Equally? Hardly. Did you read SN 16.13? MN 64?I could say that your view is equally harmful to true dhamma, so let’s not do that and simply share our understandings of dhamma.
Yes the jhanas are required for transcendence but one need not concern themself with jhanas nor do they have to master any jhanas. One needs only simply observe that which presents itself from one moment to the next with a calm and equanimous mind when this occurs one is liberating their past self when a level of purification is reached trancendence will take place and jhanas will arise.
The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
I'm not interested in bantering with you in any way, shape, or form. I said what I wanted to say (not to you, personally). I'm not here to arm wrestle. If I feel that something is not the case that someone puts forth, I might say something, like with Zom. Personally, I don't feel Zom is correct in this, but I am not upset with him posting his view whether it is backed up by scripture or not. You, otoh, seem to dislike what I post and feel it is not Buddhist or to your liking. I don't know why. If you have a personal grievance, you can pm me and settle it, maybe. I don't want to be involved with this kind of dialogue with you or anyone else.chownah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:38 amI didn't demand.....again you are trying to change the subject from your post which it seems runs counter to the Four Noble Truths....what part of it you ask....pretty much all of it. The general message you are delivering seems to run counter to the Four Noble Truths.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:28 amPerhaps you might start with what is unreasonable and unfounded in what I posted instead of 'demanding' my analysis in a thread that has nothing to do with the 4NT's. The thread is about jhana and its length of time, etc. If you want to challenge me on something, which you appear to be doing, maybe you should open a separate thread. We all drink our poison. Is it a matter of which one is more poisonous?chownah wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:35 am
It is easy to take my position here when what you post is unreasonable and unfounded.
Your non response to the Four Noble Truths is notable. Your attempt to change the topic to me being "rife with misunderstanding and personal interprettations" is obvious.
Your post runs directly in opposition to the Four Noble Truths as far as I can see.
Your post is a carbon copy of things you have claimed are the teachings of UGK as far as I can see.
Didn't UGK state that the buddha was just like the other gurus in the market place...offering false promises?.....I seem to remember a short video clip where he states this or something similar....I'll see if I can find it.
Again I ask you to give your analysis of the Four Noble Truths.
You are obviously wanting to change the subject to me by mischaracterizing me as being demanding and challenging. I'm just discussing your post which is what is done on forums. If you don't want people commenting on you posts or questioning your posts then you probaby shouln't be posting.
As far as my background goes, we all have one. There is nothing very unique that I have to say and of course, it's all been said before. If U.G. has rubbed off on me, it's only natural, as I was closely involved with him for many years, most of my adult life. I find his take on things very close to what the Buddha's was, but said differently. And, he did say that the Buddha was pretty much like the others offering false promises, but he never disparaged his awakening. Depending upon your point of view, all teachers fall into this category including U.G. and he was the first to say it. He held nothing sacred, but that is a different discussion. Sounds like your not really interested in that, so.........
What exactly would you like me to read what is the point you were trying to make or what is your disagreement. it’s not really my style to post suttas, I mostly post from meditative experience and read suttas Rarely but if there’s something you disagree with I am very willing to discuss this in further detail.
Ok, what I'm trying to say, is that I'm basing my statements upon what is said by the Buddha. And I don't know what basis your opinions have... maybe just personal preferences.What exactly would you like me to read what is the point you were trying to make or what is your disagreement. it’s not really my style to post suttas, I mostly post from meditative experience and read suttas Rarely but if there’s something you disagree with I am very willing to discuss this in further detail.
Jhana is very common and easy in the suttas. Because it means calm.
You merely need calm, to focus on impermanence.
You merely need calm, to focus on impermanence.
Yes, sure, so easy that it is mentioned on par with levitation, clairvoyance, mind-reading, walking through the walls, etc etc in Vinaya Parajika Rule N4.Jhana is very common and easy in the suttas. Because it means calm.
Sitting for 12 hours is just a natural outcome.it's sort of difficult, but not as difficult as sitting 12 hours
This is what arahants tell on the matter:
For seven days I sat in one spot,
absorbed in rapture & bliss.
On the eighth, I stretched out my legs,
having burst the mass
How light my body!
Touched by abundant
rapture & bliss,
—like a cotton tuft
borne on the breeze—
it seems to be floating
being calm is enough, for insight to be possible
Meditative experience, teachers discourses, suttas, some monastic writings, other religions. Basically this is where I gather “the story” or wording that I use to discuss the path.
I also feel there is jhana for meditative concentration and then have experienced all 8 jhanas in a tracendence type experience which lasted for approximately 45 minutes but felt timeless complete absorption and then a ninth jhana which when I explained to teacher was told that this was nibbana. From writings from other monks such as mahasi sayadaw and from discourses in Goenka long courses this fits quite well.
Does this not fit with suttas?
Weak is to say something which is opposite to canonical texts. Doing so you are actually trying to say that you are more clever and competent than the Buddha.
No, that’s not weakness it would be a disagreement, You however have yet to make any argument or show through your experience how my statements of actual meditative experience are against the canon or how they differ from your own.
That is weak my friend.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests