Brucenkhamen

I for one need to get on top of my own time management and also review what's important in my life.

Tell me about it.

I think time management is less of an issue if you can keep coming back to awareness again and again as you go through your daily activities though.

My daughter is my best teacher at times.

So, what keeps providing us with these thoughts?

What keeps producing them?

Not me, at least most of the useless thought that arises I didn't ask for, they arise because of past conditioning. To know this is enough, it's not generally fruitful to try and track down that conditioning to see the cause of a thought you already know is useless.

The problem here is that you virtually have to devote your life to practice to get to a point where you might get a glimpse.

That's not what I mean by glimpse. If at times one experiences the mind relatively less buffeted by craving, aversion, delusion even if it's fleeting it's usually enough of a glimpse to keep you going.

Whilst we have responsibilities in our lives (dependents, wives, children, infirm parents, charities), it's difficult to extract ourselves from daily living.

One just needs to look honestly at where you're at, what responsibilities you have, where your mind is at and how awareness is best cultivated in your situation.

You can have a vital practice living a normal every day life with work and family responsibilities if you make the most of your opportunities. A lot of senior monks who are abbots of monasteries are probably busier than you or me.

Changing your situation by giving up your responsibilities isn't always the best answer.

Let the goal take care of itself, our job is to take care of the mind.

I think we can't know for certain that Nibbana is real unless/until we experience it for ourselves.

What we can do though is determine whether it's an ideal worth living for.

If we know Dukkha is real and we can see that the process of practice leads to the mind gradually letting go of Dukkha then I don't think it's unrealistic to expect there is the possibility the mind can eventually be free from being conditioned by Dukkha.

As practice gains momentum it becomes more about the journey and less about the goal, too much goal orientation can be self defeating.

The Buddha presented his path bottom up, start from where you are and build on that. Too much attention to big metaphysical questions doesn't really help, I think a better question is whether the path is worth living for and whether it is working and as we go on we get glimpses of what Nibbana may be like.

Mindfulness practice does develop samadhi in unison with insight, the main difference is the awareness is of changing phenomena rather than one pointed with a single object. This samadhi doesn't tend to lend itself to absorption into jhana, but it does lend itself to the possibility of becoming continuous as one goes about ones day to day activities.

Classicly it's presented to do concentration practice first and then insight but I think it's important to know where one's mind is at, for me, and I think a lot of people the mind just isn't ready to develop one pointedness. If I had strived for jhana in my early days it would have been an exercise in frustration leading to discouragement, however mindfulness gave the opportunity to develop insight and the ability to let go leading to samadhi gradually over time. For busy people with families and careers I think it's a more realistic and flexible approach as reflective awareness, insight, letting go, and samadhi gradually build on each other over time.

As awareness grows the practice gains momentum of it's own, deepening samadhi becomes more possible.

Actually, Bruce, sex, celibacy and misogyny were only a part of what was intended as a general discussion of Buddhism at a serious level. This thread has not strayed off course. You are all still having a serious discussion, aren't you?

I wondered why the title didn't really match the first post.

Bruce, sex, celibacy and misogyny

A lethal combination.

Take the key word 'Dukkha' for example. Why the confusion? If we go back to the etymology of the word in Sanskrit we find that it consists of two radicals 'dus + kha'. 'Dus' is a prefix indicating bad, and 'kha' refers to the axle-hole of an ox-drawn cart. If your cart had a bad axle hole, or 'duhkha', you were in for a bumpy ride.

Now you can describe the discomfort of that bumpy ride using a variety of words. It might be downright painful if the seat is hard and you already have a sore bottom.

A very good example. The word "suffering" can lead people to the conclusion Buddhism is about doom and gloom, others object "But I'm not suffering", whereas I think the bumpy ride metaphor paints a different picture.

The Buddha was a master at wordplay and this is generally lost in translation.

I'm not interested in getting into arguments over Theravada versus Mahayana.

Then stick to common ground, or better yet stick to the topic of the thread.

There is only one Self. It is all there is.

Not interested, huh?

You are confusing the small self (anatta) with the true Self (atman). Here is the translation from the Yamamoto version.

In the original texts both concepts are presented as questionable, attachment to them a cause of suffering. But yes I can now find the passage.

I'm not interested in getting into arguments over Theravada versus Mahayana. It is clear where you stand. For me the Self (atma) is the ultimate reality. You are of course entitled to your own opinions.

Excellent. So can I take it that VincentRJ can have his thread about sex and celibacy in Buddhist monasticism back now?

"You, monks, should not thus cultivate the notion (samjna) of impermanence, suffering and non-Self, the notion of impurity and so forth, deeming them to be the true meaning [of the Dharma], as those people [searching in a pool for a radiant gem but foolishly grabbing hold of useless pebbles, mistaken for priceless treasure] did, each thinking that bits of brick, stones, grass and gravel were the jewel. You should train yourselves well in efficacious means. In every situation, constantly meditate upon [bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure. Those who, desirous of attaining Reality [tattva], meditatatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like that wise person [who obtained the genuine, priceless gem, rather than worthless detritus misperceived as the real thing.]"

The Buddha, Chapter Three, "Grief",The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Reciprocal selective quoting. I assume this is supposed to be proof that the Buddha changed his mind and went back to the pre-Buddhist idea of seeking the True Self, rather than the discarding of self view that we see in the original texts.

The interesting thing about the above quote is that the web site you probably lifted it from credits the Kosho Yamamoto translation, lloking at the full text of this translation here http://lirs.ru/do/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra,Yamamoto,Page,2007.pdf the above text is nowhere to be found, not in chapter 3 not anywhere as far as I can see. Help me out here?

The sutra basically waffles on and on around the topic for 584 pages and I'm left confused whether the authors are pro or anti self, here are is some more selective quoting...

O Cunda! Now, meditate upon all that is made, that is composite. Think that all things

are not-Self and are non-eternal, and that nothing endures.

It is thus with this carnal body. It has no Self and no master. Thus we meditate on selflessness. You, the Buddha, say:

"All things have no Self and nothing belonging to Self. O you Bhiksus! Learn and practise

[this]!" Once this is practised, self-conceit goes away. Self-conceit gone, one enters Nirvana.

Then all the bhiksus said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! You, the Buddha,

said before that all things have no Self, that we should practise this and that, when practised,

the thought of Self goes away, and that once the thought of Self is done away with, one does

away with arrogance and that, arrogance once done away with, one gains Nirvana.

Also, emancipation is not possessed of atmatmiya [fixation on self and what belongs to

self]. Such emancipation is the Tathagata. The Tathagata is Dharma.

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Really, there cannot

be any case in which there is Self. Why not? When a child is born, it knows nothing. If there is a

Self, the child would have to have knowledge when it is born into the world. Hence we can know

that there is no Self. If a Self definitely existed, there could not be any loss of knowing. If it

were true that all beings eternally possessed Buddha-Nature, there could be no breaking away.

You imply that the early Christian translators were innacurate in their translations as if you have some kind of direct line to what Buddha actually said.

Its pretty common knowledge, one doesnt need a direct line to the Buddha just pay attention to modern scholars and meditation teachers, and pay attention to how it works in practical terms when one puts it into practice.

Of course if you have reason to believe that some of my interpretations of pali terms are incorrect or my understanding of Buddhist concepts are inconsistent with how its currently being taught then you are welcome to make your case and we can learn from each other. This is what a discussion forum is for is it not? Thats how adults discuss and debate. Though I must say most of your supporting quotes so far have turned out to be fizzers.

And you treat with disdain the "guests" on this forum who would have the audacity to question what you think you know to be authentic Buddhism. Clearly you have an extremely poor grasp of the changing face of Buddhism over the centuries to say nothing of Theravada which has undergone very recent changes. You take a completely ideological stance when a reference is made to the Hindu Vedic tradition for instance, which predates Buddhism by thousands of years and from which the historical Buddha emerged. Your comments are no different to the way in which Protestants and Catholics battle each other. Neither position has anything to do with Truth. The problem with your "household", if I may borrow your phrase, is that you have fixed ideas based on scriptural interpretations or things various ajahns have told you which makes you believe you are on an authentic path. This gives you comfort. It is just another kind of conditioning. A good example of that is when you refer to sin as being a Judeo Christian concept. Actually it means doing wrong which is a human moral concept. By saying it is unskillful action in Buddhist terms just shows what kind of dogma hell you are trapped in.

Oh Ive been such a bad bad boy have I? I dont think the above is a good example of how adults discuss and debate.

We all believe we are on an authentic path, if we didnt believe the path was authentic we wouldnt have chosen that path now would we? If it wasnt working we wouldnt stay on that path now would we? However only one of us is on a discussion board of a different path telling them that his path is correct and their path is wrong.

As for the last sentence, why would you want to waste your time debating what dukkha means? You know what it is. It is your experience for heaven's sake. It is everyone's experience. When Buddhism becomes a study about the words and definitions, you have lost your way.

I said and "don't get me started on suffering", so yes that means I wouldnt want to waste my time debating what dukkha means, good interpreting.

I also wouldnt want my waste my time debating whether the four noble truths is the Buddhas foundational teaching and whether he emphasized Dukkha and the cessation of Dukkha, but hey anything goes on Buddhist boards these days.

It doesn't matter whether you choose to talk of greed or craving or desire. To get into the fine detail of these definitions is of no help. Do you not understand this? You have to investigate who it is that experiences these thoughts and feelings by going back to the source. To become the unconditioned. Everything else is just a work of fiction.

Of course you have to investigate what it is that experiences these thoughts and feelings by going back to the source. If one chooses to use a particular methodology laid down by a teacher then one needs to understand definitions used, the theory behind that methodology, and how to implement the practices of that methodology. Discussion boards are a good place to clarify understanding nobody expects it to be a substitute for direct experience. Nobody expects to be awakened just by talking about it, just as nobody expects to be awakened just by snapping their fingers and stilling their mind.

I dont think Thaivisa are interested in providing a platform for philosophical debate on the merits of various spiritual paths, and this is board is not called Makeitupism in Thailand.

Theravadins don't talk much about Love!

As love is something you do.

In all matters that are communicated through language, my understanding of concepts is always related to the definition of English words, because that's my language. I'm not able to read Pali or Sanskrit. I'm totally reliant upon English translations.

Most Buddhist teachers will explain these concepts and shades of meaning as and when necessary.

Experiencing these things in intensive meditation type situations gives the opportunity to break down these experiences, see the causal relationships, and gain clarity on what the Buddha was talking about.

I imagine that rational choices based on logical reasons were not a common feature of life in ancient India, so it's understandable that their language wouldn't have addressed such issues. I don't think the Buddha and Aristotle were in communication, were they?

Of course thy were, surely you jest. The point is that's not what the word that we various translate as aversion is about, it's not what that particular teaching is about.

If anything a rational choice to turn away from something that you know has no benefit for you and will only cause you to experience an aversive reaction is wisdom.

Vincent, It appears that Bruce has appointed himself as the authority on how these words can be used because he is a real Buddhist, so you will have to defer to him

cheap

However, I'm quite flexible and the English language has lots of words to choose from. I could simply say, 'I avoid eating unwholesome food', but that's not as expressive in my view. There is a lack of emotion in the word 'avoid'. Robots can be programmed to avoid obstacles.

The word 'aversion' has connotations of some degree of dislike or disgust, as well as connotations of avoidance or 'turning away from'.

One should also bear in mind that because a decision is rational does not mean it is devoid of feeling and experience.

The problem is your understanding of the concept is informed by the definition of English words, its better to consider the meaning of the pali/sanskrit word that it is translating and how it is used in a Buddhist context.

Like you I prefer not to eat white rice because I know there is a better alternative, however I experience no aversion when eating it, I find it a very inoffensive food.

Lobha, dosa, and moha are not about rational choices based logical reasons but about involuntary physical and mental reactions to sense contact. Aversion (dosa) is an experience up to and including disgust or revulsion arising from unpleasant experience.

Rational choices based logical reasons dont tend to cause Dukkha the way lobha, dosa, and moha do.

And let us remember that a very basic part of practice is understanding that the cause of suffering lies within, in your own craving, which though it may appear to be caused by an external object or person, in fact is not. So anyone under the delusion that their sexual or any other cravings are "caused" by the apparent object of their desire has missed a very, very basic point, one easily discerned tand witnessed hrough meditation practice.

Well said.

If I were to claim that, it would be another example of something that is both true and false. I like the taste of chocolate cakes and ice cream, but I don't like the effect they might have on my health, in combination with other unwholesome foods. The term 'aversion' in the sense of 'turning away from' is more accurate in this context.

Aversion is something felt and experienced in the body and mind, whereas your dislike of avoiding white bread etc is probably more about rational choice because you have the information on the lack of nutitrional value.

In the example of chocolate cake you might crave it and after eating it notice that it's made your body feel heavy or off-sorts, aversion to this feeling will arise in the body and mind and compound the original feeling produced by eating the chocolate cake. Objectively observing this happen again and again over time the mind will let go of it.

Quote: Unless it supports the development of wisdom, samãdhi can sidetrack a meditator from the path to the end of all suffering. All meditators who intensify their efforts to develop samãdhi should be aware of this pitfall.

Good point. I think it was Ajahn Jayasaro who said to me one time something like that samadhi is good for weaning you of addiction to wordly sense pleasure by replacing it with something else. That's the first step, the next step is to wean oneself off addiction to samadhi.

When you are hungry, there is a craving for food. When your belly is full, there is no more craving for food. You are satisfied.

The point of the Buddha's teaching is that the unawakened are never satisfied. Sure craving for food may have subsided but craving is a constant drive working in the background so it will crave then next thing it thinks will provide satisfaction. Maybe it will crave to feel less bloated with food for example, maybe it will crave to recreate that the feeling that meal provided by repeated the experience sometime in future.

When samadhi fills you full of peace and stillness, there is no more craving for anything. You are satisfied. You have already fulfilled all potential desires.

Then it changes, samadhi subsides, or the mind disengages from the peace and stillness, and craving starts the cycle again.

One strong impression I've received from the current discussion is the importance of the precision of meaning with regard to key words we use in our arguments. Sometimes people will dismiss such attempts to be precise with an implication that it's mere semantics or nitpicking, but semantics may often address the root cause of the problem. After all, Semantics is a study which specialises in the meaning of words and phrases, and their meaning within a context.

You're on the money here. When a group of people have a shared interest which they discuss and develop they develop a shared vocabulary and technical terms that have specific meaning in that context. Buddhism is no different. Compounded to that is a lot of translations of of pali or sanskrit words in common use are inaccurate or carry the cultural baggage of 19th century Christians who started the work of translation.

Added to that is that this board in particular attracts a relatively high proportion of people who don't practice Buddhism, so don't have the shared vocabulary. Normally guests in any context will just fit in out of politeness and not straightaway tell you how you should run your household, but some people have strong ideas of how Buddhism "should be".

Take the word "sin", I find it's very rare for that word to be used in a Buddhist context, so when it is used it sticks out.

The word "desire" is in common usage but creates problems because then you get people asking things like "I desire to get qualified and get a good job, why is that bad?". This is why I prefer to use the word craving.

Another example is that Rocky used the phrase "greed, aversion, and delusion", this is a common translation of the pali lobha, dosa, moha. I don't like the word greed here because to me greed is a very specific kind of craving, it's craving when you've already got more than enough but doesn't cover craving out of lack. One of my teachers also uses the word greed here, but then english is not his first language.

As you pointed out it's not just a matter of being fussy, imprecise wording leads to misunderstanding down the track.

Don't get me started on "suffering" as a translation of Dukkha.

Then so be it. Call it whatever you please. It is not important what you call it.

So I take it then you are positing jhana as the ultimate awakening.

This is where we part company. There is no need for any "aids" for the beginner. The same innocent practice should apply to both beginner and advanced meditator. In fact introducing anything which destroys this innocence is potentially more damaging for the beginner than for the advanced because they will have become more solid and unwavering in their experience.

Some of my teachers would agree with you to some extent, but a beginner needs to be pointed in the right direction and needs help when he gets lost or confused. Even to develop stillness of mind to the point of jhana Im sure you are aware requires technique and requires sustained application. No teacher says just bring the mind to stillness and awaken, its not that simple because the mind is not that simple. I know I would have probably given up in frustration if thats what Id been told to do in the beginning.

We need to irrigate the field, the crops grow according to their own nature, we cant make them grow but we can irrigate the field.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Although there is a gradual deepening of experience over time, awakening itself is instant. You are either awake to your true nature or not. You cannot be a little bit pregnant or slightly alive.

No but an unborn embryo can be a little bit developed and not yet born. The fertilized egg doesnt just sit in the womb awaiting the day of its great awakening. It evolves, it develops, it prepares.

Transcendence of mind of course. When mind is transcended what remains?

"Stillness is transcendence of mind" then, the sentence means something now, the meaning isn't clear but it doesn't come across as new age fluff.

When mind is transcended not-mind remains, and that is equally unclear.

Luckily the Buddha's approach to teaching was "there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back." as has been previously quoted.

Transcendence, that is, the fact of transcending, generally means to have gone beyond certain limits. In Buddhism, the limit appears to be the psychophysical organism consisting of material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies and consciousness. What we learn from the canon is that the self or âtman is beyond the the five constituents of the psychophysical organism just as we might consider the substance gold to be beyond the shapes it can be made into.

The word transcendence may be unfamiliar to many, but it does appear in Buddhist commentaries, although it is much more common in the Vedic tradition. There are many articles on the web. Here are just two I found at random.

http://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/2012/12/the-subject-of-transcendence.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-loy/transcendence-or-immanence-balancing-heaven-and-earth_b_3166015.html

The first Zen article says

"Buddhism is a religion of redemption (i.e., deliverance from bondage), to be sure, but accomplishes this liberation by transcending the world of suffering which includes the psychophysical body."

Which of course is the point I've been making all along. Along with that it's talking about transcending something, the word transcendence only makes sense in relation to something being transcended, whereas you said "stillness is transcendence" which doesn't make sense, transcendence of what?

The second article uses the word in a variety of ways, I think I could sum it up as transcendence of the ordinary or of the mundane which is just the generic meaning of the word.

This is worth commenting on. Sitting in silence is not enough. Anyone can just sit quietly with their eyes closed or perhaps listen to some soothing music. This is not practice. It requires the intention of putting the attention on simple, innocent awareness. Transcendence occurs when the intention itself is let go of and the mind becomes still and one pointed. This happens because given the opportunity, it is the natural tendency of the mind to experience subtler and subtler levels of awarenss as it gravitates towards its ground state. The natural unconditioned state of pure awareness. This transcendence is the "uncovering". It is beautifully and exquisitely simple beyond words.

This description still sounds like any description of jhana I've ever read, of course I can't compare it with direct experience, what is the difference between the above and jhana?

You say the mind is not going to let go of attachment to it until it sees the the covering as a burden. How would it see the covering as a burden. If it sees the covering as a burden in an intellectual or conceptual sense because you have been thinking about "what it means", that is just adding more conditioning to the conditioning of thinking the covering is a burden. What is the "it" that doesn't want to let go? By putting attention on awareness, the "it" disappears together with the covering which is the delusion. If there is no "it" to perceive it where is the delusion.

It's not an intellectual or conceptual process at all, Vipassana primarily works on the non conceptual level by observing changing processes without attempting to control or obstruct the conditioning that plays out. The mind eventually lets go of entanglement with that conditioning, with the self, the meditator doesn't make that happen it happens as a result of bringing sustained equanimous awareness to the changing processes as they play out. Having said that there are times when aids to concentration and/or conceptual contemplation are used to assist the meditator, beginners in particular need these but it's a mistake to judge a method on it'd beginner instructions.

This process starts to happen right from the first practice of a complete beginner and will deepen over time just in case you thought you will have to wait for 35 years. It's important to say this because I wouldn't want anyone to think I am talking about something almost unreachable. Quite the contrary. It just takes practice commitment and hunger for the truth.

Yes it's a gradual process of awakening, your presentation gave the impression you were promoting the instant awakening idea. Having said that I still see value in the instant awakening view because our lives are made up of a series of mind moments, moment by moment any moment is pregnant with the possibility of awakening... but not if we take it for granted and don't value awareness.

When you say, "sitting in silence with the wisdom to see objectively", what does that mean exactly? Where does this wisdom come from. It is just an idea in your mind, a mental concept. Thinking about dukkha will tell you that you are suffering. So what? You are just replacing conditioned thoughts about suffering with other conditioned thoughts about suffering. This contemplation about dukkha will give you an intellectual understanding. It is not a worthless exercise, but it will not result in the end of dukkha. This is not wisdom in the way I believe Buddha intended. Suffering only ends when you transcend the boundaries and limitations within which cravings and attachment appear as an illusory self.

Wisdom comes from direct experience, it is not conceptual knowledge. We do need to reflect on Dhamma as we learn on the conceptual level but that is not the process that leads to awakening, vipassana is not conceptual a problem solving process contrary to what you may think.