Thank you Venerables! I will be listening to this several more times. And thank you for explaining “nutriment” and “name and form”. Ajahn, when you said, “Loss of context is a basis for passion”, I see that there’s so much work to be done.
How does one combine this practice with building up a healthy body with strength training? The sutta mentions not eating for the purpose of “putting on bulk”. Does one just eat the minimum required amount to sustain the body, and train without the aim of acquiring strength? Thank you for this talk Venerables.
Thanks Bhante for describing the practical means of this sutta it's very helpful, likewise is translating phassa (contact) as "pressure". It seems odd then that it comes before vedana in dependant origination? I'd imagine the feeling would come first, then the pressure to act out of it?
If I've understood things correctly, dependent origination should not be approached linearly. The venerable's have (If I remember correctly) earlier said that, for example: With eye and sight-object present, consciousness manifests. With consciousness manifested, there is pressure of feeling in regard to the seen. Now, without craving (another of the 12 links) the pressure (contact) of feeling is simply that, pressure. With the "attitude" of craving present, you will delight in the pressure of feeling and assume that the delight is in the object, wanting it for your self. Or you will be averse to the pressure of feeling and assume that the discomfort originates from the object, wanting to get rid of it - and if there is no specific object, simply not having anything to do will be experienced as unpleasant since you have not developed a mind that can endure not acting out of presently enduring moods, feelings, thoughts, mental pictures etc. But craving is already there, as an underlying attitude, the same goes with the eye - it is already enduring there on its own, and so it is with all your sense-organs. There is no point when you can begin and say that "ah, this is where it began!". Ignorance is beginningless, in other words.
the 12 chains of paticcasamuppada is non-linear but based on idappaccayatā (specific conditionality: with this, this arises; without this, this ceases). in paticcasamuppada anuloma (with the grain): with the eye, form and eye-consciousness as conditions, the meeting of the three is eye-contact (phassa), same for the other 5 senses. in this context of paticcasamuppada anuloma, phassa is that ground without which perception-&-feeling cannot arise, but one that is already appropriated (assumed to be mine). Thus, the feeling that arises dependent on phassa too is appropriated which is why craving with regard to it is possible. The 'pressure' is thus born from the sense of ownership of the feeling that arises and that craving (towards pleasant; away from unpleasant; distraction/ignorance of neutral feeling) is implicit within that experience.
in paticcasamuppada patiloma (against the grain) for the arahat, it is phassa-nirodha. The meeting of the three-sense-base, sense object and sense-consciousness-still produces vision, hearing, etc. but not appropriated (phassa-nirodha) in the absence of ignorance, and consequently the feeling that arises too is not appropriated (vedana-nirodho). Hence, in the felt there is only just the felt, and so on.
@@dicsoncandra1948 Thanks that makes sense - the "ground" needs to be there for feeling to arise. Still though, Bhante keeps saying things along the lines of "The pressure that manifests IN REGARD to what's felt"? I'm probably just getting terminology mixed up.
food as the necessary condition for the craving for sensual desire pressure as the necessary condition for the craving for feelings intention/wanting as the necessary condition for craving for the three types of being consciousness as the necessary condition for the craving for what? states? conditions? regarding? cognizing? identification?
@@gimzara5250 SriLankan system didn't let them to stay there without extending VISA. We call it is a Buddhist country by constitution. Distributing real Dhamma doesn't stop where you live. Important part is get it to ourselves, SANDHITTIKA.
I have to say if spiritual practice requires me to envision that the things in my life are equivalent to me eating my own child then maybe this isn't the practice for me. The idea that all conditioned phenomena should be viewed in such a context sounds like nihilism or even sadism. Edit: Despite my strong emotional reaction to this sutta, I do understand the principle behind it. But I invite any comments to enhance my understanding.
The venerable seems to be saying that just as it is impossible and unappealing for the parents to eat the meat for enjoyment and beautification, we should consider any type of consumption (food or otherwise) with the premise that it is made up of the dearest thing to us. With that attitude, it would make any consuming unappealing - beyond what is absolutely necessary to survival. Food (and water) seems to be the thing that we can’t ignore. It is required. That isn’t to say there will be nothing rewarding on the path, but that it won’t come from the direction of sensuality. If I’m understanding it wrongly, I hope the venerable stops in to correct it. 🙏🏼
You're missing the point here. As the comment above says, it's not about envisioning eating your own child, but to develop an attitude where you regard food as something that must be consumed when it is absolutely necessary to do so in order to stay alive, and not something to be consumed leisurely whenever you feel like it
He explains the reason for the harshness of the simile at around the 8:00 mark. It's about a subtle internal task, not eating babies. Even back then, I think most parents would have just starved.
There is the notion in buddhist teachings to regard eating food not for beautification or sense pleasure but solely as a means to stay alive and healthy for to be able to live the holy life and learn the dhamma. But what Ajahn is suggesting here is that in case you do not already know what the holy life and the Dhamma really is, then this reason for consuming food, not for reasons of beautification and sense pleasures, but only for the reason to stay alive and healthy for to be able to live the holy life and know the Dhamma does not apply to you. So in case you do not already know what the Dhamma really is, you don't really need to be worried or deterred in regards to this Sutta. Instead you should rather be concerned about getting the right understanding of what the Dhamma really is. Entertaining the view that the body belongs to one's self and that food can be owed, enjoyed and taken delight in by that body, makes this Sutta irrelevant for one.
There isn't any practice that is "for me" or not "for me." There are practices that lead to safety and there are practices that don't. The simile of the sons flesh is a practice intended to strengthen and enhance the context of the non - ownership of food. If you can't understand it in terms of that context you should instead try to understand the right context of non ownership first, instead of trying to get the right context through some practice of being sorrowful when you eat or something, as I have seen some people do.
Thank you Venerables! I will be listening to this several more times. And thank you for explaining “nutriment” and “name and form”. Ajahn, when you said, “Loss of context is a basis for passion”, I see that there’s so much work to be done.
Sadu Sadu Sadu
The best ever discussion of the catch.
Thankyou very much Banthe
Great video
The videos, the discussions on this channel are getting even better than before - the notion of correct context is much clearer now.
Sadu sadu 🙏♥️
🙏
How does one combine this practice with building up a healthy body with strength training? The sutta mentions not eating for the purpose of “putting on bulk”.
Does one just eat the minimum required amount to sustain the body, and train without the aim of acquiring strength?
Thank you for this talk Venerables.
I have a question, how does one maintain the context of mindfulness when reading a book or doing other task that requires more focus than usual?
Thanks Bhante for describing the practical means of this sutta it's very helpful, likewise is translating phassa (contact) as "pressure". It seems odd then that it comes before vedana in dependant origination? I'd imagine the feeling would come first, then the pressure to act out of it?
If I've understood things correctly, dependent origination should not be approached linearly. The venerable's have (If I remember correctly) earlier said that, for example: With eye and sight-object present, consciousness manifests. With consciousness manifested, there is pressure of feeling in regard to the seen. Now, without craving (another of the 12 links) the pressure (contact) of feeling is simply that, pressure. With the "attitude" of craving present, you will delight in the pressure of feeling and assume that the delight is in the object, wanting it for your self. Or you will be averse to the pressure of feeling and assume that the discomfort originates from the object, wanting to get rid of it - and if there is no specific object, simply not having anything to do will be experienced as unpleasant since you have not developed a mind that can endure not acting out of presently enduring moods, feelings, thoughts, mental pictures etc.
But craving is already there, as an underlying attitude, the same goes with the eye - it is already enduring there on its own, and so it is with all your sense-organs. There is no point when you can begin and say that "ah, this is where it began!". Ignorance is beginningless, in other words.
the 12 chains of paticcasamuppada is non-linear but based on idappaccayatā (specific conditionality: with this, this arises; without this, this ceases). in paticcasamuppada anuloma (with the grain): with the eye, form and eye-consciousness as conditions, the meeting of the three is eye-contact (phassa), same for the other 5 senses. in this context of paticcasamuppada anuloma, phassa is that ground without which perception-&-feeling cannot arise, but one that is already appropriated (assumed to be mine). Thus, the feeling that arises dependent on phassa too is appropriated which is why craving with regard to it is possible. The 'pressure' is thus born from the sense of ownership of the feeling that arises and that craving (towards pleasant; away from unpleasant; distraction/ignorance of neutral feeling) is implicit within that experience.
in paticcasamuppada patiloma (against the grain) for the arahat, it is phassa-nirodha. The meeting of the three-sense-base, sense object and sense-consciousness-still produces vision, hearing, etc. but not appropriated (phassa-nirodha) in the absence of ignorance, and consequently the feeling that arises too is not appropriated (vedana-nirodho). Hence, in the felt there is only just the felt, and so on.
@@dicsoncandra1948 Thanks that makes sense - the "ground" needs to be there for feeling to arise.
Still though, Bhante keeps saying things along the lines of "The pressure that manifests IN REGARD to what's felt"?
I'm probably just getting terminology mixed up.
Is perspective a good translation for sati?
Hi sadu you not come back to srilanka.
food as the necessary condition for the craving for sensual desire
pressure as the necessary condition for the craving for feelings
intention/wanting as the necessary condition for craving for the three types of being
consciousness as the necessary condition for the craving for what?
states?
conditions?
regarding?
cognizing?
identification?
ownership?
Designation?
conception?
Is this sri lanka?
No he is before in srilanka long time .
I believe they are now in Serbia.
@@RubePhil thank you. I thought srilanka
@@gimzara5250 SriLankan system didn't let them to stay there without extending VISA. We call it is a Buddhist country by constitution. Distributing real Dhamma doesn't stop where you live. Important part is get it to ourselves, SANDHITTIKA.
No 😕
I have to say if spiritual practice requires me to envision that the things in my life are equivalent to me eating my own child then maybe this isn't the practice for me. The idea that all conditioned phenomena should be viewed in such a context sounds like nihilism or even sadism.
Edit: Despite my strong emotional reaction to this sutta, I do understand the principle behind it. But I invite any comments to enhance my understanding.
The venerable seems to be saying that just as it is impossible and unappealing for the parents to eat the meat for enjoyment and beautification, we should consider any type of consumption (food or otherwise) with the premise that it is made up of the dearest thing to us. With that attitude, it would make any consuming unappealing - beyond what is absolutely necessary to survival. Food (and water) seems to be the thing that we can’t ignore. It is required.
That isn’t to say there will be nothing rewarding on the path, but that it won’t come from the direction of sensuality. If I’m understanding it wrongly, I hope the venerable stops in to correct it. 🙏🏼
You're missing the point here. As the comment above says, it's not about envisioning eating your own child, but to develop an attitude where you regard food as something that must be consumed when it is absolutely necessary to do so in order to stay alive, and not something to be consumed leisurely whenever you feel like it
He explains the reason for the harshness of the simile at around the 8:00 mark. It's about a subtle internal task, not eating babies. Even back then, I think most parents would have just starved.
There is the notion in buddhist teachings to regard eating food not for beautification or sense pleasure but solely as a means to stay alive and healthy for to be able to live the holy life and learn the dhamma.
But what Ajahn is suggesting here is that in case you do not already know what the holy life and the Dhamma really is, then this reason for consuming food, not for reasons of beautification and sense pleasures, but only for the reason to stay alive and healthy for to be able to live the holy life and know the Dhamma does not apply to you.
So in case you do not already know what the Dhamma really is, you don't really need to be worried or deterred in regards to this Sutta.
Instead you should rather be concerned about getting the right understanding of what the Dhamma really is.
Entertaining the view that the body belongs to one's self and that food can be owed, enjoyed and taken delight in by that body, makes this Sutta irrelevant for one.
There isn't any practice that is "for me" or not "for me." There are practices that lead to safety and there are practices that don't. The simile of the sons flesh is a practice intended to strengthen and enhance the context of the non - ownership of food. If you can't understand it in terms of that context you should instead try to understand the right context of non ownership first, instead of trying to get the right context through some practice of being sorrowful when you eat or something, as I have seen some people do.