When an individual has four qualities I describe them, not as an invincible ascetic—accomplished in the skillful, excelling in the skillful, attained to the highest attainment—but as having achieved the same level as a little baby.
What four?
It’s when they do no bad deeds with their body; speak no bad words; think no bad thoughts; and don’t earn a living by bad livelihood.
When an individual has these four qualities I describe them, not as an invincible ascetic, but as having achieved the same level as a little baby.
Good sutta, shows that good virtue isn’t an end in itself but a means to samadhi. Someone who stops at good virtue is akin to a baby, but someone who develops jhanas is an ascetic.
The starting point of developing jhanas and being an ascetic is stopping sensual thoughts, something babies and non-ascetics don’t do.
And what are unskillful thoughts? Thoughts of sensuality, of malice, and of cruelty. These are called unskillful thoughts.
I think it’s not necessarily related to the Jhanas.
It’s when a mendicant gives up bad conduct by way of body, speech, and mind, and develops good conduct by way of body, speech, and mind; they give up wrong livelihood and earn a living by right livelihood.
One needs to do good things and abandon bad things to be an ascetic. Both development and renunciation are actions. It’s different from doing nothing like a baby because of limited abilities.
For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘a body’, so how could they possibly do a bad deed with their body, apart from just wriggling?
And a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘speech’, so how could they possibly speak bad words, apart from just crying?
And a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘thought’, so how could they possibly think bad thoughts, apart from just whimpering?
And a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘livelihood’, so how could they possibly earn a living by bad livelihood, apart from their mother’s breast?
Hello Bhante,
This is an interesting question for me. It seems to me that Ajahn Brahm in recent years teaches meditation as doing nothing (when I was at Jhana Grove in 2015 - that s also when I met you - he used the metaphor of the airplane of the future where there is a pilot and a dog. The job the pilot is to do nothing and the job of the dog is to bite of the pilot if the latter does something.) In this sense it’s not an activity but it happens precisely when all activity stops.
I think in Mindfulness Bliss and Beyond meditation was described more as doing something. In the Art of Disappearing and the recent talks it’s more about doing nothing in accordance with no-self.
I have been meditating quite a bit recently and I find that I have to direct my attention through a bit of force now because I developed some tinnitus and if I don’t use some force the attention goes to the wrong place. But my understanding is that doing something leads to increasing the sense of self whereas the aim of meditation as I understand it is to completely let go of the will, which means of all doing.
Anyway please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
When they’ve been given up and eliminated, only thoughts about the teaching are left. That immersion is not peaceful or sublime or tranquil or unified, but is held in place by forceful suppression.
But there comes a time when that mind is stilled internally; it settles, unifies, and becomes immersed in samādhi. That immersion is peaceful and sublime and tranquil and unified, not held in place by forceful suppression. They become capable of realizing anything that can be realized by insight to which they extend the mind, in each and every case.
Not wrong but just to be aware that the original post was looking for sources from the suttas about meditation practice and doing nothing. My responses emphasise that meditation is a process and that the Buddha taught that it requires different things at different times, as you’ll see discussed in my original and subsequent post. We see this also in the Ajahn Brahm quote from Mindfulness Bliss & Beyond given by Stu above about making effort.
Certainly Ajahn Brahm would never contradict the teachings of the Buddha on meditation but rather his instructions are aimed at encouraging an approach of letting go and aimed at certain parts of the meditation experience. Ajahn Brahm’s teachings certainly use the language of doing nothing but his technique also involves some necessary doing, for example he will instruct people to look at the most beautiful part of the Nimitta (making choices) and as you will also know he advises people to tug their ears, or stand up (as the Buddha taught) if they are feeling sleepy, or he will teach metta through hugging teddy bears and instruct people to get in touch with that feeling of tenderness by imaging a kitten etc . It’s not all doing nothing.
As I’ve said there is a time in meditation for doing nothing but it isn’t all the time.
I’ve learned with Ajahn Brahm to ask my mind “What would you like to do?” and sometimes I’m surprised with the answer but it makes the meditation frequently “easier”. As the author of the initial question, many times in the past I’ve wondered thinking “Am I really meditating or just fooling myself?” but nowadays if anything like this happens, I place my attention on this mind state and keep contemplating it, “sitting together” with it.
Always helpful to remember that the mind will often not be in support of your best interest, i.e. the mind (mano) has its own domain and the mind (citta) its own preferences. So, virtue and development in Dhamma won’t always be a top priority of either; “you” and the mind will often be out of alignment. In that respect, the mind (mano) is to be reined in and the mind (citta) known for its shape, i.e. “mind of lust”, “mind of ill-will”, etc…
The six domains, of which mano is the sixth, are described in SN 35.247 as six animals all vying to get into their preferred feeding grounds, and rough you up in the process. And in SN 35.238mano is described as an empty village waiting to be attacked by raiders, of which the thoughts are one of the attackers. So, mano left to its own devices will not necessarily look out for you if it is not properly restrained through previous effort.
As far as mind (citta), I don’t think there is a more powerful message than the one given in Thag 19.1, where the former actor, Tālapuṭa has a one-on-one with his mind. Of the numerous mentions of mind in those verses only two are in reference to mano, the rest are citta. Aside from the most obvious in SN 47.8, here in Thag 19.1 is one of the clearest descriptions of that “sign of the mind” (cittanimitta). When Tālapuṭa was a layperson, his mind urged him to the ascetic life, yet once he was secluded in the wilderness, his mind urged him back to the lay life. He understood that the mind had its own preference and that it was unreliable and that it needed to be tamed through his efforts.
Sorry for saying so much here, but either mind, unless it has been developed to a very significant extent, cannot be trusted to naturally incline towards nor prefer virtue and wisdom. Just be careful when you let it go where it wants.
I’ve taken my time to think about your reply and check the suttas you mentioned. Thank you for taking your time to respond.
With the risk of catching the wrath of the moderators (just kidding…) I’ll elaborate a bit more. Sometimes I feel I should focus on my body, other times on my feelings, especially when I notice there is something bubbling at the back of my mind, other times just being open and mindful to whatever shows up at the door mind. This is what I meant by “asking” my mind what to do - After all, is there anything else but the mind? Even the subject that asks is part of the mind.
Nevertheless, I realize it seems there are two trends in meditation teachers. The ones that seem to belong to the Marine Corps (no pain no gain, maximum effort, burst or die, don’t dare change your position regardless of the pain) and the gentle ones (Ajahn Brahm, Sayadaw Tejaniya, for example). Perhaps because I’m a beginner, I always got frustrated with the former approach.
This is interesting, because yes we have that unified blob that we call ‘mind’, but as you point out there are also different parts of the mind. So while one part of the mind can sit back and relax, another part can be on active duty. Ajahn Brahm talks about setting up the gatekeeper (part of the mind) here:
You can grasp something called apple, but i belief you cannot grasp something which is refered to as mind. Where does it refer too? Are intentions/emotions/thoughts/perceptions etc the same as mind? Or do they arise in the mind as often said. Is mind the same as vinnana or does vinnana arise in the mind? Is mind moving? Does it not move at all? Has it two faces? An active one and an inactive one? Is the inactive part unborn, undying? Has it colour, a shape? If thoughts arise does the mind move?
Is mind the same as heart or heart-base or the same as intellect? Is mind really the same as mentallity? Does mind only refer to the the conscious aspect of our lives are also the unconscious? Is cetasika the same as mind? Do we all have a seperate mind or is that an illusion and is there only one mind? Is mind boundless of does it have limits in time and space?
Maybe this sutta (AN6.63) covers much of the ground you are looking at?
Talking of ‘apples’ - Ajahn Brahm has this simile:
The Nature of Citta
When you sustain superpower mindfulness on the pure citta, the nature of all types of consciousness reveals itself. You see consciousness not as a smoothly flowing process but as a series of discrete, isolated events. Consciousness may be compared to a stretch of sand on a beach. Superficially the sand looks continuous over several hundred meters. But after you investigate it closely, you discover that it is made up of discrete, isolated particles of silicate. There are empty spaces between each particle of sand, with no essential sandiness flowing in the gap between any two particles. In the same way, that which we take to be the flow of consciousness is clearly seen to be a series of discrete events, with nothing flowing in between.
Another analogy is the fruit salad analogy. Suppose on a plate there is an apple. You clearly see this apple completely disappear and in its place appears a coconut. Then the coconut vanishes and in its place appears another apple. Then the second apple vanishes and another coconut is there. That vanishes and a banana appears, only to vanish when another coconut manifests on the plate, then another banana, coconut, apple, coconut, mango, coconut, lemon, coconut, and so on. As soon as one fruit vanishes, then a moment later a completely new fruit appears. They are all fruits but completely different varieties, with no two fruits the same. Moreover, no connecting fruit-essence flows from one fruit to the next. In this analogy, the apple stands for an event of eye consciousness, the banana for an incident of nose consciousness, the mango for taste consciousness, the lemon for body consciousness, and the coconut for mind consciousness. Each moment of consciousness is discrete, with nothing flowing from one moment to the next.
Mind consciousness, the “coconut,” appears after every other species of consciousness and thereby gives the illusion of sameness to every conscious experience. To the average person, there is a quality in seeing that is also found in hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching. We can call that quality “knowing.” However, with superpower mindfulness, you will discern that this knowing is not part of seeing, hearing, and so on, but arises a moment after each type of sense consciousness. Moreover, this knowing has vanished when, for example, eye consciousness is occurring. And eye consciousness has vanished when knowing (mind consciousness) is occurring. In the simile of the fruit salad, there can’t be an apple and a coconut on the plate at the same time.
That Which Knows Is Not Self
Contemplating consciousness in this way—seeing it as a series of discrete, isolated events with no thing continuing from one moment to the next—undermines the illusion that there is a knower, constantly present, which is always there to receive the experience of the world. You are unraveling the last refuge of the illusion of a self. Previously it may have seemed so obvious to you that “I am the one who knows.” But what seems obvious is often wrong. Now you see it as just a “knowing,” as mind consciousness, like the coconut that is sometimes there and sometimes not. Citta is just a natural phenomenon, subject to ceasing. It cannot be me, mine, or a self. That which knows, citta, is finally understood as anattā.
Satipaṭṭhāna, as noted above, is practiced for the purpose of realizing anattā—no-self. The two last resorts of the illusion of a self or soul are the knower and the doer. If you identify with anything as the essential “you,” it will be one or both of these.You assume that you are that which does or that which knows. These two deep-seated, long-held delusions are what stand between you and enlightenment. See through these illusions once, and you are a stream winner. See through these illusions every time, and you are an arahant.
@stu, nice similes, sounds very much like Abhidhamma view on how we experience the world, as a continues stream while it is build up by discrete moment.
But, i belief (yes i choose for this) we cannot understand ourselves and the nature of the citta from the dual perspective of a subject and object, a knower and something known. Also not from mindfulness. Mindfulness has to cease to, to understand the nature of citta.
I feel, that is also the message of many great teachers, for example Maha Boowa but also Kalu Rinpoche and many others. Fundamental delusion or ignorance creates two poles in the mind, that of a subject and a object, and once that polarity has arisen, winds starts to flow, things inside us start to ferment, well up.
From that dual perspective you are born, you are a human, a unique self. From that perspective you change, get old, die. etc. From that perspective there is arising and ceasing. That belongs to conventional knowledge about citta and ourselves.
But i have seen teachers wittness of a breaktrough in which all conventional reality (all cetasika, all sankhara, rupa, vinnana’s etc) ceases, also mindfulness and what then reveals, pure Dhamma, has been hidden all the time due to fundamentel avijja. Then one knows in a direct totally non theoretical non contemplative way the nature of citta.
In the non-conventional way the Buddha, i belief, talked about himself as deep, unfathomable, immeasurable like the ocean (MN72).
Apologies for not returning to continue the discussion. It has been a very busy week.
Rightfully so. Such intensified practices are often without a practical aim, and are rewarding only to the extent that one remains in line with the determination established beforehand, which may not be thoroughly grounded in what is absolutely necessary for discernment. Ven. Sambhūta, in Thag 4.7, had some great advice about knowing the right time for more or less of such an intensification in general. I suppose a good rule of thumb is to do the work that is most available and apparent, and sometimes that means working on the lifestyle above all else. Without virtue and restraint, meditation won’t be feasible, as can be seen with the simile of the mountain cow in AN 9.35.
I think it is interesting that he doesn’t teach about the gatekeeper any longer; I remember asking him around 2014 when he came to Cambridge. I think that he mentioned kindfulness as the new way of conveying this idea.
Also in a previous post you mentioned the sentence on effort at the beginning of his book, I think he tends to use the word ‘endeavor’ now, also recently he said the effort is that which leads you to the meditation cushion but when you meditate it should be effortless.
I am saying this because I think there has been some change in the way he teaches. For example also in Mindfulness Bliss and Beyond he wrote somewhere that the steps he teaches are not beyond our ability; I think this language is different from the one he uses now because ability implies an agent, whereas nowadays I have the impression he puts the accent more on the idea of no self.ķ
Maybe some venerable can comment on this, because i find it confusing. Maybe someone can give some clarity about this subject of knowing.
Maha Boowa says this in arahattamagga/phlala (page 30) :
“The citta is the nature that knows that the pain appears, remains briefly, and ceases. But the citta, the true knowing essence, does not arise and pass away like the body and the feelings do. The citta’s knowing presence is the one stable constant”.
"So long as the citta, under the authority of kãmarãga, believes this internal imagery to be real and substantial, desire and aversion will occur. Internalized forms are then cherished or despised according to their perceived nature—either good or bad, attractive or repulsive. The citta’s perspective is then divided between these two extremes. It is tricked into identifying with a world of duality and instability. The citta’s knowing does not arise or pass away, but it mimics the traits of those things—like the kilesas and the khandhas—that do. When wisdom finally sees through the deception, the citta no longer harbours these phenomena although they continue to arise and vanish in the sphere of the khandhas. The citta is thus empty of such phenomena. (page 52)
In the Glossary it says:
The citta is the mind’s essential knowing nature, the fundamental quality of knowing that underlies all sentient existence. When associated with a physical body, it is referred to as “mind” or “heart”. Being corrupted by the defiling influence of fundamental ignorance (avijjã), its currents “flow out” to manifest as feelings (vedanã), memory (saññã), thoughts (sankhãra), and consciousness (viññãõa), thus embroiling the citta in a web of self-deception. It is deceived about its own true nature. The true nature of the citta is that it simply “knows”. There is no subject, no object, no duality; it simply knows. The citta does not arise or pass away; it is never born and never dies. Normally, the “knowing nature” of the citta is timeless, boundless, and radiant, but this true nature is obscured by the defilements (kilesa) within it. Through the power of fundamental ignorance, a focal point of the “knower” is created from which that knowing nature views the world outside. The establishment of that false center creates a “self” from whose perspective consciousness flows out to perceive the duality of the “knower” and the “known”. Thus the citta becomes entangled with things that are born, become ill, grow old, and die, and therefore, deeply involved it in a whole mass of suffering. In this book the citta is often referred to as the heart; the two are synonymous. The heart forms the core within the body. It is the center, the substance, the primary essence within the body. It is the basic foundation. Conditions that arise from the citta, such as thoughts, arise there. Goodness, evil, happiness, and suffering all come together in the heart.
It seems one teachers wants me to understand also knowing is unstable, arising and ceasing, and it is only an illusion that there is a constant knowing, and the message of another teacher seem to be exactly the opposite: arising and ceasing of knowing is an illusion because the knowing essence is involved in defilements. Or?
Yeah, sure. That’s quite possible. I think that Ajahn is pretty flexible when teaching, so he moves things around dependent on circumstances and the person asking the question.
It’s probably not his teaching or your understanding of his teaching that have changed, but the relationship between his teaching and your understanding that has changed Sorry
Anyway, leaving my terrible (in) joke aside, the gatekeeper is not an Ajahn Brahm teaching, it’s a Buddha teaching - Due to different numbering, the reference in the article that I posted is not a SC reference, the SC reference is AN7.67. Having said that, if you find that the gatekeeper teaching doesn’t work, then you should try something else.
Yeah. I like those teachings and he’s been doing that for a while. For example, in Talk #6 {May 2000) in Simply This Moment he talks about the whole thing being a natural process and uses AN10.2 as a framework.
Mendicants, an ethical person, who has fulfilled ethical conduct, need not make a wish: ‘May I have no regrets!’ It’s only natural that an ethical person has no regrets. When you have no regrets you need not make a wish: ‘May I feel joy!’ It’s only natural that joy springs up when you have no regrets. When you feel joy you need not make a wish: ‘May I experience rapture! …
Yes, many Thai forest sangha have some weird concepts, such as ajahn mahaboowa’s permanent cotta, or ajahn sumedho’s pure consciousness and so on which harbors stable awareness, or knowing. Basically Theravada has two camps, one camp believes there is something enters nibbana, like above cases, another camp believe nothing enters nibbana, like most people of abhidhamma tradition.
Yes that’s interesting I talked to a monk once about this and he also thinks Ajahn Brahm"s way of teaching hasn’t changed so perhaps it’s me. In the preface to the Art of disappearing he does
write about it being a different type of book which unlike the previous one makes you less of a person and not more.
It seems to me that the good meditations just happen, it"s all very easy or “automatic” and it’s not something that you do. Though perhaps you do need to use some force and efforts in many previous meditations in order for the good ones to happen.
- he used the metaphor of the airplane of the future where there is a pilot and a dog. The job the pilot is to do nothing and the job of the dog is to bite of the pilot if the latter does something.) In this sense it’s not an activity but it happens precisely when all activity stops.
- Ajahn Brahm has this simile: