The ultimate purpose of Buddhist-style meditation practices

[TuskegeeBen]

You're using your thinking mind in ways that are antithetical to Buddhist practice. Calm down. Breathe. That's it.

Edited May 9, 2016 by TuskegeeBen

[trd]

Buddism, by it's own embodiment, promotes simplicity. My sincere praises to the Japanese mentality, in that regard, to say the least.

I was away for more than one week. I returned to see the exact same posters, riding the exact same topic carousel of discussion. Sigh!

Indeed, with all the time spent (talking about) writing all the lengthly suppositions, re: the various forms of meditative practices, it is not unreasonable to presume,

that even here, some people seem to have an engrained penchant for complicating the simplest way of life explanations.

Time to move progressively along, then return to the topic thread, in the future, with some "actual" results based information, for a change, OP?

That much would make for far more interesting reading, instead. Cheers

If you have taken the time to come here, perhaps you could express an opinion on the thread topic and give us the benefits of your understanding of simplicity.

Sigh! all-ready contributed my notion of the simplicity factors, re: productive meditation applications techniques. Try reading something outside your soap-box, for a change.

I am not interested in contributing further to a 2X pre-existing verbose, pretentious, supercilious and non-productive "one-upmanship" topic debate between !

Capiche? Cheers, and arrivederci

You seem to sigh a lot. Perhaps meditation would help.

[Brucenkhamen]

Interesting, because the popular image in Buddhism is that of a person sitting cross-legged with eyes closed, trying to still all thoughts.

That's the popular image, and it's true sitting is very important if one is establishing Samadhi or wishes to experience jhana. This image I think also often remains with experienced meditators for a long time, though sooner or later with vipassana practice one realises that continuity of practice is what is most important. One discovers that the stability of mind and awareness experienced in sitting can be extended outside of sitting so the difference between sitting and other activities isn't so stark.

[rockyysdt]

Interesting, because the popular image in Buddhism is that of a person sitting cross-legged with eyes closed, trying to still all thoughts.

That's the popular image, and it's true sitting is very important if one is establishing Samadhi or wishes to experience jhana. This image I think also often remains with experienced meditators for a long time, though sooner or later with vipassana practice one realises that continuity of practice is what is most important. One discovers that the stability of mind and awareness experienced in sitting can be extended outside of sitting so the difference between sitting and other activities isn't so stark.

Yes, they go hand in hand for most.

The 8 Fold Path encompasses both Concentration & Mindfulness.

With Mindfulness one can go about ones daily wakeful life.

With Concentration on the other hand needs stillness.

[rockyysdt]

I was away for more than one week. I returned to see the exact same posters, riding the exact same topic carousel of discussion. Sigh!

Indeed, with all the time spent (talking about) writing all the lengthly suppositions, re: the various forms of meditative practices, it is not unreasonable to presume,

that even here, some people seem to have an engrained penchant for complicating the simplest way of life explanations.

Time to move progressively along, then return to the topic thread, in the future, with some "actual" results based information, for a change, OP?

Capigh! all-ready contributed my notion of the simplicity factors, re: productive meditation applications techniques. Try reading something outside your soap-box, for a change.

I am not interested in contributing further to a 2X pre-existing verbose, pretentious, supercilious and non-productive "one-upmanship" topic debate between !

Capiche? Cheers, and arrivederci

Hi TB.

None the less, lurking in these corridors, you seem to have a fascination with the subject.

You've insightfully illustrated a valid point.

Basically most of us have deeply entrenched conditioning.

It's probably what keeps most of us from reporting back with the results.

It's also probably why most never Awaken (if this turns out to be true).

Until we reach a certain level in our practice, our colored nature will always shine through.

Some are fortunate to have good habits to carry them through, whilst other not so fortunate.

What is your conditioning?

Edited May 9, 2016 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

When a student makes the decision to get a university degree, he usually has some idea of the rewards, which are usually perceived as a more interesting and fulfilling career with greater options, greater prospects for promotion and a higher salary.

The claimed rewards of Samadhi, in terms of cessation of suffering, are only an incentive if suffering is perceived as a problem. Lots of people experience some degree of anxiety, about their job security, or their children's welfare, or their health, and so on. They are sometimes addicted to alcohol, overeat unhealthy food, have mood swings, lose their temper and get angry, and so on.

However, in all humility, I have to confess, these are not the sort of problems that affect me. I have complete control over my diet and can fast for several days without any excessive discomfort. I can enjoy a drink of wine now and again but can also refrain from drinking for as long as I wish. I have a fairly calm temper and can't even remember the last time I got angry. And lastly, I have complete control over my sexual desires, although that wasn't always the case. No doubt Buddhist practices have helped in that regard.

In order to get me motivated to spend hours every day doing nothing, in order to achieve a freedom from suffering which I am not aware I have, at least to any significant degree, I feel I need to be convinced of some practical advantage. Will my IQ be raised 20 points, for example? Will I increase my chances of living a healthier and longer life? Would I develop the capacity to become a 'speed reader' as a result of my great wisdom flowing from the states of Samadhi that I'd achieved, and be able to read all the books I currently can't find the time to read, and so on and so on?

Now I know that you can't answer specifics that would apply to me, but I'm curious to know if any of the above are the sorts of advantages that could result when one achieves a state of Samadhi.

If I make a change to a particular diet, I can report after a few months that I feel fitter, have more energy, or sleep better, whatever the case might be. Or I might report negative findings, such as an upset stomach.

I just find it rather strange that people who claim to have achieved these enlightened states can't be more specific about the practical advantages.

Your head will grow to twice its size.

You will need to replace your hats.

People will refer to you as "having a big head".

No, seriously you are best to practice in a way which doesn't inhibit your richly rewarding lifestyle.

1. Continue your your daily Mindfulness but work towards extending it to occupy your entire wakeful day. This will not inhibit your life, and as you indicated, can only enhance it.

2. Attempt Sitting practice for one hour each day.

3. Aim for consistency & regularity of practice.

If you do this consistently (every day without fail) in one, two or three years, you might be answering your own questions.

Never under estimate the power of this basic practice.

You have already practiced it, but without continuity and consistency (this is a key).

The practical advantages are already there and have been documented by others (scientists).

In terms of going deeper, this is what 10 day, 30 day & 90 day retreats are all about.

Holiday periods of time designed to facilitate deeper experiences.

Why would you invest in these.

Look where we would be without explorers.

Where is the explorer in you?

Finally, I'm suspecting, if we habitually repeat our daily lives, only in different days, we just exist.

To grow is to live.

Edited May 9, 2016 by rockyysdt

[AYJAYDEE]

The ultimate purpose of mediation is quite simple. To see for oneself the truth of Dukkha, Anicca and Anatta.

[VincentRJ]

The ultimate purpose of mediation is quite simple. To see for oneself the truth of Dukkha, Anicca and Anatta.

Sounds like it's a very selfish activity if the purpose is only to see the truth for oneself. It's the truths that can be communicated that interest me.

The concept that all things are impermanent and constantly changing (anicca) is pretty obvious to the thinking person and especially to people with a scientific background. Every single cell in our body will have changed within a 7 year period, and a lot of them much sooner than that.

We observe, even as young children, that people, and all living things, change as they age and eventually die. We observe that houses and cars eventually become dilapidated unless they are constantly maintained or renewed.

We know that many materials gradually oxidize, react with other elements and change as a result. Unprotected iron objects easily rust, but last longer when galvanized.

There is also a truth that not all things are equally impermanent. Gold and diamonds are much prized for their resistance to change.

Recently in Australia, tiny diamonds were found trapped in zircon, a rare and exceptionally stable mineral that forms under temperatures between 600 and 900 degrees C. The age of these tiny diamonds is estimated at 4.25 billion years. (That's billion, not million). It's no wonder we have the expression, 'Diamonds are Forever'.

As regards Dukkha, (suffering or unsatisfactoriness), surely everyone understand what that is. It's necessary for survival. Without the existence of suffering, young kids would stick their hand in a fire, just for fun, and destroy their hand in the process. That initial pain of burning, which occurs almost immediately, is a useful signal or message that sticking one's hand in a bright flame is not a wise thing to do.

General unsatisfactoriness is a more complex signal that something is not quite right, sometimes resulting in visits to a psychologist or psychotherapist, or a conversion to some religion.

Again, it's a natural and necessary response from the body and brain, advising us that something needs attending to. If we never experienced such feelings, whether acute pain, or moderate discomfort, we'd never know if we were sick and needed to see a doctor, or needed to take some other remedy. The fact that suffering is a part of life is bleeding obvious. To completely remove all forms and types of suffering, and all degrees of suffering, is not necessarily wise if one wants to continue living.

Anatta (or self) is perhaps more problematic, I admit, because we are dealing with something which is more of an abstract concept. However, as I understand, during the times of the Buddha in India about 2,500 years ago, the word 'atta' was used to describe a permanent soul of a metaphysical nature, that is transmitted from birth to birth through the process of reincarnation, similar in its concept of permanence to the Christian soul.

Those who have atheistic tendencies and are thoughtful, as I am, have no problem in understanding the impermanence of the 'self' and its illusory nature. We understand that all opinions and views are based upon individual interpretations which in turn are based upon all the conditioning and experiences of the individual since the time that individual was a fetus in its mother's womb.

The general objectivity and impartiality of the 'scientific method' should help people understand that, and hopefully understand how their own views which they imagine are based upon scientific evidence, are sometimes biased, as in some of the claims about anthropogenic global warming.

So I ask once again, what is the purpose of achieving a state of 'complete cessation of all thought'? Is it perhaps just an exceptionally good rest for the mind?

[AYJAYDEE]

The ultimate purpose of mediation is quite simple. To see for oneself the truth of Dukkha, Anicca and Anatta.

Sounds like it's a very selfish activity if the purpose is only to see the truth for oneself. It's the truths that can be communicated that interest me.

The concept that all things are impermanent and constantly changing (anicca) is pretty obvious to the thinking person and especially to people with a scientific background. Every single cell in our body will have changed within a 7 year period, and a lot of them much sooner than that.

We observe, even as young children, that people, and all living things, change as they age and eventually die. We observe that houses and cars eventually become dilapidated unless they are constantly maintained or renewed.

We know that many materials gradually oxidize, react with other elements and change as a result. Unprotected iron objects easily rust, but last longer when galvanized.

There is also a truth that not all things are equally impermanent. Gold and diamonds are much prized for their resistance to change.

Recently in Australia, tiny diamonds were found trapped in zircon, a rare and exceptionally stable mineral that forms under temperatures between 600 and 900 degrees C. The age of these tiny diamonds is estimated at 4.25 billion years. (That's billion, not million). It's no wonder we have the expression, 'Diamonds are Forever'.

As regards Dukkha, (suffering or unsatisfactoriness), surely everyone understand what that is. It's necessary for survival. Without the existence of suffering, young kids would stick their hand in a fire, just for fun, and destroy their hand in the process. That initial pain of burning, which occurs almost immediately, is a useful signal or message that sticking one's hand in a bright flame is not a wise thing to do.

General unsatisfactoriness is a more complex signal that something is not quite right, sometimes resulting in visits to a psychologist or psychotherapist, or a conversion to some religion.

Again, it's a natural and necessary response from the body and brain, advising us that something needs attending to. If we never experienced such feelings, whether acute pain, or moderate discomfort, we'd never know if we were sick and needed to see a doctor, or needed to take some other remedy. The fact that suffering is a part of life is bleeding obvious. To completely remove all forms and types of suffering, and all degrees of suffering, is not necessarily wise if one wants to continue living.

Anatta (or self) is perhaps more problematic, I admit, because we are dealing with something which is more of an abstract concept. However, as I understand, during the times of the Buddha in India about 2,500 years ago, the word 'atta' was used to describe a permanent soul of a metaphysical nature, that is transmitted from birth to birth through the process of reincarnation, similar in its concept of permanence to the Christian soul.

Those who have atheistic tendencies and are thoughtful, as I am, have no problem in understanding the impermanence of the 'self' and its illusory nature. We understand that all opinions and views are based upon individual interpretations which in turn are based upon all the conditioning and experiences of the individual since the time that individual was a fetus in its mother's womb.

The general objectivity and impartiality of the 'scientific method' should help people understand that, and hopefully understand how their own views which they imagine are based upon scientific evidence, are sometimes biased, as in some of the claims about anthropogenic global warming.

So I ask once again, what is the purpose of achieving a state of 'complete cessation of all thought'? Is it perhaps just an exceptionally good rest for the mind?

nobody said anything about cessation of thought. its the clinging or grasping to a self that must be overcome.

[nongai]

I don't know about Samatha, but with Vipassana the idea is not cessation of all thought rather than analysis of what is real and true. We can hardly do that if our minds are clouded by unwanted thought.

It is not the intentional thoughts which are the problem but the random unwanted thoughts, which are in the great majority. By honing ones mindfulness one can reach the stage where the random thoughts can be seen to arise and stopped in their tracks before they are fully grown. This process eventually, with much practice, becomes an automatic process rather like a cat (mindfulness) catches a mouse (thoughts) and eventually even getting them as they are born.

[VincentRJ]

As I understand, the purpose of meditation is to still the mind and achieve a state of 'awareness without thought', or a state of awareness free of all thought. Ask Trd. He knows.

I do not interpret this as meaning free of just some thoughts, the thoughts one has decided are distracting, but literally free of all thoughts, at least during the higher states of Samadhi, which one should be progressing towards if one is serious about meditation.

Now, I can imagine that a complete and total rest for the mind could have benefits afterwards, in terms of greater alertness and awareness, just as a complete rest for the body during an exceptionally good night's sleep, can result in more energy and vigour during the following day.

There are lots of references to this quality of the 'cessation of all thought' in Buddhism, but the bliss of Nirvana is sometimes described as a state beyond even the cessation of all thought.

[Brucenkhamen]

As I understand, the purpose of meditation is to still the mind and achieve a state of 'awareness without thought', or a state of awareness free of all thought.

I do not interpret this as meaning free of just some thoughts, the thoughts one has decided are distracting, but literally free of all thoughts, at least during the higher states of Samadhi, which one should be progressing towards if one is serious about meditation.

This is not correct, you've said it before it wasn't correct then and repeating it won't change that.

It's definitely not correct for vipassana practice, for jhana practice it might be true description of as a characteristic of the experience but I don't think it's true decription of it's purpose.

There are lots of references to this quality of the 'cessation of all thought' in Buddhism, but the bliss of Nirvana is sometimes described as a state beyond even the cessation of all thought.

Can you cite a few of them please.

[trd]

I don't know about Samatha, but with Vipassana the idea is not cessation of all thought rather than analysis of what is real and true. We can hardly do that if our minds are clouded by unwanted thought.

It is not the intentional thoughts which are the problem but the random unwanted thoughts, which are in the great majority. By honing ones mindfulness one can reach the stage where the random thoughts can be seen to arise and stopped in their tracks before they are fully grown. This process eventually, with much practice, becomes an automatic process rather like a cat (mindfulness) catches a mouse (thoughts) and eventually even getting them as they are born.

There are many different interpretation of vipassana but if you are saying it is about analysing what is real and true, then it is a really worthless thing to do. How can the mind make such judgements. All phenomena which consists of the aggregates, both mental and physical, are illusions because they are changing and impermanent. My understanding is that the Buddha never taught vipassana for these very good reasons. Meditating on the idea of impermanence won't help much. What we need to do is cultivate awareness. You speak of unintentional thoughts. All thoughts are unintentional. There is no one in your mind who decides what thought you are going to think next. And how can you see a thought arising and stop it in its tracks before it is fully grown. By then it's too late. By the time you think that, the thought has already formed in your conscious mind. If you think you can stop it all your are doing is replacing one kind of mental conditioning with another. No, what we must do is to turn the attention back to the source of thought, from where it arises, which is undifferentiated awareness. To experience the one pointesness of mind which we call samadhi. This is the Buddha's ultimate teaching. To go back to awareness from which mind and perception arises. That is all. Everything else will take care of itself.

[Brucenkhamen]

There are many different interpretation of vipassana but if you are saying it is about analysing what is real and true, then it is a really worthless thing to do. How can the mind make such judgements. All phenomena which consists of the aggregates, both mental and physical, are illusions because they are changing and impermanent.

Just because something is changing doesnt make it an illusion. Looking at the definition of illusion we can see illusion is about the mind being deceived

illusion

1. something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.

2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.

3. an instance of being deceived.

Mistaking that which is phenomena for reality, or mistaking that which is impermanent for permanence would both be examples of illusion. As everything is subject to change seeing that change for what it is isnt illusion.

My understanding is that the Buddha never taught vipassana for these very good reasons.

He never taught it as a meditation technique as such, thats because its a result not a method. However he did talk about vipassana rather a lot. A quick search of Suttacentral yields over a hundred hits, would you like me to post some for you?

Meditating on the idea of impermanence won't help much.

Meditating on an idea of any kind wont help much, other than to help establish a degree of Samadhi, thats why as nongai suggests we use what is real and true is the starting point of our meditation practice. Of course as we do that, if we do it properly, we start to discover some of what we thought is real is not and layers of deception or distortion start getting peeled away.

What we need to do is cultivate awareness.

To experience the one pointesness of mind which we call samadhi. This is the Buddha's ultimate teaching.

We are agreed that what we need to do is cultivate awareness, I like your choice of the word cultivate here.

However, If you think Samadhi is the Buddhas ultimate teaching you havent really been paying attention. The main point of difference of his teaching was that Samadhi (which was well known at his time) alone is not enough and does not ultimately lead to awakening or liberation

Edited May 11, 2016 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

There are lots of references to this quality of the 'cessation of all thought' in Buddhism, but the bliss of Nirvana is sometimes described as a state beyond even the cessation of all thought.

Can you cite a few of them please.

Sure. Here's one such site. http://www.ramaquotes.com/html/stopping_thought.html

And here's an extract:

"Meditation means the cessation of thought. For years we practice, and like any other art, we get better at it each day.

The practice of meditation is emptying the mind. When the mind is empty, completely empty, it’s perfect meditation. It’s really that simple."

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on the various styles of meditative practice that are taught, but I've always been under the impression, for at least the past 50 years, that the aim of Buddhist meditation is to reach a state of 'emptying the mind of all thought'.

Trd expresses it well.

[Brucenkhamen]

Sure. Here's one such site. http://www.ramaquotes.com/html/stopping_thought.html

And here's an extract:

"Meditation means the cessation of thought. For years we practice, and like any other art, we get better at it each day.

The practice of meditation is emptying the mind. When the mind is empty, completely empty, its perfect meditation. Its really that simple."

Seriously? You're getting your Buddhism from the "Quotations by Zen Master Rama"? Do you really think he is a Zen master? A quick look around his site reveals it as being as new agey as they come.

I didn't really expect you to come up with something from scripture but I thought at least you'd be able to find something said by a reputable Buddhist teacher

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on the various styles of meditative practice that are taught, but I've always been under the impression, for at least the past 50 years, that the aim of Buddhist meditation is to reach a state of 'emptying the mind of all thought'.

About time to empty your mind of this then, if you want to empty your mind get a lobotomy.

The mind functions on mental activity, it never stops, a mind that is fully stable-ised and aware is still functioning and still doing it's job it's just the out of control and useless thoughts that have stopped being a problem.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Brucenkhamen

[trd]

Just because something is changing doesnt make it an illusion. Looking at the definition of illusion we can see illusion is about the mind being deceived

illusion

1. something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.

2. the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.

3. an instance of being deceived. Mistaking that which is phenomena for reality, or mistaking that which is impermanent for permanence would both be examples of illusion.

How would you know if the mind is being deceived. What is your criteria. If something is a false or misleading impression of reality that would only be true if you know what reality is in comparison with an illusion. It's circular logic because you are on the path to find out what reality is, but before you find out, you are already deciding what an illusion is compared with what you have yet to find out. That's just a mental construct and is itself an illusion. Awareness alone is real as it is unchanging and has no beginning or end unlike phenomenon which appears and disappears. You cannot differentiate between one phenomenon being real and another being false.

He never taught it as a meditation technique as such, thats because its a result not a method. However he did talk about vipassana rather a lot. A quick search of Suttacentral yields over a hundred hits, would you like me to post some for you?

I took a look for myself but they're all in Pali.

Meditating on an idea of any kind wont help much, other than to help establish a degree of Samadhi, thats why as nongai suggests we use what is real and true is the starting point of our meditation practice. Of course as we do that, if we do it properly, we start to discover some of what we thought is real is not and layers of deception or distortion start getting peeled away.

Meditating on an idea won't establish any degree of Samadhi. Only if we let go of the thought or object do we experience the non dual state of samadhi. Again you are trying to determine what is real with mind. That is not possible. Peeling away layers and suchlike are just mental constructs.

We are agreed that what we need to do is cultivate awareness, I like your choice of the word cultivate here. However, If you think Samadhi is the Buddhas ultimate teaching you havent really been paying attention. The main point of difference of his teaching was that Samadhi (which was well known at his time) alone is not enough and does not ultimately lead to awakening or liberation

Samadhi itself is not a direct cause of awakening because awakening is acausal. However Samadhi will nourish the fruit on the tree, but will not cause the fruit to fall from the tree. That final falling away of attachment to a personal self is without cause and is unfathomable. But if you think it's not enough, you have to consider what it is that will be enough. If it has anything to do with thinking, that cannot be it. Of course when I say cultivate awareness, I mean to turn back to it. It is always there. It cannot not be there. All appearances arise from it. It is to identify with the unbounded and not the limited self. It is that disidentificarion with the limited which destroys illusion.

[VincentRJ]

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on the various styles of meditative practice that are taught, but I've always been under the impression, for at least the past 50 years, that the aim of Buddhist meditation is to reach a state of 'emptying the mind of all thought'.

About time to empty your mind of this then, if you want to empty your mind get a lobotomy.

The mind functions on mental activity, it never stops, a mind that is fully stable-ised and aware is still functioning and still doing it's job it's just the out of control and useless thoughts that have stopped being a problem.

I'm sensing some confusion on this point. I'm referring specifically to thoughts, and the cessation of all thoughts, not the cessation of all mental activity.

Whilst all thoughts involve mental activity, all mental activity does not manifest itself as thoughts. If all mental activity were to cease, you'd be dead. Even whilst you are asleep and are not dreaming, the brain is still very active.

The concept of 'an out of control and useless thought' is a thought in itself, which has to cease during the higher stages of Samadhi, as I understand.

But hey! I could be wrong. I'm always willing to consider a clearer, more rational and more meaningful perspective.

Perhaps our difference of opinion lies in our different understanding of the meaning of the word 'thought'.

Is awareness possible without any thought? Perhaps that's the question. I think it probably is possible, depending on one's definition and understanding of the word 'thought'.

[trd]

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on the various styles of meditative practice that are taught, but I've always been under the impression, for at least the past 50 years, that the aim of Buddhist meditation is to reach a state of 'emptying the mind of all thought'.

About time to empty your mind of this then, if you want to empty your mind get a lobotomy.

The mind functions on mental activity, it never stops, a mind that is fully stable-ised and aware is still functioning and still doing it's job it's just the out of control and useless thoughts that have stopped being a problem.

I'm sensing some confusion on this point. I'm referring specifically to thoughts, and the cessation of all thoughts, not the cessation of all mental activity.

Whilst all thoughts involve mental activity, all mental activity does not manifest itself as thoughts. If all mental activity were to cease, you'd be dead. Even whilst you are asleep and are not dreaming, the brain is still very active.

The concept of 'an out of control and useless thought' is a thought in itself, which has to cease during the higher stages of Samadhi, as I understand.

But hey! I could be wrong. I'm always willing to consider a clearer, more rational and more meaningful perspective.

Perhaps our difference of opinion lies in our different understanding of the meaning of the word 'thought'.

Is awareness possible without any thought? Perhaps that's the question. I think it probably is possible, depending on one's definition and understanding of the word 'thought'.

What I mean by thought is anything which appears in the conscious mind such as a concept, idea, feeling, emotion, perception. You could call them all collectively, objects. Awareness can be experienced separately from thought, free of thought, and it is something that has been talked about way before Buddha was born. Edited May 11, 2016 by trd

[Brucenkhamen]

How would you know if the mind is being deceived. What is your criteria. If something is a false or misleading impression of reality that would only be true if you know what reality is in comparison with an illusion. It's circular logic because you are on the path to find out what reality is, but before you find out, you are already deciding what an illusion is compared with what you have yet to find out. That's just a mental construct and is itself an illusion. Awareness alone is real as it is unchanging and has no beginning or end unlike phenomenon which appears and disappears. You cannot differentiate between one phenomenon being real and another being false.

If you are not a fully enlightened arahant then the mind is deceived to some extent by definition, this is why the practice tis to continue to examine and question what one believes to be real. There is no need to decide what illusion is to do that.

Awareness is constantly changing like all mental faculties, the reason for our disagreement here is that I use the word in the normal English usage ie "awareness: knowledge or perception of a situation or fact" whereas as far as I can tell you are using the term as a euphemism for God. Its hard to reach an agreement language is misused.

I can understand how people get attached to awareness, once we discover it in our meditation and notice how relatively calm and constant it is, how tangible and pleasant the sense of presence is. We need to cultivate it without reifying it or deifying it, its a process of letting go.

How can one phenomena be real and another false? Phenomena are just phenomena, our perception and interpretation is the problem.

I took a look for myself but they're all in Pali.

Yes they are as its a Pali word, there are english translations of course.

Meditating on an idea won't establish any degree of Samadhi. Only if we let go of the thought or object do we experience the non dual state of samadhi. Again you are trying to determine what is real with mind. That is not possible. Peeling away layers and suchlike are just mental constructs.

Actually we are not trying to determine what is real, what are trying to determine what is not real and until they develop a microscope for that the mind is all we have. So the process is one of observing what we think is real not to reinforce it but to challenge it, to let go of identification with it.

Samadhi itself is not a direct cause of awakening because awakening is acausal. However Samadhi will nourish the fruit on the tree, but will not cause the fruit to fall from the tree. That final falling away of attachment to a personal self is without cause and is unfathomable. But if you think it's not enough, you have to consider what it is that will be enough. If it has anything to do with thinking, that cannot be it. Of course when I say cultivate awareness, I mean to turn back to it. It is always there. It cannot not be there. All appearances arise from it. It is to identify with the unbounded and not the limited self. It is that disidentificarion with the limited which destroys illusion.

This is why we use the word cultivation, we cannot cause awakening however we can nourish fertile conditions.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm sensing some confusion on this point. I'm referring specifically to thoughts, and the cessation of all thoughts, not the cessation of all mental activity.

That's better. However it still is not the purpose of meditation as you suggested, it is part of the map of meditative experience of course, and some traditions place more emphasis on it than others, but don't mistake it for the purpose.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

I'm sensing some confusion on this point. I'm referring specifically to thoughts, and the cessation of all thoughts, not the cessation of all mental activity.

That's better. However it still is not the purpose of meditation as you suggested, it is part of the map of meditative experience of course, and some traditions place more emphasis on it than others, but don't mistake it for the purpose.

So I ask again, what is the ultimate purpose of these higher states culminating in full enlightenment or Nirvana?

I guess we can assume that 'suffering' is a mistranslation of the Sanskrit/Pali word 'Dukkha'. Suffering is a necessary part of life, a temporary state of affairs which performs a useful role in warning the mind about potential dangers, such as sticking one's hand in a fire, or grasping a prickly thorn in one's hand.

It's also necessary as a sign that something is wrong in the body and that one might require medical treatment. Without the effects of suffering one might be unaware of the presence of a potentially deadly disease which, if not treated in its early stages, might result in death.

Now, if one avoids using the word 'suffering' as a translation of 'dukkha', and instead one uses words such as anxiety, stress, and unsatisfactoriness, then that makes more sense, but still not complete sense because those conditions probably still play some useful role in informing the mind of some imminent danger. For example, if I were to attempt to lift a particularly heavy log into a wheelbarrow without any awareness of stress, I might do serious damage to my back.

Perhaps we can overcome such problems of definition by using the word 'unnecessary'. Instead of describing one of the Buddhist goals, or perhaps the goal, simply as the 'cessation of all suffering', we could be more precise and describe it as the 'cessation of all unnecessary and purposeless suffering, anxiety, stress or unsatisfactoriness'.

Describing it in this way tends to reduce the nihilistic connotations of Buddhism, wouldn't you say?

[Brucenkhamen]

So I ask again, what is the ultimate purpose of these higher states culminating in full enlightenment or Nirvana?

I guess we can assume that 'suffering' is a mistranslation of the Sanskrit/Pali word 'Dukkha'. Suffering is a necessary part of life, a temporary state of affairs which performs a useful role in warning the mind about potential dangers, such as sticking one's hand in a fire, or grasping a prickly thorn in one's hand.

It's also necessary as a sign that something is wrong in the body and that one might require medical treatment. Without the effects of suffering one might be unaware of the presence of a potentially deadly disease which, if not treated in its early stages, might result in death.

Now, if one avoids using the word 'suffering' as a translation of 'dukkha', and instead one uses words such as anxiety, stress, and unsatisfactoriness, then that makes more sense, but still not complete sense because those conditions probably still play some useful role in informing the mind of some imminent danger. For example, if I were to attempt to lift a particularly heavy log into a wheelbarrow without any awareness of stress, I might do serious damage to my back.

I think you are circling around the nail, just not quite hitting it on the head. Nibbana/Nirvana simply means the cessation of Dukkha. Higher states of Samadhi are just something you can experience on the way to that it gives you the mental clarity to see past what most people get caught up in.

Dukkha is not pain and its not unpleasantness, Dukkha is the mental reaction to pain and unpleasantness. The point is pain and unpleasantness is a compulsory part of life but the mental reaction to that pain and unpleasantness (ie Dukkha) is optional and Dukkha snowballs and turns small pains and problems into big ones. As you pointed out, anxiety, stress or unsatisfactoriness are better translations for this.

I think it is fair to say as youve eluded that Dukkha plays an important role in motivating us to improve our lives and/or avoid danger, and it has probably played a big role in the advances weve made over the centuries. However wisdom can also perform this function and it can do so without the anxiety, stress or unsatisfactoriness.

[VincentRJ]

So I ask again, what is the ultimate purpose of these higher states culminating in full enlightenment or Nirvana?

I guess we can assume that 'suffering' is a mistranslation of the Sanskrit/Pali word 'Dukkha'. Suffering is a necessary part of life, a temporary state of affairs which performs a useful role in warning the mind about potential dangers, such as sticking one's hand in a fire, or grasping a prickly thorn in one's hand.

It's also necessary as a sign that something is wrong in the body and that one might require medical treatment. Without the effects of suffering one might be unaware of the presence of a potentially deadly disease which, if not treated in its early stages, might result in death.

Now, if one avoids using the word 'suffering' as a translation of 'dukkha', and instead one uses words such as anxiety, stress, and unsatisfactoriness, then that makes more sense, but still not complete sense because those conditions probably still play some useful role in informing the mind of some imminent danger. For example, if I were to attempt to lift a particularly heavy log into a wheelbarrow without any awareness of stress, I might do serious damage to my back.

Dukkha is not pain and its not unpleasantness, Dukkha is the mental reaction to pain and unpleasantness. The point is pain and unpleasantness is a compulsory part of life but the mental reaction to that pain and unpleasantness (ie Dukkha) is optional and Dukkha snowballs and turns small pains and problems into big ones. As you pointed out, anxiety, stress or unsatisfactoriness are better translations for this.

As I understand, pain is a mental reaction which informs us, via our nervous system, that something is wrong. Are you basically saying that Dukkha is a mental reaction to a mental reaction, and is just an unnecessary and purposeless escalation of that necessary pain, which results from our lack of wisdom?

[Brucenkhamen]

As I understand, pain is a mental reaction which informs us, via our nervous system, that something is wrong. Are you basically saying that Dukkha is a mental reaction to a mental reaction, and is just an unnecessary and purposeless escalation of that necessary pain, which results from our lack of wisdom?

I'd say pain is a physical reaction as the nervous system that carries those impulses is physical and you feel it on the physical body. Of course the awareness of the experience of pain is mental just like the awareness of the experience of everything else that you experience.

But either way Dukkha is an unnecessary and purposeless escalation of that unpleasantness as you say, if you sit long enough in meditation to feel pain you can observe the pain and the reaction to the pain and see that the latter is worse than the former.

We unnecessarily escalate emotional (ie mental) pain in the same way.

Basically the more we try to push away the unpleasant and the more we try to grasp on to the pleasant the more friction we create, this is normally an involuntary reaction however if we can see this happening then we have the opportunity to drop it.

[VincentRJ]

As I understand, pain is a mental reaction which informs us, via our nervous system, that something is wrong. Are you basically saying that Dukkha is a mental reaction to a mental reaction, and is just an unnecessary and purposeless escalation of that necessary pain, which results from our lack of wisdom?

I'd say pain is a physical reaction as the nervous system that carries those impulses is physical and you feel it on the physical body. Of course the awareness of the experience of pain is mental just like the awareness of the experience of everything else that you experience.

But either way Dukkha is an unnecessary and purposeless escalation of that unpleasantness as you say, if you sit long enough in meditation to feel pain you can observe the pain and the reaction to the pain and see that the latter is worse than the former.

We unnecessarily escalate emotional (ie mental) pain in the same way.

Basically the more we try to push away the unpleasant and the more we try to grasp on to the pleasant the more friction we create, this is normally an involuntary reaction however if we can see this happening then we have the opportunity to drop it.

Ah! Finally we agree on something.

[trd]

Awareness is constantly changing like all mental faculties, the reason for our disagreement here is that I use the word in the normal English usage ie "awareness: knowledge or perception of a situation or fact" whereas as far as I can tell you are using the term as a euphemism for God.

I am emphatically not using the word awareness as a euphemism for God. That would be just another concept. I only ever talk about what can be experienced. You are self aware. You are sentient. You can be aware of an object. This is known to you. It is self evident to you that you are aware. Mind and perception by the senses appear from this background awareness. Mind is dependent on awareness but awareness is not dependent on mind. Clearly there can be awareness without mind. Anything which is not awareness is a concept and is of dependent origination.

Its hard to reach an agreement language is misused. I can understand how people get attached to awareness, once we discover it in our meditation and notice how relatively calm and constant it is, how tangible and pleasant the sense of presence is. We need to cultivate it without reifying it or deifying it, its a process of letting go. How can one phenomena be real and another false? Phenomena are just phenomena, our perception and interpretation is the problem.

How can you not be attached to awareness. It is what you are. You cannot let go of awareness. Where would you go? You can let go of identification with an object of awareness. Awareness remains. Perception and interpretation of phenomena is of the mind. You cannot rely on it. I think one of the biggest misunderstandings is when Buddhists often say that they need to see things for what they really are. Clear seeing. As if objects will somehow appear different if you wake up. It is very simple. What destroys illusions is letting go of the false personal self and identifying with the unbounded. I don't mean as an idea or concept but as an actual shift of consciousness. Keep meditating.

[Brucenkhamen]

I am emphatically not using the word awareness as a euphemism for God. That would be just another concept. I only ever talk about what can be experienced. You are self aware. You are sentient. You can be aware of an object. This is known to you. It is self evident to you that you are aware.

Thats good to know, it sounds then like we are talking about the same thing here.

Mind and perception by the senses appear from this background awareness. Mind is dependent on awareness but awareness is not dependent on mind. Clearly there can be awareness without mind. Anything which is not awareness is a concept and is of dependent origination.

Oops I spoke too soon. Awareness is a mental process, its a function of mind, so clearly awareness is part of mind not the other way around. How do you reconcile your definition with the English language definition? "awareness: knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.". Is there a less confusing term you can use so that we can know what exactly it is you are talking about in terms of Buddhist psychology?

How can you not be attached to awareness. It is what you are. You cannot let go of awareness. Where would you go? You can let go of identification with an object of awareness. Awareness remains. Perception and interpretation of phenomena is of the mind. You cannot rely on it

By not being attached to what I am. Being attached to what I am simply means Im not willing to change, Im sure you wouldnt endorse that view. It looks like you understand the word attachment differently as well.

The point is moot though, I am not just a single mental process (called awareness) but a complex array of mental processes working together with a body thrown in for easy transportation. Dont take this tongue in check description too literally though its just meant to put awareness in context.

I think one of the biggest misunderstandings is when Buddhists often say that they need to see things for what they really are. Clear seeing. As if objects will somehow appear different if you wake up. It is very simple. What destroys illusions is letting go of the false personal self and identifying with the unbounded. I don't mean as an idea or concept but as an actual shift of consciousness. Keep meditating.

Clear seeing means letting go of the false personal self and identifying with the unbounded, it has nothing to do with the objects that are being seen and has everything to do with the mental phenomena involved in that seeing process and how one understands what does the seeing.

[VincentRJ]

The main problem, as I imagine it, is with the concept of 'awareness without thought'.

We try to understand new concepts, ideas and experiences by relating them to what we are already familiar with, using a process of analogies.

For example, a youngster trying to understand the broad concept of Einstein's theory of relativity, might begin with a simple analogy of two stationary passenger trains, side by side at the railway station. As he gazes at the other train through the window, he notices that it begins to start up, moving in the opposite direction.

Then with surprise, perhaps as a result of a slight sense of a rumbling noise as the train wheels roll along the tracks, he realises that it is his train that is moving, not the other one, which is actually still stationary.

As a result of such an analogy, it becomes easier to understand the broad concept that everything we perceive as moving is actually moving only in relation to something else that we perceive and define as being stationary, and vice versa.

Trying to think of an analogy for 'awareness without thought', I've come up with the following.

Let's say I'm driving along a scenic highway, paying attention to the other traffic whilst simultaneously having profound conversations with the other passengers in the car, about the meaning and purpose of Buddhism, for example. I would say that I'm aware of the surrounding landscape through which I'm driving, without having any thoughts about it, because all my thinking is diverted to other issues. However, if I were to stop driving, and stop talking, I would then begin to have thoughts about the surrounding landscape. What a tall building! What beautiful trees on the river bank, and so on. It would be difficult to pay attention to such surroundings without having any thoughts, but possible I imagine.

Is this a relevant and useful analogy, anyone?

[trd]

Awareness is a mental process, its a function of mind, so clearly awareness is part of mind not the other way around. How do you reconcile your definition with the English language definition? "awareness: knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.". Is there a less confusing term you can use so that we can know what exactly it is you are talking about in terms of Buddhist psychology?

Awareness is not a process or part of any Buddhist psychology. Awareness is like the cinema screen upon which the movie is projected. The movie is mental process. The movie begins and ends but the screen remains untouched and is uninvolved. It is merely the witness of the movie. Nothing that happens in the movie can affect the screen. Scenes of fire will not burn it. Scenes of a flood won't make it wet. We shouldn't pay much attention to the dictionary definition. The dictionary isn't concerned with ultimate knowledge but only with what most people experience which is thinking that they are a mind and body. If the screen mistakenly thinks it's the movie then dukkha arises.

What you call a complex array of mental processes is neither here nor there. It's just a concept. There is only one thing you can truly know and that is what is happening in the present moment. That is all. Right here, right now. There is no past, or future. And in that present moment there will be a thought or no thought. What happens in the past is just a memory, but that memory is a new thought happening in the present moment. If you appreciate that then all you have to do is to find out what is the source of these thoughts and discover that it is silence. That knowledge replaces all scripture.

Clear seeing means letting go of the false personal self and identifying with the unbounded, it has nothing to do with the objects that are being seen and has everything to do with the mental phenomena involved in that seeing process and how one understands what does the seeing.

If clear seeing has nothing to do with objects, then it can have nothing to do with the process that brings them into the conscious mind either. Prior to that is the understanding of what does the seeing but it is beyond any concept and cannot be described. Edited May 14, 2016 by trd