The Practice of 'Doing Nothing'

[Sunyo]

Good topic.

For those interested, these talks I think are of relevance. It shows the suttas on the gatekeeper, and the difference between ‘doing nothing’ (bare awareness) and ‘mindfulness’.

Mindfulness in the early texts (Sutta discussion) part 1 - Bhante Sunyo | 14 NOV 2021

Bhante Sunyo - Mindfulness in the early texts (Sutta discussion) part 2 | 21 NOV 2021

[stu]

@Green

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?

And just to ‘throw another spanner into the works’ we have SN47.42

The mind originates from name and form.
Nāmarūpasamudayā cittassa samudayo;

When name and form cease, the mind ends.
nāmarūpanirodhā cittassa atthaṅgamo.

[Green]

@mudita

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.

I think a third position is the understanding, seen in this life, that the deepest and pure nature of mind or ourselves is not different from the asankhata element which is without arising, ceasing and changing.
So, the idea of entering into Nibbana in this life or after this life is seen from that an illusion. That idea of something or someone entering Nibbana is, i think, still based of an idea of a self. One can only see ones deepest nature is an unborn, unmade, unbecome. I belief this is refered to in EBT as seeing the deathless.

I do personally not think those Thai have weird concepts. It is very close to Zen sometimes and later traditions but i feel it is rooted in de Pali texts too.

The key is, i feel, that we do not know ourselves, our true self, meaning we do not understand that what arises and ceases is not me and mine and also what does not arise and cease is also not me and mine. We do not know it as it is, but conceive it as me and mine. And that act of conceiving hinders wisdom, and directly knowing things as they are. If we conceive knowing to be Me, than we have no direct knowledge of the nature of that knowing. If we conceive anger to be me and mine than we have no direct knowledge of the anger etc.

What maha Boowa and later buddhist also teach is that if one bring attention inside and investigates the knowing nature, there can come a moment when one gets direct knowledge of its nature. A direct meeting with it. Then one sees also that knowing is egoless. Now one is not blind anymore.

I think the difference between a worldling like me, and an arahant is that a worldling can have an intuitive understanding of the truth of egolessness, or might have some (mystical) experiences in that direction, but an arahant has seen it in a direct manner. And the intuitive understanding does not free the mind.

Maha Boowa is, i belief, very clear that one cannot see the nature of knowing from a personal or subjective perspective in the mind. The personal perspective has to dissolve and only then one will see directly the nature of that knowing. Everything that is seen from a dual perspective of a subject-who-knows-this-or-that, is still wordly, conventional wisdom, wordly wisdom. From that perspective there is always an impression of a Me-who-knows. He referes to this as the avijja citta. It is still ruled by fundamental avijja.

In think that where teachers come together is in the egoless nature and the uprooting of ego-longing, ego-conceit, and underlying tendency to ego-conceit, which is, i feel, totally breaking with any conceived self-knowledge. It does not mean one has no knowledge of oneself, because one knows oneself directly in all aspects, but one has not conceived self-knowledge.

[Green]

@stu

And just to ‘throw another spanner into the works’ we have SN47.42

The mind originates from name and form.
Nāmarūpasamudayā cittassa samudayo;

When name and form cease, the mind ends.
nāmarūpanirodhā cittassa atthaṅgamo.

Most of the time namarupa is related to vinnana.

@stu , what does it mean for you that the texts speak about the asankhata dhatu?
What does it mean for you that they characterise asankhata as: an arising and ceasing is not seen and no change in the meantime?
What does it mean for you this must also be known, like sutta says.

For me it feels like you do not incorporate the asankhata in your understanding of Dhamma.
In what way plays this asankhata a role for you? How do you understand this?

For me it plays a role as the one stable. If all about us is sankhata, then all about is unstable. But then there is no escape too. Then stability is delusion because everyones nature would be very unstable. I feel this makes no sense. I like to belief Budha talked about asankahta to share there is a stable ‘element’.