Retro, sometimes these exchanges feel like trying to nail the jelly to the wall!
I guess there is a perception that you have been quick in the past to dismiss certain schools and teachers as not being the Dhamma as opposed to others who are AOK. Whereas now you seem to be redefining your stance as a simple matter of definition - Buddha-dhamma=Buddha-vacana, so unless it is completely traceable in the sutta/vinaya it is not, but possibly in line with Buddha-dhamma and useful.
I don't think if this was perceived as your position from the outset, so many words would have been needed, even though this definition (and the selective way in which it seems to have been applied in the past) may be somewhat problematic or less than kind.
I am not sure if others here would sign under this summary but I for one have no issues with different practitioners placing their emphasis differently and as you say building their raft from different sources. This is what we all do.
Why Meditate?
Re: Why Meditate?
_/|\_
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Why Meditate?
Greetings Dan,
I think you're right that there has been such perceptions and as per my comment above to Mike, I am no longer going to respond to questions that contain false suppositions about what I think or believe.
I see now that by responding to those people and trying to demonstrate what I really believe, the actual fact of my engagement with them is being interpreted as validation of their false suppositions.
Metta,
Retro.
I think you're right that there has been such perceptions and as per my comment above to Mike, I am no longer going to respond to questions that contain false suppositions about what I think or believe.
I see now that by responding to those people and trying to demonstrate what I really believe, the actual fact of my engagement with them is being interpreted as validation of their false suppositions.
Well said.Dan74 wrote:I for one have no issues with different practitioners placing their emphasis differently and as you say building their raft from different sources. This is what we all do.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Why Meditate?
Please clarify what you mean here.retrofuturist wrote: I see now that by responding to those people and trying to demonstrate what I really believe, the actual fact of my engagement with them is being interpreted as validation of their false suppositions.
>> 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
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
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Why Meditate?
Greetings Tilt,
I mean this...
Loaded question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Metta,
Retro.
I mean this...
Loaded question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Does this sound familiar to you, Tilt?A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption, e.g., a presumption of guilt.
Aside from being a logical fallacy, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed. The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious. Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.
This fallacy should be distinguished from that of begging the question, which offers a premise the plausibility of which depends on the truth of the proposition asked about, and which is often an implicit restatement of the proposition.
The term "loaded question" is sometimes used to refer to loaded language that is phrased as a question. This type of question does not necessarily contain a fallacious presupposition, but rather this usage refers to the question having an unspoken and often emotive implication. For example, "Are you a murderer?" would be such a loaded question, as "murder" has a very negative connotation. Such a question may be asked merely to harass or upset the respondent with no intention of listening to their reply, or asked with the full expectation that the respondent will predictably deny it.
A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Do you still beat your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife". This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the askers of said questions have learned to get around this tactic by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Why Meditate?
Is it supposed to sound familiar? Well, it is a good thing I don't do that.retrofuturist wrote:. . .
>> 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
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
Re: Why Meditate?
what a great find that quote was Retro. Should be pinned.
Re: Why Meditate?
As this thread is getting long, I can't find the post that gave me such an impression, but I do not think it was authored by you, Ron.Ron Crouch wrote:Hey Buckwheat - I sure hope that it wasn't me that gave you that impression!Buckwheat wrote:My only problem with the dark night is that somebody on this thread gave me the impression that it is an unavoidable part of the Buddhist path, ...
I am not very informed on Visuddhimagga and Mahasi Sayadaw style buddhism. For my benefit, will you trace the ideas in these paragraphs back to the suttas?
The reason I focus on the Suttas is this: there are so many disparate forms of Buddhism, I find it prudent to rely on the Suttas as interpreted by the Thai forest tradition, sprinkled with a little bit of Zen for aesthetics and inspiration (I see Koan's as wonderful little jokes... they make me laugh!).Ron Crouch wrote:The reason that I give this advice is because there is what I would call a “point of no return” on the path, where the meditator has to finish. Unfortunately, this point comes right at the Dark Night, and if you don’t finish the path you remain stuck in the Dark Night. That sucks. You cannot go back to sleep, so to speak, and yet you aren’t fully awake. You know something is wrong, and feel terribly out of sync with reality. If you stop meditating at this point you stop making progress and stay in misery.
The reason to meditate that most experienced meditators give is “to end suffering.” And though it is correct to understand this to mean the suffering of life itself, there is also a deeper meaning: that the reason to meditate is to end the suffering inherent in the path itself. Advanced practitioners want to awaken because they are tired of being on the path, tired of being stuck in the twilight between awake and asleep. If you aren’t prepared to work your way through that twilight, don’t begin the path, and do not take up a meditation practice.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Re: Why Meditate?
Hi Buckwheat,
Here are some of the previous posts that contain relevant sutta passages as well as references to the VM, and quotes from Mahasi Sayadaw, Ajahn Chah, etc.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 55#p188522" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p188587" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p188780" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p188797" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p188866" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p188867" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p188904" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p189221" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p189310" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With metta,
Travis
Here are some of the previous posts that contain relevant sutta passages as well as references to the VM, and quotes from Mahasi Sayadaw, Ajahn Chah, etc.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 55#p188522" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p188587" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p188780" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p188797" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p188866" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p188867" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p188904" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p189221" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p189310" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With metta,
Travis
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 4:32 pm
Re: Why Meditate?
Sure Ben,Ben wrote:Hi Ron,
As a matter of interest, what do you teach as a concentration practice, and how do you integrate it with vipassana?
Many thanks,
Ben
I teach three main objects for concentration - the breath, the brahma viharas and kasinas. However, I strongly encourage everyone to use the breath and recommend it first because it will also be used in the insight practice later on and can be used all the way up to the "finish line." (I know I'm stirring the pot by even using that phrase!)
The breath is so reliable and solid as a concentration object that there usually isn't a need to teach a person how to use another object, however, I usually recommend people get a good handle on metta practice as well, because it just makes everything better, on and off the cushion.
The way I teach the breath isn't written down on my site, but it goes in two broad steps: first start with counting the exhales up to 10 and back down to 1. If you lose count, start over back at 1. Do that until momentary concentration turns into access concentration. You can tell this happens because you no longer lose count. This is pretty standard boiler-plate concentration practice. Next watch the breath silently with no counting and deepen access concentration. If you still need a technique to occupy the verbal mind you can simplify the counting into just "rising" and "falling." When other phenomena pop up (grocery lists, itches, sounds, etc) label them and quickly let go. As the access concentration becomes stronger, you can tell because a nimmita will arise and let you know you're close to absorption. For most folks, it's a sensation of light with the eyes closed, but not for everyone. For insight work, that's more than enough concentration to get the job done. However, some folks like to keep going and deepen it further to see if they can become absorbed. I don't teach that, but don't discourage it either. It's good fun.
As far as weaving it into insight practice, once a person has mastered getting access concentration then I teach them to begin each sit by cultivating that level of concentration first before heading off into insight work. Usually, as a person does the insight practice the level of concentration that they start off with is sustained and even deepened (particularly when they get to the equanimity nana).
I hope that answers your question Ben.
Again, thanks so much for welcoming such an unorthodox guy as myself into your online community.
Mucho metta.
Ron
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 4:32 pm
Re: Why Meditate?
Hey Buckwheat,Buckwheat wrote:
I am not very informed on Visuddhimagga and Mahasi Sayadaw style buddhism. For my benefit, will you trace the ideas in these paragraphs back to the suttas?The reason I focus on the Suttas is this: there are so many disparate forms of Buddhism, I find it prudent to rely on the Suttas as interpreted by the Thai forest tradition, sprinkled with a little bit of Zen for aesthetics and inspiration (I see Koan's as wonderful little jokes... they make me laugh!).Ron Crouch wrote:The reason that I give this advice is because there is what I would call a “point of no return” on the path, where the meditator has to finish. Unfortunately, this point comes right at the Dark Night, and if you don’t finish the path you remain stuck in the Dark Night. That sucks. You cannot go back to sleep, so to speak, and yet you aren’t fully awake. You know something is wrong, and feel terribly out of sync with reality. If you stop meditating at this point you stop making progress and stay in misery.
The reason to meditate that most experienced meditators give is “to end suffering.” And though it is correct to understand this to mean the suffering of life itself, there is also a deeper meaning: that the reason to meditate is to end the suffering inherent in the path itself. Advanced practitioners want to awaken because they are tired of being on the path, tired of being stuck in the twilight between awake and asleep. If you aren’t prepared to work your way through that twilight, don’t begin the path, and do not take up a meditation practice.
There are actually a couple of different lines of practice in the Thai forest tradition and they're pretty different, but I strongly doubt you'll find this sentiment in either of them. They seem to focus either on deep jhana or what is called "natural awakening" without deep concentration. Although they are Theravadin, they seem to focus on the first and second parts of the Visuddhimagga (and the suttas that support them) more than the third part (in my opinion), whereas the Burmese tend to focus more on the third part. How I teach comes out of a Burmese take on things, so it is likely pretty unfamiliar. No problem.
However, while the dukkha nanas are part of the Theravada tradition and right there in the Visuddhimagga, my take on them and how I teach them is my own. I think I make that pretty clear on my site. The quote above is my take on the dukkha nanas and how they effect the overall person. You can indeed get stuck in them, and they have an effect on you off the cushion. For some folks the effect is so strong that they become impaired in their day-to-day functioning. That is not how it is for most people, but it is that way for enough that it should be concerning to anyone teaching this stuff.
Here is video of a research presentation on this topic by Dr. Britton that might help clarify why this is an important topic, is common across the different buddhist "isms" and deserves all of our attention:
Last edited by Ron Crouch on Wed May 23, 2012 1:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Goofaholix
- Posts: 4017
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
- Location: New Zealand
Re: Why Meditate?
The above sounds very orthodox to me.Ron Crouch wrote:The way I teach the breath isn't written down on my site, but it goes in two broad steps: first start with counting the exhales up to 10 and back down to 1. If you lose count, start over back at 1. Do that until momentary concentration turns into access concentration. You can tell this happens because you no longer lose count. This is pretty standard boiler-plate concentration practice. Next watch the breath silently with no counting and deepen access concentration. If you still need a technique to occupy the verbal mind you can simplify the counting into just "rising" and "falling." When other phenomena pop up (grocery lists, itches, sounds, etc) label them and quickly let go. As the access concentration becomes stronger, you can tell because a nimmita will arise and let you know you're close to absorption. For most folks, it's a sensation of light with the eyes closed, but not for everyone. For insight work, that's more than enough concentration to get the job done. However, some folks like to keep going and deepen it further to see if they can become absorbed. I don't teach that, but don't discourage it either. It's good fun.
As far as weaving it into insight practice, once a person has mastered getting access concentration then I teach them to begin each sit by cultivating that level of concentration first before heading off into insight work. Usually, as a person does the insight practice the level of concentration that they start off with is sustained and even deepened (particularly when they get to the equanimity nana).
I hope that answers your question Ben.
Again, thanks so much for welcoming such an unorthodox guy as myself into your online community.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
Re: Why Meditate?
Since I already stated my opinion that such a one-dimensional distinction cannot be made, there is clearly no need for me to carry out such an exercise.retrofuturist wrote:If one could be bothered going through every single thing they ever taught possibly you could, but I don't really see the benefit in the exercise unless you're looking for a teacher who you wish to be some kind of proxy-Buddha for you... and I don't think you are.mikenz66 wrote:Actually I was asking you to clarify whether it would be possible to separate the list of teachers I provided into those whose Dhamma is traceable to the suttas and those whose Dhamma is not.
Mike
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:36 am
Re: Why Meditate?
Hi Ron, thanks for posting this. His talks are a real "eye-opener."Ron Crouch wrote:For further information on how the concept of Buddhism as a religion (and a lot of other things in buddhism) are really western misunderstandings of the cultural context, check out this series of wonderful talks by linguist and dharma teacher John Peacock called "Buddhism Before the Theravada":
http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/207/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The watched mind brings happiness.
Dhp 36
I am larger and better than I thought. I did not know I held so much goodness.
Walt Whitman
Dhp 36
I am larger and better than I thought. I did not know I held so much goodness.
Walt Whitman
Re: Why Meditate?
Some of my understanding:
We should be very careful and not to cling to anything, including suttas. yes, suttas. There is not much proof that anything that is written in the suttas was spoken by Historical Buddha Gotama. He didn't write or record anything down. As the story goes, he was teaching for 45 years and what we have is formalized suttas formatted for memorization and oral recitation. If I remember correctly, Ananda was personal attendant of Buddha for last 20 years. He had to learn the other teachings of the Buddha from other monks who may not have had such a good memory as Ananda's. And really, how much can we trust memory to memorize every single word spoken during 45 year teaching carrier? How do we separate literally embellishment vs literal truth? Why do we argue about slightest shades of meaning of some obscure technical word (which may have been understood well only by 5th BC Indians) while avoid thinking about how could a person remember correctly every single word as it was spoken by the Buddha over 45 year long carrier. Why don't we doubt this? Memory is imperfect.
At best, when it comes to suttas, we have Ananda-Dhamma + what he has learned from other monks. There is no possibility why the teaching wasn't edited at the first council. We have no objective proof that anything found in the suttas was spoken by a historic person. Nothing to say about centuries of passing them on, writing them down, and then many centuries later interpreting them into English.
As for "sort out really right views first and confirm their correctness through practice" this is unreliable. There is such thing as making one see what one wants to see. One can interpret one's experience to fit with preconceived ideas of what one needs to see. It is possible to hypnotize someone (or oneself) and see what one wants to see in line with what one was taught to be right. A christian might interpret experience as "God's plan, etc", An atheist might say that it is simply natural Godless blind process, another person interpret the same experience in some other way which one knows, etc. A good hypnotist in one session can make you see what you (or he) wants you to see, be it "God's plan", your previous life, or "trillions of mind moments appearing split second". Self suggestion can occur without hypnotist. What happens in an intense retreat is lack of sensual stimulation, lack of food, perhaps lack of sleep, sensory deprivation - all of this can lead to one seeing what one wants to see. There is such thing as confirmation bias.
So I believe that the answer is to practice to let go of all clinging and thus make all dukkha fade.
We should be very careful and not to cling to anything, including suttas. yes, suttas. There is not much proof that anything that is written in the suttas was spoken by Historical Buddha Gotama. He didn't write or record anything down. As the story goes, he was teaching for 45 years and what we have is formalized suttas formatted for memorization and oral recitation. If I remember correctly, Ananda was personal attendant of Buddha for last 20 years. He had to learn the other teachings of the Buddha from other monks who may not have had such a good memory as Ananda's. And really, how much can we trust memory to memorize every single word spoken during 45 year teaching carrier? How do we separate literally embellishment vs literal truth? Why do we argue about slightest shades of meaning of some obscure technical word (which may have been understood well only by 5th BC Indians) while avoid thinking about how could a person remember correctly every single word as it was spoken by the Buddha over 45 year long carrier. Why don't we doubt this? Memory is imperfect.
At best, when it comes to suttas, we have Ananda-Dhamma + what he has learned from other monks. There is no possibility why the teaching wasn't edited at the first council. We have no objective proof that anything found in the suttas was spoken by a historic person. Nothing to say about centuries of passing them on, writing them down, and then many centuries later interpreting them into English.
As for "sort out really right views first and confirm their correctness through practice" this is unreliable. There is such thing as making one see what one wants to see. One can interpret one's experience to fit with preconceived ideas of what one needs to see. It is possible to hypnotize someone (or oneself) and see what one wants to see in line with what one was taught to be right. A christian might interpret experience as "God's plan, etc", An atheist might say that it is simply natural Godless blind process, another person interpret the same experience in some other way which one knows, etc. A good hypnotist in one session can make you see what you (or he) wants you to see, be it "God's plan", your previous life, or "trillions of mind moments appearing split second". Self suggestion can occur without hypnotist. What happens in an intense retreat is lack of sensual stimulation, lack of food, perhaps lack of sleep, sensory deprivation - all of this can lead to one seeing what one wants to see. There is such thing as confirmation bias.
So I believe that the answer is to practice to let go of all clinging and thus make all dukkha fade.