Explanation of SN 54.6, the Arittha Sutta

Yes.

I think the more important relationship is the other way around: without sammādiṭṭhi sīla can be compromised. Your outlook needs to be such that it encourages living well.

Yes, I agree with this. There is some Canonical evidence that sitting cross-legged was considered a comfortable position in ancient India. In the Bhikkhunī-kkhandhaka of the Vinaya Piṭaka you find the following:

On one occasion a certain nun was sick. She was not comfortable without sitting cross-legged.

This is hardly true for most of us nowadays! So to my mind it is being comfortable that is most important. But the “legs dangling down”? Hmmm … :thinking: Although that sounds like fun, I think it is probably better to have the soles of the feet planted on the floor.

6 Likes

Lol…yes, I guess that’s what I meant.

Thanks Ajahn. :slightly_smiling_face:

Okay so it’s to do with what we’re used to as being comfortable as well…

I remember talking to a physiotherapist a while back and she said, nowadays, babies are being born without something (I can’t remember the term she used) in the wrist, that us oldies have. Because of the types of jobs we do now, evolution is changing some of our bodies. So I can imagine if all you did was sit cross legged (when sitting) then that would be a comfortable position; perhaps in the Buddha’s time (and maybe still in some parts of the world today) sitting cross legged was the comfy norm. But for a lot of us, especially in mostly western - or westernised - contexts, a supportive chair probably does the trick.

:anjal:

I think to sit cross-legged comfortably some kind of firm base was a requirement - I believe they used kusa grass to make this base, and it is said the Buddha was offered this by a certain devotee. It makes sense that we use cushions that shape according to the curvature of the body when sitting down, and chairs certainly take care of the body without much fuss - often egos are bruised when sitting on a chair, rather than the body, which is adequately comfortable! Meditators often want to look the part too!

As for the difference in Buddha’s explanation of the it is notable that he doesn’t explain the five hindrances and how to overcome them in detail as this is part of the practice itself. Also Ven Aritta stops at mentioning mindfulness of in and out breathing. The Buddha explains the progression of its development. Ven Aritta’s explanation is one of a student - the Buddha’s explanation of one of a master who expects the student to remember the correct method.

with metta

3 Likes