Very interesting Jhanon. I've found that feedback also plays a crucial role in this. Following your organ logic, I'd propose that those with 'natural' knowledge of the specific bodily function always come to the aid of those who lack that knowledge. In this case, the physician (or hospital organization) was most capable in aiding that body of mass in a manner that would most efficiently return that body to a stable condition. The physician and patient, working as the hot and cold water, respectively, work together to: 1. provide feedback and 2. neutralize each other. Thus, the product of this is a stable body now composed of hot, cold, and luke-warm water. Now the patient learns to enjoy the hot-lukewarm state and the physician learns how to recognize the cold-lukewarm state. Without the two, however, the lukewarm state, as it is, would not have made itself manifest. It's like this: Imagine two children carrying fire in their right hand and ice in their left. Both know what they have in their hands but do not yet know that what they have can change. Now imagine that the two children go along walking next to each other for a finite amount of time, however they never make contact with their hands. When they meet, though, they decide to face each other and place their hands together. Now the children, both having realized that the other was required to change the current state of the fire or ice in their hands, learn how to produce warm water. Forgive me if this doesn't make sense, but this is what I got out of reading your post. Just adding a little thought to your thought.
I think it might be better to offer a solution to their problem. Say, unhappiness (dhukka), you then explain the 4 noble truth, which direct people then to the N8P. Then you offer them the GWV's version of the N8P, so that they can see a logical sequence between following an N8P that actually gets to bliss, which replaces the depression; because without bliss there is no replacement for depression.
My teaching method has been more about being a living example of wise living habits. A very small number of those who live foolish living habits see those who live wisely and are inspired to live wisely as well.
Leading a weekly, or daily, meditation sit is an excellent way to find those who seek to live wisely. When I was a student at the University of Arizona I found there was no meditation club there, so I started one, and then I found a place that was conducive to meditation, then I led a daily meditate sit there every day at noon. I announced my club and the sit, and people came. You could do the same thing.
You're correct, Jhananda. I saw in one of the GWV teaching documents that a teacher is expected to run a meditation group. But it usually takes 2-3 suggestions of something for me to finally take action. I'm a fool like that.Since you are a student, then look around the college or university that you are attending. Perhaps there is already a meditation club. If so join it. If not start one. Any religious organization that is near any college or university is often times willing to allow a space on their campus for the use of the public to engage in a meditation group.
I should. I should start one. But where? I can't do it at my home--there is too many people crammed in it as it is, and it's noisy.
Jhananda, I am making efforts to teach more. But I have committed to strictly teaching meditative absorption, it's related phenomena, and it's necessary pre-requisites. I find people trust me more and are more open to meditation because I don't push any religious or spiritual philosophy with it.Follow what works.
I center on meditation, and it seems to do all the work on it's own. Which I think is wisest. If one can show them te fruit, and how to grab the first branch of the tree, is it not natural for them to find their own path to the same fruits? Of course I offer additional teachings like the N8P if anyone expresses interest.
You ever heard of "oppositional defiant disorder?" Check this out:I agree with you, same with the diagnoses of religious experience as "religious psychosis." It is all a way of disempowerment.
"Oppositional defiant disorder is a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures."
In other words, a person that prefers to think for themselves, and will fight for their right to?
Someone could easily diagnose most of my friends and I with this. These diagnosis, like ADHD as well, appear to be attempting to exert control over the movers and shakers--do they not?
And consider since the Industrial Age narrowed and systemized the expected means of self-sustenance, we find many of these individuals on the streets.
Change is what prevents long-lasting corruption, and so by abandoning and marginalizing our homeless, are we not shooting our own foot?
Do you see how I'm trying to address issues we talk about in a different way? I wonder your thoughts on that general approach.
Just read this article on homelessness:
Someone could easily diagnose most of my friends and I with this. These diagnosis, like ADHD as well, appear to be attempting to exert control over the movers and shakers--do they not?
And consider since the Industrial Age narrowed and systemized the expected means of self-sustenance, we find many of these individuals on the streets.
Change is what prevents long-lasting corruption, and so by abandoning and marginalizing our homeless, are we not shooting our own foot?
No Solutions: Laws to Make Everything About Homelessness Illegal Have Increased Dramatically
July 19, 2014
While homelessness is worse than ever in many places across the country, more and more cities are addressing the crisis by making it illegal to sleep, sit or simply be in public.
This decades-old trend is spreading even as the social safety net keeps shrinking and housing is at its most expensive. People with nowhere else to go are cited, arrested and jailed for begging, lying on park benches or curling up on stoops—even though criminalizing activities that homeless people do to survive does nothing to end homelessness and costs more than it would to house them.
So finds a study of 187 cities by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP), an advocacy group that has tracked the way cities address homelessness since 1991. The new report, the first in three years, found a 43 percent increase since 2011 in laws designed to curb the presence of homeless people on the streets (so-called sit-lie laws) and a 60 percent increase in city-wide bans as opposed to more narrow bans focused on downtowns or public parks.
Moreover, in three years, laws that ban sleeping in cars and other private vehicles, the last refuge for many families that have lost their homes, have jumped by 116 percent.
The increase and broadening of these laws means that more cities are handling their homelessness crisis by essentially pushing society’s most marginalized, reviled population out of sight. While the U.N. Committee on Human Rights has found that such laws violate international human rights treaties and the 9th Circuit Court has found that people who have lost their homes should not be penalized for sleeping in their cars, the bans and penalties for violating them keep growing.
The bleak findings, which come as income inequality, wage stagnation and outright poverty have become endemic, suggest a compassion fatigue with no sign of abating. The laws are being passed with wide voter approval, in cities that offer few or no alternatives for those living on the streets.
Palo Alto, Calif., for example, at the center of the high-tech boom, has only 15 shelter beds, serving 10 percent of its homeless population, but it has made sleeping in one’s own private vehicle a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine or six months in jail. Santa Cruz, Calif., where 83 percent of homeless people have no shelter options, has imposed bans on camping, sitting, or lying down in public or sleeping in vehicles. Orlando, Fla., where 34 percent of homeless people are without shelter beds, prohibits camping, sleeping and begging in public as well as “food sharing.”
Bans on “food sharing,” or feeding homeless people, are the latest trend in criminalization laws. Of the cities surveyed, 17 have made it illegal to feed people in public.
Homeless people surveyed reported warrants and outstanding tickets for sleeping outside or in their cars, constant harassment from police, and a hopelessness as to how to change their situation. Many surveyed have had their possessions confiscated for “storing them” in public and jailed for living outside. The Western Regional Advocacy Project (W.R.A.P.), an umbrella group for homeless advocacy organization in several Western states, conducted a national survey of 1,600 homeless people and found that 80 percent have been harassed for sleeping in public and 74 percent have no idea where to go to find safe shelter.
For those who are employed and homeless—44 percent of the nation’s homeless population, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless—these penalties endanger their best chance —their jobs—for mitigating their living situation.
Cities grappling with growing homeless populations and less affordable housing (more than 12 percent of the nation’s supply of low-income housing has been permanently lost since 2001) are stymied as to how to provide solutions, said Jeremy Rosen, a spokesman for the NLCHP, so they adopt criminalization ordinances.
“We are really trying to wave our hands at this point,” Rosen said, “And point out to communities that the approach is generally unsuccessful. They return to the streets again and it becomes more difficult to help them as they have a criminal record and fines and court costs they can’t pay.”
There are a few bright spots in the report. Cities that have adopted a “housing first” approach to homelessness—providing housing with supportive services—have reduced the costs associated with enforcing anti-homeless laws while providing safe shelter for their most vulnerable population. In Utah, a government study found that the annual cost of emergency room visits and jail stays for an average homeless person was $16,670, while providing an apartment and a social worker cost $11,000. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, by providing housing, the city reduced spending on homelessness-related jail costs by 64 percent.
Source - alternet.org : http://www.alternet.org/print/civil-liberties/no-solutions-laws-make-everything-about-homelessness-illegal-have-increased
I find it an interesting challenge to present a cogent and logically true argument for the practice of meditation without resorting to ancient non-western premises. There certainly is a rich contemplative tradition in western literature, which you could resort to, such as Francis of Assissi, Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross; however, their premises are deeply steeped in Catholic Christian devotional metaphors and premises, which you may not want to resort to. So, I am enjoying reading through your journey here to see if you are successful.
You make an excellent point, Jhananda. As always, very illuminating. I hasn't considered that, but it is very clearly true.Yes, I understand the difficulties of presenting the dhamma/tao to the western mind who has shrugged off mainstream religion as nothing more than marketing hype. Perhaps you could start there.
Well, we can't use religious terms because the conditioning of most of those who are most ready for a spirituality based on critical thinking, are averse to those religious terms. I've even watched happen with people I've taught. The second I start dropping commonly associated religious terms, they go silent.
I your perception, did the Buddha use only common terms, existing religious terms, or a mixture of both? When considering how to make the greatest impact closest to the Buddha's, I think it's reasonable to look at what he did in regards to language. You hav a deeper knowledge of Pali and Indic terms than I.From a close examination of the Pali Canon it is clear that Siddhartha Gautama used both common language and accepted liturgical language to express himself. It is my opinion that part of his work was to serve as a bridge to Pali from Sanskrit.
I've never heard of this NDE individual.You will hear more about NDE. Just know that it authentic NDE is the same as authentic OOBE.
To my mind, it would probably be best to use common language, and instantly define it as synonymous with other religions. Like Nimitta/charism/non-physical sensation. Or like non-physical/subtle/immaterial/energy-body.I agree; however, doing so makes you a participant in the Jhananda school
I think, believe it or not, school has helped me learn to write much better. I still want to write an all-inclusive, greatest depth, unifying book. A tiny bit like Eckhart; but obviously with greater depth. The one book necessary, so-to-speak. I think the problem with Eckhart's book is that he never really explain how to access the religious experience. He covertly slipped in a little bit of it overtly. Most of his books are about unification or religion, history, and self-growth.Well, I am all for others working on an all-inclusive, greatest depth, unifying book; however, to do so, then you would have to be way beyond Eckhart Tolle, as he is just introductory.
In other words, we need something that covers it all. Something with the aim of encourages jhana, awareness of it's universality, and in relation to past teachers of renown.
I'm afraid if I start now, which I really want to, I won't be able to stop until it's done. And that could take a year or two of writing mostly non-stop.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/pali/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/1Digha-Nikaya/Digha1/01-brahmajala-e.htm#q%20001) DN1. You can find it on the GWV website at the link.
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.Well, becoming everything and nothing is beyond what you described. Keep going, because I am sure you will find it.
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.
I think it is worth noting that my original hypothesis about avoiding spiritual terms and just posting my philosophical insights has been successful in attracting people who are ready.I agree with your approach. I think it's a case of speaking in everyday language that is clear and understandable; that is gentile, patient and kind; that is free of frivolity; that reflects the true dhamma. In other words RIGHT SPEECH.
There have been 5 or 6 previous, with Cal being the most recent. Most Americans, in my experience, who are ready for enlightenment, are not interested in religion. They turn off as soon as it is said. Those who are interested in religion have already attached to views.
One can't even think "What goes around comes around" or "karma will get you."Only humble surrender will enable transcendence, thus allowing a far greater force (Nature) to exact it's merciless laws. There can be no escape.
What brings the field of experience into focus and makes it accessible to insight is a mental faculty called in Pali sati, usually translated as "mindfulness." Mindfulness is presence of mind, attentiveness or awareness. Yet the kind of awareness involved in mindfulness differs profoundly from the kind of awareness at work in our usual mode of consciousness . All consciousness involves awareness in the sense of a knowing or experiencing of an object. But with the practice of mindfulness awareness is applied at a special pitch. The mind is deliberately kept at the level of bare attention, a detached observation of what is happening within us and around us in the present moment.
In the practice of right mindfulness the mind is trained to remain in the present, open, quiet, and alert, contemplating the present event. All judgements and interpretations have to be suspended, or if they occur, just registered and dropped. The task is simply to note whatever comes up just as it is occurring, riding the changes of events in the way a surfer rides the waves on the sea. The whole process is a way of coming back into the present, of standing in the here and now without slipping away, without getting swept away by the tides of distracting thoughts.
It might be assumed that we are always aware of the present, but this is a mirage. Only seldom do we become aware of the present in the precise way required by the practice of mindfulness. In ordinary consciousness the mind begins a cognitive process with some impression given in the present, but it does not stay with it. Instead it uses the immediate impression as a springboard for building blocks of mental constructs which remove it from the sheer facticity of the datum. The cognitive process is generally interpretative. The mind perceives its object free from conceptualization only briefly. Then, immediately after grasping the initial impression, it launches on a course of ideation by which it seeks to interpret the object to itself, to make it intelligible in terms of its own categories and assumptions. To bring this about the mind posits concepts, joins the concepts into constructs -- sets of mutually corroborative concepts -- then weaves the constructs together into complex interpretative schemes. In the end the original direct experience has been overrun by ideation and the presented object appears only dimly through dense layers of ideas and views, like the moon through a layer of clouds.
The Buddha calls this process of mental construction papanca, "elaboration," "embellishment," or "conceptual proliferation." The elaborations block out the presentational immediacy of phenomena; they let us know the object only "at a distance," not as it really is. But the elaborations do not only screen cognition; they also serve as a basis for projections. The deluded mind, cloaked in ignorance, projects its own internal constructs outwardly, ascribing them to the object as if they really belonged to it. As a result, what we know as the final object of cognition, what we use as the basis for our values, plans, and actions, is a patchwork product, not the original article. To be sure, the product is not wholly illusion, not sheer fantasy. It takes what is given in immediate experience as its groundwork and raw material, but along with this it includes something else: the embellishments fabricated by the mind.
The springs for this process of fabrication, hidden from view, are the latent defilements. The defilements create the embellishments, project them outwardly, and use them as hooks for coming to the surface, where they cause further distortion. To correct the erroneous notions is the task of wisdom, but for wisdom to discharge its work effectively, it needs direct access to the object as it is in itself, uncluttered by the conceptual elaborations. The task of right mindfulness is to clear up the cognitive field. Mindfulness brings to light experience in its pure immediacy. It reveals the object as it is before it has been plastered over with conceptual paint, overlaid with interpretations. To practice mindfulness is thus a matter not so much of doing but of undoing: not thinking, not judging, not associating, not planning, not imagining, not wishing. All these "doings" of ours are modes of interference, ways the mind manipulates experience and tries to establish its dominance. Mindfulness undoes the knots and tangles of these "doings" by simply noting. It does nothing but note, watching each occasion of experience as it arises, stands, and passes away. In the watching there is no room for clinging, no compulsion to saddle things with our desires. There is only a sustained contemplation of experience in its bare immediacy, carefully and precisely and persistently
Mindfulness exercises a powerful grounding function. It anchors the mind securely in the present, so it does not float away into the past and future with their memories, regrets, fears and hopes.
Bodhi, Bhikkhu (2011-12-15). The Noble Eightfold Path: Way to the End of Suffering (p. 75- 77). Independent Publishers Group. Kindle Edition.
We have the free will to choose enslavement to the cunning illusions of mind, or surrender to the Transcendent Ineffable of which we've so very many names for.What a dilemma it is that you are forced to choose between good grades and what you believe is relevant and important knowledge.
This is what I would have posted on the subject of free will in Philosophy if I didn't need an A. I don't even know if it's accurate. It just came out.
I think it might be better to offer a solution to their problem. Say, unhappiness (dhukka), you then explain the 4 noble truth, which direct people then to the N8P. Then you offer them the GWV's version of the N8P, so that they can see a logical sequence between following an N8P that actually gets to bliss, which replaces the depression; because without bliss there is no replacement for depression.
I agree that perception leads to a nonrealistic interpretation of the world. In some cases it can be the cause of suffering. So we shouldn't take these sensory interpretations as being a true picture of whatever it is we perceive.
To abide in a state of non-duality free from perception is freedom from suffering and offers a realistic view of the world free from judgment and interpretation. All the great spiritual teachers recognize this.
Perception is often not mentioned in Dependent Origination, but it's between 'Feeling' and 'Craving.' A state of non-duality, which is void of perception, prevents 'Feeling' from turning into 'Craving' thus breaking the chain of Dependent Origination.
6 sense Bases > Contact > Feeling > Perception > Craving > Clinging > Becoming > Birth > Aging and Death > Suffering
However, we still need perception to function in the physical world. But we should understand its limitations.