Page 3 of 6

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:26 am
by christopher:::
hi kannada.

Your objections make sense, to me.

In several other threads we have been talking recently (Tilt, BlackBird, Jechbi, myself and others) about some of the nitty gritty approaches of practice. Mindfulness, sati, cultivating equanimity, unraveling the hindrances, observing reactiveness within us, letting the arising thoughts and emotions go...

We take refuge in the 3 jewels, its like that is the support system that gives us all we need to do this work, to empty ourselves of these notions of self, the mind patterns that keep spinning dukkha for us.

I agree with what i see as the main point of the OP, we need confidence in the teachings, in the positive qualities of ourselves... a capacity for insight, for metta, for wisdom, for making the effort, for being compassionate, etc...

:heart:

But that's confidence and trust in human qualities, dhamma qualities (?), not a self. There is no self to go to refuge to, so why say there is?

Just some thoughts, which i won't spend too much time defending... :jedi: if its gonna deplete my or anyone else's upekkha levels in the slightest....

:hug:

P.S. Tilt!! I just finished Goldstein's Hindrances talk. Amazzzzzzzzing...
thank you so much.

:bow:

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:40 am
by Sanghamitta
Upekkha cannot be depleted. If it can be depleted, by definition it is not upekkha.
That wasnt meant to be a put down. Its a comment on the nature of upekkha. Upekkkha is in part detachment from views, defending views, including the idea that we can have our own store of upekkha. :smile: The way that I was taught is that upekkha is a by- product of mindfulness, mindfulness leads to a non identification with whatever arises. That includes a non identification with she or he whose mind set is characterised by upekkha.
Just a thought in response. That is my understanding which is always subject to new insights or data that may arise.

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:50 am
by Sanghamitta
I am suprised Christopher::: that your reponse was not to answer, agree with or disagree with my post , or even to ignore it, but instead to bump it.
If I have butted in rudely to what you were communicating I apologise.
I was just trying to help.
:anjali:

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:51 am
by Sanghamitta
My last post now appears to be redundant.. :smile:

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:57 am
by christopher:::
Hi Sanghamitta. That was an error, i hit the wrong reply button...

:toilet:
Sanghamitta wrote:Upekkha cannot be depleted. If it can be depleted, by definition it is not upekkha.
That wasnt meant to be a put down. Its a comment on the nature of upekkha. Upekkkha is in part detachment from views, defending views, including the idea that we can have our own store of upekkha. :smile: The way that I was taught is that upekkha is a by- product of mindfulness, mindfulness leads to a non identification with whatever arises. That includes a non identification with she or he whose mind set is characterised by upekkha.
Just a thought in response. That is my understanding which is always subject to new insights or data that may arise.
Concerning your point, I was making the translation in my mind of upekkha to equanimity... but could be using a metaphor that doesn't fit well. My experience is that throughout the day there is a shift in degrees or "levels" of calm... that i need to avoid certain situations, keep close watch on the hindrances, meditate or do some mindfulness activity so that i experience equanimity on a regular basis.

I may be conceptualizing or describing this in an erroneous way though, that is possible.

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:24 am
by Sanghamitta
I really dont want to drag you off topic Christopher:::, and actually I dont think that I am..
I would suggest that it is in fact the other way round. We dont cultivate upekkha by avoiding topics or situations. We cultivate upekkha to see that aversion and attraction are equally to be detached from. The same false sense of self that we weaken or undermine by taking Refuge , is also the false sense of self that the cultivation of upekkha shows to have no lasting reality.

:anjali:

Valerie.

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:39 am
by christopher:::
Hi Valerie,
Sanghamitta wrote:
We dont cultivate upekkha by avoiding topics or situations.
I'd say that depends. For example, not getting into debates that raise anger or keep you from meditating at night (that's happened to me), not watching the news on tv too often, not doing shots of tequila with friends, etc...
We cultivate upekkha to see that aversion and attraction are equally to be detached from. The same false sense of self that we weaken or undermine by taking Refuge , is also the false sense of self that the cultivation of upekkha shows to have no lasting reality.


I agree here, Yes. I just see it as there are many ways to cultivate upekkha, as there are many benefits. It's without a doubt one of the foundations of a successful practice..!

:namaste:

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:49 am
by kannada
Hi Chris:::

No need to defend yourself, no attack is forthcoming...
Christopher wrote:There is no self to go to refuge to, so why say there is?
Because it is the subject of this thread, Re: "Refuge in Oneself". I believe Drolma was expressing this as her view.
In several other threads we have been talking recently .... about some of the nitty gritty approaches of practice.
In my view the best approach to practice is to drop the 'I' and 'other' notions... No 'I' that sees, just seeing. No 'I' that hears, just hearing etc etc Then drop the notions of 'seeing', 'hearing' etc. All in conformity with anatta. Couldn't be easier...

Best wishes

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:53 am
by Sanghamitta
Can you say a little more about the "many ways" of cultivating upekkha ?

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:55 am
by appicchato
kannada wrote:Then drop the notions...
:thumbsup:

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:04 pm
by kannada
appicchato wrote:
kannada wrote:Then drop the notions...
:thumbsup:
At last!!!... Someone who understands... :namaste:

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:15 pm
by christopher:::
But, but, but if we drop the notion of "I" how can there be "someone" who understands"?
Sanghamitta wrote:

Can you say a little more about the "many ways" of cultivating upekkha ?

Well, my wisdom there is limited, but that would be a wonderful topic to explore...

Please join us here...

Cultivating upekkha (equanimity) day-to-day

:group:

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:28 pm
by kannada
Chris::: wrote:But, but, but if we drop the notion of "I" how can there be "someone" who understands"?
There isn't Chris - it's just a figure of speech used in the land of delusion...

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:33 pm
by christopher:::
kannada wrote:
Chris::: wrote:But, but, but if we drop the notion of "I" how can there be "someone" who understands"?
There isn't Chris - it's just a figure of speech used in the land of delusion...
Yes, my friend, I know.
Well, "I" don't know...
"You" know...
oh...

friggggggg it....


:toilet:

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:09 pm
by Sanghamitta
The link you posted Christopher leads to an interesting discussion on " dry" bare attention and Vipassana. which of course I alluded to with my reference to cultivating upekkha as a by product of mindfulness. Your reference to MANY ways piqued my attention..


The "someone who understands" is a provisional reality. It is no less provisional than the one who doesnt understand. But the former provisional reality leads to the cessation of the latter, whereas the latter provisional reality perpetuates itself.