Archived_member14
SPNer
Narayanjot ji,
This is not directed to me, but I feel the need to respond.
Quote:
Indeed I am often too intimidated by learned people to say just that. Guru Nanak was clearing the soul's marg of impediments. Our journey does not have to be complicated. Yes - engage our soul's energy rather than study it. You are right.[/QUOTE]
Allow me to make the point by way of an example of my own personal experience and from discussions with mainstream Buddhists. By now some readers here would have had accumulated some aversion to my postings, so much so that they won’t bother to even read, while others may read, but can’t help doing so with preconceived ideas. I wish that the quality of attention would be somewhat different towards that what I write below....
A few years ago, just before I came upon the understandings I’ve now come to adopt, I was on an internet forum discussing the nature of mind and religion in general. This must have been due to my own inability to hold complex ideas in my mind and a general aversion to reading materials in which I’d have to consult the dictionary after every few words. ;-) But I made a comment about how the members there were far too involved in intellectualizing and the response I got was that I was expressing aversion due my own inability to think in the way they do. This came across as a smack on the face to me. To be sure, I still judge all that as being lost in intellectualizing, except that now I have good reason for coming to the conclusion.
In contrast is my experience with ‘Buddhists’ later on, both face to face and on internet lists, after I was introduced to what I consider the correct interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.
In reaction to the interest in study and discussing and of not being involved in any kind of ‘meditation’ practice, I and my friends would be accused of being attached to intellectualizing and failing to see value in such practice. When told that most of us were previously involved like them, in similar practices and had the same ideas as they do, they’d say such things as that we were not patient enough etc. They’d also refer to the Buddha’s own activity of sitting under the bodhi tree and doing what he did and would ignore it when we point out the necessarily huge difference between what the Buddha- to- be knew *before* he became enlightened and what he taught *after* he became the Buddha. They’d also cite descriptions in the texts about monks doing the practice of ‘calm meditation’ which is what many people before and during the time were involved in, completely ignoring the part in which the Buddha encouraged these people to develop ‘insight’ when doing what they did.
They’d completely ignore it when we underscore the fact that he was always talking in terms of insight development whether the audience were monks or they were laypeople, reflected in talks about the need to understand the experiences through the five senses and the mind, no matter what conventional activity anyone happens to be presently involved in, such as when putting on clothes, eating, or going to the toilet. Besides, the records point to the fact that indeed most of the Buddha’s audiences became enlightened while listening to his discourses and many of them when going about living their lives in the normal way while doing mundane things. There’d also be a lack of response to the fact that the Buddha talked about the need for much listening, considering and questioning over many lifetimes extending aeons over.
One reason for this is that they have no clue as to the extent of their own ignorance. And due to attachment to the practice and ‘illusion of result’ invariably got; some would even feel that they could become enlightened in this very life if practice hard enough. And the funny part is that they’d end up talking to each other about such things as the hours of their sitting time or the ‘visions’ they experienced etc.! No clue indeed as to the distinction between concepts (their visions being an obvious example) and reality, which is the most basic of distinctions got as a result of any level of correct understanding of the Buddha’s teachings. Sometimes you’d also have some of them talk about such things as being now without anger unlike before they started to meditate, yet they’d be known to get easily upset if someone came over and knocked the door to the room in which they happen to be meditating on ‘loving kindness’!!
The truth is that all this constitutes “wrong practice” and is result of wrong understanding. This points to the fact of the need for continued exposure to the teachings such that the process of ‘correction’ or ‘straightening of view’ can happen. It is with this that some of us dismiss right off, all those ideas out there from 99+ % of the Buddhist world, associated with ‘meditation’ and practice. And here again, when the original pali is cited as to the meaning of ‘practice’, which is wisdom knowing directly a characteristic of the present moment object, this is never discussed by any of those meditators. They stick and are happy with their own ideas associated with the image of a person who is seriously doing the right things in spite of all obstacles.
Indeed attachment to rites and rituals can be such great motivating force that people easily bear so much unnecessary hardships. Of course if it was patience then I’d not want to discourage, but it isn’t since patience cannot be associated with wrong understanding. It would seem to those people that they are developing all these good qualities as mindfulness, right effort and right concentration and from their perspective, those of us who go on living their lives ‘naturally’ are giving in to attachment.
Obviously all of us who think that we are treading the Middle Way; we’d perceive other understandings as being either on the left or the right. So from the perspective of these meditators, we are on one extreme side of this middle way. But this is because they interpret our ‘natural’ to be an excuse to give in to attachments even though they’d come across no other group of people pointing out subtle forms of attachments otherwise unnoticeable , including that which is associated with the very need to do something in order to understand. The fact is *it is hard to not want results and be tempted thereby to ‘do’ something about it*. The grasping by the majority of the people at the idea of meditation is evidence of this fact. Going on living our lives according to tendencies accumulated from lifetimes over and seeing the value of having patience with all this and not being tempted by promise of result whether self conceived or through suggestions by others, requires some level of right understanding, mindfulness and right effort indeed.
What am I getting at?
This understanding about the need to be ‘natural’ comes from repeatedly considering the fact of all there is at any given moment, as being just one of the experiences through the five senses and the mind. That’s it. Simple, only extremely hard to see, due to the accumulated ignorance and craving. It took me quite some time to arrive at this conclusion with such conviction, since there obviously was the tendency to complicate things and thus continue being blind to what goes on from moment to moment and the realization that in fact all that the Buddha taught, this was what he was pointing to. This is the message I now try to get across to any Buddhist I’m involved in discussions with. I say that the Dhamma is not in the books but the reality now through any one of the six doorways, and that all what is written in those texts is an encouragement towards this particular understanding.
In all this, no one is expected to have direct understanding immediately or anytime soon. The path involves though not linearly, intellectual understanding direct understanding realization; however the common denominator is the fact of the attention being drawn to the present moment with some level of understanding. In this regard, I realized although relatively late, that the Buddha’s teachings is never about analysing situations, let alone creating a scenario in our minds and attempting then to apply knowledge. It is about “now” because this is all there is. Thoughts about past and future in this regard, are symptomatic of delusion and craving which again, is what meditators are necessarily involved in.
Narayanjot ji, as I suggested in my last post, that you should take into account that my expressions here must necessarily be different from how I’d talk about these things with friends. The thoughts associated when writing here is encouraging of so much attachments and ignorance that a great deal of proliferation must follow. But as I’ve pointed out above, the Dhamma is really very simple since the object of study is just these five senses and the mind. The difficulty is due the ignorance and craving which hides the truth. In this regard it is not that one ends up complicating things by being caught up in lots of concepts, but there is also the tendency to oversimplify which is equally if not more dangerous. And this may have been an influence in my judgments towards the internet discussion list I mentioned in the beginning.
While those people were involved in concepts pointing towards and encouraging of more complicated concepts rather than the experience of the present moment, the concepts pointing to ‘reality’ now indeed is the greatest of gifts anyone can receive. One distinguishing mark between the right and wrong ‘pointing to’ is that the former necessarily encourages detachment whereas the latter does the exact opposite, namely attachment. Therefore when we judge someone’s writing as being complicated, this may be because it does nothing for us in terms of detachment. But then again only we can know this for ourselves, but surely we’d have to be aware of any attachments accompanying what could in fact be an instance of oversimplification. And whether he admits it or not, such a person is involved in concepts of his own and likely with as much adherence to them as those he is critical of. And when someone says do this and this will happen and from there that will be the result, isn’t he involved in concepts pointing away from this moment? And isn’t this akin to the blind leading the blind?
The Truth may be simple and not complicated, but surely it is profound and hard to see. But it is from seeing this truth to any extent that we can actually judge what is right and what is not.
I hope some good comes out from all this in spite of the obvious attachment and other unwholesome realities on my part. ;-)
Sukinder
This is not directed to me, but I feel the need to respond.
Quote:
Indeed I am often too intimidated by learned people to say just that. Guru Nanak was clearing the soul's marg of impediments. Our journey does not have to be complicated. Yes - engage our soul's energy rather than study it. You are right.[/QUOTE]
Allow me to make the point by way of an example of my own personal experience and from discussions with mainstream Buddhists. By now some readers here would have had accumulated some aversion to my postings, so much so that they won’t bother to even read, while others may read, but can’t help doing so with preconceived ideas. I wish that the quality of attention would be somewhat different towards that what I write below....
A few years ago, just before I came upon the understandings I’ve now come to adopt, I was on an internet forum discussing the nature of mind and religion in general. This must have been due to my own inability to hold complex ideas in my mind and a general aversion to reading materials in which I’d have to consult the dictionary after every few words. ;-) But I made a comment about how the members there were far too involved in intellectualizing and the response I got was that I was expressing aversion due my own inability to think in the way they do. This came across as a smack on the face to me. To be sure, I still judge all that as being lost in intellectualizing, except that now I have good reason for coming to the conclusion.
In contrast is my experience with ‘Buddhists’ later on, both face to face and on internet lists, after I was introduced to what I consider the correct interpretation of the Buddha’s teachings.
In reaction to the interest in study and discussing and of not being involved in any kind of ‘meditation’ practice, I and my friends would be accused of being attached to intellectualizing and failing to see value in such practice. When told that most of us were previously involved like them, in similar practices and had the same ideas as they do, they’d say such things as that we were not patient enough etc. They’d also refer to the Buddha’s own activity of sitting under the bodhi tree and doing what he did and would ignore it when we point out the necessarily huge difference between what the Buddha- to- be knew *before* he became enlightened and what he taught *after* he became the Buddha. They’d also cite descriptions in the texts about monks doing the practice of ‘calm meditation’ which is what many people before and during the time were involved in, completely ignoring the part in which the Buddha encouraged these people to develop ‘insight’ when doing what they did.
They’d completely ignore it when we underscore the fact that he was always talking in terms of insight development whether the audience were monks or they were laypeople, reflected in talks about the need to understand the experiences through the five senses and the mind, no matter what conventional activity anyone happens to be presently involved in, such as when putting on clothes, eating, or going to the toilet. Besides, the records point to the fact that indeed most of the Buddha’s audiences became enlightened while listening to his discourses and many of them when going about living their lives in the normal way while doing mundane things. There’d also be a lack of response to the fact that the Buddha talked about the need for much listening, considering and questioning over many lifetimes extending aeons over.
One reason for this is that they have no clue as to the extent of their own ignorance. And due to attachment to the practice and ‘illusion of result’ invariably got; some would even feel that they could become enlightened in this very life if practice hard enough. And the funny part is that they’d end up talking to each other about such things as the hours of their sitting time or the ‘visions’ they experienced etc.! No clue indeed as to the distinction between concepts (their visions being an obvious example) and reality, which is the most basic of distinctions got as a result of any level of correct understanding of the Buddha’s teachings. Sometimes you’d also have some of them talk about such things as being now without anger unlike before they started to meditate, yet they’d be known to get easily upset if someone came over and knocked the door to the room in which they happen to be meditating on ‘loving kindness’!!
The truth is that all this constitutes “wrong practice” and is result of wrong understanding. This points to the fact of the need for continued exposure to the teachings such that the process of ‘correction’ or ‘straightening of view’ can happen. It is with this that some of us dismiss right off, all those ideas out there from 99+ % of the Buddhist world, associated with ‘meditation’ and practice. And here again, when the original pali is cited as to the meaning of ‘practice’, which is wisdom knowing directly a characteristic of the present moment object, this is never discussed by any of those meditators. They stick and are happy with their own ideas associated with the image of a person who is seriously doing the right things in spite of all obstacles.
Indeed attachment to rites and rituals can be such great motivating force that people easily bear so much unnecessary hardships. Of course if it was patience then I’d not want to discourage, but it isn’t since patience cannot be associated with wrong understanding. It would seem to those people that they are developing all these good qualities as mindfulness, right effort and right concentration and from their perspective, those of us who go on living their lives ‘naturally’ are giving in to attachment.
Obviously all of us who think that we are treading the Middle Way; we’d perceive other understandings as being either on the left or the right. So from the perspective of these meditators, we are on one extreme side of this middle way. But this is because they interpret our ‘natural’ to be an excuse to give in to attachments even though they’d come across no other group of people pointing out subtle forms of attachments otherwise unnoticeable , including that which is associated with the very need to do something in order to understand. The fact is *it is hard to not want results and be tempted thereby to ‘do’ something about it*. The grasping by the majority of the people at the idea of meditation is evidence of this fact. Going on living our lives according to tendencies accumulated from lifetimes over and seeing the value of having patience with all this and not being tempted by promise of result whether self conceived or through suggestions by others, requires some level of right understanding, mindfulness and right effort indeed.
What am I getting at?
This understanding about the need to be ‘natural’ comes from repeatedly considering the fact of all there is at any given moment, as being just one of the experiences through the five senses and the mind. That’s it. Simple, only extremely hard to see, due to the accumulated ignorance and craving. It took me quite some time to arrive at this conclusion with such conviction, since there obviously was the tendency to complicate things and thus continue being blind to what goes on from moment to moment and the realization that in fact all that the Buddha taught, this was what he was pointing to. This is the message I now try to get across to any Buddhist I’m involved in discussions with. I say that the Dhamma is not in the books but the reality now through any one of the six doorways, and that all what is written in those texts is an encouragement towards this particular understanding.
In all this, no one is expected to have direct understanding immediately or anytime soon. The path involves though not linearly, intellectual understanding direct understanding realization; however the common denominator is the fact of the attention being drawn to the present moment with some level of understanding. In this regard, I realized although relatively late, that the Buddha’s teachings is never about analysing situations, let alone creating a scenario in our minds and attempting then to apply knowledge. It is about “now” because this is all there is. Thoughts about past and future in this regard, are symptomatic of delusion and craving which again, is what meditators are necessarily involved in.
Narayanjot ji, as I suggested in my last post, that you should take into account that my expressions here must necessarily be different from how I’d talk about these things with friends. The thoughts associated when writing here is encouraging of so much attachments and ignorance that a great deal of proliferation must follow. But as I’ve pointed out above, the Dhamma is really very simple since the object of study is just these five senses and the mind. The difficulty is due the ignorance and craving which hides the truth. In this regard it is not that one ends up complicating things by being caught up in lots of concepts, but there is also the tendency to oversimplify which is equally if not more dangerous. And this may have been an influence in my judgments towards the internet discussion list I mentioned in the beginning.
While those people were involved in concepts pointing towards and encouraging of more complicated concepts rather than the experience of the present moment, the concepts pointing to ‘reality’ now indeed is the greatest of gifts anyone can receive. One distinguishing mark between the right and wrong ‘pointing to’ is that the former necessarily encourages detachment whereas the latter does the exact opposite, namely attachment. Therefore when we judge someone’s writing as being complicated, this may be because it does nothing for us in terms of detachment. But then again only we can know this for ourselves, but surely we’d have to be aware of any attachments accompanying what could in fact be an instance of oversimplification. And whether he admits it or not, such a person is involved in concepts of his own and likely with as much adherence to them as those he is critical of. And when someone says do this and this will happen and from there that will be the result, isn’t he involved in concepts pointing away from this moment? And isn’t this akin to the blind leading the blind?
The Truth may be simple and not complicated, but surely it is profound and hard to see. But it is from seeing this truth to any extent that we can actually judge what is right and what is not.
I hope some good comes out from all this in spite of the obvious attachment and other unwholesome realities on my part. ;-)
Sukinder
