"That's how you should train yourself."

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

"That's how you should train yourself."

Postby buddhaflower » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:15 am

Hi all, Image


"That's how you should train yourself."
[Presented by Dr.Tep Sastri @ SD/JTN]


The following passage of the Anathapindikovada Sutta and a Commentary are thought provoking!

"I am not getting better, venerable sir. I am not comfortable. My severe pains are increasing, not lessening. ..."
"Then, householder, you should train yourself in this way:
'I won't cling to the eye; my consciousness will not be dependent on the eye.' That's how you should train yourself. ...
'I won't cling to the intellect; my consciousness will not be dependent on the intellect.' That's how you should train yourself.
[Tasmaatiha te gahapati, eva.m sikkhitabba.m: 'na cakkhu.m upaadiyissaamii. Na ca me cakkhunissita.m viññaa.na.m bhavissatii'ti. Eva.m hi te gahapati, sikkhitabba.m. ... Tasmaatiha te gahapati, eva.m sikkhitabba.m: 'na mana.m upaadiyissaamii. Na ca me manonissita.m viññaa.na.m bhavissatii'ti. Eva.m hi te gahapati, sikkhitabba.m. ]

Commentary: Herein. "You should practise thus 'I will have no attachment to the eye' " is said to exhort the Householder to view the eye as impermanent, woeful (dukkha) and unsubstantial. This is so because if one views the eye as impermanent, Conceit cannot have any foothold, i.e., it cannot arise, if one views the eye as woeful (dukkha) . Craving attachment to the eye as 'my eye' cannot arise; if one views that eye as unsubstantial, the Wrong View of a personal identity or the ego as 'my self ' cannot arise. Hence to be free of the misconceptions through Conceit, Craving and Wrong View, one should repeatedly view the eye as impermanent, woeful (dukkha) and unsubstantial.
The three misconceptions of Conceit, Craving and Wrong View are crude mental States. Even when those misconceptions may disappear there is a subtle fondness (nikanti) for the eye that tends to persist in one. The Venerable Sariputta exhorts the Householder to have his consciousness to be free of this subtle fondness. The same applies to the five other sense bases such as ear, nose, etc. and also to sense-objects, etc. [End of Commentary]
...................

Apparently, Arahant Sariputta's teaching was to remind the householder not to be overwhelmed by the pains, and to urgently focus attention to develop the insight knowledge before death would soon arrive. It does not seem possible <for me> that the contemplation 'I will have no attachment to the eye' can instantly cut off clinging to the eye, etc.

*************
Buddhaflower :anjali:
User avatar
buddhaflower
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:50 pm

Re: "That's how you should train yourself."

Postby jeeprs » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:34 am

Buddhaflower wrote:It does not seem possible <for me> that the contemplation 'I will have no attachment to the eye' can instantly cut off clinging to the eye, etc.


I take 'clinging to the eye' as 'being attached to visual sensations'. When you sit in meditation, you are relinquishing visual sensations. This doesn't mean you don't have any visual sensations, but you are not seeking them and are not attached to them. They simply come and go, like all sensations do.

It is similar in day to day life. We are visual beings - those of us who are not blind, of course! - and so we are constantly taking in visual perceptions (as well as auditory, tactile, and so on.) I think the teaching is about not being attached to such sensations, which doesn't mean not having them or walking around with your eyes closed, but letting them go whenever they cease, and not craving for them when they are not present. That is 'detachment', not 'suppression'. Whereas one who is attached to sensations, wishes to see certain sights, or is attached to particular perceptions or stimuli. How does that usually show up in life? I would think in terms of addictions and dependencies of various kinds, as well as wanting things that you see. 'Ah, I must have that. I love the look of that particular piece of jewelry, I would like to have that. I love that car, that is the car I must have. (Or woman/man/house/computer/ and so on....)

It is hard to understand what 'severe pains' means in that passage. I don't think it is referring to an actual medical condition, but the emotional distress caused by clinging. That usually is based in 'wanting things to be a certain way'. 'I don't want this to happen, I want that instead'. I suppose that can manifest in all kinds of ways - for instance in neuroses, in being unhappy about one's identity or appearance. That would be how I would understand 'attachment to appearances' in this particular context.

Of course again it is normal to be concerned with one's identity and appearance to some degree. It is when it becomes a something you cling to compulsively that it causes emotional distress. So here the advise is 'just notice this is a sensation, that is all. It is not substantial, it has no real own-being. When you notice it is empty of own-being then you are less likely to be attached to it, it looses its importance to you and you don't need to cling to it.'

That would be my interpretation.

:anjali:
He that knows it, knows it not.
User avatar
jeeprs
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: "That's how you should train yourself."

Postby buddhaflower » Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:29 pm

jeeprs wrote:
Buddhaflower wrote:It does not seem possible <for me> that the contemplation 'I will have no attachment to the eye' can instantly cut off clinging to the eye, etc.


I take 'clinging to the eye' as 'being attached to visual sensations'. When you sit in meditation, you are relinquishing visual sensations. This doesn't mean you don't have any visual sensations, but you are not seeking them and are not attached to them. They simply come and go, like all sensations do.

It is similar in day to day life. We are visual beings - those of us who are not blind, of course! - and so we are constantly taking in visual perceptions (as well as auditory, tactile, and so on.) I think the teaching is about not being attached to such sensations, which doesn't mean not having them or walking around with your eyes closed, but letting them go whenever they cease, and not craving for them when they are not present. That is 'detachment', not 'suppression'. Whereas one who is attached to sensations, wishes to see certain sights, or is attached to particular perceptions or stimuli. How does that usually show up in life? I would think in terms of addictions and dependencies of various kinds, as well as wanting things that you see. 'Ah, I must have that. I love the look of that particular piece of jewelry, I would like to have that. I love that car, that is the car I must have. (Or woman/man/house/computer/ and so on....)

It is hard to understand what 'severe pains' means in that passage. I don't think it is referring to an actual medical condition, but the emotional distress caused by clinging. That usually is based in 'wanting things to be a certain way'. 'I don't want this to happen, I want that instead'. I suppose that can manifest in all kinds of ways - for instance in neuroses, in being unhappy about one's identity or appearance. That would be how I would understand 'attachment to appearances' in this particular context.

Of course again it is normal to be concerned with one's identity and appearance to some degree. It is when it becomes a something you cling to compulsively that it causes emotional distress. So here the advise is 'just notice this is a sensation, that is all. It is not substantial, it has no real own-being. When you notice it is empty of own-being then you are less likely to be attached to it, it looses its importance to you and you don't need to cling to it.'

That would be my interpretation.

:anjali:

--------
Dear Jeeprs,

So sorry, take me so long to reply :tongue:

You expain that attachment is caused by 'visual sensation' and 'visual perception' and that 'letting them go whenever they cease, and not craving for them when they are not present'. And I thankfully agree.

I also appreciate the advice you put at the end of the message : 'When you notice it is empty of own-being then you are less likely to be attached to it, it looses its importance to you and you don't need to cling to it.' Wonderful interpretation!

Buddhaflower :anjali:
User avatar
buddhaflower
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:50 pm


Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan74, Google [Bot], jeeprs, Lotus108, MSN [Bot] and 18 guests

>