. It’s a background to a thing we attend (which makes that thing a “foreground”). This is the basic principle of mindfulness, on which we can expand here below.

Now, the above is papanca to me. However, this attempted principle is explained by the suttas with the following example from AN 9.36:

There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: ‘This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.’

AN 9.36

If the above is not understood, SN 48.9 says:

A noble disciple, relying on letting go, gains immersion, gains unification of mind.

SN 48.9

If the above is not understood, returning to topic, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa said:

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi isn’t the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty of grasping at and clinging to ‘I’ and ‘mine’ can have the true and perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has correct samadhi.

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa - Heart-Wood from the Bodhi Tree

While the papanca of Hillside is difficult to follow, my impression is, per the topic, the interpretation of Hillside is the opposite of Buddhadasa and the opposite of the suttas.

Buddhadasa & the suttas say:

  • The primary meditation object is non-attachment.
  • The secondary meditation object is body, factors of jhana, etc.

To repeat, Hillside said:

Mindfulness done correctly is when the mind is anchored in something.

Buddhadasa reply: Yes, the mind is anchored in non-attachment, per AN 9.36 & SN 48.9.

That something must be a thing that is not directly attended to

Buddhadasa disagrees. Buddhadasa says: “That something/non-attachment must be a thing that is directly attended to”, per SN 47.20, for example.

but instead, has to be a reference point to the attended thing (hence we call it “anchor”).

The above idea of a “reference point” seems unrelated to what must be directly attended to. The impression is Hillside here have been influenced by the idiosyncratic idea of “Frames of Reference” concocted by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

If a thing is not directly attended to but there, we call that thing to be a “background”.

As previously said, the above is difficult for me to follow. But according to both Buddhadasa and the Suttas, non-attachment is the “primary object” and body, feelings, citta & realities are the “background”.

It’s a background to a thing we attend (which makes that thing a “foreground”).

The thing we attend to, according to Buddhadasa and the Suttas, is non-attachment, as stated in MN 10, SN 48.9 and AN 9.36.

The thing Hillside is saying we attend to remains unclear to me.

This is the basic principle of mindfulness, on which we can expand here below.

Buddhadasa said the basic principle of mindfulness is to bring wisdom to a specific situation; this specific wisdom for the situation being “sampajanna”. This sati-sampajjana, per the Suttas (MN 117), is a “support” for the development of samadhi & the direct seeing of Right Knowledge. The role of mindfulness is not to convince/brainwash the mind things are not-self. The perception of not-self is a direct perception. :buddha: Thus MN 149 says:

When the noble eightfold path is developed… these two qualities proceed in conjunction: serenity and discernment (samatho ca vipassanā ca)

MN 149

MN 117 says:

Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right mindfulness gives rise to right immersion. Right immersion gives rise to right knowledge. Right knowledge gives rise to right freedom.

MN 117 does not say:

Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right mindfulness gives rise to right knowledge.

AN 11.2 says:

It’s only natural to truly know and see when your mind is immersed in samādhi.

AN 11.2 does not say:

It’s only natural to truly know and see when your mind is immersed in mindfulness.

AN 10.61 says:

In the same way, when the factor of associating with good people :innocent: :star_struck: is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of listening to the true teaching. When the factor of listening to the true teaching is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of faith … proper attention … mindfulness and situational awareness … sense restraint …the three kinds of good conduct … the four kinds of mindfulness meditation … the seven awakening factors. When the seven awakening factors are fulfilled, they fulfill knowledge and freedom.

AN 10.61 does not say what Hillside seems to be saying, namely:

In the same way, when the factor of associating with dog-patting :dog2: :poodle: people is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of listening to the idiosyncratic Satre Nietzsche :nerd_face: teaching. When the factor of listening to the idiosyncratic teaching is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of faith … mindfulness and situational awareness … sense restraint …the three kinds of good conduct … the four kinds of mindfulness meditation … proper attention (yoniso manasikara)… the seven awakening factors. When the seven awakening factors are fulfilled, they fulfill knowledge and freedom.

As I previously, my impression is yoniso manasikara is merely a preliminary practice in the Suttas, in AN 10.61 and why SN 45.50–55 calls it “the dawn” that is the “forerunner” of the Eightfold Path. :buddha:

25

I am replying to what has been posted on this topic.

The Suttas quotes are not shooting in the dark. Not only have the Suttas refuted Hillside but the difference between Hillside & Buddhadasa seem to have been clearly established.

I think this topic was summed up by the quotes below:

I think this topic here How to understand SN 48.42? is related to this topic about Hillside. :slightly_smiling_face:

28

I’m a huge fan of both as well and their phenomena-logical existential approach to Dhamma can you recommend any other teachers are similar?

1 Like
29

The only other monk who is similar to Buddhadasa and Hillside that I can think of is Ven. Punnaji, imho this is his best video of all his videos, the audio quality isn’t great but the dhamma content is superb Bhante Punnaji - A gradual process of awakening - anupubba patipada - YouTube

I actually downloaded that video and saved it to my Google drive in case it ever goes down, I recommend doing the same.

1 Like
30

Ok cool checking it out now