Help on the spiritual path

[Maddie]

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

It's not only that though wrt emotions and hence the incomplete picture.

He did work with the mental models of his day and therefore was also affected by limitations of these models.

 

Which mental models do you think he was working with that were pre-existing as opposed to what he came up with on his own? And what do you think the limits of those models are?

[snowymountains]

5 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Which mental models do you think he was working with that were pre-existing as opposed to what he came up with on his own? And what do you think the limits of those models are?

 

The 4 elements mental model is ayuverdic in origin, the limitations is that ...it's not the full picture, more phases exist.

 

Do you really believe that a 2400yrs old teaching provides the full picture on how matter works, how our psyche works and that what has been discovered since then does not provide a more complete picture or is inconsequential ? 

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

 

The 4 elements mental model is ayuverdic in origin, the limitations is that ...it's not the full picture, more phases exist.

 

Do you really believe that a 2400yrs old teaching provides the full picture on how matter works, how our psyche works and that what has been discovered since then does not provide a more complete picture or is inconsequential ? 

 

Maybe we can put the four elements thing aside because in the greater scope of Buddhist practice it's not really that relevant. 

Buddhism isn't really concerned about how matter works, but with ending suffering. The Buddha was asked all sorts of questions that were irrelevant to ending suffering and he would not answer them because they were not important. 

 

Honestly I think we are basically saying the same thing and probably talking past each other by getting hung up on the terminology. The Buddha called it clinging which cases suffering. You call it something else, but the bottom line is that the result is the same.

 

As far as believing if the Buddha's teaching works, I do. The reason is, is because after I left my abusive ex I could simply not afford therapy so I got into Buddhism instead. I'm not saying this is what should be done or not, but it was my only option as far as affordability went. Since that time I have changed very much for the better. The things that used to incapacitate me in the past are either non-issues now, or much less intense. This lines up with what the Buddha said about not simply taking his word for it but to try the teachings ourselves and see if they work. I have found that in my personal experience that they have and seem to continue to do so. 

[snowymountains]

20 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Maybe we can put the four elements thing aside because in the greater scope of Buddhist practice it's not really that relevant. 

Buddhism isn't really concerned about how matter works, but with ending suffering. The Buddha was asked all sorts of questions that were irrelevant to ending suffering and he would not answer them because they were not important. 

 

Honestly I think we are basically saying the same thing and probably talking past each other by getting hung up on the terminology. The Buddha called it clinging which cases suffering. You call it something else, but the bottom line is that the result is the same.

 

As far as believing if the Buddha's teaching works, I do. The reason is, is because after I left my abusive ex I could simply not afford therapy so I got into Buddhism instead. I'm not saying this is what should be done or not, but it was my only option as far as affordability went. Since that time I have changed very much for the better. The things that used to incapacitate me in the past are either non-issues now, or much less intense. This lines up with what the Buddha said about not simply taking his word for it but to try the teachings ourselves and see if they work. I have found that in my personal experience that they have and seem to continue to do so. 

 

His focus was ending suffering though eg the Buddha wrote about earthquakes too which is not a spiritual topic. Basically all his work on matter is clearly way behind today's knowledge.

 

We aren't saying the same thing, clinging is not automatic reactions. Automatic reactions cannot disappear either. The Buddha's model just wasn't complete.

 

Keep at it, it's a great practice, I practice Buddhism as well, two Buddhist traditions, one being Theravada. My posts were not intended at all to say Theravada is not a good practice.

My posts were meant to say it doesn't provide the full picture.

 

I'd keep practicing vigorously and keep questioning vigorously, not talking hypothetically here, it's what I actually do 🙂

 

If anything I'd say all the Theravada practices are perfectly valid but it's not the full picture, so it's limitations need to be understood and complemented accordingly.

Edited February 10 by snowymountains

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

His focus was ending suffering eg the Buddha wrote about earthquakes too which is not a spiritual topic. Basically all his work on matter is clearly way behind today's knowledge.

 

We aren't saying the same thing, clinging is not automatic reactions. Automatic reactions cannot disappear either. The Buddha's model just wasn't complete.

 

Keep at it, it's a great practice, I practice Buddhism as well, two Buddhist traditions, one being Theravada. My posts were not intended at all to say Theravada is not a good practice.

My posts were meant to say it doesn't provide the full picture.

 

I'd keep practicing vigorously and keep questioning vigorously, not talking hypothetically here, it's what I actually do 🙂

 

If anything I'd say all the Theravada practices are perfectly valid but it's not the full picture, so it's limitations need to be understood and complemented accordingly.

 

What did the Buddha say about earthquakes lol? 

 

Automatic reactions might be too broad a term for the purposes of this discussion. I wasn't talking about automatic physiological reactions that are necessary for survival. I was talking about emotional triggers, which would be clinging. Maybe we should narrow down terminology for the sake of clarification.  

[snowymountains]

29 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

What did the Buddha say about earthquakes lol? 

 

Automatic reactions might be too broad a term for the purposes of this discussion. I wasn't talking about automatic physiological reactions that are necessary for survival. I was talking about emotional triggers, which would be clinging. Maybe we should narrow down terminology for the sake of clarification.  

 

I won't go into the business of copying the suttas here 😁, nor citing 😁. Though on earthquakes his take is more reasonable than it reads. it needs a bit of back and forth with a teacher to interpret the text though.

Still an incomplete view which of course can't be compared to today's understanding.

 

Automatic reactions is the more concise term, they are stored in the amygdala, where our fight/flight/freeze is stored. They're not clinging.

They're also always there, we can only "replace" them (using some forms of therapy) with other ones, that may be more suitable to our current environment as opposed to our environment 30 years ago.

We can't get rid of them though, nor should we.

The emotions they trigger, even when negative, are not always a bad thing either.

 

More generally, emotions are not just about observing their impermanence, nor only about a dependent origination point of view ( again without diminishing the importance of these two).

They're also something very powerful, which gives us valuable data.

 

The full picture is just more complex than the one the Buddha presented 🙂

 

What he presented is a good practice, just not a complete one.

 

Theravada practice doesn't contain something glaringly false though, just incomplete, and this is important to stress.

This is what amazes me in practices from the Pali Canon, the quality is overall rather high and the advice is overall good. It's just not universal/it's not the full picture.

 

Compare this to some tantric practices that promise to "burn the seed" of negative emotions, which is of course downright impossible. The promise there is simply false, the method also has risks, which of course are rarely understood by the gurus that teach it.

That's a huge departure from the quality standard of Theravada, which is free from BS like that.

[Maddie]

13 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

I won't go into the business of copying the suttas here 😁, nor citing 😁. Though on earthquakes his take is more reasonable than it reads. it needs a bit of back and forth with a teacher to interpret the text though.

Still an incomplete view which of course can't be compared to today's understanding.

 

Automatic reactions is the more concise term, they are stored in the amygdala, where our fight/flight/freeze is stored. They're not clinging.

They're also always there, we can only "replace" them (using some forms of therapy) with other ones, that may be more suitable to our current environment as opposed to our environment 30 years ago.

We can't get rid of them though, nor should we.

The emotions they trigger, even when negative, are not always a bad thing either.

 

More generally, emotions are not just about observing their impermanence, nor only about a dependent origination point of view ( again without diminishing the importance of these two).

They're also something very powerful, which gives us valuable data.

 

The full picture is just more complex than the one the Buddha presented 🙂

 

What he presented is a good practice, just not a complete one.

 

Theravada practice doesn't contain something glaringly false though, just incomplete, and this is important to stress.

This is what amazes me in practices from the Pali Canon, the quality is overall rather high and the advice is overall good. It's just not universal/it's not the full picture.

 

Compare this to some tantric practices that promise to "burn the seed" of negative emotions, which is of course downright impossible. The promise there is simply false, the method also has risks, which of course are rarely understood by the gurus that teach it.

That's a huge departure from the quality standard of Theravada, which is free from BS like that.

 

Obviously there is more than just clinging to explain phenomena. Clinging causes one kind of suffering. There of course is other terminology in the Pali Canon such as 

 

1. Defilements

2. The five aggregates. 

3. Feeling.

4. Mind (as in mindfulness of mind states) 

5. The five defilements. 

   ect...

 

I feel like between the various terminology and explanations that the Buddha gave what you call "automatic reactions" is most likely covered. 

 

(I'm not continuing this to be argumentative or contentious. Rather I love to discuss the Pali Canon which does not happen much here. I am also fascinated in its modern day efficacy and applications, just fyi) :-)  

[Apech]

3 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

Which mental models do you think he was working with that were pre-existing as opposed to what he came up with on his own? And what do you think the limits of those models are?

He worked with Samkhya 

[snowymountains]

5 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Obviously there is more than just clinging to explain phenomena. Clinging causes one kind of suffering. There of course is other terminology in the Pali Canon such as 

 

1. Defilements

2. The five aggregates. 

3. Feeling.

4. Mind (as in mindfulness of mind states) 

5. The five defilements. 

   ect...

 

I feel like between the various terminology and explanations that the Buddha gave what you call "automatic reactions" is most likely covered. 

 

(I'm not continuing this to be argumentative or contentious. Rather I love to discuss the Pali Canon which does not happen much here. I am also fascinated in its modern day efficacy and applications, just fyi) :-)  

 

Not everything is in the Pali Canon 🙂.

 

The closest thing to a Pali pov is what's called "cognitive psychology" today ( cognitive in that context is different to the C from CBT ).

 

Being close to today's cognitive psychology 2400 years ago is rather impressive tbh, speaks volumes of the Buddha.

 

But still, though impressive, not everything is in the Pali Canon.

 

 

[Maddie]

20 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Not everything is in the Pali Canon 🙂.

 

The closest thing to a Pali pov is what's called "cognitive psychology" today ( cognitive in that context is different to the C from CBT ).

 

Being close to today's cognitive psychology 2400 years ago is rather impressive tbh, speaks volumes of the Buddha.

 

But still, though impressive, not everything is in the Pali Canon.

 

 

 

I still haven't found a good pizza recipe in there, but the search continues ;-)

 

*but seriously, one thing that the Pali Canon does not seem to mention that I think is VERY relevant is relaxation induced anxiety!

Edited February 10 by Maddie

[snowymountains]

9 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I still haven't found a good pizza recipe in there, but the search continues ;-)

 

*but seriously, one thing that the Pali Canon does not seem to mention that I think is VERY relevant is relaxation induced anxiety!

 

I wasn't aware this is mentioned in the Pali.

The two most common cases where meditation triggers anxiety are the long term increase of dopamine/the PTSD case (but they didn't know of dopamine back then), the other case being for those who can't give up control, does it discuss the later case ? Or something else entirely?

[Maddie]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

I still haven't found a good pizza recipe in there, but the search continues ;-)

 

*but seriously, one thing that the Pali Canon does not seem to mention that I think is VERY relevant is relaxation induced anxiety!

 

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

 

I wasn't aware this is mentioned in the Pali.

The two most common cases where meditation triggers anxiety are the long term increase of dopamine/the PTSD case (but they didn't know of dopamine back then), the other case being for those who can't give up control, does it discuss the later case ? Or something else entirely?

 

[snowymountains]

25 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

 

 

The perils of reading in haste from mobile 😂

[Mark Foote]

5 hours ago, Apech said:

He worked with Samkhya 
 

You are basing that on the distinction between initial and further jhanas, or...?

[Apech]

13 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

You are basing that on the distinction between initial and further jhanas, or...?

the dominant philosophical framework at the time of the Buddha was samkhya - there were others but the sramana sages tended to use terms from it.

[Mark Foote]

5 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

I still haven't found a good pizza recipe in there, but the search continues ;-)

 

*but seriously, one thing that the Pali Canon does not seem to mention that I think is VERY relevant is relaxation induced anxiety!
 

 

I’ve written about my approach:
 

I begin with making the surrender of volition in activity related to the movement of breath the object of thought.  For me, that necessitates thought applied and sustained with regard to relaxation of the activity of the body, with regard to the exercise of calm in the stretch of ligaments, with regard to the detachment of mind, and with regard to the presence of mind.  I find that a presence of mind from one breath to the next can precipitate “one-pointedness of mind”, but laying hold of “one-pointedness of mind” requires a surrender of willful activity in the body much like falling asleep. 

 

 

What's not obvious, there, is that I am taking what I consider to be the actionable elements from Gautama's description of mindfulness (of the mindfulness that made up his way of living).

From mindfulness of the body:
 

(One) trains (oneself), thinking, 'I will breathe in tranquillising the activity of body.  (One) trains (oneself), thinking, 'I will breathe out tranquillising the activity of body.

 

(MN III 82-83, Pali Text Society Vol III p 124, tr I. B. Horner; parentheticals added)
 

 

From mindfulness of the feelings:

 

Calming down the mental factors I shall breathe in. Calming down the mental factors I shall breathe out.

(SN V 312, Pali Text Society Vol V p 275-276; tr. F. L. Woodward)
 

 

No good explanation have I found of the mental factors in Gautama's lectures.  Buddhaghosa I think is way off track.  My experience is along these lines:

 

Seated meditation has been described as “straightening the chest and sitting precariously” (“Master Cheng’s Thirteen Chapters on T’ai-Chi Ch’uan”, by Cheng Man-Ch’ing, translated by Douglas Wile, pg 21.).

Precariousness in posture gives rise to anxiety, yet if calm prevails, precariousness can bring forward the senses behind the feeling of place in awareness.

 

 

The mental factors that I calm are the senses connected with the placement of attention by necessity in the movement of breath (equalibrioception, proprioception, graviception, and oculoception).

 

From mindfulness of mind:

 

Detaching my mind I shall breathe in. Detaching my mind I shall breathe out.

 

(SN V 312, Pali Text Society Vol V p 275-276; tr. F. L. Woodward)

 

 

And from mindfulness of states of mind:

 

Contemplating cessation I shall breathe in. Contemplating cessation I shall breathe out.

 

(ibid)

 

 

The cessation that I contemplate is the cessation of "doing something" with regard to the movement of breath:

 

I practice now to experience the free placement of attention as the sole source of activity in the body in the movement of breath, and in my “complicated, difficult” daily life, I look for the mindfulness that allows me to touch on that freedom.

 

 

Edited February 10 by Mark Foote

[Mark Foote]

6 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

What he presented is a good practice, just not a complete one.

 

Theravada practice doesn't contain something glaringly false though, just incomplete, and this is important to stress.

This is what amazes me in practices from the Pali Canon, the quality is overall rather high and the advice is overall good. It's just not universal/it's not the full picture.

 

 

 

To me, that's one of the strong points of Gautama's lectures, in the first four Nikayas:  they are incomplete.   That's one of the reasons I don't rely on the lectures of his disciples in those Nikayas--the disciples appear in some cases to offer completions, to some of the things Gautama left incomplete, and I don't find their completions sound.  Same for some of the lectures attributed to Gautama in the fifth Nikaya.

Around the start of the twentieth century, there was an effort to put all of mathematics on an axiomatic basis, similar to Euclid developing all of his geometry from five initial axioms.  Euclid succeeded, although he didn't realize that his fifth axiom wasn't really an axiom (through a given point, one and only one straight line parallel to a given line can be drawn--there are two other geometries that can be developed, one with no lines parallel to the given line, and one with an infinite number of lines parallel).

The effort to put all of mathematics on an axiomatic basis, starting with some basic axioms of logic, was abandoned after Godel presented his two incompleteness theorems in the early 1930's:
 

Gödel’s two incompleteness theorems are among the most important results in modern logic, and have deep implications for various issues. They concern the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F. According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent).

 

(https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/goedel-incompleteness/)

 

 

I see the incompleteness in Gautama's teaching as a strength.  I know, snowymountains, you were talking about his acceptance of some of the models of reality of his day, but I just thought I'd mention that as far as his dharma teachings, the incompleteness can be considered a strength.  A system that is too complete, has inherent contradictions.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 10 by Mark Foote

[Apech]

17 minutes ago, Mark Foote said:

....

 

I see the incompleteness in Gautama's teaching as a strength.  I know, snowymountains, you were talking about his acceptance of some of the models of reality of his day, but I just thought I'd mention that as far as his dharma teachings, the incompleteness can be considered a strength.  A system that is too complete, has inherent contradictions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think in this thread there is a fundamental conceptual mistake being made.  That, being that the Buddha was presenting a model of reality.  Other systems do this - like vedanta - but the Buddha specifically didn't.  This did not prevent of course the many schools of Buddhism producing their own subsequently.  Buddhism does use world models like the mandala of the abhidharma - Mt Meru and the four continents and so on - but this is symbolic of the universe and the Dharma does not depend on it being correct.  There is no Mt. Meru and yet the sky doesn't fall down.   

 

Strictly speaking the Dharma is (and only is) the realisation or awakened nature of the Buddha post enlightenment.  Which he himself said is not directly expressible.  The teachings of the dharma are vast - traditionally 84,000 in variety - not because the truth varied but because the audience did.  Different people needed different approaches to becoming awakened.  The Buddha himself compared what he had taught to a handful of leaves compared to all the leaves in the forest.

 

What is written down in the Pali Canon is incomplete - because it is a finite collection of accounts.  Written down some hundreds of years after his death and subject to the preferences and editorship of those who compiled it (who were by that time scholastic monastics).  But the Dharma is not incomplete in the sense which is being implied in this thread i.e. that some things could be discovered later which would alter or add to it.  That is because the Buddhas awakening was complete.  Nothing is added and nothing is taken away from it.  Or to put it another way - anything discovered later like say, the existence of quarks is only significant if it leads to awakening - to the same complete awakening of the Buddha - if it does not, it is not dharma it is dross.

 

 

[Maddie]

I think the recent evolution of this thread could basically be summarized by the question do you have complete confidence in the Buddha and his teachings or not?

 

I think it's an important question to think about before answering one way or the other.

[Dedicated]

Welcome to this forum Siker!

[snowymountains]

8 hours ago, Apech said:

 But the Dharma is not incomplete in the sense which is being implied in this thread i.e. that some things could be discovered later which would alter or add to it.  That is because the Buddhas awakening was complete.  Nothing is added and nothing is taken away from it.  Or to put it another way - anything discovered later like say, the existence of quarks is only significant if it leads to awakening - to the same complete awakening of the Buddha - if it does not, it is not dharma it is dross.

 

 

 

From the moment the Buddha used incomplete models, including incomplete models for the Psyche, for his teachings, of course the Dhamma/Dharma is incomplete. He was bound by his era, just like everyone else is, including us of course.

 

 

To say it's complete because the Buddha's awakening was complete is the sort of argument that every religion makes.

 

 

Most of the points we discussed have nothing to do with the physical aspects of the Dharma, which of course are incomplete too, but also eg the topic of emotions, what can insight meditation reveal to someone ( not everything.. ) etc.

 

 

Producing great teachings, especially for the era they were written is impressive.

This doesn't mean they are complete, nor that advice offered is the best for all cases nor that it applies everywhere. On some topics better tools have been developed, better models, even a better understanding of what he called enlightenment by eg Jung.

 

 

Again, this is a different thing to whether it's beneficial to do Anapanasati, Insight meditation  ( or alternatively eg following the Zen tradition do Shikantaza instead), 4 elements, walking meditation etc, apply the precepts in their life etc.

These can be beneficial, of course, there's no denying that, they're great practices.

They're even more beneficial though when one understands their limitations.

 

 

 

Edited February 11 by snowymountains

[snowymountains]

7 hours ago, Maddie said:

I think the recent evolution of this thread could basically be summarized by the question do you have complete confidence in the Buddha and his teachings or not?

 

I think it's an important question to think about before answering one way or the other.

 

It's that, but also why have complete trust when there are known gaps and a better understanding has been developed today in a range of topics.

 

 

Again this doesn't mean eg insight meditation is not good, it is a very good tool.

It's important though to understand the limitations of the tool.

Limitations eg, in what sort of processes it can reveal to us, or when is it a good approach to examine something (eg an emotion) in that light.

Then, use other tools for the parts that the Buddha couldn't had possibly known back then, but in 2024 have been rigourously been proven to work.

 

In the Pali Canon tbh I've not come across a practice that is not a beneficial (though again, we discussed some of the conditions under which one should abstain, there are others ofc), so for Theravada or Zen it's about complementing.

 

In other traditions though some practices are, in lack of a better word, bogus (eg the tantric practice of burning "seeds" I mentioned, there are more examples of course ).

 

So if anything, I'd say @Maddie, that being critical on the tools would make someone lean even more towards a Theravadan ( or Zen ) practice. But this sort examination is only possible because of the rigorous tools and knowledge that are available in 2024.

 

But lean towards Theravada, means use their tools for the reasons the tools are effective, not for everything.

 

Good tools are even more effective when used in the right context.

Edited February 11 by snowymountains

[Master Logray]

1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

So if anything, I'd say @Maddie, that being critical on the tools would make someone lean even more towards a Theravadan ( or Zen ) practice.

 

 

This is a very good observation on the tools.   BTW Zen is Theravadan ?   What is the Buddhism most popular in this forum?  Theravadan and Mahayanan ?

 

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, Master Logray said:

 

This is a very good observation on the tools.   BTW Zen is Theravadan ?   What is the Buddhism most popular in this forum?  Theravadan and Mahayanan ?

 

 

Zen ( Zen is Mahayana , in that it's doctrinal roots go to the Mahayana Sutras and Chinese Agamas ) and Theravada ( whose main textual reference is the Pali Canon which includes the Pali Suttas) are two distinct traditions.

 

I do both Theravada and Zen, with different teachers of course.

 

I have no clue what's the most popular in this forum 🙂

My guess, from random comments here and there and the love for Tummo I observe, is that Vajrayana perhaps is the most popular in these forums, but it's just a guess.

 

[Apech]

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

From the moment the Buddha used incomplete models, including incomplete models for the Psyche, for his teachings, of course the Dhamma/Dharma is incomplete. He was bound by his era, just like everyone else is, including us of course.

 

 

To say it's complete because the Buddha's awakening was complete is the sort of argument that every religion makes.

 

"There is an Unborn, an Unoriginated, an Unmade, an Uncompounded; were there not, O mendicants, there would be no escape from the world of the born, the originated, the made, and the compounded."

 

Udana 8:3  Khuddaka Nikaya

 

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

Most of the points we discussed have nothing to do with the physical aspects of the Dharma, which of course are incomplete too, but also eg the topic of emotions, what can insight meditation reveal to someone ( not everything.. ) etc.

 

Emotions as such are the ground in which we work - because human beings are 90% (?) emotional in their actions.  Insight meditation is (partly at least) to see those emotions and other mental activity against the background of the mind/nature as consciousness itself (one way of putting it).  Examining the intricacies and details of emotions is part of the process of unpicking their nature - just that.

 

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

Producing great teachings, especially for the era they were written is impressive.

This doesn't mean they are complete, nor that advice offered is the best for all cases nor that it applies everywhere. On some topics better tools have been developed, better models, even a better understanding of what he called enlightenment by eg Jung.

 

Buddhism is not static.  It has over the last 2500 years migrated to different countries and cultures and developed forms of expression to suit the psyche of the people there ... like Zen in Japan for instance.  Being adaptable does not mean incomplete.

 

3 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

Again, this is a different thing to whether it's beneficial to do Anapanasati, Insight meditation  ( or alternatively eg following the Zen tradition do Shikantaza instead), 4 elements, walking meditation etc, apply the precepts in their life etc.

These can be beneficial, of course, there's no denying that, they're great practices.

They're even more beneficial though when one understands their limitations.

 

 

 

 

There are a very great many forms of technique, some are helpful others not so much, depending on the practitioner.