Feeling and mental perception

[Bindi]

6 hours ago, Apech said:

 

Buddhism has made me cry - I'm serious - it released a lot of pent up feeling in me (perhaps not enough because I still go on about non-dualism).

 

I think although thw word illusory is very popular with Buddhists it should be banned because it gives the wrong impression.

 

 

Do you know what Buddhists mean when they call emotions illusory? 

[old3bob]

emotion's and thoughts are forms of energy,  with knowing the energy being the point and not getting stuck in the passing forms it may take although they act to convey it across realms.  "Samsara properly understood is nirvana",  or something like that sounds like a great saying and truth...  but then again the teachings related to Hinduisms Lord Nataraja are much clearer and to me.

[Apech]

10 hours ago, Bindi said:

Do you know what Buddhists mean when they call emotions illusory? 

 

I believe the main sense is that they are not what they appear to be.  Although the English word illusory is probably taken to mean that there is nothing there at all.  It is not just reserved for emotions of course - the world itself is often described as illusory.  In a Buddhist text I use it calls the body 'the illusory body'.  I think the Sanskrit word 'maya' applies which is the world as a display - an appearance - kind of smoke and mirrors I suppose.  But then no one tells you to cross a busy road without looking or throw yourself off a cliff (though some misguided people have done just that!).

 

I think the sense in which it should be understood is that the emotion, say anger for instance - is just an effect produced by movement of energy and a sense of self attached.  Its a big subject of course because one might say there are things that you should be angry about - but in the end its about seeing through the 'display' to what is actually going on.

 

  

[stirling]

16 hours ago, Maddie said:

Would you mind clarifying how Anatta is a non-dual understanding?

 

 I've always understood it that the five aggregates are not self.

 

Anatta is seeing that not only are we surrounded by a universe of objects, but that our deconstructed experience of the "self" (the disassembled aggregates) are ALSO just objects. "Self" does not occupy an exalted place in experiencing. Realization of Anatta is the moment where the universe is understood to be only by phenomena (as you say, your experience of sight/touch/sound/smell/taste/"mind") - objects arising and passing moment to moment. What is non-dual is the understanding that what "I" is composed of is merely these sensory objects blinking in and out. I think of this as the non-dual 1 insight. a good place to read about this, and see how that understanding deepens, is the Bahiya Sutta:

 

Quote

In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." - Bahiya Sutta, Buddha

 

The non-dual 2 insight is the realization that in fact ALL phenomena do not have a "self", and even a philosophy of the "self" or universe has no reality of its own. This is the insight of "emptiness", and why all descriptions, philosophies and epistimelogical, ontological, etc. descriptions of this understanding (including the Buddha) are just a scaffoldings to give you the IDEA, not the actual "truth" of the understanding. The understanding is ONLY ever experiential. 

 

 

[stirling]

16 hours ago, Bindi said:

As Maddie said earlier it is the monologue attached to the feeling that creates the suffering, I might say it is the monologue that extends the suffering, the feeling in the moment might make me miserable but when it ends I am not miserable anymore - some feelings are decidedly unpleasant. 

 

I absolutely agree, and buried in that monolgue is the assumption that the voice of that monologue is what we are.

 

The monologue is the extension of the suffering yes. As the Buddha puts it:

 

Quote

‘If a person is struck by an arrow, is it painful? If the person is struck by a second arrow, is it even more painful?’

 

He then went on to explain,

‘In life, we can’t always control the first arrow. However, the second arrow is our reaction to the first. This second arrow is optional.’ - Buddha

 

Translator and scholar Ken McLeod suggests the use of the word "struggle" instead of the "suffering for the word dukkha, and I think he is right. It is our struggle with the reality of how things are, and our internal dialogue about that, that creates most of our misery. 

 

Quote

But… at this point in time I do take the feeling as ‘me’, just as I take thoughts to be me and my body to be me. I am also Shakti and shiva, and at some point I may identify as their child, I am multifaceted and can see the world through all of these perspectives, why would I need to disidentify with any perspective? I am a multicelled organism with multiple perspectives as opposed to Buddha’s no-self. 

 

There is no need to do anything! It is fine to be as you are, of course, especially if you are happy with how things are.

 

I find that people come to be interested in these practices for two reasons: 

 

They are tired of their dissatisfaction/struggle/suffering and want a way out

 

They want to understand the nature of reality and have exhausted all the options, OR resonate with one of the practices. 

Edited November 13, 2023 by stirling

[Mark Foote]

23 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Anatta is seeing that not only are we surrounded by a universe of objects, but that our deconstructed experience of the "self" (the disassembled aggregates) are ALSO just objects. "Self" does not occupy an exalted place in experiencing. Realization of Anatta is the moment where the universe is understood to be only by phenomena (as you say, your experience of sight/touch/sound/smell/taste/"mind") - objects arising and passing moment to moment. What is non-dual is the understanding that what "I" is composed of is merely these sensory objects blinking in and out. I think of this as the non-dual 1 insight. a good place to read about this, and see how that understanding deepens, is the Bahiya Sutta:

 

Gautama's way of living was a mindfulness that included thought with regard to the state of mind, thought both initiated and sustained:

 

Contemplating impermanence I shall breathe in. Contemplating impermanence I shall breathe out.
 

Contemplating dispassion I shall breathe in. Contemplating dispassion I shall breathe out.
 

Contemplating cessation I shall breathe in. Contemplating cessation I shall breathe out.
 

Contemplating renunciation I shall breathe in. Contemplating renunciation I shall breathe out.

(SN V 312, Pali Text Society Vol V pg 275-276; tr. F. L. Woodward; masculine pronouns replaced, re-paragraphed)

 

The contemplation of impermanence was generally along the lines of:

 

Whatever… is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, (a person), thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.”

(MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society Vol. III pg 68)

 

As Maddie said, the five aggregates, empty of abiding self.  The catch being, the necessity to draw from "perfect wisdom" to see it thus, as it really is.  

 

I think the picture is clearer when the next thought is considered, contemplating dispassion.  If I recognize the impermanency of my body in particular, then I can more readily find equanimity with regard to the pleasant, painful, and neither-pleasant-nor-painful with regard to the body.  

The equanimity with regard to sensation is an essential part of allowing necessity in the movement of breath to place attention freely.  That ties in with the third thought initiated and sustained, of cessation, primarily the cessation of habitual or volitive activity in inhalation and exhalation.  

 

The difficulty is that most people will lose consciousness before they cede activity to the location of attention–they lose the presence of mind with the placement of attention, because they can’t believe that action in the body is possible without “doing something”.

 

(Shunryu Suzuki on Shikantaza and the Theravadin Stages)

 

 

Experience activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation generated by the singular placement of attention that moves, and contemplation of renunciation of "latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body" comes naturally.  Renunciation follows cessation.

Lately I look to freedom in the singular placement of awareness in connection with necessity in the movement of breath, a lot.  Would appear that was Gautama's way of living "most of the time", "especially in the rainy season",  but I'm a long way from that.

 

When a presence of mind is retained as the placement of attention shifts, then the natural tendency toward the free placement of attention can draw out thought initial and sustained, and bring on the stages of concentration:
 

… there is no need to depend on teaching. But the most important thing is to practice and realize our true nature… [laughs]. This is, you know, Zen.
 

(Shunryu Suzuki, Tassajara 68-07-24 transcript from shunryusuzuki.com)

 

(ibid)

 

Edited November 14, 2023 by Mark Foote

[stirling]

10 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

As Maddie said, the five aggregates, empty of abiding self.  The catch being, the necessity to draw from "perfect wisdom" to see it thus, as it really is. 

 

Thanks Mark. _/\_

 

Just a note to add: The next move is to realize that the aggregates (and indeed everything else) is ALSO empty of an abiding self. This is the difference between Tripitaka teachings and the Mahayana teachings, though as I suggested above, the Bahiya sutta points to this next move. 

 

BTW - You are a lot closer to "it" than you realize.

[Mark Foote]

17 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Just a note to add: The next move is to realize that the aggregates (and indeed everything else) is ALSO empty of an abiding self. This is the difference between Tripitaka teachings and the Mahayana teachings, though as I suggested above, the Bahiya sutta points to this next move. 
 

 

 

No next move, and also no extinction of it.
 

 

17 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

BTW - You are a lot closer to "it" than you realize.
 

 

[old3bob]

that favorite Buddhist saying (which is at least misleading to me) about no abiding self could be made a lot better ime if it said no separate and abiding particular self since the True Self is both within and without of all form, for there would be no forms without It.

[Maddie]

One thing I have found interesting is that if you read the Sutta's the Buddha would never answers questions concerning if there was a self or no self. Rather when he taught the aggregates he just taught that the five aggregates were not self. 

[Mark Foote]

14 minutes ago, Maddie said:

One thing I have found interesting is that if you read the Sutta's the Buddha would never answers questions concerning if there was a self or no self. Rather when he taught the aggregates he just taught that the five aggregates were not self. 
 

 

 

 

“[Gautama] spoke thus to the monk Sati, a fisherman’s son, as he was sitting down at a respectful distance:

 

‘Is it true, as is said, that a pernicious view like this has accrued to you, Sati: “In so far as I understand [the truth] taught by [Gautama], it is that this consciousness itself runs on, fares on, not another”?’
 

‘Even so do I… understand [the teaching] ….’
 

‘What is this consciousness, Sati?’
 

‘It is this… that speaks, that feels, that experiences now here, now there, the fruition of deeds that are lovely and that are depraved.’
 

[Gautama rebukes Sati for his misrepresentation of Gautama’s teaching, and continues:] It is because… an appropriate condition arises that consciousness is known by this or that name: if consciousness arises because of eye and material shapes, it is known as visual consciousness; if consciousness arises because of ear and sounds, it is known as auditory consciousness; [so for the nose/smells/olfactory consciousness, tongue/tastes/gustatory consciousness, body/touches/tactile consciousness, mind/mental objects/mental consciousness].

…As a fire burns because of this or that appropriate condition, by that it is known: if a fire burns because of sticks, it is known as a stick-fire; and if a fire burns because of chips, it is known as a chip-fire; … and so with regard to grass, cow-dung, chaff, and rubbish.”
 

(MN I 258-259, Pali Text Society I p 313-315)

 

 

In freedom is the knowledge that [one] is freed and [one] comprehends: “Destroyed is birth, brought to a close the (holy)-faring, done is what was to be done, there is no more of being such or so’. [They] comprehend thus: “The disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of sense-pleasures do not exist here; the disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of becoming do not exist here; the disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of ignorance do not exist here. And there is only this degree of disturbance, that is to say the six sensory fields that, conditioned by life, are grounded on this body itself.”

(MN III 108-109, Pali Text Society III p 151-152)

 

 

(Anyone)…knowing and seeing eye as it really is, knowing and seeing material shapes… visual consciousness… impact on the eye as it really is, and knowing, seeing as it really is the experience, whether pleasant, painful, or neither painful nor pleasant, that arises conditioned by impact on the eye, is not attached to the eye nor to material shapes nor to visual consciousness nor to impact on the eye; and that experience, whether pleasant, painful, or neither painful nor pleasant, that arises conditioned by impact on the eye—neither to that is (such a one) attached. …(Such a one’s) physical anxieties decrease, and mental anxieties decrease, and bodily torments… and mental torments… and bodily fevers decrease, and mental fevers decrease. (Such a one) experiences happiness of body and happiness of mind. (repeated for ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind).
 

Whatever is the view of what really is, that for (such a one) is right view; whatever is aspiration for what really is, that for (such a one) is right aspiration; whatever is endeavour for what really is, that is for (such a one) right endeavour; whatever is mindfulness of what really is, that is for (such a one) right mindfulness; whatever is concentration on what really is, that is for (such a one) right concentration. And (such a one’s) past acts of body, acts of speech, and mode of livelihood have been well purified.
 

(MN III, Pali Text Society III p 337-338)

 

 

Can I swallow enough entheogens to see things that way?   I think not.

Neither am I going to experience what Gautama's two teachers failed to experience, despite their long practice, Gautama's cessation of "doing something" in feeling and perceiving ("there is only this degree of disturbance, that is to say the six sensory fields that, conditioned by life, are grounded on this body itself.").

But I believe him, and fortunately his way of living didn't require the cessation of "doing something" in feeling and perceiving, only the cessation of "doing something" in inhalation and exhalation and the overview of the body taken in that cessation.

 

[old3bob]

4 hours ago, Maddie said:

One thing I have found interesting is that if you read the Sutta's the Buddha would never answers questions concerning if there was a self or no self. Rather when he taught the aggregates he just taught that the five aggregates were not self. 

 

Then again Maddie the historic Buddha is said to have stated the quote below for any that have not come across it yet (?):  (and which imo has a great deal of import about "Self" if one reads it straight up without a lot of, oh but that means this and not that and so forth ...)

 

“There is, Oh Monks, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded.”   Udāna 8.3

— Buddha

Edited November 14, 2023 by old3bob

[Bindi]

11 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I believe the main sense is that they are not what they appear to be.  Although the English word illusory is probably taken to mean that there is nothing there at all.  It is not just reserved for emotions of course - the world itself is often described as illusory.  In a Buddhist text I use it calls the body 'the illusory body'.  I think the Sanskrit word 'maya' applies which is the world as a display - an appearance - kind of smoke and mirrors I suppose.  But then no one tells you to cross a busy road without looking or throw yourself off a cliff (though some misguided people have done just that!).

 

I think the sense in which it should be understood is that the emotion, say anger for instance - is just an effect produced by movement of energy and a sense of self attached.  Its a big subject of course because one might say there are things that you should be angry about - but in the end its about seeing through the 'display' to what is actually going on.

 

  

I think my difference is that I seek the underlying causes for my negative emotions, and as they become resolved so the negative emotion lessens in both the short and long term. I have the idea that healing needs to happen, but perhaps this is the same as “seeing through the 'display' to what is actually going on”? Same with my interest in subtle energy systems, they are the underlying reality I am interested in, but maybe the Buddhists would say the subtle energy system is also just a display, or maybe that’s the non-dualists, who knows anymore ☺️

[Maddie]

4 hours ago, Bindi said:

I think my difference is that I seek the underlying causes for my negative emotions, and as they become resolved so the negative emotion lessens in both the short and long term. I have the idea that healing needs to happen, but perhaps this is the same as “seeing through the 'display' to what is actually going on”? Same with my interest in subtle energy systems, they are the underlying reality I am interested in, but maybe the Buddhists would say the subtle energy system is also just a display, or maybe that’s the non-dualists, who knows anymore ☺️

 

Buddhist would just say that emotions are a result of conditioning and just something to be observed and as one is mindful the energy takes care of itself.

[Maddie]

6 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

Then again Maddie the historic Buddha is said to have stated the quote below for any that have not come across it yet (?):  (and which imo has a great deal of import about "Self" if one reads it straight up without a lot of, oh but that means this and not that and so forth ...)

 

“There is, Oh Monks, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded.”   Udāna 8.3

— Buddha

 

I always assumed that the Buddha was talking about the enlightened state here.

[johndoe2012]

4 hours ago, Bindi said:

I think my difference is that I seek the underlying causes for my negative emotions, and as they become resolved so the negative emotion lessens in both the short and long term. I have the idea that healing needs to happen, but perhaps this is the same as “seeing through the 'display' to what is actually going on”? Same with my interest in subtle energy systems, they are the underlying reality I am interested in, but maybe the Buddhists would say the subtle energy system is also just a display, or maybe that’s the non-dualists, who knows anymore ☺️

 

Direct healing of negative emotions I found to be more effective than Buddhist techniques which tend to be more mental and not practical for a householder. 

 

Suppression does happen for Buddhists in my experience. The tendency to appear equanimous can just be a facade for buried suppressed emotions. 

 

Not sure why anyone would want to put Buddhism on a pedestal. I do it myself from time to time. Then I look at the requirements for dark retreats, 3 years, and stop thinking it is all that wonderful and go back to what works for me in a practical sense. 

 

One thing from Buddhism that gives me peace is the wish for the happiness of others. 

 

One thing from Buddhism that I dislike is the tendency to view life as 'sucky' and we should engage in meditation for hours rather than enjoy life off-cushion. 

 

Enjoying life is actually much better for you since you no longer block life energy and you become happier as a result. 

[old3bob]

9 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

I always assumed that the Buddha was talking about the enlightened state here.

 

isn't that verse saying "there is" or something IS, although not something made of aggreates...so a notion about no IS or no lasting IS could be said to be false per the quote from the  historic Buddha; btw in Hinduism the "Self" is "beyond categories" and thus also not made of aggregates and is not denied as it seems to me most Buddhists are convolutedly  fixated upon doing !? 

Edited November 14, 2023 by old3bob

[Maddie]

5 hours ago, johndoe2012 said:

 

Direct healing of negative emotions I found to be more effective than Buddhist techniques which tend to be more mental and not practical for a householder. 

 

Suppression does happen for Buddhists in my experience. The tendency to appear equanimous can just be a facade for buried suppressed emotions. 

 

Not sure why anyone would want to put Buddhism on a pedestal. I do it myself from time to time. Then I look at the requirements for dark retreats, 3 years, and stop thinking it is all that wonderful and go back to what works for me in a practical sense. 

 

One thing from Buddhism that gives me peace is the wish for the happiness of others. 

 

One thing from Buddhism that I dislike is the tendency to view life as 'sucky' and we should engage in meditation for hours rather than enjoy life off-cushion. 

 

Enjoying life is actually much better for you since you no longer block life energy and you become happier as a result. 

 

I feel like you're replying to a straw man misunderstanding of Buddhism as opposed to actual Buddhism itself.

[Apech]

11 hours ago, Bindi said:

I think my difference is that I seek the underlying causes for my negative emotions, and as they become resolved so the negative emotion lessens in both the short and long term. I have the idea that healing needs to happen, but perhaps this is the same as “seeing through the 'display' to what is actually going on”? Same with my interest in subtle energy systems, they are the underlying reality I am interested in, but maybe the Buddhists would say the subtle energy system is also just a display, or maybe that’s the non-dualists, who knows anymore ☺️

 

By causes do you mean the results of unresolved experiences, traumas and so on?  My sense is that there is a collection of usually bypassed ancestral material which is energy/feeling/form mixture ... which through affecting our current feeling state and interferes with our freedom to act or be as we would wish.  I think the Buddhist view of this is that these are karmic seeds in the 'alaya' which is a base or storehouse consciousness.   The kind of ultimate view from Buddhism on this would be to allow them to arise, see them for what they are, and allow them to cease.  The Buddhist world is far stranger and multi-dimensional (for want of a better word) than is usually supposed.  For instance it contains all kinds of unembodied beings, ghosts, yakshas, betali, dakinis, gods and demi-gods - all with their own intents and purposes.  It is far from the abstract 'everything is empty so float around on a cloud' which you hear from others.

 

There are two things to be addressed here I think - one is your own 'karma' or your own state of being, happiness or otherwise.  The content of your own being and what you do about it.  The other, which is related is a kind of search for the answer to 'what is this?' - the life we have been 'given' and what is its nature and why.  So I believe there is a continuity between wanting to feel better, freer, less disturbed by things and so on ... and answering the big questions about the nature of reality.  I ama firm believer in all this that each of us must follow their own heart - and while, yes, we can learn a lot and get a lot of help from systems like Buddhism or Neidan - in the end we make it our own.  This is especially true as there is an enormous amount of b/s out there trying to tempt us into some kind of diversion.

 

It is possible also that different cultures, times and even dare I mention it ethnicities have different ways.  For instance it might be that Westerners (by which I mean generally Europeans) tackle things differently, with different emphasis than Easterners.  Also in the past life was much tougher than it is now.  I am reading a biography of the Buddhist master called 'A Saint in Seattle'.  He was born sometimes around 1900 I think and lived in Eastern Tibet.  When he was five years old his parents noticed that he liked playing at being a Lama.  They took this as a sign and decided he should be a monk.  His father took him at five years old to his uncles retreat house - which was so inaccessible that you had to climb down a ladder to get in through the roof.  The uncle was in permanent retreat sealed off from the world, there only being a tiny window through which people could pass food offerings and so on.  His father literally took him there, down the ladder, dumped him on the floor and left without a word.  From that day for at least five years the boy never left the retreat and never had any contact with his mother except through this tiny window.  Imagine doing that today!  Call Social Services!!!  Those old style Lamas did things with extreme intensity and endured great deprivations for the sake of dharma.  Their natural inclination on becoming inspired to follow the dharma was to go into retreat and do nothing but practice for decades.

 

In terms of the subtle body - what the Tibetans call the winds, channels and drops (tsa-lung etc.) in the practice I do (Mahamudra) this is seen as connected to speech (they talk about body, speech and mind).  In a revealed or purified state these become the three kayas.  While the mind-kaya, the dharma-kaya is seen as the closest to fundamentally real, in Mahamudra there is something called the Svabhavikakaya which is all three together and this relates most closely to the ultimate realisation.  So the subtle body is part of it, together with your actual body and your mind.  I don't know if this makes sense.

 

 

 

 

[old3bob]

 

 "The Buddhist world is far stranger and multi-dimensional (for want of a better word) than is usually supposed.  For instance it contains all kinds of unembodied beings, ghosts, yakshas, betali, dakinis, gods and demi-gods - all with their own intents and purposes".  from Apech  

 

Were not most of the beings mentioned above already around for thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of years before Buddhism ever came about?  Namely in native type related teachings which Buddhism more or less tried to incorporate for the local and native peoples to relate to or feel comfortable about.

[Mark Foote]

15 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

Then again Maddie the historic Buddha is said to have stated the quote below for any that have not come across it yet (?):  (and which imo has a great deal of import about "Self" if one reads it straight up without a lot of, oh but that means this and not that and so forth ...)

 

“There is, Oh Monks, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded.”   Udāna 8.3

— Buddha
 

Udana belongs to the fifth Nikaya.  Historian A. K. Warder described the fifth Nikaya thusly:

 

... Ksudraka Agama [Nikaya] (outside the first four agamas there remained a number of texts regarded by all the schools as of inferior importance, either because they were compositions of followers of the Buddha and not the words of the Master himself, or because they were of doubtful authenticity, these were collected in this 'Minor Tradition').

... It has been suggested that some schools did not have a Minor Tradition at all, though they still had some of the minor texts, incorporated in their Vinayas, hence the 'Four Agamas' are sometimes spoken of as representing the Sutra.

 

("Buddhist India", A. K. Warder, p 202-203; Motilal Banarsidass, 2nd ed)

The usual context for the "not-born", or "unborn", is more like:

 

And what... is the (noble) quest?  As to this... someone, being liable to birth because of self, having known the peril in what is likewise liable to birth, seeks the unborn, the uttermost security from the bonds--nibbana; being liable to aging... decay... dying... sorrow... stain, being liable to stain because of self, having known the peril in what is likewise liable to stain, seeks the stainless, the uttermost security from the bonds--nibbana.  This... is the (noble) quest.

 

(MN I 162-163 "Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The (Noble) Quest", Pali Text Society I p 206-207, tr I. B. Horner, parentheticals paraphrase original)

 

 

"The unborn", not as a stand-alone entity, but in a class of "un-somethings" representing one singular escape from the bonds, nibbana (literally "blown out").

 

 

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

 

 "The Buddhist world is far stranger and multi-dimensional (for want of a better word) than is usually supposed.  For instance it contains all kinds of unembodied beings, ghosts, yakshas, betali, dakinis, gods and demi-gods - all with their own intents and purposes".  from Apech  

 

Were not most of the beings mentioned above already around for thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of years before Buddhism ever came about?  Namely in native type related teachings which Buddhism more or less tried to incorporate for the local and native peoples to relate to or feel comfortable about.

 

 

That's the kind of spin that Western scholars try to put on it.  

 

Here is a yakshi from the Eastern gateway of the Sanchi stupa:

 

[old3bob]

a historian with an opinion?  

Anyway I'd say a fixation on escape or escapism will not lead to fulfilling all karma's which then leads to freedom.

[old3bob]

5 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

That's the kind of spin that Western scholars try to put on it.  

 

Here is a yakshi from the Eastern gateway of the Sanchi stupa:

 

 

western scholars aside written and oral histories of local peoples from thousands of years already had teachings and beliefs in some of the beings you've mentioned long before Buddhism came about...

[Mark Foote]

14 hours ago, Bindi said:

I think my difference is that I seek the underlying causes for my negative emotions, and as they become resolved so the negative emotion lessens in both the short and long term. I have the idea that healing needs to happen, but perhaps this is the same as “seeing through the 'display' to what is actually going on”? Same with my interest in subtle energy systems, they are the underlying reality I am interested in, but maybe the Buddhists would say the subtle energy system is also just a display, or maybe that’s the non-dualists, who knows anymore ☺️
 

 

Somewhere on Dao Bums, I copied in some of the cemetery contemplations from Sattipathana Sutta.  I won't repeat them here, but suffice it to say, Gautama sat in graveyards and observed the stages of decay of the corpses that had been left there.

Particularly interesting to me were his observation of "sinews" of the body, holding the bones together after the flesh had rotted.  I think the translation should have been "ligaments" instead of "sinews", as technically sinews connect muscle to bone--it's the ligaments that connect bone to bone.

That's of interest to me because the ligaments can be involved in the regulation of the activity of muscle groups.  Some research has been done, in India:

This study (research by Indahl, A., et al.) established that the ligamento-muscular reflex existed between the sacroiliac joint and muscles that attach to the bones that make up the sacroiliac joint. (The study’s authors) suggested that the sacroiliac joint was a regulator of pelvic and paraspinal muscles and, thereby, influences posture and lumbar segmental stability.

(Serola Biomechanics website summary of Indahl, A., et al., Sacroiliac joint involvement in activation of the porcine spinal and gluteal musculature. Journal of Spinal Disorders, 1999. 12(4): p. 325-30; https://europepmc.org/article/med/10451049)

For the most part, Gautama stuck to phenomena connected to "one-pointedness" of mind.  Like you, I am interested in how those phenomena affect systems in the body, and how the coordination of systems in the body affect those phenomena.

I've described "one-pointedness" as the placement of attention out of necessity in the movement of breath, and I've described how that experience can be observed right before falling asleep.  I would contend that the same experience is a part of waking up, but retaining a presence of mind as the point of attention shifts is a bit of a trick.

Gautama described four initial concentrations.  Bearing in mind that he equated concentration with "one-pointedness", we have:  

 

… just as a handy bathman or attendant might strew bath-powder in some copper basin and, gradually sprinkling water, knead it together so that the bath-ball gathered up the moisture, became enveloped in moisture and saturated both in and out, but did not ooze moisture; even so, (a person) steeps, drenches, fills, and suffuses this body with zest and ease, born of solitude, so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded by this lone-born zest and ease.

… imagine a pool with a spring, but no water-inlet on the east side or the west side or on the north or on the south, and suppose the (rain-) deva supply not proper rains from time to time–cool waters would still well up from that pool, and that pool would be steeped, drenched, filled and suffused with the cold water so that not a drop but would be pervaded by the cold water; in just the same way… (one) steeps (their) body with zest and ease…

… free from the fervor of zest, (one) enters and abides in the third musing; (one) steeps and drenches and fills and suffuses this body with a zestless ease so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded by this zestless ease. … just as in a pond of blue, white, and red water-lillies, the plants are born in water, grow in water, come not out of the water, but, sunk in the depths, find nourishment, and from tip to root are steeped, drenched, filled and suffused with cold water so that not a part of them is not pervaded by cold water; even so, (one) steeps (one’s) body in zestless ease.

Again, a (person), putting away ease… enters and abides in the fourth musing; seated, (one) suffuses (one’s) body with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind so that there is not one particle of the body that is not pervaded with purity by the pureness of (one’s) mind. … just as a (person) might sit with (their) head swathed in a clean cloth; even so (one) sits suffusing (their) body with purity…

(AN III 25-28, Pali Text Society Vol. III p 18-19, see also MN III 92-93, PTS p 132-134)

 

 

My take on the physiological correlates of the states, if you're interested, is here.