Jhana in Taoism?

[Seeker of Wisdom]

If you've truly let go of all concepts and live in a non-conditioned state, doesn't that mean you let go of the idea of both self and non-self, and simply live without defining what life is?

Yeah, but words are useful when teaching, and a subtle concept can be useful as an arrow to knock down a gross one, leaving only the open sky, free of both of them.

 

No-self is an antidote to the idea of self. Cured of the poison, discard the antidote as dead weight!

 

'My teaching is a raft to reach the other shore, ultimately to be left behind'.

[yabyum24]

I really have been confused by a lot of buddhism in general. I always thought it seemed like meditation does both tranquility and insight/awareness at the same, and I couldn't find the difference between the methods. If a meditation on not-self is a good way to get travel through samatha, then obviously the two are connected. People are "doing vippassana" all over the internet, though. It makes it very confusing. I should probably just stick to Thich Nhat Hanh books from now on and let his conversations with various inatimate objects inspire me. ^^

Hardly surprising that you can get confused, as there's a lot of miss-information of various kinds out there. I've encountered many prize nuggets over the years, the more ridiculous of which are:

1. 1st Jhana is a state of complete oblivion where the person is utterly unaware of anything and can be mistaken for someone who is dead.

2. Jhana is dangerous and is not suitable for our times. We do not have the merit to cultivate it / it is Buddhist 'dope' and just clinging to bliss in a deluded manner.

3. Dry insight is all you need, and indeed what should be practiced, as instructed by Buddha (recently invented in Burma btw.)

4. There is no self. (nihilism and never taught by Buddha)

 

The list of such stuff goes on. I think with the availability of communication online, there's a real chance that people who have genuine experiences, as opposed to doctrine-bashers, can share and learn from each other. There could be a flowering of Buddha's teachings on jhana. After all, he exhorts his monks to practice it in numerous suttas. Advice which is, for some reason, overlooked these days.

[gatito]

<snip>

 

I really have been confused by a lot of buddhism in general. I always thought it seemed like meditation does both tranquility and insight/awareness at the same, and I couldn't find the difference between the methods. If a meditation on not-self is a good way to get travel through samatha, then obviously the two are connected. People are "doing vippassana" all over the internet, though. It makes it very confusing. I should probably just stick to Thich Nhat Hanh books from now on and let his conversations with various inatimate objects inspire me. ^^

 

"Buddhism" is usually very confusing (because 99% of it nowadays is just a cultish religious belief system coupled with various self-serving institutions no different from the Catholic Church in essence)

 

What you say about Samatha and Vipassana is very insightful.

 

Mindfullness has become very popular and is being sold all over the place as the latest management tool. People like Jon Kabbat-Zin and Richard Burnett have done a really good job in brining it to the world's attention and, without doubt, it works, although, the strong connection with institutionalised Buddhism still gives rise to a lot of concerns from where I'm looking.

 

Interestingly, they both package up "mindfulness of breathing" into their teachings under the heading of Mindfulness.

 

However, it can be useful to split that off from the rest of the mindfullness for learning purposes because it can be helpful to distinguish consciousness knowing itself consciously in the presence of objects (savikalpa samadhi) and consciousness knowing itself consciously in the absence of objects (nirvikalpa samadhi). This is, however an artificial division and an obvious duality.

 

Regarding "sticking to Thich Nhat Hanh books": I'd add in a bit of Rumi for inspiration and suggest that perhaps you'd also find it helpful to make use of the ability to converse 1:1 (particularly with yabyum24). Books are useful but the dialogue that I've seen between you in this thread is infinitely better and incidentally, I think that he's more competent in this area than me (Buddhism/Jhana/Vipassana), so I'll butt-out at this point and let him get on with it while I stand back and do a bit more learning myself )

[C T]

lovely dialog happening! nice.

[Simple_Jack]

What is this open mind pointing to, if it isn't the end itself? This is a question I've had for a while, actually. I've read a lot about the cessation moment and stream entry on DO, and they seem to pursue it like a goal, but in the end, isn't it more like a signpost telling you you're letting go enough?

 

There are divergences in the emphasis of practice between the traditions which follow the "Visuddhimagga" and an unadulterated approach of the Nikayas. Although, dharmaoverground, does not emphasize the deep, deep, 'visuddhimagga jhana' (with visual nimitta, shutting down of external sense contact even in 1st jhana, etc.), since they emphasize the simultaneous practice of 'vipassana-jhanas', over that of 'shamatha-jhanas'. I recommend reading the links from this post [http://thetaobums.com/topic/33091-immortal-atman/?p=509673] and becoming familiarized with the 'sixteen insight knowledges aka. 16 nanas [http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=3192].

 

 

I suppose in the end no-self is just another name for something, and to really know something is to need no name for it. I mean, I can understand why believing there is no "self" would help you let go of clinging and aversion, but why rely on it? Why not just let go for your own happiness? Or maybe I have it backward and after you've finally let go of everything, you could logically be said to have "no self", since there would be nothing left to define you, and nothing left for you to define your exprience.

 

 

 

By people who are relying on misunderstood doctrines. Anatta does not actually mean "no-self" it means "not-self" and there is a world of difference between the two. "No-Self" is some kind of paradoxical, contradictory, speculative, up-your-butt mind-game.

 

Not-Self is revealed in jhana because as the aggregates are relinquished in deeper samatha (tranquillity), vippassana (awareness) sees the non-ownwership of them all. Also genuine past life recall opens this up too. Many Buddhists who believe in the fallacy of "no-self" reject the notion of rebirth, as they see an obvious contradiction between there being no-person and "something" which could take rebirth. I could write a massive post on this alone, but suffice to say, you can discard the idea of no-self.

 

Anatta = you are just a bundle of impermanent processes i.e. 5 aggregates. Anatta does not only have to be revealed in jhana, since there are many cases in the Nikayas of direct realization into the 4 noble truths & 8-fold noble path + 3 seals i.e. anicca, dukkha, anatta, through 'dry-insight' i.e. not gradually cultivating the path factors and/or jhanas, in order to attain stream-entry, once-returner, etc. A couple of examples from the Nikayas are Sariputta and Moggalana, Buddha's right hand disciples, who separately met a monk on his alms round and inquired the Buddhas teaching; they both attained stream entry after hearing a few sentences of verse summing up the teaching of dependent origination.

 

Yabyum24, who are these 'Buddhists', you keep referring to as rejecting the notion of rebirth, past life recall, etc.? Is this a reference to people who ascribe to the secular atheism/physicalism of the likes of Stephen Batchelor? "...Many Buddhists who believe in the fallacy of "no-self" reject the notion of rebirth, as they see an obvious contradiction between there being no-person and "something" which could take rebirth. I could write a massive post on this alone, but suffice to say, you can discard the idea of no-self.", this is not supported in the Nikayas or by anyone who at least acknowledges the Buddha's teachings on transmigration after death and the ability to recall past lives as a byproduct of the development of jhana. Where are these notions of yours coming from?

Edited February 7, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[yabyum24]

lovely dialog happening! nice.

Thanks guys. I enjoy discussing the topic in an open way, I'm glad you've enjoyed it. It's not often that such an opportunity presents itself and you can imagine that such dialog is virtually impossible on most dedicated Buddhist boards. That's the beauty of the Tao bums.

[Simple_Jack]

Thanks guys. I enjoy discussing the topic in an open way, I'm glad you've enjoyed it. It's not often that such an opportunity presents itself and you can imagine that such dialog is virtually impossible on most dedicated Buddhist boards. That's the beauty of the Tao bums.

 

You can definitely have an open and intelligent discussion on dedicated Buddhist forums, but if it involves a fallacious argument such as the one you've made above, then expect knowledgeable practitioners to provide counter arguments to correct these assumptions.

[gatito]

lovely dialog happening! nice.

 

 

Thanks guys. I enjoy discussing the topic in an open way, I'm glad you've enjoyed it. It's not often that such an opportunity presents itself and you can imagine that such dialog is virtually impossible on most dedicated Buddhist boards. That's the beauty of the Tao bums.

 

It's truly been a joy to watch this happening.

 

There's a certain sweet irony that it's happening on aTaoist Forum and in the Taoism section of the forum but I do think that this is strangely symbolic of Taobums at its best and a testament to its Founding Principles.

 

Thanks to you all.

 

I've learned a lot from this thread.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

I too have very much enjoyed reading this thread, thank you everyone.

 

Many of the experiences you describe are familiar to me.

 

The buzzing is familiar, as are strange ocular effects and your descriptions of "psychological" processes.

 

And in the days before I had the intense event, I knew something was up. There was a strange pressure in my forehead as I gazed out, fathoming the as within/as without.

 

Many things have changed for me since that day in 2011, including physical changes.

 

But right now I just feel like my old self, which ain't so great.

 

Let's see if I can add anything more substantive.

 

Form is emptiness, and emptiness form.

 

Meditation I learnt from the simple advice of J Krishnamurti.

 

I sort of do it all the time.

 

Let thoughts arise, return mind to breath, seek equanimity.

 

Insights arise in the empty mind.

 

Now songstan may continue his romance with deci belle.

 

Me, I'm cuddlin' up with mr yabyum here, whom I love;

 

"No-Self" is some kind of paradoxical, contradictory, speculative, up-your-butt mind-game.

Not-Self is revealed in jhana because as the aggregates are relinquished in deeper samatha (tranquillity), vippassana (awareness) sees the non-ownwership of them all. Also genuine past life recall opens this up too. Many Buddhists who believe in the fallacy of "no-self" reject the notion of rebirth, as they see an obvious contradiction between there being no-person and "something" which could take rebirth. I could write a massive post on this alone, but suffice to say, you can discard the idea of no-self.

 

The list of such stuff goes on. I think with the availability of communication online, there's a real chance that people who have genuine experiences, as opposed to doctrine-bashers, can share and learn from each other. There could be a flowering of Buddha's teachings on jhana. A

 

Writing a massive post on the subject would be good, mr yabyum sir!

 

Past life recall is an especial interest of mine.

...

Edited February 7, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[Simple_Jack]

Writing a massive post on the subject would be good, mr yabyum sir!

 

Past life recall is an especial interest of mine.

 

Personally, I'm worried that a massive post of this kind, will be skewed towards an inaccurate conclusion, stemming from mistaken assumptions and biased opinions.

[Songtsan]

I have not read through this thread entirely

 

What I believe at this moment (this is subject to change in the next moment as per usual), is that seeking Jhana states is attachment to states. Taoism trumps Buddhism in that they do not seek states...they merely see them, and, without grasping, let them go bye bye. It's very simple and enjoyable.

 

EDIT:

 

This was incomplete and unfair...

 

Taoism seeks the Tao, therefore, these two are conjoined...Buddhism is step-like, whereas Taoism is something else....they both lead to great things...perhaps one could say that Buddhism is more ordered for those who like to know where they are going before they get there, and Taoism is about not knowing where you are going , but going there anyways...

 

...further EDIT:

 

...which reminds me:

 

Taoism is like being led to the place with eyes open, not following blindly...you don't know where you will end up (consciously, that is), and so you are following and seeing directly the sights without first having had the sights described to you, so it is, in effect, more entertaining, because surprises lie around every corner...so much fun!

 

Taoism is way more fun than Buddhism! Sorry you Buddhists, but Taoists just want to have fun!

Edited February 7, 2014 by Songtsan

[C T]

Personally, I'm worried that a massive post of this kind, will be skewed towards an inaccurate conclusion, stemming from mistaken assumptions and biased opinions.

sometimes more can be learnt from the inaccuracies of life and the things in it.

 

wanting everything to be accurate and arguing vehemently for it is another form of clinging. its like pouring cement into an empty drum with you standing inside.

[C T]

I have not read through this thread entirely

 

What I believe at this moment (this is subject to change in the next moment as per usual), is that seeking Jhana states is attachment to states. Taoism trumps Buddhism in that they do not seek states...they merely see them, and, without grasping, let them go bye bye. It's very simple and enjoyable.

The taoist path does not seek states, eh? Hmm... have to think bout that one.

[Songtsan]

The taoist path does not seek states, eh? Hmm... have to think bout that one.

 

sorry - self-corrected myself too slow...please see my edit.

 

I nod in your direction.

[Yascra]

...Buddhism is step-like, whereas Taoism is something else....they both lead to great things...perhaps one could say that Buddhism is more ordered for those who like to know where they are going before they get there, and Taoism is about not knowing where you are going , but going there anyways...

That is, generally speaking, not correct.

Any buddhist sect I know 'till now offers possibilities for spontaneous realization.

 

I would more tend to the idea that maybe taoism has lost most of the knowledge about what has to happen after some kind of first awakening.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Yascra

[Songtsan]

That is, generally speaking, not correct.

Any buddhist sect I know 'till now offers possibilities for spontaneous realization.

 

I would more tend to the idea that maybe taoism has lost most of the knowledge about what has to happen after some kind of first awakening.

 

hmmm...I won't argue with you, but I am not in accord.

[Simple_Jack]

sometimes more can be learnt from the inaccuracies of life and the things in it.

 

wanting everything to be accurate and arguing vehemently for it is another form of clinging. its like pouring cement into an empty drum with you standing inside.

 

Not necessarily, as skewed inaccuracies, such as the argument that yabyum24 has provided on the previous page, are intentional distortions; it can be a byproduct of mistaken assumptions and biased opinions. An environment of learning should not deliberately follow the sways of ignorance, but should foster objective analysis, so as to avoid biased idiosyncrasies that deliberately distorts information.

[Yascra]

hmmm...I won't argue with you, but I am not in accord.

Hm.

Well, tbh, I'm afraid you lack knowledge 'bout buddhism.

[C T]

Not necessarily, as skewed inaccuracies, such as the argument that yabyum24 has provided on the previous page, are intentional distortions; it can be a byproduct of mistaken assumptions and biased opinions. An environment of learning should not deliberately follow the sways of ignorance, but should foster objective analysis, so as to avoid biased idiosyncrasies that deliberately distorts information.

how did you determine it was intentional?

 

An environment conducive to perfect learning should be able to hold both wisdom and ignorance, allowing for room where the generation and growth of one naturally, and not forcefully, lead to a lessening of the other.

 

By adherence to noble guiding principles, we can learn to ensure that what is lessened will be ignorance, and this is achieved by keeping a correct motivation, not so much by sticking to what others instruct us as right and accurate. Then we become blinded by too much right, and will fail to see the way forward. When we suddenly realize we are standing on the edge of the canyon, and about to lose balance, the most objective analyses wont be of much help. The motivation to live more than likely will.

[Simple_Jack]

how did you determine it was intentional?

 

An environment conducive to perfect learning should be able to hold both wisdom and ignorance, allowing for room where the generation and growth of one naturally, and not forcefully, lead to a lessening of the other.

 

By adherence to noble guiding principles, we can learn to ensure that what is lessened will be ignorance, and this is achieved by keeping a correct motivation, not so much by sticking to what others instruct us as right and accurate. Then we become blinded by too much right, and will fail to see the way forward. When we suddenly realize we are standing on the edge of the canyon, and about to lose balance, the most objective analyses wont be of much help. The motivation to live more than likely will.

 

Because, he has made generalized comments of this kind, multiple times; he has maintained that this is a fault of all Buddhist's who adhere to the notion of 'no-self', particularly Theravadin Buddhists. Even after I presented information that shows otherwise, http://thetaobums.com/topic/33091-immortal-atman/?p=509740. Now, I think it's paramount that there be citing of the tipitaka, when subject matter dealing with Buddhist principles are discussed. People should rely on the teachings in the sutta-pitaka or commentarial traditions, so as to avoid unnecessary proliferations, that distorts accurate understandings of the Dhamma. Of course, its your prerogative to not rely on the teachings of Buddhism, but I prefer an environment where I know that I'm receiving the teachings as it was taught in the sutta-pitaka or commentarial traditions, where info can be verified to be coming from a reliable source.

[Songtsan]

Hm. Well, tbh, I'm afraid you lack knowledge 'bout buddhism.

 

So you think, but if you wish to know about me instead of assuming you know about me, feel free to read certain threads which contain my biographies...

 

I understand if some of you who are Buddhists are upset, and I shall explain.

 

I have had bad experiences with Zendos on East and West coasts...the problem is that they are not accepting of me, due to my inclinations to use entheogens, and my inclinations to question their systems. It is simply not for me. I am actually coming to the understanding that I am basically inclined to be a Taoist. However, one should eventually stop trying to group oneself into any particular way or path if one intends to eventually be a master of the pathless path. Taoism is most in line with this...it is this in fact, yet it is not at the same time.

 

I humbly apologize for my judgments on Buddhism.

 

All ways lead to freedom when openly expressed.

 

Each to their inclinations so shall it be done.

 

I shall try to proselytize no more.

 

So shall it be done that I will one day be free of proselytizing and judging good or bad, better or worse, unhappy, or happy, fit or unfit, useful or non-useful, etc.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Songtsan

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

But I don't rely on the teachings of the Buddha, no I don't.

 

Nor do I rely on the teachings of Chuang Tse or Lao Tzu.

 

Or J Krishnamurti.

 

Or literally hundreds of others.

 

Jesus Christ for that matter.

 

I let my reason and (un)common sense decide.

 

In the final analysis, what else yer got?

 

But I did study Theravada and Mahayana, and am coming round to a little Vajrayana too.

 

But I love Daoism too.

 

Essentially I am a universalist unitarian.

 

I suppose I have perennialist leanings, too.

 

So sue me.

...

[Simple_Jack]

I have had bad experiences with Zendos on East and West coasts...the problem is that they are not accepting of me, due to my inclinations to use entheogens, and my inclinations to question their systems. It is simply not for me. I am actually coming to the understanding that I am basically inclined to be a Taoist. However, one should eventually stop trying to group oneself into any particular way or path if one intends to eventually be a master of the pathless path. Taoism is most in line with this...it is this in fact, yet it is not at the same time.

 

Which, 'path of Daoism', is this? The post Tang and Song dynasties Daoism which was an amalgamation of native Chinese thought with Buddhist philosophical principles, ritual and meditative practice, iconography, etc.? There really is no such thing as a 'pure Daoist path'.

[Songtsan]

...

But I don't rely on the teachings of the Buddha, no I don't.

 

Nor do I rely on the teachings of Chuang Tse or Lao Tzu.

 

Or J Krishnamurti.

 

Or literally hundreds of others.

 

Jesus Christ for that matter.

 

I let my reason and (un)common sense decide.

 

In the final analysis, what else yer got?

 

But I did study Theravada and Mahayana, and am coming round to a little Vajrayana too.

 

But I love Daoism too.

 

Essentially I am a universalist unitarian.

 

I suppose I have perennialist leanings, too.

 

So sue me.

...

 

we have bunches in common! truckloads...

[Songtsan]

Which, 'path of Daoism', is this? The post Tang and Song dynasties Daoism which was an amalgamation of native Chinese thought with Buddhist philosophical principles, ritual and meditative practice, iconography, etc.? There really is no such thing as a 'pure Daoist path'.

 

Complete Reality School.

 

Deci Belle is my Alma Mater