Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Theravāda in the 21st century - modern applications of ancient wisdom

Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Postby christopher::: » Mon May 17, 2010 8:18 am

If others are interested perhaps we can continue with what seemed to be the essential point we were discussing in the other thread- which got sidetracked (and has now been closed). Ajahn Sucitto, a student of Ajahn Chah, was explaining how important it is to cultivate equanimity and a calm mind. Without a calm and peaceful mind we cling to views and desires, there is self-making, hindrances and fetters arise, the whole process of dependent origination is set into motion which leads to a sense of self/others and fracturing of experience, etc, etc...

Just looking at a talk by Ajahn Chah, he seems to also be addressing this here. Perhaps if we use Ajahn Chah's ideas as the starting point for discussion we can discuss this without getting sidetracked? Cause this is a really important topic that relates to successful/unsuccessful practice, imo.

:anjali:


"Meditation means to make the mind peaceful in order to let wisdom arise. This requires that we practise with body and mind in order to see and know the sense impressions of form, sound, taste, smell, touch and mental formations. To put it shortly, it's just a matter of happiness and unhappiness. Happiness is pleasant feeling in the mind, unhappiness is just unpleasant feeling. The Buddha taught to separate this happiness and unhappiness from the mind. The mind is that which knows. Feeling is the characteristic of happiness or unhappiness, like or dislike. When the mind indulges in these things we say that it clings to or takes that happiness and unhappiness to be worthy of holding. That clinging is an action of mind, that happiness or unhappiness is feeling.

When we say the Buddha told us to separate the mind from the feeling, he didn't literally mean to throw them to different places. He meant that the mind must know happiness and know unhappiness. When sitting in samādhi, for example, and peace fills the mind, then happiness comes but it doesn't reach us, unhappiness comes but doesn't reach us. This is to separate the feeling from the mind. We can compare it to oil and water in a bottle. They don't combine. Even if you try to mix them, the oil remains oil and the water remains water, because they are of different density.

The natural state of the mind is neither happiness nor unhappiness. When feeling enters the mind then happiness or unhappiness is born. If we have mindfulness then we know pleasant feeling as pleasant feeling. The mind which knows will not pick it up. Happiness is there but it's 'outside' the mind, not buried within the mind. The mind simply knows it clearly.

If we separate unhappiness from the mind, does that mean there is no suffering, that we don't experience it? Yes, we experience it, but we know mind as mind, feeling as feeling. We don't cling to that feeling or carry it around. The Buddha separated these things through knowledge. Did he have suffering? He knew the state of suffering but he didn't cling to it, so we say that he cut suffering off. And there was happiness too, but he knew that happiness, if it's not known, is like a poison. He didn't hold it to be himself. Happiness was there through knowledge, but it didn't exist in his mind. Thus we say that he separated happiness and unhappiness from his mind.

When we say that the Buddha and the Enlightened Ones killed defilements, it's not that they really killed them. If they had killed all defilements then we probably wouldn't have any! They didn't kill defilements; when they knew them for what they are, they let them go. Someone who's stupid will grab them, but the Enlightened Ones knew the defilements in their own minds as a poison, so they swept them out. They swept out the things which caused them to suffer, they didn't kill them. One who doesn't know this will see some things, such as happiness, as good, and then grab them, but the Buddha just knew them and simply brushed them away.

But when feeling arises for us we indulge in it, that is, the mind carries that happiness and unhappiness around. In fact they are two different things. The activities of mind, pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling and so on, are mental impressions, they are the world. If the mind knows this it can equally do work involving happiness or unhappiness. Why? Because it knows the truth of these things. Someone who doesn't know them sees them as having different value, but one who knows sees them as equal. If you cling to happiness it will be the birth-place of unhappiness later on, because happiness is unstable, it changes all the time. When happiness disappears, unhappiness arises.

The Buddha knew that because both happiness and unhappiness are unsatisfactory, they have the same value. When happiness arose he let it go. He had right practice, seeing that both these things have equal values and drawbacks. They come under the Law of Dhamma, that is, they are unstable and unsatisfactory. Once born, they die. When he saw this, right view arose, the right way of practice became clear. No matter what sort of feeling or thinking arose in his mind, he knew it as simply the continuous play of happiness and unhappiness. He didn't cling to them.

When the Buddha was newly enlightened he gave a sermon about indulgence in pleasure and indulgence in pain. ''Monks! Indulgence in pleasure is the loose way, indulgence in pain is the tense way.'' These were the two things that disturbed his practice until the day he was enlightened, because at first he didn't let go of them. When he knew them, he let them go, and so was able to give his first sermon.

So we say that a meditator should not walk the way of happiness or unhappiness, rather he should know them. Knowing the truth of suffering, he will know the cause of suffering, the end of suffering and the way leading to the end of suffering. And the way out of suffering is meditation itself. To put it simply, we must be mindful.

Mindfulness is knowing, or presence of mind. Right now what are we thinking, what are we doing? What do we have with us right now? We observe like this, we are aware of how we are living. Practising like this, wisdom can arise. We consider and investigate at all times, in all postures. When a mental impression arises that we like we know it as such, we don't hold it to be anything substantial. It's just happiness. When unhappiness arises we know that it's indulgence in pain, it's not the path of a meditator.

This is what we call separating the mind from the feeling. If we are clever we don't attach, we leave things be. We become the 'one who knows'. The mind and feeling are just like oil and water; they are in the same bottle but they don't mix. Even if we are sick or in pain, we still know the feeling as feeling, the mind as mind. We know the painful or comfortable states but we don't identify with them. We stay only with peace: the peace beyond both comfort and pain.

You should understand it like this, because if there is no permanent self then there is no refuge. You must live like this, that is, without happiness and without unhappiness. You stay only with the knowing, you don't carry things around.

As long as we are still unenlightened all this may sound strange but it doesn't matter, we just set our goal in this direction. The mind is the mind. It meets happiness and unhappiness and we see them as merely that, there's nothing more to it. They are divided, not mixed. If they are all mixed up then we don't know them. It's like living in a house; the house and its occupant are related, but separate. If there is danger in our house we are distressed because we must protect it, but if the house catches fire we get out of it. If painful feeling arises we get out of it, just like that house. When it's full of fire and we know it, we come running out of it. They are separate things; the house is one thing, the occupant is another.

We say that we separate mind and feeling in this way but in fact they are by nature already separate. Our realization is simply to know this natural separateness according to reality. When we say they are not separated it's because we're clinging to them through ignorance of the truth.

So the Buddha told us to meditate. This practice of meditation is very important. Merely to know with the intellect is not enough. The knowledge which arises from practice with a peaceful mind and the knowledge which comes from study are really far apart. The knowledge which comes from study is not real knowledge of our mind. The mind tries to hold onto and keep this knowledge. Why do we try to keep it? Just to lose it! And then when it's lost we cry.

If we really know, then there's letting go, leaving things be. We know how things are and don't forget ourselves. If it happens that we are sick we don't get lost in that. Some people think, ''This year I was sick the whole time, I couldn't meditate at all.'' These are the words of a really foolish person. Someone who's sick or dying should really be diligent in his practice. One may say he doesn't have time to meditate. He's sick, he's suffering, he doesn't trust his body, and so he feels that he can't meditate. If we think like this then things are difficult. The Buddha didn't teach like that. He said that right here is the place to meditate. When we're sick or almost dying that's when we can really know and see reality.

Other people say they don't have the chance to meditate because they're too busy. Sometimes school teachers come to see me. They say they have many responsibilities so there's no time to meditate. I ask them, ''When you're teaching do you have time to breathe?'' They answer, ''Yes.'' ''So how can you have time to breathe if the work is so hectic and confusing? Here you are far from Dhamma.''

Actually this practice is just about the mind and its feelings. It's not something that you have to run after or struggle for. Breathing continues while working. Nature takes care of the natural processes - all we have to do is try to be aware. Just to keep trying, going inwards to see clearly. Meditation is like this.

If we have that presence of mind then whatever work we do will be the very tool which enables us to know right and wrong continually. There's plenty of time to meditate, we just don't fully understand the practice, that's all. While sleeping we breathe, eating we breathe, don't we? Why don't we have time to meditate? Wherever we are we breathe. If we think like this then our life has as much value as our breath, wherever we are we have time.

All kinds of thinking are mental conditions, not conditions of body, so we need simply have presence of mind, then we will know right and wrong at all times. Standing, walking, sitting and lying, there's plenty of time. We just don't know how to use it properly. Please consider this.

We cannot run away from feeling, we must know it. Feeling is just feeling, happiness is just happiness, unhappiness is just unhappiness. They are simply that. So why should we cling to them? If the mind is clever, simply to hear this is enough to enable us to separate feeling from the mind.

If we investigate like this continuously the mind will find release, but it's not escaping through ignorance. The mind lets go, but it knows. It doesn't let go through stupidity, not because it doesn't want things to be the way they are. It lets go because it knows according to the truth. This is seeing nature, the reality that's all around us.

When we know this we are someone who's skilled with the mind, we are skilled with mental impressions. When we are skilled with mental impressions we are skilled with the world. This is to be a 'knower of the world.' The Buddha was someone who clearly knew the world with all its difficulty. He knew the troublesome, and that which was not troublesome was right there. This world is so confusing, how is it that the Buddha was able to know it? Here we should understand that the Dhamma taught by the Buddha is not beyond our ability. In all postures we should have presence of mind and self awareness - and when it's time to sit meditation we do that.

We sit in meditation to establish peacefulness and cultivate mental energy. We don't do it in order to play around at anything special. Insight meditation is sitting in samādhi itself. At some places they say, ''Now we are going to sit in samādhi, after that we'll do insight meditation.'' Don't divide them like this! Tranquillity is the base which gives rise to wisdom; wisdom is the fruit of tranquillity. To say that now we are going to do calm meditation, later we'll do insight - you can't do that! You can only divide them in speech. Just like a knife, the blade is on one side, the back of the blade on the other. You can't divide them. If you pick up one side you get both sides. Tranquillity gives rise to wisdom like this..."

~Ajah Chah
The Peace Beyond


:heart:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Postby dennis60 » Mon May 17, 2010 11:25 am

Well, first of all Ajahn Chah has been at this a long time, and has many people around him with varying views. So i would trust what he has to say about practice. I do think that it is imperative to sit and attain "samahdi". To understand that an "empty mind" is not a stupid or inactive mind. The mind not occupied with "this or that", is able to understand when something such as good and bad feelings arise within it. I have to say here, that "some illusions are bigger than others". That sometimes our minds will cling to something because we do not yet know how important it is to understand that it is impermanent. But that too is OK, because we will soon know that it is impermanent and let go of it. It might take a bit longer , but by practice the time we cling will become shorter and shorter, hopefully! :)
dennis60
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 12:12 am

Re: Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Postby christopher::: » Wed May 19, 2010 1:26 am

Yes, i agree with your observations. Thanks for responding dennis.

One of the things i've noticed over the years is this relationship between non-clinging and tranquility/equanimity in my own experience. When i feel deeply peaceful i'm less likely to hold tightly to views, emotions and opinions, less likely to experience cravings and desires, just letting the world "be" without feeling like i need to interact, achieve or "get" anything. Sometimes the very sense of self (here) and world/others (out there) falls away and experiences have a seamless quality, a wholeness such as Ajahn Sucitto was describing in the other discussion.

Likewise, i've noticed when i suddenly let go of a desire, view or craving (that i had been holding tightly) a sense of calm arises. So it seems like this "relationship" between calm and non-clinging goes in both directions.

Concerning "wisdom" - not sure what Ajahn Chah means by that, but looking at my own experience and those of others i think we speak and behave more wisely (mindfully?) when our minds are calm, not clinging...

Would be interested in knowing if that corresponds with the experiences and understanding of others.

:anjali:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Postby Aloka » Wed May 19, 2010 9:46 am

My view is that when the mind is calm and clear and has equanimity, then awareness and wisdom in connection with exterior situations are more likely to be present. Clear seeing is there when we're free from attachment, judgemental thoughts and papanca. Meditation and post- meditation begin to merge and become one. :)
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Postby nathan » Wed May 19, 2010 1:50 pm

I don't have a clear sense of how or why Ajahn Sucitto used the term ground of being or what he was hoping to explain by doing so. I will try to comment on some of my insights regarding the subtleties of clinging and relate these to how I understand the Buddha to have used similar references to the grounds for being and becoming.

I have noted that many times people freely mix the use of the terms craving and clinging but for my purposes I separate the two. I note specifically if craving or aversion has arisen and when I note these are absent I then go on to note whether clinging is present in some form. I distinguish craving or aversion from clinging by noting the relative grossness of craving and aversion and the relative subtlety of clinging.

To comment on clinging I will try to examine it in the context of a meditator's mind, a mind that is (at least momentarily) free of craving and aversion but not free of delusion. As I understand the Buddha's teaching, when the mind is clinging to one or more of the aggregates as I, me or mine then, in that way and in that moment, that subtle attachment is one's 'ground of being' and therefore also for further becoming.

In the process of developing insight one can free the mind of the delusion that the body, senses, feelings and thoughts are I, me or mine and one can calm the mind until it is very clearly and accurately reflecting what is arising and passing from the mind's attention. It can be more difficult to take this a step further and take the same approach to consciousness itself. I think this is where much of the difference of opinion and thinking comes from.

When consciousness is bare, free of craving and aversion, calm and attentive, one may then conclude that a consciousness like this which clearly notes only the seen in the seen, the thought in the thought, the felt in the felt and so on has arrived at the end of what can be observed. There is more insight that can yet be developed however by then turning consciousness back upon itself and observing how this clear and spacious consciousness itself is also conditional, dependent, inconstant and not I, me and mine. That subtle clinging, to a calm, clear and spacious consciousness is also a kind of obscuration of the true nature of consciousness as also anicca, dukkha and anatta.

If one pursues this further and develops insight to fruition and then experiences cessation one will discover that in the absence of all aggregates there is a bliss that is completely incomparable and indescribable and consciousness may then cling to cessation in the same kind of very subtle way that it can cling to a consciousness that is entirely clear, calm, spacious and attentive. In that kind of a way even cessation can effectively be a 'ground for being and becoming'.

I think this is why it is taught that it is very subtle kinds of conceit that are last to be overcome by the Arahats and why it is that there is so much disagreement about these things amongst very advanced practitioners and many different views about the nature of nibbana.

As I see it the Buddha makes various attempts to clear this up by pointing out that for the Arahat there is no ground of being, not in the aggregates, not in a purified consciousness and not even in cessation. It is a subtle clinging, the very subtle persistence of some kind of a ground of being, a persistence that for many may remain below the threshold of their perception which leads to the various kinds of confusing statements that we hear from those who are very advanced in practice and are doing their best to communicate the best of their insights.

I say this not as a criticism of anyone, teachers or otherwise, but in response to your interest in better understanding what clinging actually is. I see clinging as a condition which is capable of taking extremely subtle forms and so it is a very deep condition, difficult to see and difficult to fully penetrate. I think this is one of the things that the Buddha was talking about when he spoke of how very difficult it is to fully penetrate the significance of his teachings about dependent conditionality.

I can't answer this like a fully accomplished Arahat perhaps could, I wish I could but I am just a simple practitioner like many others and this is about all the light I can throw onto the subject of clinging for now. I hope it benefits your understanding Chris and will contribute something to the discussion in general.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Postby imagemarie » Wed May 19, 2010 7:12 pm

:goodpost:

Thank-you.
User avatar
imagemarie
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Postby christopher::: » Thu May 20, 2010 9:00 am

Hi guys. Thanks so much for your posts.

Aloka wrote:My view is that when the mind is calm and clear and has equanimity, then awareness and wisdom in connection with exterior situations are more likely to be present. Clear seeing is there when we're free from attachment, judgemental thoughts and papanca. Meditation and post- meditation begin to merge and become one. :)


Yes! That sounds right.

nathan wrote:
To comment on clinging I will try to examine it in the context of a meditator's mind, a mind that is (at least momentarily) free of craving and aversion but not free of delusion. As I understand the Buddha's teaching, when the mind is clinging to one or more of the aggregates as I, me or mine then, in that way and in that moment, that subtle attachment is one's 'ground of being' and therefore also for further becoming.

In the process of developing insight one can free the mind of the delusion that the body, senses, feelings and thoughts are I, me or mine and one can calm the mind until it is very clearly and accurately reflecting what is arising and passing from the mind's attention.


This i have observed and can understand. It seems to relate to what Ajahn Chah said here:


Ajahn Chah said:


As long as we are still unenlightened all this may sound strange but it doesn't matter, we just set our goal in this direction. The mind is the mind. It meets happiness and unhappiness and we see them as merely that, there's nothing more to it. They are divided, not mixed. If they are all mixed up then we don't know them. It's like living in a house; the house and its occupant are related, but separate. If there is danger in our house we are distressed because we must protect it, but if the house catches fire we get out of it. If painful feeling arises we get out of it, just like that house. When it's full of fire and we know it, we come running out of it. They are separate things; the house is one thing, the occupant is another.

We say that we separate mind and feeling in this way but in fact they are by nature already separate. Our realization is simply to know this natural separateness according to reality. When we say they are not separated it's because we're clinging to them through ignorance of the truth.



But the next part is not something i've been able to observe, or observed without being aware of what was happening, so my understanding is sketchy.

nathan wrote:
It can be more difficult to take this a step further and take the same approach to consciousness itself. I think this is where much of the difference of opinion and thinking comes from.

When consciousness is bare, free of craving and aversion, calm and attentive, one may then conclude that a consciousness like this which clearly notes only the seen in the seen, the thought in the thought, the felt in the felt and so on has arrived at the end of what can be observed. There is more insight that can yet be developed however by then turning consciousness back upon itself and observing how this clear and spacious consciousness itself is also conditional, dependent, inconstant and not I, me and mine. That subtle clinging, to a calm, clear and spacious consciousness is also a kind of obscuration of the true nature of consciousness as also anicca, dukkha and anatta.

If one pursues this further and develops insight to fruition and then experiences cessation one will discover that in the absence of all aggregates there is a bliss that is completely incomparable and indescribable and consciousness may then cling to cessation in the same kind of very subtle way that it can cling to a consciousness that is entirely clear, calm, spacious and attentive. In that kind of a way even cessation can effectively be a 'ground for being and becoming'.

I think this is why it is taught that it is very subtle kinds of conceit that are last to be overcome by the Arahats and why it is that there is so much disagreement about these things amongst very advanced practitioners and many different views about the nature of nibbana.

As I see it the Buddha makes various attempts to clear this up by pointing out that for the Arahat there is no ground of being, not in the aggregates, not in a purified consciousness and not even in cessation. It is a subtle clinging, the very subtle persistence of some kind of a ground of being, a persistence that for many may remain below the threshold of their perception which leads to the various kinds of confusing statements that we hear from those who are very advanced in practice and are doing their best to communicate the best of their insights.


I think this is way beyond where i am with my practice. I guess it relates to this...

So the Buddha told us to meditate. This practice of meditation is very important. Merely to know with the intellect is not enough. The knowledge which arises from practice with a peaceful mind and the knowledge which comes from study are really far apart. The knowledge which comes from study is not real knowledge of our mind. The mind tries to hold onto and keep this knowledge."

Ajahn Chah


:meditate:

imagemarie wrote::goodpost:

Thank-you.


Definitely! Thanks for these insights, nathan...

:anjali:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Postby nathan » Thu May 20, 2010 1:35 pm

christopher::: wrote:But the next part is not something i've been able to observe, or observed without being aware of what was happening, so my understanding is sketchy.

nathan wrote:
It can be more difficult to take this a step further and take the same approach to consciousness itself. I think this is where much of the difference of opinion and thinking comes from.

When consciousness is bare, free of craving and aversion, calm and attentive, one may then conclude that a consciousness like this which clearly notes only the seen in the seen, the thought in the thought, the felt in the felt and so on has arrived at the end of what can be observed. There is more insight that can yet be developed however by then turning consciousness back upon itself and observing how this clear and spacious consciousness itself is also conditional, dependent, inconstant and not I, me and mine. That subtle clinging, to a calm, clear and spacious consciousness is also a kind of obscuration of the true nature of consciousness as also anicca, dukkha and anatta.

If one pursues this further and develops insight to fruition and then experiences cessation one will discover that in the absence of all aggregates there is a bliss that is completely incomparable and indescribable and consciousness may then cling to cessation in the same kind of very subtle way that it can cling to a consciousness that is entirely clear, calm, spacious and attentive. In that kind of a way even cessation can effectively be a 'ground for being and becoming'.

I think this is why it is taught that it is very subtle kinds of conceit that are last to be overcome by the Arahats and why it is that there is so much disagreement about these things amongst very advanced practitioners and many different views about the nature of nibbana.

As I see it the Buddha makes various attempts to clear this up by pointing out that for the Arahat there is no ground of being, not in the aggregates, not in a purified consciousness and not even in cessation. It is a subtle clinging, the very subtle persistence of some kind of a ground of being, a persistence that for many may remain below the threshold of their perception which leads to the various kinds of confusing statements that we hear from those who are very advanced in practice and are doing their best to communicate the best of their insights.


I think this is way beyond where i am with my practice. I guess it relates to this...

So the Buddha told us to meditate. This practice of meditation is very important. Merely to know with the intellect is not enough. The knowledge which arises from practice with a peaceful mind and the knowledge which comes from study are really far apart. The knowledge which comes from study is not real knowledge of our mind. The mind tries to hold onto and keep this knowledge."

Ajahn Chah


:meditate:

imagemarie wrote::goodpost:

Thank-you.


Definitely! Thanks for these insights, nathan...

:anjali:
Yes, as Ajahn Chah says, meditate.

There are a couple meditation forums I look into from time to time and most of the people there are focusing on intensive meditation practice. Even in the context of that kind of practice and even where people have spent many years in long and dedicated practice there is still a lot of specific detail that very few people are in a position to address in no uncertain terms. The subtleties of consciousness are very difficult to pin down, even for very well practiced and experienced people. Clinging and how this can be observed in the consciousness of calm and tranquil mind is one of these very subtle things. Between the differences in how teachers explain things and how different schools of thought offer differing interpretations this only adds to the difficulty for people to make sense of what is what.

Everyone completely agrees however, do the meditation and you will be pleased with the calm and the insights that will result from that.
:anjali:
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Postby christopher::: » Thu May 20, 2010 1:54 pm

Thanks for the encouragement, advice and explanations, nathan. You have reminded me how much i used to appreciate many of the E-sangha Meditation forum discussion topics. A bit off-topic but have you seen Suguno or Prajnamind posting online anywhere, recently?

:anjali:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Postby nathan » Thu May 20, 2010 2:20 pm

christopher::: wrote:Thanks for the encouragement, advice and explanations, nathan. You have reminded me how much i used to appreciate many of the E-sangha Meditation forum discussion topics. A bit off-topic but have you seen Suguno or Prajnamind posting online anywhere, recently?

:anjali:
I don't try to keep track since I'm not sure who is actually who, user names are not typically the same as actual names. I liked at lot that Suguno posted, maybe someone else would know if he's posted here or elsewhere. I remember Prajnamind but not as clearly and likewise not sure what he is up to. I go to Dharma Overground and Kenneth Fork Dharma to read some discussions and on the rare occasion I post there as triplethink but most here would have difficulty being comfortable with the many of the discussions because the posted attitudes are predominantly iconoclastic and occasionally dismissive of traditional doctrinal views. The discussions are primarily concerned with practice and practical results and as far as that goes they are some of the better discussions I have read online but one really needs to be willing to set aside their doctrinal concerns in those forums or else the discussions won't contribute much to one's practice. It is a much different focus from a forum like this. I do my best to compartmentalize my interests and limited participation both here and there to harmonize with those of the overall group as best as I can.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Wisdom & Tranquility: A Calm Mind Does Not Cling?

Postby christopher::: » Mon May 24, 2010 8:22 am

Thanks again for responding, nathan. Your insights on this topic have been very helpful.

:anjali:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
christopher:::
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am


Return to Theravāda for the modern world

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests