Nyanaponika Thera in The Roots Of Good And Evil wrote: The three unwholesome roots are not restricted to the strong manifestation suggested by the English terms greed, hatred and delusion. To understand their range it is important to know that in Pali these three terms stand for all degrees of intensity, even the weakest, of the three defilements, and for all varieties in which these appear. In their weak degrees their unwholesome influence on character and kammic consequences is, of course, not as grave as that of their stronger forms. But even weak forms may carry the risk of either growing stronger or making a person’s character more susceptible to their graver manisfestations. A fuller view of the various forms the unwholesome roots assume may be gained from a list of their synonyms, partly taken from the Dhammasaṅgaṇī, the first book of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka.
Greed — liking, wishing, longing, fondness, affection, attachment, lust, cupidity, craving, passion, self-indulgence, possessiveness, avarice; desire for the five sense objects; desire for wealth, offspring, fame, etc.
Hatred — dislike, disgust, revulsion, resentment, grudge, ill-humour, vexation, irritability, antagonism, aversion, anger, wrath, vengefulness.
Delusion — stupidity, dullness, confusion, ignorance of essentials (e.g. of the Four Noble Truths), prejudice, ideological dogmatism, fanaticism, wrong views, conceit.
Metta,Dhp5 wrote:Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .olen.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"What do you think, Ananda: Which is harder to do, harder to master — to shoot arrows through a tiny keyhole without missing, one right after the other, or to take a horsehair split into seven strands and pierce tip with a tip?"
"This, lord, is harder to do, harder to master — to take a horsehair split into seven strands and pierce tip with a tip."http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"And they, Ananda, pierce what is even harder to pierce, those who pierce, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress'; who pierce, as it actually is present, that 'This is the origination of stress'... 'This is the cessation of stress'... 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'
"Therefore, Ananda, your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"
[Kamada:]
So hard it is to do, Lord, It's so very hard to do!
[Buddha:]
But still they do what's hard to do, Who steady themselves with virtue. For one pursuing homelessness, Content arrives, and with it joy.
[Kamada:]
So hard it is to get, Lord, This content of which you speak!
[Buddha:]
But still they get what's hard to get, Who delight in a tranquil mind. The mind of those, both day and night, Delights in its development.
[Kamada:]
So hard it is to tame, Lord, This mind of which you speak!
[Buddha:]
But still they tame what's hard to tame, Who delight in senses at peace. Cutting through mortality's net, The nobles, Kamada, proceed.
[Kamada:]
So hard it is to go, Lord, On this path that gets so rough!
[Buddha:]
Still nobles, Kamada, proceed On paths both rough and hard to take. Those who are less than noble fall On their heads when the path gets rough. But for nobles the path is smooth — For nobles smooth out what is rough!
Translator's note
This plaintive cry of the deva Kamada, concerning the difficulty of Buddhist practice, will resonate with almost anyone who has embarked on the temporary homelessness of a retreat at IMS or elsewhere. The steady reply of the Buddha here admonishes Kamada to overcome his weaknesses and find the nobility within himself to tread the noble path.
Thanks for making your(self)retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Dhamma_newb,
I'm not really the one to ask. Perhaps someone with involvement in that approach might be able to explain.dhamma_newb wrote:Isn't "dark night" just a term used to refer to certain unpleasant stages described in Mahasi Sayadaw's Progress of Insight where one can get stuck? Or if you practice is it just a straight shot through the stages right to Nibbana?
Metta,
Retro.
available for discussion. Very good, thank you.Ron Crouch wrote:Hi there - a friend of mine sent me a message this morning that there was an interesting discussion going on over here about my essay "Why Meditate" and that I should drop by and check it out. It looks like it really hit a nerve with some people and that is kind of what I intended with it so it looks like the message is getting out.
I wanted to offer myself up for questions directly about this essay and what I meant by it, since there is a lot of speculation here. Despite having a last name that is suspiciously close to "grouch" and having written such a rough essay, I'm actually a pretty easy going person! I really enjoy answering questions, so don't hesitate to ask me directly. What would you like to know?
P.S. I may take a while to get back to you today but will be back in the evening and will be happy to answer then.
That part confuses me a little. The way I read it can be summed up as "You should meditate because some deep part of you wants to meditate." Was that what you were trying to convey? If it was, and I apologize if this is offensive, that is a circular argument.Ron Crouch from the essay wrote:Even though the sense of “I” doesn’t know why, there is still a drive that impels some people to meditate. It is an undercurrent in your life that nags at you that is much deeper than the “I.” You may not fully understand what it is, and you will likely express it in all kinds of ways, but when you hear that there is a way to wake up from the dream of the self, you will be intrigued.
Since the difficulties you point out appear to be consistent with statements in the Suttas (which I've quoted above) and Commentaries, and with what I've gathered from listening to modern teachers and discussions with fellow practitioners, I don't have any particular problem with what you wrote.Ron Crouch wrote: I wanted to offer myself up for questions directly about this essay and what I meant by it, since there is a lot of speculation here. Despite having a last name that is suspiciously close to "grouch" and having written such a rough essay, I'm actually a pretty easy going person! I really enjoy answering questions, so don't hesitate to ask me directly. What would you like to know?
I.e. does the Path inevitably involve "dark night" difficult patches and/or do some approaches bring up unnecessary difficulties that could be avoided?retrofuturist wrote: I wonder whether some paths/meditations/actions/whatever-you-want-to-call-them lead into the rabbits burrow of dukkha better than they lead out of it. It's quite plausible that the path that leads you to be aware of the problem, is quite a different path to that which can cure the problem, once diagnosed.
I wan't sure which post you were referring to. I guess you mean this one:Bagoba wrote:I think his essay is based on buddhist meditation, and by asking him if the risks are worth Enlightenment if reincarnation doesn't exist, you're taking it out of context, since Enlightenment, the ultimate goal of buddhist's practice and meditation, is to put an end to the everlasting cycle of rebirths, if I understood correctly.
Welcome to Dhamma Wheel.Ron Crouch wrote:I wanted to offer myself up for questions directly about this essay and what I meant by it, since there is a lot of speculation here. Despite having a last name that is suspiciously close to "grouch" and having written such a rough essay, I'm actually a pretty easy going person! I really enjoy answering questions, so don't hesitate to ask me directly. What would you like to know?
I have nothing inherently against those other paths and teachings, other than that they are not mine - they are not Buddhavacana, so they are not my path to follow. So yeah, if you do wish to respond, you can at least see what I consider authorative, and can hopefully understand why I believe pushing post-Buddha paths as Buddha-dhamma is wrong, and (depending perhaps on your intention) slanderous to the Buddha.Mahaparinibbana Sutta wrote:And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. Listen and pay heed to my words." And those bhikkhus answered, saying:
"So be it, Lord."
Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'
"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."
Call what you teach meditation, liberating, enlightening, or whatever you like, but calling it Buddha-dhamma is disingenuous, when it bears little or no relation to it, as is the case with respect to your earlier quoted blog entry on "dark night" - a notion or experience without any real parallel in the teachings of the Sutta Pitaka. Reflecting and repackaging the teaching of a particular meditation sub-culture does not maketh the Buddhadhamma.AN 2.23 wrote:"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
I guess it just shows that different people interpret the suttas quite differently. I see accounts of difficulties and struggles all over the Sutta Pitaka, as I've pointed out above.retrofuturist wrote: Call what you teach meditation, liberating, enlightening, or whatever you like, but calling it Buddha-dhamma is disingenuous, when it talks bears little or no relation to it, as is the case with respect to your earlier quoted blog entry on "dark night", a notion or experience without any real parallel to the teachings of the Sutta Pitaka.
No, that's not what I'm saying... and you're continuing to be very loose and free-wheeling with your definitions. What I'm doing is being diligent in the differentiation between what is Buddha-dhamma (i.e. the Dhamma of the Buddha) and Buddha-vacana (i.e. the Voice of the Buddha) and what is not. Everything else that everyone (wise or dull) has come up with (valuable or worthless), which has since come to being, that may have been since placed under the catch-all of "Buddhism" or any of the discrete Buddhist traditions is not the Buddha's Dhamma - it is their Dhamma. In summary, Buddha-dhamma is a subset of Buddhism. Whether their unique Dhamma-additions are efficacious or not is for them to claim, but the market-place of such additions is not my domain... when they overstep their domain and say their own unique sectarian teachings are Buddha-dhamma, then I may point out that they are not, out of respect for my Teacher, who did not like him or his Dhamma to be misrepresented. It is not good to hi-jack the Buddha's good name and leverage that for the dissemination of one's own Dharma.Ron Crouch wrote:@ retrofuturist - If you are saying that what Buddhaghosa wrote (the Vissudimagga) isn't buddhism then you're pretty much saying that most of mainstream Theravada isn't really buddhism and you pretty much have a beef with all of what is currently considered buddhism.
As I said before, I have no inherent objections to those things... only that these additions aren't for me, if what they say cannot be resolved back to the suttas. To me, the Buddha is The Teacher. Others may choose other teachers and other Dhammas if that's for them. People may do what they like so long as they are not fraudulently purporting to be something they're not.Ron Crouch wrote:If you don't allow any commentary and no further works by enlightened folks beyond the tipitaka, well then Theravada's out, so is Tibetan, so is Zen, Pure Land, and modern teachers like Jack Kornfield or Joseph Golstein - forget about it!
When it comes to what I practice, yes... and when it comes to what is Buddhavacana, yes, you're right... I do have serious standards. There is more than enough in the Sutta Pitaka to keep me going for this lifetime.Ron Crouch wrote:I don't have much to say to that except that it sure sounds like you have some pretty serious standards for what is in or out when it comes to buddhism.
Thanks. It's going great.Ron Crouch wrote:Good luck with that.
The Buddha-dhamma leads to enlightenment, but I don't see how that fact has any bearing on whether subsequent sectarian additions are "garbage" or not. Your statement is non-sequitur. For all I know, your excursions through the Dark Night may well lead to enlightenment too, since what do I know about the efficacy of your path when I have not walked it? I can only speak of how what you describe of it correlates to my path, and how it correlates (or otherwise) to the teachings of the Buddha.... and that is what I have done. This is done not to cause upset, but to differentiate what is and is not the Buddha's teaching, for the benefit of anyone who may care who is interested in the blessed one's teaching, out of conviction that he is indeed the unsurpassable teacher.Ron Crouch wrote:If it leads you to enlightenment let everyone know so they can get away from all the garbage.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests
