Fruit of the Contemplative Life
Fruit of the contemplative life: => Contemplative Blogs => : WilliamW April 19, 2016, 06:44:36 AM
-
Hello. This first post may eventually serve as an index for posts in this thread, but that's a little ambitious yet; we'll see if I have enough to say to make it necessary.
For now, I'll write an introduction: my journey to find meditative absorption, the jhanas, and the GWV.
Introduction
I'm a generally irreligious person, though -- paradoxically -- I've always loved and been fascinated by mysticism, ritual, esoterica, the occult, theology, and the rest. I've enjoyed learning about all kinds of beliefs, philosophies, and practices, but rationality has been my guiding principle.
This has meant that I've looked at, and subsequently rejected, a lot of claims about reality. However, in encountering Buddhism, I found something different.
I immediately felt that its framework, at least, made sense: I had seen too much acute suffering to blithely dismiss it as anything less than a central issue; and it seemed clear that our own thoughts and minds are our uncontrolled tormentors. So the philosophical basis of Buddhism wasn't dubious in itself or planted on material facts which science has dispensed with -- two common failures -- and further, it didn't make a virtue of blind faith... a part of previously-examined paths which has always been anathema to me, having seen just how far wrong it can go.
Committing to a system of thought because it "might be" right is like jumping off a cliff and flapping your arms: this time might be the time it finally works, but a lot of people have crashed before you.
But did Buddhism actually work? It seemed plausible, to me, which -- in this arena -- is impressive in itself; but even better, and perhaps uniquely: there was evidence. It is recorded: Thich Quang Duc found such a state that even self-immolation did not penetrate his absorption; an unnamed Tibetan or Kashmiri monk effaced his senses so fully in contemplation that he did not feel a robber's sword; and, a bit less gruesomely, Tibetan monks had, demonstrably, the ability to control body temperature. (The first and the third are well-known; the second is recounted in Mystics and Magicians in Tibet.)
Of course, more research revealed health and particularly mental health benefits from meditation, but I was less concerned with healthy living -- or the specific details of the aforementioned cases -- than with what these feats portended: evidence that meditation could do something extraordinary. (Controlling body heat or living longer are nice, but that's not what impressed me directly: these were signposts to the fact that something was special about meditation.)
No other practice had so much as a party trick to its name, as far as I'd seen; Buddhism -- or rather, meditation -- had evidenced at least remarkable control over the brain and body, and at most, perhaps the actual cessation of suffering.
(As an aside, Jhananda has written that he believes all cultures to have traditions equal in insight. It's my thought that it's probable that all or most cultures have produced individuals equal in contemplative/ecstatic attainment, but that Buddhism -- and to a similar extent, tantra/yoga/Vedanta -- have done the best job of recording and systematizing this knowledge. As Jh. also notes, many other traditions muddy the waters with articles of faith, vague or non-standard language, etc.)
Varieties of Buddhism
So, from the beginning it seemed obvious to me that meditation had to be the "heart" of the Buddha's teachings; that what I would now call phala came from meditation and absorption, rather than philosophy or ethics. Reading the Pali suttas confirmed it... so I was puzzled when I began to explore Buddhism in earnest, and found that for many, it was something entirely different.
For some, it seems, Buddhism is sort of a way to lead a more moral, compassionate life... the Buddha, a supernaturally loving figure to emulate; mindfulness and meditation, a remembrance that you ought to be kind. This is related to, and often mixed with, a sort of vague, New-Agey dilution of the Noble Path into an unobjectionable "art of living" (as criticized by Bhikkhu Bodhi (https://www.bcbsdharma.org/article/climbing-to-the-top-of-the-mountain/)); meditation is a way to relax, the teachings a way to enjoy your possessions more. No need to challenge yourself; no need to consider new ideas, or look beyond life as you've known it... liberation and attainment safely not just in another life, but erased from consideration entirely.
How lame, how dispiriting, to have ecstasy and liberation transmuted to just being a little nicer, a little calmer! To be sure, niceness is important and I admire it more than any amount of ability plus cruelty; but that juiceless alchemy staggers me in its sheer missing-of-the-point. It is as if Zeno of Citium had come down to us as the founder of a doctrine stressing hedonistic abandon and attachment to possessions.
(I intend to write a little, in the future, about a few of the webpages and teachings that push similar views.)
Another interpretation of Buddhism saw it turned into a messianic religion, much like those in the Abrahamic mold: a source of words that will possibly put you in heaven later, through invisible and unknowable means. As Jhananda notes (in an article I will link when I find it again), many people seem to want the sage or arahant to be an impossible, superhuman figure. In Pure Land-style Buddhism, there were sages that did glorious things and achieved nibbana -- but there are no instructions, no ways for a mere human now to do anything but pray and die.
Indeed, of all the main varieties of Buddhism, only two, possibly three have not made a god of Siddartha Gautama; the rest seem to have completely dismissed the Buddha's words on theological speculation and his own divinity or lack thereof.
In Tibet, they didn't entirely lose sight of the basic aim of liberation through right effort, at least; but it was mixed in with laborious preliminary practices and ritual, closely-held mystical empowerments, guru and lineage worship, and various supernatural figures. I believe there is value in many of these innovations -- but also that many became lost in them as ends unto themselves; and once again, any kind of real attainment was often set safely far-off in other lives.
Similarly, Zen and Ch'an have a core of recognizably Buddhist theory, and perform contemplative exercises. However -- again, as mentioned by Jhananda -- these traditions seem to have lost sight of progression in self-transformation, often waiting for a sudden intellectual realization, and rejecting mental training/phala as misleading or pointless. (Western traditions often suggest that Zen aims merely at calming the mind so you may peacefully engage in everyday activity, which is no bad thing but also no very special thing. I'm not sure whether this is a Western mutation, or a faithful rendering of Japanese attitudes.)
Theravada, of course, remains closest to what Siddartha Gautama probably expounded around 560 B.C. Theravadin monks meditate to free themselves from dukkha and samsara, read the Pali suttas (at least in theory), and don't depend on deities, empowerments, or rebirth to gain attainments. I considered myself a Theravadin Buddhist for a long time, if a somewhat eclectic and heterodox sort.
Awakening to Contemplation
I was puzzled by the emphasis on vipassana as a separate -- and "better" -- practice from samatha, but I uncritically accepted that contention (until I read the essays on the GWV main site). It seemed clear to me that the Buddha wasn't talking about an enlightenment or path that could be reached through normal cognition, and yet that was often presented as the "highest" way. Samatha? That's for the blunter minds among us, or such is the impression often given.
It was suggestive to me that supernatural or "bene-natural" powers were considered to be the province of samatha, and that it was associated with other contemplative traditions as well; and, as written in the essay (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/criticism/witch-hunt.htm) on the persecution of ecstatics, if living by the precepts and thinking on the philosophy were the only "engines of enlightenment", why would it be that sorcerers could manifest insight (albeit inferior) and power as well? What were they doing to peer outside their ordinary reality?
So I rejected the idea that the central insight of the Tathagata was something along the lines of "just be in the moment", or "simply enjoy life", or "just cultivate love", or the other, similar messages, though that's not to say that these things cannot be important. I was certain the practice of meditation was key, and -- whether through arrogance or optimism! -- I never doubted that one could achieve enlightenment in this very lifetime. After all, it is recorded as happening in the Buddha's time (and, suggestively, it seemed that those who had already practiced "samathic" meditation needed only a slight push to become arahants).
But I was still under the sway of "dry", vipassana philosophy, albeit rebelling against it to some extent. I accepted its premises: Buddha as a Stoic, vipassana as a separate practice, samatha as "lower"... but I still practiced what they called samatha, and I still looked for information on meditative attainments, or paths or communities that emphasized them. I love and respect scholarship, and I am actually heavily inclined that way -- I have spent years reading piles of books and monographs on obscure nuances of particular historical Buddhisms, before I ever once sat down and tried myself -- but whenever I encountered a teacher or tradition with some variation of "x emphasizes intellectual achievements above experiential practices...", it was a disappointment, because I knew there was something missing there.
Finding the Jhanas
It was quite a while before I found any information about the jhanas. When I did, it was another moment like that when I encountered Buddhism itself -- an immediate sense that here was something important and true. As I'm sure everyone here is aware, you can read entire books on Buddhist practice without more than a passing mention of the jhanas -- if you get one at all.
I was amazed at what I had been missing. In the relevant suttas, the entire practice is laid out; they provide, simultaneously, an instruction manual and a motivation: here is what to do, here is what will happen, here is the fruit of your practice. I didn't realize it at the time, but they also put in doubt the "dry" doctrine of separate practices and the primacy of scholarship over experience. I did realize, though, that the canon itself confirmed a roadmap of meditative experiences -- and achievements possible for anyone.
It was while searching for information on kasina meditation, after reading about jhana-nimittas, that I saw a link to the Great Western Vehicle site. I almost didn't click on it; "great western vehicle? That doesn't sound historical or traditional..." I had been let down by modern interpretations before, and I am a historian by nature. Luckily for me, I got over my "historical bias" and clicked!
The Great Western Vehicle
Allow a brief digression: it does not tend to inspire confidence to realize that the person who is supposed to be teaching you to reach exalted states has no personal experience of them. For example, I once heard a purportedly knowledgeable teacher of Zen mention that meditation "does not change your mind, or bring another state of mind; it is your ordinary mind, just less cluttered." Well, no wonder he seemed so ordinary: he was only practicing to be ordinary! You might as well vegetate in front of the TV for a bit. That will give you an ordinary state of mind too.
By "ordinary", I mean he seemed no less prone to anger or boredom or other distress than I. A teacher does not have to be perfect, but if the only benefit you draw from your spiritual practice is momentary relaxation, I am not very interested -- I have ways to relax already. So to find someone who has personally experienced meditative absorption, and knows what works and what doesn't...
As I have described to Jhananda in an e-mail, it was like drinking a long draught of cool water after hiking in the desert, or finding a map after driving in circles in a strange city. The clear sense of these essays was life-changing, after so long of dimly sensing that my practice seemed to be pulling me in a different direction than that which the things I read kept insisting upon.
Here was someone outright saying what had seemed clear (yet been purposefully obscured) all along: meditation is the heart. The jhanas are the key. There is no timidly reworking the ideas into a simple extortion to traditional morality; no lazily deferring effort and attainment to another life, or on another being; no dilution of doctrine until "enlightenment" becomes just another word for "ordinary life but with lots of scholarship."
Instead, a simple but unafraid, peaceful but powerful message: the Buddha meant what he said, enlightenment is out there, and it's not just a metaphor for being nice or unstressed.
Truly it is labeled the Great Western Vehicle!
Postscript
Thank you for reading (if you're down here because you did). I intend to post a summary of what I've said here, soon.
Also coming up: criticism of certain webpages, details of current practice, out-of-body experience PDF I found, and the relation of a few strange experiences I have had.
-
Thank-you, WilliamW, for posting this most interesting blog. I read it as your journey here. May you find fruition.
-
That's exactly what it is -- I hope I didn't mislead by forgetting to title it as such! I'm not sure it is really all that interesting to others, heh; but I wanted to record it just in case, and I think my journey here does highlight some of both the good and the bad about the teachings available today.
Thank you for your kind comment. I hope the coming entries will be of more direct interest (...and maybe more concise); future posts will mostly be regarding details of practice, or on analysis of Buddhist/meditation-related webpages. I look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have on them.
One thing I've been thinking about recently is out-of-body experiences. I never really connected them with Buddhism or contemplative attainment, so the references on the GWV site to the "mind-made body" were extremely interesting and enlightening. It reminds me of some specifically Tibetan teachings; for example, it is sometimes written that one should "build up" a sort of mental body, or "strengthen" the consciousness, so that it will "hold together" outside the body, and control its destination after the body dies. (This is connected to the after-death wanderings in the "bardo", and also possibly bi-location.) I don't know if this is related to either out-of-body experiences or what the Buddha referred to as the mind-made body, but it's suggestive.
While searching for more information, I came across this (http://obe4u.com/files/SOBT.pdf) (PDF) manual. (Part I is basic instructions, Part III is advanced instructions, and Part II is a rather interminable succession of personal experiences.)
It probably doesn't have much to offer someone who has already thoroughly explored this area, but I thought others on this site may benefit. I'm trying its techniques and will certainly report here if anything comes of it. I'm not sure if I should rather wait for this to come "naturally", if it does, but it seems like practicing specifically for out-of-body experiences could at least be interesting!
-
That's exactly what it is -- I hope I didn't mislead by forgetting to title it as such! I'm not sure it is really all that interesting to others, heh; but I wanted to record it just in case, and I think my journey here does highlight some of both the good and the bad about the teachings available today.
Thank you for your kind comment. I hope the coming entries will be of more direct interest (...and maybe more concise); future posts will mostly be regarding details of practice, or on analysis of Buddhist/meditation-related webpages. I look forward to hearing any thoughts you may have on them.
One thing I've been thinking about recently is out-of-body experiences. I never really connected them with Buddhism or contemplative attainment, so the references on the GWV site to the "mind-made body" were extremely interesting and enlightening. It reminds me of some specifically Tibetan teachings; for example, it is sometimes written that one should "build up" a sort of mental body, or "strengthen" the consciousness, so that it will "hold together" outside the body, and control its destination after the body dies. (This is connected to the after-death wanderings in the "bardo", and also possibly bi-location.) I don't know if this is related to either out-of-body experiences or what the Buddha referred to as the mind-made body, but it's suggestive.
About 43 years ago I took up a contemplative life. Within weeks of practice I began to experience depth in meditation. At about the same time I started journalling my dreams, and within a few weeks I started experiencing lucid dreaming. About a month after that I started having OOBEs. So, for me it was a combination of developing facility with deep meditation through daily meditation practice; as well as determination to develop lucid dreaming; both of which brought me to being lucidly aware 24/7 for the last 42 years.
While searching for more information, I came across this (http://obe4u.com/files/SOBT.pdf) (PDF) manual. (Part I is basic instructions, Part III is advanced instructions, and Part II is a rather interminable succession of personal experiences.)
It probably doesn't have much to offer someone who has already thoroughly explored this area, but I thought others on this site may benefit. I'm trying its techniques and will certainly report here if anything comes of it. I'm not sure if I should rather wait for this to come "naturally", if it does, but it seems like practicing specifically for out-of-body experiences could at least be interesting!
I do not know about the instructions in the above PDF, but there are so many reports of people experiencing OOBEs, and the Pail Canon has such a lucid description of this phenomena, which is commonly mistranslated as "mind-made-body" that we mystics have plenty of case histories to point to that the OOBE is not simply mental projection.
The thing that I rarely see in OOBE literature is an understanding that lucidity in sleep, and the OOBE, require a base in the cultivation of deep meditation states. Without this as a base, lucidity and OOBEs become an occasional experience with little depth, and the risk of profoundly terrifying experiences. So, this is why I focus upon urging people to develop: daily meditation practice; depth in meditation; dream-journalliing; radical lifestyle change; and critical thinking and reading skills.
You have definitely exhibited critical thinking and reading skills. So, I expect that you will make rapid progress in the development of depth in meditation.
-
Well, I have been gone for a while, and I apologize for that -- not that anyone was exactly waiting with bated breath for the next entry here, heh. I had some difficulty concentrating both on developing a contemplative life and dealing with the obstacles "ordinary" life was throwing into my path; I think (hope) I'm able to do both now..
I wanted to bring something interesting to the attention of Jhanananda and anyone else posting here. The Buddha's teachings are those I have ultimately found to be most sound, but I'm sure I'm not alone in finding many different types of "spiritual technology" at least interesting. I tend to be fairly skeptical, especially of claims regarding material "powers", but I have increasingly accepted the idea that the almost-universally-recorded experiences resulting from rigorous and consistent meditative practice(s) are communicating some reality, or insight into the nature of reality and experience, etc. -- rather than being merely tricks one plays on the brain / more-or-less beneficial mental states like any other.
So, anyway, I'm sure many of us are familiar with the writings of Aleister Crowley. For a long time, I dismissed him and the religio-philosophical system he created (Thelema): I hadn't (haven't) noticed that he, or his initiates, had shown the sort of "fruits" that I have witnessed from Buddhist contemplatives; and I read some of his qabalistic interpretations, his remarks about being "the Great Beast", his idea that he was channeling some alien/god of ancient Egypt/spirit (or all three -- I'm not very clear on the fine points of this part, I admit) -- and thought it seemed like... well... nonsense.
I still reject much of this, but I encountered this work (http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/aba1.htm) and thought it was surprisingly rational and coherent. Scholarship on Buddhism and Hinduism has advanced since his writing, so I think we can do better than his descriptions of them; and his comment that Daoism is more clearly and practically explicated than the doctrines of the Buddha or of Hinduism is utterly baffling to me! (and, indeed, some of the practices he ascribes to Daoism were imported from Buddhist monks) -- but he seems to be onto something regarding his comments on mysticism in general. There are commonalities in various mystical systems, there is likely to be worth in a comparative analysis to get at the essentials, and his outline of the general process and result seems very clear and plausible to me.
So, in summary, it was an interesting read, and it has served to inspire me, a bit, by its clear outline of the reality and worth of contemplative pursuits. It might even convince an open-minded skeptic that s/he ought to take up contemplation.
I will note that -- as I mention above -- Crowley's explanation of Indian practices can probably be bettered by consulting more recent translations of and commentaries on Pali and Sanskrit sources, which were not generally available in his time. (I would, for example, recommend and trust the suttas and commentaries Jhanananda has kindly provided on the website, far above the brief instruction given by Crowley.) It appears he was working off of only a few translated works, which might explain his otherwise baffling rejection of Buddhist descriptions of the jhanas -- they seem to be rejected entirely on the basis of wordplay, a preference for a different use (or misuse) of the terms "dhyana" and "samadhi", rather than any actual experiential or logical objection.
If anyone is interested, I'll summarize the linked work and compare it to Buddhist (and, particularly, Great Western Vehicle) ideas.
-
I dived in the whole thelema, magick, etc rabbit hole and just wanted to tell you to stay clear of Crowley's work. For a long while I practiced rituals like the LBPR or middle pillar etc. His interpretations clearly show that he has poor knowledge of genuine jhana, or the charisms, or the removal of addictions and focus on morality and virtue and noble eightfold path.
I read all his volumes, and even the entire theosphical canon, all the bigger magick works... osho... gurdjieff (who called crowley a lesser man and refused to talk to him)... etc... and I must say there is no level of wisdom equal to that of described by the suttas in the Pali Canon. I'm saying this from experiential comparison.
In case you did not know, Crowley went down a bad spiral near his death. He was involved in occult rituals that involved young boys and children ... and sexual misconduct. Clearly he did not show any sign of removal of sensual lust or addictions or neurosis.
As Jhanananda always quotes, we know the tree from its fruit.
-
Thanks for the comment. I wanted to link to the first part of his "Book 4", because I enjoyed reading it and thought it made some good points regarding the general progression and outline of mystic/contemplative paths; but I tried to make sure to point out that, as you say, his understanding of Buddhism (and Hinduism, and possibly Daoism) is wanting.
Some of this is probably due to the dearth of scholarship at his time, but some of it is probably due to his personality, too -- I didn't know about the downward spiral you mention, but it seems that, unless I just haven't heard of it, he never really produced any "fruits" you might expect. Infighting, egoism, pettiness, etc. seem evident in Thelema, from what histories of it I've read -- but, that said, I don't know much about it, so I may well be very wrong. Crowley certainly seems intelligent enough; interestingly, I read some of his early writings and it seemed like he was on the right track at first -- he even wrote that he took refuge in the Dharma.
For some reason, though, he veered off into qabalism (intellectually interesting but basically a dead end, as far as I've seen, and easy to lose yourself in sophistry and conspiracy), "spiritualism", etc. I'm no expert on Thelema, so again, take all my interpretations with a grain of salt; but it's my view, so far, that the linked bit is possibly the most interesting/valuable work of Crowley's, at least for the Buddhist. I certainly agree that the Pali suttas are far and away a better guide!
-
Thank you for receiving my comment so graciously.
One of the biggest problems with scholarship is that they tend to take things too intellectually. I was on a conquest to 'reunite' everything - buddhism, hinduism, theosophy, taoism, wicca, thelema, qabalism, everything you could think of, thinking that if I found a way to unite them, then i could find a path to enlightenment.
But it was just a fool's errand. It's going backwards... Just like how you can enter a room from many doors, you can only go through one door at a time. But only after you've entered the room that you can understand all the doors that lead to the room.
Instead it is found in the contemplative lifestyle. Actually living out the noble eightfold path made me understand better than any reading or scholarship could. Right view is the most important - that's why it is the very first step of the noble eightfold path. I find the noble eightfold path a very good gauge of whether a path is genuine and complete... if anything is missing in it then I would not call that the Dharma.
Qabalism is very interesting, because it is linked to Sufism as well. A lot of religions mixed as they migrated through the countries, so I would also expect a lot of similarities.
-
Thank-you, WilliamW, for your offer to develop a comparative analysis of Western Occult, verses other contemplative traditions. I welcome such a dialog, and expect that those who engage in it will come to the same conclusions that I and bodhimind have, which is western occult got close, but lacked fruitful attainment and was mostly purely an intellectual pursuit.
-
Allow a brief digression: it does not tend to inspire confidence to realize that the person who is supposed to be teaching you to reach exalted states has no personal experience of them. For example, I once heard a purportedly knowledgeable teacher of Zen mention that meditation "does not change your mind, or bring another state of mind; it is your ordinary mind, just less cluttered." Well, no wonder he seemed so ordinary: he was only practicing to be ordinary! You might as well vegetate in front of the TV for a bit. That will give you an ordinary state of mind too.
Yes! I really liked it when Jeffrey talked about how many meditation teachers denigrated jhanas and other fruit of meditation because they, themselves were unsuccessful at meditation. This was one of the notions from his site that clicked for me and want to learn more.
Not sure I mentioned, but I HATE the 101 nature of every meditation group I attend.
I get that there are always new people, but what about those of us ready for 102?
I'm definitely at the start of the hike to the peak of enlightenment, but I don't have to be convinced of the path nor given preliminary instructions.
What's next?
GWV answers these questions so it's been highly helpful to my practice.
-
Allow a brief digression: it does not tend to inspire confidence to realize that the person who is supposed to be teaching you to reach exalted states has no personal experience of them. For example, I once heard a purportedly knowledgeable teacher of Zen mention that meditation "does not change your mind, or bring another state of mind; it is your ordinary mind, just less cluttered." Well, no wonder he seemed so ordinary: he was only practicing to be ordinary! You might as well vegetate in front of the TV for a bit. That will give you an ordinary state of mind too.
Yes! I really liked it when Jeffrey talked about how many meditation teachers denigrated jhanas and other fruit of meditation because they, themselves were unsuccessful at meditation. This was one of the notions from his site that clicked for me and want to learn more.
Not sure I mentioned, but I HATE the 101 nature of every meditation group I attend.
I get that there are always new people, but what about those of us ready for 102?
I'm definitely at the start of the hike to the peak of enlightenment, but I don't have to be convinced of the path nor given preliminary instructions.
What's next?
GWV answers these questions so it's been highly helpful to my practice.
Yes, I was in agony for decades hoping to find a meditation teacher who understood advanced meditation. I gave up looking for one 16 years ago, and started the GWV. I still never hear of a mediation teacher who even understands meditation 102. So, there is lots of room for the advanced contemplatives here to fill in the chasm between beginners meditation and the superior fruit of the contemplative life, which the GWV represents.
-
I was going through the somewhat well-known Dharma Overground thread on the jhanas, and something occurred to me (which has, admittedly, occurred to me -- and, I know, the people on this board -- many times before): ecstatic states really are demonized.
Of course, we know the "dry insight" folks throw ecstatic practices in the trash -- which always seemed to me to be a colossal injustice to anyone looking for something different, in terms of a "way out", in finding Buddhism; "here's a philosophy you can subscribe to" can only give so much comfort, I think, especially when there are a thousand competing ones. As Jhananda has written, somewhere, it is hard to believe that one can think and conceptualize one's way to enlightenment; we've all been doing that our entire lives -- how can it really change anything, on the deep, urgent level we need?
But I was surprised how even the person writing a guide on the jhanas, at Dharma Overground, is very careful to suggest that if any sort of altered state of consciousness arises, one ought to quash it. That is, he makes a distinction between the jhanas and "altered states", based on the mindfulness of the state, and is opposed to the latter. I might even agree that "mindful" states are to be sought above "unmindful" ones -- but I might argue, too, that they're both altered from "everyday consciousness"... so why is he, and just about everyone else, so quick to denigrate the term and make the distinction?
Similarly, one of Leigh Brasington's teachers was dismissive of his rapturous experience in jhanic meditation. (To his credit, Brasington does not fear "altered states", though.) All over, we see cautions against becoming a "junkie" to bliss, to disregard pleasurable states and feelings... on one hand, I can believe that the doctrine of non-attachment may cast any sort of "attachable" sensation in a negative light; on the other hand, I have also witnessed firsthand that many people, Buddhist and otherwise, believe pleasure, joy, and happiness are somehow "unspiritual". If the path is not hard and dry, you are just indulging...
I dunno -- I do not believe insight and pleasure are mutually exclusive, but neither am I certain that the "common wisdom" here isn't at least warning against a common trap.
-
I should wait for Jeffrey to weigh in, but I think it's silly to worry about being attached to meditation results if you keep practicing.
I knew at least one person who quit meditating because he felt bliss once then he failed to attain bliss the next time he meditated. This is my cautionary tale to those who think the jhanas should not be taught. If he knew more, he might still be meditating.
One teacher noted that while you're meditating, "you're not hurting anyone and your pleasure takes away nothing from people". This is true.
I also believe that meditating makes one a better person.
So while I think that "bliss ninny" is laugh out loud funny, it also seems a bit mean to call someone. I also think it's an absurd idea.
If you have no joy at all in your life, I can't really see the point of living. Maybe this is some kind of weakness of my own. :)
When people asked me why I meditated, for years, even before I found this forum, my reason was "bliss".
-
I was going through the somewhat well-known Dharma Overground thread on the jhanas, and something occurred to me (which has, admittedly, occurred to me -- and, I know, the people on this board -- many times before): ecstatic states really are demonized.
Yes, and it is done in every religion; and it is always the priesthood who do it. After all, it is bad for the business of religion when people who are not priests have the experience of depth, when the priests never have it.
Also, regarding your questions related to other teachers and teaching. Just keep in mind that "we know a tree by its fruit." If there is no discussion of clear understanding of the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala), then they do not have depth in meditation.
Also, the doorway to the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala) is the stilling of the mind. I found no such discussion with Dharma Overground, or Brassington. Instead I found a profound lack of such discussion, along with a treatment of the jhanas as if they were nothing more than mental projection exercises, which explains why these people can walk through the 8 stages of samadhi, but never still thei4r mind, or know what the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala) are.
Of course, we know the "dry insight" folks throw ecstatic practices in the trash -- which always seemed to me to be a colossal injustice to anyone looking for something different, in terms of a "way out", in finding Buddhism; "here's a philosophy you can subscribe to" can only give so much comfort, I think, especially when there are a thousand competing ones. As Jhananda has written, somewhere, it is hard to believe that one can think and conceptualize one's way to enlightenment; we've all been doing that our entire lives -- how can it really change anything, on the deep, urgent level we need?
Too true.
But I was surprised how even the person writing a guide on the jhanas, at Dharma Overground, is very careful to suggest that if any sort of altered state of consciousness arises, one ought to quash it. That is, he makes a distinction between the jhanas and "altered states", based on the mindfulness of the state, and is opposed to the latter. I might even agree that "mindful" states are to be sought above "unmindful" ones -- but I might argue, too, that they're both altered from "everyday consciousness"... so why is he, and just about everyone else, so quick to denigrate the term and make the distinction?
It appears that most people are terrified of altered states of consciousness.
Similarly, one of Leigh Brasington's teachers was dismissive of his rapturous experience in jhanic meditation. (To his credit, Brasington does not fear "altered states", though.) All over, we see cautions against becoming a "junkie" to bliss, to disregard pleasurable states and feelings... on one hand, I can believe that the doctrine of non-attachment may cast any sort of "attachable" sensation in a negative light; on the other hand, I have also witnessed firsthand that many people, Buddhist and otherwise, believe pleasure, joy, and happiness are somehow "unspiritual". If the path is not hard and dry, you are just indulging...
I dunno -- I do not believe insight and pleasure are mutually exclusive, but neither am I certain that the "common wisdom" here isn't at least warning against a common trap.
Just keep in mind that "we know a tree by its fruit." One should find here a clear description of the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala). The sources that you mention have no understanding of them. Also, ask yourself, "How did they treat Jhananda when he was on their forum?"
My conclusion is, if I am not going to be treated as a friend in the dhamma, then the sangha is corrupted.
-
@Frederick:
One teacher noted that while you're meditating, "you're not hurting anyone and your pleasure takes away nothing from people". This is true.
[...]
So while I think that "bliss ninny" is laugh out loud funny, it also seems a bit mean to call someone. I also think it's an absurd idea.
If you have no joy at all in your life, I can't really see the point of living.
Absolutely. "Oh no, someone is enjoying harmless pleasure!" :)
@Jhanananda:
Also, the doorway to the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala) is the stilling of the mind. I found no such discussion with Dharma Overground, or Brassington. Instead I found a profound lack of such discussion, along with a treatment of the jhanas as if they were nothing more than mental projection exercises, which explains why these people can walk through the 8 stages of samadhi, but never still their mind, or know what the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala) are.
Unfortunate, but true. Realizing this cleared up that mystery for me -- how someone could practice for years and yet never realize any other state of consciousness. It is very strange how people weaken the teachings.
It appears that most people are terrified of altered states of consciousness.
Also unfortunate but true. It's almost shocking; you'd think people would be fascinated by the idea that they have within them the power to achieve other, possibly profound -- or profoundly blissful -- states of consciousness, and yet everywhere you go, the very idea is treated like an evil in itself.
This is not limited to Buddhism -- notice that, in the drug scheduling laws of the U.S., and indeed sometimes in the actual statements given by authority figures, a drug being pleasurable is itself reason enough for a ban. No one seems to question the rationale, but instead all appear to unconsciously conflate "pleasurable" with "harmful".
Of course, later on, any negative side effects will be quoted as the claimed reason, but -- for example, with the case of kratom, or U-47700 -- the ban was rushed through far ahead of any known harm; it was merely because "we know this substance causes euphoria". Of course, these substances may, in fact, be just as dangerous as people seem to fear; it's not that I advocate the use of them -- it's just telling, I think, that the only thing people need to condemn them is the fact of the good effects.
Just keep in mind that "we know a tree by its fruit." One should find here a clear description of the superior fruit of attainment (maha-phala). The sources that you mention have no understanding of them. Also, ask yourself, "How did they treat Jhananda when he was on their forum?"
My conclusion is, if I am not going to be treated as a friend in the dhamma, then the sangha is corrupted.
A good thing to keep in mind.
Just yesterday, I was reading through your comments on various teachers, in preparation for my upcoming post on various "secondary source" teachings, and I found the e-mail from Marcia Rose. Beforehand, I was considering listening to some of her talks and looking up anything she has written -- but now, I have no desire to learn whatever she has to say.
Her message was jaw-droppingly petty. She wrote (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/criticism/marciarose.htm), and I only paraphrase a little: "I have generously and lovingly accepted your writings because I assumed they were merely out of your need for rambling self-expression" --...seriously? Not only what must be seen as condescension or insult (or both), but that directly paired with some self-congratulation on how nice and wise she is!
(It reminds me of the holier-than-thou teenage arguments I'd see on old spirituality-related message boards, where they're clearly angry and insulting each other -- but at the same time vying to appear the more "wise" and "spiritual". I remember reading one that went something like: "Out of my deep compassion, I have tried to make allowances for your obviously stunted spiritual growth, but with metta I must inform you that your childish notions are pure delusion..." )
Disagreement is certainly okay. If someone disagrees with us, here at GWV, I may still look at their ideas; we can still learn from each other. However, if someone is actively rude, demonstrably ignorant, or otherwise clearly unaffected by (an efficacious) spiritual practice, I cannot believe that they have anything worthwhile to communicate on the topic.
-
Unfortunate, but true. Realizing this cleared up that mystery for me -- how someone could practice for years and yet never realize any other state of consciousness. It is very strange how people weaken the teachings.
Also unfortunate but true. It's almost shocking; you'd think people would be fascinated by the idea that they have within them the power to achieve other, possibly profound -- or profoundly blissful -- states of consciousness, and yet everywhere you go, the very idea is treated like an evil in itself.
This is not limited to Buddhism --
Yes, every religion that I have spent time investigating has the same issue with the ecstatic and fruitful side of the contemplative life.
notice that, in the drug scheduling laws of the U.S., and indeed sometimes in the actual statements given by authority figures, a drug being pleasurable is itself reason enough for a ban. No one seems to question the rationale, but instead all appear to unconsciously conflate "pleasurable" with "harmful".
Of course, later on, any negative side effects will be quoted as the claimed reason, but -- for example, with the case of kratom, or U-47700 -- the ban was rushed through far ahead of any known harm; it was merely because "we know this substance causes euphoria". Of course, these substances may, in fact, be just as dangerous as people seem to fear; it's not that I advocate the use of them -- it's just telling, I think, that the only thing people need to condemn them is the fact of the good effects.
Yes, this is a parallel that I too have noted.
Just yesterday, I was reading through your comments on various teachers, in preparation for my upcoming post on various "secondary source" teachings, and I found the e-mail from Marcia Rose. Beforehand, I was considering listening to some of her talks and looking up anything she has written -- but now, I have no desire to learn whatever she has to say.
Her message was jaw-droppingly petty. She wrote (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/criticism/marciarose.htm), and I only paraphrase a little: "I have generously and lovingly accepted your writings because I assumed they were merely out of your need for rambling self-expression" --...seriously? Not only what must be seen as condescension or insult (or both), but that directly paired with some self-congratulation on how nice and wise she is!
(It reminds me of the holier-than-thou teenage arguments I'd see on old spirituality-related message boards, where they're clearly angry and insulting each other -- but at the same time vying to appear the more "wise" and "spiritual". I remember reading one that went something like: "Out of my deep compassion, I have tried to make allowances for your obviously stunted spiritual growth, but with metta I must inform you that your childish notions are pure delusion..." )
Disagreement is certainly okay. If someone disagrees with us, here at GWV, I may still look at their ideas; we can still learn from each other. However, if someone is actively rude, demonstrably ignorant, or otherwise clearly unaffected by (an efficacious) spiritual practice, I cannot believe that they have anything worthwhile to communicate on the topic.
Yes, we can only live and learn, and learn to meditate deeply in solitude.
-
I'm back. It's been quite a while. I hope to restart my project to catalogue reliable writings on the jhanas and meditative absorption in general.
When I was posting here before and sitting in meditation daily, I was detached from the world. I had some very bad things happen in my life, giving me feelings of hopelessness, and cultivating Right View/Understanding and meditation was my solace.
I then miraculously escaped the doom that had hung over me and obtained some measure of worldly success. This was great, but it caused me to focus on maya, and I almost abandoned spiritual pursuits entirely. By sheer chance, a month or two ago I encountered some of Jhananda's writings I had saved years before, and I remembered some of the wisdom I had forgotten.
I sometimes wish I could abandon career and convince my wife to join me in meditative seclusion -- but that would lead to poverty, and while I'm okay with not having a *lot* of money again, we would need to eat at least!
So, anyway... I'm back and I hope to stay back. Additionally, Jhananda, if you see this, please let me know when/if you are in need of donations for server costs or other necessities; I would like to give back if I can -- your writings both saved me from despair years ago, and just recently again reminded me of what's truly important.
-
Hello, Will, it is so good to hear from you gain, and to know that you have returned to your contemplative life, and have found fruit, and that the GWV, and this forum have helped you recover your fruitful contemplative life. I look forward very much to reading what you have to say.
As for donations, the GWV only has expenses once a year in renewing its serve, and domains. I have been on social security for about 7 years now. My health has improved remarkably in the last 30 months through the use, and development of air-purifiers. I believe that my develipments could help others with comormidities recover from the corono-virus; however, I still need to improve the system, which I believe will improve my health.
-
Hey will,
I have been contemplating myself to let go of my job its hindering my health and i wish to focus more on meditation.
I have gathered some money thru my job of 8 years , its not much, i know i may not be able to go on forever with this money, but my girl friend, we will get married soon, she says she can keep working if required and my parents are also supportive now.
I can still my mind thru the day and its there effortlessly but my health keeps sparking anxiety and difficult to manage phsyical and mental symptoms sometimes, i didn know that much shit is stored in my subconscious.
And Jhanananda im happy to know that your health is getting better!! We need you here :)
I needed to ask you something, i still my mind my breath slows down so much but im not focusing on any nimittas, it gives me nausea and palpation i dont know why, is it possible i cud reach 4th jhana without focusing on nimittas, cause i do hear ringing and see light inside, but i dont meditate on them still i find when i cut thoughts deeply my breath almost stops.. Still im not able to goto 5th jhana, cause i dont have any formal sitting practice, past 7,8 months were hell for me, anxiety and nausea with vomiting.. Its all hypesensitity i guess.. Maybe some of it is caused by some minor health issue, i changed my diet alot to find something to soothe the symptoms.
-
Hello, Naman, and thank-you for expressing your kind and supportive thoughts. I do not see how deep meditation could be causing nausea; however, as many of you know I have been experiencing vertigo for decades now, and I had associated the vertigo with deep meditation. Rather interesting recent findings is my vertigo comes, and/or gets worse from air pollution, so it is possible that both of us are experiencing hypersensativity to air pollution due to deep meditation practice. I have found considerable relief from the use of an air puriifier, so you might try one.
-
Oh its interesting that u mentioned vertigo, i have been feeling it myself from past 2 years. I think yes it is becasue of toxins from air n food. Also im avoiding food that imcreases heat in body. Oil spices, etc