Author Topic: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?  (Read 4103 times)

Offline aquason

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2010, 02:53:06 am »
First the verbal formation then the breaking out into speech does one do, that is why this is called the verbal formation.
Sorry Aquason

Your answer did not make sense to me. Kindly allow me to ask you another question.

The sutta also states perception & feeling are the mental formation (citta sankhara).

This seems a little strange because the Buddha did not say perception & feeling are karma.

The body can perform karma, speech can perform karma & the mind can perform karma but perception & feeling cannot perform karma nor are they karma.

For example, intention is karma, craving is karma but not perception & feeling.

Also, feeling is an aggregate unto itself & perception is an aggegate unto itself. Also, citta or sankhara khanda is an aggregate unto itself. For example, in satipatthana, vedananupassana and cittanupassana are two distinct things, described as follows:

Quote
"And how does a monk remain focused on feelings (vedana) in & of themselves? There is the case where a monk, when feeling a painful feeling, discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling. When feeling a pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling. When feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.

"And how does a monk remain focused on the mind (citta) in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion.


My question.

In the above & following quotes, which do you regard as the mental formation? Perception & feeling or passion, aversion & delusion? Perception & feeling or the thinking & complication? Perception & feeling or the delight, clinging & infatuation?


  :book2:

Quote
"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

The Blessed One said: "Not knowing, not seeing the eye as it actually is present; not knowing, not seeing forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye as they actually are present; not knowing, not seeing whatever arises conditioned through contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is infatuated with the eye... forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the eye and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain.

"For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five clinging-aggregates head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.

“On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favoring and opposing, whatever he feels he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant - he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, being [comes to be]; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.


  :book2:



It is volition that one describes as kamma. With volition one wills an act of body, speech, or mind.

 Feel, perception, and consciousness are aggregates, but they are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible to separate them to describe a difference between them.

Perception and feeling are the mental formation.

And here one knows a mind with lust as mind with lust. One knows a mind without lust as mind without lust. One knows mind with hate as mind with hate. One knows mind without hate as mind without hate. One knows deluded mind as deluded mind. One knows undiluted mind as undeluded mind. One knows contracted mind as contracted. One knows distracted mind as distracted. One knows exalted mind as exalted. One knows unexalted mind as unexalted. One knows surpassed mind as surpassed. One knows unsurpassed mind as unsurpassed. One knows concentrated mind as concentrated. One knows unconcentrated mind as unconcentrated. One knows delivered mind as delivered mind. One knows undelivered mind as undelivered.

Here one practising mindfulness is mindful of the mind as the mind actually is then.

Offline ABC

  • Member
  • Posts: 344
    • View Profile
Re: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2010, 04:59:34 am »
Feel, perception, and consciousness are aggregates, but they are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible to separate them to describe a difference between them

Perception and feeling are the mental formation.

And here one knows a mind with lust as mind with lust. One knows a mind without lust as mind without lust. One knows mind with hate as mind with hate. One knows mind without hate as mind without hate. One knows deluded mind as deluded mind. One knows undiluted mind as undeluded mind. One knows contracted mind as contracted. One knows distracted mind as distracted. One knows exalted mind as exalted. One knows unexalted mind as unexalted. One knows surpassed mind as surpassed. One knows unsurpassed mind as unsurpassed. One knows concentrated mind as concentrated. One knows unconcentrated mind as unconcentrated. One knows delivered mind as delivered mind. One knows undelivered mind as undelivered.
The term is citta sankhara. Cittanupassana contemplates lust, hate, delusion, etc.

It does not contemplate perception & feeling.

The citta formations are lust, hatred & delusion.

Pleasant feeling & the preception of beautiful gives rise to lust. Feeling & perception are the conditioners of mental conditions.

Quote
"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain.

If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession gets obsessed.

If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's resistance-obsession gets obsessed.

If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2010, 05:03:10 am by ABC »
Therefore, Ananda, engage with me friends and not as opponents. That will be for your long-term well-being & happiness - MN 122

Offline aquason

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?
« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2010, 02:58:40 am »
Feel, perception, and consciousness are aggregates, but they are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible to separate them to describe a difference between them

Perception and feeling are the mental formation.

And here one knows a mind with lust as mind with lust. One knows a mind without lust as mind without lust. One knows mind with hate as mind with hate. One knows mind without hate as mind without hate. One knows deluded mind as deluded mind. One knows undiluted mind as undeluded mind. One knows contracted mind as contracted. One knows distracted mind as distracted. One knows exalted mind as exalted. One knows unexalted mind as unexalted. One knows surpassed mind as surpassed. One knows unsurpassed mind as unsurpassed. One knows concentrated mind as concentrated. One knows unconcentrated mind as unconcentrated. One knows delivered mind as delivered mind. One knows undelivered mind as undelivered.
The term is citta sankhara. Cittanupassana contemplates lust, hate, delusion, etc.

It does not contemplate perception & feeling.

The citta formations are lust, hatred & delusion.

Pleasant feeling & the preception of beautiful gives rise to lust. Feeling & perception are the conditioners of mental conditions.

Quote
"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain.

If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it, or remains fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession gets obsessed.

If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's resistance-obsession gets obsessed.

If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed.


Connected Discourses of the Buddha Chapter 41 Citta Samyutta Discourse #6 Dutiyakamabhusuttam says the same thing as MLD#44 about perception and feeling are the mental formation.

Offline Spiny Norman

  • Member
  • Posts: 5087
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2010, 03:06:58 am »
Feeling & perception are the conditioners of mental conditions.

That's how I understand it.

Spiny

Offline ABC

  • Member
  • Posts: 344
    • View Profile
Re: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2010, 05:38:41 am »
Connected Discourses of the Buddha Chapter 41 Citta Samyutta Discourse #6 Dutiyakamabhusuttam says the same thing as MLD#44 about perception and feeling are the mental formation.
This is simply quoting an english translation.

The word is citta sankhara.

Citta is that mental function which produces greed, hatred, delusion, thought, etc.

It is very basic dhamma understanding that pleasant feeling conditions greed, unpleasant feeling conditions hatred and neither feeling conditions delusion.

Perception of beautiful conditions lust, perception of enemy conditions anger, perception of loathsomeness conditions non-lust, perception of impermanence conditions abandoing of conceit.

Perception & feeling are the citta conditioner.

  :eek:
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 05:43:21 am by ABC »
Therefore, Ananda, engage with me friends and not as opponents. That will be for your long-term well-being & happiness - MN 122

Offline Ron-the-Elder

  • Member
  • Posts: 4485
  • May all beings live rightly and harmoniously.
    • View Profile
Re: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2010, 08:05:54 am »
I have also seen Citta translated as thought, but the following usages are also useful:



Quote
Citta — The heart (in the emotional sense, but not the physical heart), the "one who knows" (but often knows wrongly). The nearest English equivalent is the word "mind," except that "mind" is usually understood as being the thinking, reasoning apparatus located in the head, which is too narrow a meaning for the word "Citta".


source:  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/boowa/london.html

Quote
The Ultimate Realities
The Abhidhamma deals with realities existing in an ultimate sense, called in Pali paramattha dhammaa. There are four such realities:

Citta, mind or consciousness, defined as that which knows or experiences an object. Citta occurs as distinct momentary states of consciousness.
Cetasikas, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the cittas.
Ruupa, physical phenomena, or material form.
Nibbaana.

Citta, the cetasikas, and ruupa are conditioned realities. They arise because of conditions and disappear when their conditions cease to sustain them. Therefore they are impermanent. Nibbaana is an unconditioned reality. It does not arise and therefore does not fall away. These four realities can be experienced regardless of what name we give them. Any other thing — be it within ourselves or without, past, present, or future, coarse or subtle, low or lofty, far or near — is a concept and not an ultimate reality.

Citta, cetasikas, and nibbaana are also called naama. The two conditioned naamas, citta and cetasikas, together with ruupa make up naama-ruupa, the psycho-physical organism. Each of us, in the ultimate sense, is a naama-ruupa, a compound of mental and material phenomena, and nothing more. Apart from these three realities that go to form the naama-ruupa compound there is no ego, self, or soul. The naama part of the compound is what experiences an object. The ruupa part does not experience anything. When the body is injured it is not the body, which is ruupa, that feels the pain, but naama, the mental side. When we are hungry it is not the stomach that feels the hunger but again the naama. However, naama cannot eat the food to ease the hunger. The naama, the mind and its factors, makes the ruupa, the body, ingest the food. Thus neither the naama nor the ruupa has any efficient power of its own. One is dependent on the other; one supports the other. Both naama and ruupa arise because of conditions and perish immediately, and this is happening every moment of our lives. By studying and experiencing these realities we will get insight into: (1) what we truly are; (2) what we find around us; (3) how and why we react to what is within and around us; and (4) what we should aspire to reach as a spiritual goal.
/quote]

source:  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html





Connected Discourses of the Buddha Chapter 41 Citta Samyutta Discourse #6 Dutiyakamabhusuttam says the same thing as MLD#44 about perception and feeling are the mental formation.

This is simply quoting an english translation.

The word is citta sankhara.

Citta is that mental function which produces greed, hatred, delusion, thought, etc.

It is very basic dhamma understanding that pleasant feeling conditions greed, unpleasant feeling conditions hatred and neither feeling conditions delusion.

Perception of beautiful conditions lust, perception of enemy conditions anger, perception of loathsomeness conditions non-lust, perception of impermanence conditions abandoing of conceit.

Perception & feeling are the citta conditioner.

  :eek:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Offline Spiny Norman

  • Member
  • Posts: 5087
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?
« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2010, 04:08:05 am »
I have found that "initial thought" is the willed intention to point the mind here or there, and "sustained thought" is the willed pressure that is held on the mind to keep the attention somewhere.  As my mind gets more absorbed, I notice a shift of perspective where my focus opens up a little and the jhana object acts like a vacuum that takes over all the work of concentration.  The concentration becomes much stronger, and it can even be a turbulent and painful transition of the mind is not still enough.

Thanks, a useful description. :)

Spiny

Offline ABC

  • Member
  • Posts: 344
    • View Profile
Re: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2010, 04:34:25 pm »
I have also seen Citta translated as thought, but the following usages are also useful:
Mind-heart is citta.

But Abhidhamma is not useful. It is just philosophy and does not assist insight very much.

The Buddha exhorted we need  to discern for ourselves:

contact > feeling > perception > craving (defilement) > thinking > proliferating > dukkha

This is most beneficial.

Kind regards

 :anjali:

Therefore, Ananda, engage with me friends and not as opponents. That will be for your long-term well-being & happiness - MN 122

Offline retrofuturist

  • Member
  • Posts: 388
    • View Profile
    • Dhamma Wheel (Theravada forum)
Re: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2010, 07:29:45 pm »
Greetings,

I concur with what ABC says immediately above.

Also, citta has a different meaning in Sutta and Abhidhamma so don't get the two unintentionally muddled thinking they point to the same thing.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Offline aquason

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?
« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2010, 03:11:17 am »
Here is a link

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.007.nypo.html

to Middle Length Discourse of the Buddha #7 which may be helpful about clarifying how mind can have to do with perception(field of perception)  and be contemplated with regards to abandoning defilements.


And here is a excerpt from Samyutta Nikaya(Connected Discourses of the Buddha) Chapter 54

Quote
"[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' [3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' [4] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'

"[5] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.' [6] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.' [7] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to mental formation.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to mental formation.' [8] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming mental formation.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming mental formation.'

"[9] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.' [10] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in satisfying the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out satisfying the mind.' [11] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in steadying the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out steadying the mind.' [12] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in releasing the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out releasing the mind.'

"[13] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.' [14] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion.' [2] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.' [15] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on cessation.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on cessation.' [16] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.'
« Last Edit: May 19, 2010, 03:17:07 am by aquason »

Offline Ron-the-Elder

  • Member
  • Posts: 4485
  • May all beings live rightly and harmoniously.
    • View Profile
Re: "Initial thought" and "sustained thought"?
« Reply #25 on: May 19, 2010, 08:11:57 am »
Please help with this confusion:

Since Abhidhamma regards ultimate reality, why would it not be the primary reference rather than the Nikayas, which regard mundane reality, things as they appear in the samsaric realms?

Here I am reminded of what Buddha is quoted as saying in The Kalama Sutta:  "don't go by what is derived by concurrence...but rather by one's own experience, validation, and "personal" verification."  How can anyone, other than an Arahant or a Buddha verify what is taught in Abhidhamma?  Is that your whole point?  And if so, is The Abhidhamma to be abandoned?  If so, for what?  Is the Tripitaka any more valid than The Nikayas or The Abhidhamma?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

Thank you in advance for putting an end to my confusion.   :pray: :hug:

Greetings,

I concur with what ABC says immediately above.

Also, citta has a different meaning in Sutta and Abhidhamma so don't get the two unintentionally muddled thinking they point to the same thing.

Metta,
Retro. :)
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal