Š Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 1 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' by Mathias on Sun 29 Mar 2009 - 20:02 After reading certain suttas, for example SN 35.74/75, in which people/monks attain streamentry or even arahatship after a short dialogue with the Buddha, I have to admit that no such thing happens to me, even though that dialogue is in front of my eyes and written in plain German/English. Let me give you an example. The Buddha asks: "What do you think, monk: Is the eye constant or inconstant?" And the monk answers: "Inconstant, lord." Stop! Of course I also think that the eye is inconstant, but I don't see it. I cannot eliminate with certainty the possibility of a constant eye. Maybe this eye is inconstant, but what about other eyes? How do you know that all (possible) eyes are inconstant without exception? To be honest, I don't even know for sure that I will die some day. I see others die, but maybe I am the only exception? So it is more than obvious that I don't see anicca. My question is: How? How? How? How to see that "whatever has the nature of arising, all that has the nature of ceasing" ? I have read the suttas, the writings of Ven. Nanavira Thera, Ven. Bodhesako and many others. I'm not new to buddhism. I uphold the precepts, try to be mindful (in the sense of satipatthana), try to figure out the meaning of the teachings, but nothing happens. After years of earnest search I'm sick and tired of waiting for some miracle. I believe that the Buddha is right, I trust him, but I want to know. But how? What exactly did the monk do to arrive at the conclusion: "Inconstant, lord."? I have the feeling that my practice leads me nowhere. According to the suttas, streamentry does not require a homeless life, celibacy or sitting for hours in meditation every day, so what's wrong with me? What's wrong with all those earnest people who follow the teachings for years or even decades and are still puthujjanas? Something has to be wrong, otherwise they should also be able to know/say "Inconstant, lord." after reading questions like "What do you think, monk: Is the eye constant or inconstant?" What hinders me to see? Bad kamma? Or just fear to face the truth? I don't know. But one thing I know for sure: I want certainty in this life. If this is not possible I don't want it at all. Best wishes, Mathias by Acha on Mon 30 Mar 2009 - 3:20 Hi Mathias, I am by no means an authority on these matters and hopefully you will get a response from someone better placed than me who will address some of your questions. However just an observation, between friends as it were (since I certainly am not free of this conceit): that there is an awful lot of reference to 'I' and 'me' (in other words, 'self') in your message. I suspect Nanavira in particular would suggest that this is a large part of the problem. In effect (if I can be so presumptuous) I think he would suggest an effort at more detachment - and a lot of his post-1960 writings deal with just this topic.
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 2 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' I have been circling around Nanavira's writings in particular for over thirty years now and I also wonder how much progress I have made. Nanavira clearly achieved a huge amount more in a lot less time - but then I am not Nanavira and it is probably foolish to measure myself against him. At other times however I feel that my loose practice of awareness, along with insights gained from the Buddha and Nanavira, have helped me incrementally. Without them who knows where I would be - but almost certainly I would have had even worse problems. Maybe this is more the approach of old-age, but an acceptance of things in onself is a grace that can be a great comfort and help at difficult times (as long as you still keep applying the practice that you so earnestly describe). As always, Nanavira has wise words to guide. I like the one below from the Commonplace Book (particularly for the wry last comment - because of course for people like us there are always times when things seem to be going well and other times when we feel despondent that they are not): "Even if you cannot gain concentration, at least you can be mindful. If you are always mindful you may gain concentration. But whether you do or not, perpetual mindfulness is the remedy against depression. If you are always mindful, even when tired or disinclined, you will have no regrets. This is your final refuge; and it cannot fail; but it is not achieved without perpetual effort, and perpetual effort is not easy. Unless you determine on this effort you are lost. This is written in fair weather: read it in foul." I hope these comments, very much between equals, will help. Good luck and all the best, Acha by Mathias on Mon 30 Mar 2009 - 12:08 Dear Acha, thank you very much for your answer. You are right: There is an awful lot of reference to "I" and "me" (in other words, "self") in my message. And of course that is a large part of the problem, a problem that I'm trying to solve, because it makes me suffer so much. What else could be the problem if not this kind of suffering based on "self"? Beneath a certain level of suffering there would be no reason for me to struggle for liberation. Liberation from what? Ven. Nanavira wrote: It is a matter of one's fundamental attitude to one's own existence—is there, or is there not, a present problem or, rather, anxiety that can only be resolved in the present?
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 3 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' In my case there is a present problem/anxiety that can only be solved in the present. It's a pressing problem. I don't want to die with it. Of course the teachings helped me a lot to purify my behaviour, and that feels good, but being a "nice guy" is just not enough for me. No Buddha is needed to achieve this. You quote Ven. Nanavira: "Even if you cannot gain concentration, at least you can be mindful. If you are always mindful you may gain concentration. But whether you do or not, perpetual mindfulness is the remedy against depression. If you are always mindful, even when tired or disinclined, you will have no regrets. This is your final refuge; and it cannot fail; but it is not achieved without perpetual effort, and perpetual effort is not easy. Unless you determine on this effort you are lost. This is written in fair weather: read it in foul." One of my favourites too. It is good to read it again. Thank you for reminding me of this. "Perpetual effort" ... Maybe I put too much effort in wishful thinking instead of trying to be mindful all the time. Best wishes, Mathias by Mathias on Mon 30 Mar 2009 - 22:55 I wrote out of despair. Anicca is not hidden. But I'm blind. My vision is obstructed by the five hindrances. The mind is not still enough to see the truth. That's the problem. When I have mastered the four jhanas and still can't see anicca under the guidance of the Buddhas teachings, I'll come back and complain again. At least I would have a far better reason to do so. Forgive me, Mathias by Acha on Tue 31 Mar 2009 - 2:51 That's a very open and honest response, Mathias. As is so often the case I think you know the answer to your own question. In fact you state it beautifully - "Maybe I put too much effort in wishful thinking instead of trying to be mindful all the time." I think you know what to do now when faced with these sorts of thoughts and feelings!
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 4 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' Acha by Bhikkhu Nyanamoli on Tue 31 Mar 2009 - 23:52 Dear Mathias, I hope you don't mind me trying the reply to your original post at this stage. Let me start from your openning paragraph: After reading certain suttas, for example SN 35.74/75, in which people/monks attain stream-entry or even arahatship after a short dialogue with the Buddha, I have to admit that no such thing happens to me, even though that dialogue is in front of my eyes and written in plain German/English. The dialogue in itself cannot bring the realization of the Right view, and I am sure you are aware of it. We all go around carrying great deal of "preconceived notions", as Ven. Ñāṇavīra would often say it, about our own experience, and because of that even if we come to hear the right words, we cannot grasp the full meaning of them, until we are rid from any accumulated ideas and views. Some person can spend a lifetime listening the Buddha or reading his teachings and still not obtain even the initial knowledge of the path, yet someone else can just hear one sentence and that would be enough. Considering the fact that it was 2.500 years since the Buddha has passed away, which means that the core of his teaching has become even more obscure then ever before, one should come to terms with the idea that obtaining the Right view will be extremely difficult and will require tremendous amount of effort and giving up. This doesn't mean that it is impossible, on the contrary, but what should one accept is the fact that, although the amount of effort which is necessary varies from person to person, in present time it is most likely that it will be vast, i.e. one will have to keep applying oneself for a long time, until the results are reached. The Buddha asks: "What do you think, monk: Is the eye constant or inconstant?" And the monk answers: "Inconstant, lord." Stop! Of course I also think that the eye is inconstant, but I don't see it. I cannot eliminate with certainty the possibility of a constant eye. Maybe this eye is inconstant, but what about other eyes? How do you know that all (possible) eyes are inconstant without exception? Well, in terms of practical advice, try seeing what 'this' eye has in common with 'that' eye, what 'this' form has in common with 'that' form, etc. You will see that any eye (or form), whether this or that, is an eye. Thus, you don't have to go and examine each eye individually, seeing the nature of every eye (form...) is what is required. Everything is a thing. Whether you experience something internally, externally, or both internally and externally, that what you experience is a thing (dhamma) as such. Whether you perceive things with your senses, or mind, again you perceive - things. In most general terms, whatever is an object of your experience is a thing, and even further we can say that even the experience as such is also a thing. This might or might not make much sense to you, but what is important is to make an effort and learn how to see it
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 5 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' directly, rather then conceptualizing it and then deciding whether to agree with it or not. Cultivating seeing of this general nature of things is nothing else then practising the Dhamma. Once you establish yourself in viewing your experience phenomenologically, which is basically nothing but establishing yourself in attitudes of mindfulness-and-awareness, the Buddha's words and the descriptions will gradually start to apply to your experience, and then you will come to see what was meant by 'eye', by 'inconstant' and so on. How to see that "whatever has the nature of arising, all that has the nature of ceasing"? Try by purifying your precepts as much as you can ('seeing the danger in the slightest fault'), practising samādhi, and constantly pondering on the meanings of the Suttas and Ñānavīra Thera writings. Seeing that 'whatever has the nature of arising, has the nature of ceasing', means seeing that whatever appears, does so through being determined. By seeing this, you automatically experience thing as impermanent, i.e. you don't have to think about it and chase the loose ends of your ideas you have developed before (no matter how useful they might have been). After years of earnest search I'm sick and tired of waiting for some miracle. Indeed it is wrong to expect any kind of miracle to happen, but it is also wrong to blame yourself for that. As a puthujjana you cannot help but to keep expecting something to happen, and there will be nothing wrong in this - as long as you keep striving. The person who gives up because of the lack of miracles and "visible" proofs of practice progressing is blameworthy. Here is an extract from one essay I wrote sometime ago (it's unfinished again) which addresses this very issue: Thus, it is the repeated seeing of the things outlined above, repeated as many times as necessary for ignorance to disappear completely. This should make it fairly clear that the awakening does not 'happen' suddenly or instantly, as it is commonly (and conveniently) supposed. People, when undertaking practice of this Teaching, expect that if they are 'lucky', the pieces (the Teaching and one's experience) will eventually fit in a 'click', so to speak, and on their own accord. So they set to try 'fitting' them properly, in a hope of that click to happen, but, it seems that it never does. Even if the 'pieces' are placed together 'tightly' they do not seem to stay like that, sooner or later they drift apart. However, if one is persistent in own effort, one will continue those attempts of 'fitting them' regardless to the apparent lack of result. And if those attempts are repeated sufficient number of times the pieces will drift apart slower and slower and also less frequently until eventually they will remain together. But, even then they will not 'click', and that is simply because such thing is not possible, i.e. the earlier idea of them 'clicking' in some sort of a perfect match was a direct product of one's unreduced amount of ignorance. So, needless to say, when one reaches the point of pieces not drifting apart so easily one will not need them to click, because by then it will be clearly seen that the 'fitting' of them is what matters and when this is fully developed the possibility of conceiving them apart will cease to exist. You go further in saying:
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 6 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' Something has to be wrong... Perhaps it does, but perhaps you also expect that 'something' to be a sort of a thing which is palpable and clear, so you can easily throw it away or destroy it. Remember what Ven. Ñāṇavīra said, the avijjā has to be unscrewed, it cannot be pulled out. But one thing I know for sure: I want certainty in this life. If this is not possible I don't want it at all. This is perfectly alright, the Dhamma has to take priority of one's life, that is, if one wants to gain any real understanding. Life has to be let go of, otherwise it is not possible to obtain the 'bigger picture'. With this kind of attitude you will be able to push yourself as far as necessary and hopefully get the results you want, but then, you will also have to take the full responsibility for all of the risks involved and any undesirable outcomes which might happen in that process. No one can guarantee you success, but then, if you have truly seen the pitiful nature of all of one's desires and actions, you would agree that there is not much to lose after all. I hope this helps somehow, and I trust you won't mind this slightly protracted post. With best wishes, Bhikkhu Ñāṇamoli by Mathias on Wed 1 Apr 2009 - 1:55 Dear Bhante Nanamoli, thank you very much for this reply. It was helpful again, especially the part about what it means to see 'whatever has the nature of arising, has the nature of ceasing' and that awakening is not a 'click'. I'm waiting too much for a sudden happening that will change 'everything'. But when I look back I have to admit that no 'clicks' were involved in my progress so far (unless intellectually). Over the years something changed for the better, but I have to look back to really see the difference. Bhante Nyanamoli wrote: Try by purifying your precepts as much as you can ('seeing the danger in the slightest fault'), practising samādhi, and constantly pondering on the meanings of the Suttas and Ñānavīra Thera writings. The biggest problem in my case seems to be the (regular) practice of samadhi. It is just too easy not to do it. Holding the precepts and pondering on the meanings of the teachings involves some sense of achievement and enjoyment for me. But to sit down and watch the breath (for example) is always about overcoming the resistance to do it.
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 7 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' Bhante Nyanamoli wrote: This is perfectly alright, the Dhamma has to take priority of one's life, that is, if one wants to gain any real understanding. Life has to be let go of, otherwise it is not possible to obtain the 'bigger picture'. With this kind of attitude you will be able to push yourself as far as necessary and hopefully get the results you want, but then, you will also have to take the full responsibility for all of the risks involved and any undesirable outcomes which might happen in that process. Can you please explain what you mean by 'undesirable outcomes'? Thank you. Best wishes, Mathias by Mathias on Thu 2 Apr 2009 - 16:45 Dear Bhante, you wrote: Seeing that 'whatever has the nature of arising, has the nature of ceasing', means seeing that whatever appears, does so through being determined. Is it correct to say that seeing anicca is not so much about seeing the actual arising and ceasing of things but rather about seeing the underlying principle of that arising and ceasing, i. e. paticcasamuppada? In other words: To understand that the eye is anicca does not mean that I have to lose my eyes first or that I have to see some kind of coming and going below the threshold of my normal perception, right? I ask like that because in many suttas the connection between anicca and paticcasamuppada is not very clear to me. For example: If the Buddha asks someone whether X, Y or Z is anicca, I always thought that this question is about the seeing of an actual arising and ceasing in the course of time. But it seems that I was wrong. Thanks a lot! Best wishes, Mathias by Bhikkhu Nyanamoli on Thu 2 Apr 2009 - 21:51 Dear Mathias, Thank you for the replies. I am glad that you were able to make something out of my post.
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 8 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' You said: The biggest problem in my case seems to be the (regular) practice of samadhi. It is just too easy not to do it. Holding the precepts and pondering on the meanings of the teachings involves some sense of achievement and enjoyment for me. But to sit down and watch the breath (for example) is always about overcoming the resistance to do it. Well, if you are going through the strong resistance towards ānāpānasati, try meditating in a different way. Decide to sit for certain amount of time, and then simply observe your thoughts for example, instead of breath. Or, you can even intentionally ponder on some things related to developing understanding, but do it while you are sitting. There are various ways of steadying your mind and experience, and although ānāpānasati is the foremost among them, it also requires a lot of effort and persistence to properly develop it, i.e. it is not easy. Here is one very useful quote from Ajahn Chah, referring to his way of practising meditation: You're sitting and suddenly the thought of someone pops into your head - that's vitakka, the initial thought. Then you take that idea of the person and start thinking about them in detail. Vitakkais picking it up, vicāra is investigating it. For example, we pick up the idea of death and then we start considering it: ''I will die, others will die, every living being will die; when they die where will they go?'' Then stop! Stop and bring it back again. When it gets running like that, stop it again… ...sometimes the discursive thought will wander off and not come back, so you have to stop it. Keep at it until the mind is bright and clear… ...It's when the mind is tranquil. It's not ordinary mental proliferation. You sit with a calm mind and then the initial thought comes. For example, I think of my brother who just passed away. Or I might think of some other relatives. This is when the mind is tranquil -- the tranquillity isn't something certain, but for the moment the mind is tranquil. After this initial thought comes then I go into discursive thought. If it's a line of thinking that is skilful and wholesome, it leads to ease of mind and happiness, and there is rapture with its attendant experiences. This rapture came from the initial and discursive thinking that took place in a state of calmness. We don't have to give it names such as first jhāna, second jhāna and so forth. We just call it tranquillity. - Ajahn Chah, Everything is Teaching Us, p. 44. (italics are mine) You can see from this that Ajahn Chah was actually thinking. Not in an ordinary, oblivious way; it was more like a mindful thinking which, although not controlled, was nevertheless closely observed, in case lust and aversion would appear and decide to take over. When they do appear, (and they will), and the mind drifts away, he would bring it back and start again. So the goal was (or is) not to follow the thoughts, nor to resist to them, but to maintain them in a skillful state, as much as possible. This kind of practice can enable you to eventually see the difference between thoughts and experience which are affected with lust, aversion and delusion and those which are free from them. Once you are established in this, you can also, if you like, start thinking about your present experience of breathing – and you will start developing
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 9 'Frustration: How to see anicca?'
ānāpānasati right there. Mathias:Can you please explain what you mean by 'undesirable outcomes'? Thank you. By 'undesirable outcomes' I meant anything which can happen when one pushes oneself too far, like madness, suicide etc. It was the case in the Buddha's time and it is the case now, simply because that 'abyss of his own personal existence', which Ven. Ñānavīra was referring to in his 'Preface', is the most dreadful thing a man can look at, and if he is not prepared for it (by possessing some initial sīla, samādhi, and pañña), the consequences can be serious. For example see what happened to Sister Vajirā. She managed to gain the Right view in that process, but as I said, no one can guarantee you that. Again to quote Ajahn Chah, who was referring to this kind of experience in one of his teachings: Everything I've been relating to you concerns the mind following the way of nature. This was no theoretical description of the mind or psychological states. There's no need for that. When there's faith or confidence you get in there and really do it. Not just playing around, you put your life on the line. And when your practice reaches the stages that I've been describing, afterwards the whole world is turned upside down. Your understanding of reality is completely different. Your view is utterly transformed. If someone saw you at that moment, they might think you were insane. If this experience happened to someone who didn't have a thorough grip on themselves , they might actually go crazy, because nothing is the same as it was before. The people of the world appear differently then they used to. But you're the only one who sees this. Absolutely everything changes. Your thoughts are transmuted: other people now think in one way, while you think in the another. -- Ajahn Chah, Food For The Heart, Wisdom Publications, 2002, p. 193. (italics are mine) In your second letter you say: Is it correct to say that seeing anicca is not so much about seeing the actual arising and ceasing of things but rather about seeing the underlying principle of that arising and ceasing, i. e. paticcasamuppada? I am not sure what exactly do you mean by 'the actual arising and ceasing', but anyway, let me assume we mean the same, and in that case the answer would be – yes. Seeing the impermanence of things, in the right way, is only possible through seeing the principle of PS. One does not have to closely observe thing at its beginning and then follow it through the end in order to see that it is impermanent; just understanding that because the thing has appeared, has to cease, is enough. Only from that place you can see the thing as an 'invariant under transformation', and as a result, also see its arising and ceasing. So indeed, you don't have to witness the destruction of a thing (an eye for example), to experience the impermanence. It is the impermanence of a phenomena, i.e. dhamma, that it is referred to in connection to anicca, and because of that you don't have to, as I already said, follow the thing externally until it disappears. I hope this answers your questions. Feel free to let me know if there are any further points that
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 10 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' you would like being clarified. With best wishes, Bhikkhu Ñānamoli by Mathias on Fri 3 Apr 2009 - 13:14 Dear Bhante Nanamoli, yes, your reply answers my previous questions. You wrote: I am not sure what exactly do you mean by 'the actual arising and ceasing', but anyway, let me assume we mean the same, and in that case the answer would be – yes. I think your assumption is correct. Bhante Nanamoli wrote: So indeed, you don't have to witness the destruction of a thing (an eye for example), to experience the impermanence. I was still unknowingly influenced by the thought that there is some kind of 'hidden' destruction ('from moment to moment' or something like that) to discover. Bhante Nanamoli wrote: One does not have to closely observe thing at its beginning and then follow it through the end in order to see that it is impermanent; just understanding that because the thing has appeared, has to cease , is enough. Only from that place you can see the thing as an 'invariant under transformation', and as a result, also see its arising and ceasing. It seems I only understand the 'invariant part'. If something exists at all, it must have a certain duration (as this thing). And according to my understanding duration also involves some kind of 'passing by' or a constant shortening of 'life span'. But why the life span of a certain thing (that has appeared) necessarily is limited, I don't understand yet. Best wishes, Mathias PS: Regarding the other parts of your letter I wrote you a personal message. by Nirodha on Fri 3 Apr 2009 - 17:43 Dear Mathias,
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 11 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' the problem of not-seeing anicca is not only your problem. It is my problem,too. And the problem of most other earnest people, monks as well. Bhante Nanavira often wrote about it, e.g. in ATTA: For the puthujjana the word self is necessarily ambiguous, since he cannot conceive of any reflexion not involving reflexive experience of the subject—i.e. not involving manifestation of a soul. Since the self of self-identity is involved in the structure of the subject appearing in reflexion ('my self' = 'I itself'), it is sometimes taken (when recourse is not had to a supposed Transcendental Being) as the basic principle of all subjectivity. The subject is then conceived as a hypostasized play of reflexions of one kind or another, the hypostasis itself somehow deriving from (or being motivated by) the play of reflexions. The puthujjana, however, does not see that attainment of arahattā removes all trace of the desire or conceit '(I) am', leaving the entire reflexive structure intact—in other words, that subjectivity is a parasite on experience. Indeed, it is by his very failure to see this that he remains a puthujjana. Intellectual understanding does not mean to see the things as they are, at least the Dhamma unfortunately . I'm not sure if you've read the essay 'change' (which is 'anicca') by Samanero Bodhesako: http://pathpress.wordpress.com/bodhesako/change/ There he described this problem in detail. For not quoting too much here in short: With these qualifications made we can say that whatever is identified as “this, my self ” is at that time conceived of as being absolutely extra-temporal. For the notion of selfhood is inherently a notion of independence, permanence, and pleasurableness. When there is the view “this, my self ” then the conditions upon which that view depends are not seen. Other conditions can be seen, but not those upon which self-view is based. Conditions are seen, but not as a universal. This means that they are seen as things, not as the nature of things, and the nature of things is that they are conditioned. When “conditions” is not seen as a universal then “by means of conditions…” (= dependent arising) is not seen, at least insofar as it applies to “this, my self.” However, “by means of conditions…” can be seen in other relationships. Dependent arising is seen, but not as a universal. This means it is seen as a thing, not as the nature of things, and the nature of things is that they are dependently arisen. When dependent arising is not seen as a universal then impermanence is not seen, at least insofar as it applies to “this, my self.” However, impermanence can be seen in other relationships. Impermanence is seen, but not as a universal. This means it is seen as a thing, not as the nature of things, and the nature of things is that they arise and cease. And when impermanence is not seen as a universal then dukkha is not seen, at least insofar as it applies to “this, my self.” However, dukkha can be seen in other
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 12 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' relationships. Dukkha is seen, but not as a universal. This means it is seen as a thing, not as the nature of things, and the nature of things is that to hold them is dukkha. And when dukkha is not seen as a universal then not-self is not seen, at least insofar as it applies to “this, my self.” However, not-self can be seen in other relationships. Not-self is seen, but not as a universal. This means it is seen as a thing, not as the nature of things, and the nature of things is that they are not-self. Therefore fundamentally dependent arising is not seen, impermanence is not seen, dukkha is not seen, not-self is not seen. What is seen is “this, my self.” And “this, my self ” is necessarily seen to be independent, permanent, and pleasurable. And because in his endorsement of this perception the ordinary person is sadly mistaken, therefore he experiences sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair: thus is the arising of this whole mass of dukkha. Dukkha arises, then, dependent upon not seeing dependent arising. This is ignorance. “Non-knowledge of suffering, non-knowledge of the arising of suffering, nonknowledge of the ceasing of suffering, non-knowledge of the path leading to the ceasing of suffering — this is called ignorance.” – M. 9: i,54, etc. “By means of ignorance, conditions; by means of conditions…,” then, may also be understood as “by means of ignorance, dependent arising.” And the corollary is, of course, “with ceasing of ignorance, ceasing of conditions; with ceasing of conditions…,” which may also be understood as “with ceasing of ignorance, ceasing of dependent arising.” This indicates to the ordinary person how he can resolve his dilemma. His dilemma is that he cannot perceive dependent arising, he cannot perceive impermanence, he cannot perceive dukkha, he cannot perceive not-self. And he cannot perceive them in their vital sense because he does not see how to stop perceiving “this, my self.” When, as a Buddhist, he earnestly tries, he finds that by a “heads-on” approach (”This is not-self; that is not-self; nor that nor that nor that…”) he does not succeed. All he succeeds in doing is, at most, to change the identification from “this, my self ” to “something else, my self ” (and, probably, also discovering an ever-deepening sense of frustration and futility in the effort). This is the identical dilemma that he faces when he decides to “give up everything:” no matter how sincere his resolve, no matter how intense his effort, he finds that that resolve and effort are insufficient. It is undercut at once, always, and everywhere, by attachment. To resolve such a dilemma evidently requires something more than the simple wish to do so. For such a simple and straightforward effort, whether to perceive impermanence or to give up all attachment, will simply lead him back to the perception that he can’t. But was is the solution? Ven. Bodhesako wrote: But how, then, is this to be done? If a “heads-on” approach continually fails, then clearly an indirect movement is indicated.[51] The development of any particular perception of
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 13 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' dependent arising, or of impermanence, or of dukkha, or of not-self — which is entirely possible for the ordinary person, within the limits described above — can lead to a universal perception. It must be emphasized that by “a universal perception” I do not mean “seeing the whole of experience.” (This, anyway, is an impossibility, inasmuch as the seeing, which is part of the experience, is itself not seen. Or if it is seen then the means whereby it is seen — namely, a higher order of reflexive attention, which is also part of the experience — is itself not seen. And so on.) Even if we (think we) see dukkha “everywhere” we have not thereby perceived dukkha as a universal. At best we have seen it as no more than a generality. But dukkha can be seen as a universal in even the most specific things (e.g. “the in-andout breaths,” or anything else to do with body; or “this achec in my elbow,” or anything else to do with feeling; or “this fear that my house may be on fire,” or anything else to do with mind; and so on). It is seen as a universal if it is seen as an instance of the way all experience is necessarily organized. In other words, to see structure structurally we must see that it is dependent upon exemplification. It is futile, then, to try to see the “bare” principle. What must be seen is the particular living relationship upon which the structure is founded, and to see that it too arises, endures, and ceases dependently. It is towards this direct intuition on the most intimate level of being that the Buddha guides our efforts. When dukkha (or impermanence or the others) is seen as a universal in “this particular perception” then at that time there will not be seen not-dukkha (and the others) elsewhere. To achieve this universalized perception requires dedication and perseverance, inasmuch as it is a perception which is at odds with all that holding to a belief in self involves. It is achieved through intelligent experimentation with reflexion and its concomitants (i.e. the noble eightfold path), using the Teaching as a guide (see e.g. A. VI,98-104: iii,441444)[52] lest one confuse concept with percept. But even then this perception is in itself insufficient; for when the ordinary person achieves it he still has at the same time a belief in self. Though he sees nothing he can take up as independent, permanent, and pleasurable, yet there remains the view that there is a person, a somebody, to be found. In this unstable position it is necessary for the ordinary person, using proper attention, to apply his perception of the universal necessity of dependent arising (and of the others) to this co-existing view. Reference to our circular analogue may help him to understand this. But should he not succeed in this then his perception of universality can be lost. Indeed, he will probably find it difficult enough to maintain this perception. And, the perception lost, he would find himself to be still in the throes of wrong view and of the dukkha that arises dependent upon wrong view. Fortunately, however, there is the Teaching. One who has achieved this perception of universality is now in a position to fully utilize the guidance of the Teaching’s outside
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 14 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' perspective. If he chooses to not opt for pleasure then he can now acquiesce by accepting, even against craving’s view of things, that this Teaching points the way to the end of dukkha. http://pathpress.wordpress.com/bodhesako/change/change-10-The-third-noble-truth/ I suggest to read the whole essay and hope it will clarify some things why we are not enlightened. At the beginning of 'change' is written: All manifestly impermanent. And all of this is, undeniably, perception of change. “But,” it must then be asked, “if you’re so perceptive why aren’t you enlightened?” So it is clear at once that the Buddha’s Teaching, if it means anything at all, must mean something other than this by the term “perception of impermanence.” What is that “other than this?” Best wishes by Varapanyo on Sat 7 Nov 2009 - 8:29 Dear MN. What exactly are your ideas about time? Is it clear for you that time as such is only mental construction? According to Brahmajala Sutta delusions of self and time are inseparable. To see impermanence means is to see the passing show in time and space as a passing show. So I think Acha advice that is detachment was very good one. From my observation almost all my mental suffering comes becouse I am not willing to accept what is now and here. Opposite to repulsion is atraction where we like things as they are now and here. This is also suffering becouse sooner or later change will come. I think that practice to be now and here as observer not as actor is fundamental and very important. See for example Sutta about bhikkhu Elder or M 131-134. Unfortunatelly it is much easer to talk about this kind practice than to do it. But at least I have no doubt it is right direction. It is the nature of consciousness to look back and forward when it arises in time. But that proves nothing as to whether anything did happen or will happen. The a priori is a conascent perspective Nanamoli Thera. Frankly I have doubts about what does it mean "a conascent perspectiwe", but that it is always now and here it is quite obvious. by Mathias on Sat 7 Nov 2009 - 19:33 Dear Varapanyo,
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 15 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' Varapanyo wrote: What exactly are your ideas about time? I fear that I don't have clear ideas about time, so I cannot say much about that topic at the moment. Varapanyo wrote: Is it clear for you that time as such is only mental construction? Sorry, the question is not clear to me. What do you mean with "mental construction". Varapanyo wrote: To see impermanence means is to see the passing show in time and space as a passing show. My problem is to see that impermanence is universal. It is certainly easy to see impermanence if something passes away in front of my eyes. But how can I come to know that this is the destiny of everything? How can I come to know that every experience has to come to an end? How can the deva in the brahma-loka come to know before his death that his life is not eternal? I find no evidence in my experience that there is such a thing as death for me. Other people die, but how can I be absolutely sure that this is my destiny too? How can you be absolutely sure that a thing is impermanent when you have not outlived this thing? I hope you understand what I mean. And I really hope that I look in the wrong direction, because I don't see how this problem could be solved. Maybe I'm just extraordinary stupid. Best
wishes,
Mathias by Varapanyo on Sun 8 Nov 2009 - 1:23 My problem is to see that impermanence is universal. It is certainly easy to see impermanence if something passes away in front of my eyes. But how can I come to know that this is the destiny of everything? How can I come to know that every experience has to come to an end? (...) Maybe I'm just extraordinary stupid. Is it so easy? I don't think so. Maybe you are just to claver? Why worry about everything? If you see that objects of your sixfold base are all impermanent it should be obvious for you that everything which is subject of sixfold experience just has to be impermanent too. So again, if you are not established in that which does not change, emotional reactions born from ignorance leads you to accept time as objective reality. So I think knowledge that: Space and time are the great subjective mistakes which we all agree in making and on and
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 16 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' in which we build all our disagreements comes first, before perception of impermanence. In other words our being is in time and space. In order to realize cessation of being is necessary to question time and space. From this point of view there are doubts about practical value of Fundamental Structure. I leave the study of order and structure to the matematicans and (in so far as they are capable) to the philosophers. I am more interested in disorder and distructure (this what I say absolutely sonetimes) Both quotqtions are from Ven Nanamoli book by Acha on Sun 8 Nov 2009 - 4:51 Hi Varapanyo, As so often, I find that Nanavira says things better and more clearly than I can. Here he is in early 1959 describing to Ven Nanamoli the difference between their two approaches:
Your approach, as it seems to me (you will no doubt correct me if I am wrong), might be expressed rather like this. "There are phenomena, and only phenomena; and any attempt to get beyond them is both futile and misleading, as the inferential arguments of logicians and scientists show only too clearly. Thus, I must investigate phenomena directly; and in so doing (since to be is to be phenomenal—i.e. to appear or to be capable of appearing) I shall be investigating being. Now, the most striking, and perhaps essential, characteristic of phenomena is ambiguity. But certain phenomena are more plainly ambiguous than others. These particular phenomena, then, are more important for the purpose of my investigation (since they are easier to investigate) than the remainder." My approach, on the other hand, might be expressed like this. "There are phenomena, and only phenomena; and any attempt to get beyond them is both futile and misleading, as the inferential arguments of logicians and scientists show only too clearly. Is there a reason for this? If there is, then it must be a structural reason and not a causal reason; for the notion of cause is inseparable from inductive inference, and therefore both futile and misleading. But if there is a structural reason, that structure must be, that is to say, it must be phenomenal; for otherwise it would be beyond phenomena and would be both futile and misleading. So I must seek a structure of phenomena that is itself phenomenal, i.e. that is its own structure. And this will lead to an infinite hierarchy." It seems to me therefore that both Nanamoli (and you) are attracted to the AMBIGUITIES in life. However, what is so fascinating to me is that I believe Nanavira offers a STRUCTURAL approach to experience. The question then is (with experience) which approach is most helpful in putting into practice the Buddha’s message?
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 17 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' Acha by Varapanyo on Sun 8 Nov 2009 - 9:03 "Correct me if I am wrong." you say (in parenthesis) of your statement of My Approach as it seems to you and of Your Approach. I would not say you were wrong or right. Only perhaps: "that was your way of putting it...". Nanamoli Thera Acha Let it be. You think that Fundamental Structure is useful tool for you. OK I have no time for such study. Not that These particular phenomena, then, are more important for the purpose of my investigation (since they are easier to investigate) than the remainder." These particular phenomena are more important for the purpose of my investigation since I consider them to be more important. They are easier or more difficult is irrelevant here. by Varapanyo on Sun 8 Nov 2009 - 9:56 The axiom assuning that the difficult must be epplained in terms of easer is legitemate, centripetal, regressive and mean. Why not explain the easy by progressive stages in terms of more difficult if we are to broaden our minds So difficult or easy this is not the point- Simply, what has direct connection with The Buddha Teaching I consider important. What has no direct connection with Dhamma I consider not as important. And here Though it is possible to define fog perfectly clearly, such definition will not aid one to find one's way about in the fog . Nanamoli The question then is (with experience) which approach is most helpful in putting into practice the Buddha’s message? That is true. But when you study FS -I do not suggest SF - it has something in common with trying to define the fog. However it was helpful to Ven Nanavira so probably it can be helpful for you.
© Path Press – Archive of AKALIKA FORUM – nanavira.top-talk.net 18 'Frustration: How to see anicca?' by Varapanyo on Tue 10 Nov 2009 - 1:40 The disease is simple and the remedy equally simple. It is your mind only that makes you insecure and unhappy. Anticipation makes you insecure, memory - unhappy. Stop misusing your mind and all will be well with you. You need not set out it right - it will set itself right as soon as you give up all concerns with past and future and live entirely in the now. - But the now has no dimention. I shall become a nobody, a nothing! Exactly. As nothing and nobody you are safe and happy. You can have the experience for the asking. Just try It is very popular teaching, - shall we call it yoniso manasikara? - but I am quite sure people only do talk about it. Or even not that. Once very foolish theravada monk asked me: "What are your plans for the future?" I am grateful Ven Bodhesako for his work, however I do prefer to read Nisargadatta Maharaj