"spirituality"

[sabaijai]

Short, clear explanation of namarupa by Ven Noah Yuttadhammo, following the Aj Tong Sirimangalo tradition..

[rockyysdt]

Agreed. I might also push it and claim that flora also has a kind of rudimentary mind. Because it would seem that life exists before mind from this aggregate description. If one follows a logical progression. So what is a peta? The life is gone but some vestage of mind remains? This would suggest that mind is not localised in the body and can operate independantly. Where does this mind really exist? Spooky stuff.

I thought that the teaching was that Mind and Body cannot be separated.

[Ven. Ajita:] ...name & form, dear sir: Tell me, when asked this, where are they brought to a halt? [The Buddha:] This question you've asked, Ajita, I'll answer it for you — where name & form are brought to a halt without trace: With the cessation of consciousness they're brought to a halt.

[Several]

Then why devote an entire loka to the petas? And it says consciousness, not life. It would have been far simpler to say "you die and thats that."

Its maybe not as straightforward as we first assume. Also if the "fathom long carcass" quote is accurate, how is it that this carcass exhibits awareness?

Was Buddha avoiding being drawn into metaphysical argument whilst alluding to higher aspects of consciousness? I wonder about the sutta where he takes a handful of leaves and asks the monks if there are more in his hand or in the trees above. The answer being in the trees he tells them that on the same way what he teaches is like the leaves in his hand, but what he knows is like the leaves in the trees. I often wonder what that knowledge consists of, though of course I'll probably never know. But it is the way Buddha words his statements that also gets me thinking.

Or maybe I just over-analyse stuff. Don't take me too seriously on this. Its mostly a mental exercise.

[rockyysdt]

Then why devote an entire loka to the petas? And it says consciousness, not life. It would have been far simpler to say "you die and thats that."

Its maybe not as straightforward as we first assume. Also if the "fathom long carcass" quote is accurate, how is it that this carcass exhibits awareness?

Was Buddha avoiding being drawn into metaphysical argument whilst alluding to higher aspects of consciousness? I wonder about the sutta where he takes a handful of leaves and asks the monks if there are more in his hand or in the trees above. The answer being in the trees he tells them that on the same way what he teaches is like the leaves in his hand, but what he knows is like the leaves in the trees. I often wonder what that knowledge consists of, though of course I'll probably never know. But it is the way Buddha words his statements that also gets me thinking.

Or maybe I just over-analyse stuff. Don't take me too seriously on this. Its mostly a mental exercise.

I'd imagine those living 2,500 years ago would much rather believe in life, not only perpetual (reincarnation), but in higher plains such as the house of Brahman.

In order to achieve higher consciousness one must expend effort, a big hurdle for many locked in sloth, torpor, delusion and aversion.

One option involves belief with great reward, whilst the other, perhaps offers the truth.

Without knowing which one is the truthful path, one would go for the option involving least effort with greatest reward.

Perhaps the Buddha was referring to Awakening.

The experience which is only possible after developing great concentration through industrious practice.

The experience which we speak about, but don't understood.

The experience which will yield the wisdom which we also talk about but don't understand.

I'm thinking, how powerful would it feel/be to stand here free from delusion, aversion & greed through the dropping away of attachment achieved by actual expereince of our real reality.

Maybe this state is like the leaves in the trees!

though of course I'll probably never know

Don't throw obstacles in your way Sev.

You're young and have every chance.

View the affect your environment has been having on you without attachment and industriously cut through with your practice, without any expectation.

Thank those who have tried to hold you back as they offer gifts for you to work through.

Edited February 22, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Then why devote an entire loka to the petas? And it says consciousness, not life. It would have been far simpler to say "you die and thats that."

Its maybe not as straightforward as we first assume. Also if the "fathom long carcass" quote is accurate, how is it that this carcass exhibits awareness?

Was Buddha avoiding being drawn into metaphysical argument whilst alluding to higher aspects of consciousness? I wonder about the sutta where he takes a handful of leaves and asks the monks if there are more in his hand or in the trees above. The answer being in the trees he tells them that on the same way what he teaches is like the leaves in his hand, but what he knows is like the leaves in the trees. I often wonder what that knowledge consists of, though of course I'll probably never know. But it is the way Buddha words his statements that also gets me thinking.

Or maybe I just over-analyse stuff. Don't take me too seriously on this. Its mostly a mental exercise.

I'd imagine those living 2,500 years ago would much rather believe in life, not only perpetual (reincarnation), but in higher plains such as the house of Brahman.

In order to achieve higher consciousness one must expend effort, a big hurdle for many locked in sloth, torpor, delusion and aversion.

One option involves belief with great reward, whilst the other, perhaps offers the truth.

Without knowing which one is the truthful path, one would go for the option involving least effort with greatest reward.

Perhaps the Buddha was referring to Awakening.

The experience which is only possible after developing great concentration through industrious practice.

The experience which we speak about, but don't understood.

The experience which will yield the wisdom which we also talk about but don't understand.

I'm thinking, how powerful would it feel/be to stand here free from delusion, aversion & greed through the dropping away of attachment achieved by actual expereince of our real reality.

Maybe this state is like the leaves in the trees!

though of course I'll probably never know

Don't throw obstacles in your way Sev.

You're young and have every chance.

View the affect your environment has been having on you without attachment and industriously cut through with your practice, without any expectation.

Thank those who have tried to hold you back as they offer gifts for you to work through.

First, I'm not young. Next, the leaves refered to knowledge not state. I am not arrogant enough to believe my knowledge will equal Buddhas, it has nothing to do with realisation. Tatiyampi, people living 2,500 years ago are no different to people 25,000 years ago or people today. Our toys change but our appetites remain. IV. Pity those who try to hold me back. Vae victus.

[rockyysdt]

My understanding was that knowledge (wisdom gained through experience) would yield state.

If you throw everything into it, perhap awakening in 10 - 15 years.

If you don't get over the line, the fall back would be that worthy diligent practice will still yield a superior life.

Then why devote an entire loka to the petas? And it says consciousness, not life. It would have been far simpler to say "you die and thats that."
Its maybe not as straightforward as we first assume. Also if the "fathom long carcass" quote is accurate, how is it that this carcass exhibits awareness?
Was Buddha avoiding being drawn into metaphysical argument whilst alluding to higher aspects of consciousness? I wonder about the sutta where he takes a handful of leaves and asks the monks if there are more in his hand or in the trees above. The answer being in the trees he tells them that on the same way what he teaches is like the leaves in his hand, but what he knows is like the leaves in the trees. I often wonder what that knowledge consists of, though of course I'll probably never know. But it is the way Buddha words his statements that also gets me thinking.
Or maybe I just over-analyse stuff. Don't take me too seriously on this. Its mostly a mental exercise.

I'd imagine those living 2,500 years ago would much rather believe in life, not only perpetual (reincarnation), but in higher plains such as the house of Brahman.

In order to achieve higher consciousness one must expend effort, a big hurdle for many locked in sloth, torpor, delusion and aversion.

One option involves belief with great reward, whilst the other, perhaps offers the truth.

Without knowing which one is the truthful path, one would go for the option involving least effort with greatest reward.


Perhaps the Buddha was referring to Awakening.

The experience which is only possible after developing great concentration through industrious practice.

The experience which we speak about, but don't understood.

The experience which will yield the wisdom which we also talk about but don't understand.

I'm thinking, how powerful would it feel/be to stand here free from delusion, aversion & greed through the dropping away of attachment achieved by actual expereince of our real reality.

Maybe this state is like the leaves in the trees!


though of course I'll probably never know
Don't throw obstacles in your way Sev.
You're young and have every chance.
View the affect your environment has been having on you without attachment and industriously cut through with your practice, without any expectation.
Thank those who have tried to hold you back as they offer gifts for you to work through.

First, I'm not young. Next, the leaves refered to knowledge not state. I am not arrogant enough to believe my knowledge will equal Buddhas, it has nothing to do with realisation. Tatiyampi, people living 2,500 years ago are no different to people 25,000 years ago or people today. Our toys change but our appetites remain. IV. Pity those who try to hold me back. Vae victus.

[Several]

Or perhaps state leads to wisdom. Eureka moments. We are advised practice rather than study so knowledge itself won't cut it. I may know how to shoot the bow in theory, but won't strike the mark without practice. Both are necessary for consistency, practice alone will yield some results, knowledge alone will not. After time I percieve a facet of my practice is lacking and that inhibits progress, the wisdom arises from seeing this thing I had not seen before. So wisdom is mentation which is based on insight. Description comes after perception. I think.

[rockyysdt]

Or perhaps state leads to wisdom. Eureka moments. We are advised practice rather than study so knowledge itself won't cut it. I may know how to shoot the bow in theory, but won't strike the mark without practice. Both are necessary for consistency, practice alone will yield some results, knowledge alone will not. After time I percieve a facet of my practice is lacking and that inhibits progress, the wisdom arises from seeing this thing I had not seen before. So wisdom is mentation which is based on insight. Description comes after perception. I think.

Yes, the wisdom which comes from study allows you to begin the practice, but the wisdom gained from insight (actual experience) is what we seek.

Insight yields the answers and can't be described in words.

If you have established deep concentration but insight reveals lacking then you probably need a teacher who has already experienced such insights.

In the mean time face your perception of lacking with bare attention.

Your perception maybe a conditioned state which can color awareness.

Edited February 23, 2013 by rockyysdt

[simple1]

The mind is itself an aggregate of:

vinyana (consciousness)

sunya (evaluation or recognizing)

vedana (feeling, sensation)

sankhara (reaction)

These 4 combined produce the impermanent, conditioned compound thing we call "mind", In meditation one can discern these separate components of mind and how they each operate. (And of course meditation seeks to strengthen the function of pure vinyana)

These 4 put together = nama and then add the body (rupa) = nama-rupa, the 5 aggregates that make up what we perceive as self

I am not very familiar with Buddhism. Am I correct that you are aligning to the Five Skandhas:

1. Form
2. Sensation
3. Perception
4. Mental formations
5. Consciousness

Can one say the essence is captured in the Buddhist Term “Anatman”. I read that Theravada Buddhism considers anatman to mean that an individual's ego or personality is a fetter and delusion. Once freed of this delusion, the individual may enjoy the bliss of Nirvana. Another description could be the combination of self-transcendence & self-transformation to reach Nirvana. Are these disciplines covered under the term "spirituality"?

[Several]

Or perhaps state leads to wisdom. Eureka moments. We are advised practice rather than study so knowledge itself won't cut it. I may know how to shoot the bow in theory, but won't strike the mark without practice. Both are necessary for consistency, practice alone will yield some results, knowledge alone will not. After time I percieve a facet of my practice is lacking and that inhibits progress, the wisdom arises from seeing this thing I had not seen before. So wisdom is mentation which is based on insight. Description comes after perception. I think.

Yes, the wisdom which comes from study allows you to begin the practice, but the wisdom gained from insight (actual experience) is what we seek.

Insight yields the answers and can't be described in words.

If you have established deep concentration but insight reveals lacking then you probably need a teacher who has already experienced such insights.

In the mean time face your perception of lacking with bare attention.

Your perception maybe a conditioned state which can color awareness.

Er, yeah. That 'lacking' was just an example. Either form of wisdom you describe is internal dialogue, and all perception is a conditioned state.

[weary]

However, I also know for a fact the arctic is bloody cold and I have absolutely no desire to verify that for myself.

This guy has done the work for us...

[camerata]

My take on "spirituality" is that it relates not so much to an afterlife but to being a part of something greater than ourselves - something above and beyond the material world. Seeking the attainment of nibbana in this life seems to me to be a spiritual endeavour.

Rodney Smith said it better than I ever could:

"Spirituality is the evolution from identification with the body and brain to fully abiding in awareness."

and

"... spirituality is allowing the nothing we are to manifest."

[lungmi]

Very good discussion at a high level. It merits to be printed. I wanted to answer but I could not. Too much "brain storming" in the good way.

I admire the mods to animate this forum.

I retire but I follow.

[dutchguest]

May be you can call
spirituality the most inner core of all existing organized religions,
a core that often seems lost in the many rituals and outer forms when
a religious teaching adapts to changing cultural and historical
circumstances.

My idea is that -certainly in the
western world- there is a tendency to pass by the official religions
for these reasons and go on a more individual search.

May be in Buddhism you can call the
deeper states of meditation the spiritual core. A video of Osho to
give an impression what this state means can be seen here:

http://www.salto.nl/streamplayer/salto2_ondemand.asp?y=13&m=05&d=28&t=2200&s=0