Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by Ben »

Hi Ian,
IanAnd wrote: S.N. Goenka is a curious fellow (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way). When, ten years ago, I was beginning to get back into a study of Buddhism, I read an interview he did with Tricycle magazine (2000 Winter edition; at the time I had a subscription, otherwise I might not have seen the interview) and what he had to say in that interview really impressed me. Especially the answers he gave to the first couple of questions. It was the story he told of his teacher, U Ba Khin, that impressed me. The relative simplicity of the answers to his questions that U Ba Khin gave really made practical sense:
Goenka: He asked me if, as a Hindu leader, I had any objection towards sila, that is, morality. How can there be any objection? But how can you practice sila unless you have control of the mind? He said, I will teach you to practice sila with controlled mind. I will teach you samadhi, concentration. Any objection? What can be objected to in samadhi? Then he said, that alone will not help—that will purify your mind at the surface level. Deep inside there are complexes, there are habit patterns, which are not broken by samadhi. I will teach you prajna, wisdom, insight, which will take you to the depth of the mind. I will teach you to go to the depth of the mind, the source where the impurities start and they get multiplied and they get stored so that you can clear them out.

So when my teacher told me: I will teach you only these three—sila, samadhi and prajna—and nothing else, I was affected. I said, let me try.
I wondered if you had ever come across this interview and were aware of his outlook.
Yes, I still have a copy of it either on my computer or on an external hard-drive. I am happy to attach it to a post should anybody be interested.
IanAnd wrote: I also wondered whether or not Goenka presents himself in that manner at gatherings he attends. I'm speaking primarily about his view of the Buddha, which after I had an opportunity to read the discourses and do a little a little more reading and thinking about the matter, I tended to agree with. Goenka mentioned:

"When I began to learn Vipassana meditation, I became convinced that Buddha was a not a founder of religion, he was a super-scientist. A spiritual super-scientist." Then toward the end of the interview he states again: "Buddha never taught any isms. In all his words, and the commentaries, which number thousands of pages, the word 'Buddhism' is not there. So this all started much later, when Buddha’s teaching began to settle. I don’t know when it started, how it started, calling it Buddhism, but the day it happened it devalued the teaching of Buddha. It was a universal teaching, and that made it sectarian, as if to say that Buddhism is only for Buddhists, like Hinduism is for Hindus, Islam is for Muslims. Dharma is for all."

He was probably one of the first people I came across who presented the idea that Gotama never intended to found a religion. He did, however, intend to set up a mechanism that passed along the truths he had learned, which is why he set up monastic colonies to preserve the teachings for future generations. Yet, when you stop to think about it, sila, samadhi, and prajna, these are simple concepts to get the mind around. Of course, the Dhamma is a little bit more complicated than that. But that's why virtue, concentration, and wisdom are stressed as keys which will help open the door to comprehension and eventual awakening.
Having sat and served with him in Australia in the mid-to-late 1980s and sitting and serving with him during the 1989/90 Indian winter (long course) program at his main centre "Dhammagiri" west of Mumbai, I have had the opportunity to spend some time in close proximity with him as a student and also as a server. To quote a cliche, 'what you see is what you get', the Goenkaji one reads in the Tricycle article and the one on the ten-day course discourses is the same as the one who you see when you attend a one-on-one interview with him or in the presence of other servers discussing course management issues. He has a particular knack with humour. He's just a very natural man with no pretensions. Another impression I have of him is just being the font of unbelievable amount of metta. Sitting in front of him, with his metta, is at times almost overwhelming.
IanAnd wrote: I've gotten the impression from your posts, as well as others in the Goenka movement, that it seems hesitant to teach samadhi. Is that correct, or do I have that all wrong? Perhaps he does teach samadhi, but it is jhana that he is hesitant to teach. The reason I ask is that it seems strange that he would talk openly about this in an interview and yet not included it in his general curriculum. Curious. But then, I can understand why he might be hesitant to teach jhana given the way the organization he runs is set up.
Not quite so. Certainly during the 'introductory' ten day courses, one could be forgiven for thinking that there is a hesitancy to teach jhana. During the context of the ten-day course, the emphasis is on developing moment-to-moment samadhi during the 3.5 days one is practicing anapana. And for most people who are complete newbies not having had exposure to the Buddhadhamma and intensive retreat settings, that might be quite appropriate. In the afternoon of the fourth day, one ceases anapana and begins vedananupassana (vipassana). My understanding is, and I could be wrong here, the emphasis on acquiring less-than-jhana samadhi is common to many strands of the Burmese vipassana culture. Certainly during the special courses for 'old students' only, and during the long courses, there is far more emphasis on samadhi, greater precision of detail and on the 20-day course, more emphasis on upacarasamadhi and jhana. I have been augmenting my own practice by reading and integrating some aspects of Buddhaghosa's exposition on anapanasati in Vism. One of the things I am looking forward to in my upcoming 30-day course is actually practicing anapana uninterrupted for ten days.
Thanks for your patience. I have experienced some serious computer issues over the last 24 hours and I don't think I'm out of the woods yet. I did see your post yesterday and had written a long and detailed post but when I hit 'submit', my modem dropped out which was the beginning of some computer problems.
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
IanAnd
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by IanAnd »

tiltbillings wrote:
IanAnd wrote: And Tilt . . . well Tilt is Tilt, you never know what he might say, if anything at all, regarding this subject. But he's mentioned having practiced absorption with reputable teachers, so I was rolling the dice with him.
That was in the very early 80's and was initially with an Indian teacher trained by Mahasi Sayadaw, but there is no way in hell I would discuss this on an open forum, even though there is an anonymity here and even though no one here really knows me in a direct face-to-face way. This is something between me and my teacher(s).
Yes, that's why I mention I didn't know what you might say "if anything at all" on the subject, as I wouldn't think of compromising your privacy. Yet, what I was looking for didn't necessarily need to contain anything personal. Rather, just confirmation of various observations that are fairly common knowledge and not personal. Be that as it may, there may also have been nothing there for one to comment on. And I accept that also.
tiltbillings wrote: I have described an early experience during a three month retreat at IMS in the late 70's ( http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... lit#p76894" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). While it is not jhana, it is interesting, but I would certainly make no claim based upon it.
Indeed that was an interesting experience. And one well worth the recounting in this thread as it adds to the knowledge base. While it may not have been absorption technically speaking, your description did contain some aspects of the absorption experience, and therefore was very close. Although because of the lack of other aspects not recounted, I would agree with your evaluation that it was not absorption. Still in all, a very valuable Dhamma lesson, that.
tiltbillings wrote: As for jhana, I cannot get too excited about it. It has been pointed out that as to what they are depends:

Interpretations of the Jhanas
Yes. Leigh was one of the first sources I used to help me begin to get a handle on this phenomenon of consciousness. Yet, the astute reader will note that even Leigh admits that his "paper is a highly subjective attempt by one Jhana practictioner to simply list and categorize the various interpretations I have heard of..." (his emphasis). My point being that once experienced and fully digested, the experience and benefits of absorption practice are without a doubt extremely helpful. It also helps one to understand why the Buddha mentioned it so many times in the suttas.

Rather than putting the focus on the number of interpretations there are, I would highlight the discernment factor. By that I mean, a person having done the practice and gathered some experience in it, it is now up to the practitioner to determine (discern) what fits his (or her) perception of that experience. I would use these many interpretations to see where I agreed or disagreed with the interpretation, as well as to look deeper into the source of their origin. Following this procedure, I am more able to understand how the various interpretations came into being based upon the personalities involved who are proposing them.

(I realize that this outlook may go beyond the end goal of most aspiring practitioners, who are mostly just interested in finding a tool to be used for the ending of dukkha. That was my goal at one point also. Yet once I was able to achieve what I considered to be my goal in using absorption, it became an interest to see if I could figure out this other puzzle — the many interpretations, that is — which made this an individual pursuit.)

In reading over the various interpretations, it would seem that many of the views could be combined and amalgamated, thus lessening their number. For example, the fourth through the tenth variations (if they can be called that) are so similar that their differentiation is hardly worth mentioning. I could relate to each one of them quite easily. From there, Pa Auk and Ajahn Brahm's variations seem quite similar, too, on the side of a so-called "deeper" state in line with the Visuddhimagga. And while the different methodologies for entering absorption might have their distinctive qualities, the end result seems to be a quality that everyone agrees upon is helpful in the pursuit of the cessation of dukkha.
tiltbillings wrote: and what is more, the jhana experience easily can be colored by one's beliefs and expectations, which is why working with a teacher is not at all a bad idea and why not taking any of it too seriously is even a better idea. Mind you, I am not saying do not work with the jhanas; rather, I would say be mindful of their limitations and dangers, just as one should be aware of the dangers of attainment.
Yes, I would wholeheartedly agree with the two statements highlighted here. As for the middle statement about "not taking any of it too seriously," while there is some truth to that outlook, there is also a statement made by the Buddha in one of the suttas regarding those who don't consider absorption a worthy goal. He says that those who do not regard jhana as valuable also do not value concentration. (I've searched for the sutta but to no avail. If someone knows where the quotation I'm thinking about is, please mention it.) The only point being that it can be a useful tool on the path to liberation, a point on which we may all be able to agree.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
IanAnd
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by IanAnd »

Hi Ben,
Ben wrote: Having sat and served with him in Australia in the mid-to-late 1980s and sitting and serving with him during the 1989/90 Indian winter (long course) program at his main centre "Dhammagiri" west of Mumbai, I have had the opportunity to spend some time in close proximity with him as a student and also as a server. To quote a cliche, 'what you see is what you get', the Goenkaji one reads in the Tricycle article and the one on the ten-day course discourses is the same as the one who you see when you attend a one-on-one interview with him or in the presence of other servers discussing course management issues. He has a particular knack with humour. He's just a very natural man with no pretensions.
I had a suspicion that that might be the case. It's good to hear it from someone who's been there and witnessed it.
Ben wrote:
IanAnd wrote: I've gotten the impression from your posts, as well as others in the Goenka movement, that it seems hesitant to teach samadhi. Is that correct, or do I have that all wrong? Perhaps he does teach samadhi, but it is jhana that he is hesitant to teach. . . .
Not quite so. Certainly during the 'introductory' ten day courses, one could be forgiven for thinking that there is a hesitancy to teach jhana. During the context of the ten-day course, the emphasis is on developing moment-to-moment samadhi during the 3.5 days one is practicing anapana. And for most people who are complete newbies not having had exposure to the Buddhadhamma and intensive retreat settings, that might be quite appropriate. In the afternoon of the fourth day, one ceases anapana and begins vedananupassana (vipassana). . . . Certainly during the special courses for 'old students' only, and during the long courses, there is far more emphasis on samadhi, greater precision of detail and on the 20-day course, more emphasis on upacarasamadhi and jhana.
Ah. Thank you for clearing that impression up. I wasn't aware that there were longer retreats offered and that that was where more emphasis was placed on samadhi and possibly absorption practice. It sounds as though his organization has taken all the requisites into consideration and designed a very good program for people to undergo. I can understand now why you like the organization so well.
Ben wrote: My understanding is, and I could be wrong here, the emphasis on acquiring less-than-jhana samadhi is common to many strands of the Burmese vipassana culture.
Yes. That's been my understanding also, from the information I've read on the web. Now that I'm more familiar with the practice and what's needed to succeed, I can understand why the Burmese Sayadaws approach the training in this way. Just my educated opinion, but I agree with them that regular samadhi (as opposed to absorption samadhi) is the minimum amount of concentration needed for insight practice to be effective. If a person can attain samadhi pretty regularly at will, they've developed a valuable tool to assist them in realization of the Dhamma.

It's been my experience that absorption samadhi helps one to more quickly recondition the mind for stronger and longer durations of concentration outside of meditation, concentration that can be carried into everyday consciousness. Of course, there are also little tricks that one learns along the way that help one establish concentration/mindfulness in key moments, like averting attention to the breath in order to reestablish concentration if concentration is at a low ebb. A practice of attaining regular samadhi should also allow one to use this trick.
Ben wrote: I have been augmenting my own practice by reading and integrating some aspects of Buddhaghosa's exposition on anapanasati in Vism. One of the things I am looking forward to in my upcoming 30-day course is actually practicing anapana uninterrupted for ten days.
Best of fortune to you on your upcoming retreat. Sounds like a good opportunity to really take advantage of.

In peace,
Ian
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by Ben »

Hi Ian,
IanAnd wrote:Yes. That's been my understanding also, from the information I've read on the web. Now that I'm more familiar with the practice and what's needed to succeed, I can understand why the Burmese Sayadaws approach the training in this way. Just my educated opinion, but I agree with them that regular samadhi (as opposed to absorption samadhi) is the minimum amount of concentration needed for insight practice to be effective. If a person can attain samadhi pretty regularly at will, they've developed a valuable tool to assist them in realization of the Dhamma.
Yes, I remember Goenkaji saying on the 20-day course that all that is required to attain to sotapanna and sakadagami is moment-to-moment samadhi, but for anagamita and arahatta, one requires the first jhana. I also remember reading somewhere, perhaps its Vism - but honestly can't remember, that if one has not attained jhana before ariya attainment then the mind at attainment of an ariya state, it spontaneously experiences jhana.
IanAnd wrote:It's been my experience that absorption samadhi helps one to more quickly recondition the mind for stronger and longer durations of concentration outside of meditation, concentration that can be carried into everyday consciousness.
That doesn't surprise me. I rarely practice samadhi-bhavana outside of a retreat setting. However, two anecdotes come to mind following retreats - both involve reading. One was following the retreat and on the train from Blackheath to Sydney and the other was on the train following retreats at Goenkaji's main centre in Igatpuri and travelling back to Mumbai. What I noticed following the retreat, that when I was reading, my mind was acutely concentrated like a laser. And if you've done any traveling in India, you'll know the total anarchy on-board an Indian train. And there I was quietly focused on a modern history of India while all around me was chaos.
IanAnd wrote:Of course, there are also little tricks that one learns along the way that help one establish concentration/mindfulness in key moments, like averting attention to the breath in order to reestablish concentration if concentration is at a low ebb. A practice of attaining regular samadhi should also allow one to use this trick.
That's where the Vism has been really useful to me over the last few years.
Yes, I've also engaged in a few tricks during retreat time to either maintain the focus or get back 'in the zone', so to speak when practicing anapana.
IanAnd wrote: Best of fortune to you on your upcoming retreat. Sounds like a good opportunity to really take advantage of.
Thanks! Its still up in the air as it took the meditation centre way too long to send me an invitation and issue a recommendation for me to be issued a long-stay meditation visa. The fact that meditation visa requests are processed back in Myanmar and the apparent 'relaxed' approach Burmese authorities have to get things processed quickly may mean that I don't get my visa processed before I go. However, I live in hope.
kind regards

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by Reductor »

Hey Ian,

I was wondering what you meant by 'subject':
Yet, when one experiences the continuity of concentration (samadhi) within the context of absorption attainment and makes a slight averting of the mind from an object to a subject, then how is one to describe such an event?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by tiltbillings »

IanAnd wrote:Rather than putting the focus on the number of interpretations there are, I would highlight the discernment factor. By that I mean, a person having done the practice and gathered some experience in it, it is now up to the practitioner to determine (discern) what fits his (or her) perception of that experience. I would use these many interpretations to see where I agreed or disagreed with the interpretation, as well as to look deeper into the source of their origin. Following this procedure, I am more able to understand how the various interpretations came into being based upon the personalities involved who are proposing them.
You are making my point here. You are essentially offering a particular take on the jhanas, but others – based upon their experience - differ, and I do not see anything in what you are offering here that necessarily trumps any other point of view. This sort of thing can be argued back and forth endlessly without a firm conclusion.
And while the different methodologies for entering absorption might have their distinctive qualities, the end result seems to be a quality that everyone agrees upon is helpful in the pursuit of the cessation of dukkha.
Okay, but it depends, as always.
Ian wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: and what is more, the jhana experience easily can be colored by one's beliefs and expectations, which is why working with a teacher is not at all a bad idea and why not taking any of it too seriously is even a better idea. Mind you, I am not saying do not work with the jhanas; rather, I would say be mindful of their limitations and dangers, just as one should be aware of the dangers of attainment.
Yes, I would wholeheartedly agree with the two statements highlighted here. As for the middle statement about "not taking any of it too seriously," while there is some truth to that outlook, there is also a statement made by the Buddha in one of the suttas regarding those who don't consider absorption a worthy goal. He says that those who do not regard jhana as valuable also do not value concentration. (I've searched for the sutta but to no avail. If someone knows where the quotation I'm thinking about is, please mention it.) The only point being that it can be a useful tool on the path to liberation, a point on which we may all be able to agree.
I would not say that jhana is not valuable, but it depends upon what one means by jhana and in what context jhana is being cultivated.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
IanAnd
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by IanAnd »

thereductor wrote:Hey Ian,

I was wondering what you meant by 'subject':
Yet, when one experiences the continuity of concentration (samadhi) within the context of absorption attainment and makes a slight averting of the mind from an object to a subject, then how is one to describe such an event?
Hello thereductor,

It's my understanding that one can concentrate on either an object, like the physical breath or the rise and fall of the abdomen or chest during breathing, or one can concentrate on a subject, generally a conceptual mental formation used in vipassana meditation, such as the five aggregates, dependent arising, or the three characteristics, such as in "the focus of my contemplation is the five aggregates." Focusing on a kasina disk, however, would be focusing on a mental object, an object created in the mind, as opposed to a conceptual idea or subject for insight exploration.

Does that make sense?

Best regards,
Ian
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
IanAnd
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by IanAnd »

tiltbillings wrote:This sort of thing can be argued back and forth endlessly without a firm conclusion.
Only by people who are looking for something written in stone, which is the whole point of this thread. There is nothing that is written in stone concerning this subject. They (meaning the various absorption methods described) all work in one manner or another. How do I know? Because I've experienced them all. A person just has to try one and see how it works for them. If that one doesn't work, try another.

If people knew what they were talking about (meaning had experienced absorption), they'd be able to see this quite plainly. But instead, they are having to rely on concepts and ideas the reality of which they have not experienced. And therein lies the mind's doubt and confusion.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by tiltbillings »

IanAnd wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:This sort of thing can be argued back and forth endlessly without a firm conclusion.
Only by people who are looking for something written in stone, which is the whole point of this thread. There is nothing that is written in stone concerning this subject. They (meaning the various absorption methods described) all work in one manner or another. How do I know? Because I've experienced them all. A person just has to try one and see how it works for them. If that one doesn't work, try another.

If people knew what they were talking about (meaning had experienced absorption), they'd be able to see this quite plainly. But instead, they are having to rely on concepts and ideas the reality of which they have not experienced. And therein lies the mind's doubt and confusion.
Again, you are making my point. There is no reason to take you as the sole arbiter of these things because you claim this or that: that would be relying on your conceptual structure.

And you are stating the obvious: They (meaning the various absorption methods described) all work in one manner or another. And how do I know? Personal experience. Is the emphasis in jhana necessary; is jhana necessary for insight? No. And how do I know? Personal experience. With the cultivation of insight, can jhana be more easily cultivated. Sure. And how do I know? Personal experience. Does one need to cultivate more than the "vipassana jhanas" Probably not. And how do I know? Personal experience. It is a matter of what works, as you have said, and that is, within a broad framework, going to vary.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
IanAnd
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by IanAnd »

tiltbillings wrote: Again, you are making my point. There is no reason to take you as the sole arbiter of these things because you claim this or that: that would be relying on your conceptual structure.
I've never claimed to be the the sole arbiter of anything. Only giving one opinion. And an experienced one at that. It is up to the individual to test and make up his own mind what is true for him. But if he never tries, he will never know.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by tiltbillings »

IanAnd wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: Again, you are making my point. There is no reason to take you as the sole arbiter of these things because you claim this or that: that would be relying on your conceptual structure.
I've never claimed to be the the sole arbiter of anything. Only giving one opinion. And an experienced one at that. It is up to the individual to test and make up his own mind what is true for him. But if he never tries, he will never know.
And that is a bit of a problem. You are giving an opinion, but claiming that it is an experienced one is just that: a claim, adding nothing of substance to the opinion given. Why do it?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by Reductor »

tiltbillings wrote:And that is a bit of a problem. You are giving an opinion, but claiming that it is an experienced one is just that: a claim, adding nothing of substance to the opinion given. Why do it?
As far that I can tell, Tilt, Ian's posts have been balanced and of use to others here. So please don't run him down because he feels compelled to express his experiences and state his opinion of them, or because he is certain of himself.

Save the pointy words for those opinions that are materially contrary to the doctrine.

Thank you.
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by Reductor »

IanAnd wrote:...
Does that make sense?

Best regards,
Ian
Hey Ian, thanks for the clarification.

Before I go on, I would like to address another part of your posts above. Namely about the unnecessary hostility expressed in that other thread toward Nibs, Clayton and others. My only valid complaint is that they lecture the Theravada from a markedly different perspective.

Having reflected on my own posts there I have concluded that they were made with some aversion, and as such they are not worthy of someone who wants to follow the path. At any rate, I do think we need to talk about what we experience, but not in a manor that devalues the doctrine. For me it is paramount that I always relate what I experience back to the suttas, and acknowledge that my understanding is incomplete.

Now, about the various modes of concentration, I will say this: the term jhana seems suitable for a wide spectrum of experience. So far that I can tell, the mind uses the same factors time and again in creating these experiences, but the manor in which they are applied varies.

The only useful test is in the results they bare: do they provided a clear platform from which to evaluate ourselves. If so, then continue with them, experiment with them, see what they show you, see how they work. Don't get bent out of shape if they do or do not meet official definition or not.

But if you do decide to pursue a particular definition of jhana, then keep in mind that the experience is much less important than seeing the 'how' and 'why' of its being.

:anjali:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by tiltbillings »

thereductor wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And that is a bit of a problem. You are giving an opinion, but claiming that it is an experienced one is just that: a claim, adding nothing of substance to the opinion given. Why do it?
As far that I can tell, Tilt, Ian's posts have been balanced and of use to others here. So please don't run him down because he feels compelled to express his experiences and state his opinion of them, or because he is certain of himself.

Save the pointy words for those opinions that are materially contrary to the doctrine.

Thank you.
His posts have been of interest and informative, but the question is legitimate. He is offering a point view, an opinion. Is it better informed than any other offered here? Maybe, but claiming - or implying however indirectly - that, based upon experience, it is in any way better than any other holds no water, given that that experience cannot be verified or evaluated in any way. When talking about these things, it seems to be far better not to draw attention to oneself in that way. For me such attention vitiates the point made.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Not Everything Is Written In Stone. . .

Post by Reductor »

tiltbillings wrote:...When talking about these things, it seems to be far better not to draw attention to oneself in that way. For me such attention vitiates the point made.
Each member should evaluate the posts here on DW by considering its applicability to themselves, and not take something as being correct based on the supposed experience level of the poster. To accept something on an unverifiable claim of experience or authority is certain folly.

And to that end it is helpful to have members that will call BS when appropriate.

What I am more concerned with here is the manor, and not the intent, or your post, and so ask whether nor not it is possible to make your point more gently, thus avoiding a decent into harsher territory.

Anyway, sorry for turning this into a meta discussion, as I'd much rather it be a metta discussion.
Post Reply