Brucenkhamen

Actually, I devote my time to a number of different activities. However, my circumstances are such that I'm reluctant to spend much time sitting still, meditating, essentially doing nothing, although I do spend some time like that.

I prefer to practice my meditation through the mindful engagement in simple tasks in the garden (a fairly large garden which takes up quite a lot of time), in a peaceful and natural environment.

I think there is a middle way between theory and practice and we each have to find our own balance.

I see where you are coming from. Being suggests a deity to you. But there is another reason to capitalise the word. Whereas we might agree that your personhood is different from mine in the sense that if you stub your toe then you will feel the pain rather than me, how about being? For me, being is the same as awareness. It is unbounded, undifferentiated and without form. As such can we really speak of being in the same way as individual personhood. Can we say this is my being and this is your being when being is unbounded. So if there is just being it surely conforms to the grammatical rule of capitalization. And there is no need to deify it either.

At last weve made some progress.

So if I may paraphrase what I think you are saying You believe each of us is a being (self, soul, Being, atman) and the citta / 5 aggregates arises out of this.

If thats the case as a theory I dont see a problem with it from a Buddhist perspective as anicca, dukkha, anatta applies to the 5 aggregates, it forms no part of Buddhist practice as defined in the early texts though.

I cant help but think this theory is inherently dualistic though.

It also appears you dont subscribe to the Wikipedia description Advaita (Sanskrit; not-two, "no second") refers to the idea that the true Self, Atman, is the same as the highest Reality, Brahman. If you dont deify these beings as Brahman.

If Im guessing wrong then dont leave it up to me to guess.

Please don't reply if you are unable to be respectful and abide by the precepts.

Please advise which precepts you consider me to have broken.

One starts with B and the other starts with b. That's the only difference. As a practising Buddhist you really have some issues you need to resolve don't You?

I shouldn't have to teach you English grammar.

We usually only capitalise a word like being when referring to one specific being, without a capital b could refer to one or many beings or a state of being.

Which did you intend? I don't see how maintaining the ambiguity further adds anything to the discussion.

How do you get to the notion of theism from what I have written? You know I really have no idea what you are talking about.

What is Being with a capital B? ie how does it differ from being with a small b?

Yes, Buddha would have objected to the idea of Being experienced by a self. The self with a small s is the person, but if you try and find this person you will never find it. Everywhere you look is not the self which is the true meaning of anatta, not that there is something called a not self. In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra what is referred to as the Self with a big S also means Being, which knows itself without the intermediary of another self to experience it. In vedanta, chit (sanskrit) and in Buddhism, citta (pali) are essentially the same and describe individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being. We have to be careful and recognize that language always imposes duality on the subject. For, instance does saying "arises from" or "prior to" even mean anything when we talk about that which is without form.

At least you are now out of the awareness closet and doing full blown theism.

Could you provide a quote from the early Buddhist texts (ie the Suttas or Agamas) where the Buddha says citta arises out of Being (Brahman, True Self, God, or any other names one might like to euphemise it by).

It never ceases to amaze me how followers of other spiritual paths try to retrofit their ideas onto Buddhism, like it lends legitimacy or something.

While the Buddha never explicitly denied the God concept I think its pretty clear its not central; to his path, and this is a significant point of difference from other paths.

Wikipedia appears to be well aware of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman#Buddhist_understanding_of_Brahman and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions#Buddhism

From the Tevijja Sutta..

"A young brahmin called Vasettha once went to see Gotama. "This is the only straight path," he declared, "the path of salvation that leads one who follows it to union with Brahma [God], as is taught by brahmin Pokkharasati!" Gotama asked him whether any brahmin had ever seen Brahma face-to-face. Since God is invisible and unknowable, Vasettha was obliged to reply: "No." In that case, countered Gotama, any claim about a path that leads to union with Brahma must be groundless. "Just as a file of blind men go on, clinging to each other, and the first one sees nothing, the middle sees nothing, and the last one sees nothing, so it is with the talk of these brahmins. Their talk is laughable, mere words, empty and vain."

And from Bhante Sujato https://sujato.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/why-we-can-be-certain-that-god-doesnt-exist/

I practice the Middle Way.

If I may make an observation I think probably you are mostly thinking about, reading about, and discussing the middle way.

In order to practice it one needs to suspend these to a certain extent and just get aquainted with the mind as it is.

Personally, I don't find this article very convincing.

I'm with you, but Luangta has a colourful way of saying things at times that can easily be taken as not consistent with the suttas.

I'll try and do a bit more digging when I have time, I think this is the only real smoking gun from that article though "the true power of the cittas own nature is that it knows and does not die." and in the same book "But since the essential knowing nature of the citta never dies".

However looking at theses excerpts from the same book are more in line with the suttas...

One moment after another from the day of our birth to the present, the khandhas have risen and fallen away continuously. On their own, they have no real substance and it is impossible to find any. The cittas interpretation of these phenomena lends them a semblance of personal reality. The citta clings to them as the essence of oneself, or as ones own personal property. This misconception creates a self-identity that becomes a burden heavier than an entire mountain, a burden that the citta carries within itself without gaining any benefit. Dukkha is its only reward for a misconceived attachment fostered by self-delusion.

Every conventional realityno matter how refined it is or how bright and majestic it seemsinvariably manifests some irregular symptoms. These are sufficient to catch the cittas attention and make it search for a solution. Both the very refined sukha and dukkha that arise exclusively within the citta, and the amazing radiance that emanates from it, have their origin in avijja. But since we have never before encountered them, we are deluded into grasping at them when we first investigate this point. We are lulled into a sound sleep by avijja, believing that the subtle feelings of satisfaction and shining radiance are our true essence beyond name and form. Oblivious to our mistake, we accept this majestic citta, complete with avijja, as our one true self.

The self as reference point, which is the essence of avijja, remains integrated into the cittas knowing nature. This is the genuine avijja. Ones self is the real impediment at that moment. As soon as it disintegrates and disappears, no more impediments remain. Everything is empty: the external world is empty, and the interior of the citta is empty. As in the case of a person in an empty room, we can only truly say that the room is empty when the person leaves the room. The citta that has gained a comprehensive understanding of all external matters, and all matters pertaining to itself, this citta is said to be totally empty. True emptiness occurs when every single trace of conventional reality has disappeared from the citta.

All allusions to oneself, to the true essence of ones being refer specifically to this genuine avijja. They indicate that it is still intact. All investigations are done for its sake. This self is what knows; this self is what understands. This self is radiant, light and happy. I and minethe genuine avijja lies here. Everything is done for its sake. Once it finally disintegrates, so too does the personal perspective. Things are still done, but not for anyones sake.

Crikey! I'll have to read this long Sutra before I reply.

You didn't have any plans for the rest of the year did you?

If Buddhism says that nothing permanent exists, then if you are not reborn that suggests extinction. Buddhism is therefore nihilistic.

I don't think stating nothing permanent exists is nihilism, just because something lacks permanence does not mean it lacks meaning or value. The point of the Buddhas teaching here is conditionality, everything arises and passes away according to causes and conditions not random chaos, the point of morality and practice is to generate positive causes and conditions not just for us as individuals but for society as a whole. So instead of looking for some kernel of permanence that we can cling to in order to feel better we embrace change, the changing nature of things is not our enemy.

That is not dissimilar to what Vedanta would say. I don't know what Theravadins would make of this.

Comparitive religion instead of a sermon, I'm liking this change of approach.

If there's nothing after death, no heaven nor hell, no reincarnation or rebirth, then the only issue is how to make the best of your current life; how to get the most satisfaction from your current life, and how to die peacefully, with minimum discomfort. (I'm in favour of euthanasia, by the way).

Sounds like a good plan. Different people have different ideas how to get the most out of life though, once you've had a taste of awakening, dare I say "awareness", then the more common ideas about how to get the most out of life don't cut it anymore.

The concept that life is a gift, a wonderful experience and opportunity to explore the wonders of nature, and the universe at large, seems to be missing from the Buddhist philosophy.

You're right. Ironically I started this path with a "stop the world I want to get off type attitude" but have found over the years practice has made me appreciate my life much more. When I listen to question and answer times at retreats etc I find people are much more positive and in love with life than the Buddhist introductory blurb would suggest there should be.

Why is that? I think when people learn to be present and aware and start to let go of craving and clinging to what they thought would make them happy there is a lot of freedom in that. When you stop trying to fight or run away from Dukkha you find it starts to become more manageable.

However, I'm still puzzled as to the ultimate purpose of this state of enlightenment. Surely the goal of being free from rebirth would appeal only to those who are sorry they were born, and who find life in general pretty miserable and intolerable, and not something to be repeated.

In other words, cessation from the 'Wheel of Life', or the cycle of rebirth, sounds like some sort of program to help the suicidal. For example, the Buddhist advice sounds like, 'If you commit suicide in this life, it won't solve your problems, because you'll be reborn in an even worse condition, next time round. Become a Buddhist monk instead'.

I think most people brought up with a western/modern world view find this uninspiring. I don't know how pervasive this it was in the Buddha's time but it was a Jain world view or possibly older.

I think your assumption that no rebirth = eternal non-existence is just an assumption, I don't think that's necessarily the case, and an assumption based on an individualistic world view. The Buddha made it clear that it's not about self and that clinging to self view is a major part of the problem. Therefore I think on an individual level it's irrelevant what happens to you as an individual at death, what is relevant is the degree of awakening here and now not just for you and me as individuals but the human condition as a whole.

Thaivisa can be anything that you want it to be. Hallelujah!

Alas not for me, I am but a mere mortal.

There are many who completely identify with ego and are in bondage in the field of action. And there are others who through practice have some direct experience of the unbounded but still cling to conceptual ideas as if their life depended on it. These are often in a darker place because they find themselves doubting what is real and believing what is not real. They become stuck and in frustration proclaim "nonsense" through non understanding of both sides of the coin. The truly ignorant only think one side is nonsense so they have an easier time. So we should show compassion for those straddling two worlds, one of emptiness and one of form and who haven't yet realised they are both the same.

Hallelujah!

... and there are those who are holier than thou, puffing up their ego preaching profound sounding riddles, not interested in subjecting their ideas to the scrutiny or analysis that discussion forums are normally made of, unable to answer simple questions in simple english for fear their persona of spirtuality will be lessened.

Thaivisa is not a pulpit.

There are three states of consciousness, sleep, dream and waking consciousness. In sleep there is no mind, no body and no world. In dream there is mind, no body and no world. In waking state there is mind, body and world. Underlying all three states is awareness which alone is real. The three states are merely appearances and are unreal. If you say that awareness is passive then we are making progress. If awareness alone is real then it is that we want to know. Know that, become that and right action becomes spontaneous right action as it aligns with your true nature in the egoless and desireless state and no new karmas will be created.

Nonsense.

You have correctly identified the transition between sleep and waking state when you awake in the morning and when awareness is uncontaminated by thought. This small window can be very useful as a time to inquire into the nature of that awareness before ego aserts itself once more and is experienced as body, mind and world. It will be clear that awareness is not a mental process. A process requires movement or action, whereas unconditioned awareness is passive. It is the unchanging witness of changing phenomena.

I don't believe you.

Sleep is contaminated by thought, it's called dreaming, there is no such moment. Awareness is also present during sleep time to varying degrees for much of the time depending on how lightly you sleep.

If awareness were truly unconditioned then it would not need to be conditioned by wakefulness, I agree with you that awareness is passive in nature though.

But surely you also experience awareness for yourself. Everyone knows what 'being aware' means, don't they?

Indeed I do, and yes you'd think most English speakers would know what it means. See Wikipedia for it clearly listed under Mental Processes for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mental_processes

However you may have noted trd does not consider it to be a mental process, I think therefore "What do you think it is then?" is a reasonable question.

How do you know that Trd is not color blind?

I don't, which is why I see no point describing something I experience but he might not experience. However if I tell him blue is a colour then he knows every time I say blue it's not a name of a species of animal for example. This is more useful than nonsense along the lines of "blue is so profoundly spiritual you'll never know it unless you experience for yourself... but I do :)"

Your need for a definition of awareness is as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour.

Thanks for that definition, so if we use it with some of your recent statements about awareness here is what we get...

What we need to do is cultivate as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour....

No, what we must do is to turn the attention back to the source of thought, from where it arises, which is undifferentiated as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour...

To go back to as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour from which mind and perception arises...

As useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour alone is real as it is unchanging and has no beginning or end unlike phenomenon which appears and disappears...

Of course when I say cultivate as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour, I mean to turn back to it...

As useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour can be experienced separately from thought, free of thought, and it is something that has been talked about way before Buddha was born...

Mind is dependent on as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour but as useful as telling a blind man that blue is a colour is not dependent on mind.

I'd say it's about as useful as using a single word on a discussion forum really rather a lot without regard to it's english definition and without explaining what it is that you are referring to.

So to reiterate. I don't see how right action can be practised whereas you do but you call it cultivation.

You don't know how to practice right action? How strange, do you only know how to practice wrong action then?

The 5 precepts would be a good start.

What's the difference between practising and cultivating?

These terms are used synonymously.

If you have to think about what awareness is then you don't know what awareness is. There is no description of awareness available.

That is the whole point of practice. To experience it. If I gave you a description it wouldn't be what it is. Describe the colour blue to me.

I don't have to think about awareness, I have to think about what you mean when you use the word awareness because you do so ambiguously without regard to normal english usage and refuse to define it.

Yes if you gave me a description that wouldn't be what it is, that's why I didn't ask for a description, I asked for a definition.

Why should I describe the colour blue to you when I'm sure you are quite capable of experiencing it for yourself? However if you asked me to define it I'd be happy to do so rather than obfuscate with profound sounding waffle as that way in future every time I used the word blue there would be no confusion.

Blue is a colour.

Maybe it's just a way of breaking it down for the traveler.

I need to reacquaint myself of the steps involved

My focus was on the first 4.

My understanding is that one must become proficient at these before attempting steps further along the path.

Hence the steps.

I think it's worth trying it as steps for a while, but like any technique that is detailed/step by step one drops it once one gets proficient, awareness is established, and the technique starts feeling clunky.

No it's all one thing really. Here's where the confusion is. It may be that various aspects of experience develop and manifest at different times and in different ways. That shouldn't be mistaken for steps. Perhaps emotions become very enlivened or awareness of body changes but these are not steps as such, and there are not separate realizations for these different aspects .

agreed

I just familiarised myself with these 16 steps. It's ridiculous.

Yes it is, considering a couple of years ago you professed to be familiar with the Anapanasati Sutta but now express surprise that it is laid out in 16 steps.

Actually while some people attempt to practice it as a step by step contemplation I think most people would see these as 16 factors that just naturally come into awareness over time as practice develops. The mind starts with the gross/bodily/material and gradually becomes more sensitive to and aware of the subtle/mental.

The eightfold path is nonsense as it is generally understood. There are no steps to progress through. How is it possible to practice right speech, right action, right thinking etc. It isn't. I don't believe Buddha advocated such a practice.

Generally understood by whom? Ive never heard the eightfold path defined as steps to progress through until now so I can only assume its as generally understood by you.

I think its pretty clear that Nongnai was not referring to the eightfold path in the message you responded to either BTW.

It has obviously been misunderstood by those who wrote it down after his passing.

No, just by you.

The eightfold path is comprised of eight qualities to be cultivated, not eight steps to step through in sequence.

Right action of all kinds is an automatic outcome of realising that awareness alone is and that is what your true nature is. That is the true expression of the eightfold path.

But you cant even tell us what you think awareness is.

I would say it is the opposite of Buddhist practice.

Buddhist practice would seek to see this pain as impersonal, conditioned, and changing phenomena, to see it as just pain rather than "my pain" and generating more aversion to it.

Grieving on purpose for a past condition is only going to reinforce attachment and identification with it.