Ajahn Sucitto: Fragmentation & Distancing from Experience

[tiltbillings]

Not my loss. He is not saying anything I have not heard before and said a lot better by others. The problem is not one of you guys have even tried to make sense out of "ground og being." What does it mean?

If you read my previous post you’ll see I did exactly that
“So he starts off talking about calm and continues on to describe it as a ground of being, "ground" speaks to me of solidity and stableness and non airy-fairiness, "being" I suppose could refer to a living being but even so it makes no sense as a creation of a belief in Atman, to me in his usage here he is talking about be-ing as opposed to do-ing as this is a very important factor of a state of calm. So calm is a solid stable non airy-fairy state of letting go of doing and just be-ing”

This makes a lot more sense to me than saying he is defining calm as Atman then contrasting it with Atman as you appear to be doing.

And please re-read my previous post. Your "explanation" is unnecessarily too convoluted. The problem is with "ground of being" is that it carries baggage. I guess I can allow that he is ignorant of that.

The benefit of the doubt would be that he really has no clue as what it means by those who coined and shaped the expression such Huxley and Tillich.

Could be so, but why is it necessary to defend the virtue of Huxley and Tillich?

Huh? No one is defending the virtues of Huxley and Tillich. The point is that "ground of being" has conceptual baggage. To ignore it, if you know it, is unskillful.

="Goofaholix"]

This is a lot of conceptual contortion-ism to get at something that could have been stated very clearly and very simply.

Yes, true if one is primarily learning the dhamma on the conceptual level, however if one is primarily learning the dhamma on the conceptual level then I think this is the least of your worries.

If one is learning the Dhamma, it is best to have it carefully and accurately presented.

That might make sense if we were reading something written that was intended to be mulled over, but in a talk that moves from one point to another, not so much.

Listening to dhamma talks is not like listening to a maths or science lecture, unless perhaps if your teachers are Burmese. A dhamma talk uses conceptual language to point to something beyond the conceptual level.

Which is why there is no need for something like "ground of being."

I for one appreciate teachers who don’t just regurgitate tired old phraseology but speak from the heart finding new ways of expressing old truths and challenging my thinking and attachments.

There are plenty of teachers who do quite well with presenting the Dhamma.

You might not be into that, that’s fine, but I think setting yourself up as the phraseology police is not really a skilful way of listening or reading a dhamma talk and seems a bit of a baah humbug type attitude.

No police here; just wondering why such a concept - as I have pointed out what it is in the two quotes above - is used by a Buddhist teacher.

[Goofaholix]

And please re-read my previous post. You "explanation" is unnecessarily too convoluted. The problem is with "ground of being" is that it carries baggage. I guess I can allow that he is ignorant of that.

I'm sorry if you find my explanation unnecessarily too convoluted, it makes sense to me and yours does not. You haven't made any attempt to explain whether my interpretation of your position is correct and why it does make sense to you so I'm in no position to judge it's relative un-convolutedness.

Huh? No one is defending the virtues of Huxley and Tillich. The point is that "ground of being" has conceptual baggage. To ignore it, if you know it, is unskillful.

But who is the one carrying the baggage? Not Ajahn Sucitto I'm sure.

If one is learning the Dhamma, it is best to have it carefully and accurately presented.

I disagree, I don't consider myself a baby that requires spoonfeeding. Your concern is valid assuming an audience of relative newcomers however.

No police here; just wondering why such a concept - as I have what it is in the two quote above - is used by a Buddhist teacher.

Reading through this thread I see more than just wondering going on. I could really care less what phraseology Ajahn Sucitto uses however I'm happy to defend his right to use it, just as I'd defend your right to question it however to do so so doggedly seems pretty unnecessary to me.

[christopher:::]

First you said "8 minutes in," which I would read to go to about 7 minutes and start listening. Then you say the first 10 mins. All I can say, Chris:::, is shame on you for misrepresenting poor Ven Sucitto. Universe, God, Cosmic Unity in your sentence -"About 8 minutes in he addresses the "Ground of Being" issue directly, saying that Buddha definitely did *not* present us with a fixed answer about the Universe, God, Cosmic Unity, etc" - are your words, not his. You have misrepresented him. Sucitto, 8:11 in, is say not saying that the Buddha is saying there is no fixed answer about these things - Universe, God, Cosmic Unity . He said, 7:17 in, that the Buddha was not definite in defining nibbana. Also, I did not hear "Ground of Being" used in those ten mins. What I would come away from that talk is that "ground of being" in the other talk is not a skillful use of the term and that the use of the expression is a bit unfortunately clumsy. And I come away from this latest talk is that it is okay and you are hearing things there that are not there.

I would expect from you, however, to at least accurately portray what Ven Sucitto is saying, which you really, really did not do.

Tilt, if accepting responsibility for misrepresenting the meaning of Ven Sucitto's message on my part will allow us to let this issue fall away, then i gladly accept that responsibility. Seems like holding on to this topic is getting us nowhere. Definitely not getting to the heart of Ven. Sucitto's message, which i have tried my best to convey, perhaps at times clumsily, but which is best conveyed by Venerable himself, if one takes the time to listen to his dhamma talks.

Which you took the time to do. Thank you!

Anyone care for a tunafish sandwich?

[tiltbillings]

And please re-read my previous post. You "explanation" is unnecessarily too convoluted. The problem is with "ground of being" is that it carries baggage. I guess I can allow that he is ignorant of that.

I'm sorry if you find my explanation unnecessarily too convoluted, it makes sense to me and yours does not. You haven't made any attempt to explain whether my interpretation of your position is correct and why it does make sense to you so I'm in no position to judge it's relative un-convolutedness.

So, how the expression "ground of being" has been historically coined, defined and used and understood makes no sense to you, but for you to try to make sense out of an expression you did not know makes sense, even after you find out that it is a word that carries connotation and denotations that really do not quite fit the Dhamnma. Okay.

Huh? No one is defending the virtues of Huxley and Tillich. The point is that "ground of being" has conceptual baggage. To ignore it, if you know it, is unskillful.

But who is the one carrying the baggage? Not Ajahn Sucitto I'm sure.

If he is using the expression, knowing he the expression carries baggage, which words and phrases do, and ignoring that baggage is not very skillful.

No police here; just wondering why such a concept - as I have what it is in the two quote above - is used by a Buddhist teacher.

Reading through this thread I see more than just wondering going on. I could really care less what phraseology Ajahn Sucitto uses however I'm happy to defend his right to use it, just as I'd defend your right to question it however to do so so doggedly seems pretty unnecessary to me.

He (that is, you) said doggedly. He can use any expression or word he wants, but that does not mean what he says should not - cannot - be questioned. So what is the problem that you need to keep this up? What exactly are you defending?

[christopher:::]

I could be wrong but my sense is that if Ajahn Sucitto were to join us right now his response to this discussion would look something like this...

[tiltbillings]

Tilt, if accepting responsibility for misrepresenting the meaning of Ven Sucitto's message on my part will allow us to let this issue fall away, then i gladly accept that responsibility.

Ah, but do you actually admit that you misrepresented what he said in those early minutes of the talk? Don't be patrionizing here if you reallky want to talk.

Seems like holding on to this topic is getting us nowhere. Definitely not getting to the heart of Ven. Sucitto's message, which i have tried my best to convey, perhaps at times clumsily, but which is best conveyed by Venerable himself, if one takes the time to listen to his dhamma talks.

Which you took the time to do. Thank you!

Rather than rely on Ven Sucitto or anyone else, start over with a new thread, and make the point yourself, consisely and clearly as an OP.

[christopher:::]

Rather than rely on Ven Sucitto or anyone else, start over with a new thread, and make the point yourself, consisely and clearly as an OP.

I don't think i could do that in a skillful way, Tilt. Really! I'm not a dhamma teacher. Plus, our discussion so far, combined with a careful listen to Ven Sucitto's thoughts (on fragmentation, self-making, view-making and how we distance our "selves" from experience) makes the point far more consisely and clearly then i'd have any hope of doing with a new OP...

And sorry if i sound patronizing, i will make a greater effort not to. It's just there is some humor here in our situation that it's difficult to avoid seeing, imo, if one takes some deep breaths, calms the mind and steps back a bit...

[tiltbillings]

I don't think i could do that in a skillful way, Tilt. Really! I'm not a dhamma teacher.

Of course you can. You do not have to be a Dhamma teacher. Put something out there, let it be a basis for discussion, or rework Ven Sucitto’s statement so it does not have the “god” problem of “ground of being.”

Let me make one more point here. However Ven Sucitto meant “Ground of Being,” it has, in general educated parlance, a meaning that is defining of God/Godhead.

So if one were to say this:

And so instead of there being a properly established Ground of Being that is bright, luminous, immaculate,

One is saying this:

And so instead of there being a properly established The Divine Ultimate Basis Upon Which All Things Exist that is bright, luminous, immaculate,

Contemporary New Age catchphrases describing God as the "Ground of Being," as the "Eternal Now," and as "Spiritual Presence" (in tandem with the view that God is not an entity among entities but rather is "Being-Itself") - notions which Eckhart Tolle, for example, has invoked repeatedly throughout his career - were of course pioneered by Tillich.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

[tiltbillings]

Of course you can. You do not have to be a Dhamma teacher. Put something out there, let it be a basis for discussion, or rework Ven Sucitto’s statement so it does not have the “god” problem of “ground of being.”

I made an attempt to do that in the OP and then a number of times during the discussion, to no avail, Tilt, as has Goofaholix.

I have not a clue what you two are talking about.

I'm glad to hear that Ajahn Sucitto's meaning has now become clearer for you, and hopefully others as well. Listening directly to his dhamma talk seems to be key.

And what meaning is that?

Sorry for any poor word choices on my part that added to the confusion.

The poor word choice was that of Sucitto's, and you reading stuff into Sucitto's second talk that just was not there.

[Goofaholix]

So, how the expression "ground of being" has been historically coined, defined and used and understood makes no sense to you, but for you to try to make sense out of an expression you did not know makes sense, even after you find out that it is a word that carries connotation and denotations that really do not quite fit the Dhamnma. Okay.

I can't really say I understood that but assume you meant you don't think he really meant Atman as you impliedd earlier.

So if we know he didn't mean Atman, and my explanation is too convoluted then pretty much we've said enough on the subject.

But while you're on a mission of purging Buddhism of inappropriate phrases here's a few more to add to your list;

Meditation, not a translation of the Pali word Bhavana but judeo christian term for contemplative prayer.

Suffering, we all know this isn't a good translation of the word Dukkha.

Retreat, I don't even know the Pali word for this but it brings up images of franciscan monks cloistered away.

Abbot, Monk, Nun, Monastery, all judeo christian terms which carry baggage that doesn't quite fit with the Theravadin world view.

Let me know when you need some more.

He can use any expression or word he wants, but that does not mean what he says should not - cannot - be questioned. So what is the problem that you need to keep this up? What exactly are you defending?

Common sense.

[Goofaholix]

I have not a clue what you two are talking about.

I find most dhamma teachers when confronted with students who exhibit wrong view don't brow beat them into submission. They probe and question and start to have a clue of what they are talking about, and continue on until the student starts to realise for himself how his assumptions are on shaky ground.

[tiltbillings]

So, how the expression "ground of being" has been historically coined, defined and used and understood makes no sense to you, but for you to try to make sense out of an expression you did not know makes sense, even after you find out that it is a word that carries connotation and denotations that really do not quite fit the Dhamnma. Okay.

I can't really say I understood that but assume you meant you don't think he really meant Atman as you impliedd earlier.

Other than he is essentially misusing the word, I have no idea why he would opt to use a word that essentially means God, do you? Where did the Buddha teach "ground of being?" Which texts. I want to read it. I am not interested in an idiosyncratic take that differs from what the Buddha taught. There is enough of that stuff going around as it is. The best take on this is that he does not really understand the words essential usage and is using a more unnecessary new-agey sort of notion with "ground of being," but ground of being -existence - does not really seem appropriate to the Buddha's Dhamma.

But while you're on a mission of purging Buddhism of inappropriate phrases here's a few more to add to your list;

Meditation, not a translation of the Pali word Bhavana but judeo christian term for contemplative prayer.

Suffering, we all know this isn't a good translation of the word Dukkha.

Retreat, I don't even know the Pali word for this but it brings up images of franciscan monks cloistered away.

Abbot, Monk, Nun, Monastery, all judeo christian terms which carry baggage that doesn't quite fit with the Theravadin world view.

Let me know when you need some more.

Cute, but no cigar. It is easy to go from the Pali to these words with out getting lost in the forest. "Ground of Being" is a different animal. I am not trying to purge anything from anything. That is your attempted spin on this, but that I have raised a question about the use of a God term and you and Chris::: seem not to get it or to let it go.

He can use any expression or word he wants, but that does not mean what he says should not - cannot - be questioned. So what is the problem that you need to keep this up? What exactly are you defending?

Common sense.

Then you are going to agree with me after all this? Good.

[Goofaholix]

Other than he is essentially misusing the word, I have no idea why he would opt to use a word that essentially means God, do you? Where did the Buddha teach "ground of being?" Which texts. I want to read it. I am not interested in an idiosyncratic take that differs from what the Buddha taught. There is enough of that stuff going around as it is. The best take on this is that he does not really understand the words essential usage and is using a more unnecessary new-agey sort of notion with "ground of being," but ground of being -existence - does not really seem appropriate to the Buddha's Dhamma.

Well if it really bothers you the why don't you write to him and ask him.

As for me I'm happy with how I've interpreted the passage, if that's alright with you.

Cute, but no cigar. It is easy to go from the Pali to these words with out getting lost in the forest. "Ground of Being" is a different animal. I am not trying to purge anything from anything. That is your attempted spin on this, but that I have raised a question about the use of a God term and you and Chris::: seem not to get it or to let it go.

Well, I didn't get lost in the forest with the Ajahn Sucitto quote either, so maybe next time carry a bag of breadcrumbs with you.

So you do think he meant god after all? that means you basically think he was saying in a nutshell "calm is god and this is different from self". Well as they say in Thailand up to you but I'm happy to give a teacher of longstanding the benefit of a doubt that he isn't slipping new heresies subliminally into his talks.

On reflection there are a couple of terms that do bother me when I hear them in the Buddhist context, one is "Buddhist lent" but that's pretty harmless, another is "Sin" but that's pretty rare to hear in Buddhist circles other than by non english speakers. So from that point of view I can see why you'd be annoyed, but at the end of the day it's like anything, we have to let it go.

As is always case with Buddhist practice the middle path is the right path here, neither blindly accepting what a teacher says nor accusing him of corrupting dhamma.

[Dhammanando]

The problem is with "ground of being" is that it carries baggage. I guess I can allow that he is ignorant of that.

Or perhaps "ground of being" is just Ajahn Sucitto's Cockney pronunciation of "ground up beans".In that case obviously he would be alluding to the Satipatthana Sutta's simile for the thirty-two parts of the body.

[tiltbillings]

Well if it really bothers you the why don't you write to him and ask him.

I am having something of a discussion about it here. He is not my teacher, so I don't care. If he were I'd ask him, but since this quotation with this loaded expression was put out there I have raised a question about it here and - geez- you guys just keep on chewing this bone, with no real answers as to why "ground of being."

As for me I'm happy with how I've interpreted the passage, if that's alright with you.

Even though it is a bit convoluted, fine. I hope you have learned something now about how "Ground of Being" is generally used. Always good to learn something new.

Well, I didn't get lost in the forest with the Ajahn Sucitto quote either, so maybe next time carry a bag of breadcrumbs with you.

You are so cute, I just want to pinch your cheeks. The thing is, you still have no clue as what Sucitto meant; you just have your guess.

So you do think he meant god after all? that means you basically think he was saying in a nutshell "calm is god and this is different from self". Well as they say in Thailand up to you but I'm happy to give a teacher of longstanding the benefit of a doubt that he isn't slipping new heresies subliminally into his talks.

I have no idea what he meant or why he choose to use that loaded expression. I am not accusing him of heresies. That is your attempt at spinning this. Simply, whatever it might be, it is a very poor choice of words on his part. The only other explanation which has been offered above, which actually makes sense, is that Sucitto has slipped in a bit of Dzogchen, but that raises a other set of questions. I am happy to stay with the clarity of the Pali suttas.

But if you like the idea of union of one's essential purity with the basis-of-all, Dzogchen would be the way to go; however, mixing traditions and technical terminology is not without is problems.

[tiltbillings]

The problem is with "ground of being" is that it carries baggage. I guess I can allow that he is ignorant of that.

Or perhaps "ground of being" is just Ajahn Sucitto's Cockney pronunciation of "ground up beans".In that case obviously he would be alluding to the Satipatthana Sutta's simile for the thirty-two parts of the body.

At least that keeps in the Pali texts; no need then to consider the Dzogchen option as an explanation.

[christopher:::]

From the OP...

The key observation [Ajahn Sucitto] makes (if i understand him correctly) is that we need to create/maintain a ground or center to our practice that is whole, equanimous, compassionate, relatively empty of self. From there we can work with our fetters and hindrances, unravel what are often unconscious knots in our psyche. When we don't do this properly we may go through the actions of practice- even become "attached" to our practice- but it will be ineffective, because we're operating from the point of view of a self "doing" meditation, doing metta, etc... and that just doesn't work.

And now Venerable's thoughts, edited slightly to (hopefully) clarify, as per Tilt's request...

"If we attach to calm then we tend to go into trance states, or we may find ourselves just loosing attention, becoming sleepy. If we attach to the ideas of impermanence we can find ourselves becoming distanced from experience, that is not really resonating with it, not really tuning into it, not really feeling it, being present with it. We can develop certain dismissive attitudes or dismissive stance towards the experiences that happen. "Oh that's just changing stuff, so what."

And so instead of there being a properly established ground of [experience] that's [calm, quiet, expansive, equanimous, compassionate] we develop views, ideas, opinions, standpoints that are not [calm, quiet, expansive, equanimous, compassionate] but that tend to become aspects of "My Self." And this means there's a certain fragmentation that occurs, my self as an experience in the way I'm using it is something that splits away from experience and thereby thinks it has the experience. "Here I am having this, I can get this, I can do this, I can make this happen" and so forth.

We descend from what was an essential integrity and essential wholeness back into behavioral dualism. And then of course the whole thing begins to break down because for a certain amount of time we are able to "do" the calm, "do" the metta, "get" the anicca going but its becoming much more dishonest in a way. It becomes a strategy rather then a realization. One is no longer meeting the experience fully and embracing it fully."

~Ajahn Sucitto

I hope that's helpful.

[Goofaholix]

You are so cute, I just want to pinch your cheeks.

As long as it's the ones on my face and you aren't too rough, well, alright then.

[tiltbillings]

You are so cute, I just want to pinch your cheeks.

As long as it's the ones on my face and you aren't too rough, well, alright then.

Face only; I am not that kind of guy, assuming you are a guy.

[Goofaholix]

From the OP...
"If we attach to calm then we tend to go into trance states, or we may find ourselves just loosing attention, becoming sleepy. If we attach to the ideas of impermanence we can find ourselves becoming distanced from experience, that is not really resonating with it, not really tuning into it, not really feeling it, being present with it. We can develop certain dismissive attitudes or dismissive stance towards the experiences that happen. "Oh that's just changing stuff, so what."

And so instead of there being a properly established ground of [experience] that's [calm, quiet, expansive, equanimous, compassionate] we develop views, ideas, opinions, standpoints that are not [calm, quiet, expansive, equanimous, compassionate] but that tend to become aspects of "My Self." And this means there's a certain fragmentation that occurs, my self as an experience in the way I'm using it is something that splits away from experience and thereby thinks it has the experience. "Here I am having this, I can get this, I can do this, I can make this happen" and so forth.

We descend from what was an essential integrity and essential wholeness back into behavioral dualism. And then of course the whole thing begins to break down because for a certain amount of time we are able to "do" the calm, "do" the metta, "get" the anicca going but its becoming much more dishonest in a way. It becomes a strategy rather then a realization. One is no longer meeting the experience fully and embracing it fully."

Re-reading through it again without the ground of dissention to me it can be summarised to say that calm is about be-ing, not about do-ing, if you slip into do-ing it will become fragmented and "the self" will be very much in the drivers seat, which is not what you want.

Any grounds for revision tilt?