Why is it so difficult to reach Nibbana?

[rockyysdt]

I feel glad I am not in that position. I'm fairly comfortable in the world of ideas. I don't feel lost in them. However, I'm always searching for greater greater understanding, and greater control over my own desires, thoughts and moods. In this respect, I think Buddhism has a lot to offer.

Hi V.

We understand the common states (conscious, dream, unconscious), but there is also another state.

A state which comes with successful meditation.

I refer to it as a state of "being".

A conscious state without thought.

I have had moments of it during my meditation periods.

One need not achieve nibhanna or any other escoteric state to achieve a state of being.

Simply the practice of meditation.

This is what is being written about.

You can take a survey if you wish.

You will find this is a common experience of quality meditation.

The experiences trd speaks of come with sustained states of being.

These states will accelerate and deepen the qualities you speak (control your life) but offer far more.

Aren't we all on the same page?

Edited June 2, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

I'm not sure these analogies of yours are useful. I know that most analogies break down when you take them too far, but this one above seems broken from the start.

It is not an analogy. So you can see in the dark? Really? Read my words again. The light is switched off and the furniture disappears. This is a simple fact. There is no conscious perception of the objects. Is that not so?

It's difficult to imagine anything about which we can be more certain, that objects do not cease to exist when the lights are switched off. That they may be carried away by a burglar or a mischievous child is another issue.

So you agree with me. There is no proof the objects are there. You provided your own example of doubt. Even if it seems likely the sun will rise tomorrow, there is no absolute certainty. You are fond of science. I put it to you that there is only a high probability that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is a scientific principle.

Let us consider a more complex example than simple perception or non perception of a material object. You are in love and believe that your feelings for someone will never change. You are convinced of it. Yet some time in the future this may not be the case. The list of similar examples is endless. You keep retreating into what seems for you a comfortable world of certainty, when in actuality, it is far from it. The point I am making is that you cannot realise and become the unchanging formless using the tools of ever changing form. I appreciate that it is not easy to make this shift in thinking Vincent, but it is absolutely necessary to progress. This is the core of Buddha's teaching as well as other enlightened masters.

Have you started to investigate the space beween thoughts yet? That would be a far more productive conversation to have.

[beautifulthailand99]

Some wonderfully wise words from Ajarn Chah that go to illustrate many of the point made in this thread.

[VincentRJ]

It is not an analogy. So you can see in the dark? Really? Read my words again. The light is switched off and the furniture disappears. This is a simple fact. There is no conscious perception of the objects. Is that not so?

C'mon Trd! Don't you think you are being a tiny bit disingenuous here?

The point I was addressing in your analogy (and if it wasn't an analogy, I don't know what it was), is the following central point you made in your statement.

You might say the furniture is still there. But this statement is not true. There is no evidence to show the furniture is still there.

Our eyes are sensitive to a very narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum, known as visible light. Being able to detect this very narrow part of the spectrum is not the only method we have of producing evidence (or becoming aware) that something exists. We not only have the senses of smell, taste, hearing and touch, but also reasoning and learned behaviour.

Most people learn very quickly that things do not disappear due to a lack of light. Think about it. You are in the room. You switch off the light. You are still in the room. You haven't disappeared. You can feel yourself. You still exist.

And just for the record, in case you don't already know (I'm not merely trying to score a point here), any person with normal sight can see in total darkness if he happens to have a pair of infrared goggles handy. All objects emit and reflect varying degrees of heat, at a frequency which is similar to that of red light, but is a longer frequency, hence its name, infrared. Infrared goggles convert the invisible infrared wavelength to visible wavelengths.

To be continued:

[VincentRJ]

Even if it seems likely the sun will rise tomorrow, there is no absolute certainty. You are fond of science. I put it to you that there is only a high probability that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is a scientific principle.

That's true. There is a very high probability that the sun will rise tomorrow. I don't require absolute certainty. I already understand, because I'm a reasonable person, that it probably doesn't exist. Why should I strive to achieve some state that probably doesn't exist, and according to Quantum mechanics perhaps cannot, exist? That sounds like an awful waste of time, unless there is some other, perhaps indirect benefit as a consequence.

I understand that theoretically it is not absolutely certain that your book (or some other object) will fall to the ground when you drop it. There's an extraordinarily remote chance that the atoms comprising the book will be so aligned that the book will temporarily resist the forces of gravity (the atoms in a solid object are always moving). However, the chance of this happening is so remote that it has probably never happened even once in the history of the human race. The chances of it happening are trillions of trillions to one.

Let us consider a more complex example than simple perception or non perception of a material object. You are in love and believe that your feelings for someone will never change. You are convinced of it. Yet some time in the future this may not be the case. The list of similar examples is endless. You keep retreating into what seems for you a comfortable world of certainty, when in actuality, it is far from it.

Good advice for a teenager, Trd. As we get older (and hopefully wiser) we understand that feelings and circumstances are always subject to change, even if we know little about Buddhism. A useful effect of Buddhism is that it repeatedly reminds its followers and devotees of this lack of permanence of things in general, so that it becomes more difficult (I hope) for people to take refuge in denialism, a common problem when admitting a truth is too painful.

The point I am making is that you cannot realise and become the unchanging formless using the tools of ever changing form. I appreciate that it is not easy to make this shift in thinking Vincent, but it is absolutely necessary to progress. This is the core of Buddha's teaching as well as other enlightened masters.

To be as honest as I can, I don't feel any great yearning or desire to become an 'unchanging formless'. Why do you want to become unchanging and formless, Trd? I would much rather be able to abolish all poverty and wars on earth.

[VincentRJ]

Some wonderfully wise words from Ajarn Chah that go to illustrate many of the point made in this thread.

I'm unable to view this video, Beautifulthailand99. I get the following message.

"The video contains content from SME, Warner Chappell and UMG, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

[trd]

The only way you are conscious of the world is through the sense organs. I repeat. When the lights go out, as far as your conscious interaction with the world is concerned, the furniture disappears. What you have written in answer to that statement is complete nonsense. What does the theoretical acquiring of infra red googles have to do with the absence of sensory input when the lights go out. Why are you having difficulty accepting this simple fact?

Edited June 3, 2014 by trd

[trd]

Most people learn very quickly that things do not disappear due to a lack of light. Think about it. You are in the room. You switch off the light. You are still in the room. You haven't disappeared. You can feel yourself. You still exist.

On the other hand this statement is more profound than I think you realise. This could be a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

You feel you exist. I"ll say it again as it is so profound. You feel you exist. Now examine what it is about that feeling that is different from changing phenomena.

Edited June 3, 2014 by trd

[beautifulthailand99]

Some wonderfully wise words from Ajarn Chah that go to illustrate many of the point made in this thread.

I'm unable to view this video, Beautifulthailand99. I get the following message.

"The video contains content from SME, Warner Chappell and UMG, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

That's a shame as it seemed to summarise these debates on this thread very simply as was Ajarn Chah's style. I will see if I can find another version that will play in Thailand. Arjan Cha's teachings and the legacy he left in the many forest sangha wats around the world founded by his acolyte Luang Phor Sumedho seems to be as far as anything can be a living embodiment of the Buddha's teachings. I was very fortunate to see him this Sunday at Amaravati Temple ,UK where there was a meeting of the elders from around the world. Hes still looking strong and smiling as he always does. An arahant if ever there was one.

He makes a statement about wanting to attain Nirvana at the end in an extract from the 1970s BBC documentary 'The Buddha goes to Sussex' about establishing the first Ajarn Chah monastery outside of Thailand. He also said something about Buddhism in Thailand being like a great ancient tree with many branches a lot of them rotten - but by taking the message of the Buddha to the west made it seem like new vigorous growth was growing and taking root

Edited June 3, 2014 by beautifulthailand99

[beautifulthailand99]

These are some of the qoutes in the blocked video.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha011.htm

1. Once there was a layman who came to Ajahn Chah and asked him who Ajahn Chah was. Ajahn Chah, seeing that the spiritual development of the invidual was not very advanced, pointed to himself and said, "This, this is Ajahn Chah."

On another occasion, Ajahn Chah was asked the same question by someone else. This time, however, seeing that the questioner's capacity to understand the Dhamma was higher, Ajahn Chah answered by saying: "Ajahn Chah ? There is NO Ajahn Chah !"

2. A visiting Zen student asked Ajahn Chah, "How old are you? Do you live here all year round?" "I live nowhere," he replied. "There is no place you can find me. I have no age. To have age, you must exist, and to think you exist is already a problem. Don't make problems; then the world has none either. Don't make a self. There's nothing more to say."

3. Why are we born ? We are born so that we will not have to be born again.

4. You say that you are too busy to meditate. Do you have time to breathe ? Meditation is your breath. Why do you have time to breathe but not to meditate ? Breathing is something vital to people's lives. If you see that Dhamma practice is vital to your life, then you will feel that beathing and practicing the Dhamma are equally important.

5. What is Dhamma ? Nothing isn't.

6. First you understand the Dhamma with your thoughts. If you begin to understand it, you will practice it. And if you practice it, you will begin to see it. And when you see it, you are the Dhamma, and you have the joy of the Buddha.

7. Only one book is worth reading: the heart.

8. If you want to wait around to meet the future Buddha, then just don't practice (the Dhamma). You'll probably be around long enough to see him when he comes.

9. We don't meditate to see heaven, but to end suffering.

10. Whatever we do, we should see ourselves. Reading books doesn't ever give rise to anything. The days pass by, but we don't see ourselves. Knowing about practice is practicing in order to know.

11.Remember you don't meditate to "get" anything, but to get "rid" of things. We do it, not with desire, but with letting go. If you "want" anything, you won't find it.

12. If you have time to be mindful, you have time to meditate.

13. Looking for peace is like looking for a turtle with mustache. You won't be able to find it. But when your heart is ready, peace will come looking for you.

14. Do not be a bodhisatta; do not be an arahant; do not be anything at all. If you are a bodhisatta, you will suffer; if you are an arahant, you will suffer; if you are anything at all, you will suffer.

15. A woman wanted to know how to deal with anger. I asked when anger arose whose anger it was. She said it was hers. Well, if it really was her anger, then she should be able to tell it to go away, shouldn't she? But it really isn't hers to command. Holding on to anger as a personal possession will cause suffering. If anger really belonged to us, it would have to obey us. If it doesn't obey us, that means it's only a deception. Don't fall for it. Whenever the mind is happy or sad, don't fall for it. It's all a deception.

16. You are your own teacher. Looking for teachers can't solve your own doubts. Investigate yourself to find the truth - inside, not outside. Knowing yourself is most important.

17. A madman and an arahant both smile, but the arahant knows why while the madman doesn't.

18. Outward scriptual study is not important. Of course, the Dhamma books are correct, but they are not right. They cannot give you right understanding. To see the word "anger" in print is not the same as experiencing anger. Only experiencing yourself can give you the true faith.

19. These days people don't search for the Truth. People study simply in order to find knowledge necessary to make a living, raise families and look after themselves, that's all. To them, being smart is more important than being wise!

20. Once a visitor asked Ajahn Chah if he was an arahant. He said, "I am like a tree in a forest. Birds come to the tree, they sit on its branches and eat its fruits. To the birds, the fruit may be sweet or sour or whatever. The birds say sweet or they say sour, but from the tree's point of view, this is just the chattering of birds."

21. Someone commented, "I can observe desire and aversion in my mind, but it's hard to observe delusion." "You're riding on a horse and asking where the horse is !" was Ajahn Chah's reply.

22. If it isn't good, let it die. If it doesn't die, make it good.

[trd]

Most people learn very quickly that things do not disappear due to a lack of light. Think about it. You are in the room. You switch off the light. You are still in the room. You haven't disappeared. You can feel yourself. You still exist.

I just want to stay with this one comment of yours because it is the key to everything I am talking about. Not only that, but they are your own words which makes it more significant than me trying to impose my words on you. Most of what you have written thus far is irrelevant. It has no bearing on discovering your natural state which is free of suffering. What you have talked about time and time again is merely a description of the relative world. The only positive lesson from your reliance and attachment to it is to illustrate that this relative world is just an appearance detected by the sense organs and interpreted by the mind. This statement stands even if you counter it with the statement "This feels real". It is important to understand that these two statements are not mutually exclusive.

The only error in your quote above is claiming you haven't disappeared. I never suggested that. What I said was that your perception of the furniture disappeared when that which supplied the necessary sensory input to your retina was cut off. As far as your immediate and direct experience is concerned, you cannot say the furniture exists. That is quite different to saying you have an expectation the furniture will still be there when the light is switched on based on similar experiences in the past which are contained as memories and which provide a map of the external world.

However "your" observation that "you" hadn't disappeared is important. The question is, who is the "you" who hadn't disappeared and to "whom" does it appear?

You go on to say, "You can feel yourself."

Are there two people inside you? A "you" who is feeling someone called "yourself". When you speak of this feeling that you exist, your are referring to the primary "I" thought.

The sense of "I" is being created constantly. It is the fundamental primary thought that first appears in the conscious mind. The "I" is in constant change, recreating itself at every moment. You identify with it, but this identity is not your natural state. Experiences, hopes, dreams, ideas and feelings interact constantly and this interaction produces the "I". Alongside this there is a tendency to identify with all this, and that tendency is the basic I-ness. Once one awakens, this tendency vanishes and there is no longer any I-ness, or I AM-ness. The interaction of the experiences, hopes, dreams, ideas and feelings still go on, but one is no longer involved in them. This is freedom. It is Oneness with Pure Being. It is "IS-ness", rather than "I AM-ness". When trying to sense the I-ness, one should be aware that it is mainly a feeling of being an individual, a someone. It is not something more or less definable, like an emotion or a thought. In terms of practice it is this that we want to abide in because turning ones attention to it dissolves the "I" leaving only awareness, being, emptiness. Rather than feast the mind, you need to fast the mind. It is when one becomes permanently established in that, that one can say I am realized. Once it happens it is irreversible.

The fact is, nothing can be said about this state except that it IS. The closest you can ever come to say what it is, is that it is IS-ness after you go beyond the realization that you are not the primal I AM-ness or the primal I-ness (which is the same). It is not even "nothingness", since this implies absence. It is not something you grow into, since this implies change of something unawakened into something more awakened. And you must realize that there is no longer a someone that has become something, because there is only you in your natural state. Nor is it something that you get or reach or grow into, it is being who you already are prior to a sense of I-NESS.

So Vincent, if you want to take your interest in the Buddha's teachings beyond a selective and superficial understanding, you will need to explore that which lies within. It can be summed up in two words. Be Still.

[rockyysdt]

It is not something more or less definable, like an emotion or a thought. In terms of practice it is this that we want to abide in because turning ones attention to it dissolves the "I" leaving only awareness, being, emptiness. Rather than feast the mind, you need to fast the mind. It is when one becomes permanently established in that, that one can say I am realized. Once it happens it is irreversible.

What levels of stillness are required to permanently establish an irreversible state of pure awareness?

The moments of stillness experienced during periods of meditation, are these only partial experiences of stillness, and not deep enough?

What occurs once the body/mind dies?

Edited June 4, 2014 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

The other pivotal point Vincent touched upon earlier was the value for effort.

Many have said that it may take a lifetime of practice and still not achieve.

Fred even suggested stream entry (success in seven lifetimes).

Some practitioners spend the greater part of there full time life in its pursuit.

Are there words of insight to Vincent's expression of effort vs gain, especially considering his need to support his greater family?

[trd]

What levels of stillness are required to permanently establish an irreversible state of pure awareness?

When the surface of a pond acts like a mirror it is still, but just one ripple and it is not still. If just one thought arises and disturbs the stillness of the mind then clearly it is not still. So there are no levels. You are either still or you are not. But this should not be of any concern to you. In your practice you will alternate between stillness and activity all the time. You will either be a 0 or a 1 just like computer binary code. Thought or no thought. This means you are and always have been totally open to becoming established in that which you already are. It is not a question of attaining anything, but just dissolving into what you already are. You will have seen those optical illusion puzzles that have a hidden image contained within it. You may have to look at it for a long time before the image reveals itself. But once you see the image you can never unsee it. The perception of it cannot be forgotten or unlearned.

It is not possible to predict when this will become permanently established, but it is only natural and understandable, and it is implicit in your question that you want to be able to measure your progress in some way. If you are an athlete training to run a certain distance in a specific time you can measure your progress each day as you record a faster time. That empirically measurable progress acts as an incentive in reaching your goal and assures you that you are not wasting your time.

So how do you know you are not wasting your time meditating? The problem with measuring progress in this instance is that the mind which is limited cannot be a measure. In order to become still we need to transcend mind so how could mind be a measuring instrument. When the mind is completely still (it doesn't matter if it is for a second or an hour) there is only awareness which knows itself. As soon as you become aware of the awareness, it becomes an experience. This is important to understand. Awareness is only subject, the knower, but if you then say, "Ahh, I am enjoying this beautiful feeling of stillness", you are immediately objectifying the experience and you are now creating an enjoyer of an objectified feeling of bliss. This is quite natural. While you live in a human body there cannot be the absolute without duality. If the absolute is recognised as your real identity, there will always be an expression into the relative. This will never end.

So although the expression of joy or bliss as a result of knowing stillness can become a kind of measure because it is now being objectified, it is also unreliable. And that is simply because your experiences will alter from day to day. Sometimes you will have a very deep experience and at other times your mind will be like a monkey in a cage. And that is unfortunate because this is the main reason people stop practising after a time. They hit some bumps and believe it is not working anymore. So don't be concerned. As long as you have this will to practice, you are making progress. There is no doubt about it.

The moments of stillness experienced during periods of meditation, are these only partial experiences of stillness, and not deep enough?

I think I have answered this. Never be concerned with this kind of analysis or you will destroy the innocence and effortlessness of the practice.

What occurs once the body/mind dies?

The body is already dead. It consists of inert matter and has no consciousness. As for the mind, it should be clear from what I have said that the mind dies when you have transcended it and become still.

[rockyysdt]

The body is already dead. It consists of inert matter and has no consciousness. As for the mind, it should be clear from what I have said that the mind dies when you have transcended it and become still.

Why does Awareness inhabit a dead shell?

If the "Ï" is not aware, what matter is this if the shell is dead, the mind is a construct and awareness already exists?

Is it an imperative the " I " witness its higher self or is the higher self asleep whilst inhabiting the shell?

Is the higher self a singularity or part of all awareness/universal?

Edited June 4, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Why does Awareness inhabit a dead shell?

What are the implications of awareness inhabiting a live shell? What do you mean by inhabit? The body has no intrinsic sentience. If you cut off an arm you are still aware. As our friend Vincent pointed out, the cells are continually dying and regenerating. It changes nothing. And as I wrote in a previous post, the death of body happens in the unchanging silence within which all phenomena appears and disappears. So it is as if the body is already dead, just as each moment is born and dies. The body is not who you are so it is dead to your real nature.

If the "Ï" is not aware, what matter is this if the shell is dead, the mind is a construct and awareness already exists?

How can the "I" not be aware. Matter to whom? Awareness is not time bound.

Is it an imperative the " I " witness its higher self or is the higher self asleep whilst inhabiting the shell?

What is this higher self of which you speak? Edited June 4, 2014 by trd

[rockyysdt]

What is this higher self of which you speak?

Awareness.

[rockyysdt]

So is that which is permanent and unconditioned (our true nature), an unchanging timeless silence with awareness?

Is the expression of joy or bliss as a result of knowing stillness only experienced whilst anchored to the " I " but diffuses into equanimity once the organs of the five senses die?

[trd]

What is this higher self of which you speak?

Awareness.

The only problem with using the word higher is that it implies there is a lower. There cannot be either if we talk of something boundless. Language will always be a problem. You use the word self. The higher self would present a problem for a Buddhist. I am comfortable with referring to the absolute as the Self because I am steeped in the tradition of Vedanta. That is why I use the word awareness or pure awareness to avoid any terminology issues. Truth is beyond all such classifications. Did Buddha call himself a Buddhist.

Edited June 5, 2014 by trd

[trd]

So is that which is permanent and unconditioned (our true nature), an unchanging timeless silence with awareness?

Is the expression of joy or bliss as a result of knowing stillness only experienced whilst anchored to the " I " but diffuses into equanimity once the organs of the five senses die?

Not timeless silence within awareness. That sounds like a duality. They are one and the same. Beware of the limitations of language.

Bliss is an experience so it requires a subject as the knower and an object to be known. Absolute awareness is not an experience because there is only knower. But absolute is continually manifesting as duality in the relative field. The absolute is total happiness and comes through to the relative. When you emerge from a swimming pool you are still wet as water from the pool clings to your body.

Why this preoccupation about the death of the body? Find out who you are first then all will be revealed.

[rockyysdt]

Why this preoccupation about the death of the body? Find out who you are first then all will be revealed.

As impermanent and conditioned as my body/mind is, if I fail to awaken, then when I die isn't it all over for me?

In other words, when my only awareness (body/mind-relative/impermanent conditioning) dies, there is no more, as awareness of what I really am hasn't been established and this could take eaons if never.

Edited June 5, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

The only way you are conscious of the world is through the sense organs. I repeat. When the lights go out, as far as your conscious interaction with the world is concerned, the furniture disappears. What you have written in answer to that statement is complete nonsense. What does the theoretical acquiring of infra red googles have to do with the absence of sensory input when the lights go out. Why are you having difficulty accepting this simple fact?

Trd,

I was addressing your following question which seemed to express great incredulity.

So you can see in the dark? Really?

Answer: Yes I can see in the dark, provided I have the appropriate spectacles (ie. infrared goggles).

You might also ask a person who is long sighted, "So you can read that small print? Really?"

Answer: Yes I can read that small print, provided I'm wearing my reading glasses.

You might also ask a deaf person, "Can you really hear what I'm saying?"

Answer: Yes. I can hear you perfectly well. I'm using an amazing, new hearing aid; the latest technology.

One aspect of the cause of suffering, is a consequence of having unreasonable or unrealistic expectations, wouldn't you agree? All expectations are not necessarily unreasonable and unrealistic. It is usually not unreasonable to expect the furniture to remain in place when the lights go out. However, one's expectations should ideally always be based upon full knowledge and awareness of the circumstances, as far as possible. If you live in an area infested with vipers and rattlesnakes, and such snakes occasionally get into the house, you might find those infrared goggles useful.

Vipers and rattlesnakes are among those creatures who can 'see' in the dark, or detect infrared wavelengths. If there happens to be a rattlesnake hiding under the furniture when the lights are switched off, you will not be able to see it, if it comes out of hiding and moves towards you, unless you are wearing your infrared goggles.

I just want to stay with this one comment of yours because it is the key to everything I am talking about. Not only that, but they are your own words which makes it more significant than me trying to impose my words on you. Most of what you have written thus far is irrelevant. It has no bearing on discovering your natural state which is free of suffering. What you have talked about time and time again is merely a description of the relative world.

Yes. I confess. My only experience is of the relative world, and of myself and others within that relative world. When I meditate and observe my own thoughts, I cannot deny that they are my thoughts. I haven't yet experienced any extra-sensory messages from Gods, Devas, Angels or deceased persons (that I'm aware of).

However, I can imagine that, after considerable practice, one might be able to get into such a deep trance, with complete cessation of all the usual conscious thought processes (but not necessarily, perhaps, all the subconscious thought processes), that one becomes completely unaware of 'self' and the surrounding world.

I'm not sure I want to go that far. If I completely lose self-awareness, how can I decide when to end that deep trance? I might stay there till I die.

I'll take this opportunity to thank Beautifulthailand99 for the video of Ajahn Chah's thoughts. One of his comments that stuck in my mind was his statement about our lack of control of our thoughts and our body. He says, we think we own our body, yet we cannot instruct it not to get sick or not to get old. Does our body obeys us? No. It takes no notice.

I'm getting a sense here of a degree of hopelessness due perhaps to a certain lack of competence in handling our worldly affairs. In other words, we lack full control of our affairs, so let's assume it's all an illusion. Problem solved!

It's true that we can never guarantee that we will not get sick, and that there are no guarantees in life in general. We are all subject to accidents and the effects of unforeseen circumstances, and we are all subject to particular genetic weaknesses that might makes us more prone to getting a particular disease than someone else with a different genetic makeup.

However, there often is something we can do about this. We do not unavoidably lack any control, as Ajahn Chah suggests. The key is in understanding, or reducing our ignorance, which is also a Buddhist concept.

With regard to our body getting sick, it's true that we cannot give the body a simple, direct command, such as "Do not get sick", and expect the body to obey. However, through understanding of the causes of sickness, in relation to our lifestyle and diet, we can arrange our behaviour and habits so that sickness may not be a problem. In this sense, we have at least some measure of control over our life and destiny.

For example, I've mentioned before the issue of white rice. This is just one example where people are either making a deliberate choice to place the taste of food over their own health, or are just ignorant of the fact that white rice is less nutritious than brown rice. We have the choice, and in that sense, and to that extent, we have the control over our own health and well-being, not only through the decision to eat brown rice instead of white rice, but through numerous other decisions to eat only wholesome and unprocessed food, to take regular exercise, to practise meditation if feeling stressed, and so on.

Thus endeth the lesson.

[trd]

As impermanent and conditioned as my body/mind is, if I fail to awaken, then when I die isn't it all over for me?

In other words, when my only awareness (body/mind-relative/impermanent conditioning) dies, there is no more, as awareness of what I really am hasn't been established and this could take eaons if never.

So to continue with your logic, if you were to awaken, your body and mind would still be impermanent so it would still be all over for you when you die. What has changed?

Awareness is not time bound and is prior to individual consciousness (the expression of "I" and attachment to objects) which is perishable but dependent on awareness just as a wave is dependent on ocean and pot is dependent on clay. You don't miss the boat if you don't realise while alive. There is a commonly held view that it is about attaining something which you don't yet have. But your true nature has never been lost. It is a case of seeing what is already there by removing ignorance. That reminds me of one time when my mother told me she had lost her glasses and started looking around for them until I pointed out they had been on her face the whole time.

When you look at the rope and mistake it for a snake, but then on closer inspection see it is rope, the illusion of snake disappears together with belief in existence of snake, and what remains is realisation there was always only rope.

Edited June 6, 2014 by trd

[rockyysdt]

As impermanent and conditioned as my body/mind is, if I fail to awaken, then when I die isn't it all over for me?

In other words, when my only awareness (body/mind-relative/impermanent conditioning) dies, there is no more, as awareness of what I really am hasn't been established and this could take eaons if never.

So to continue with your logic, if you were to awaken, your body and mind would still be impermanent so it would still be all over for you when you die. What has changed?

Awareness is not time bound and is prior to individual consciousness (the expression of "I" and attachment to objects) which is perishable but dependent on awareness just as a wave is dependent on ocean and pot is dependent on clay. You don't miss the boat if you don't realise while alive. There is a commonly held view that it is about attaining something which you don't yet have. But your true nature has never been lost. It is a case of seeing what is already there by removing ignorance. That reminds me of one time when my mother told me she had lost her glasses and started looking around for them until I pointed out they had been on her face the whole time.

When you look at the rope and mistake it for a snake, but then on closer inspection see it is rope, the illusion of snake disappears together with belief in existence of snake, and what remains is realisation there was always only rope.

So, in summary there is:

1. Awareness (permanent & unconditioned)

2. Mind/Body (impermanent & conditioned).

The mind/body is unaware.

Dedicated practice exposes the mind/body to what has always been (awareness).

The Mind/Body must sacrifice what it perceives as desirable and expose itself to that which it is averse, in order to direct resource towards appropriate practice.

This life long investment may not bear fruit and may take eaons.

However awareness already exists and will continue timelessly.

Only mind/body is unaware.

Mind/body is impermanent and will soon fall away.

So, as awareness exists timelessly, is awakening purely an opportunity for the mind/body (relative) to intersect with the absolute?

If the relative is conditioned and impermanent and illusory (charade) why does this matter?

Isn't such pursuit egotistical?

Edited June 6, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

The mind/body is unaware.

If the mind wasn't aware, how would you function?

If you consider the sun to be a self illuminating source of light, then to itself it is the primary source. The moon borrows light from the sun and is a secondary source. But to the observer of the moon it appears to be the source. If an observer sees the moonlight reflected in a lake, it appears that the lake is the source although it is borrowing from the moon. So although the mind is borrowing its light from awareness as the source, we cannot say the mind is unaware. In turn the senses borrow light from the mind. But if we remove senses and if we remove mind, which is just absence of thought, we get back to awareness which is neither affected by or dependent on mind and senses. So we can say that mind is aware only by virtue of the primary awareness.

The Mind/Body must sacrifice what it perceives as desirable and expose itself to that which it is averse, in order to direct resource towards appropriate practice.

If by sacrifice you mean turning away from attachments that bind us and is the cause of dukha.

This life long investment may not bear fruit and may take eaons.

Correct. But what about eaons that have already passed. The investment is paying off. Perhaps that's why remembering past lives would be such a burden. If you remember just one, it will never feel like an eaon but a mere lifetime. Blink of an eye!

[trd]

So, as awareness exists timelessly, is awakening purely an opportunity for the mind/body (relative) to intersect with the absolute?

The mind/body cannot intersect with the absolute. They cannot be separate since the absolute contains everything including mind/body. The snake, although an illusion, manifests from the always existing rope. Without rope there is no snake. If, as you say, awareness exists timelessly, then awakening to that is to be timeless, to be fully present in the moment. To go back to our sun analogy, we know that when there is no sun, the stars and planets are visible in the night sky. Think of those as the ever changing relative. But when we have the sun, the light obliterates the sky. The stars are still there but we cannot see them because the primary source is all pervasive. When that peace is all pervasive, you know who you are. The relative, instead of being a trap, now becomes your playground. The actor on the stage enjoys playing a role, but he doesn't forget who he really is.

If the relative is conditioned and impermanent and illusory (charade) why does this matter?

It doesn't matter. You are free to identify with it or not.

Isn't such pursuit egotistical?

It is the most selfish thing you can do.

[rockyysdt]

ey is in understanding, or reducing our ignorance, which is also a Buddhist concept.

With regard to our body getting sick, it's true that we cannot give the body a simple, direct command, such as "Do not get sick", and expect the body to obey. However, through understanding of the causes of sickness, in relation to our lifestyle and diet, we can arrange our behaviour and habits so that sickness may not be a problem. In this sense, we have at least some measure of control over our life and destiny.

For example, I've mentioned before the issue of white rice. This is just one example where people are either making a deliberate choice to place the taste of food over their own health, or are just ignorant of the fact that white rice is less nutritious

Thus endeth the lesson.

Those in the west tend to be more heavily attached to over analysis.

You also seem to have an obsession with white rice.

In terms of diet there are many variables which go towards achieving healthy diet.

Rice species may have as great if not greater impact on health than the polishing process.

Some glutinous species may not be as wholesome as other lower GI types.

Also polished rice will keep for greater periods whilst the rice husks are prone to becoming rancid.

Brown rice is high in insoluble fibre speeding up the passage of material through your digestive system.

If too fast nutrients may not be absorbed and digestion maybe incomplete.

A healthy diet requires a balance of insoluble fibre and soluble (slows passage) fibre..

Too much brown rice not so good.

In terms of experiencing awareness without thought science thrives on hypotheses and investigation.

Is what is being suggested beyond possibility?

To answer this you might contemplate on infinity and the infinite.

Edited June 7, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

Those in the west tend to be more heavily attached to over analysis.

Hi Rockyystd,

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm trying to think of an example of over analysis. What springs to mind is President Obama's statement a few years ago, in relation to Climate Change, "The science is settled." I couldn't help wondering at the time, if it's true that the science is settled then why are we continuing to spend millions of dollars supporting climate change research centres? Are we engaging in over analysis, or is it perhaps not true that the 'science is settled'?

You also seem to have an obsession with white rice.

Good point, worthy of analysis. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that brown rice is more nutritious. Whenever I've discussed this issue with 'white rice advocates', they've always referred to the better taste that white rice confers upon the other ingredients in the dish. In other words, because white rice is basically devoid of taste, it doesn't interfere with the taste of those other ingredients.

Brown rice has its own, natural taste, perhaps slightly analogous to the natural awareness of self in a state of deep meditation.

The primary reason for eating white rice is an attachment to sensory pleasures. Therefore, the eating of white rice is against fundamental Buddhist principles.

Am I obsessed? Who is more obsessed? Those who insist on a choice of less nutritious food because it provides greater sensory pleasure, or those who are prepared to sacrifice sensory pleasure for the long term health benefits?

In terms of diet there are many variables which go towards achieving healthy diet.

Rice species may have as great if not greater impact on health than the polishing process.

Some glutinous species may not be as wholesome as other lower GI types.

Also polished rice will keep for greater periods whilst the rice husks are prone to becoming rancid.

Brown rice is high in insoluble fibre speeding up the passage of material through your digestive system.

If too fast nutrients may not be absorbed and digestion maybe incomplete.

A healthy diet requires a balance of insoluble fibre and soluble (slows passage) fibre..

Too much brown rice not so good.

There are always pros and cons to everything.. If one is in the business of selling rice, then the greater shelf life of white rice is an economic advantage. On the other hand, the less processing required to produce brown rice is also an economic advantage which might be at least equal, or even greater, than the economic advantage of the greater shelf life of white rice.

The fact that different rice species may vary in their nutritional value, is a separate issue. All varieties of food not only vary with regard to their nutritional content, but also the same species of food can vary in nutritional content depending on the quality of the soil it is grown in. For example, an essential trace element required for good health is Selenium. Some soils are completely deficient is Selenium. Food grown in such soil will also be deficient in Selenium, even if it's a food which is recommended for its Selenium content.

As regards too much insoluble fibre, let's refer to the Buddhist principle of 'everything in moderation'. Even too much pure water can be harmful. White rice has its advantages if you want to put on weight. Sumo wrestlers eat about 10 bowls of rice per day in order to put on weight.. Brown rice might not be as effective in such circumstances. There might also be certain individuals with intestinal problems who find white rice easier on their system.

In such circumstances, I refer you to the Kalama Sutta.

In terms of experiencing awareness without thought science thrives on hypotheses and investigation.

Is what is being suggested beyond possibility?

To answer this you might contemplate on infinity and the infinite.

I'm too practical to contemplate infinity. It's like contemplating the Big Bang or the age of the universe. I don't find such issues relevant to my circumstances on this planet, although the issues do have a theoretical fascination, bordering on science fiction.

In summary, I would say that the natural, non-egotistical view of the self, during periods of deep meditation, is analogous to the natural processes of nature. Consider any completely natural landscape, with trees, grass, various wild animals, ants, spiders, worms, billions of bacteria, rainfall and sunshine etc, all working together to produce a beautiful, harmonious state, in complete equilibrium.

That's your mind in its natural, perennial state.

[rockyysdt]

Hi V.

Well said.

In terms of over analysing experiential based practice, others have commented that this is one of the obstacles encountered more by westerners than by asians.

My rice remark came about due a number of your posts referring to white rice.

I personally eat all types, appreciating the subtle nutty flavour of brown rice as well as the characteristics of basmati, jasmine and others. When it comes to dietary issues wheat is the big culprit.

I think, until we develop our ability to overcome attachment to greed, appreciating the flavour of food is part of awareness as long as we don't lapse into gluttony.

I'm still puzzled about your meditation practice.

Doesn't it take you to momentary periods of no thought?

If it did, didn't you recover your ability to think?

Edited June 7, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

Hi Rocky,

My rice remark came about due a number of your posts referring to white rice.

I find Buddhist literature is replete with parables and analogies. That's fine. Such stories attempt to create a connection of understanding between everyday, common experience and the higher or more general principles being taught.

Likewise, for me, the white/brown rice issue is yet another analogy to describe the nature of illusion. That rice is a food (white or brown) is not an illusion. That white rice is cleaner and purer and more sophisticated and therefore more desirable than brown rice is an illusion based upon ignorance. The same applies to white flour as apposed to wholemeal flour.

It's interesting that in the News section of Thai Visa, there's currently a thread on 'Overweight, Low IQ Kids' in Thailand. Apparently, it's an increasing problem. Now, I'm not suggesting that the eating of white rice in itself is the culprit (although Sumo wrestlers do find it useful for putting on weight). Rather, it is the attitude of mind that ignores the health benefit of brown rice, that is the problem. If one is insensitive and uncaring about the nutritional value of the most prevalent and staple food that one eats, then why would one be expected to care about the nutritional value of all the other foods that happen to take one's fancy, or why would one be concerned about the benefits of physical exercise.

It's also interesting that Maitreya, the future Buddha who will take over from Sakyamuni Buddha at some point in the future when most people have forgotten about the Dharma, is often presented as a fat, laughing Buddha, who is definitely obese in the extreme. How prescient!

We know that obesity, worldwide, is on the rise. Could it be that obesity will be the norm by the time that Maitreya takes over in the Buddhist world and that a statue of a laughing, obese Buddha will be easy for a future population to identify with. I can't help wondering about this, partly 'tongue in cheek'.

I'm still puzzled about your meditation practice. Doesn't it take you to momentary periods of no thought? If it did, didn't you recover your ability to think?

Again, I was being a bit provocative, or 'tongue-in-cheek'. I was trying to suggest that the joyful experience of Nirvana, or of true self, might be so alluring that my body would decide to stay there. Pure speculation on my part.