REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by danieLion »

...delete...
daverupa wrote:...Instead, appeal to a common human morality offers a much more fruitful beginning. Cause and effect with respect to wholesome & unwholesome states of body and mind dovetails well with this approach, and offers a practical experience of kamma prior to emphasizing ideation about it, avoiding two of the more knotty topics for newcomers.

Meditation further builds on this approach, per the gradual training - delightfully and joyfully free of worry about these things.

:heart:
Thanks Dave. For practical purposes, I'm inlcined to agree with this.

...delete....
Last edited by danieLion on Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by danieLion »

...delete...
Last edited by danieLion on Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by danieLion »

...delete...
Last edited by danieLion on Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by danieLion »

...delete...
Last edited by danieLion on Sun Mar 10, 2013 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by daverupa »

danieLion wrote:our incredible capacity as humans to invent, concoct, fabricate, imagine, and more often than not delude ourselves into believing all kinds of things we have no way of testing the ultimate validity of.
Indeed; so you go on to ask about belief v. knowledge. The five things that can turn out in one of two ways, however, cover much of the same ground: "Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views", per MN 95.

For an example of something that can be known, as opposed to simply believed, especially in the context of views and whether something is imagined or not, we have the following:
DN 1 wrote:"When those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future, assert on sixty-two grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future — that too is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible.
"Conditioned by contact" is directly observable, and I note that occasions of seeing with wisdom in the suttas turn out differently than the previous five approaches to learning. They have only dukkha and dukkhanirodha as learning targets, not conceptually satisfying explications of various issues such as past and future, and this ...targeted phenomenology?... avoids these five problems.

You can directly know your posture, for example, and it is on the basis of this kind of certain knowledge (i.e. personal knowledge, per SN 12.68) that meditation (satisampajanna, guarded senses, right effort, satipatthana, etc.) is undertaken.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5613
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by robertk »

the Buddha's teachings on the perceptual delusions of human cognition suggests that he'd agree with Nietzsche here. In this sense, belief in rebirth, whether through faith or knowledge, is not only ultimately a matter of personal choice, but also impossible to disentangle from our incredible capacity as humans to invent, concoct, fabricate, imagine, and more often than not delude ourselves into believing all kinds of things we have no way of testing the ultimate validity of.
from my perspective it seems far more fanciful to imagine that humans , for example, were merely a matter of pure chance. i try as much as possible to understand the materialist point of view but it seems so incredibly far-fetched thAT i really wonder how anyone could buy into it. :thinking:
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

daverupa wrote:I don't think so; rebirth and metaphysical retribution is liable to drive away secular and materialist inquirers, in my experience.
And teaching that great effort is required for enlightenment is liable to drive away lazy inquirers, while I'm sure an emphasis on the Buddha's disdain for the Caste system is likely to drive away bigoted and ethnocentric inquirers. Hell, if we wanted to, we could stop emphasizing the unwholesomeness of violence or sexual misconduct in order to make Buddhism more attractive to the violent and promiscuous inquirer!

I'm not, of course, comparing materialism with racism or brutality; I'm simply pointing out that the best way to destroy the core integrity of any movement or philosophy is to worry too much about making it palatable. The question is not, "What can we take out of the Dhamma in order to make it more appealing to those who hold ideas in opposition to it," but instead, "What can we take out of the Dhamma that still leaves an effective vehicle for liberation?"

Buddhism is not a secular or materialist philosophy, so why are we surprised that an accurate portrayal of its teachings scares away secularists and materialists? In my opinion, many figures in Western Buddhism, most of them lay teachers as opposed to monastics, have been trying far, far too hard to neuter any and all elements of the Dhamma that might ever make anyone uncomfortable. In most popular Dha(r/m)ma books or lectures you'll hear today, there's no talk about rebirth, no talk about the horrible karmic consequences of violence or promiscuity or intoxication, no talk about real non-self, and no talk about anything that could be considered even vaguely offensive to the secular or New Age tastes of those in attendance. Instead, the emphasis is on "interconnectedness" and self-affirmation. And I'm sure it gets more people to show up and even maybe more people to spend some time on the cushion. But in the end, we're not doing anyone any favors by taking out the parts of the Dhamma that challenge our unwholesome ways or refuse to give us easy comfort.

A monk I spoke to once said that truth and happiness were buried treasures, and unless one was focused on one particular spot to dig, he or she wouldn't get anywhere. "Spiritual tourism," he said, was like digging a few holes around the spot and hoping their depths all add up to one very deep hole, while this neutered, New Age spirituality was like digging one small hole and then convincing yourself you found the treasure when the ground starts getting hard. He cautioned that while the former leads just to disappointment, the latter is even more dangerous; while the former goes away frustrated, the latter rushes out to start writing checks based on the cash they think they have! This is the danger of making the Dhamma palatable at the expense of its core message: It creates a web of self-affirmation and comfort that tricks people, a warm and fuzzy blanket that won't hold up against the cold winds of reality. If we have real compassion and real concern for propagating that Dhamma that we most revere, we won't just take out the parts that are real bummers for those who aren't interested, any more than a biology professor would see his lab volunteers dwindling and say, "Well, I guess it's time to stop asking that my students accept evolution."

I'm sorry if this seems like a tangent or a rant, but I think it relates to the core issue of how we can balance the core truths of the Dhamma, even when they are diametrically opposed to modern American sensibilities, with an approach that is gentle enough to get the truth out to people without scaring them away - and this entire discussion about the importance of rebirth for modern practitioners is at the heart of such a struggle. I don't claim to know the answer, mind you, but I have no problem saying that too many of us have gone too far in one direction at the expense of the Buddha's noble dispensation.

Just my thoughts.
:anjali:
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by daverupa »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:worry... about making it palatable... neuter any and all elements of the Dhamma that might ever make anyone uncomfortable... we're not doing anyone any favors by taking out the parts of the Dhamma that challenge our unwholesome ways or refuse to give us easy comfort... a web of self-affirmation and comfort that tricks people, a warm and fuzzy blanket that won't hold up against the cold winds of reality.
This does all look problematic. Not worrying about rebirth, however, doesn't run afoul of any of this. Arguing for or against, now what is that but agitation with contact as condition?
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by mikenz66 »

Great summary LY!

:anjali:
Mike
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by daverupa »

polarbuddha101 wrote:
The Pataliya sutta: Samyutta 42.13
This sutta demonstrates...
Well, checking Section III, I note that the vaunted right view with effluents (brought up by the headman but not labelled as such) is set aside as one of four perplexing claims, and it is this perplexity which is discussed in my signature, to be overcome without reference to kamma or rebirth. Therefore, this bhavana happens in the absence of any talk of rebirth, as stated.

This headman had confidence in the Buddha, and still the Buddha did not teach one of the four ethical views listed therein. He taught, instead, kammapatha and the brahmaviharas, and showed how joy as a factor of awakening could be generated in the absence of speculation.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by tiltbillings »

Please do not turn this thread into another "the great rebirth debate" Please pay attention to the OP.
>> 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
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by Nyana »

LonesomeYogurt wrote:This is the danger of making the Dhamma palatable at the expense of its core message: It creates a web of self-affirmation and comfort that tricks people, a warm and fuzzy blanket that won't hold up against the cold winds of reality. If we have real compassion and real concern for propagating that Dhamma that we most revere, we won't just take out the parts that are real bummers for those who aren't interested, any more than a biology professor would see his lab volunteers dwindling and say, "Well, I guess it's time to stop asking that my students accept evolution."
Indeed. These issues of rebirth, kamma, and merit (puñña) are also connected to the relevance and sustainability of the Buddhadhamma in general, and the monastic saṅgha in particular. For example, if one were to reject the teachings on these issues, then what is the point of retaining and transmitting the Pāli Tipiṭaka? What is the purpose for entering the monastic path of renunciation and transmitting the pāṭimokkha? And what are the ethical motivations of the laity to provide for the material needs of monastic renunciates?
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by Nyana »

daverupa wrote:Therefore, this bhavana happens in the absence of any talk of rebirth, as stated.
No, it doesn't.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by LonesomeYogurt »

daverupa wrote:This does all look problematic. Not worrying about rebirth, however, doesn't run afoul of any of this.
The only reason rebirth is a question at all in American Buddhism is because it runs afoul of our precious materialist/secularist American religion. The fact that most converts to Buddhism are those who are burned out by traditional Western religious thought only compounds the problem. Rebirth is, was, and has been a pillar of Buddhist thought since Gotama himself, and it is only now that the Dhamma has come to the West that the concept of rebirth-free Buddhism is even entertained.

So let's be clear: I don't worry about rebirth. It essentially never crosses my mind. More importantly, I don't care if others don't worry about rebirth. I don't think the Buddha encouraged us to worry or fret or obsess over anything, especially questions like transmigration or karma.

But let's also be clear here: The vast majority of secularists or materialists who are interested in Buddhism are doing more than "not worrying about rebirth." They're actively attempting to get rid of it. They're actively attempting to take the Buddha's Dhamma and fit it into the mold of their materialist, secularist culture, casting off anything that might challenge such a worldview. It has nothing to do with actual Buddhist doctrine. It's a fundamental assumption of annihilationism which guides a frantic scouring of the Tipitika for any verse that may allow their views to go unchallenged. Even organizations like the Secular Buddhist Association are clear that aversion to rebirth comes not from any particular Buddhist understanding but instead from the prevailing evidentialist, materialist model through which they view Buddhism. It's Buddhism on their own terms, Buddhist Secularism far more than secular Buddhism.

I have no problem, again, with those who are honest enough to voice their personal doubts about rebirth, or those who claim to not know. I do both constantly. What bothers me immensely, however, is the growing number of individuals who, instead of humbly living with that agnosticism, boldly proclaim that anything their prior assumptions forbid must not only be rendered unimportant but actively cleansed from the spiritual system they otherwise find themselves drawn to - and we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that the vast majority of the "rebirth debate" in modern American Buddhism is not driven by the latter category.

JUST A NOTE: I find this discussion to relevant to the OP as it highlights the motivations and implications of "rebirth-free" Buddhism, which is part and parcel of the larger debate about rebirth's necessity for meditation practice. But if someone disagrees, please slap me on the wrist.
Ñāṇa wrote:Indeed. These issues of rebirth, kamma, and merit (puñña) are also connected to the relevance and sustainability of the Buddhadhamma in general, and the monastic saṅgha in particular. For example, if one were to reject the teachings on these issues, then what is the point of retaining and transmitting the Pāli Tipiṭaka? What is the purpose for entering the monastic path of renunciation and transmitting the pāṭimokkha? And what are the ethical motivations of the laity to provide for the material needs of monastic renunciates?
I think the lack of "secular Buddhists" who are interested at all in ordination is telling indeed. It's a shame; you don't even have to go far in such circles to find outright hostility towards monasticism.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

Post by mikenz66 »

LonesomeYogurt wrote: But let's also be clear here: The vast majority of secularists or materialists who are interested in Buddhism are doing more than "not worrying about rebirth." They're actively attempting to get rid of it. They're actively attempting to take the Buddha's Dhamma and fit it into the mold of their materialist, secularist culture, casting off anything that might challenge such a worldview. ...
Like LY, I don't "worry about rebirth", but I do worry that this secular process also appears to me (from observation) to lead to a devaluation of the entire Path. The whole idea that a total end to suffering is possible. I think that this is a key message in the post by Bhikkhu Pesala http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 91#p233677" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that was quoted in the OP.

As I pointed out much earlier in this thread, I disagree with this OP assumption:
It also implies that some degree of BLIND FAITH is required to progress on The Path, something even the Buddha never demanded.
See:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p234002" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To repeat the important point:
Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others
that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless,
has the Deathless as its goal & consummation;
As Sariputta says in that sutta (and the Buddha agrees) any of us who have not attained the deathless will have to take the Dhamma on conviction/faith.

:anjali:
Mike
Post Reply