Jhanon's Philosophical Writings

[Jhanon]

Do you mean way beyond reading Eckhart Tolle? Or do you mean more attainment than him?

In the former, I suppose I've never made it clear that I stopped following him about 2 years go--for various reasons.

In the latter, this is actually along the lines of what I find myself contemplating and searching through our forum and site. I haven't taken time to consider it since I first really KNEW that I had established in jhana. Two days leading up to my meeting the GWV, I was hitting at least 1st jhana everyday. Within 2 days after GWV, i was hitting 3rd at least briefly, everyday.

It's now about a year later, I think. And, Looking back, there is so much that has changed for me. Even though I had a long stint without meditation, the last 3 weeks have been very fruitful. It appears to me, that I'm a once-returner, or even non-returner. I can't tell. Based on confirmation from the experiences of others in the sangha, I consistently reach at least 2nd jhana. If I meditate longer than 60 minutes, it will be third, and sometimes forth. Third feels like the average, and I'm learning to access moments from the past and present, remotely. I meditate about 1-2.5 hours a day.

I know my life is far easier and simpler than it used to be. Just an absolutely tremendous reduction in suffering. Even when I cry, I don't suffer. It's just crying.

[Alexander]

You are probably an arahant at this point, Jhanon. As are Natalie and Sam. It's still strange to me after coming from the Gurdjieff work, where the 4 stages of liberation were so rigorous and emphasized. These days I meet people all the time who are living-liberated, but they don't call themselves arahants or operate with those concepts at all.

[Jhanananda]

Do you mean way beyond reading Eckhart Tolle? Or do you mean more attainment than him?

I mean Eckhart Tolle has made a career out of the 2nd jhana.  As you know from experience there is just so very much greater depths of attainment available than he has achieved.  Also his use of non-traditional language makes it sound like he found something else, like being in the now.  Ram Das called it "be here now" 40 years ago.  So what is new about it is Eckhart Tolle does not use the English properly, and there are a lot of naive people who will buy anything if it looks new.

...It appears to me, that I'm a once-returner, or even non-returner. I can't tell. Based on confirmation from the experiences of others in the sangha, I consistently reach at least 2nd jhana. If I meditate longer than 60 minutes, it will be third, and sometimes forth. Third feels like the average, and I'm learning to access moments from the past and present, remotely. I meditate about 1-2.5 hours a day.

I know my life is far easier and simpler than it used to be. Just an absolutely tremendous reduction in suffering. Even when I cry, I don't suffer. It's just crying.

This is all good stuff, and suggests that you have indeed achieved some noble level of attainment.  However, the suttas are clear on describing those 4 noble levels based upon liberation from the fetters.  So, you will know what level of attainment you have achieved based upon your reduction in fetters.  Nonetheless, it is the finding here that consistent meditation to a certain depth results in liberation from certain fetters.

[Jhanon]

Alexander, how I wish I could agree. LOL. But my daily experience of life is not like Jhananda or Michael. In terms of fetters, which I forgot to mention, is why it seems probable I'm a once-returner. I will need to study that thread you and Jhananda composed on this. I still have fear when I meditate and start to leave my body, and it shuts down the process.

[Jhanon]

I haven't spent much time considering the attainment of myself and even less time that of others. Last night was the first time I considered that of others. So I can't comment much, yet.

I did have a question about the fetters. "Clan identification", is that the same as identification with or suffering from societal expectations?

[Jhanon]

Oh, boy. So in Philosophy they asked us to address whether all the "evil in the world changes your views on "God"" It was just too much to handle in one post. It was too much to handle with words. I KNOW exactly what I mean, but can't say it. Moreover, how to do you say it in a way the other students without mystical experiences can understand? A Bible? No one has ever asked me to explain something like this, and frankly, I'm glad of that fact.

This is certainly a tricky forum post to make. As I read the outline, I thought I knew what I was going to write, and then it would say "but don't talk about this" and I was again lost. So, I'll try my best to give what is asked for.

I'm not persuaded by the argument from evil. It doesn't make any difference to my position on "God." I don't see these things the way it seems the forum guidelines are assuming, and so I can't find a way to go further without explaining the framework of where my answers are coming.

The universe is dualistic. There is hot and cold, black and white, and so on. One cannot be without the other to be relative to, and thus define its being. Without hot, there cannot be cold. Without happiness, there cannot be sadness. Without evil, there cannot be good. "Nothing", quite literally as you will see, can be without forming its opposite "something". Now, it's time for some reverse engineering based on this defining quality which relativity provides.

We exist in an imperfect, dualistic, manifest universe. For that to be, just like hot needs it's opposite, cold; we need non-exist, perfect, unity and non-manifest to be relative to. "God" was not all these qualities. "At first" there was a quality of non-existent, and non-manifest, right? At some point we have to admit there was nothing before everything else, and non-exist, non-manifest certainly sounds like "nothing." And yet it is "something." We'll call it a "quality."

This quality of nothingness, of being non-manifest, non-existent, is still a quality. And in order for that quality to "be", there must be something relative to it. That relativity is us, which is manifest existence. However, a manifest existence quality negates the very nature of the non-manifest, non-exist quality in equal measure, and so it forced a transcendent state of unity and perfection I think most people are trying to refer to when they say "God".

In the process of all this defining brought upon by relativity, we became imperfect, manifest, dualistic, existence. Duality and imperfection, the qualities of us, our universe, naturally lead to good and evil in every form. They are merely mechanics. And from within our imperfect perception, we label them as "good" and "evil."

This is why the issues of evil do not change my views on "God.". This information is based on my critical thinking and experiences. And I am almost completely certain it just can't be put into words. I've tried my best, though. I'm sorry I couldn't explain it better. You have to keep in mind that our language is based off of this imperfect, dualistic existence, and so attempting to describe things like non-dualistic, non-manifest, non-existence is pretty tricky.

[Sam Lim]

Buddha's view

Buddha's views on God

The Buddha did so with a purpose. He wanted his followers to remain focused upon Nirvana without distractions. Therefore, he did his best to keep them focused upon that single and virtuous goal, without getting distracted by theological speculation or intellectual disputation, which was the common preoccupation for many scholars and religious teachers of his time.

However, this does not mean that he favored the notion of God as the ruler and creator of the worlds and beings. The Buddha did not believe in hidden causes but apparent causes that made sense to the mind and the intellect. Karma was a hidden process, but its effects could be felt and experienced by one and all. Hence no supernatural testimony was required to establish its universality or working.

Once in a while, he expressed his opinions about creation and the role of God. When Ananthapindika, a wealthy young man met the Buddha at the bamboo groove at Rajagriha, the Buddha made a few statements about the existence of God and the real cause behind the creation of beings in this world. These views are summarized as below:

1. If God is indeed the creator of all living things, then all things here should submit to His power unquestioningly.  Like the vessels produced by a potter, they should remain without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can there be an opportunity for any one to practice virtue?

 2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no sorrow or calamity or evil in this world, for all deeds, both pure and impure, must come from Him.

3. If it is not so, then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.

4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.

5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?

6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.

7. We should therefore "abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stops all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.

The Buddha did not encourage speculation on the existence of Isvara, (God) among his disciples. He wanted them to confine themselves to what was within their field of awareness, that is, to understand the causes of suffering and work for its mitigation.

He preached that initially each being was a product of ignorance and illusion and subject to suffering, karma and transmigration. He therefore urged his disciples to contemplate upon the Four Noble Truths, practice the Eightfold path, lead a virtuous life by performing good deeds and works towards their final liberation from all becoming and changing.

[Alexander]

Buddha's view

Buddha's views on God

The Buddha did so with a purpose. He wanted his followers to remain focused upon Nirvana without distractions. Therefore, he did his best to keep them focused upon that single and virtuous goal, without getting distracted by theological speculation or intellectual disputation, which was the common preoccupation for many scholars and religious teachers of his time.

However, this does not mean that he favored the notion of God as the ruler and creator of the worlds and beings. The Buddha did not believe in hidden causes but apparent causes that made sense to the mind and the intellect. Karma was a hidden process, but its effects could be felt and experienced by one and all. Hence no supernatural testimony was required to establish its universality or working.

Once in a while, he expressed his opinions about creation and the role of God. When Ananthapindika, a wealthy young man met the Buddha at the bamboo groove at Rajagriha, the Buddha made a few statements about the existence of God and the real cause behind the creation of beings in this world. These views are summarized as below:

1. If God is indeed the creator of all living things, then all things here should submit to His power unquestioningly.  Like the vessels produced by a potter, they should remain without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can there be an opportunity for any one to practice virtue?

 2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no sorrow or calamity or evil in this world, for all deeds, both pure and impure, must come from Him.

3. If it is not so, then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.

4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.

5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?

6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.

7. We should therefore "abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stops all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.

The Buddha did not encourage speculation on the existence of Isvara, (God) among his disciples. He wanted them to confine themselves to what was within their field of awareness, that is, to understand the causes of suffering and work for its mitigation.

He preached that initially each being was a product of ignorance and illusion and subject to suffering, karma and transmigration. He therefore urged his disciples to contemplate upon the Four Noble Truths, practice the Eightfold path, lead a virtuous life by performing good deeds and works towards their final liberation from all becoming and changing.

The Buddha had such a mature understanding of the world. I don't think he would have liked Western philosophy. There is so much speculation and verbosity and nonsense to it. He wanted to make clear what the problem of life was, and how it could be overcome.

[Jhanon]

I've tried many times to discuss the importance of skillfulness over all this other stuff I am assigned to write. I just thought since I had never seen any priority of such matters of
God and creation that I would just let them form on their own. Apparently this that I posed is what is forming on it's own.

[Michel]

He preached that initially each being was a product of ignorance and illusion and subject to suffering, karma and transmigration. He therefore urged his disciples to contemplate upon the Four Noble Truths, practice the Eightfold path, lead a virtuous life by performing good deeds and works towards their final liberation from all becoming and changing.

That's it. Follow the yellow brick road and forget about everything else.

[Jhanon]

I certainly appreciate you posting it. I've never even seen this sutta? And I've read a lot of them. Where did you find it? Or  is it a collection of Suttas?

[Sam Lim]

I don't read the suttas. Got it from a website.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaongod.asp

But you can find some references to a creator God in some suttas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x6oFcQfQqU

Ananthapindika

http://buddhism.about.com/od/The-Disciples/a/Anathapindika-The-Great-Benefactor.htm

[Jhanananda]

I certainly appreciate you posting it. I've never even seen this sutta? And I've read a lot of them. Where did you find it? Or  is it a collection of Suttas?

It is the BRAHMA-JâLA SUTTA DN1.  You can find it on the GWV website at the link.

[Jhanon]

Thank you all. To me, "God" is Nibbana. For sake of unity, whenever "God" is discussed, I just substitute mentally for Nibbana. I'm not too concerned with the specifics of Nibbana/God, because if it is worth so much effort as seems crystal clear in my experience, surely it is beyond words. But, sometimes I'm put in a position where i use words familiar to the prompter of discussion, but mean something else.

That one experience I had, while I was reading a book and unknowingly practicing absorption correctly, is still the most profound I ever had. I've heard Jhananda tell me that each ayatana has it's own feel. Like the 5th has "power and beauty." During the experience I'm referring, there was a timeless, nothingness, emptiness, almost void of anything and everything, perception even, and yet intensely and fully satiating in every way. But not even that. It transcended anything I can say or think. The peak, which is what I am referring to, I can't even say it was "an experience." There was beautiful, intense ecstasy and insight before, and then next, just I dunno, and then I came back When I came back, i felt "Home. That's what you're searching for." And that's where I intend to go with every time I meditate. There seems nothing greater, and I see no need, or even ability to understand it intellectually. I wonder if there is anything beyond that--that would be quite a surprise to me.

What is that? How can experience just seemingly stop, altogether, and it is the greatest "thing" beyond any measure. Is there a point beyond "just awareness?" Cuz that's what it seemed like. Maybe I just wasn't aware enough. I don't know.

[Jhanananda]

Thank you all. To me, "God" is Nibbana. For sake of unity, whenever "God" is discussed, I just substitute mentally for Nibbana. I'm not too concerned with the specifics of Nibbana/God, because if it is worth so much effort as seems crystal clear in my experience, surely it is beyond words. But, sometimes I'm put in a position where i use words familiar to the prompter of discussion, but mean something else.

Yes, I agree, god is the same as nibanna, but not all mystics have the same level of experience.

That one experience I had, while I was reading a book and unknowingly practicing absorption correctly, is still the most profound I ever had. I've heard Jhananda tell me that each ayatana has it's own feel. Like the 5th has "power and beauty." During the experience I'm referring, there was a timeless, nothingness, emptiness, almost void of anything and everything, perception even, and yet intensely and fully satiating in every way. But not even that. It transcended anything I can say or think. The peak, which is what I am referring to, I can't even say it was "an experience." There was beautiful, intense ecstasy and insight before, and then next, just I dunno, and then I came back When I came back, i felt "Home. That's what you're searching for." And that's where I intend to go with every time I meditate. There seems nothing greater, and I see no need, or even ability to understand it intellectually. I wonder if there is anything beyond that--that would be quite a surprise to me.

What is that? How can experience just seemingly stop, altogether, and it is the greatest "thing" beyond any measure. Is there a point beyond "just awareness?" Cuz that's what it seemed like. Maybe I just wasn't aware enough. I don't know.

Well, becoming everything and nothing is beyond what you described.  Keep going, because I am sure you will find it.