Several

To me staying in one place is what gets out of hand. For the vast majority of human history we've been nomadic so its actually unnatural to remain in one place. Attachment to moving could be seen as one thing, but settling in produces many multiple attachments and dependencies (including other peoples attachment to us). This spreads out into regional and national pride which invariably produces distorted world views. Thinking one comes from "the best country in the world" is a prevalent delusion that lesser individuals will even fight and kill over.

It is different for different people. No one way is always correct. I relocate or stay put as environment dictates, Vassa for example means 3 months in one place. Mobility is, for me, another strategy. Some people can meditate their way beyond ego. I combine that with positioning to nullify its influence. The deeper resources of the mind often surface in adverse situations. For example today a monkey stole my glasses and I am now effectively blind. This situation means remaining calm and dealing with it. It is what it is. Quite funny actually. Situations like this test our equanimity. I am passing with flying colours. It may mean remaining here for a while, or it means moving on anyway and adapting to circumstance. Without attachment to either possibility I will act accordingly.

Avoid attachment. We're advised to. I'm not offended, we've never met. You couldn't possibly know what I'm like. Not a problem.

No offence, but thats a purely superficial observation. By staying still aren't you hiding from something? Same thing. In my experience there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in any philosophy. Do we stay home and find reasonable speculations on what may be, or go forth and find out for sure? To become a monk is to go forth into the homeless life. In all my days there was never one minute where I ran away. I walk towards.

To clarify, I have nothing against gurus or Kalyāṇa-mittatā. They are beneficial for certain people. I am too critical to accept everything a guru says without question and I am too hard on companions so (out of compassion) I won't put anybody through that. I relocate frequently to avoid attachment and become Upekkha about uncertainty. Positive, caring emotions do nullify anger, but so does fearlessness. Compassion is sometimes a sword, not meaning it is wielded in anger. Certain temples suit certain psyches but can also foster complacency.

The only true stillness is within. Even if you sit in one place for a hundred years, the Earth spins on through the void at 1000 mph, the weather and the people change about you. Everything manifest is Anicca. The sky and the heart meander through their seasons.

A guru can only point the way. There is no power that can transfer realisation. A companion can only offer mutual encouragement, sometimes resulting in folie-a-deux. We are born alone, we die alone and everything in between is the same. There is one constant factor in realisation regardless of the devices employed, wether inner feelings or outer impetus. Only you can free yourself from suffering.

The world is my guru, and my friend. Though sometimes it doesn't seem so.

 

In the two Metta Suttas of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, the Buddha states that those who practice radiating the four immeasurables in this life and die "without losing it" are destined for rebirth in a heavenly realm in their next life. In addition, if such a person is a Buddhist disciple (Pāli: sāvaka) and thus realizes the three characteristics of the five aggregates, then after his heavenly life, this disciple will reach nibbāna. Even if one is not a disciple, one will still attain the heavenly life, after which, however depending on what his past deeds may have been, one may be reborn in a hell realm, or as an animal or hungry ghost.

 

The brahmavihāras (sublime attitudes, lit. "abodes of brahma") are a series of four Buddhist virtues and the meditation practices made to cultivate them. They are also known as the four immeasurables (Sanskrit: apramāṇa, Pāli: appamaññā).

According to the Metta Sutta, Shākyamuni Buddha held that cultivation of the four immeasurables has the power to cause the practitioner to be reborn into a Brahma realm (Pāli: Brahmaloka)^. The meditator is instructed to radiate out to all beings in all directions the mental states of:

• 1) loving-kindness or benevolence
• 2) compassion
• 3) empathetic joy
• 4) equanimity

Hang on. What kind of Rebirth are you quoting about here?

We all know that positive mental states are better. They can possibly lead to realisation. They also have pitfalls, but for certain individuals it is the way. For others its having a guru. Neither of these is a concern to me but I am a happy and caring guy without clinging to that, and I don't criticise people who find progress with a guru. All these things are crutches, and sometimes we need them. But not always.

I think a major aspect of wisdom is to see things without emotional attachment, making practice invaluable. I'm sure we all slip back into reacting from feelings without it. All my worst decisions were made whilst angry. Or drunk.

 

Yes, and until wisdom (through experience) kicks in, Metta Karuna Mudita Upekkha are powerful antidotes to negative mental states (non-virtues) such as avarice, anger and pride.

Sorry. Still laughing at being called logical. Is the goal to be happy? Or to attain freedom? Vedana is not Nibbana. I would rather fail attempting the highest with heroic effort (Viriya Sambojjhanga) than settling for second best because I'd rationalised myself into the "its too hard" category.

The most powerful of the above antidotes is Upekkha. That one is beyond anger AND fear.

The Four Immeasurables (Metta Karuna Mudita Upekkha).

 

In the Tevijja Sutta: The Threefold Knowledge of the Majjhima Nikaya set of scriptures, Buddha Shākyamuni is asked the way to fellowship/companionship/communion with Brahma. He replies that he personally knows the world of Brahma and the way to it, and explains the meditative method for reaching it by using an analogy of the resonance of the conch shell of the aṣṭamaṅgala:

The Buddha then says that the monk must follow this up with an equal suffusion of the entire world with mental projections of compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity (regarding all beings with an eye of equality).

A monk suffuses the world in the four directions with a mind of benevolence, then above, and below, and all around – the whole world from all sides, completely, with a benevolent, all-embracing, great, boundless, peaceful and friendly mind … Just as a powerful conch-blower makes himself heard with no great effort in all four [cardinal] directions, so too is there no limit to the unfolding of [this] heart-liberating benevolence. This is a way to communion with Brahma.

 

In the two Metta Suttas of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, the Buddha states that those who practice radiating the four immeasurables in this life and die "without losing it" are destined for rebirth in a heavenly realm in their next life. In addition, if such a person is a Buddhist disciple (Pāli: sāvaka) and thus realizes the three characteristics of the five aggregates, then after his heavenly life, this disciple will reach nibbāna. Even if one is not a disciple, one will still attain the heavenly life, after which, however depending on what his past deeds may have been, one may be reborn in a hell realm, or as an animal or hungry ghost.

 

The brahmavihāras (sublime attitudes, lit. "abodes of brahma") are a series of four Buddhist virtues and the meditation practices made to cultivate them. They are also known as the four immeasurables (Sanskrit: apramāṇa, Pāli: appamaññā).

According to the Metta Sutta, Shākyamuni Buddha held that cultivation of the four immeasurables has the power to cause the practitioner to be reborn into a Brahma realm (Pāli: Brahmaloka)^. The meditator is instructed to radiate out to all beings in all directions the mental states of:

• 1) loving-kindness or benevolence
• 2) compassion
• 3) empathetic joy
• 4) equanimity

 

These virtues are also highly regarded by Buddhists as powerful antidotes to negative mental states (non-virtues) such as avarice, anger and pride.

Might, may, can eventually depending. They are preferable states but (apart from Upekkha) can lead to attachment. Practising Metta, Karuna and Mudita takes gradual progression. We are advised to begin with those we feel for already and not those we have animosity towards as this can backfire. I think that's covered in Vism.

So, I haven't found anything to support Karuna, Metta, Mudita and Uppekha being a totality. PED says Uppekha is indifference, a zero point between joy and sorrow, neutral feeling, equanimity. Adukkham Asukha Vedana (neither pain nor pleasure). Ipso facto it is not Metta, Karuna or Mudita and they are not enlightenment factors. Uppekha is.

Funny thing is Piti is an enlightenment factor, yet it must be overcome or abandoned to reach higher Jhanas, so things that are necessary to the path may not be necessary for the destination.

The teaching is freedom from desire and suffering. Feelings. These things are Anatta.

 

Hi S.

Although there are probably many things which are not enlightenment (awakening) factors, I suspect these aid us on the path.

 

Coming from an unawakened state riddled with impurity, we must negotiate our way forward.

 

Things like Karuna, Metta, Mudita, and Uppekha are such aids.

 

As you say, like Piti, they can eventually be disgarded.

Until then, they are part of our way.

 

As Lungmi has indicated, the following extract unites these qualities as a united practice.

 

 

"Bhikkhus, there are these five ways of removing annoyance, by which annoyance can be entirely removed by a bhikkhu when it arises in him. What are the five?

• Loving-kindness can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed: this is how annoyance with him can be removed.
• Compassion can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed.
• Onlooking equanimity can be maintained in being towards a person with whom you are annoyed; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed.
• The forgetting and ignoring of a person with whom you are annoyed can be practiced; this too is how annoyance with him can be removed.
• Ownership of deeds in a person with whom you are annoyed can be concentrated upon thus: 'This good person is owner of his deeds, heir to his deeds, his deeds are the womb from which he is born, his deeds are his kin for whom he is responsible, his deeds are his refuge, he is heir to his deeds, be they good or bad.' This too is how annoyance with him can be removed.

These are the five ways of removing annoyance, by which annoyance can be entirely removed in a bhikkhu when it arises in him." - [AN V.161 Aghatapativinaya Sutta]

"Metta embraces all beings

Karuna embraces all those who suffer

Mudita embraces the prosperous

Upekkha embraces the good, bad, loved and unloved, pleasant and unpleasant.

- [Vism. 318]

 

The other subtle thing which Karuna, Metta, Mudita, and Uppekha do is to change our focus outwards, from "me (ego)", towards others.

 

Thus we diminish focus on the 'I".

 

The problem with sorting the wheat from the chaff is that you are using logic.

 

Logic must be thrown out and replaced with personal experience.

Only through personal experience can wisdom develop.

 

Logical interpretation is very likely attachment or clinging.

No, you're assuming things again. I'm using rational explaination of experience.

I have it from my teacher that Karuna is not necessary and in fact can become damaging if you cling to it.

All these things are good to overcome anger, but should not be clung to. Remember an Arahant produces no Kamma good or bad.

So, I haven't found anything to support Karuna, Metta, Mudita and Uppekha being a totality. PED says Uppekha is indifference, a zero point between joy and sorrow, neutral feeling, equanimity. Adukkham Asukha Vedana (neither pain nor pleasure). Ipso facto it is not Metta, Karuna or Mudita and they are not enlightenment factors. Uppekha is.

Funny thing is Piti is an enlightenment factor, yet it must be overcome or abandoned to reach higher Jhanas, so things that are necessary to the path may not be necessary for the destination.

The teaching is freedom from desire and suffering. Feelings. These things are Anatta.

Ps. With Metta.

Just thinking, progressing through the four Jhanas Piti (rapture) becomes an obstacle and must be overcome. This is an aspect of joy. So am I disintergrating a unity? Can you tell me where it is said that these are the same thing so I can check? Rather than disintergrate its better to sort the wheat from the chaff.

No worries. I don't like being followed.

I think a major aspect of wisdom is to see things without emotional attachment, making practice invaluable. I'm sure we all slip back into reacting from feelings without it. All my worst decisions were made whilst angry. Or drunk.

Yep. Purification of the mind would involve becoming detached from Vedana, developing tranquility and equanimity. Understanding the causes of emotional responses will help to see the ridiculousness of being subject to their whims. Comparing emotions to tides most people are drowning ten steps from the shore. Knowing emotions for what they are enables you to 'surf' objectively.

Shouldn't diminish it but can.

That they are seperate things, not that there are seperate things.

Wasn't excluding Vedana as much as demoting it.

I put this down to my explaining things badly.

Yes, they're a subset but in academia people can get a bit carried away with the womens rights bit. Lets face it, being a white male is practically being a minority nowadays.

I was talking about Buddhadasa and womens rights as seperate things, probably didn't make that clear.

Hierarcy is order of importance. Difference is in situation.

Apoligies. I was completely wrong. Its Dr. MartEn who makes boots, not Dr. MartIn. Read his profile and he says all the right things for academia. Likes Buddhadasa, promotes womens rights etc. I have a fairly low opinion of Buddhadasa's understanding as he seems to have been pandering to what he considered 'western' mentality, and to accomplish this he compromised Buddhas teaching. Womens rights and other politically correct views are entirely secondary to human rights. I should point out that my views on Vedana, or the wholesome emotional states, are hieraracical (?) rather than divisive. Some things are more important than others in pursuit of realisation. Purifying the mind is superior to feeling good about strangers. I haven't looked for the paper written by Dr. Martin yet, I'll get to it this week.

I thought Doc Martin made boots. Seems he's moved on. Good stuff.

However, I disagree. The positive emotions are not only between people (e.g. pets, plants, ideas and other things), equanimity is not only for non-human things. Or else its not equanimity.

Fair enough that the other factors are connected except Citta being translated as commitment? Bit of a stretch there.

But I'd really need to see the paper you mention to reply accurately.

Found this short video quoting Naropa. This explains it better than my neanderthal efforts.

Rocky said.

"It may be a communication thing (we are relying on language).

Can you explain further what you mean by:   Investigation is not necessarily pursuant to description. If I am not attached to an 'answer' then what is my motive? I plainly stated that what I am doing is a strategy?

You indicated your strategy was to leave no stone unturned to learn the exact meaning of the Buddhas instructions/teachings (we know this is not possible)."

Several says;

Good god, man. Do I really need to explain everything twice? The strategem is to overcome being hobbled by rationality. This is achieved by flooding or overwhelming it. See D.T. Suzuki on the Zen Koan.

Rocky continued...

"That the exact meaning of Anatta suggests a "higher self" rather than no soul?

Then your next step would be to investigate this (would this be through meditating on it to gain insight or by some other means)?

or Fashion your life, path, practice around there being a "higher self" to better aim your arrow?"

Several responds...

Anatta is most likely an adjective that applies to the things that are not self. The term Citta is never described as Anatta. You yourself quoted a Sutta outlining the practice as having many aspects. I am assuming you had a reason, or was it just a random selection? Your much quoted Ananda wasn't meditating when he became an Arahant. Many monks were not meditating at the awakening moment. Ploughing the ground alone won't make the seeds grow, other factors combine to yeild a harvest. I accept the strong possibility that the 'no soul' and 'meditation only' theories are wrong. The sad lack of words in English describing mental phenomena in detail is a large part of this misunderstanding. I will admit my methods are unorthodox and often cause confusion.

 Rocky:

"These are questions not statements, just trying to understand your position.

You are by far further down the track than I, in many things including concentration, canonical knowledge, & mindfulness."

Several thinks maybe, maybe not.

Mr Balboa went on...

"Don't think of me as being heavily colored (which I probably am) but rather through my questioning, getting you to help me extinguish certain views I may entertain.

Help me to explode what I may have clung to.

Views which may continue until I am satisfied (as the Buddha said, not not accept views without personal investigation) that they might be incorrect."

Several considers he may have been a little unfair, and remembers he can be somewhat confrontational sometimes.

Rocky.

"In terms of motivation, I was under the impression that understanding ones personal motives is very important.

Especially if motive is driven by Greed, Delusion, &/or Aversion.

It's one way of examining ones path.

In other words, through you, I am exposing views until they collapse.

I'm sorry I project attachment to no soul (Buddhist version)."

My actual position is that I'm open to the possibility of both or either (the middle path), being firmly attached to neither.

Emphasizing one possibility is my way of encouraging an adherent of the other possibility to demonstrate the folly of the first."

Several has indeed been unfair.

 Rocky V.

"Dismissing many practices attributed to the Buddha which we have no personal experience of.

Isn't this being conditioned?

You inidicated adopting the 4 immeasurables is like being left with another obstacle.

Like most addictions, don't we eliminate them until we are left with a final one?"

Several: Yes. Then eliminate that too.

 Mr. Stallone...

"What are your thoughts about Anapana Siti?

Doesn't this sixteen step process cover the practice required to achieve your goal?

Doesn't this pick off each level of self (clinging to self), until we are faced with the final jump?

Does it rely on whether a "higher self" exists or not?"

Several ripostes:

Anapanasati in the Visuddhimagga is a Samatha form of meditation. Though it will induce tranquility (which is part of reaching Nibbana), it is unlikely to achieve the aim alone. Even attaining the four Jhanas won't necessarily lead to enlightenment. Its Vipassana which cracks that nut, though again I'm not sure it'll do it alone so a combination of Samatha and Vipassana would seem most efficacious. Though it will be different for different people. Some require a Guru. Some just need to hear the right explaination. Some need a near-death experience, others just hear a frog jump into a pond. Some will need faith in a 'higher' goal, others progress unadvised with rigorous practice. Many ways to the top of a mountian. If you jump from a plane its downwards.

And finally from Interstate (assuming STD isn't referring to something transmitted through fluids)...

"Just a side issue:  Is there a theory which advocates the existence of "state" without "time"?

Sever-all hypothesises

I know not. But I'd guess that something outside temporal influence would potentially exist in every state simultaneously. Its apparent state is determined by whatever time it manifests in. But, as always, I could be (and sometimes am horrendously) wrong. But then again, aren't we all?

Concentration, persistence (effort), discrimination (must be conceptual), intent, desire for liberation (or aversion to suffering), its a combination of factors that achieves the task.

Again you misunderstand. Investigation is not necessarily pursuant to description. If I am not attached to an 'answer' then what is my motive? I plainly stated that what I am doing is a strategy. Your understanding is coloured by your conditioning. You do not question your own methods. You do not challenge them until they collapse. All rational understanding is futile and can only ever be a shadow of the truth. But we are indoctrinated from a very young age into this farcical mode of conceptualisation which itself becomes the enemy of realisation. This is why Buddha would not be drawn into describing anything ultimate. Our primary habitual response is to create a label and fool ourselves into thinking we understand it. Unfortunately lesser individuals missed the point and chose the unskillful rationalisation that 'ergo there is no soul' and threw the baby out with the bath water. This is not only clinging (to an idea) but is also wrong. Double mistake. Besiege your little conceptual castle until the ramparts collapse. Free the truth imprisoned in the dungeon. Precisely by its own method. Rationality will not go away by sitting around practising breathing (a reflex action you're born with). Its an almost alchemical process of refining, turning the gross lead of ideas into the gold of realisation. Every possible avenue of rational inquiry should be exhausted until you know beyond words 'what is what'. Big deal if I am right or wrong. Any answer only produces more questions. The critical element of consciousness playes a key role in creating our reality and thus you will never experience knowing if you have any recourse to rationality. No matter how accurate your description seems to be. Fight fire with fire until there is nothing left to burn. Meditation alone arrives at nothing but a hiatus.