Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

mikenz66 wrote:How do you interpret the many passages like the following?

I discerned, as it was actually present, that 'This is stress [dukkha]... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.'

To me, it seems to be talking about experiencing dukkha.

It's the experience of right view; where is that anywhere described as being an experience of dukkha?

Greetings,

Yes - Right View, proper discernment.

Metta,
Retro.

Ron Crouch wrote: Most teachers simply do not tell students that these insight stages exist and are part of the insight path. To me this is a big ethical lapse in our dhamma communities.

Hi Ron,

It is obvious to me from my knowledge of the Nikayas and other stories of enlighted masters (like Milarepa) that there is difficulty to be expected. I have known a fair amount of difficulty in my practice and friends I practice with have shared immense difficulties with me. Im somewhat dubious of the idea of a model that posits a seemingly generic type of difficult phase as a precise step on the path. I agree that whitewashing insight practice by not acknowledging that people often work through intense difficulty is not at all helpful. I also agree that these difficulties may not have arisen at all without the effort to practice. However, my view of practice is much more holistic than the one you and possibly the VM seem to describe. I wont go into to that now. I don't doubt the efficacy of the Burmese techniques or the use of the VM as a guide. I have attended a few of Kenneth Folks workshops and he strikes me as a very authentic and kind person who is doing his best to help people effectively meditate. I suspect that there are ways to mitigate the difficulties that arise without hindering further progress. On the contrary I would say that there are ways to greatly mitigate that difficulty while advancing the process of insight. I think the Buddha spells these ways out in his historical record and I think that the various Buddhist traditions have many of these ways embedded into them. Not only that I think it is our task to continually strive to find new ways and refresh old ones in accord with Buddhist principles. I hope that we strive to do this while at the same time realistically recognizing and acknowledging that the path is not always easy. On the contrary.

Metta

Prasadachitta

daverupa wrote:

mikenz66 wrote:How do you interpret the many passages like the following?

I discerned, as it was actually present, that 'This is stress [dukkha]... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.'

To me, it seems to be talking about experiencing dukkha.

It's the experience of right view; where is that anywhere described as being an experience of dukkha?

In order for there to be right view, there has to be something to view. He clearly describes that dukkha is "actually present." The order of this statement is very clear - first there is the actual experience of dukkha, then investigation into its origin and the way out, then the liberation from them.

Direct experiencing - investigation - liberation: this is how insight unfolds.

Hi Dave, Retro,

daverupa wrote:

mikenz66 wrote:How do you interpret the many passages like the following?

I discerned, as it was actually present, that 'This is stress [dukkha]... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.'

To me, it seems to be talking about experiencing dukkha.

It's the experience of right view; where is that anywhere described as being an experience of dukkha?

Evidently there are many different ways to read the Suttas...

What is quoted above is:

"This is stress [dukkha]...".

I've always presumed that this means that we have to actually examine the dukkha in our experience, not just think about it. See Ajahn Chah's statement that I quoted back here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 55#p188525" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Perhaps it's just semantics, but the Buddha (or Sariputta in this case) talks about even jhana states as being unsatisfactory:

Thanissaro wrote: Ven. Sariputta explains to Ven. Udayin how even the most exquisitely refined and beautiful mental states are beset with dukkha; only Nibbana itself can truly be called "pleasant."

AN 9.34: Nibbana Sutta — Unbinding
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sariputta wrote:"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the abandoning of pleasure & stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with equanimity, that is an affliction for him...

Mike

Prasadachitta wrote:

Ron Crouch wrote: Most teachers simply do not tell students that these insight stages exist and are part of the insight path. To me this is a big ethical lapse in our dhamma communities.

Hi Ron,

It is obvious to me from my knowledge of the Nikayas and other stories of enlighted masters (like Milarepa) that there is difficulty to be expected. I have known a fair amount of difficulty in my practice and friends I practice with have shared immense difficulties with me. Im somewhat dubious of the idea of a model that posits a seemingly generic type of difficult phase as a precise step on the path. I agree that whitewashing insight practice by not acknowledging that people often work through intense difficulty is not at all helpful. I also agree that these difficulties may not have arisen at all without the effort to practice. However, my view of practice is much more holistic than the one you and possibly the VM seem to describe. I wont go into to that now. I don't doubt the efficacy of the Burmese techniques or the use of the VM as a guide. I have attended a few of Kenneth Folks workshops and he strikes me as a very authentic and kind person who is doing his best to help people effectively meditate. I suspect that there are ways to mitigate the difficulties that arise without hindering further progress. On the contrary I would say that there are ways to greatly mitigate that difficulty while advancing the process of insight. I think the Buddha spells these ways out in his historical record and I think that the various Buddhist traditions have many of these ways embedded into them. Not only that I think it is our task to continually strive to find new ways and refresh old ones in accord with Buddhist principles. I hope that we strive to do this while at the same time realistically recognizing and acknowledging that the path is not always easy. On the contrary.

Metta

Prasadachitta

Prasadachitta,

I love your balanced approach to thinking about this stuff. That is the sign of mature practice!

No worries if the VM or Mahasi system doesn't seem like a good fit for you. As you point out, there are other ways to go.

Great points,

Ron

Hi Ron,

It seems to me you're blaming the general problems of discernment on psychotherapy. This might be a good time to recall your "causes aren't correlations" training and incorporate it into your analysis of the relationship between psychotherapy and practice. Psychotherapists have been "harming" (cf. your Dr. Britton reference) people for years, long before several of them co-opted "mindfulness" to attract more clients.

The problem is neither Buddhist nor psychotherapeutic. The problem is dukkha/samsara. There are crappy therapists and crappy meditation teachers and a whole lot of messed up people in the world. "Adversities" will happen. Identifying causes in this mess, as the Buddha duly noted, is merely academic. In the Buddha's sense, then, the "dark night" is much more banal than most of us want to admit. It's not a special occurrence at some so called "stage" on the Path. Perhaps this stems for your belief that the purpose of meditation is to become enlightened? For that, I'd recommend some good doses of Ajahn Sumedho.

The Buddha didn't teach that life is suffering or that the self is a dream. As Thanissaro (Hang on to Your Ego et al) points out, the Buddha taught you need a healthy ego (Thanissaro also, to my surprise, generally speaks highly of psychotherapy as a beneficial supplement to practice). The Buddha didn't eradicate all his senses of self. The Buddha taught what is not self, not that there is no self. He taught us to see our senses of selves for what they are: inconstant (anicca) aggregates (khanda).

Christian Mysticism and practice, are in my opinion, incompatible. I love St. John of the Cross, but Uniting my SOUL with GOD is not part of any Buddhist practice I'm aware of.

Also, you've not addressed the problems inherent in psychotherapeutic classifications/taxonomies/diagnosis tools themselves. Psychopathology is itself culturally bound. Realities like death, old age, sickness, disease transcend cultural boundaries.
metta

Greetings Daniel,

danieLion wrote: Perhaps this stems for your belief that the purpose of meditation is to become enlightened? For that, I'd recommend some good doses of Ajahn Sumedho.

Do you wish to provide a link to at least one relevant reference? It's a bit unreasonable to expect Ron to fish around the talks and works of Ajahn Sumedho on the off chance of stumbling across something pertaining to your note here.

Metta,
Retro.

Hi Daniel,

danieLion wrote: It seems to me you're blaming the general problems of discernment on psychotherapy. ...

I don't see where.

Many teachers, not just Ron (I've quoted Sayadaw Mahasi and Ajahn Chah above) have students who go through various difficulties. The Buddha evidently had students with problems, since there are lots of suttas that talk about how to solve them. Was the Buddha a poor teacher?


Mike

mikenz66 wrote:
Many teachers...have students who go through various difficulties. The Buddha evidently had students with problems, since there are lots of suttas that talk about how to solve them. Was the Buddha a poor teacher?

Hi Mike,
I nowhere claimed practitioners don't have difficulties (so you're question "Was the Buddha a poor teacher?" have no relevance to my post).
metta

danieLion wrote:

mikenz66 wrote:
Many teachers...have students who go through various difficulties. The Buddha evidently had students with problems, since there are lots of suttas that talk about how to solve them. Was the Buddha a poor teacher?

Hi Mike,
I nowhere claimed practitioners don't have difficulties (so you're question "Was the Buddha a poor teacher?" have no relevance to my post).
metta

Sorry, I guess I was misreading:

danieLion wrote:The problem is neither Buddhist nor psychotherapeutic. The problem is dukkha/samsara. There are crappy therapists and crappy meditation teachers and a whole lot of messed up people in the world.

to imply that when people have "dark night" experiences it was because of poor teachers or therapists.


Mike

danieLion wrote: The Buddha didn't eradicate all his senses of self. The Buddha taught what is not self, not that there is no self. He taught us to see our senses of selves for what they are: inconstant (anicca) aggregates (khanda).

Hi Daniel,

I'm curious about the above claim. Can you point to a sutta/s where it negates the Buddha 'eradicating all of his 'sense of selves'. Would a 'sense of self' not be considered a fabrication of mind? And a non-construing mind, one free from fabrications not be free from any 'sense of self' as a result?

nibs

Ron Crouch wrote:As far as the movement in psychology to integrate mindfulness into therapies, as you may imagine, I'm a bit torn about it, and this is something that I've thought a lot about. I'm apprehensive about the gung-ho attitude that many in psychology have about bringing some of these very powerful techniques into people's lives without really understanding the repercussions that they may have. I've met some of the people who are promoting and developing these approaches and while they are universally well-intentioned, it is my personal sense that they don't have a very deep understanding of meditation or how powerfully it can effect the mind.

Ajaan Lee wrote:Some people won't practice concentration because they're afraid of becoming ignorant or going insane. The truth of the matter is that normally we're already ignorant, already insane, and that to practice centering the mind is what will end our ignorance and cure our insanity. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... l#foreword" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

metta

mikenz66 wrote:

danieLion wrote:

mikenz66 wrote:
Many teachers...have students who go through various difficulties. The Buddha evidently had students with problems, since there are lots of suttas that talk about how to solve them. Was the Buddha a poor teacher?

Hi Mike,
I nowhere claimed practitioners don't have difficulties (so you're question "Was the Buddha a poor teacher?" have no relevance to my post).
metta

Sorry, I guess I was misreading:

danieLion wrote:The problem is neither Buddhist nor psychotherapeutic. The problem is dukkha/samsara. There are crappy therapists and crappy meditation teachers and a whole lot of messed up people in the world.

to imply that when people have "dark night" experiences it was because of poor teachers or therapists.


Mike

Yes, I see now. I should've been clearer. People have "dark nights" because they live in darkness (dukkha/samsara). IOW, "dark nights" are dependently originated.
metta

danieLion wrote: The Buddha didn't eradicate all his senses of self. The Buddha taught what is not self, not that there is no self. He taught us to see our senses of selves for what they are: inconstant (anicca) aggregates (khanda).

nibs wrote:Can you point to a sutta/s where it negates the Buddha 'eradicating all of his 'sense of selves'.

I don't understand this sentence. Would you please re-state it? Thanks (If you're asking what I think, consider that in the suttas the Buddha uses personal pronouns to refer to himself all the time).

nibs wrote:"Would a 'sense of self' not be considered a fabrication of mind? And a non-construing mind, one free from fabrications not be free from any 'sense of self' as a result?

nibs

Are you saying being free from fabrications equals ceasing to exist? The only way you could have "no self" is to not exist. IOW, the not-self strategy is an attempt to accurately perceive how one exists (as opposed to who or what one is).
metta