beoman

Yea there's no intrinsic reason that I can think of at the moment for why it shouldn't be fundamentally simple, and attainable. But again that's why I asked this question =). From Daniel's point of view, there's just been too much propaganda about enlightenment from the various traditions making it seem like something it's not, causing it to seem inaccessible when apparently it's not. And lots of pop culture stuff about it, such that if you say "I'm trying to reach enlightenment" most people will be like "oh that's nice..." He removes lots of mystique from what it is, saying it's just perceiving the world differently, and that makes it seem more accessible (and also seems like the most sane definition to me). He also doesn't build it up or say why anyone would want to do it ("highly recommended, can't say why").

If anything, the book is strange because it makes it seem so simple to reach enlightenment. Simple, yet a lot of work, that is. Something like: "First of all, it's important to learn to live in the real world. Now, to see things how they truly are and awaken, do insight practice, learn to see impermanence, suffering, and non-duality in all experiences. In order to do this, you'll need to be able to concentrate, so do these concentration practices to help with that. Don't get too caught up on anything along the way. Once you're enlightened you can go on living in the real world. Good luck!"

Would you care to share any comments before then? =P. I'm sure he won't take it personally.. and we might all learn something from the discussion it creates.

From what I read in the book, it seems to mostly focus on questioning existing dogma. I suppose he has his own in that he believes insight practices are the best to reach awakening, but he also says that this has just been his own experience, which is why he advocates it.

After this happened many times, I started noticing the pattern. And it was especially obvious when I read things that argued against what most people believe =P. Hopefully I can keep this in mind whenever I experience new material.

I'm trying to read the Shurangama Sutra. I'm using this english translation, which includes commentaries: http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Shurangama/Shurangama.htm . I'm reading part of Volume 3, where the Buddha talks about the Six Entrances. He says: First of all, what is "the wonderful nature of true suchness, the Treasury of the Thus Come One?" Next, I don't follow all his explanations. It seems the commentator also glosses over a lot of the explanation. For example, when talking about the eye entrance: What is meant by "Bodhi" in the first paragraph? I think I get the next one - he's saying light and dark stimulate the sense of seeing, and we "see". I get his explanation for why seeing doesn't come from light or dark: That makes sense to me. Here's the point of my post, though - I don't follow his reason for seeing not coming from the sense organ at all. He says: Well that's not a lot of explanation at all, and the commentator just rephrases Buddha's words without expanding on it at all. This nature of seeing would have no self-nature? What does that mean, first of all? And secondly, why does that invalidate the fact that seeing comes from the sense organ? To me it seems pretty sound to say that photons hit your retina, which activate certain cells in your eye, which send electrochemical signals to parts of your brain, which someone then interprets as seeing. Everything except for the last part is just the sense organ of sight. It seems like it directly produces the sense of seeing. He says something about why it doesn't come from emptiness, which I won't go into now. He then concludes: Firstly, what does this conclusion have to do with the initial statement, that "the six entrances have their origin in the wonderful nature of true suchness, the Treasury of the Thus Come One?"? Here he's saying they are empty and false - that seems like the opposite of the first sentence. Also why does the eye entrance not depend on any cause and conditions for existence? From what I described, it relies on all aspects of your sense organ, as well as the photons (and where they came from, and where that came from, ad infinitum), as well as some entity perceiving the brain signals as sight. I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss Buddhist philosophy, so if that's the case just let me know, and maybe indicate an appropriate forum I could ask this question? =). But hopefully some of you can provide insight on these phrases.

I've been readin Daniel Ingram's "hardcore dharma book" ( http://web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20Ingram%27s%20Dharma%20Blog/The%20Blook/28A35449-618D-4C9B-98EF-D6AF1659B26F.html ) , going from beginning to end. He says it's important to develop Morality, Concentration, and Wisdom. To develop concentration one should focus on one's breath until the mind is stable. he says to do this until you have access concentration. then he says to develop Wisdom one should do insight meditation. here he recommends trying to experience as many sensations as possible per second, start with 1, going to 2, 4, etc. should one try insight meditation only after getting sufficient practice with concentration meditation? should one try to alternate between both? is trying to do insight without concentration just setting yourself up for failure? This isn't the first place I've heard of this. In zen buddhism they recommend first meditating by counting your breath. once you can easily count many breaths without losing concentration, then you stop counting. once you can focus on your breath easily without counting, then you "just sit", which I guess Daniel Ingram has a different take on. Daniel also explains a practice he does: So would this exercise just be developing both at once?

Hmm yes this is what I had been doing recently, "tranquil wisdom meditation". I heard that just focusing on counting the breath is not good. because, for example, once you stop meditating, you're no longer concentrating on the breath, and then how will what you do while meditating calm your mind in daily life? I think I get the idea, though. balance concentration and wisdom. if I feel one is lacking, work on the other. and don't blindly get attached / listen to what other people say too much - better to practice.

Heh yep if I were wiser I wouldn't have to ask =P. About wisdom being more than this - Ingram mentioned this too. Not saying he's the absolute authority on anything, but he split wisdom into conventional wisdom and 'insight' wisdom. conventional wisdom is how to live your life well, figure out what you want out of life, being kind, etc. and 'insight' wisdom is understanding impermanence, suffering, and anatta. I figured as much. I think I'm concentrated enough for where I'm at now. Although.. i did try focusing just on my breath for one sitting, whereas usually I do a more relaxed meditation (as the latest poster said). but I found that I kept having many different body sensations, and it felt like I was constricting myself in a bad way to focus just on the breath and block everything out, so instead I focused on all the physical, auditory, and visual sensations I was feeling. I could definitely focus on that for 30 minutes without getting distracted by thoughts, though! Yes I feel this way too. I hadn't heard of bhumis before, just jhanas. I understand they're not real. They're more a way of potentially helping you see where you are at, but if you get attached to them, that is no good.

We've all been taking the hard road, guys... apparently you can buy enlightenment for just one easy payment of $34.99! http://www.eocinstitute.org/meditation_s/45.htm?gclid=CJSa_ZjmnqMCFcpS2godjViBsA I bet the Buddha wouldn't have gained such a large attraction of followers had EquiSync been around! They seem to offer the "Ascension" choice as well as "Balance"... seems like it could transform your whole life without all this focus on working on your self, realizing who you are, understanding impermanence and non-duality, etc. etc. You just have to listen to some sound waves that are slightly off-sync between each ear! =).

hmm from what I understand it's not whether or not you "like" the idea of no-self =P. But ultimately I think even after 'enlightenment' the goal is to live a good life, so if you can just do that you have the right idea

Yeah I know just check these claims out! Sounds in-cuh-redible!@!@##$ I'd actually be curious to see what it does, but I don't want to encourage them by paying for their product.

Greetings CowTao! Thanks for your kind words. Haeh yes while asking more questions I did find it funny how much they evolved from just a few phrases in the sutra. Makes me think that the buddha might not have been exaggerating when he said the biggest merit was transmitting sutras. I actually find this a satisfying answer in a way! It encourages me to keep searching, to do the work and meditate on my own. Also recently I haven't been sure what I want out of life. I knew I wanted to find the answer to this question, but I didn't know why. Now I still don't know why . I just know it's important to me. And your words (and everyone else here's) reinforce that belief. Some o my friends ask me how knowing that answer would be applicable to real life. I don't know.. Maybe we're all misguided . So thank you, and I guess I'll keep searching for now. Hopefully it will end at some point. I dont have access to a computer with Internet (just a phone) so I'll have to read these interesting replies a few days from now. Hehe awesome name. I like double layers of meanings. Mine would just mean "man that makes a 'beo' sound for no real reason". But then again that might describe me well because I do many things for no real reason .

Really? This seems to directly contradict Buddhist ideas, which is that you can only do it on your own.

Isn't part of the idea to transcend these 6 senses? what happens at that point?

About the link on the emptiness video: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/11/non-locality-and-teleportation.html . If it's all an illusion, and we have these self-imposed restrictions.. wouldn't enlightened people be able to teleport themselves and other beings around at will? Why don't they?

Also in general how would I go from rationally understanding these things to actually understanding them? Meditation? Self-inquiry? Should I direct it towards these thoughts or let whatever happens happen? In the latter case, why talk about anything at all?

It is easier to read, but it still glosses over at least this point. Maybe it's more obvious than I think it is? If you say the seeing is produced from the eye, suppose it came from the sense organ, which is obviously devoid of light and dark. If it came from the eye, it would not be composed of the two kinds of defiling appearances of light and dark. According to that explanation, a nature of seeing such as this - the seeing essence - would have no self-nature. If it came from the eye, it would not have its own substantial nature. So it is not brought about from the sense organ. I thought nothing had its own substantial nature, so why is that a reason for refuting that it comes from the sense organ?

Hmm but apparently, there wasn't firewood "before", and then there "was" firewood, and "then" there "was" no more "firewood", but ash instead. Why is it wrong to say firewood is the past of ash? What is "the phenomenal expression of firewood"? (I understand it doesn't mean "wonderful" =P). Is it its manifestation as phenomena, like the smell it emits, the way it looks, etc? Why does it fully include past and future? at some point those molecules weren't combined in such a way as to produce firewood in the past, and then at some point they break apart to form something else. It feels like the "firewood" really only exists at one point in time, not encompassing all of past and future.

Ah so there is no hierarchy. It's not that A causes B. It's that A, along with everything else in the universe (including B?), causes B, which then affects the rest of the universe? But a leaf on one side of the planet is so far from a leaf on the other. How do they affect each other? The slight pull of gravity?

The sound doesn't come from the drum itself, but it comes from the air molecules being pushed by the taut skin on the drum vibrating. Isn't that how the sound originates? I agree that the drum and the stick are different from it, but the sound depends on the drum to be "created". Hmm... I agree it arises due to all those factors. Is he simply saying that the eye and the visible form are different from the seeing, because for the seeing to occur, all those factors must take place, so it is a separate but interdependent phenomenon? When trying to trace out the full "organ" of the eye I got stuck at the part where the neurons get activated in the brain. Because what is reacting to those neurons to see? What are we exactly? I sppose that is the point of all this =).

What if I flick a lighter on, move it, then release the gas pedal? Wouldn't the flame have originated where I turned it on, and disappeared when I turned it off? Or is it that the flame, at every moment of "time" from when I was "moving" it, has actually been a different flame, one separate but interdependent with all the other flames, and all the flames come into existence and go out of existence as I am "moving" it? How are illusory and false things, in nature, the substance of enlightenment? I still don't understand this phrase. If you wouldn't find coming and going within the true and eternal nature, how can coming and going fundamentally be the true and eternal nature?

Speaking about things having no origin, here is an interesting theory of how the universe exists that explains the universe without the need for a "Big Bang": http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25492/

Does it not inherently exist with substance for the same reason that nothing exists inherently with substance? If it's not absolute, why do we always come back to it? I feel like there is some 'baseline' that we come back to. for example, with drugs. you get drunk, you see the world differently, but then you sober up and come back to it. or you can take LSD and be so far removed from reality, but eventually you come back. I've read a story on erowid of someone who took too much Ketamine and thought he was on another dimensional plane, and forgot how he got there, and was sure he would never be able to return to this world, but that too wore off after an hour. what is so special about this way of viewing the world? Am I just the only one here, so as long as I'm here, everyone in this world will see the world this way?