Buddhism_A Serious Discussion

[Brucenkhamen]

Not at all. Please re-read what I wrote, "one could reasonably assume".

I think asking for clarification would be a more intelligent response. Either way though the fact that you are put in a situation where you have to assume proves my point that the word on it's own does not contain enough information for you to make a value judgement. Just as the word "desire" on it's own does not contain enough information for you to make a value judgement.

[trd]

How does it help anyone to know whether an emotion or desire is neutral or has a value assigned to it. By help, I mean that which leads towards a direct understanding of your true nature. Could anything else which falls short of this goal really be considered worthwhile. I say not. I say that because when I look at recent posts, it strikes me that it often sounds more like psychology together with a contest on scriptural knowledge, than an exploration to uncover the veil of ignorance to reveal that which is unconditioned. Theravadins often balk at the mention of anything that sounds transcendental. I make no apologies for trying to hammer home that this is really the only way to find out who you are. There are no teachings that will lead to nirvana. All "teachings" will ultimately fall by the wayside.

As I explained in a previous post, Buddha had to present a framework that took into account the very strong belief in a personal self to get people to practice, but with the eventual aim of letting everything drop away. But many practicing Buddhists continue to put most of the emphasis on the words. Oh do they follow the words! They believe that by contemplating the nature of existence, insight will develop. Oh dear. Let me say unequivocally that wisdom and insight come from silence. Period. It was suggested that the cultivation, and I believe the word cultivation was the preferred word to meditation, which is OK, I like cultivation, this cultivation of a quiet mind, that is a mind habituated with the practice of diving within to experience that emptiness, that boundless awareness untainted by mind and objects, would in some way dumb down the teaching. Such ignorance. The truth of ones true nature is beyond Buddhism, it is beyond any such belief system based on what someone may or may not have said. However, that is not the same as saying that Buddhism has no value. It does and I have great respect for it. But it is just a "vehicle" for discovering the truth. The moment you begin to start jousting with one Sutta against another, one interpretation against another, you are lost.

Even though it has been pointed out that this forum is called "Thailand Forum → Community Forums → Buddhism", I have absolutely no intention of conforming to a Theravadic view of Buddhism. I make no effort to conform to anyone else's idea of correct terminology. I am free to use whatever terminology I desire and from whatever spiritual tradition I feel appropriate. I am only interested in one thing and that is to examine how a human being can become truly free. Buddha did not call himself a Buddhist nor did he call what he taught something called Buddhism.

So back to desires. Surely the important issue here is to find out who is experiencing the emotion or desire. Who is the experiencer and what is the nature of the experiencer. If you deal only with what you know as an experience, it becomes very simple. There is a very old joke which asks what are the two things you can be certain of. The answer is death and taxes. But In terms of your own direct experience, you would have to say you can be certain of neither. Unless there is a taxman sitting opposite you with an outstretched hand demanding money, you cannot be certain. There may be the expectation of a visit from the tax inspector but that is just an idea or speculation. You cannot be certain of death because you are not experiencing it. You may have seen a corpse and known people who have died, but as far as your own direct experience is concerned, you cannot be certain of it.

If someone upsets you, you don't say to yourself, this is not a neutral feeling, it is a negative emotion. You become consumed by it, the feeling of anger rises without effort .You identify with it as a personal self. You feel anger. But what if we disassociate the anger from the person. Imagine a totally fictitious character created by you. There cannot be any resemblance to someone you know or are reminded of. Now imagine this character has made you angry. You can do this because the imagination is powerful. It conjures the whole universe into existence. You can actually feel the anger, but you also know it is not real. Now how is this fictitious anger different from the real anger caused by a real situation. There is no difference. The feeling is the same.

The context for the feeling of anger in both cases is different, but all that remains, all that there is is anger. Anger is not analyzing anything. It is not contemplating anything. It just is. A thought triggered it and now it just hangs there in space. Anger in all its glory.

So going back to the point about only knowing what you directly experience, we can see in this case there is anger, whether generated by a real or imagined event, it is right now all you experience. Does it matter what caused it. Does it matter that someone upset me because I should have done one thing rather than another. I may have been in a moral maze where any choice would have resulted in someone getting upset with me and my resultant anger of the injustice of it all. What I am saying is that freedom from desires and emotions by analyzing them can never lead to ultimate freedom because the number of situations and permutations are never ending including your helplessness in ever being able to predict the unpredictable. So deal with who is "experiencing" the emotion, not the context. To try and learn from a particular situation won't work in a cognitive way. Interestingly I recently read an article saying that a study of cognitive and behavioral therapy showed it was ineffective over time although it often seemed to yield positive results in the short term.

The only way to subdue desire is to go to the source. And to go to the source means using the armory of mindfulness and meditation practices to root out the ego which is responsible for the suffering caused by the delusion of personal self. When this silence, emptiness, some call it God, call it what you will, when it is known to be all that is real, then emotions and desires are but a drop in an infinite ocean of consciousness and will not affect you.

Edited December 11, 2014 by trd

[Brucenkhamen]

You are absolutely right. I am definitely in the wrong place.

I'm just curious, if Sri Ramana Maharshi and also Nisargaddata Maharaj (for example) are any good there are bound to be forums where people who are interested in learning about their teachings can come together and discuss them.

Maybe you're involved in some of them, do Buddhists go on these forums to push their own agenda and their own teachings?

So getting back to where we left off, I was pointing out that while what you described is part of the experience of awakening the Buddha placed emphasis on Dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness) and the end of Dukkha.

So pretty much everyone knows the Four Noble Truths is the foundational teaching of Buddhism, can you identify which of the following is Buddhism and which is fake?

1. Dukkha exists.

2. The cause or origin of dukkha is craving.

3. Dukkha ceases with the relinquishment of that craving.

4. The path leading to the cessation of dukkha is the Noble Eightfold Path.

1. Noise in the mind exists.

2. The cause or origin of noise in the mind is not knowing the True Self.

3. Bringing the mind to silence leads to knowing the True Self.

4. To achieve it, all that is required is to cultivate a quiet mind.

[trd]

You are absolutely right. I am definitely in the wrong place.

I'm just curious, if Sri Ramana Maharshi and also Nisargaddata Maharaj (for example) are any good there are bound to be forums where people who are interested in learning about their teachings can come together and discuss them.

Maybe you're involved in some of them, do Buddhists go on these forums to push their own agenda and their own teachings?

So getting back to where we left off, I was pointing out that while what you described is part of the experience of awakening the Buddha placed emphasis on Dukkha (suffering, unsatisfactoriness) and the end of Dukkha.

So pretty much everyone knows the Four Noble Truths is the foundational teaching of Buddhism, can you identify which of the following is Buddhism and which is fake?

1. Dukkha exists.

2. The cause or origin of dukkha is craving.

3. Dukkha ceases with the relinquishment of that craving.

4. The path leading to the cessation of dukkha is the Noble Eightfold Path.

1. Noise in the mind exists.

2. The cause or origin of noise in the mind is not knowing the True Self.

3. Bringing the mind to silence leads to knowing the True Self.

4. To achieve it, all that is required is to cultivate a quiet mind.

Bruce, you are a great source of amusement for me. Tell me something about yourself. What do you know to be true. What is your experience of yourself. Are you happy. Edited December 12, 2014 by trd

[trd]

Here's some Buddhism for you Bruce.

By having cultivated the absence of self (anātman) in connection with the tathāgata-garbha and having continually cultivated Emptiness, suffering will not be eradicated - but one will become like a moth in the flame of a lamp.

The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guna), the Self is eternal (śāśvatā), the Self is stable (dhruva), the Self is peace (siva).

Mahapurinirvana Sutra.

The body is physical matter—how can it be likened to the citta? The citta is a mental phenomenon, an awareness that knows.... earth, water, wind and fire elements know nothing; only the mental element—the manodhãtu— knows. This being the case, how can the citta’s essential knowing nature and the body’s physical elements possibly be equated. They are obviously separate realities.

Maha Boowa

Maha Boowa calls this essential, indwelling and indestructible Awareness – distinct from our physical being – “the knowing presence”.

Edited December 12, 2014 by trd

[trd]

For modern Buddhists to believe that nirvana is not transcendent is strange and difficult to understand. The Buddha, in fact, teaches that liberation (vimutti) is the meaning of nirvana (S. iii. 189). And what else might liberation be if not the experience of having transcended the five psychophysical constituents which are synonymous with suffering.

“Form, feeling, perception, consciousness, and formations—I am not this, this isn’t mine, thus one is detached (virajjati) from it” (S. i. 112).

It is not surprising that Bruce who is steeped in Theravada reacts to this. He berates me for crashing his party with references from Vedic teachings. He fails to see that what he so strongly objects to is also in his tradition. But his adherence to one strand of it reminds me of when as a small boy, I was inducted into the Catholic church and made to recite the catechism.

Don't come here with your narrow views and profess to be talking of truth.

Are you beginning to understand the grown up meaning of what I mean by a quiet mind. I will not use that phrase again if it is a problem for you.

[Brucenkhamen]

Bruce, you are a great source of amusement for me.

I'm always happy to provide entertainment value on what is normally a very quiet subforum.

Tell me something about yourself. What do you know to be true. What is your experience of yourself.

Why do you need it?

Are you happy.

Happiness is a mental state subject to causes and conditions. Why do you need it?

Why the necessity to make it personal?

Why not just respond to the points raised in a friendly and objective manner?

What needs to be defended?

Edited December 12, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

Here's some Buddhism for you Bruce.

Thanks for the quotes, would you like to make a point?

[Brucenkhamen]

For modern Buddhists to believe that nirvana is not transcendent is strange and difficult to understand. The Buddha, in fact, teaches that liberation (vimutti) is the meaning of nirvana (S. iii. 189). And what else might liberation be if not the experience of having transcended the five psychophysical constituents which are synonymous with suffering.

I'm not sure who is supposed to have said Nibbana is not transcendent, if it's supposed to be me you'll have to be more specific.

It is not surprising that Bruce who is steeped in Theravada reacts to this. He berates me for crashing his party with references from Vedic teachings. He fails to see that what he so strongly objects to is also in his tradition. But his adherence to one strand of it reminds me of when as a small boy, I was inducted into the Catholic church and made to recite the catechism.

This appears to be addressing your followers by talking about me as if I'm not here.

I'll respond as if the insult is not intended just as I did to the "You have no idea what you are talking about" comment which one could take as meaning "You're stupid".

If you look across the last couple of pages you'll see there has been no reactivity on my part all I did was point out that while what you were talking about is an important aspect of awakening the Buddha put his emphasis on Dukkha and gaining freedom from Dukkha. The point that the Buddha emphasised Dukkha and the cessation of Dukkha should not be a cause for controversy or friction on a Buddhist forum.

Would you like to share your opinion on being steeped in Theravada?

I'm not interested in your attempts to make it personal, do you intend to grandstand or discuss Buddhism here?

Are you beginning to understand the grown up meaning of what I mean by a quiet mind. I will not use that phrase again if it is a problem for you.

I've been mostly liking what you've been saying about the quiet mind here, however if there is still craving, and still Dukkha I'm not convinced it gets one very far.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[trd]

Bruce, you are a great source of amusement for me.

I'm always happy to provide entertainment value on what is normally a very quiet subforum.

Tell me something about yourself. What do you know to be true. What is your experience of yourself.

Why do you need it?

Are you happy.

Happiness is a mental state subject to causes and conditions. Why do you need it?

Why the necessity to make it personal?

Why not just respond to the points raised in a friendly and objective manner?

What needs to be defended?

Are you saying there is no happiness beyond conditioning. If so how would you know.

I will be completely friendly when you drop the arrogance and sarcasm. Forget about me. What about your remark that Vincent supply you with a more intelligent question. Examine your own actions.

[trd]

Are you beginning to understand the grown up meaning of what I mean by a quiet mind. I will not use that phrase again if it is a problem for you.

I've been mostly liking what you've been saying about the quiet mind here, however if there is still craving, and still Dukkha I'm not convinced it gets one very far.

What you need to ask yourself is this. Is it possible to experience dukkha when totally absorbed in boundless awareness.

Edited December 12, 2014 by trd

[trd]

Tell me something about yourself. What do you know to be true. What is your experience of yourself.

Why do you need it?

That's a very interesting response. Why the reticence? Is your practice totally unrelated to this person you call you?

[Brucenkhamen]

Are you saying there is no happiness beyond conditioning. If so how would you know.

No, I'm saying to me happiness is a word for an experience very much an emotion based on causes and condition, I'd want to use different words for happiness beyond conditioning.

I will be completely friendly when you drop the arrogance and sarcasm.

Are other people responsible for your behaviour?

Not so long ago you were praising me as a great source of amusement, which is it?

Forget about me. What about your remark that Vincent supply you with a more intelligent question. Examine your own actions.

I scrolled back and all I could find is where I suggested that asking for clarification would be more intelligent than assuming, nothing controversial about that. I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to but if Vince found it abrupt I didn't mean anything personal by it.

[Brucenkhamen]

What you need to ask yourself is this. Is it possible to experience dukkha when totally absorbed in boundless awareness.

And what you need to ask yourself is which of the two did the Buddha place more emphasis on in his teachings as I've pointed out many times.

Awareness does have a quality of dispelling Dukkha.

[Brucenkhamen]

That's a very interesting response. Why the reticence? Is your practice totally unrelated to this person you call you?

Why do you need to know?

Why is it any of your concern?

Do I have to answer your questions when you ignore mine?

People talk about themselves on these forum as and when appropriate. Why the need to make it personal?

Why not discuss Buddhism?

Edited December 12, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[trd]

What you need to ask yourself is this. Is it possible to experience dukkha when totally absorbed in boundless awareness.

And what you need to ask yourself is which of the two did the Buddha place more emphasis on in his teachings as I've pointed out many times.

Awareness does have a quality of dispelling Dukkha.

The emphasis depends on which texts you read and from which traditions, Theravada, Mahayana, Zen?

[trd]

What you need to ask yourself is this. Is it possible to experience dukkha when totally absorbed in boundless awareness.

And what you need to ask yourself is which of the two did the Buddha place more emphasis on in his teachings as I've pointed out many times.

Awareness does have a quality of dispelling Dukkha.

Awareness does not have a quality.

[trd]

Are you saying there is no happiness beyond conditioning. If so how would you know.

No, I'm saying to me happiness is a word for an experience very much an emotion based on causes and condition, I'd want to use different words for happiness beyond conditioning.

Perhaps bliss would be a better word.

[Brucenkhamen]

The emphasis depends on which texts you read and from which traditions, Theravada, Mahayana, Zen?

So you are saying you believe these traditions don't recognise the Four Noble Truths as the foundational teaching of Buddhism?

This Zen web site says "the essence of Buddhism is summed up in the Four Noble Truths enunciated by Buddha." http://zen-buddhism.net/buddhist-principles/four-noble-truths.html?headerbar=0

On this web site the Dalai Lama disagrees with you http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=380

[Brucenkhamen]

Awareness does not have a quality.

That makes no sense, it has a quality of being aware for a start.

[Brucenkhamen]

Perhaps bliss would be a better word.

I can't say I like that word either, it conjures up the idea of indulging in the pleasantness and what is bliss for someone who doesn't crave bliss. I think bliss is probably an appropriate for term for jhanas though.

[trd]

Perhaps bliss would be a better word.

I can't say I like that word either, it conjures up the idea of indulging in the pleasantness and what is bliss for someone who doesn't crave bliss. I think bliss is probably an appropriate for term for jhanas though.

So better not to use any word. After all how can someone who is conditioned use a word to describe the unconditioned. It can only be an imagining constructed by the limited mind. It is beyond description. Yet an Arahant continues to live in a human body. Does he not continue to act in the world. Bliss or happiness is certainly conditioned in the unawakened mind and is also impermanent. It appears and disappears. But in the awakened, the unconditioned is the only reality, but is expressed as unending bliss in the constant interplay between absolute value and relative value. It is bliss without conditioning and without cause.

[rockyysdt]

Awareness does not have a quality.

That makes no sense, it has a quality of being aware for a start.

Gentlemen.

It's a pity humans lapse into discord as a direct result of misinterpreted communication.

This is compounded in a forum environment lacking in physical interaction.

Perhaps from this post onwards all parties can review their contribution with the view of possible offence.

The Buddha taught "Right Speech".

I suspect that individual conditioning may cause innocent speech to be interpreted in the wrong way.

For example, a better way of phrasing the above reply ("That makes no sense, it has a quality of being aware for a start"), could have been: "Doesn't it have a quality of being aware? If it does then how does this make sense?"

Framing ones position in the form of a question removes possible interpretation of calling another wrong or incorrect,whilst eliciting further interaction.

Isn't Awakening our goal?

Aren't we all here, not only to learn, but to assist others?

Aren't we all worthy individuals?

Edited December 12, 2014 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

So better not to use any word. After all how can someone who is conditioned use a word to describe the unconditioned. It can only be an imagining constructed by the limited mind. It is beyond description. Yet an Arahant continues to live in a human body. Does he not continue to act in the world. Bliss or happiness is certainly conditioned in the unawakened mind and is also impermanent. It appears and disappears. But in the awakened, the unconditioned is the only reality, but is expressed as unending bliss in the constant interplay between absolute value and relative value. It is bliss without conditioning and without cause.

That sounds all reasonable to me.

Nibbana is usually defined in terms of what it's not, the Unconditioned, cessation of suffering, cooling down, the deathless, blowing out etc. I'm not sure where the bliss idea came from, I'd expect it's like a huge weight off your shoulders and bliss would be a good adjective for that but I'm not sure I've ever seen bliss as part of it's definition.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

For example, a better way of phrasing the above reply ("That makes no sense, it has a quality of being aware for a start"), could have been: "Doesn't it have a quality of being aware? If it does then how does this make sense?"

You make some good points Rocky but I think you could have found a better example. The above response was directed at a statement not a person. I think we should be mature enough to discuss and debate the Dhamma and learn from each other without taking it personally.

[trd]

Awareness does not have a quality.

That makes no sense, it has a quality of being aware for a start.

Earlier you asserted that an emotion is neutral which I agree with. If we applied that argument here perhaps we could say an emotion is without quality until we assign a value to that emotion. Is it not the same with awareness. Awareness without attachment to an object is without quality until we say I am aware of "something". Edited December 12, 2014 by trd

[trd]

So better not to use any word. After all how can someone who is conditioned use a word to describe the unconditioned. It can only be an imagining constructed by the limited mind. It is beyond description. Yet an Arahant continues to live in a human body. Does he not continue to act in the world. Bliss or happiness is certainly conditioned in the unawakened mind and is also impermanent. It appears and disappears. But in the awakened, the unconditioned is the only reality, but is expressed as unending bliss in the constant interplay between absolute value and relative value. It is bliss without conditioning and without cause.

That sounds all reasonable to me.

Nibbana is usually defined in terms of what it's not, the Unconditioned, cessation of suffering, cooling down, the deathless, blowing out etc. I'm not sure where the bliss idea came from, I'd expect it's like a huge weight off your shoulders and bliss would be a good adjective for that but I'm not sure I've ever seen bliss as part of it's definition.

Bliss is a difficult word because it can sound very emotive. Bliss as I intend it means a deep and unwavering sense of inner contentedness undisturbed by fluctuations of mind. Edited December 12, 2014 by trd

[rockyysdt]

For example, a better way of phrasing the above reply ("That makes no sense, it has a quality of being aware for a start"), could have been: "Doesn't it have a quality of being aware? If it does then how does this make sense?"

You make some good points Rocky but I think you could have found a better example. The above response was directed at a statement not a person. I think we should be mature enough to discuss and debate the Dhamma and learn from each other without taking it personally.

Wasn't this my point?

Although your response was directed to a point, isn't it possible that it can be interpreted that you were aiming at the person, or at the very least inferring they are wrong?

Is it possible that it may be difficult for mature beings not to take things personally, particularly if all are relying on their ability to interpret what is being written?

Is it possible that a human beings attachment to delusion also cover subtler things such as misinterpretation?

[rockyysdt]

Bliss is a difficult word because it can sound very emotive. Bliss as I intend it means a deep and unwavering sense of inner contentedness undisturbed by fluctuations of mind.

Is the Awakened in a permanent state of bliss?

[Brucenkhamen]

Earlier you asserted that an emotion is neutral which I agree with. If we applied that argument here perhaps we could say an emotion is without quality until we assign a value to that emotion.

Yes, that was my point but I think you've said it better, just as desire hasn't a quality until you assign a value to it.

But this is really a lesson in English grammar rather than experiences as emotions always have a quality as do desires.

Is it not the same with awareness. Awareness without attachment to an object is without quality until we say I am aware of "something".

Awareness is always aware of something, even if only aware that it's operating. It's like anti-virus, an anti-virus program doesn't need a virus in order operate, it's continuously operating and monitoring it's field of awareness for the presence of viruses. Awareness needs to be ready and open to receive whatever arises within it's field of perception, and there is never nothing.