forestofclarity

Well, I hope you don't use anything related the Edison's light bulb, Henry Ford's mass production, anything related to the wheel, fire, or agriculture, and all the technology based on the findings of dead men and women. No need to reinvent the wheel.

If I remember back to my course on existential philosophy, Nietzsche's line wasn't fuzzy at all--- he came down hard against religion as applied to the Overman. According to the Overman theory, the Overman would be physically, emotionally, and mentally supreme. Religion would weaken him/her with its arbitrary limitations. I think there is a kernal of truth to that. Religion, like everything else, grows from one thing (a realization) to another (a rigid, set structure.)

From Greg Goode: [/url]

One more time, just in case.

What makes Buddhism different? It doesn't get bogged down in the sort of metaphysical nonsense this thread contains. See the unanswerable questions. What really makes Buddhism different is the emphasis on the four seals: 1. Impermanence. 2. Unsatisfactoriness. 3. Non-self. 4. Nirvana. I see a lot on this forum where people declare themselves to the spokespeople of Buddhism, and others assume that they are. It is not so. Back to the nonsense...

I think GIH raised some good points here. However, the slight on Zen and silence is a more of a good example of a degraded teaching rather than a valid critique. Silencing the mind is like wiping a window: it may not change the nature of anything, but it makes it easier to see. If you go back in the Buddha's teaching, you see him say "All right, do these things to get the mind calmed down, THEN look at these things." Over time, the "THEN look at these things" gets dropped and silence is valued as an end in itself. Also, the comment on experiential range. I wonder about that. Most of the "sages" talk about getting out of the prison, getting off the wheel. Improving your range--- how would this be any less ephemeral than anything else? Adding a wide variety of furniture to a cell doesn't change the nature of the cell. Which brings me to a main point: What is the point of our practice? Is it to attain something: superpowers, bliss, a range of experience, or something else? What does it really mean to get out of the prison?

I always like to hear from those who pin their lives on the teaching. Not many do.

Here is one view: Craving is a movement toward what we like or away from what we don't like. Why is this a problem? Because pleasure doesn't last and pain is inevitable. Now by pleasure and pain, I mean the whole spectrum: from a slight itch to full blown torture; or from a pleasant sigh to extreme bliss. So when something we like arises, we move toward it and try to hold onto it. But nothing lasts, and eventually it goes away. We want the pleasure again. Or when something we don't like arises, we move away from it and try to get away from it. But this is not always possible, and eventually we have to deal with pain. We may even fear pain when it is not around. We end up passing our lives bouncing around like a pinball, going from pleasure to pleasure, away from pain. How to overcome it? Investigation. Removing our ignorance. Once we realize what is going on, all this loses its power. But not just intellectually. Deep into the fibers of what we are. So the problem isn't overcoming desire, but truly understanding it. This is just one way of many.

From time to time, I enjoy learning about meditation methods of other cultures. Recently, I've been reading through "Jewish Meditation" by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. He writes: "The thought process itself is also controlled to a large degree by the unconscious, but it can be controlled by the conscious mind. This is most obvious in the case of the reverie*. When one is relaxing and not paying particular attention to it, the reverie flows from one thought to another without conscious effort. Indeed, there are a number of psychological techniques that try to imitate this "free association." However, no matter how free the association may be when one is expressing it to a second party, it is never as free as in the case of pure reverie. The reverie thus can also be seen as a point of interface between the conscious and unconsious. By learning to control the reverie, one can also learn how to control the unconscious." I was wondering if anyone here has had experience with learning to control the reverie, and what, if any results were obtained. It sounds like an interesting possibility. *--- images, words, thoughts, etc. that flow uncontrolled in the mind

Karma is also very real. Step out in front of a car, you'll get hit. I've been researching madhyamaka philosophy lately, and find the two truth model to be helpful. Ultimately, there may be no golden chain that links cause with effect, yet conventionally, the universe behaves as though there is.

That itself is a good insight.

And why were you reluctant to share? Even if no one agrees openly, you never know where your arrows are going to strike. I think this bears repeating, both for myself and for others.

Different things work for different people. Some need to do, some need to not do.

Mikaelz, I don't agree. Vajra talks about states all through his posts. Experiencing this, experiencing that--- but in the end, as you point out, it's not what you experience. It is how it you experience it. What I see in Vajra's posts are a tendency to objectify--- to take transient verbs and turn them into nouns. If I'm wrong and he's seen through his own nature, it doesn't matter. There is an Advaita saying: use a thorn to remove a thorn, and throw both thorns away. Advaita, like Buddhism, starts with dualities. But if you look further in, the dualities in both systems dissolve. Nevertheless, it sounds like you are well on the right track. For Xabir: Xabir wrote: I would recheck your Greg Goode article on emptiness. It sounds like you're positing inherent existence, i.e. DO and emptiness as the way things are. (emphasis added) So you see, even your teacher recognizes that DO gets dissolved in the end.

Lucky, You may find the following reading helpful: Emptiness Teachings of Greg Goode A Verb for Nirvana Also, in my experience, existential crises are often a sign of progress. Keep up the good work!

Indeed. This is why it is good to find out what one is practicing first.

Not if you're practicing certain Buddhist meditation. The seven factors of enlightenment are: 1. Mindfulness (sati) 2. Keen investigation of the dhamma (dhammavicaya) 3. Energy (viriya) 4. Rapture or happiness (piti) 5. Calm (passaddhi) 6. Concentration (samadhi) 7. Equanimity (upekkha) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...eel001.html#n-3

Lucky, First off, what is your practice? It is important, because different practices will approach these things differently. Second, do you have a teacher?

Mikaelz, I think that is right. The mindstream developments are usually described in terms of vijnana, actually, which would be the consciousness skandha. Being a skandha, it is subject to anicca, anatta, and dukkha. Arising in the fifth skandha, it is preceded by the prior four. Generally, what we may call craving arises first in the sensation skandha, before even a perception has arisen! This is not a theory, it can actually be experienced. Notice the word: vi-, the same as in vipassana, which is to see or discriminate clearly. Vijnana is discriminating consciousness. This is a subtle clue. Where people often run into trouble with Buddhism is because many people reject the 5 skandha classification as outdated or unnecessary. Yet, even when you read Zen literature, the 5 skandhas are talked about and used. There are subsequent, and yes, what one may consider a "higher" teachings. But people like to glom onto the higher teaching (or concepts!) without understanding the so-called lower teaching. This can result in little to no progress. The 5 skandhas are tricky because they cannot be understood intellectually. That is why one has confusion when one does not flush them out with actual experience. Vajra, I find it ironic that you find GIH's assessments to be subjective, but your own to be objective (for instance, the objective nature of DO or the supriority of Buddhism over Advaita).

Mikaelz, Buddhist teaching is holographic. The whole teaching is reflected in each of its parts. If we try to understand it apart from it's core, we do it a disservice. The core of Buddhism is in the Four Noble Truths. Read this passage again carefully. The first paragraph of the introduction: Clinging/craving as the cause of suffering is central in Buddhist teaching. It is also important in other teachings: in Taoism, blockages and obstructions prevent the free flow of energy. In Zen, non-abiding prevents ignorance. In Christianity, one is forbidden from making idols of the divine. The dhamma is to be used, specifically, to end suffering. It is not to be taken home and mounted on a wall. It is not to be hung as an ornament around one's neck. One does not carry the raft, on either side, when not in use.

Repeating it doesn't make it true, or make it what the Buddha taught. DO is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is like grabbing the snake by the wrong end, or worshipping the Buddha rather than applying his practices. I've talked with many Christians who repeat over and again, it's all God's will in much the same way.

It seems that you are proposing an additional skandha called the "mind stream." Concepts do not arise until the arising of perception and then reactions. Grass does not contain the concept of grass. The concept of grass is added on by the mind which consists of the last four skandhas (and possibly the first, depending on who you're talking to). Have you studied the 5 skandhas in your meditation? The Buddha taught that ignorance comes from confusion of the skandhas--- that we are tangled in the tangle. He also taught the arising of clinging/grasping on the 12 links of D.O. Clinging to Buddhism is a form of Buddhism. A judgment that Buddhism is better than something is a reaction arising in the fourth skandha. If you know well the skandha scheme, you know that when the skandhas arise with clinging or aversion, then there is the reinforcement of confusion and ego. The Buddha's solution is untangling the skandhas and not clinging to them. In this way, liberation arises. You see, there is nothing in the Buddha's teaching about the cosmos and the way it is. The Buddha himself said he taught dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. Xabir, Your quotes are fine and all, but do not answer the question. Outside the quotes, are you able to answer these questions in your words, in your own experience?

Xabir, The 12 links describe the cycle of birth, old age, and death--- in other words, the whole wheel of life. I cannot find where these limitations you describe appear in the suttas, please direct me. You will notice on close inspection the arising of the 5 skandhas in the 12 links. Speaking of the skandhas, in skandha does DO belong? You will also notice on the 12 links the arising of craving and clinging, i.e. the 1st and 2nd Noble Truth. And what is the teaching of the Buddha: Dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. Thus, you can see how the links of DO, the 5 skandhas, and the 4 Noble Truths fit together. Vajra, By the time you experience things as "formless" or "bliss", perception has already arisen, and thus this is not prior to thought. In which skandha does the non-conceptual ground of the mind stream belong? On what does the mind depend?