Seeker of Wisdom

Just because something is only a state doesn't mean it's not useful or inherent or even necessary to the big picture. Whatever we do to get to the uncontrived is ultimately going to involve using certain skilful contrived processes to end unskillful contrived processes, until the last block can finally implode on itself naturally. We should all use however many stages in between as we find useful. Nobody can stop contriving as an effort of will, it can only be a natural fruition. If someone is honestly close to ready to let go at the deepest level, they can be quite direct. Others cannot. Both are following a right route for themselves, so long as the bigger picture is kept in mind. For some people, actively working on things like kundalini (obv. not forcing) is helpful. Others prefer to let it occur naturally. It seems to me that kundalini inevitably occurs along the way, and catalyses a lot when it does, but it is only one aspect of the path.

Well, what do you mean by faith? If it's blind belief in something without any experience or logic behind it, that's dumb. If it's more of a 'this is a good working hypothesis' conviction based on some logic and experience, that's what gets people really practising. Until through practice it matures, merging with wisdom to become gnosis.

Found this info online. Translation of Vajrasattva mantra: Translation of the Liberation Sutra mantra (I can't find a Buddhist source, I think they used this mantra written by Amma):

From: *Physical and mental things - like cakes, jhana, etc. *Rituals and practices - 'I must have this exact zafu!'. *Views - ie. wrapping yourself up in conjecture about stuff, grasping concepts. *Views of the self - 'I am this' 'I am not separate from anything' 'I am everything' 'I do not exist'. Non-attachment comes in Buddhism from directly perceiving how attachment is problematic, so that the mind realises attachment just isn't a great idea. Grasping onto stuff is the key problem and recognising this naturally flowers into letting go. Anger is also an issue which has its basis in ignorance and attachment, so as insight drops attachment, it will also drop anything that anger could root itself on. With no holding on to views of self, for example, there is no idea of 'them vs me'.

The idea that the Buddha could have maintained his physical body for an astronomical period of time is hardly of central importance to Buddhism. Considering that there is also, as you yourself say, a , any Buddhist who doubts these sorts of paranormal feats but forces themselves to try to believe them anyway because they're in scripture is disregarding key principles in favour of hagiographical garnish. Practising Buddhism doesn't obligate the practitioner to have blind faith in anything. As for the no-self vs fourfold negation thing - if you aren't happy with the answers that have been given, fine. Language can be a tricky thing, people disagree on how they want things said and what they find misleading. Nobody is forcing you to read Ajahn Chah, or to change your own views on the matter.

I'm inclined to doubt it happened, as I'm sceptical of miraculous sounding stories like that. To me it sounds like hagiography ramping up the awesomeness, especially with that 'asking three times' thing - come on, Ananda was really too dumbstruck to even nod, three times? Of course I can't prove it didn't happen, but personally I see no reason to think it did. Well, it's not really possible to use language concisely in accord with the negation of any of the conceptual frameworks on which language relies. If you want to get things said clearly, you can't always follow the fourfold negation exactly. Saying 'there is no self' is reasonable shorthand. It's like how an agnostic can say 'I don't believe in God' - they're not making a positive statement of His nonexistence, but a negative statement of their belief in His existence - which implicitly follows from not positively believing. Similarly, dropping all ideas of self implicitly means not believing in a self, which is different from believing that there is no self as yet another view.

I think it's important to really understand first that emptiness isn't a state, or a ground of being, or a nothingness that everything rests in, or a nothingness that gave rise to everything. I think pretty much everyone assumes these kinds of things at first because we're so used to thinking in these terms - I know I did. Emptiness is pointing at how things lack 'inherent existence', meaning they don't have a substantial identity or existence independent from other things. Instead, they exist in an interdependent way as Apech says ^^^. If you take anything and look closely at it, the thing itself is insubstantial and nothing apart from the things that caused it. In a nutshell, I think it really helps to say that 'things are verbs, not nouns'. You cannot peel the light and heat away from a fire, for example. The light and heat are empty, because they have their basis in interdependence on the fire. The fire itself is empty because it needed an initial input of heat, and it needs fuel and oxygen. Absolutely everything - matter, energy, time, space, mental processes, consciousness... is empty in nature. There are a bunch of ways to look at emptiness. One is to look at things and their parts, like in the analogy of the chariot or Chandrakirti's sevenfold reasoning, until you find that the thing isn't identical with the parts or separate from them. Another is to see how things are meaningless without each other. E.g. consciousness is meaningless without other things for it to be aware of, which in turn are meaningless if they cannot be experienced - 'if a tree falls in the forest...'. Another is to look at cause and effect, showing how things couldn't come to exist if they were inherently existent/substantial, as in Nagarjuna's fourfold negation. Substantial things couldn't arise from themselves, because they would have to have existed before arising, which makes no sense. They couldn't arise from other things, because their properties would be the effects of those things, so they wouldn't be inherently existent. They couldn't arise from both, because this still involves the problems of arising from both. And they couldn't arise from neither, because then stuff would just happen randomly. But things do exist - look around. Therefore, things are empty, not inherently existent. In this thread in my PPF are some articles on emptiness you might find helpful - not that I'm an expert or teacher, I wrote that stuff to try to straighten it in my own mind as much as anything.

I think the issue with translating 'dukkha' as suffering is that it's excessively nihilistic - for example, it seems unreasonable to call the bliss of jhana 'suffering'. The satipatthana sutta refers to negative, neutral and positive feelings, implying that not all is suffering, making it important to see in what way positive feelings are dukkha too. I haven't studied Pali, what I'm saying comes from reasoning like above, and the texts. For example SN 38:14, trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu (emphasis mine):

^^^ I doubt RyanO or anyone else here is intending to become a monk/nun in the immediate future, and I really doubt anyone posting in this thread is so impressionable that they would leave their dependents because of hagiography. I can't help but see this episode here as another show of your bias against one particular path... someone is considering trying this path, and your response is to say that hagiography might inspire him to leave his family.

Gautama leaving his family at the start of his search may have been a dick move or may not have been or may have been a bit of both, little detail is known about it [or known to me, anyway...] - even if newly found historical documents show exactly what went down, there will still be debate about the morality of it. In any case, I don't think it has any bearing on the value of central Buddhist theory and practice.

As Apech says ^^^ bear in mind the inter-relation of impermanence, dukkha and anatta. Often looking at two of them together leads to a deeper gnosis of all three, including the one you're primarily focused on. The three characteristics are three angles on the pointlessness of trying to grasp, and how it causes dukkha. Try looking at dukkha in relation to either anatta or impermanence.

I have less experience than you're asking for, no big expert, but here's my two cents anyway. You're probably already aware of this, but remember to bear in mind that 'dukkha' is broader and subtler than 'suffering': here. Look in terms of the more subtle 'tightening' or 'friction' of samsara. Perception - tends to feed into proliferation of views and attachment, biased and dualistic, limited, conditioned. But definitely not always suffering. Volition - intentions cannot be guaranteed to be fulfilled (anatta - a self would be fully controllable) permanently (anicca) and are conditioned. But not always suffering. Remember that the perceptions of impermanence, dukkha and anatta tend to feed into each other, so be open to all of them in your vipashyana. And recognising the first two noble truths to achieve the third comes about by practice of the fourth, in an integrated fashion. Wisdom feeds into, and is fed by, virtue and samadhi. A bit more shamatha may give you the sensitivity of perception you need to see dukkha more clearly. Hope that helps.

Also want to add that practising Buddhism doesn't mean excluding all else. Of course don't go too far into hodgepodge, but if something from elsewhere fits on neatly then it's good to use it. For example, I occasionally practice stuff from 'Daoist Nei Gong' by Damo Mitchell.

Many practitioners distinguish in their own practice between what's 'religious' and culture-specific, and the central ideas and practices. You don't have to agree with institution or hierarchy to see the four noble truths as a good depiction of what's going on and the practices as skillful ways to act on it. As for moral conduct - the point isn't to follow some bunch of rules, it's just acting so as to benefit yourself and others - if you feel restricted by rules, you're doing it wrong. You may like to know that taking refuge is intended to shift inwards, as nobody else can do cultivation for you. Ultimately you are taking refuge in your own Buddha-nature, not some external being. So if this path appeals to you - go for it, test it out. Personally I lean towards a Vajrayana viewpoint, but my actual practice is currently more Theravada style as I find shamatha-vipashyana more straightforward and appropriate to where I'm at on the path now than tantra. This may change as I progress.

^^^ Care to point out any flaws in those instructions?

Someone posts about self - I either don't care, or have a brief cordial discussion on my alternate perspective. I post about no-self - you tell me to let go of my path and then, ironically, accuse me of being dismissive. Proof I'm not presenting overriding truisms refuting and dismissing views opposing mine:

'In the end' is the key part of your statement IMO. The idea is to use something useful, until it's no longer useful. I still find Buddhist principles useful, and will use them until they are holding me back. You telling me to drop Buddhism in a way that dismisses the content of my post is basically you implicitly telling me to not post from my own path. There's no need to be that way. If you don't find Buddhism useful, that's fine.

Well, one of the issues here is people have different views on what enlightenment is. Bear in mind that, in these discussions, different people can be speaking from different perspectives on what enlightenment is about. Many people and traditions would describe it in terms of unity with everything or an absolute like God, but I see that as just another idea or experience, and I don't think there is any absolute, only interdependent processes. From my perspective, a significant part of awakening is letting go of all possible views of self - individual (I am this body/mind), transcendent (I am one with all), and clinging to the idea there is no self at all - though no-self is a nice shorthand term for this stuff. So IMO if someone claims to be enlightened but says they are one with everything, they aren't enlightened (maybe partway there though) because they are still clinging to a transcendent view of self. Enlightenment as I see it is therefore not a takeover of the conscious by the herd mind, it is liberation from views, attachments, ignorance and so on. But perhaps what some people interpret as enlightenment is actually a takeover of the conscious by the herd mind.

Interesting ideas. Maybe the herd instinct is involved in clinging to transcendent self. It's the greatest combination of unity with the group with there still being an individual body/mind that anyone could imagine - you get to satisfy the need for group belonging absolutely, but still keep the individual's individuality. IMHO, when someone loses the view of individual self (I am this body/mind) but then clings to a view of a transcendent self (we are all one, all the Self, etc), it is because they aren't ready to completely let go of all ideas of self, they are still clinging on to the idea that there is some sort of self. So imagine reality as an infinite net. Belief in individual self is thinking that the part of the net marking your body/mind is substantial and lasting, separate from the rest. Belief in transcendent self is thinking that you are the infinite net, with each body/mind just being part of your true self. Letting go of the view of self entirely is accepting that there is just string, arranged as an infinite net.

What do you mean by emptiness meditation? My understanding is what you need to do is unravel the cycle of processes that keeps samsara together. In order to do that, you need to cut through the attachment and ignorance that perpetuates this cycle. In order to do that, you need to make your mind like a laser. In order to do that, you need to act skilfully to keep the chunkier blocks of anger, etc, out of the way. So: virtue -> samadhi -> vipashyana -> cuts through ignorance -> samsara unravels, arhatship. Then further stages on to Buddhahood. So far this is a theoretical understanding for me, but I intend to test it.

OK, let's see the two main positions here (note and bold mine): The issue now becomes what exactly we mean by 'justice'. If we simply mean punishing people, as righteous retribution, this is part of an endless cycle of conflict which chews up the avengers, the guilty, and the innocent. It doesn't undo what the guilty did to the innocent, but only seeds society as a whole with the potential for more hate and fear. Owledge is coming from a POV of there being no value in hating even the guilty, as hate is poisonous. But thelerner presents another POV on justice. The judicial system provides a deterrent to harming the innocent. Without any visible consequences for violence to the perpetrators, those ignorant enough to be likely to carry it out could confidently roam the streets killing - what're ya gonna do, hug these people? Terrorists aren't secretly just really desperate for a hug. It's necessary to be harsh to the guilty to protect the public. I would find the middle way here. Punish where deterrence is necessary to protect the public, aim for rehabilitation as much as possible, be motivated only by protecting the public, without any vengeful motive.

Wait... you said: a) +=+ b] But -=+- c) Hence -=+ Do you not see how c contradicts a? And you're questioning the rationality of someone who disagrees with this? OK...

I think with any discussion of this sort it's worth bearing in mind: ...Often people will say 'suffering' but mean 'dukkha' just because this is unfortunately a widespread convention. This means that in discussion between people who know about this, most can get what's actually being spoken about, without having to be that guy who uses Pali or Sanskrit at every opportunity. The disadvantage is that newcomers to these ideas are likely to get a very wrong impression... I think the first two levels of dukkha are easily acceptable - nobody sane would claim that stubbing your toe is pleasant or neutral, or that we could count on pleasant things to last permanently and unpleasant things to never arise. The third level is a bit trickier, but cultivators should be able to get the gist of the idea. It's that subtle tension/friction from living against wu wei, projecting concepts on reality as though they are reality, basically gripping hard on to all the nonsense of our stories. ... Buddhism teaches non-attachment to pleasant, neutral and unpleasant feelings alike (so don't become a jhana junkie), but pleasure is not only acknowledged as a thing that very much exists, skilful forms of it ... are a fundamental part of the path to awakening... I think understanding this is key to getting what Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche is really talking about in his great article (thanks for posting it, CT!) and hopefully applying it. There is no value in trying to be depressed as though depression is a spiritual virtue, and you don't have to feel sad in any way to recognise dukkha or seek freedom from it anyway. Us cultivators are into our practice because we're seeking *something* we won't get from all the experience available from wealth, being respected, sex, telly, etc. Even though all these things are sources of pleasure! To some extent, we're all aware of dukkha - without needing to be depressed. However, many are largely desensitised to dukkha by ordinary pleasures, and those of us who do cultivate can still be more perceptive. Feeling mild depression can be a gateway to recognising more clearly that even pleasant conditioned experiences can't be grasped. If mild depression does happen, it's a good idea to use it to start or deepen a path to true liberation.

I've been thinking recently about the differences between jhana as presented in the suttas and as in the commentaries (note I can't be bothered to find all the references, but if you want you can find this stuff easily). For example, the first jhana in the suttas has four factors: applied and sustained attention, rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. Nowhere in the suttas that I'm aware of is the first jhana described as having absolute singleness of mind (ekagatta) - obviously there isn't restlessness, it's way way more focused than anything in regular life, without discursive thought, ideally not hearing external sound, etc... but nor is there that ekagatta yet. There is still subtle intention, pointing attention towards the object. This is supported by the description of the second jhana - stilling of applied and sustained attention -> rapture and pleasure born of composure. If the first jhana already had that composure anyway, this would be a pointless statement. And many laypeople are said to achieve stream-entry and the first jhana, implying that it's still very hard, but achievable without months of retreat doing nothing else. But the Path to Purification says that the first jhana has five factors, one of which is ekagatta. And only one in ten-thousand will achieve it, or something like that. This sounds intimidating! But then, it is said that jhana is actually not necessary - in stark contrast to the suttas, which outright define right concentration as the jhanas, and bang on about jhana weaning the mind from sense craving, supporting wisdom, etc. IMO it makes sense to say that the less intense jhana of the suttas is necessary, while the more intense jhana of the commentaries is still right concentration, but it isn't necessary to go that far. Tbh I'm quite pleased about this because my main source for shamatha practice (Alan Wallace's The Attention Revolution - great book) takes the commentary's route and says you basically need to go into retreat for months or years if you want jhana, and you should be able to focus completely single-pointedly for four hours straight to get the real first jhana! It's still an ideal guide to doing the practice itself, but the idea that I don't actually need to get to SUCH an exacting level for even just stream-entry is a relief. This is what Thanissaro Bhikkhu says in Wings to Awakening pp. 218-9 (here): But of course I don't want to be 'dumbing down', so if I'm missing something here, please educate me.

Yes, I see where that's coming from. That's pretty much what Alan Wallace says to do. I'll still use the word 'concentration', as practising this does gradually train the mind to be able to concentrate - it's just based on letting distractions go rather than pushing them away, concentration in a mode of serene stillness.