Why Meditate?

General discussion of issues related to Theravada Meditation, e.g. meditation postures, developing a regular sitting practice, skillfully relating to difficulties and hindrances, etc.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ron,
Ron Crouch wrote:Retro - this strikes me as VERY strong identification with buddhism. The self takes root there too... it is absolutist and black and white thinking.
What does, Ron? You've quoted me saying "Greeting" and "Metta", and you've quoted Tilt asking a question... other than that, all I see are words from your website. Perhaps you could clarify your meaning here?
Ron Crouch wrote:It all really comes down to how you decide what goes into the basket of Buddhism. What is it? Ask ten practitioners and you'll get just as many answers, and honestly, I don't really care much about that. I'm not religiously buddhist and my sense of self is not invested in buddhism (I understand that many folks are here, and I respect that as a difference between us). However, the technology to liberate oneself from suffering in buddhism and in particular in the Visuddhimagga is shockingly practical and works amazingly well to produce liberation. You don't have to follow any "ism" to become liberated. You just have to get your act together, train your mind and see things clearly. No need to "believe" in anything - that is a cultural artifact of western thinking. It's about what you do, not what you think.
Can you please also clarify what question you think you're answering with this answer? Again, it's evidently not in response to what you quoted, since you largely quoted yourself. You may need to draw the dots a bit more clearly before your post will make sense to me.

Alternatively, if what you want to say is not directly related to Mike's topic, you may find that what you want to say would be better said in this topic...

Buddhism Fundamentalism?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12471" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... I'm following that discussion too, so will see any posts you make there.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Prasadachitta »

Ron Crouch wrote:What is it? Ask ten practitioners and you'll get just as many answers, and honestly, I don't really care much about that. I'm not religiously buddhist and my sense of self is not invested in buddhism (I understand that many folks are here, and I respect that as a difference between us). However, the technology to liberate oneself from suffering in buddhism and in particular in the Visuddhimagga is shockingly practical and works amazingly well to produce liberation. You don't have to follow any "ism" to become liberated. You just have to get your act together, train your mind and see things clearly. No need to "believe" in anything - that is a cultural artifact of western thinking. It's about what you do, not what you think.

Hi Ron,

One of the practical aspects of Buddhist instruction is that its practice is founded upon a positive confidence (Saddha) in the Teacher/Teachings/Community. I can appreciate talking about this path as a "technology" but I think the analogy can only be taken a little way. I think that the principle of cultivating confidence as the foundation for making a concerted effort to verify that confidence is probably critical. I can attest to the fact that the "dark night" kind of thing is greatly mitigated at least. However confidence does not help much if you fail to make that concerted effort to verify. In other words what you think is a critical aspect of what you do. Seeing things clearly requires stepping out of your comfort zone and that requires confidence. Confidence can be cultivated and in my view that is what you might call the "religious" aspect of Buddhism.

Metta

Prasadachitta
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Ron,
Ron Crouch wrote:Retro - this strikes me as VERY strong identification with buddhism. The self takes root there too... it is absolutist and black and white thinking.
What does, Ron? You've quoted me saying "Greeting" and "Metta", and you've quoted Tilt asking a question... other than that, all I see are words from your website. Perhaps you could clarify your meaning here?
...
The sequence I see is:
tiltbillings wrote:
Buckwheat wrote:Hi Ron, And we come around to Retro's point that when people parade around pretending to proclaim the words of the Buddha, it only muddles the issue.
Who are these people? And just exactly what is that they are saying?
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p189155" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:Who are these people? And just exactly what is that they are saying?
Ron Crouch wrote:There are many teachers who have taught people how to wake up and become enlightened. ....
I, and presumably Ron, understood that post as saying: "Ron is one of those muddling the issue", judging from his reply:
Ron Crouch wrote:Retro - this strikes me as VERY strong identification with buddhism. The self takes root there too... it is absolutist and black and white thinking.
If that wasn't what you meant, perhaps you could explain the meaning of post:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p189155" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
in more detail.

:anjali:
Mike
Ron Crouch
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 4:32 pm

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Ron Crouch »

"I, and presumably Ron, understood that post as saying: "Ron is one of those muddling the issue", judging from his reply"


Yes indeed - that is how I understood it.

Retro - in reading you I kind of go back and forth. In some respects you're posting some provoking and interesting stuff. However, you've closely skirted the line in flat-out calling me a fraud by insinuating that I'm slandering the buddha or that I'm misrepresenting what I teach. I've enjoyed the discussion, but I'm not going to continue if that continues. Life is simply too short for that.

capisce?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Ron,
Ron Crouch wrote:However, you've closely skirted the line in flat-out calling me a fraud by insinuating that I'm slandering the buddha or that I'm misrepresenting what I teach.
I haven't called you a fraud.

What I have done is share with you teaching of the Buddha (i.e. actual Buddha-dhamma) that explains the duty of followers of the Buddha, when someone claims to be speaking the Buddha's dhamma. Listen carefully to the Blessed One's words...
Mahaparinibbana Sutta wrote: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."
I have provided you the opportunity to see for yourself, that in the Buddha's teaching and in Theravada which accepts the Sutta Pitaka as Buddha-vacana, that unless someone's teachings are traceable back to the Buddha's discourses, they are not to be regarded as Buddha-dhamma. This isn't against you, it is impersonal... it is assessing your teaching against the Discourses as an objective exercise of traceability.

Your teachings may well be Dhamma for all I know... they may well be the best teachings on mankind since the Buddha died. Dhamma is the natural law, property of no one. Not mine, not your's, not the Buddha's... we can only hope that our understandings align to the natural law as best as we can.

But insight-knowledges (vipassana nanas)... they are not traceable back to the Buddha's discourses or Vinaya. Dark nights... they are not traceable back to the Buddha's discourses or Vinaya either, though I have given you ample opportunity to show how they are, and how they relate back to phenomena the Buddha actually taught.

I'm not saying insight-knowledges, dark nights etc. are fraudulent, and I'm not saying they're not Dhamma... I'm simply saying they're not recorded anywhere as being the Buddha's teaching. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest he taught those things, which you classify on your website as Buddha-dhamma. So... given that, the question must arise as to why you call them that? Why "muddle the issue" by doing so? I don't know your intentions for doing so - perhaps you'd like to tell us? Here's your chance to make crystal clear your intentions.

In summary, I have suggested you be more clear and transparent about where these teachings come from, lest you misrepresent noble teachers. There is nothing unreasonable about any of that. I have not regarded your Dhamma "with approval, nor with scorn"... and whilst you persist on calling it Buddha-dhamma, I may perfectly reasonably expect (particularly in a Theravada forum) that you should be capable of demonstrating that what you teach is actually the Buddha's teaching in accordance with the criteria established in the Buddha-dhamma of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.

Until then, it is Ron-Dhamma...

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote: I'm not saying insight-knowledges, dark nights etc. are fraudulent, and I'm not saying they're not Dhamma... I'm simply saying they're not recorded anywhere as being the Buddha's teaching.
I have a few comments:

1. Much stuff is rather obvious, though not explicit, in the various suttas and references I gave some time ago, which you don't appear to have addressed.

2. In many cases, where you see "additions" I see the commentaries and the teaching of modern teachers as saying (in short): "In the experience of many, when one applies the Buddha-Dhamma, this is what tends happens". Not an addition, a report of other practitioner's experience. [In contrast to the mis-characterisation one sometimes sees that the commentaries as merely an academic exercise.]

3. Much of the advice in the commentaries (and modern approaches) is not actually claiming to be Dhamma, so is not a "Dhamma Addition", in my opinion. For example, the advice to use breath counting as an introductory exercise, or start with metta towards oneself are just useful, mundane, advice that has been found helpful by experience.

One final point: The suttas recommend getting advice from a local teacher who can admonish the student and, presumably, provide the sort of detail instruction discussed in points 2 and 3 above. The Buddha won't do that for us, unfortunately, so unless we maintain a living tradition that's a crucial piece of sutta advice that we can't take...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,

I have no hesitation whatsoever in agreeing with all your four points.

I think they're on the money, and the reason being is that they're all good advice on how to construct your path. They are all instances of the proverbial "grass, twigs, branches, & leaves" that can be "bound ... together to make a raft".

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by kirk5a »

retrofuturist wrote: I'm not saying insight-knowledges, dark nights etc. are fraudulent, and I'm not saying they're not Dhamma... I'm simply saying they're not recorded anywhere as being the Buddha's teaching.
I believe MN 24 is considered one source to which these teachings are "traceable." While not an exact match to the details of the list of "insight-knowledges" we see today, for example as Ron linked to in his original blog post
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... gress.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, the above does follow the framework of the 7 "relay chariots" of the sutta.

Ven. Thanissaro says in an interesting footnote there:
Ven. Sariputta and Ven. Punna speak of this list of seven purities — purity in terms of virtue, mind, view, the overcoming of perplexity, knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path, knowledge & vision of the way, and knowledge & vision — as if it were a teaching familiar to both of them, and yet nowhere else is it mentioned as a Buddhist teaching in the discourses. The Atthaka Vagga (Sn 4), however, mentions various non-Buddhist sectarians who spoke of purity as the goal of their teaching and who variously defined that purity in terms of virtue, view, knowledge, & practice. Perhaps the seven types of purity listed in this discourse were originally non-Buddhist teachings that were adopted by the early Buddhist community and adapted to their own purpose for showing that these seven forms of purity functioned not as a goal of practice but as stages along the path to that goal. At any rate, this list of the seven purities formed the framework for Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga (The Path of Purity), the cornerstone of his Pali commentaries, in which the seven purities cover all three parts of the threefold training in virtue, concentration, & discernment.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Ron Crouch
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 4:32 pm

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Ron Crouch »

retro - what I'm teaching is right down the middle Visuddhimagga and Mahasi Sayadaw style buddhism - which I have never heard any claim isn't buddha-dhamma, buddhism, or theravadin. You are literally the first person I have ever even heard of making that claim. Maybe you're more buddhist than buddhist. An uber-buddhist. Cool. Please let go of that too. That is the self at work.

What concerns me more than the mischaracterization of me or what I teach though, is the almost fanatical attention to semantics and language. This is a tremendous distraction that teachers in almost every awakening tradition warn against. It has the potential to really get newbies way off track - and that is what concerns me here. Rather than actually practice and sort out whether this stuff works or not, they'll fly off into angel-on-the-head-of-a-pin territory and try to be a "good buddhist" rather than trying to see that as an illusion too.

I say all this not to try and turn you around retro - I just don't think that will happen in this setting or format. But rather for the lurkers who are just reading this and trying to understand. Buddhism is not about having an identity as a "buddhist". It is about doing the practice (a lot) and getting insight into the three characteristics via the insight knowledges (in the way I teach).
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Buckwheat »

Sorry that I earlier gave the impression I thought Ron is "muddling" things. I don't know enough about Ron to make such claims. I think we can all agree there are people out there that do muddle the dhamma, and Ron seemed rather dismissive of that idea. My point was to say, there is muddling, and we should all be careful not to become one of those people. That applies to Retro, Ron, me, and everybody else that claims to have even the slightest knowledge of Buddhism.

Careful attention to semantics is a balancing act. If we give semantics too much attention, one will get lost in the sea of details. If we ignore it, we will not be able to tell the sea from a small pond. For this reason, I am a strong believer that one should refrain from teaching and proclaiming until his peers honor him with a request to teach. Only a very wise, experienced practitioner can understand when one should transcend semantics, and when one should dig into their messy details, based on the knowledge and experience of the student. And that understanding must be built on many years of practice with times of ignoring semantics and times of digging into the messy details. And there must be careful attention to the source: this practice is based on the words of the Nagarjuna, that practice is based on the words of Shakyamuni Buddha, and the other practice is based on the words of Ananda.

The teacher must be aware of fine distinctions, even if he does not drag the student into them. Just my opinion here.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist, voicing only his opinion and belief, not objective fact wrote:Until then, it is Ron-Dhamma...
>> 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
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,

I have no hesitation whatsoever in agreeing with all your four points.

I think they're on the money, and the reason being is that they're all good advice on how to construct your path. They are all instances of the proverbial "grass, twigs, branches, & leaves" that can be "bound ... together to make a raft".
Wonderful. No more talk of "additions". :woohoo:

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Goofaholix »

mikenz66 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:I have no hesitation whatsoever in agreeing with all your four points.

I think they're on the money, and the reason being is that they're all good advice on how to construct your path. They are all instances of the proverbial "grass, twigs, branches, & leaves" that can be "bound ... together to make a raft".
Wonderful. No more talk of "additions". :woohoo:
I could understand the problem if Ron were teaching, I don't know "that if you chant Coca Cola often enough you'll be reborn in a Pure Land where it's easy to become a Buddha" or something like that, then yes looking at Buddhavacana I don't think you'll find anything in the letter or the spirit that supports it.

However all he is saying really is when one practises one will still experience Dukkha and one will likely go through a period where it seems like Dukkha is all one can see/feel, the only problem being he labelled it with a Christian concept "dark night". I don't think there would have been any objection if he'd just labelled it Dukkha, but then we would be talking in very general terms not about a specific experience of Dukkha.

I'm sure nobody will say Dukkha is an addition and I think we all understand we need to look at our own personal experience to understand iDukkha not just a 2500 year old text, labelling something that is clearly in the spirit of Buddhavacana as an addition because different phrase is used isn't helpful.

To remain relavent to different audiences 2500 years later in a vastly different culture sometimes we need to be able to communicate the concepts of Buddhavacana using different language and concepts, the test is whether the message remains true to the spirit of Buddhavacana not whether it violates our attachment to semantics.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by mikenz66 »

Perhaps we could get back to some of these topics:

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... &start=120" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Goofaholix wrote: I've always felt we get too much information on retreats in the West, but maybe that's because it's aimed at the lowest common denominator and for this reason is not clear enough about what to expect and this is what makes it "outrageously patronizing" in some respects.
Yes, it's interesting what one becomes used to. I've become used to doing retreats where I basically practice, and consult maybe once a day. And that discussion is about what's actually being experienced, in plain language, no complicated concepts, analyis, discussion of Buddhist concepts, and so on. I'm there to observe...

As Goofaholix says, some Western-oriented retreats can go overboard, with what can seem at times like incessant chatter, rather than just getting on with it. Obviously necessary at the start, of course, but the problem I see is that it tends to induce a chatty atmosphere where question times can veer of into discussions about all kinds of conceptual "meaning of life" stuff, rather than focussing on the task at hand. Clearly some people need that at the start, but in my experience a good teacher will eventually, gently but firmly, put a stop to it and insist that we focus on what we are experiencing, not chat about what we think about what we are experiencing...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why Meditate?

Post by Goofaholix »

mikenz66 wrote: As Goofaholix says, some Western-oriented retreats can go overboard, with what can seem at times like incessant chatter, rather than just getting on with it. Obviously necessary at the start, of course, but the problem I see is that it tends to induce a chatty atmosphere where question times can veer of into discussions about all kinds of conceptual "meaning of life" stuff, rather than focussing on the task at hand. Clearly some people need that at the start, but in my experience a good teacher will eventually, gently but firmly, put a stop to it and insist that we focus on what we are experiencing, not chat about what we think about what we are experiencing...
That's what I'm talking about. It's nice when teachers are taking a more proactive approach but if I'd wanted to be in a chatty atmosphere I would have stayed at home.

I think it's an important part of the practise to start by doing it wrong or with the wrong attitude, realise it yourself, adjust it yourself, and as a result integrate the deeper principles behind practise, so it's a process of learning to learn. A teacher can't do this for you, but a good teacher inspires confidence in you so you keep at it until you get it right.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Post Reply