Krishnamurty-inspired off-topic posts

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:18 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:32 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:39 am
Of course you are not going to see it the way that I do, but that doesn't mean that our thought structure doesn't work in the same way as each other's structure works.
I'm not talking about how a thought structure works. People's thought structures might work the same way, or differently. I'm talking about you having misunderstood how the Buddha recommends we relate to his teaching. You claim that this relating is inevitably a form of grasping or clinging: upādāna. That's not what the Buddha taught.
I'm not really sure if that is true. On a conventional level, yes you can adjust your view to reduce dukkha. On an unconventional level, the Buddha taught the end of dukkha. To me there is a big difference.
Saengnapha said, Grasping and attachment are also present in your structure, is it not? If it isn't, then you have achieved your goal, as you mentioned that nibbana is the goal of Theravada.
Sam Vara said: Yes, grasping/attachment is present, but that's not what is at issue here. The question is whether this grasping is universal, an ineradicable aspect or component of every thought. Your argument is, apparently that it is. The Buddha doesn't say this, so I am pointing out that error.
The Buddha does say it is universal, perhaps not using the same words. Ignorance is what he uses to describe this condition. Grasping is a sign of it.
Sam said: 1) You claim that the Eightfold Path (or Graduated Training, etc., ) is ineffective. I am claiming that all you have is your evidence that it is ineffective for you, and that attempts to extrapolate that failure to others or to present it as inevitable are an error in logic.

2) The factors which you adduce as evidence of the inefficacy as per (1) also apply to any understanding of UG, etc.

3) Your point is based on a confusion of upādāna and chanda, or terms such as gaṇhāti in MN 22.

Presumably, you think that words and logic and cleverness are properly used when you make periodic and repeated claims that what many people here understand as the Buddha-Dhamma is wrong or ineffective, but not when those claims are challenged.
1. It is effective for becoming a better person which to me has little to do with cessation of ignorance as the Buddha described seeing things the way they are.
2. 100% agreed.
3. I don't feel confused about this, especially words that I have to look up the meaning of.

Words and logic are good for day to day living and communication. They fall short in describing truth and reality. If they were effective, we would all share the same view. Challenging this is a waste of time, but you may do it to satisfy your own view.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:28 am

Bundokji wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:13 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:34 am
In a real sense, these are all stories. We pick and choose those that appeal to our prior views or use an image of what we think we should be and strive for that. One just tries things, over and over. Why do you want to live a good life? I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't. It is a prior image that you have in your mind that you strive for and think it will help you in some way to a goal that you hold. This works in the same way for everyone. Can you deny this?
You seem to be describing what you are doing. You are projecting your mind into others, parroting endlessly what UG said, and when people point this out to you, you claim that this is what they are doing to you, a vicious circle really.
Concluding anything about UG or his followers is part of the conditioned thought structure. The thought structure can only compare notes that it already holds within it. If you noticed, UG always dismisses what he says, usually with a smile. He is the first to agree with you that he is useless. There is an honesty there that is hard to accept. UG was not fixated on enlightenment. Sure, many of the people who came to see him, were fixated. I left when the Rajneesh folks started to show up.
Concluding anything about the Buddha and his followers is a part of your conditioned thought structure. Someone who claims that he is useless and still bark like a dog (using his own words) cannot be honest. And let me guess, you would say that i am projecting my mind and images on UG and his followers through my conditioned mind, magically excluding yourself in the process. Can't you see the absurdity of that?
But what is UG supposed to be useful for? I found him very useful for showing me the illusions that I held regarding everything. And this was not done using any kind of model or map or system of regarding myself or the world and walking a path towards an imaginary goal that lived somewhere in the future or even the present. I think it would be very hard for you to say what a real path is, but I can understand why you want to do so.
If you admit that UG is not useful, then parroting his teachings would be equally unuseful. The illusory image of an honest preacher is in itself, dishonest and delusional. And let me guess, you would say that i am projecting my mind and images on UG and his followers through my conditioned mind, magically excluding yourself in the process. Can't you see the absurdity of that?
What I might have hoped for here on this board is more of a dialogue about what takes place in each of us and not talking about UG or anyone else's view. Your view against my view is kind of a useless conversation to me. Same with Buddha vs UG or UG vs JK. These are all images we hold. At least come to this agreement that everything you think you know is not the point.
You give yourself the right to talk about the Buddha's path, dismissing it as useless, but when people do the same thing exposing the absurdity of UGs teachings (if they can be described as such), you find this to be useless conversation. Needless to say that what you think of the Buddha's path is an image in your mind. You are simply repeating what you have been told by society (UG and JK), nothing else.
Save your breath, Bundokji. You are beginning to show a defensive nature that is not called for. You've misunderstood a lot of what I've been trying to say and just quote verbatim UG's words without knowing context and dismissing them because they don't fit your view. Okay by me. I'm not dismissing you as a joker or deluded because you think what you think. I am only saying you are thinking and all this thinking has a judgement to it which itself is useless and self-serving. I can also omit the self serving part so you don't feel personally insulted. I actually don't expect anyone to get this and I certainly don't think that I have it and you don't. For me, it's simple, I don't need to be told what to do or how to act. It is already built in. :D

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4408
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: What is samudayo (arising)? What is it that is arising?

Post by SDC » Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:19 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:31 am
In a sense, there are only wrong views and we are like drowning men grasping at something to save us. This thought structure wants to survive. I don't think there is any 'right' structure to work with it. This is part of the illusion. It is grasping.
But that is still a view, and you are using it to describe, what you say, is a more accurate direction as opposed to an inaccurate one. Just because you are simultaneously denying its significance doesn't unmake the view/direction.

Again, with all due respect, denial of significance only solidifies a wrong view further because you are intentionally attempting to change the arisen nature of a thing after it has already arisen in a certain way. That means you have the thing how it arose and the denial right on top of it. The great illusion denial grants is that one can control significance and choose a nature, and although one would hope that denial would eliminate that origin view, it only compounds it into a more complicated picture. As I see it, that is nothing but placing a blanket over suffering.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara » Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:45 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:18 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:32 am

I'm not talking about how a thought structure works. People's thought structures might work the same way, or differently. I'm talking about you having misunderstood how the Buddha recommends we relate to his teaching. You claim that this relating is inevitably a form of grasping or clinging: upādāna. That's not what the Buddha taught.
I'm not really sure if that is true. On a conventional level, yes you can adjust your view to reduce dukkha. On an unconventional level, the Buddha taught the end of dukkha. To me there is a big difference.
I'm not sure what this means. You appear to be addressing the issue of alleviating dukkha in this life, but that's not my point. My point is that without the claim that all practice is a form of clinging, your point cannot stand. We can practice without the practice being a form of clinging.
The Buddha does say it is universal, perhaps not using the same words. Ignorance is what he uses to describe this condition. Grasping is a sign of it.
I don't think that the Buddha says that grasping is universal. I would like a sutta citation for that, please. There are, on the contrary, many examples of the Buddha talking about conscious states where grasping has been abandoned. Similarly, although the Buddha talks about ignorance, he also talks about its opposite. So he doesn't consider it to be universal.
1. It is effective for becoming a better person which to me has little to do with cessation of ignorance as the Buddha described seeing things the way they are.
Ah, there's that "to me" again! The Buddha said that ignorance can be removed or abandoned. That's done, according to him, by means of the Eightfold Path.
3. I don't feel confused about this, especially words that I have to look up the meaning of.
No, you need to have some understanding in order to be confused. Just refusing to look at something certainly means that you will not increase your confusion. But it also means that people who have looked at it will correct you if you make assertions about it.

Again, it's worth pointing out here that your position undercuts itself. Words and concepts are useful when you deploy them to make assertions about a path of practice not working. But when they are deployed against this position, they suddenly become incapable of reflecting the "truth" or "reality", and they are not worth considering. If words "fall short of describing truth and reality", why are you using them to make the original point about the inefficacy of Theravadan practice?

User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 1755
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Bundokji » Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:15 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:56 am
Perhaps you missed my point about listening over the years to UG and how many of the things I used to grasp at have stopped. Is it because UG influenced me or because I saw something for myself? Other than that, I am still on my own and weigh both what the Buddha said and what UG said as stories, images, thought structure. I don't place one higher than the other because I see both as a kind of obstruction, a conditioning of my view. I don't have a need to be a Buddhist or a UGist. I don't know why you do. I see no need to follow a script. Why do you want to put me in a box? Why do you change my words to suit your meaning of something? I agree that all paths are useless when we talk about things like nibbana, Brahman, the Ultimate. If you want to be a better human being, you certainly don't need a religion to do that. You have your own intelligence. But many things about religions do help one to be a better person, not just Buddhism. I never said don't practice Buddhism. I merely questioned certain aspects that don't add up in my book.
No one put you in the box except yourself. You come to a Buddhist forum willingly (a religious community) to tell them how free you are without a need to religion. If this is freedom, i dont want it.
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: 1755
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Bundokji » Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:19 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:28 am
Save your breath, Bundokji. You are beginning to show a defensive nature that is not called for. You've misunderstood a lot of what I've been trying to say and just quote verbatim UG's words without knowing context and dismissing them because they don't fit your view. Okay by me. I'm not dismissing you as a joker or deluded because you think what you think. I am only saying you are thinking and all this thinking has a judgement to it which itself is useless and self-serving. I can also omit the self serving part so you don't feel personally insulted. I actually don't expect anyone to get this and I certainly don't think that I have it and you don't. For me, it's simple, I don't need to be told what to do or how to act. It is already built in. :D
Why the urge to warn me of being defensive if you are not defensive yourself? and why the smiling face at the end of your post? are you trying to hide something?
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.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:32 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:45 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:18 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:32 am

I'm not talking about how a thought structure works. People's thought structures might work the same way, or differently. I'm talking about you having misunderstood how the Buddha recommends we relate to his teaching. You claim that this relating is inevitably a form of grasping or clinging: upādāna. That's not what the Buddha taught.
I'm not really sure if that is true. On a conventional level, yes you can adjust your view to reduce dukkha. On an unconventional level, the Buddha taught the end of dukkha. To me there is a big difference.
I'm not sure what this means. You appear to be addressing the issue of alleviating dukkha in this life, but that's not my point. My point is that without the claim that all practice is a form of clinging, your point cannot stand. We can practice without the practice being a form of clinging.
The Buddha does say it is universal, perhaps not using the same words. Ignorance is what he uses to describe this condition. Grasping is a sign of it.
I don't think that the Buddha says that grasping is universal. I would like a sutta citation for that, please. There are, on the contrary, many examples of the Buddha talking about conscious states where grasping has been abandoned. Similarly, although the Buddha talks about ignorance, he also talks about its opposite. So he doesn't consider it to be universal.
1. It is effective for becoming a better person which to me has little to do with cessation of ignorance as the Buddha described seeing things the way they are.
Ah, there's that "to me" again! The Buddha said that ignorance can be removed or abandoned. That's done, according to him, by means of the Eightfold Path.
3. I don't feel confused about this, especially words that I have to look up the meaning of.
No, you need to have some understanding in order to be confused. Just refusing to look at something certainly means that you will not increase your confusion. But it also means that people who have looked at it will correct you if you make assertions about it.

Again, it's worth pointing out here that your position undercuts itself. Words and concepts are useful when you deploy them to make assertions about a path of practice not working. But when they are deployed against this position, they suddenly become incapable of reflecting the "truth" or "reality", and they are not worth considering. If words "fall short of describing truth and reality", why are you using them to make the original point about the inefficacy of Theravadan practice?
Let me put it a different way to you. When I let go of all dialectics, the nature of mind, the thought structure, is found to be one of absence. In this absence, the quality of mind has a spaciousness to it, an emptiness that is at the same time present and knowing. It is not a knowing of something, but a knowingness that is vast. It is only when I let go of the images of the thought structure that this can be 'seen'. People have different words to describe this, but it is the same quality of mind that they speak of. The letting go is the key that unlocks that door.

chownah
Posts: 7567
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by chownah » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:28 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:32 am
........
People have different words to describe this, but it is the same quality of mind that they speak of.
........
I think you would be speaking more closely with the truth if you had said "It seems to me that people have different words to describe this, but it is the same quality of mind that they speak of."

....otherwise it seems like you are trying to espouse your own dhamma.
chownah

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:34 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:32 am
Let me put it a different way to you. When I let go of all dialectics, the nature of mind, the thought structure, is found to be one of absence. In this absence, the quality of mind has a spaciousness to it, an emptiness that is at the same time present and knowing. It is not a knowing of something, but a knowingness that is vast. It is only when I let go of the images of the thought structure that this can be 'seen'. People have different words to describe this, but it is the same quality of mind that they speak of. The letting go is the key that unlocks that door.
Thank you for this. A report or description of mental states is benign and helps others to understand. If all your posts were like this, I would have no criticisms of what you say, and indeed I might learn a lot. My previous criticism is that this "letting go" does not apparently apply to your criticisms of the classical Theravadan approach. Perhaps you might let them go as well. It is possible that other people - on DW and elsewhere - experience what you are talking about here, but they get there by a different sort of practice.

Why not give them a chance to share this, without saying that their approach cannot be done?

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:56 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:34 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:32 am
Let me put it a different way to you. When I let go of all dialectics, the nature of mind, the thought structure, is found to be one of absence. In this absence, the quality of mind has a spaciousness to it, an emptiness that is at the same time present and knowing. It is not a knowing of something, but a knowingness that is vast. It is only when I let go of the images of the thought structure that this can be 'seen'. People have different words to describe this, but it is the same quality of mind that they speak of. The letting go is the key that unlocks that door.
Thank you for this. A report or description of mental states is benign and helps others to understand. If all your posts were like this, I would have no criticisms of what you say, and indeed I might learn a lot. My previous criticism is that this "letting go" does not apparently apply to your criticisms of the classical Theravadan approach. Perhaps you might let them go as well. It is possible that other people - on DW and elsewhere - experience what you are talking about here, but they get there by a different sort of practice.

Why not give them a chance to share this, without saying that their approach cannot be done?
As I said above, letting go of all dialectics is the key. Perhaps there are people here who see and experience this. I would love to hear them speak up. For myself, the letting go must take place first, then the nature of mind and all phenomena can be 'seen' as I wrote above. If it is a result of something, I can't fathom what that would be aside from letting go. I am not using the letting go as a vehicle 'to' somewhere. I am simply removing the chatter, then all mental activity loses itself in the space of emptiness. It is a vast space, endless, and knowing. If you understand what I'm talking about, please speak up and let's move off the dialectics and sectarian chatter.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:40 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:56 am
As I said above, letting go of all dialectics is the key. Perhaps there are people here who see and experience this. I would love to hear them speak up. For myself, the letting go must take place first, then the nature of mind and all phenomena can be 'seen' as I wrote above. If it is a result of something, I can't fathom what that would be aside from letting go. I am not using the letting go as a vehicle 'to' somewhere. I am simply removing the chatter, then all mental activity loses itself in the space of emptiness. It is a vast space, endless, and knowing. If you understand what I'm talking about, please speak up and let's move off the dialectics and sectarian chatter.
Many thanks for this. People might be more inclined to speak up if they were not told that the approach they have been following, and which they often have strong affection and loyalty towards, is somehow wrong or sub-standard.

The point you make about letting go taking place first is really interesting. It would indeed be good to hear what others have to say about this. It might be that for some Theravadan practitioners there is a degree of "letting go" involved in their understanding of Mundane Right View (i.e. they see the world more as kamma, and less as their own agency) or via a meditation practice such as described in the Satipatthana Sutta, where their "own" thoughts are let go of by being seen in a more impersonal and objective way. Or maybe dana involves some letting go of what was erroneously thought of as "mine". It might be that such a letting go is less dramatic and comprehensive than that which you have described, but is useful for some people nevertheless.

Also, it might be the case that a more comprehensive letting go is simply not possible for many people at an early stage of the practice. They hear the words, but are unable to understand them. (I remember a talk by Ajahn Sumedho in which he describes his initial frustration with being told to "let go". "Yes, but how do I do it??!!") For such people, perhaps preparation is needed. They need to have other insights first, they need to quieten the mind or to focus on different things in order to allow the letting go to happen at a later stage of their practice. Given that they can't let go to the extent that you appear to have experienced, that they can't understand the words, perhaps due to lack of role-models, then they are using morality and concentration and other insights to get the mind in a place where letting go is possible for them. Different people, different approaches. One size does not fit all. Another way of seeing this is in terms of Parami. Perhaps those who can let go earlier have a different set of parami from those who are still struggling with that concept, but whose speech is near-faultless or who are happy with dana. This is, of course, standard stuff from the suttas, which characterise the practice as a path, or as a process, or as the removal or purification of mental states over time.

Here's a very nice little thread from a few years back:
viewtopic.php?t=8130

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Saengnapha » Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:25 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:40 am

Also, it might be the case that a more comprehensive letting go is simply not possible for many people at an early stage of the practice. They hear the words, but are unable to understand them. (I remember a talk by Ajahn Sumedho in which he describes his initial frustration with being told to "let go". "Yes, but how do I do it??!!") For such people, perhaps preparation is needed. They need to have other insights first, they need to quieten the mind or to focus on different things in order to allow the letting go to happen at a later stage of their practice. Given that they can't let go to the extent that you appear to have experienced, that they can't understand the words, perhaps due to lack of role-models, then they are using morality and concentration and other insights to get the mind in a place where letting go is possible for them. Different people, different approaches. One size does not fit all. Another way of seeing this is in terms of Parami. Perhaps those who can let go earlier have a different set of parami from those who are still struggling with that concept, but whose speech is near-faultless or who are happy with dana. This is, of course, standard stuff from the suttas, which characterise the practice as a path, or as a process, or as the removal or purification of mental states over time.
I'm wondering if you are a teacher. The things you mention above I can see as being concerns of a teacher and how best to present things to different kinds of people. No doubt that this has some value depending on what you are presenting. But I think this kind of letting go I am speaking of is triggered often by some 'problem', something that eats at a person until they are ready to explode. Then, suddenly a moment of clarity that allows this letting go. This is the way it happened for me when I was a young man. When that letting go faltered, I would desperately grasp and cling to it until I recognized my folly and just let go again. I never practiced anything like meditation to prepare myself for it. I am only saying that it may not be necessary to prepare for this letting go. But, you need a reason to let go and I think that reason is dukkha. You just get to the point where you don't want it any longer and when that letting go happens, something really profound takes place, a 'seeing' I had no idea was possible. But I'm sure that it will be different for different folks. This can happen for anyone, I have no doubt, but it seems they have to be interested in this.

User avatar
Crazy cloud
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 8:55 am

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Crazy cloud » Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:37 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:56 am

As I said above, letting go of all dialectics is the key. Perhaps there are people here who see and experience this. I would love to hear them speak up. For myself, the letting go must take place first, then the nature of mind and all phenomena can be 'seen' as I wrote above. If it is a result of something, I can't fathom what that would be aside from letting go. I am not using the letting go as a vehicle 'to' somewhere. I am simply removing the chatter, then all mental activity loses itself in the space of emptiness. It is a vast space, endless, and knowing. If you understand what I'm talking about, please speak up and let's move off the dialectics and sectarian chatter.
This is something I can relate to fully in my own practice, and it is quite frustrating that it's so hard to make this understood to other practitioners, even in the same lineage, sect or whatever kind of community one belongs to.
If you didn't care
What happened to me
And I didn't care for you

We would zig-zag our way
Through the boredom and pain
Occasionally glancing up through the rain

Wondering which of the
Buggers to blame
And watching for pigs on the wing
- Roger Waters

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Drawing parallels with nature to rationalize Buddhism

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:00 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:25 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:40 am

Also, it might be the case that a more comprehensive letting go is simply not possible for many people at an early stage of the practice. They hear the words, but are unable to understand them. (I remember a talk by Ajahn Sumedho in which he describes his initial frustration with being told to "let go". "Yes, but how do I do it??!!") For such people, perhaps preparation is needed. They need to have other insights first, they need to quieten the mind or to focus on different things in order to allow the letting go to happen at a later stage of their practice. Given that they can't let go to the extent that you appear to have experienced, that they can't understand the words, perhaps due to lack of role-models, then they are using morality and concentration and other insights to get the mind in a place where letting go is possible for them. Different people, different approaches. One size does not fit all. Another way of seeing this is in terms of Parami. Perhaps those who can let go earlier have a different set of parami from those who are still struggling with that concept, but whose speech is near-faultless or who are happy with dana. This is, of course, standard stuff from the suttas, which characterise the practice as a path, or as a process, or as the removal or purification of mental states over time.
I'm wondering if you are a teacher. The things you mention above I can see as being concerns of a teacher and how best to present things to different kinds of people. No doubt that this has some value depending on what you are presenting. But I think this kind of letting go I am speaking of is triggered often by some 'problem', something that eats at a person until they are ready to explode. Then, suddenly a moment of clarity that allows this letting go. This is the way it happened for me when I was a young man. When that letting go faltered, I would desperately grasp and cling to it until I recognized my folly and just let go again. I never practiced anything like meditation to prepare myself for it. I am only saying that it may not be necessary to prepare for this letting go. But, you need a reason to let go and I think that reason is dukkha. You just get to the point where you don't want it any longer and when that letting go happens, something really profound takes place, a 'seeing' I had no idea was possible. But I'm sure that it will be different for different folks. This can happen for anyone, I have no doubt, but it seems they have to be interested in this.
Yes, I completely agree that Dukkha is the reason one needs to let go. And that different people will experience this differently and have different needs. Some, for example, benefit greatly from the Buddha's teaching without having any type of crisis or problem; and conversely, some people have terrible existential crises and remain paralysed or deal with it unskilfully by repression, distraction, or even suicide. I'm struck by the fact that the Buddha himself was a teacher who seemed to have many different approaches to recommend, depending on the plight or situation of those who approached him.

James Tan
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: What is samudayo (arising)? What is it that is arising?

Post by James Tan » Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:20 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:31 am

I don't disagree with you. But, I do disagree with you. I find any description that I give about these matters utterly inconclusive because of the nature of description, whether it seems orderly or not, because of its source in the thought structure. It doesn't change anything. In a sense, there are only wrong views and we are like drowning men grasping at something to save us. This thought structure wants to survive. I don't think there is any 'right' structure to work with it. This is part of the illusion. It is grasping.
The situation is,
in the relative sense , the Buddha says there is a relative right view , in the absolute sense , right view is the cessation of defilements / Nibbana .
You assert that Ug maintain there is No way which is just a different perspective .
How do you explain more than 500 disciples attained arahantship at the Buddha time ?!

The thought structure you are portraying is not the ultimate dilemma that is something unable to be deconstructed .
The illusion veil will be unfolded once we abandon the ignorance when following the noble eight right path and thus attain the right view .
Following that is cutting off the craving and defilements .Therefore , nothing is change other than the Perspective of the mind .
:reading:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests