Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2019 1:54:59 GMT -5
Isn't craving an urgency of the mind, that wants what isn't right now, to be right now? Yes, basically, and where there's craving there is also aversion, and aversion to x is also craving for y, so the word 'Tanha' in pali refers to the dynamic between aversion and desire rather than just the craving side of that coin. When the Buddha says the cessation of 'craving' is the cessation of causing suffering, he is also referring to the volition, which in turn arises from the ignorance. But the causal paradigm is not a linear one as usually think of it in the Western mind; it's referred to as a 'dependent origin' rather than a chain of events. The teachings say not only is cessation of craving the cessation of suffering, but one need witness the whole construct of dependent origination and in the moment of such understanding one is also liberated from being a subject of contingency. This also means that the popular notion that we are necessarily compelled by conditioning is 'wrong view'. The Buddhist philosophy only says that current circumstances arise from volitions of the past, and not that the volition is 'caused'. Indead, kamma law id unique in that the 'cause' is not also an effect, and your volition is not conditional on circumstance. Meditation is to 'stop and look' and by 'stop' is mean't the cessation of 'doings', which is the cessation of volition, which is the cessation of aversion/desire, the cessation of generating kamma. The cessation of the 'cause'.
Did your teachers also talk about 'chanda'..?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2019 1:58:32 GMT -5
It is mostly said to put aside the teachings that don't ring true for you at this time. My teachers explained to me how the Buddhist teaching is supposed to be delivered by way the following parable:
There was a caring mother who made a special rice pudding for her child, but the child was crying, "it has black stones in it" and wouldn't eat it. The mother explained that is is not black stones. It is ground cardamon and it gives the pudding a delicious taste. But the child kept crying, 'Black stones black stones' and wouldn't eat it. The mother then removed all the visible crushed cardamon seeds just to appease the child. The child was happy enough and ate the now 'stoneless' pudding. After the child grew older, he came to understand what cardamon is and no longer saw it as stones in his pudding. He now understood cardamon was a necessary ingredient of a delicious kheer.
When the whole country is flooded, the reservoir becomes superfluous. So, to the illumined seer, the Vedas are all superfluous” (Bhagavad Gita 2:46) Genuine 'illumined seers' don't need to reach for a quote to be able to say that.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 13, 2019 4:17:07 GMT -5
Yes, basically, and where there's craving there is also aversion, and aversion to x is also craving for y, so the word 'Tanha' in pali refers to the dynamic between aversion and desire rather than just the craving side of that coin. When the Buddha says the cessation of 'craving' is the cessation of causing suffering, he is also referring to the volition, which in turn arises from the ignorance. But the causal paradigm is not a linear one as usually think of it in the Western mind; it's referred to as a 'dependent origin' rather than a chain of events. The teachings say not only is cessation of craving the cessation of suffering, but one need witness the whole construct of dependent origination and in the moment of such understanding one is also liberated from being a subject of contingency. This also means that the popular notion that we are necessarily compelled by conditioning is 'wrong view'. The Buddhist philosophy only says that current circumstances arise from volitions of the past, and not that the volition is 'caused'. Indead, kamma law id unique in that the 'cause' is not also an effect, and your volition is not conditional on circumstance. Meditation is to 'stop and look' and by 'stop' is mean't the cessation of 'doings', which is the cessation of volition, which is the cessation of aversion/desire, the cessation of generating kamma. The cessation of the 'cause'.
Did your teachers also talk about 'chanda'..? No. I'd never even heard that word til just then.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 13, 2019 4:58:46 GMT -5
When the whole country is flooded, the reservoir becomes superfluous. So, to the illumined seer, the Vedas are all superfluous” (Bhagavad Gita 2:46) Genuine 'illumined seers' don't need to reach for a quote to be able to say that. Buddha didn't say his teachings were superfluous (and i doubt the vedas are here being accurately quoted). He said the teachings were like a raft. Once it takes you across the water, you can leave it at the shore. This seems to imply that a raft serves and thereby fulfills its purpose. This would apply to teachings regardless of them being called dhamma or vedas. This seemingly implies that the enlightened one regards the teachings not as superfluous, but rather, has reaslised their purpose.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 13, 2019 5:39:49 GMT -5
Genuine 'illumined seers' don't need to reach for a quote to be able to say that. Buddha didn't say his teachings were superfluous (and i doubt the vedas are here being accurately quoted). He said the teachings were like a raft. Once it takes you across the water, you can leave it at the shore. This seems to imply that a raft serves and thereby fulfills its purpose. This would apply to teachings regardless of them being called dhamma or vedas. This seemingly implies not that the enlightened one regards the teachings not as superfluous, but rather, has reaslised their purpose.
Yes indeed. The teachings become superfluous just like the raft.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 13, 2019 5:54:37 GMT -5
Buddha didn't say his teachings were superfluous (and i doubt the vedas are here being accurately quoted). He said the teachings were like a raft. Once it takes you across the water, you can leave it at the shore. This seems to imply that a raft serves and thereby fulfills its purpose. This would apply to teachings regardless of them being called dhamma or vedas. This seemingly implies not that the enlightened one regards the teachings not as superfluous, but rather, has reaslised their purpose.
Yes indeed. The teachings become superfluous just like the raft. I'm personally of the view that the raft remains useful especially once one understands its purpose
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 13, 2019 6:06:02 GMT -5
Yes indeed. The teachings become superfluous just like the raft. I'm personally of the view that the raft remains useful especially once one understands its purpose Once you use it to cross the river is it necessary to now carry it on your back? The raft has no further purpose.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 13, 2019 6:38:01 GMT -5
I'm personally of the view that the raft remains useful especially once one understands its purpose Once you use it to cross the river is it necessary to now carry it on your back? The raft has no further purpose. You don't carry the raft because you know that is not the raft's purpose.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 13, 2019 6:49:39 GMT -5
Once you use it to cross the river is it necessary to now carry it on your back? The raft has no further purpose. You don't carry the raft because you know that is not the raft's purpose. Okay so now I'm getting confused about your exact use and meaning of the raft metaphor. If you are illumined, wise, awake, then the teachings that played a part in that awakening are clearly of no further use. But if the raft metaphor is one or several aspects of a teaching then it may be of further use. I actually digressed from your original post that was specifically about practice where I picked out the good bits and you were talking about pain so perhaps I should have stuck with that.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 13, 2019 6:50:59 GMT -5
There's a poetic edge to writing like this, and my guess is that it wasn't even your intent. One might find a sort of familiarity in the stillness when they start meditating, depending on the other experiences in their life. "Tantra" seems to me most succinctly described as losing oneself in the experience of life as it happens. Even the pursuit of pleasure can lead to this, but in the arrival of that state, and in it's aftermath, if one is conscious of the flow of their body and the content of their mind, the ephemeral nature of any and all experience becomes quite clear, and to great depth. The matter of equanimity is going to vary quite a bit depending on the individual. There are as many scenarios as there are or ever will be people, and certainly, the default-mind-mode for folks in industrialized societies is going to be noisy .. but even some of these are lucky enough to have lived lives of relative harmony with their surroundings and the people in those surroundings. My guess is that they're less likely to get interested in meditation, although they might be drawn to other aspects of spirituality. Another possibility is that the emotional suppression of someone who's attained a typical sort of stoic self-mastery can be destabilized by the insight-process you describe. Those are just two different extremes. Most people I have asked about what they came to the ashram for the meditation retreat tell me it's because of something traumatic, an uncertainty, being lost and so forth. No one tells me its because they are happy and content, teehee. Meditation is for miserable people, right? Really. People who wish they were not so goddam miserable and want a way to alleviate their suffering. The already know the 1stNT. That's why they are here. They want to find out the 3rd and 4thNT's, but they really don't want to find out about the 2ND... Don't forget that there are people who go on meditation retreats who are not miserable and are not suffering. Their motivation is primarily curiosity about what can be discovered via sustained silence, and retreats offer a venue where this can occur without the demands and distractions of everyday life. All humans are unique, and their motivations can vary a great deal. I agree that there are many people who do go on retreats due to suffering, but certainly not all.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 13, 2019 7:10:58 GMT -5
Most people I have asked about what they came to the ashram for the meditation retreat tell me it's because of something traumatic, an uncertainty, being lost and so forth. No one tells me its because they are happy and content, teehee. Meditation is for miserable people, right? Really. People who wish they were not so goddam miserable and want a way to alleviate their suffering. The already know the 1stNT. That's why they are here. They want to find out the 3rd and 4thNT's, but they really don't want to find out about the 2ND... Don't forget that there are people who go on meditation retreats who are not miserable and are not suffering. Their motivation is primarily curiosity about what can be discovered via sustained silence, and retreats offer a venue where this can occur without the demands and distractions of everyday life. All humans are unique, and their motivations can vary a great deal. I agree that there are many people who do go on retreats due to suffering, but certainly not all. You took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to say that but I forgot. I never approached meditation practice from a standpoint of depression/pain but from a positive place of Discovery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2019 7:45:32 GMT -5
Genuine 'illumined seers' don't need to reach for a quote to be able to say that. Buddha didn't say his teachings were superfluous (and i doubt the vedas are here being accurately quoted). He said the teachings were like a raft. Once it takes you across the water, you can leave it at the shore. This seems to imply that a raft serves and thereby fulfills its purpose. This would apply to teachings regardless of them being called dhamma or vedas. This seemingly implies that the enlightened one regards the teachings not as superfluous, but rather, has reaslised their purpose.
It's probably a translation issue yet again. If one were to write from their own understanding and not rush to appear to the internet as though they themselves are the sole possessor of illumination and wisdom, with quotes that they have garnered from within their story. Then it may be a much easier read. And as for the raft analogy. I take it to mean that upon a reappearance of the farthest shore, there will always remain a little piece of before. A hem of a garment once worn. The words that meant what they meant when they meant it... Ya see, the raft is made of the wood from trees that you grew yourself. From seeds that were firmly placed in the palm of your hands, by a kindness that knows of no enemies. There is never the carrying of a raft, that's just an idea for the short of sight. You'll know what to do with the raft.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 13, 2019 7:55:15 GMT -5
Buddha didn't say his teachings were superfluous (and i doubt the vedas are here being accurately quoted). He said the teachings were like a raft. Once it takes you across the water, you can leave it at the shore. This seems to imply that a raft serves and thereby fulfills its purpose. This would apply to teachings regardless of them being called dhamma or vedas. This seemingly implies that the enlightened one regards the teachings not as superfluous, but rather, has reaslised their purpose.
It's probably a translation issue yet again. If one were to write from their own understanding and not rush to appear to the internet as though they themselves are the sole possessor of illumination and wisdom, with quotes that they have garnered from within their story. Then it may be a much easier read. And as for the raft analogy. I take it to mean that upon a reappearance of the farthest shore, there will always remain a little piece of before. A hem of a garment once worn. The words that meant what they meant when they meant it... Ya see, the raft is made of the wood from trees that you grew yourself. From seeds that were firmly placed in the palm of your hands, by a kindness that knows of no enemies. There is never the carrying of a raft, that's just an idea for the short of sight. You'll know what to do with the raft. Haha. Good point. That's takes the raft analogy one step further than usual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2019 7:56:20 GMT -5
It is mostly said to put aside the teachings that don't ring true for you at this time. My teachers explained to me how the Buddhist teaching is supposed to be delivered by way the following parable:
There was a caring mother who made a special rice pudding for her child, but the child was crying, "it has black stones in it" and wouldn't eat it. The mother explained that is is not black stones. It is ground cardamon and it gives the pudding a delicious taste. But the child kept crying, 'Black stones black stones' and wouldn't eat it. The mother then removed all the visible crushed cardamon seeds just to appease the child. The child was happy enough and ate the now 'stoneless' pudding. After the child grew older, he came to understand what cardamon is and no longer saw it as stones in his pudding. He now understood cardamon was a necessary ingredient of a delicious kheer. When the whole country is flooded, the reservoir becomes superfluous. So, to the illumined seer, the Vedas are all superfluous” (Bhagavad Gita 2:46) Just to move you along in your garnering. This is a more rounded translation of Chapter 2 Verse 46. www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/2/verse/46
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2019 8:18:41 GMT -5
I'm just loving the internal authority of you guys, but if you look at the text from Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, there isn't a lot of wriggle room regarding interpretation. I do appreciate that it's great fun getting into a spirituality forum and making anything mean what you want it to mean. I get that. Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering. Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving [taṇhā, "thirst"] which leads to re-becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for becoming, craving for disbecoming. Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it. Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is this noble eightfold path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. People interpret ancient scriptures in many different ways, and the fact that there are hundreds of different Christian denominations, each with a slightly different set of ideas about what Jesus taught, is extremely good evidence that people often interpret the very same words in different ways. I often like to ask people, "If there were no holy books, or teachers/preachers/sages, could the truth be discovered?" The answer is clearly yes, but that doesn't mean that it would be likely or that it would be easy. As you know, the truth is not contained in any set of words. All that words can do is point to the truth. This is why Ling Chao reportedly chose to use the Buddhist sutras as a chair, which horrified the villagers because they considered it a desecration of such "holy" books. At one time I had ten different translations of the Tao Te Ching, and all of them were slightly different, and all of them implied slightly different things. All that one can do is read holy scriptures and see if what they're pointing to corresponds to one's own experiences and realizations. FWIW, I'm sure that you, yourself, feel a fair amount of internal authority based on your own experiences and realizations just like the rest of us do. Laughter and I are just saying that getting attached to specific sets of words and specific interpretations of those words is less important than finding the truth for oneself. I think that there's a general concensus here about ND even if there are minor disagreements about certain specific issues. I've never been particularly interested in Buddhist scriptures, so I was just agreeing with Laughter's broader point. You are right about interpretation creates various denomination in Christianity. but interpretation problem is not on what Jesus taught mainly. Interpretation as to who Jesus is. For an example, people who believes in Jesus as God are considered to be trinitarians. People who believes as Jesus as son of God is unitarians mostly.
|
|