Buddhism_A Serious Discussion

[VincentRJ]

Brucenkhamen,

It's true I was the first to use the word obstacle in response to your statement that one doesn't learn the ability to overcome craving by having no opportunity, and also in response to your weightlifting analogy.

However, I thought I'd made my meaning clear when I wrote in the same post in bold, To be alive is to have the opportunity. (post #24)

There are enough temptations to overcome in everyday life, for the person on the Buddhist path, without introducing additional ones, and/or without increasing the intensity of existing ones.

Rightly or wrongly, I got the impression you were recommending a process of increasing the normal difficulties in life that result from temptation and craving, just as a weight lifter increases the weights he's trying to lift over time.

Now, to get to your other points in your last post, I have never claimed that women are an obstacle, or that Bhikkhunnis have no right to live in a monastery.

I attempted to make it clear in my previous post, in relation to Dhutanga Austerities, that it is the craving or desire for something (such as food, sex, fame, wealth etc) which is the obstacle, not the process of attempting to relinquishing such desire, and certainly not the object of the desire.

The object one desires is not the obstacle. It is the desire itself, for the object, that is the obstacle. One shouldn't confuse the two.

Unfortunately, many people do confuse the two, which is why women are often blamed for the uncontrollable sexual desire of men, why women in some cultures are required to cover themselves from head to foot, and why, I suspect, it's often so difficult for women to become Bhikkhunis in Thailand.

There is also the issue of understanding words in context, which I think is part of the problem here. Trd puts it well in his above post. He knows a thing or two.

[Brucenkhamen]

There are enough temptations to overcome in everyday life, for the person on the Buddhist path, without introducing additional ones, and/or without increasing the intensity of existing ones.

This is true, and my point is the necessity to interact with and relate to women (or whatever gender takes your fancy) is part of normal everyday life, it's not an additional temptation (i'm glad we've lost the word obstacle here) that one intentionally adds.

Rightly or wrongly, I got the impression you were recommending a process of increasing the normal difficulties in life that result from temptation and craving, just as a weight lifter increases the weights he's trying to lift over time.

Wrongly, I was recommending one not shrink away from or try to avoid something that is a part of normal everyday life just because it might be challenging.

I attempted to make it clear in my previous post, in relation to Dhutanga Austerities, that it is the craving or desire for something (such as food, sex, fame, wealth etc) which is the obstacle, not the process of attempting to relinquishing such desire, and certainly not the object of the desire.

The object one desires is not the obstacle. It is the desire itself, for the object, that is the obstacle. One shouldn't confuse the two.

It could become an obstacle if one doesn't know how to learn from it or work with it or at least endure it. On it's own though craving just is, just is part of living in delusion, how one deals with it determines whether it becomes an obstacle or an opportunity.

Unfortunately, many people do confuse the two, which is why women are often blamed for the uncontrollable sexual desire of men, why women in some cultures are required to cover themselves from head to foot, and why, I suspect, it's often so difficult for women to become Bhikkhunis in Thailand.

Well said.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

Rightly or wrongly, I got the impression you were recommending a process of increasing the normal difficulties in life that result from temptation and craving, just as a weight lifter increases the weights he's trying to lift over time.

Wrongly, I was recommending one not shrink away from or try to avoid something that is a part of normal everyday life just because it might be challenging.

Are we talking about the same subject? I'm talking about the Buddhist path to enlightenment, which involves meditative practices, stilling the mind to the point where no thoughts occur, and freeing oneself from desire, craving and suffering.

I'm not aware of any techniques or models that would allow one to achieve such states of mind without 'shrinking away from', as you put it, or avoiding a number of things that are a part of normal, everyday life, at least temporarily. One has to eat of course, and that's a part of everyday life.

If you have some new model that makes the lifestyle of monks in monasteries or forest huts redundant and unnecessary, let's hear it. As I mentioned before, I have an open mind.

[mccw]

The purpose of being a monk is to let go of all desires and so obviously sexual urges are a main area for attention. Just because it's not easy doesn't at all mean the rules/ purpose should be changed.

[mccw]

Also; the nuns are pretty much monks in all but rob colour and name. There are some very highly respected ones. Often in a community they will be the main guides for women while the monks guide the men.

Nothing to stop people seeking guidance the other way around; just a case of how people feel comfortable often .

Nothing very sexist about the situation in Thailand I don't think. It's just how locally it's evolved.

Regards sexual impulses as a reason for no female monks; must be nonsense , because there are still female nuns and lay people around.

[Brucenkhamen]

Are we talking about the same subject? I'm talking about the Buddhist path to enlightenment, which involves meditative practices, stilling the mind to the point where no thoughts occur, and freeing oneself from desire, craving and suffering.

That is part of Buddhist practice, it's not all of Buddhist practice.

I'm not aware of any techniques or models that would allow one to achieve such states of mind without 'shrinking away from', as you put it, or avoiding a number of things that are a part of normal, everyday life, at least temporarily. One has to eat of course, and that's a part of everyday life.

You've described retreat practice and then appended... "at least temporarily". There is a clue there. I assume you haven't heard of various meditation techniques that go under the heading Vipassana. These all have the basis of both developing mindfulness through intensive meditation then applying that mindfulness in day to day activities watching actions, intentions, feeling tone, craving, mental states etc throughout day to day activities. Some teachers even recommend skipping the intensive meditation altogether. Other teachers, such as Ajahn Chah, while teaching meditation put a much greater emphasis on lifestyle and dealing with the day to day drama of living in a community as being what is transformative. The point is if you live alone in a cave you have much less opportunity to practice in a variety of situations and for learning to deal with the craving and aversion these situations may trigger.

If you want me to point you to some basic introductory material on modern Theravada practices let me know and I'll try to dig some out, or better still recommend some of these places to visit.

If you have some new model that makes the lifestyle of monks in monasteries or forest huts redundant and unnecessary, let's hear it. As I mentioned before, I have an open mind.

Who said anything about making monks in monasteries redundant? this whole thread has been about what goes on in monasteries, the point being it's not just all about sitting on your bum, people have to eat sleep, interact with one another, teach, maintain the grounds, and look after each other. This discussion would work better with less jumping to conclusions.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[trd]

The point is if you live alone in a cave you have much less opportunity to practice in a variety of situations and for learning to deal with the craving and aversion these situations may trigger.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of practice. Your true nature is revealed by transcending the mind. A quiet mind is all that is required. That is why many yogis choose to live in caves. Learning to deal with cravings on the level of ego/mind is of no value. You would just be substituting one set of conditioning with another. Connecting with that which is unbounded and free of all conditioning will free you from the false identification of a personal self. Cravings fall away of their own accord. This truth is difficult to accept and to teach because of the strong association we have with the mind/body mechanism. So for most people, perhaps such as yourself, an analysis and watching of mind and action can be a good first step, but ultimately you must surrender all. This can be a difficult step to take. You mentioned Ajahn Chah. He often told people to just let go. When that happens there is no one to have any cravings. Edited November 24, 2014 by trd

[Brucenkhamen]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the goal of practice. Your true nature is revealed by transcending the mind. A quiet mind is all that is required.

That's not the Buddhas teaching and comes more from a pre-Buddhist view of spirituality.

Look at the anapanasati sutta, satipattana sutta and the pali canon in general, stilling the mind is only one step in the process, using the stilled mind to understand how craving, aversion, and delusion works and and going through a process of llearning to let go of it is the next and is what is important about the Buddha's discovery.

Stilling the mind just for the sake of stilling the mind is zombie practice, stilling the mind just for the sake of realising some kind voidness or oneness or buddhanature is closet theism in my opinion. I don't know of any Theravadin based teacher that advocates a quiet mind is all that is required.

Anyway I do think this is off topic on this thread so I'll stop there.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[trd]

What I said is perfectly consistent with these sutras. Buddha broke down these mindfullness practices into teachings that would accommodate the very strong attachments to mind and body by investigating the nature of things, but ultimately he was pointing to that which is without conditioning. For Buddha to point to that directly would have alienated many. So he started with ways of looking at familiar problems which cause suffering such as greed, anger, cravings etc and slowly loosened the hold of these samskaras as a practice. Try and understand this. Don't rely too much on what one theravadin teacher says compared with another. Only you can test this against your own experience.

Far from becoming a zombie as you suggest, these samadhis open up one to that which crosses the shore of samsara. This is also consistent with vedic teachings. I suggest you read the mahaparinivarna suttra from the mahayana tradition which is purported to be Buddha's final teaching. To categorize something as a pre-Buddhist view imprisons you in a conceptual cage. There is only one reality no matter what you call it.

This is certainly not off topic as it has everything to do with desire (sexual or otherwise) and the cessation of it, which was the original theme of this thread.

[Brucenkhamen]

What I said is perfectly consistent with these sutras. .

As I said this isn't the topic of this thread so if you wish to discuss it start a new one.

The fact of the matter is the vast majority of monastics live in communities, many of mixed gender, and interact with laypeople daily.

[trd]

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll carry on as I please. It is not for you to determine.

You elicited my response because you seem to think you are better equipped to deal with cravings by living in a monastic community than in a cave. I simply pointed out that this isn't true and gave my reasons. That is quite separate from the practical and commonsense rules that may apply in such communities and their interactions with others.

[Brucenkhamen]

You elicited my response because you seem to think you are better equipped to deal with cravings by living in a monastic community than in a cave. I simply pointed out that this isn't true and gave my reasons. That is quite separate from the practical and commonsense rules that may apply in such communities and their interactions with others.

The mind is the same mind, whether in a cave, monastic community, or a in house with a wife and children.

The sense restraint associated with some living conditions allows one to look at a subtler level of craving but that doesn't mean one will never have to deal with the sense impingement of normal day to day living ever again.

I take it you aren't currently in a cave with broadband but you could tell us about your experience of living in a cave in relation to this topic if you like so we determine if it's the utopia it's cracked up to be.

As far as communities are concern as you rightly pointed out "practical and commonsense rules apply" that makes actual or the appearance of sexual indiscretion unlikely, so from that point of view I don't see what the OP's problem is.

[trd]

You quite rightly say the mind is the same whether in a cave or a busy community. Thoughts will continue to appear and disappear in both environments. I never suggested it is preferable to live in a cave. What I question is your premise that there are more opportunities for learning about craving in a community than in a cave. Forget about having a subtler level of craving. You just need a subtler level of thinking. The content of those thoughts is irrelevant.

[Brucenkhamen]

You quite rightly say the mind is the same whether in a cave or a busy community. Thoughts will continue to appear and disappear in both environments. I never suggested it is preferable to live in a cave. What I question is your premise that there are more opportunities for learning about craving in a community than in a cave. Forget about having a subtler level of craving. You just need a subtler level of thinking. The content of those thoughts is irrelevant.

Actually I don’t think I ever said there are more opportunities to observe craving living outside of a cave compared with living within, at least not in terms of volume. Of course how should I know, I’ve never lived in a cave and I don’t think anyone else here has, I assume it’s just been raised here as a metaphor for solitary practice.

The opportunities to observe craving in solitude are different, not necessarily more or less, and my point is a Buddhist practitioner should work on gaining freedom from craving, aversion, and delusion wherever he finds himself right now. Looking for some cave-like utopia thinking it means he doesn’t have to deal with the mind’s problems is not the path, finding a balance between retreat from and engagement with the outside world is important.

[trd]

I have no idea what cave like utopia thinking means, but if you are not at peace in the city, living in a cave will not give you automatic peace. You cannot escape your mind. You can only be here now. It was Vincent who first mentioned a cave and went on to observe that a retreat created an atmosphere free of distraction, making it more conducive to meditation practice. There is nothing controversial about saying that.

I stand corrected. It seems you weren't suggesting that solitude created "more" opportunities, but "different" opportunities to observe craving. More, less, different, the same, high, low, up, down, greedy, generous, left, right, empty, full - and all possible gradations in between. When will it ever end? As long as you continue to seek meaning in duality you will be on an endless path.

[Brucenkhamen]

I have no idea what cave like utopia thinking means, but if you are not at peace in the city, living in a cave will not give you automatic peace. You cannot escape your mind. You can only be here now.

Agreed.

It was Vincent who first mentioned a cave and went on to observe that a retreat created an atmosphere free of distraction, making it more conducive to meditation practice. There is nothing controversial about saying that.

Yes, and it was in response to my saying there is no way to totally remove temptation which is why it's about learning the ability to rise above the craving. There is nothing controversial about saying that either.

[beautifulthailand99]

If one's goal is to quieten the mind and rid oneself of all desire, then one has to strive to reduce, and eventually eliminate all sexual thoughts, perhaps the most difficult task of all, for some. Even for the average, healthy male, that task must surely be more difficult if he frequently encounters Bhikkunis.

You would be entirely forgiven for thinking that one should strive to eliminate desire because monks are observed by outsiders as living this lifestyle and believe it should be emulated. The word "strive" should be banned from the dictionary of authentic teaching. But if you asked the average monk in a temple about "letting go", I doubt many would understand. You have to remember that most temples here are just buildings inhabited by people wearing robes who have a superficial understanding of Buddhism and merely display an outward appearance that integrates well with the community which supports it. There have been certain exceptions within the forest tradition which has an understanding of the more profound aspects and puts it into practice.

A few weeks ago I was on a Thai retreat at Amaravati Monastery in the UK . I was the only farang and the only male amongst 36 women who made up the retreat. The Thai monk Ajahn Ratanawanno at one point asked the group what was the core message of Buddhism - lots of answers were given - to do good , to support the monks , to make oneself happier - however no one gave an answer that satisfied Ajahn and he said it was the same in Thailand - that most Thai Buddhists don't really know what it is they are following . He summed it up as the truth of suffering and how to end that suffering.

[VincentRJ]

I have no idea what cave like utopia thinking means, but if you are not at peace in the city, living in a cave will not give you automatic peace. You cannot escape your mind. You can only be here now.

Agreed.

It was Vincent who first mentioned a cave and went on to observe that a retreat created an atmosphere free of distraction, making it more conducive to meditation practice. There is nothing controversial about saying that.

Yes, and it was in response to my saying there is no way to totally remove temptation which is why it's about learning the ability to rise above the craving. There is nothing controversial about saying that either.

Just for the record, my example of a retreat in a cave was used to illustrate the extreme conditions of quiet and solitude that some people find useful in their attempt to achieve Samadhi or a Nirvana-like state.

An analogy from everyday life would be the difficulties that a youngster at school might experience when trying to do his homework in a small house where everyone lived, cooked, ate and played in the same room. Without the retreat of a library, or his own bedroom at home, or some other quiet place where he could do his homework without distraction, such a youngster would probably not do well in his exams, despite being motivated to do well.

I've never lived in a cave myself, but I found the following story by an English woman with the name Tenzin Palmo, quite amazing.

"I moved into the cave when I was 33 and was very happy.

I grew potatoes and turnips in the little garden outside.

I'd spend the summers preparing for the long winters when I was completely cut off. But after nine years, I was ready to do a long retreat - three years in complete solitude.

After three years, I heard somebody scrambling over my gate. I hadn't seen anyone all year. When I opened the door a policeman was standing there. He handed me a notice: "You've been in the country illegally for three years. Come down within 24 hours or we'll take action."

That was the end of my retreat. It was a bit of a shock."

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/may/15/buddhist-retreat-religion-first-person

[Brucenkhamen]

Just for the record, my example of a retreat in a cave was used to illustrate the extreme conditions of quiet and solitude that some people find useful in their attempt to achieve Samadhi or a Nirvana-like state.

Trouble is you presented it as an ideal of how Buddhist practice should be where the reality is very few people feel the need or have the opportunity to practice in this way.

[VincentRJ]

It's true that I make a distinction between an ideal practice and the practice of the majority who have neither the opportunity, need, nor motivation to practice the ideal?

There is a range of options for those who think they would like to embark on the Buddhist path towards enlightenment. The reality is, most people, perhaps including myself, will probably not get very far along that path because there are so many other things (pursuits and activities) which take precedence, even when we kid ourselves that they don't, or pretend to understand that they shouldn't.

The ideal is only for the few who are truly dedicated and serious about achieving enlightenment.

[trd]

So just practice these pursuits and activities mindfully. As the practice will be concurrent with the activity, no extra time will be required. Therefore you will have all the time in the world for practice.

[VincentRJ]

I do. I've always tried to do that. It's just plain common sense, in order to avoid accidents if for no other reason. But I doubt that that is sufficient in itself to achieve a state of mind (or a state of no-mind, if you like to put it that way) in which there is a cessation of all thought.

[trd]

Oh dear, I wish you hadn't said that because the very good point you made opens the possibility of a twenty page discussion on just that topic. Suffice to say that I mean putting attention on the apparent doer, the subject rather than the object of your attention which you might have to do to avoid an accident. Not recommended while driving or operating machinery.

But it does raise another question. If your pursuits don't give you enough time for practice, then you have to ask yourself how much you really want this knowledge.

[mccw]

Can practice awareness of the breath cycle all day every day no matter what ones life situation; job, responsibilities, on retreat or not. Total awareness of the breath cycle gives us power over best decision making in the present moment for real life, day to day benefits; can see emotions etc arising and falling and consciously view it all with a clear mind.

[rockyysdt]

Can practice awareness of the breath cycle all day every day no matter what ones life situation; job, responsibilities, on retreat or not. Total awareness of the breath cycle gives us power over best decision making in the present moment for real life, day to day benefits; can see emotions etc arising and falling and consciously view it all with a clear mind.

So much has been discussed about Buddhism, its meaning & what it will do for us.

The more I read, the more confused I become.

It's refreshing to read good practical advise.

Attention on the breath is my anchor.

The springboard form which mindfulness of body, mind, feelings and the external world can grow.

Thanks for the timely reminder to refocus again mccw.

Edited November 29, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

Oh dear, I wish you hadn't said that because the very good point you made opens the possibility of a twenty page discussion on just that topic. Suffice to say that I mean putting attention on the apparent doer, the subject rather than the object of your attention which you might have to do to avoid an accident. Not recommended while driving or operating machinery.

But it does raise another question. If your pursuits don't give you enough time for practice, then you have to ask yourself how much you really want this knowledge.

Hi Trd,

Isn't 'want' another word for desire? Isn't there a paradox here? I've always been a bit suspicious of expressions of desires and yearnings to achieve a state of Nirvana or bliss. Could it be that the desire itself, to achieve such states of mind, is an obstacle?

[VincentRJ]

Can practice awareness of the breath cycle all day every day no matter what ones life situation; job, responsibilities, on retreat or not. Total awareness of the breath cycle gives us power over best decision making in the present moment for real life, day to day benefits; can see emotions etc arising and falling and consciously view it all with a clear mind.

So much has been discussed about Buddhism, its meaning & what it will do for us.

The more I read, the more confused I become.

It's refreshing to read good practical advise.

Attention on the breath is my anchor.

The springboard form which mindfulness of body, mind, feelings and the external world can grow.

Thanks for the timely reminder to refocus again mccw.

Hi Rocky,

I hope I haven't contributed to any of the confusion here. I agree that for the average person there can be many interludes throughout the day which can provide an opportunity for the practice of mindfulness, such as concentrating on one's breathing cycle or on one's left nostril for example, even when sitting on the toilet.

The problem is multitasking. One can't really accomplish two tasks efficiently at the same time unless at least one of the tasks is of the nature of a habit requiring little conscious attention, such as walking over smooth terrain. However, if one is walking over rough terrain with potential potholes or slippery ice on the path, then one would be advised to give one's full attention to each footstep, rather than concentrating on the breath passing through one's left nostril.

That's been my main point in my recent posts. I can understand why some people isolate themselves in a forest hut or cave in order to practice their mindfulness without time constraints and without distractions and interruptions. One can perhaps achieve more progress on the path to enlightenment in one year, living in a cave, than one can in perhaps 10 or 20 years whilst leading an ordinary, average life in society with all its time-consuming demands and distractions, despite taking advantage of every quiet interlude to practice mindfulness.

[mccw]

Can practice mindfulness/ observation of the breath even with a busy life. Many meditation master monks who have great insight and ability are also quite busy disseminating the dharma, meeting people and supporting meritous projects.

What holds people back in "normal" life is the idea that can only be mindful at a special "peaceful time" ; when really ever time can be a peaceful time in ones mind by applying the mindfulness practice at all times busy busy busy same % to practice. 80-90- aim for 100%

Its help with everything. Not hinder.

Takes a bit of practice but after not too long it will become second nature and make life so much easier and enjoyable no matter what we must be doing.

[mccw]

That's 100% of waking life.

Currently I am around 80-95% in waves as reading I still get lost in sometimes. Still practicing.

But at this % awareness it's had great positive effects for my normal life. More patient and calm; less stressed and some other very interesting side effects - like "insights" , I won't go in to here.

A focused meditation time is complementary- boosts the insight powers ; but the total awareness practice is the most useful for practice everyday life I find. Providing a break, a step back between every phenomena, mental and external happening, having the break to see what's being experienced consciously before acting on it has done me the world of good.

When I say % of awareness - I mean the % of each day while awake and keeping awareness on the breath cycle

Chock dee

[mccw]

If you are on Facebook you can see a group with this info about kind of practice and a couple of free books there too

Search

" chiang Mai meditation "