I'd say that depends. For example, not getting into debates that raise anger or keep you from meditating at night (that's happened to me), not watching the news on tv too often, not doing shots of tequila with friends, etc...Sanghamitta wrote:
We dont cultivate upekkha by avoiding topics or situations.
We cultivate upekkha to see that aversion and attraction are equally to be detached from. The same false sense of self that we weaken or undermine by taking Refuge , is also the false sense of self that the cultivation of upekkha shows to have no lasting reality.
Because it is the subject of this thread, Re: "Refuge in Oneself". I believe Drolma was expressing this as her view.Christopher wrote:There is no self to go to refuge to, so why say there is?
In my view the best approach to practice is to drop the 'I' and 'other' notions... No 'I' that sees, just seeing. No 'I' that hears, just hearing etc etc Then drop the notions of 'seeing', 'hearing' etc. All in conformity with anatta. Couldn't be easier...In several other threads we have been talking recently .... about some of the nitty gritty approaches of practice.
kannada wrote:Then drop the notions...
At last!!!... Someone who understands...appicchato wrote:kannada wrote:Then drop the notions...
Sanghamitta wrote:
Can you say a little more about the "many ways" of cultivating upekkha ?
There isn't Chris - it's just a figure of speech used in the land of delusion...Chris::: wrote:But, but, but if we drop the notion of "I" how can there be "someone" who understands"?
Yes, my friend, I know.kannada wrote:There isn't Chris - it's just a figure of speech used in the land of delusion...Chris::: wrote:But, but, but if we drop the notion of "I" how can there be "someone" who understands"?
It's a figure of speech the Buddha used. When speaking conventionally though, the Buddha was not fooled by the conventional understanding.kannada wrote:There isn't Chris - it's just a figure of speech used in the land of delusion...Chris::: wrote:But, but, but if we drop the notion of "I" how can there be "someone" who understands"?
Metta,Then the Blessed One exclaimed: "So you really know, Kondañña? So you really know?" And that is how Ven. Kondañña acquired the name Añña-Kondañña — Kondañña who knows.
I think maybe it depends on how we look at this. I was speaking of the wide range of specific strategies one might employ situation-to-situation. How to deal with anger, restlessness, excitement, sexuality, children, job tasks, exercise, etc. How to use all of these as opportunities to cultivate upekkha... The underlying strategies of mindfulness are pretty straightforward (observe non-reactively, let go, etc), but how you do this in one situation will often differ from another. You don't think so?Sanghamitta wrote:The link you posted Christopher leads to an interesting discussion on " dry" bare attention and Vipassana. which of course I alluded to with my reference to cultivating upekkha as a by product of mindfulness. Your reference to MANY ways piqued my attention..
The "someone who understands" is a provisional reality. It is no less provisional than the one who doesnt understand. But the former provisional reality leads to the cessation of the latter, whereas the latter provisional reality perpetuates itself.
Thanks for the quote. Although I accept what you say it doesn't seem obvious in that passage (unless I completely missed it). There doesn't seem to be a notice of proviso that stipulates a convention of 'so-to-speak' as found in the Mahayana's Diamond Sutra (i.e. Dhammas are not dhammas but are called dhammas, 'x' is not 'x' but is called 'x' etc. Do you know of any instances in the Theravada teachings where this occurs...retrofuturist wrote:It's a figure of speech the Buddha used. When speaking conventionally though, the Buddha was not fooled by the conventional understanding
There's only one Dhamma...everything else is a dhamma...kannada wrote:Dhammas are not dhammas but are called dhammas...