Heedlessness as a part of the practice

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by Bundokji » Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:01 am

uojm wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:46 am
Bundokji wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:35 am
The benefits of heedfulness are obvious to the practitioner, that he/she feels in control and reflects before acting on his/her old habits. He/she acts while knowing what he/she is doing.
One could argue that with proper heedfulness one starts to feel less and less in control (yes there is a choice but only in so far it has already been presented as option).

And yet, it becomes obvious to the heedful that he cannot be heedful all the time.
Heedful is about “guarding the mind” and it could become clearer and clearer that this is something that could be done more and more, but, right now. So why would it not be possible now? Thinking about “all the time” seems legitimate but it is doing that, giving rise to hindrances, perhaps at the cost of being heedful. Another point that one might make is that one can’t be heedful while sleeping, which seems to imply being heedless, but that too would be theorizing. It can already be understood that if one dreams one can dream of what one was occupied with during the day. Then what more to say for those who had properly freed their minds? Besides, guarding guards against corruptions, it is about not (being able) acting out of greed, hatred and delusion.
In any case, the argument, and also the title of your post, are set up to maintain the idea that the work can’t be done, with that it is out of one’s hands, no full responsibility is accepted; one seeks shelter under the skirt of ignorance.
That heedlessness is a potential part of his being the same way as heedfulness and that this potential cannot be eliminated by effort.
If you put effort in and notice you are the able to guard more and more, wouldn’t that somewhat undermine this conclusion.
What can we learn from this fact, that we are vulnerable to being heedless regardless how hard we try to be heedful?
If you couldn’t guard your mind, for even a little while, you wouldn’t be interested in Buddhism. If you are, you can already can see that this is about putting effort in. And the more effort you put in, as in the longer you keep guarding, the less room heedlessness gets.
Knowing about our heedlessness can only happen in hindsight, not on the spot,
When you guard you know it. It is deliberate, known on the spot. As is the decision to engage into something because of the (some) direct expected results. It is a choice to indulge into distraction (choosing not to know).
but what should we make of this apart from trying to be heedful? is there something to be learned from the inevitability of being heedless? of not being in control?
All in all I think you are over- and mis-thinking it. If you wouldn’t guard your mind you would be fully submerged following your senses. If you keep the five precepts you are then guarding already. Keep keeping them and the more refined it gets. With heedfulness faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom are developed, but that doesn’t mean it is an all or nothing scenario. Development is gradual and as lay it is expected to live a lay life, that is what it is about. So don’t make it to heavy. Don’t feel guilt or fear of any enjoyment. Keep the five and it is really good already. And if you can’t, then why not start there.
If you do, and more and more begin to understand that nothing bad can come from that, you ‘ll be including that in your decision making, instead of just for any profitable or pleasurable expected out-come. So one becomes less and less under influence of corruptions (you won’t just do anything for money for example, no matter how high the “reward”, so less prone to grosser corruptions already). More and more one does what is right because it is right. And it will feel right because you know it is right, not because it feels right. So, then guarding too will feel right, pleasurable. Giving in to that gives the energy (it is indulging which seems to drain energy as when you experience regret, which is why it is look at it in hindsight) to give in to more guarding and the more you get used to that the more the pleasures from negligence, heedlessness, seem a bit pale. But pleasurable or not, right is right (which again, gives pleasure). In that light you might perhaps see how right heedfulness is something that some might want to keep up more and more, it is then longer maintained at the cost of heedfulness.

So if you want to be heedful but get over-focused on this, zoom out, see if you keep the five precepts. Heedfulness is the practise. Keep it light and gentle, so it can become more fun and easier to do, so it becomes more inviting, with inviting engaging, with engaging growing, and with growing the diminishing of heedlessness.
Bundokji wrote:
Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:18 pm
1- Heedfulness is an intentional action
If heedfulness is intentional then heedlessness too. Only it is often one’s normal state of mind (so to speak), so that it feels effortless. The more heedfulness becomes one’s normal state of mind then the more that becomes effortless. Perhaps this view helps a little: instead of thinking it as “putting in effort all the time” think of it as that it becomes more like a notification. Things “call” for attention and it is “doing things” that will be seen as draining, costing energy. When you heed the call you know (ignorance: not wanting to know). Perhaps this helps a little on not focussing to narrow, take it broader, more airy. And, when you spilled a bag of sugar on the table, you don’t start with cleaning every tiny sugar part, you take bigger chunks first and only the last tiny bits you can then easily wipe into your other hand, so here too, if it makes you restless just focus on the bigger stuff (keeping the five precepts; you don’t need to worry every second about not stealing for example).
2- Intentional actions are impermanent, but this fact is unclear to the unenlightened
Mind you (not implying you hold this view) “impermanent being unclear” is not the same as then taking it as permanent.
3- The required insight is knowing the impermanence of our intentions
Just to clarify, this is not required in order to be heedful.
The fact that we cannot be heedful all the time proves that intentional actions (in this case heedfulness) are impermanent
This is an unjust conclusion. After all one can still keep the view that things linger on under the surface or, in another case, it could fall under the “impermanence being unclear” as in your point 2. It wouldn’t require the Buddha’s Dhamma.

To understand impermanence you need this information from an outside source and you need to pay proper attention, which are requirements to start the practise. When heedless you are not able to digest and give it your full attention; your mind is then already set on other things. Heedfulness is the practise, but if misunderstood best take it simple; it is, just as the five precepts, already embedded in the N8P.
Thanks uojm for your good input.

I did not dispute anything from the above. I was merely exploring how being the possibility of being heedless is a main driver of being heedful.
The monk who delights in heedfulness and looks with fear at heedlessness advances like fire, burning ... He is close to Nibbana.
If heedlessness is not a possibility, would training to be heedful have any value? Would it be wrong to conclude that heedfulness is an acknowledgement of heedlessness?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

binocular
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by binocular » Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:52 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:53 am
It is an integral part of the practice, in my opinion, to set the relationship right between the practitioner and the teacher (the lord Buddha), which is always negotiated. The dilemma from the unenlightened practitioner's point of view is that he used his own judgement to follow the Buddha and to consider him as the one who knows, but at the same time, he would be betraying his own judgement (which he used to choose the Buddha as a teacher) if he simply follow things because he is told by his teacher to do so. If the practitioner truly knows the unwholesome for what it is, then he would not need a teacher in the first place. If he does not know, then this acknowledgement would be extended and makes his choice of the teacher questionable.
It's possible to frame the issue as a Catch-22. But it's not necessary to do so.

/.../
This, of course, sounds like a Catch-22: You need a good teacher to help develop your powers of judgment, but well-developed powers of judgment to recognize who a good teacher might be. And even though there's no foolproof way out of the catch — after all, you can master a foolproof way and still be a fool — there is a way if you're willing to learn from experience. And fortunately the Buddha advised on how to develop your powers of judgment so that you know what to look for along the way. In fact, his recommendations for how to choose an admirable friend are a preliminary exercise in discernment: learning how to develop judicious powers of judgment so that you, too, can become an admirable friend, first to yourself and then to the people around you.
/.../
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... gment.html
/.../
As Ajaan Lee often advises in his talks, start out small. Notice where you feel the breath, and then watch it. If it doesn't seem comfortable, you can nudge it into what seems to be a more comfortable direction. Don't be in too great of a hurry to go on to the next step, because we want to come from a position of strength, of real knowledge, as we meditate.

There's a passage in the Canon where the Buddha says that a person who doesn't have a basic level of happiness and inner goodness simply cannot do goodness. Sounds like a Catch-22, but that's not the point. The point is we all have a certain amount of goodness in our minds, and so we should tap into that first. The goodness here not only means good intentions but also a good-natured attitude toward what you're doing, a good-natured attitude toward the people around you. That's why we recite that chant on goodwill every night. You have to bring a certain level of humor to the practice: the humor that allows you to laugh at your mistakes without getting bitter. When you get bitter, you start lashing out at people around you. You start criticizing the techniques — there are all kinds of things you can criticize. But if you can sit back for a minute and tap into your own basic good-natured attitude — and it's there inside all of us — try to bring that to the fore, and then work from that. It may be a small thing, but you've got to start small.

Start with what you know. /.../

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ions2.html
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3092
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by robertk » Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:11 pm

If heedlessness is not a possibility, would training to be heedful have any value? Would it be wrong to conclude that heedfulness is an acknowledgement of heedlessness
A section in the satipatthana sutta identifies the nivaranas, hindrances, as objects for awareness.

binocular
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by binocular » Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:12 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:01 am
I did not dispute anything from the above. I was merely exploring how being the possibility of being heedless is a main driver of being heedful.
If heedlessness would indeed be the main driver of heedfulness, there'd be no criminals, no alcoholics, no drug-addicts, .... :tongue:
Would it be wrong to conclude that heedfulness is an acknowledgement of heedlessness?
Seems like a no-brainer. Of course, there's an important intermediate step between heedlessness and heedfulness, a factor that makes the person (want to) change and not continue in heedlessness, a factor that the above-mentioned criminals etc. don't have. They commit the first heedless action, but there is nothing to stop them from committing another one.

I think that factor is the desire to not suffer, coupled with some idea of how to go about not suffering in the long-term.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by Bundokji » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:54 pm

binocular wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:52 pm
It's possible to frame the issue as a Catch-22. But it's not necessary to do so.
Who said it is necessary?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by Bundokji » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:55 pm

robertk wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:11 pm
A section in the satipatthana sutta identifies the nivaranas, hindrances, as objects for awareness.
Thank you :anjali:
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by Bundokji » Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:09 pm

binocular wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:12 pm
Seems like a no-brainer. Of course, there's an important intermediate step between heedlessness and heedfulness, a factor that makes the person (want to) change and not continue in heedlessness, a factor that the above-mentioned criminals etc. don't have. They commit the first heedless action, but there is nothing to stop them from committing another one.

I think that factor is the desire to not suffer, coupled with some idea of how to go about not suffering in the long-term.
No one wants to suffer even those criminals you are talking about, so the factor cannot be the desire not to suffer. You could give examples that people indeed want to suffer by using your Buddhist views on what constitutes suffering, but if there is no sense of gratification in what they do, they would not do it.

Any action from a first person point of view has to appear rational. Even the most insane appear to be rational in their inner world, and even if they recognize their own irrationality, the thought which claims to recognize is replacing an old thought which equally appeared rational at the time it was taken.

So, in the present, each thought appears to be authoritative or certain (by virtue of it being known) hence its validity can only be confirmed or denied through time.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

uojm
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:21 am

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by uojm » Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:09 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:01 am
I was merely exploring how being our of the possibility of being heedless is a main driver of being heedful.
Heedless, normal mind-set so to speak, doesn’t need to reach a limit: If we have enough of distraction with seeing (different) things, we can simply resort to hearing, tasting, etc. There is always an area unsatisfied driving only to more engaging. Not that heedfulness is then non-existent; it is not uncommon that one resorts to things that are generally deemed good, but some heedlessness seems to be accepted as what is normal (or needed) to enjoy life.
It is when getting fed up with these, as with grief, or seeing the pointlessness, or the dangers, etc. that we are willing to seek out and invest in other ways.
So if anything, it is more that the ‘unwelcome results of being heedless’ can become a driver for being heedful. But it then requires that understanding, not the mere presence of heedlessness.
The monk who delights in heedfulness and looks with fear at heedlessness advances like fire, burning ... He is close to Nibbana.
Should you think for ‘looks with fear at heedless’ heedless is thus needed, it would miss that ‘understanding’ part. It is knowing the results which come from being heedless. That understanding makes it that one understands “it isn’t worth it”. This understanding can be seen as implicit in the quote since it talks about a monk delighting in heedfulness and fearing heedlessness. It is leading to this understanding why we need a Buddha.
If heedlessness is not a possibility, would training to be heedful have any value?
As in the case with arahants, they have done the job, no more training (SN35.134). You train till the possibility is no more.
Would it be wrong to conclude that heedfulness is an acknowledgement of heedlessness?
If they would acknowledge each other it would to me mean there would be no escape possible. I see it as, if there is one it comes at the cost of the other. Of course, ‘not there’ is not the same as being uprooted. Acknowledgement of that potential (not uprooted, the potential of getting heedless) is enough to provide that fear.

edit: SN35.13 -> SN35.134

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by Bundokji » Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:29 pm

uojm wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:09 pm
Heedless, normal mind-set so to speak, doesn’t need to reach a limit: If we have enough of distraction with seeing (different) things, we can simply resort to hearing, tasting, etc. There is always an area unsatisfied driving only to more engaging. Not that heedfulness is then non-existent; it is not uncommon that one resorts to things that are generally deemed good, but some heedlessness seems to be accepted as what is normal (or needed) to enjoy life.
It is when getting fed up with these, as with grief, or seeing the pointlessness, or the dangers, etc. that we are willing to seek out and invest in other ways.
So if anything, it is more that the ‘unwelcome results of being heedless’ can become a driver for being heedful. But it then requires that understanding, not the mere presence of heedlessness.
I am not sure if introducing "understanding the drawbacks of heedlessness" as an intermediate link between heedlessness and heedfulness changes anything.
Should you think for ‘looks with fear at heedless’ heedless is thus needed, it would miss that ‘understanding’ part. It is knowing the results which come from being heedless. That understanding makes it that one understands “it isn’t worth it”. This understanding can be seen as implicit in the quote since it talks about a monk delighting in heedfulness and fearing heedlessness. It is leading to this understanding why we need a Buddha.
If heedlessness is needed for the understanding of its drawbacks, and if the understanding of its drawbacks is needed for heedfulness, then heedlessness is needed for heedfulness.

If A is a necessary condition for B
If B is a necessary condition for C
Then A is a necessary condition for C

If they would acknowledge each other it would to me mean there would be no escape possible. I see it as, if there is one it comes at the cost of the other. Of course, ‘not there’ is not the same as being uprooted. Acknowledgement of that potential (not uprooted, the potential of getting heedless) is enough to provide that fear.
How is it known that heedlessness is not there except through fabricating its absence (which brings it there)? how does one know that he is heedless except through the idea of heedfulness? Why suspecting that there is an interdependent relationship between the two is invalid?
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

uojm
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:21 am

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by uojm » Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:35 am

Bundokji wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 7:29 pm
I am not sure if introducing "understanding the drawbacks of heedlessness" as an intermediate link between heedlessness and heedfulness changes anything.
Seeing your logical explanation below, it might be best to “establish” this “intermediate link”, as you seem to refer to this order to, first. So, a small recap.

You wrote:
Bundokji wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:01 am
... the possibility of being heedless is a main driver of being heedful.
To which I replied that this (heedless being a main driver for heedful) is not the case. That heedless leads to more heedless. That one needs the Dhamma (which I referred to with "requires that understanding") in order to be heedful. And it is because of the (not understood) suffering that one might become receptive for it (which you seem to have taken as the "understanding" that I was referring to).

So why this “step”? It is because no-one in their right mind would fully give up heedlessness if a much, much, greater result can not be foreseen. Even then, heedlessness is still resorted to when its danger is not fully understood.

So, instead of:
If heedlessness is needed for the understanding of its drawbacks, and if the understanding of its drawbacks is needed for heedfulness, then heedlessness is needed for heedfulness.
If A is a necessary condition for B
If B is a necessary condition for C
Then A is a necessary condition for C
We have:

* The drawback is suffering (but misunderstood).
* For the understanding of suffering the Teaching is needed (but one needs to be receptive).
* Heedfulness is the practise.

It is not that heedlessness is needed; we are simply already suffering. That being the case, should we want to get rid of that, we could train to give up acting heedlessly.
How is it known that heedlessness is not there except through fabricating its absence (which brings it there)? how does one know that he is heedless except through the idea of heedfulness?
If you guard, are you then not guarded? If you don’t steal, don’t you know that? Must you fabricate an absence for this, which according to the above then brings it here?
Why suspecting that there is an interdependent relationship between the two is invalid?
If still relevant, could you then rephrase or elaborate further on this? It is unclear to me what you have in mind here.

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by Bundokji » Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:08 am

uojm wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:35 am
You wrote:
Bundokji wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:01 am
... the possibility of being heedless is a main driver of being heedful.
To which I replied that this (heedless being a main driver for heedful) is not the case. That heedless leads to more heedless. That one needs the Dhamma (which I referred to with "requires that understanding") in order to be heedful. And it is because of the (not understood) suffering that one might become receptive for it (which you seem to have taken as the "understanding" that I was referring to).

So why this “step”? It is because no-one in their right mind would fully give up heedlessness if a much, much, greater result can not be foreseen. Even then, heedlessness is still resorted to when its danger is not fully understood.

So, instead of:
If heedlessness is needed for the understanding of its drawbacks, and if the understanding of its drawbacks is needed for heedfulness, then heedlessness is needed for heedfulness.
If A is a necessary condition for B
If B is a necessary condition for C
Then A is a necessary condition for C
We have:

* The drawback is suffering (but misunderstood).
* For the understanding of suffering the Teaching is needed (but one needs to be receptive).
* Heedfulness is the practise.

It is not that heedlessness is needed; we are simply already suffering. That being the case, should we want to get rid of that, we could train to give up acting heedlessly.
It is not that heedlessness is needed. It is the presence of heedlessness as a possibility that makes heedfulness of the unenlightened questionable, merely being another heedlessness (in disguise). Is heedfulness an original phenomena? or is it based on a value-driven Buddhist description of what constitutes heedfulness?

To put it differently: what is it that makes heefulness what it is (except what you are going to describe if you choose to answer this question and which be rooted in describing heedlessness using negative connotations)?
If you guard, are you then not guarded? If you don’t steal, don’t you know that? Must you fabricate an absence for this, which according to the above then brings it here?
If i am guarding, then i am guarding against something. If the possibility of stealing is not there, then why heedfulness is needed?

And if we ask: what keeps heedlessness a possibility? then the answer would be ignorance, which is a sort of circular-self fulfilling reasoning. So, one is ignorant by definition of not seeing things as described, hence more heedfulness is always needed until things are seen as described.
If still relevant, could you then rephrase or elaborate further on this? It is unclear to me what you have in mind here.
The duality of heedfulness and heedlessness is a battle between two images in which each try to assert itself as the "original". Original means here more enduring through time. By being heedful, i am cleansing the mind from heedlessness so i can become heedful all the time!
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

uojm
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:21 am

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by uojm » Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:42 pm

Before going much further we should try to clear up some things, since some later formulations will keep us running in circles while step by step slightly changing the context. So, first this part.
Bundokji wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:08 am
It is the presence of heedlessness as a possibility that makes heedfulness of the unenlightened questionable, merely being another heedlessness (in disguise).
The presence of ‘heedlessness as a possibility’ means it is in that regard absent (not uprooted). Absent then means heedful, since they are antonyms. Because heedfulness too is present as possibility we would then, with that same logic, get:

‘the presence of heedfulness as a possibility makes heedlessness of the unenlightened questionable, merely being another heedfulness (in disguise).’

Perhaps this helps showing things are a bit odd?

Heedful is not heedlessness in disguise, just as heedlessness not heedfulness. They are mutually exclusive (in that regard). Perhaps because of this understanding you where investigating the possibility of being heedless as a main driver for being heedful? To which was explained why this is not the case, and what was the case. In the second post I try to correct the understanding which you took as the understanding from heedlessness (for which heedlessness was required) with what was meant: the understanding of the Teaching (for which a Buddha was required). With that the (mis) reason for the need of heedlessness was gone. But by saying that the absence is the actual present, you seem to have brought it back. But a possibility is mere possible. Saying that when you don’t steal (when steeling is absent yet still possible) you are then stealing would be absurd.

Are we so far on the same page?

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by Bundokji » Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:05 pm

uojm wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:42 pm
The presence of ‘heedlessness as a possibility’ means it is in that regard absent (not uprooted). Absent then means heedful, since they are antonyms. Because heedfulness too is present as possibility we would then, with that same logic, get:

‘the presence of heedfulness as a possibility makes heedlessness of the unenlightened questionable, merely being another heedfulness (in disguise).’
Would a shadow ever depart an image? It can be quite deceptive to think that i can overrun my shadow. The image of being heedful will always have heedlessness as its shadow, otherwise, it would not be known/recognized as such.

And what is heedfulness except a mere subjective perception? A Buddhist would have a certain definition of what constitutes heedfulness in the same way a thief is being heedful by guarding himself against being caught.

The two possibilities seem to justify the existence of each other. Why heedfulness is needed? because heedlessness is a possibility. This logic follows as: if i witness (in the future) the ending of what is perceived as "heedlessness" then i can drop heedfulness (which would ensure an endless vicious cycle of becoming)

Perhaps this helps showing things are a bit odd?

Heedful is not heedlessness in disguise, just as heedlessness not heedfulness. They are mutually exclusive (in that regard). Perhaps because of this understanding you where investigating the possibility of being heedless as a main driver for being heedful? To which was explained why this is not the case, and what was the case. In the second post I try to correct the understanding which you took as the understanding from heedlessness (for which heedlessness was required) with what was meant: the understanding of the Teaching (for which a Buddha was required). With that the (mis) reason for the need of heedlessness was gone. But by saying that the absence is the actual present, you seem to have brought it back. But a possibility is mere possible. Saying that when you don’t steal (when steeling is absent yet still possible) you are then stealing would be absurd.

Are we so far on the same page?
Any two separate thoughts are mutually exclusive by definition (can you have two thoughts at the same time?) But when it comes to meaning and intention, they are not mutually executive, but interdependent. For instance, you cannot find any direct relationship in the meaning of the words "water" and "sand" hence when you intend to go and drink water you don't think about sand, but probably thirst (the lack or the shadow). In the same way, when you try to be heedful, you are motivated by the possibility of being heedless.

And in that case, heedfulness might become another game we play to justify our existence (i am here to empty the container) which would give me a good self-image (a good Buddhist).

This is how things appear to operate in the realm of Kamma. Mediocrity with a dash of sugar.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

binocular
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by binocular » Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:43 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:54 pm
Who said it is necessary?
You set it up as a Catch-22:
Bundokji wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:35 am
And yet, it becomes obvious to the heedful that he cannot be heedful all the time. That heedlessness is a potential part of his being the same way as heedfulness and that this potential cannot be eliminated by effort.

What can we learn from this fact, that we are vulnerable to being heedless regardless how hard we try to be heedful? Knowing about our heedlessness can only happen in hindsight, not on the spot, but what should we make of this apart from trying to be heedful?

The Buddha even says somewhere that if it wouldn't be possible to be heedful, he wouldn't teach people to be heedful.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

binocular
Posts: 6186
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Heedlessness as a part of the practice

Post by binocular » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:13 pm

Bundokji wrote:
Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:05 pm
And what is heedfulness except a mere subjective perception? A Buddhist would have a certain definition of what constitutes heedfulness in the same way a thief is being heedful by guarding himself against being caught.
Do you see any downsides to that?
And if yes, what exactly is wrong with it? Can you explain?
And in that case, heedfulness might become another game we play to justify our existence (i am here to empty the container) which would give me a good self-image (a good Buddhist).
Again, are there any downsides to that?
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dan74, dharmacorps and 100 guests