Buddhism_A Serious Discussion

[Brucenkhamen]

Bliss as I intend it means a deep and unwavering sense of inner contentedness undisturbed by fluctuations of mind.

I wish there was a good English word that captures all that, I'm not sure there is.

[trd]

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

Yes they do recognize the noble truths, but you were talking about where Buddha put the emphasis of practice. I saw an interview where the Dalai Lama lamented the fact that he didn't have enough time to meditate.

He also said he didn't need to know Buddhas words to know the Dhamma which incidentally is protected by various disembodied spirits.

[trd]

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.

You are fundamentally wrong. When the mind is one pointed in Samadhi, awareness is only aware of itself.

[trd]

Pure awareness is when there is subject only, knowing itself. This is non dual awareness and is the key to liberation.

Edited December 12, 2014 by trd

[Brucenkhamen]

You are fundamentally wrong. When the mind is one pointed in Samadhi, awareness is only aware of itself.

So I said "awareness is always aware even if only of itself" and you said "When the mind is one pointed in Samadhi, awareness is only aware of itself".

So, what exactly is the fundamental wrongness?

Also please be aware of what Rocky has been posting.

[Brucenkhamen]

Yes they do recognize the noble truths, but you were talking about where Buddha put the emphasis of practice. I saw an interview where the Dalai Lama lamented the fact that he didn't have enough time to meditate.

So because the Dalai Lama lamented the fact that he didn't have enough time to meditate the entire foundation of Buddhism has changed?

He also said he didn't need to know Buddhas words to know the Dhamma which incidentally is protected by various disembodied spirits.

Without seeing that in context I can't make much sense of it.

[Brucenkhamen]

Pure awareness is when there is subject only, knowing itself. This is non dual awareness and is the key to liberation.

And yet someone with such pure awareness still needs to think, eat, move around, interact with people etc.

[trd]

Pure awareness is when there is subject only, knowing itself. This is non dual awareness and is the key to liberation.

And yet someone with such pure awareness still needs to think, eat, move around, interact with people etc.

Indeed. But all action arises from this silence spontaneously. If you recognize that the unconditioned state is the ultimate reality, then who is the doer of action.

[trd]

You are fundamentally wrong. When the mind is one pointed in Samadhi, awareness is only aware of itself.

So I said "awareness is always aware even if only of itself" and you said "When the mind is one pointed in Samadhi, awareness is only aware of itself".

So, what exactly is the fundamental wrongness?

Also please be aware of what Rocky has been posting.

I am aware of what Rocky said and I still say this is a wrong understanding. When the mind has an experience, it is because there is a subject or knower who through the intermediary process of seeing, perceives an object. When there is no object then pure awareness remains. By object I also mean mind which is just a bundle of thoughts. To become permanently established in that is to know your true nature. When the ego rises again there is no identification with it. There is no doer. This is freedom.

You are trying to understand this intellectually by using the mind to understand itself. It cannot be done.

Edited December 12, 2014 by trd

[trd]

Yes they do recognize the noble truths, but you were talking about where Buddha put the emphasis of practice. I saw an interview where the Dalai Lama lamented the fact that he didn't have enough time to meditate.

So because the Dalai Lama lamented the fact that he didn't have enough time to meditate the entire foundation of Buddhism has changed?

The entire foundation of Buddhism is to know your true nature. What does it mean to you?

Edited December 12, 2014 by trd

[trd]

In addition, the entire physical body vanished from awareness. At that moment I was not consciously aware of the body at all. Only a simple and harmonious awareness remained, alone on its own. That’s all. The mind was so exceedingly refined as to be indescribable. It simply knew – a profoundly subtle inner state of awareness pervaded. The body had completely disappeared. Although my physical form still sat in meditation, I was completely unconscious of it. The pain too had disappeared. No physical feelings were left at all. Only the mind’s essential awareness remained. All thinking had stopped; the mind was not forming a single thought. When thinking ceases, not the slightest movement disturbs the inner stillness. Unwavering, the mind remains firmly fixed in its own solitude.

Maha Boowa

[Brucenkhamen]

Indeed. But all action arises from this silence spontaneously. If you recognize that the unconditioned state is the ultimate reality, then who is the doer of action.

Of course there is no doer, this is a foundational teaching. However to say awareness is only aware of awareness is just silly when awareness has a very important practical function in day to day living, if awareness is only aware of awareness it's not doing it's job properly.

[Brucenkhamen]

When the mind has an experience, it is because there is a subject or knower who through the intermediary process of seeing, perceives an object. When there is no object then pure awareness remains. By object I also mean mind which is just a bundle of thoughts. To become permanently established in that is to know your true nature. When the ego rises again there is no identification with it. There is no doer. This is freedom.

There are always objects, one just doesn't regard them in the same dualistic way one did before one recognises the objects as conceptual. Awareness is going to be aware of them, that's it's job.

[Brucenkhamen]

The entire foundation of Buddhism is to know your true nature. What does it mean to you?

It's a slogan, as long as the last two words remain uncapitalised it's quite a good slogan for Buddhism. Like all slogans it contains enough information to rouse interest but not enough to know what the next step is.

[Brucenkhamen]

In addition, the entire physical body vanished from awareness. At that moment I was not consciously aware of the body at all. Only a simple and harmonious awareness remained, alone on its own. Thats all. The mind was so exceedingly refined as to be indescribable. It simply knew a profoundly subtle inner state of awareness pervaded. The body had completely disappeared. Although my physical form still sat in meditation, I was completely unconscious of it. The pain too had disappeared. No physical feelings were left at all. Only the minds essential awareness remained. All thinking had stopped; the mind was not forming a single thought. When thinking ceases, not the slightest movement disturbs the inner stillness. Unwavering, the mind remains firmly fixed in its own solitude.

Maha Boowa

Looking at this passage in the context of the book itself it's pretty obvious Luangta is talking about experiencing jhana. Are you saying you've been talking about simple jhanas all along?

[rockyysdt]

How I would have worded it.

"Isn't Luangta talking about the experience of jhana's?".

[rockyysdt]

Using my Mindfulness, when quick enough, I ask, "What is the purpose of my interaction".

In my personal interactions I was amazre to discover such things as:

I am looking for approval.

I want to prove someone wrong.

I want to impress with knowledge.

I want to assess the standing of the other.

I want to impress someone.

Whenever I was quick enough to realize my purpose I either refrained from speaking or modified its content.

[rockyysdt]

For me, one of the biggest advantage s of change through mindfulness is the reduction of negative kharma.

Given that our practice may span decades there must be considerable accumulation of future vipaka which we can short circuit.

Edited December 12, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

In addition, the entire physical body vanished from awareness. At that moment I was not consciously aware of the body at all. Only a simple and harmonious awareness remained, alone on its own. Thats all. The mind was so exceedingly refined as to be indescribable. It simply knew a profoundly subtle inner state of awareness pervaded. The body had completely disappeared. Although my physical form still sat in meditation, I was completely unconscious of it. The pain too had disappeared. No physical feelings were left at all. Only the minds essential awareness remained. All thinking had stopped; the mind was not forming a single thought. When thinking ceases, not the slightest movement disturbs the inner stillness. Unwavering, the mind remains firmly fixed in its own solitude.

Maha Boowa

Looking at this passage in the context of the book itself it's pretty obvious Luangta is talking about experiencing jhana. Are you saying you've been talking about simple jhanas all along?

The very deep state that Luangta is describing was nevertheless temporary. He then went on to become permanently established in that silence of being. Let me be absolutely clear. I do not accept the teachings of these different levels of Jhanas. You are either experiencing temporary states of samadhi or you are permanently awake to that unbounded awareness that is your true nature.

You accept these teachings. Tell me why you do. Not because you just accept what is written. Tell me why from your experience that you are able to make a statement accepting these different levels of Jhanas. Please tell me how YOU know this to be true, not as a matter of faith but as something experienced by you.

Edited December 13, 2014 by trd

[VincentRJ]

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

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.

I can't understand how you could hold such a view. All sensory input results in an immediate value judgement to some degree. it may be a crude, or coarse, or preliminary, or a general value judgement, but a value judgement nevertheless.

All words, by themselves and out of context, have a meaning. To ascribe a meaning is to ascribe a value judgement. As more information becomes available, and the word is used in a specific context, the value judgement becomes more refined, more specific and more elaborate.

If someone were to merely shout the word 'emotion', outside of the context of any preceding or following words, the hearer can form a general value judgement of the single word, such as, 'Wow! Emotions can be great. I like them. They are much better than material objects.'

One can even make a value judgement on words that are incomprehensible. For example, a Westerner who doesn't understand Thai, when hearing Thai spoken, might make the value judgement, 'That sounds like total gibberish to me.'

Another value judgement might take the form of a reasonable assumption that the gibberish is in fact a foreign language .Such a person might make yet another value judgement such as, 'Although this language sounds like gibberish, it has an interesting musical quality to it, which I quite like.'

Now it's interesting that both you and Trd are in agreement that emotions are neutral until a value has been assigned to them. Could it be, I ask myself, when people are in agreement about the truth of something which is in fact, or in reality, incorrect, then disharmony may follow?

[trd]

This has become about semantics. On reflection, I would say that although an emotion can be thought of as neutral in an abstract sense, before a value is assigned to it, the reality is that in "real life" an emotion will always have a value. As we are concerned with real life and how one deals with the damaging effects of craving and attachment, I would have to throw my hat into Vincent's ring. But I appreciate both sides of the argument.

Edited December 13, 2014 by trd

[Brucenkhamen]

The very deep state that Luangta is describing was nevertheless temporary. He then went on to become permanently established in that silence of being. Let me be absolutely clear. I do not accept the teachings of these different levels of Jhanas. You are either experiencing temporary states of samadhi or you are permanently awake to that unbounded awareness that is your true nature.

The Buddha clearly outlines the jhanas as several stages, see http://suttacentral.net/en/sn16.9 though there are differences between teachers who base their understanding on the vissudhimagga compared to what is outlined in the suttas they all teach talk about them in terms of four or eight jhanas.

Please point out the part where Luangta claims to become permanently established in that silence of being. If you are saying that he claimed to be a fully awakened Arahant then he broke the vinaya in doing so, I'd really like to see that.

You accept these teachings. Tell me why you do. Not because you just accept what is written. Tell me why from your experience that you are able to make a statement accepting these different levels of Jhanas. Please tell me how YOU know this to be true, not as a matter of faith but as something experienced by you.

Jhanas is not something I've ever practised, as I've pointed out several times I practice vipassana where it's pretty well known that jhana is not encouraged, and sometimes actively discouraged. However I do know the difference between someone describing a permanent transition and a temporary experience based on causes and conditions, and I am confident the Luangta had very strong vinaya and would not have broken it in the way you expect him to.

[Brucenkhamen]

I can't understand how you could hold such a view. All sensory input results in an immediate value judgement to some degree. it may be a crude, or coarse, or preliminary, or a general value judgement, but a value judgement nevertheless.

Look this subthread has meandered along for quite some time and as trd rightly points out it's just semantics, though closer to the topic of your thread than other discussions.

It started when you asserted that all desire is negative.

"I desire the best for my daughter" can you please explain why that is negative.

"I desire peace" can you please explain why that is negative.

[Brucenkhamen]

For me, one of the biggest advantage s of change through mindfulness is the reduction of negative kharma.

Given that our practice may span decades there must be considerable accumulation of future vipaka which we can short circuit.

While true I think the most tangible benefit is seeing the reduction in Dukkha, you can feel the affect immediately and you can feel the affect over time whereas I think kamma-vipakka is something to be reflected on and understood conceptually in terms of actions and events.

[VincentRJ]

I can't understand how you could hold such a view. All sensory input results in an immediate value judgement to some degree. it may be a crude, or coarse, or preliminary, or a general value judgement, but a value judgement nevertheless.

It started when you asserted that all desire is negative.

"I desire the best for my daughter" can you please explain why that is negative.

"I desire peace" can you please explain why that is negative.

Confusion reigns! Where have I ever stated that all desire is negative? I've no recollection of ever having made such a statement.

If I have made such a statement, I think we should distinguish here between sensory desire that motivates us to achieve something, such as the desire for a car, which motivates us to work hard to get the money to buy the car, and a wish for some state or circumstance to occur that we have no control over. For example, during periods of drought people may wish and hope for rain. People may wish and hope for world peace. People may wish and hope for enlightenment.

I would humbly suggest that such wishes and hopes are not in the same category as the clinging desires which Buddhist meditation techniques are designed to help us dispel.

[Brucenkhamen]

Confusion reigns! Where have I ever stated that all desire is negative? I've no recollection of ever having made such a statement.

I checked, you're right you didn't as such, in post #117 you said "I'm having difficulty with this concept of desires continuing to arise after 'awakening'. If one is free of all desire, as a result of one's awakened condition, then it seems logical that desires should no longer arise.". I reflected that desire is actually quite a neutral word and the word you wanted here was craving.

Since then you've been arguing that desire is not a neutral experience and I've been arguing that desire is a neutral word.

Of course desire is not a neutral experience nobody would argue otherwise and I don't see how you think I was.

If you want to have a discussion about my point regarding English semantics/grammar I guess we can, but I don't see the point in continuing on about something I never said, and we've already wasted a lot of bandwidth anyway.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[trd]

The Buddha clearly outlines the jhanas as several stages, see http://suttacentral.net/en/sn16.9 though there are differences between teachers who base their understanding on the vissudhimagga compared to what is outlined in the suttas they all teach talk about them in terms of four or eight jhanas.

TheJhanas is not something I've ever practised, as I've pointed out several times I practice vipassana where it's pretty well known that jhana is not encouraged, and sometimes actively discouraged. However I do know the difference between someone describing a permanent transition and a temporary experience based on causes and conditions, and I am confident the Luangta had very strong vinaya and would not have broken it in the way you expect him to.

So let me get this clear.

1. You accept without question that Buddha gave a discourse on Jhanas.

2. You recognize there are differences of interpretation and understanding of these Jhanas.

3. You think it is "pretty obvious" Luangtua was experiencing Jhanas.

4. You yourself don't practice Jhanas because as a practitioner of Vipassana it is actively discouraged.

5. You don't accept Luangtua as arahant if he broke vinaya by declaring it.

6. You know the difference between someone describing a permanent transition and a temporary experience based on causes and conditions. How do you know this?

What am I to make of this? It is all conjecture is it not. Is that what taking refuge in the sangha means to you I wonder. Are there any circumstances in which you would accept someone as an arahant. Ajahn Chah perhaps. You have quoted from him before. There are 12 free books you can download written by Luangtua, where he talks on such subjects as, "the citta of an arahant is empty". Do you think he is speaking from theory as you plainly are?

You see Bruce, I have to question what you say because I am not the only one reading your posts. There are many "seekers" out there who are looking for the truth and they listen to people like you. They want to find answers. Now you may think I am being arrogant setting myself up as some kind of authority. I make no apologies. I have no alternative but to speak the truth. If that puts me in the doghouse with some people, then so be it. I am unconcerned. Perhaps it would help if you spoke about your experiences. You seem to shy away from it as if it has nothing to do with you. I've seen this behaviour before. "There is just anatta. I am just made up of the aggregates so there is no me to even practice. So why does what I think or experience matter?" What silliness. The act of disassociating can be a way of protecting and shielding yourself from having to confront head on that which is right in front of your nose. You will quickly move forward if you just deal with what you "know". I can guarantee it. Don't waste your time reading countless discourses and trying to make sense of it all. You have to eventually pull down the whole facade. Why not do it now?

Edited December 13, 2014 by trd

[Brucenkhamen]

So let me get this clear.

1. You accept without question that Buddha gave a discourse on Jhanas.

2. You recognize there are differences of interpretation and understanding of these Jhanas.

3. You think it is "pretty obvious" Luangtua was experiencing Jhanas.

4. You yourself don't practice Jhanas because as a practitioner of Vipassana it is actively discouraged.

5. You don't accept Luangtua as arahant if he broke vinaya by declaring it.

6. You know the difference between someone describing a permanent transition and a temporary experience based on causes and conditions. How do you know this?

What am I to make of this? It is all conjecture is it not. Is that what taking refuge in the sangha means to you I wonder. Are there any circumstances in which you would accept someone as an arahant. Ajahn Chah perhaps. You have quoted from him before. There are 12 free books you can download written by Luangtua, where he talks on such subjects as, "the citta of an arahant is empty". Do you think he is speaking from theory as you plainly are?

You see Bruce, I have to question what you say because I am not the only one reading your posts. There are many "seekers" out there who are looking for the truth and they listen to people like you. They want to find answers. Now you may think I am being arrogant setting myself up as some kind of authority. I make no apologies. I have no alternative but to speak the truth. If that puts me in the doghouse with some people, then so be it. I am unconcerned. Perhaps it would help if you spoke about your experiences. You seem to shy away from it as if it has nothing to do with you. I've seen this behaviour before. "There is just anatta. I am just made up of the aggregates so there is no me to even practice. So why does what I think or experience matter?" What silliness. The act of disassociating can be a way of protecting and shielding yourself from having to confront head on that which is right in front of your nose. You will quickly move forward if you just deal with what you "know". I can guarantee it. Don't waste your time reading countless discourses and trying to make sense of it all. You have to eventually pull down the whole facade. Why not do it now?

All this because you can't acknowledge that the Buddha emphasised Dukkha and the cessation of Dukkha? What a waste of time.

Is grandstanding part of your particular spiritual path? Is argument for the sake of argument practice for you? Is winning everything?

You acknowledge that you are not a Buddhist and that you are in the wrong place and yet you expect others to buy into your agenda, not happening. Do you have nothing to learn here? Is this forum just a pulpit for you?

I'm not going to preside as judge and jury over other peoples spiritual attainment on the internet and your invitations to let you do so to me are wasting bandwidth.

All this when someone didn't disagree with you just suggested a different emphasis from what you proposed, I can't what imagine happens when someone actually disagrees with you.

Lets discuss Buddhism, which one is Buddhism and which is fake? It's not a trick question.

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.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Brucenkhamen

[trd]

Both are true.

Both are fake.

[Brucenkhamen]

Both are true.

Both are fake.

I didn't ask which one is true, I asked which one is Buddhism.