“Bhikkhus, I say that the destruction of the taints is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know and see. Who knows and sees what? Wise attention and unwise attention. When one attends unwisely, unarisen taints arise and arisen taints increase. When one attends wisely, unarisen taints do not arise and arisen taints are abandoned. (MN2)
No mention of jhana here. Must we really be in some special volitionally produced state (jhana) to know and see what yoniso manasikara is and apply it?
Maybe one can say that jhana at least reveals that the mental-consciousness base can be very peaceful and unburdened in a way we do not experience in ordinairy states.
But i personally do not believe that the peace of the mental consciousness base is the same as the peace of a fully cleansed heart. I feel it is a different kind of ease.
It is not that abiding in jhana an sich really cleanses the heart. Is such somewhere said in the suttas? I think one can even develop rupa and arupa raga. Or maybe conceit grows and one starts to feel special.
There are even teachers who instruct that abiding in calm empty peace must be avoided or least not be for long. One will mistake it for the goal. Real peace of heart has no problem at all with the presence of formations. They are naturally integrated in this peace. There is no conflict in movement and non-movement. Sankhata and asankhata. There is no conflict in stilling of all formations and arising formations.
It has become the same dimension, as it were.
And when one abides to much in empty states of peace, by doing so one might develop the wrong view that formations and peace cannot coincide. This is seen as a wrong development and also a wrong idea of liberation and what it really means to be without clinging. I also believe this is true.
Buddha is portrayed as a person who wanted to know all about birth because in ending birth, also sickness, pains, old age, and death ends. And all these knowledges arrived at by directing the mind in 4th jhana, are insights into birth. So, i believe, he found what he sought, complete insight into birth, the end of birth and the Path. He found it via applying his mind in 4 th jhana. In short: He was looking for answers and found them.
Does it mean we also need 4th jhana and these knowledge to arrive at that state without clinging in which formations and stilling coincide?
I am not going to bother to go into it too much, because as I say, my impression is that you and others hear aren’t actually interested in changing your views one millimeter, regardless of the evidence presented to you, but MN2 culminates in a recitation of the sambojjhaṅgaṁ which is itself a shorthand for the passage at DN2:30.1 that does include jhanas.
You quote from the opening of the sutta, then omit to mention the very next line;
Atthi, bhikkhave, āsavā dassanā pahātabbā, atthi āsavā saṁvarā pahātabbā, atthi āsavā paṭisevanā pahātabbā, atthi āsavā adhivāsanā pahātabbā, atthi āsavā parivajjanā pahātabbā, atthi āsavā vinodanā pahātabbā, atthi āsavā bhāvanā pahātabbā.
Some defilements should be given up by seeing, some by restraint, some by using, some by enduring, some by avoiding, some by dispelling, and some by developing.
which clearly indicates that more than mere attention is required.
and
Are exactly what I am sick of hearing from people here.
You have no argument, so you mislead with selective quotation, and then talk about your personal instincts and feelings. That’s fine, each to their own, but it’s not scholarship, it’s not rational argument, its just your own personal religion. Good luck with it.
I do not claim: this is the one and only true reading or understanding of Dhamma…I want to be open that i always share my personal understanding. Some choose to pretent otherwise. I want to prevent this. I want that people always know that it is my personal understanding. If they feel this is a kind of diskwalification, fine with me. I feel it is not.
That is why i intentionally add words like…i feel, my understanding is, …i feel this is a sincere way to deal with other people about Dhamma.
But if people believe that i am only guided by some gut-feelings, that is, i feel not honest. But oke, i also cannot prevent it.
I also feel it is not at all a disqualification to share our understanding as a personal understanding. It is just a sign of honesty, i feel. Presenting ones understanding of Dhamma as objective…i feel such is really a huge claim.
Is it my personal religion that yoniso manasikara is presented as very important to purify? .NO…any person can know this…if one does not stop to attend to what is being experienced in a unwise manner, there will never be an end to passion. Purification relies on this. Letting go of the same cravings that arise with ayoniso manasikara as condition.
Also in the requirements for the fruit of sotapanna, yoniso manasika is listed for the same reason. Yes, i know there are three other things mentioned too.
Ofcourse i do not see this as some isolated practice. One cannot even practice if one has no clue of what is the Path and not the Path…and attending to things in such a way that defilements arise, or those who have arisen increase (ayoniso manasikara), is surely not the Path.
So yoniso manasikara is really crucial to make an end to defilements. That is what MN2 states. That also aligns with all the teachings. If one has a perception of subha, atta, nicca, sukha…this way of attending to things, only will give rise to defilements.
Therefor one must cure this with developing the perception of anatta, anicca, dukkha and asubha.
Hello. There is no mention of jhana because what is said is that the taints can only be annihilated by one who has Right View (one who knows and sees).
NO MN2 says: “Bhikkhus, I say that the destruction of the taints is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know and see. Who knows and sees what? Wise attention and unwise attention
So, one who sees the difference between wise and unwise attention is able to destroy the taints.
What is unwise attention? Attending with a perception of atta, nicca, sukha, subha…in short…attending to whatever in a way that give rise to defilements and increases already arisen ones.
What is wise attention? That way of attending to things that does not give rise to defilements and does not already arisen ones.
Attending to feelings as me, mine, my self, for example is unwise attention.
Wise attention, yoniso manasikara is a condition for becoming a sotapanna. It belongs to the four requirements (SN55.62-74, AN4.248, AN4.249, AN10.76, SN4.4)
Yoniso manisakara gives rise to right view!
“There are two conditions for the arising of right view: the voice of another and yoniso manasikra. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.” (MN43, see also AN1.311)
Be careful of omitting the knowing part. A puthujjana can do yoniso manasikara, but is the knowing at the experiential level, at any time, place and circumstance, what makes a sotapanna, a person capable of destroying the taints. That is why this
Not only yoniso manasikara is a requirement for the fruit of sotapanna but also hearing the true Dhamma, meeting nobles, practicing the Dhamma (yoniso manasikara is an important part of that daily practice, right?) So in this sense i agree that knowing on a experiential level develops.
I beleive that when the mind has ripened in understanding to a certain degree, this comes naturally with the end of doubt, the weakening of passion (dosa and lobha are weakened) and the issue of identity is gone. It is not at all a theme anymore in ones life. It does not mean that there no me and mine making anymore on a deeper level (for example via still present passion and tendecies to conceit) but on the level of views, identity is not bothering the mind anymore. It is not a theme anymore while this is for many people a huge theme (I am this and that, accept it, this is me, accept it etc). Such ideas are totally gone. And one understands and sees that purification does not come from show (poses) , but by really using the mind in a wise way (yoniso manasikara). One can endlessly recite mantras or be committed to sutta study or endlessly sit on a cushion, if one fails to use the mind in a wise manner, one is still defiling the mind.
But i believe it is in retrospection that one notices such changes. I do not believe that the uprooting of defilements takes place in really distinct moments in time.
As if one can exactly point to the 4 moments in time that fetters were destroyed.
3 june 2000, 6 pm, three fetters were destroyd…at 7 april 2004 2 were weakened, at 16 november 2010 , 4 pm kama raga was totally destroyed and dosa too, and in 2015, at twenty for 7 pm, the rest were destroyed.
I do not believe it happens like this. It is a gradual organic development, i believe.
Only in retrospective one starts to notice changes. But one cannot exactly pinpoint what is when lost. I believe a sutta compares this with wear and tear of, for example, the handle of a wooden hammer that one very often uses. Gradually it becomes thinner. At some moment in time one can see the fingers in the handle.
But one can also not exaclty see and know what is when lost of the handle in time.
So yoniso manasikara is crucial and i feel that this is what MN2 says:
“Bhikkhus, I say that the destruction of the taints is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know and see. Who knows and sees what? Wise attention and unwise attention.
It does not matter what is being experienced, if one still continues with unwise attention, there can be no destruction of the taints. No experience leads to the destruction of the taints. Only seeing with wisdom. This disclaimer is always made.
Because, whatever one experiences, or whatever breaktrough there is, if one does not see with wisdom that will probably only give rise to more conceit.
Of course knowledge and vision is also not the ultimate goal of Dhamma! (MN24) The goal is being without any clinging. Such is not possible if one develops more and more the idea that one is a knower, has right view etc.
…I think I misunderstood your statement about the mention of no jhana in MN 2.
What I was pointing with my first post is that Right View is a necessity for the ending of taints, in the sense that the 8-fold Path starts with Right View. From this, the path develops, culminating in Right Composure (jhanas).
The summary of MN2, the part you cited, refers to that. The importance of having Right View: to be capable of knowing and seeing the Dhamma.
So yes, yoniso manasikara is crucial, and comes before the jhanas because is one of their foundations.
Also in the context of stilling this is always the disclaimer for the destruction of the taints in the suttas: … And his taints are destroyed by his seeing with wisdom. (many suttas)
Seeing with wisdom is, i believe taught as the only way to the destruction of the taints. There is no experience an sich that is able to destroy the taints.
Even directly knowing Nibbana one can do things wrong:
“He perceives (or directly knows) Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he conceives himself as Nibbāna, he conceives himself in Nibbāna, he conceives himself apart from Nibbāna, he conceives Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. (MN1)
Buddhas teachers did something similar. They had a direct knowledge of the highest arupa jhana but then they started to conceive…‘this is my self, this is me’. I feel, they did not even abandon the first fetter of sakkaya ditthi. They were still engaged in identityviews. Their Path was still focused on who or what am I. Buddha later started to teach this as an unwise attention (MN2).
It is just not supported that experiencing even the highest jhanas is an sich purifying. it just does not even end any fetter. Experiences an sich cannot destroy taints. Only seeing with wisdom can. And Buddhas teachers, even able to enter and abide in highest arupa jhana, did not see with wisdom.
And seeing with wisdom is also not in retrospect, i believe. There must be wisdom present while in jhana. That combination can lead to the end of taints.
Also, on the experiential path there can go so much wrong. Also this is never some safe Path. And that is why one always needs wisdom to destroy the taints.
Gautama’s two teachers, the first had attained and taught concentration entering “the plane of nothingness”, the second taught concentration entering "neither (‘determinate thought’ in) feeling and perceiving nor yet not (‘determinate thought’ in) feeling and perceiving.
Neither attained the signless concentration, the cessation of (‘determinate thought’ in) feeling and perceiving, the last of the arupa jhanas. That was Gautama’s unique achievement, and a total mystery to me why he taught that his enlightenment took place in the fourth jhana (MN 4) and then turned around and recounted the story of his crowning attainment (MN 26), the intuitive wisdom he gained following the signless concentration.
The first four “persons” of the seven existing in the world (MN 70) confirm that “apprehending” and abiding in the arupa jhanas (“incorporeal Deliverances”) is not sufficient to destroy the cankers–my assumption is that by “freed both ways”, Gautama meant both through the arupa jhanas and through “intuitive wisdom”:
And which, monks, is the person who is freed both ways? As to this, monks, some person is abiding, having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; and having seen by means of wisdom (their) cankers are utterly destroyed. I, monks, do not say of this (person) that there is something to be done through diligence. What is the reason for this? It has been done by (them) through diligence, (they) could not become negligent.
And which, monks, is the person who is freed by means of intuitive wisdom? As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; yet, having seen by means of wisdom (their) cankers are utterly destroyed. This, monks, is called the person who is freed by means of intuitive wisdom. I, monks, do not say of this (person) that there is something to be done through diligence. What is the reason for this? It has been done by (them) through diligence, (they) could not become negligent…
And which, monks, is the person who is a mental-realiser? As to this, monks, some person is abiding, having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; and having seen by means of wisdom some (only) of his cankers are utterly destroyed…. This, monks, is called the person who is a mental-realiser. I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence….
And which, monks, is the person that has won to view? As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are having transcended material shapes; yet having seen by means of wisdom some of his cankers are utterly destroyed, and those things that are proclaimed by the Tathagatha are fully seen by him through intuitive wisdom and fully practiced…. This, monks, is called the person who has won to view. I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence….
(MN 70; tr. Pali Text Society [PTS] vol. 2 pp 151-154; more on “The Deliverances”, DN 15, PTS vol. ii pp 68-69; pronouns replaced)
What’s interesting to me here is that all seven persons had “seen by means of wisdom”, yet five of the seven had not completely destroyed the cankers (asavas).
What is the difference, between “intuitive wisdom” and “having seen by means of wisdom”?
Also fascinating, in the fourth person “intuitive wisdom” has been realized with regard to “those things proclaimed by the Tathagatha”, but apparently that’s not the same as being “freed by intuitive wisdom”. Partial “intuitive wisdom”!
In MN 4, Gautama attains the fourth rupa jhana and directs his mind to “prior habitations” and the “passing and arising of beings”, then to the four truths with regard to suffering and an apparently similar four truths with regard to the cankers (are these expounded anywhere?). Well, yeah, if I were seeing my habitations in past lives, and people’s incarnations and re-incarnations, then came to the four truths about suffering and a similar four truths about the cankers, I might feel like a kid that’s touched a hot stove and never will again.
But I don’t anticipate seeing past habitations, or the passing and arising hence of beings.
Fortunately for me, Gautama’s way of living (54.1-54.11, and the mindfulness in Anapanasati) did not depend on the complete destruction of the cankers. I think it probably did depend on regular practice of “the five limbs of concentration”–as I’ve written on my own site:
I believe Gautama took it for granted that his audience understood the role of concentration in the mindfulness that he recommended, just as he took it for granted that his audience understood the role of “one-pointedness” in concentration.
When their mind has become immersed in samādhi like this (FOURTH JHANA) - purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—they project it and extend it toward knowledge of the ending of defilements. They truly understand: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’. They truly understand: ‘These are defilements’ … ‘This is the origin of defilements’ … ‘This is the cessation of defilements’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of defilements’. Knowing and seeing like this, their mind is freed from the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed. They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is nothing further for this place.’
The key seems to be that direct insight into 4NT’s releases one from sensuality, becoming, and ignorance - permanently. That’s not something necessarily true of entering the 9th Jhana. I also (like you) think it’s amazing that the Buddha independently discovers another attainment beyond his two teachers - but more interestingly (to me anyhow) is the mere fact that even his transcendence into the 9th Jhana doesn’t lead to ultimate liberation.
He goes higher than anyone else … and realizes that attainments aren’t the end of suffering. In fact, the direct understanding of the 3rd NT is what leads to liberation. Some have posited that the 9th jhana is inevitably what one enters at paranibbana. I don’t know. Monks in Buddhas time entered 9th and exited without ending the defilements. Apparently one can enter the 9th with conceit in tact. So, it is the end of craving that ends conceit and the supporting factors for rebirth.
Yet, here Ven Sariputta was able to become an arahant by way of freed by wisdom while fanning Buddha. Without having to have seen “passing and arising of beings” (aka no psychic power). Not even sitting meditate. Just hearing True dhamma attentively from Buddha (yoniso manasikara).
MN 74
Now at that time Venerable Sāriputta was standing behind the Buddha fanning him.
Tena kho pana samayena āyasmā sāriputto bhagavato piṭṭhito ṭhito hoti bhagavantaṁ bījayamāno.
Then he thought,
Atha kho āyasmato sāriputtassa etadahosi:
“It seems the Buddha speaks of giving up and letting go all these things through direct knowledge.”
“tesaṁ tesaṁ kira no bhagavā dhammānaṁ abhiññā pahānamāha, tesaṁ tesaṁ kira no sugato dhammānaṁ abhiññā paṭinissaggamāhā”ti.
Reflecting like this, Venerable Sāriputta’smind wasfreed from the defilements by not grasping.
Iti hidaṁ āyasmato sāriputtassa paṭisañcikkhato anupādāya āsavehi cittaṁ vimucci.
I have understood that sannavedayitanirodha may not be seen as a 9th jhana.
It is a unique and different state. Not just a progression of stilling.
There is a lot of discussion what it means to be in this state.
I do not know. Based upon MN43 i believe that there is a meeting, as it were, with the unconditioned. An absorption in the unconditioned dhatu. An absorption with what is naturally signless, empty, undirected, desireless.
And when one comes out of this state what still remains are:
“But ma’am, when a mendicant has emerged from the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling, how many kinds of contact do they experience?” “They experience three kinds of contact: emptiness, signless, and undirected contacts.” (MN44)
I feel this is the kind of contacts a totally pure heart has. We are very used to live in a meaningful dimension with signs, with desires, with a directed mind. All is filled in for us fully automatically and we experience this as the truth of things and persons.
But a pure heart, i believe, abides in another dimension, asankhata. Things do no have a fixed meaning. This is, as it were, always fresh. Always a new start.
There is no history.
For the people in the town Angulimala was just a murderer. Seeing Angulimala this meaning immediately is the reality for them about Angulimala. But a pure heart is empty. Of course it is not blind, but it is always starting fresh. Things and person have no fixed characteristics.
This is also called a state of grace (SN43). Asankhata. The impure mind is constant building upon what happened before, on the past. You meet someone and immediately all kind of associations, past experiences with this person start to colour the perception, as if this IS this person. That is always a failure in view.
A pure heart does not carry this around as some truth about that person.
It is, of course not blind, but it always abides in freshness. It really knows there is no self and there are no possessions of self. That is its forgiving graceful quality and its detachment from conceiving.
About the Path. Some believe it must happen all very mechanically. First this, then that. But i believe such is more a sign of our need to have grip on everything.
About 4th jhana and awakening. I believe the portrayed search of the Buddha was mainly to fully understand birth. Because if birth continues also sickness, death, decay. And if you look into the kind of knowledges he received in 4th jhana, that is all about birth.
So, i believe that his quest came to end when he had a perfect understanding of birth which he received in 4th jhana. He received this knowledge, because this was not constructed knowledge. It is not that a Buddha walks around with knowledge of former lifes and visions about rebirth, but his mind is receptive for this and he can apply mind to receive such info. This is because his heart is cleansed, emptied, very intuitive, receptive, penetrating, direct in touch with reality.
After Gautama became awakened and is thereafter respectfully called The Buddha, he talked about how, before his awakening, he couldn’t reach samadhi because of the hinderances and defilements of his mind. It was only after abandoning those was he able to reach samadhi and then the jhanas in order to see things how they really are. (MN 128) So if one can’t even reach samadhi, and can’t have clear seeing, without clear seeing, how could one awaken?
The suttas share that faith is the nutriment for yoniso manasikara. And the nutriment of faith is hearing true Dhamma. The nutriment for hearing true Dhamma is associating wit good people, nobles (AN10.61)
I feel this shows that yoniso manasikara is always based upon at least some basic understanding of Dhamma. And faith arisen based upon that. The sadhanusarin and dhammanusarin both have faith. They are on the Path to realise the fruit of sotapanna.
But how much understanding must one have?
I do not believe one must have already a very deep understanding of PS or supra mundane right view. I doubt about the reading of the teacher you refered to. Because, for me, it feels he refers to Yoniso Manasikara as a quit deep discernment. But to be honest, i do not really know what he means.
Maybe you can give an example from real life, from your practice that can clarify what yoniso manasikara is? Can you describe in your own words what it means?
Relating to your experience?
MN2 also gives an examples of ayoniso manasikara. What? Being focussed on questions like: 'Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? After being what, what did I become in the past? These are existential questions framed from a metaphysical perspective, i.e. they are based on the underlying assumption of a self. Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? After being what, what will I become in the future?’ Or they are undecided about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? This sentient being—where did it come from? And where will it go?’
I know that many people are focussed this way. They are more on a quest for identity and seekings answers, then on a quest to end suffering. It is a different focus.
I have seen it is exaclty like the sutta says: such always leads to entrapment in views. People experience this or that, and they they develop views like…this is the real me, self…that is not…In others words, sakkaya ditthi remains active and people start to see this or that as me, mine and my self. That is what happens when there is a quest for identity.
But this example, i feel, also implies that ayoniso manasikara is also like a mind directed in a wrong way.
According to SN 12.70 (Susima) and its corresponding SA 347, it states that understanding of ‘conditioned arising’ (including knowing anicca, dukkha, anatta) is essential for liberation (i.e. the cessation of dukkha).
And that understanding of conditioned arising for liberation does not entail the four jhanas and santā vimokkhā ‘calmed emancipations’ (= arūpa meditations) (in SA 347) or abhiññā ‘the psychic power’ and santā vimokkhā (in SN 12.70).
So, jhanā, abhiññā, and arūpa meditations are not needed (unnecessary or unimportant) for liberation.
Most of the sermons I have read, Gautama is respectfully called “Lord”, or “the Exalted One”. Maybe the translators took liberties. I know that in AN 4.36, Gautama goes through a string of labels that don’t apply to him, closing with “Remember me, brahmin, as a Buddha.”
That’s different from referring to him as “the Buddha”, singular.
I think I can say that in all the literature of the world, religious or otherwise, there is nothing like the teachings of Gautama the Shakyan. I have no words, to describe what his teaching has meant for me. Nevertheless, I feel it’s contrary to his teaching to set him apart, and refer to him as “the Buddha”, as though there have never been any others and will never be any others. I guess that’s just me, but I hope you’ll understand why I prefer to refer to him as the Gautamid–doesn’t diminish the significance of his teachings to me, one iota.
Yes, I think it’s fairly universal in his teaching, that overcoming the hindrances preceded the induction of the first concentration (jhana).
Unclear to me what you are trying to differentiate, when you use “samadhi” and “the jhanas” as though they are two separate things, in particular when you say “he was able to reach samadhi and then the jhanas”. From Britannica:
In Buddhism, samadhi is the last of the eight steps leading to enlightenment.
That’s fascinating, thanks for the reference. I will say that the bit about Sariputta stands out like a sore thumb, in the middle of Gautama’s conversation with Dīghanakha.
There is a sermon somewhere with Sariputta sitting in each of the jhanas, all day. Fascinating, captain…