Enlightened humans in Pattaya and beyond.

[trd]

What I am referring to is awareness that is just aware of itself without an object. This one pointedness of mind is called samadhi in both Buddhist and Hindu Vedic traditions and should be at the core of meditation practice.

... and this meditation practice is called citta bhavana, literally "mental cultivation" in English.

Mental cultivation won't lead to anything except more mental states.

Mental cultivation doesn't lead to more mental states, just as soil cultivation doesn't lead to more soil.

The mind/soil analogy isn't a very good analogy. Thoughts beget more thoughts. Soil doesn't beget more soil.

[Brucenkhamen]

The mind/soil analogy isn't a very good analogy.

I'm sure the Buddha would be surprised to hear he got it so wrong.

Thoughts beget more thoughts. Soil doesn't beget more soil.

Mental cultivation does not involve the cultivation of thoughts, you described the process quite well in your previous post.

It's interesting that you're happy to use the word "meditation"... old English/French for "contemplation; devout preoccupation; devotions, prayer," from Old French meditacion "thought, reflection, study", while failing to grasp the a quite simple meaning of a metaphor used by the Buddha.

[Brucenkhamen]

I think (unfortunately a mental state) that both you and TRD are on the same page but appear to differ due to attachment to "words".

You're right.

Of course as we're on a Buddhist forum Buddhist terminology shouldn't be a problem for most people I'd have thought.

[rockyysdt]

I think (unfortunately a mental state) that both you and TRD are on the same page but appear to differ due to attachment to "words".

You're right.

Of course as we're on a Buddhist forum Buddhist terminology shouldn't be a problem for most people I'd have thought.

Buddhist terminology might be a contributor to poor progress.

When it comes to words and what our minds associate them with, this is a mind field (Chinese whispers).

The best thing in the world is regular practice.

Alas, breaking our habits is the issue.

[trd]

The mind/soil analogy isn't a very good analogy.

I'm sure the Buddha would be surprised to hear he got it so wrong.

Thoughts beget more thoughts. Soil doesn't beget more soil.

Mental cultivation does not involve the cultivation of thoughts, you described the process quite well in your previous post.

It's interesting that you're happy to use the word "meditation"... old English/French for "contemplation; devout preoccupation; devotions, prayer," from Old French meditacion "thought, reflection, study", while failing to grasp the a quite simple meaning of a metaphor used by the Buddha.

Are you certain of what Buddha said? Consider the current state of the world and the flow and dissemination of information. You will find examples every day of how what people say is misunderstood, misinterpreted and taken out of context within hours of them saying it. And that is in an age when everything is recorded and can be seen online anywhere in the world. Now contrast that with the fact that Buddha's teachings were written down several centuries after his passing and consider what misunderstandings, misinterpretations and contextual errors must have resulted in that time and that's before these words were translated into other languages. Didn't Buddha actually say that one day his teachings would be misunderstood as a result of the ravages of time? I would like to think so. And then even if you do proclaim yourself to be a Therevadan Buddhist and take it on faith that these words transmitted through the ages are accurate, then what of others who call themselves Buddhists. Well Buddha didn't call himself a Buddhist (I'm guessing) but as an example, what is a Therevadan who believes in personal enlightenment to make of a Mahayanan whose goal is universal enlightenment through the Bodhisattva principle. The list of different interpretations and beliefs within the various schools is endless.

So let is by all means utilize from Buddhist teachings that which can be tested and verified through direct experience and not quibble about words. The minute you start saying this is a Buddhist forum and these are acceptable words and terminology, you are distancing yourself from the truth which cannot be spoken.

[trd]

What I am referring to is awareness that is just aware of itself without an object. This one pointedness of mind is called samadhi in both Buddhist and Hindu Vedic traditions and should be at the core of meditation practice.

... and this meditation practice is called citta bhavana, literally "mental cultivation" in English.

Mental cultivation won't lead to anything except more mental states.

Mental cultivation doesn't lead to more mental states, just as soil cultivation doesn't lead to more soil.

I think (unfortunately a mental state) that both you and TRD are on the same page but appear to differ due to attachment to "words".

I think it can be agreed that translation from Pali to English is crude at the best of times.

Regardless of the terminology used (Citta, Citta Bhavana, Samadhi), bathing in such a state will yield personal experience of what we are talking about.

Once the path is accepted, my problem, and I suspect that of most, is the inability to overcome habit.

In order to "regularly" practice most must overcome deep seated habits.

Habits which override or disrupt regular practice.

Ask the progress of most proclaimed Buddhists.

I guarantee most will proclaim time issues (or a plethora of other excuses).

Those who are easily able to establish quality regular practice, either already have ingrained habits or values which facilitate such endeavors, or are fortunate enough to easily establish deep levels of experience with minimal sitting time.

I think I said this to you a long time ago Rocky, but what can you do about habit or conditioning. Who is the doer of such habits? If you endeavor to do good deeds or to eradicate bad habits, then you will do it. If you don't then it won't happen. Who is making a choice? You would quite correctly say, "I am", but it is also the same "I" that refuses or ignores to change bad habits. How do you reconcile anatta with the concept of a doer? You could go into all kinds of explanations of Karmas at work, but if the choice has presented itself in your mind (whether you think there is a doer or not) to practice going beyond or should I say to the emptiness (awareness) that is prior to mind then you should do it and just see what happens to conditioned behavior. Do you have any other choice? I personally believe that Buddha's teachings concerning doing work on changing behavior like developing loving kindness, in fact the whole eightfold path of right understanding etc, were very low level teachings for those who weren't ready for the discipline of deep meditation practice.

[rockyysdt]

What I am referring to is awareness that is just aware of itself without an object. This one pointedness of mind is called samadhi in both Buddhist and Hindu Vedic traditions and should be at the core of meditation practice.

... and this meditation practice is called citta bhavana, literally "mental cultivation" in English.

Mental cultivation won't lead to anything except more mental states.

Mental cultivation doesn't lead to more mental states, just as soil cultivation doesn't lead to more soil.

I think (unfortunately a mental state) that both you and TRD are on the same page but appear to differ due to attachment to "words".

I think it can be agreed that translation from Pali to English is crude at the best of times.

Regardless of the terminology used (Citta, Citta Bhavana, Samadhi), bathing in such a state will yield personal experience of what we are talking about.

Once the path is accepted, my problem, and I suspect that of most, is the inability to overcome habit.

In order to "regularly" practice most must overcome deep seated habits.

Habits which override or disrupt regular practice.

Ask the progress of most proclaimed Buddhists.

I guarantee most will proclaim time issues (or a plethora of other excuses).

Those who are easily able to establish quality regular practice, either already have ingrained habits or values which facilitate such endeavors, or are fortunate enough to easily establish deep levels of experience with minimal sitting time.

I think I said this to you a long time ago Rocky, but what can you do about habit or conditioning. Who is the doer of such habits? If you endeavor to do good deeds or to eradicate bad habits, then you will do it. If you don't then it won't happen. Who is making a choice? You would quite correctly say, "I am", but it is also the same "I" that refuses or ignores to change bad habits. How do you reconcile anatta with the concept of a doer? You could go into all kinds of explanations of Karmas at work, but if the choice has presented itself in your mind (whether you think there is a doer or not) to practice going beyond or should I say to the emptiness (awareness) that is prior to mind then you should do it and just see what happens to conditioned behavior. Do you have any other choice? I personally believe that Buddha's teachings concerning doing work on changing behavior like developing loving kindness, in fact the whole eightfold path of right understanding etc, were very low level teachings for those who weren't ready for the discipline of deep meditation practice.

Regardless of Anatta vs I/Doer, whilst anchored in body/mind, one must grapple with habit to practice earnestly.

This is the dilemma.

How else can we arrive at the experience of awareness/emptiness.

It was your fortune, perhaps kharma, to have experienced deep levels of Samadhi as a child.

I have not given up.

Shortly will commence a retreat.

[trd]

What I am referring to is awareness that is just aware of itself without an object. This one pointedness of mind is called samadhi in both Buddhist and Hindu Vedic traditions and should be at the core of meditation practice.

... and this meditation practice is called citta bhavana, literally "mental cultivation" in English.

Mental cultivation won't lead to anything except more mental states.

Mental cultivation doesn't lead to more mental states, just as soil cultivation doesn't lead to more soil.

I think (unfortunately a mental state) that both you and TRD are on the same page but appear to differ due to attachment to "words".

I think it can be agreed that translation from Pali to English is crude at the best of times.

Regardless of the terminology used (Citta, Citta Bhavana, Samadhi), bathing in such a state will yield personal experience of what we are talking about.

Once the path is accepted, my problem, and I suspect that of most, is the inability to overcome habit.

In order to "regularly" practice most must overcome deep seated habits.

Habits which override or disrupt regular practice.

Ask the progress of most proclaimed Buddhists.

I guarantee most will proclaim time issues (or a plethora of other excuses).

Those who are easily able to establish quality regular practice, either already have ingrained habits or values which facilitate such endeavors, or are fortunate enough to easily establish deep levels of experience with minimal sitting time.

I think I said this to you a long time ago Rocky, but what can you do about habit or conditioning. Who is the doer of such habits? If you endeavor to do good deeds or to eradicate bad habits, then you will do it. If you don't then it won't happen. Who is making a choice? You would quite correctly say, "I am", but it is also the same "I" that refuses or ignores to change bad habits. How do you reconcile anatta with the concept of a doer? You could go into all kinds of explanations of Karmas at work, but if the choice has presented itself in your mind (whether you think there is a doer or not) to practice going beyond or should I say to the emptiness (awareness) that is prior to mind then you should do it and just see what happens to conditioned behavior. Do you have any other choice? I personally believe that Buddha's teachings concerning doing work on changing behavior like developing loving kindness, in fact the whole eightfold path of right understanding etc, were very low level teachings for those who weren't ready for the discipline of deep meditation practice.

Regardless of Anatta vs I/Doer, whilst anchored in body/mind, one must grapple with habit to practice earnestly.

This is the dilemma.

How else can we arrive at the experience of awareness/emptiness.

It was your fortune, perhaps kharma, to have experienced deep levels of Samadhi as a child.

I have not given up.

Shortly will commence a retreat.

What is your dilemma? You described your practice to me before and you seemed to be connecting with silent awareness. Is that not so?

[VincentRJ]

The only definition of meditation I'm prepared to accept is the practice of going back to the source, to abide in thought free awareness.

I accept that it's possible to have an awareness of the existence of something without thinking about it. We get hints of such a process when our attention is focussed on a particular task, or conversation, to the exclusion of any thoughts about our surroundings.

In such circumstances, we are aware of our surroundings but have no conscious thoughts, either good or bad, about the quality of our surroundings, except when something in the background suddenly moves. The fact that any sudden movement diverts our attention away from the particular task we were focussed on, (as a result of an instinctual reaction to a possible threat), implies that we were always aware of that background, although not thinking about it.

An interesting question to meditate upon is, 'Does that awareness without thought still fall into the category of a mental state?'

What I am referring to is awareness that is just aware of itself without an object. An object doesn't have independent existence without consciousness (Chitta).

In other words, an awareness that one is aware. Is that what you mean? I think perhaps not, because surely we are all aware that we are aware.

As I understand, at my current level of enlightenment, poor as it may be, external realty (consisting of a multitude of objects) has an existence independent of consciousness. What consciousness does is interpret that external reality in both an individual way, and in a general way in accordance with the characteristics of our species. This process also involves our cultural background and conditioning, as well as our innate, genetically determined capabilities.

We belong to the broad Homo Sapiens species, but are actually a subspecies described as Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Homo Sapiens means 'wise person'. Homo Sapiens Sapiens means 'doubly wise person' or 'very wise person'.

Recent DNA analysis of Neanderthal remains, strongly imply that Neanderthal man was of the Homo Sapiens species. We were able to interbreed with that 'less wise' person, so are of the same species by definition.

Neanderthal man is now known as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, but his awareness and interpretation of external reality would have been different from ours, but similar when compared with the interpretation from a different species. There are thought to be a number of extinct subspecies of Homo Sapiens.

The goal of Buddhism, or at least the advertised attraction of Buddhism ( for me at least), is the teaching of a process that might allow us to perceive external reality in a way which is uncontaminated with the numerous biases related to race, culture, and conditioning.

However, I am very doubtful that Buddhist practices could ever transcend those ultimate, conditioned limitations related to the fundamental characteristics of our subspecies, Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

[rockyysdt]

What is your dilemma? You described your practice to me before and you seemed to be connecting with silent awareness. Is that not so?

Gradually, my attachments have taken up the time previously devoted to practice.

The major pursuits of my ego have swallowed up my resources.

They revolve around making a living, supporting others, and being available to mention a few.

Other than walking out of my life, I can't think how I'll be able to escape.

[rockyysdt]

In other words, an awareness that one is aware. Is that what you mean? I think perhaps not, because surely we are all aware that we are aware.

Hi Vincent.

It's a state for experience rather than verbalization.

When it comes you will know.

The moment you think, "Hey I've done it" you come out of this state.

Thinking breaks the gossamer fine experience.

[trd]

What is your dilemma? You described your practice to me before and you seemed to be connecting with silent awareness. Is that not so?

Gradually, my attachments have taken up the time previously devoted to practice.

The major pursuits of my ego have swallowed up my resources.

They revolve around making a living, supporting others, and being available to mention a few.

Other than walking out of my life, I can't think how I'll be able to escape.

It doesn't matter how active your life is, you do not run out of the resource that is always available within. You can practice mindfulness in almost every situation. You don't have to devote hours a day to sitting practice.

[Brucenkhamen]

So let is by all means utilize from Buddhist teachings that which can be tested and verified through direct experience and not quibble about words. The minute you start saying this is a Buddhist forum and these are acceptable words and terminology, you are distancing yourself from the truth which cannot be spoken.

... and the minute you imply you know better than texts passed down over 2500 years and form the only historically based record we have of what was said 2500 years ago you distance yourself from the tradition of practice that you are discussing.

I think most people are aware that "mental" means of the mind (as opposed to materiality) and that there is more to the mind than thoughts or mental states. So to suggest that mental cultivation means cultivating more mental states is just being dismissive for the sake of being dismissive, I'm not sure whether there is a point beyond that.

Can you explain the difference in meaning between the synonyms meditation and bhavana (mental cultivation) and how the latter leads to more mental states and the former presumably doesn't. Can you explain as you suggest we should do how you tested and verified through direct experience that mental cultivation leads to more mental states.

[Brucenkhamen]

It doesn't matter how active your life is, you do not run out of the resource that is always available within. You can practice mindfulness in almost every situation. You don't have to devote hours a day to sitting practice.

Good advice.

[trd]

So let is by all means utilize from Buddhist teachings that which can be tested and verified through direct experience and not quibble about words. The minute you start saying this is a Buddhist forum and these are acceptable words and terminology, you are distancing yourself from the truth which cannot be spoken.

... and the minute you imply you know better than texts passed down over 2500 years and form the only historically based record we have of what was said 2500 years ago you distance yourself from the tradition of practice that you are discussing.

I think most people are aware that "mental" means of the mind (as opposed to materiality) and that there is more to the mind than thoughts or mental states. So to suggest that mental cultivation means cultivating more mental states is just being dismissive for the sake of being dismissive, I'm not sure whether there is a point beyond that.

Can you explain the difference in meaning between the synonyms meditation and bhavana (mental cultivation) and how the latter leads to more mental states and the former presumably doesn't. Can you explain as you suggest we should do how you tested and verified through direct experience that mental cultivation leads to more mental states.

I am not saying we should totally ignore these texts, but we should question their veracity for the reasons I gave. But what is important really? What can be said about what is needed to discover your true nature is very little. You don't need to be familiar with reams and reams of scriptures unless you are a scholar of historical Buddhism. If you look at some of the influential teachers in the Theravada tradition such as Ajahn Chah, he spoke in very simple terms about what you need to do for liberation.

Is there more to mind than mental states? If you think there is, that is pure conjecture, a concept, which is itself just a thought appearing and disappearing. Mind is just a series of thoughts. That's all we can ever know, right now, in the moment, a thought comes and then goes while awareness persists. That's all there is. Most ordinary folk weren't ready to hear this and so Budhha gave them the middle way and the eightfold path. That is something most people could relate to. But it's a low level teaching, but most Buddhists think the opposite is true. But for the spiritually advanced or receptive, what Buddha said in the Mahaparunanirvana Sutra about the true Self as being what you are represented his highest teaching. And to know that one has to repeatedly experience the one pointedness of samadhi in order to become free of attachment and identification with the personal self.

As for meditation, there can be many definitions of what it is, but I made clear what definition is acceptable to me based on my own direct experience. I questioned the translation of bhavana as mental cultivation because it is misleading as it can suggest a practice which is conceptual in nature rather than about direct knowing. There will always be different interpretations. For instance a distinction is usually made between samatha and vipassana. I see no such distinction. They are one and the same. I have my opinions as you do and I'm not reluctant to express them. Ultimately you have to trust your inner guru and not become a slave to scripture which is always understood on a dualistic conceptual level. Practice is simple. How could it be anything else?

[Brucenkhamen]

I am not saying we should totally ignore these texts, but we should question their veracity for the reasons I gave. But what is important really? What can be said about what is needed to discover your true nature is very little. You don't need to be familiar with reams and reams of scriptures unless you are a scholar of historical Buddhism. If you look at some of the influential teachers in the Theravada tradition such as Ajahn Chah, he spoke in very simple terms about what you need to do for liberation.

I dont have a problem with this, I follow this approach myself, however if we want to talk about Buddhism in a collaborative way on the internet we have to use words, and it is helpful to be familiar with how these words are used in the context of Buddhist practice.

Is there more to mind than mental states? If you think there is, that is pure conjecture, a concept, which is itself just a thought appearing and disappearing. Mind is just a series of thoughts.

This is not consistent with Buddhist definitions. Surely you are familiar with the five aggregates; material form, feelings, perception, mental formations, and sensory consciousness. The first is physical, the last four mental and this is the mind so it is a lot more than just thoughts, actually I think these four dont adequately fully describe the mind.

So if you think the mind is just thoughts either you havent been paying attention or you are assuming that some of this mental activity is outside of the mind, I dont think such a view would be helpful in any Buddhist practice.

But for the spiritually advanced or receptive, what Buddha said in the Mahaparunanirvana Sutra about the true Self as being what you are represented his highest teaching. And to know that one has to repeatedly experience the one pointedness of samadhi in order to become free of attachment and identification with the personal self.

You can believe you are a little self that needs to find your true self if you want to but the idea is not supported by the original teachings and I think the idea is just creating a nonexistent dualism between big self and little self that is not needed. Its creating a problem in order to justify the solution.

Wouldnt it be better to talk about something where there is hope of agreement?

I questioned the translation of bhavana as mental cultivation because it is misleading as it can suggest a practice which is conceptual in nature rather than about direct knowing.

Cultivation suggests to me digging up, aerating, fertilising, and preparing. Meditation suggests to me pondering and contemplating but we use the word as its commonly used in English. I think youll find my interpretations more in line with the dictionary and etymology.

[VincentRJ]

In other words, an awareness that one is aware. Is that what you mean? I think perhaps not, because surely we are all aware that we are aware.

Hi Vincent.

It's a state for experience rather than verbalization.

When it comes you will know.

The moment you think, "Hey I've done it" you come out of this state.

Thinking breaks the gossamer fine experience.

Hi Rocky,

Surely all verbalisation is a response to, and/or an attempt to share, some type of experience. The types of experiences no doubt vary considerably from trivial to profound.

The verbalization of such experiences cannot be a substitute for something which has not been experienced by another, but is rather an attempt to describe the experience in terms of analogies, using events and situations that may have already been experienced by another so that the other, using his imagination and processes of extrapolation and empathy, might get at least some understanding of the nature of the new, not-yet-experienced, state-of-mind.

Do you not agree?

[trd]

Is there more to mind than mental states? If you think there is, that is pure conjecture, a concept, which is itself just a thought appearing and disappearing. Mind is just a series of thoughts.

This is not consistent with Buddhist definitions. Surely you are familiar with the five aggregates; material form, feelings, perception, mental formations, and sensory consciousness. The first is physical, the last four mental and this is the mind so it is a lot more than just thoughts, actually I think these four dont adequately fully describe the mind.

So if you think the mind is just thoughts either you havent been paying attention or you are assuming that some of this mental activity is outside of the mind, I dont think such a view would be helpful in any Buddhist practice.

I don't know where you get the idea that I suggest any aspect of mental activity can be outside of the mind. The four mental skandhas of sensation, perception, mental formation and consciousness are ways of classifying mental phenomena, but that knowledge in itself is of not much use because understanding, and by that I mean an understanding of the difference between say, a feeling and a conditioned response to an object, or how experience arises through the senses and other such examples won't free you from attachment and identification with mind and body. What it is supposed to do as a pointer is to reduce the mental activity of the mind by becoming the passive observer of these phenomena as a result of quiet contemplation of their nature.

This is surely the purpose of such a teaching. When the skandas are reduced right down to what is happening in the moment, then we can legitimately say that these different kinds of mental activity are all just thoughts, whether they are emotions, memories, sensory perceptions or any kind of conceptual thinking. It doesn't matter. That isn't to say the basis behind the skandhas is false, but the higher understanding is that what we experience moment to moment is a demonstration of impermanence. These aggregates come and go and are continually changing. They appear in awareness. My view is that although all Buddhist teachings necessarily have to start with duality, they must ultimately all point towards absorption into the non dual state by letting go of or transcending duality. That for me is the essence of Buddhism.

But for the spiritually advanced or receptive, what Buddha said in the Mahaparunanirvana Sutra about the true Self as being what you are represented his highest teaching. And to know that one has to repeatedly experience the one pointedness of samadhi in order to become free of attachment and identification with the personal self.

You can believe you are a little self that needs to find your true self if you want to but the idea is not supported by the original teachings and I think the idea is just creating a nonexistent dualism between big self and little self that is not needed. Its creating a problem in order to justify the solution.

Wouldnt it be better to talk about something where there is hope of agreement?

Again you are putting words in my mouth. There is an apparent little self (the personal aspect) which identifies with objects and sees itself as separate from objects and world. This is duality. There is no denying it. Separation is the cause of suffering. But how can a little self find the true Self. This Self or Buddha Nature is already what you are. How would it be possible to keep adding new knowledge, new discoveries, new meanings, to become more complete. There is no path that can start from a state of ignorance and arrive at a state of completeness or knowledge of your true nature. You see it as a problem. But it's not. It's a case of revealing what is already there. That is when there is no separation between non dual and dual, between unmanifest (emptiness) and manifest (aggregates). Emptiness is form. Form is emptiness.

[Brucenkhamen]

I don't know where you get the idea that I suggest any aspect of mental activity can be outside of the mind.

Because you said the mind is just thoughts, so I can only assume you are saying all the rest of mental activity is outside of the mind.

then we can legitimately say that these different kinds of mental activity are all just thoughts,

See like that, I think if you can't see the difference between thoughts and other mental activity you haven't been paying attention. However I suspect what you are really saying is that all mental activity has the same characteristic that is clearly evident in thoughts ie that it is constantly arising and passing away.

But how can a little self find the true Self. This Self or Buddha Nature is already what you are.

Everything in this post I find pretty consistent with Buddhism, at least in the way I understand and practice it, except for the above.

Yes self view creates separation from objects and world the world around us

However creating a view about a bigger and better self that if I can somehow realise it then everything will be all wonderful the way it is supposed to be is not the answer. Its replacing a small problem with a big problem, this is I think why the Buddha so strongly denied this view. It creates an even bigger duality than the current one, the separation between me and this godlike pantheistic True Self collective that I need to somehow re-merge with. Its probably not the way advanced practitioners understand it but its the picture painted by the words used.

As you say its just a case of revealing what is already there, so to me this means there is no need to personify it as personification just creates separation.

Buddhanature is less problematic, as it is not personified, not a self. Though from what Ive heard the idea came about when texts were translated into Chinese and Chinese grammer required a particle to be added -nature to make it grammatically correct.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Rocky,

Surely all verbalisation is a response to, and/or an attempt to share, some type of experience. The types of experiences no doubt vary considerably from trivial to profound.

The verbalization of such experiences cannot be a substitute for something which has not been experienced by another, but is rather an attempt to describe the experience in terms of analogies, using events and situations that may have already been experienced by another so that the other, using his imagination and processes of extrapolation and empathy, might get at least some understanding of the nature of the new, not-yet-experienced, state-of-mind.

Do you not agree?

Totally agree.

It's just that when I re visit Samahdi, there aren't any experiences anything like it in our usual conscious state to compare with.

The deeper you go, the more this is the case.

[KC 71]

Enlightened in the city of sin

[IMA_FARANG]

Those who know do not speak

Those who speak do not know.

[trd]

Those who know do not speak

Those who speak do not know.

So therefore because Buddha spoke a lot, it follows he didn't know.

[nongai]

I think it is meant that those who are always bragging or talking about their knowledge, probably do not know the real thing. Those who do know are more reluctant to speak about it and rather show by example. The Buddha would only teach when requested, as monks are also meant to do.... not proseytise and go about preaching to all.

Walk the walk, not talk the talk as they say.

[VincentRJ]

Hi Rocky,

Surely all verbalisation is a response to, and/or an attempt to share, some type of experience. The types of experiences no doubt vary considerably from trivial to profound.

The verbalization of such experiences cannot be a substitute for something which has not been experienced by another, but is rather an attempt to describe the experience in terms of analogies, using events and situations that may have already been experienced by another so that the other, using his imagination and processes of extrapolation and empathy, might get at least some understanding of the nature of the new, not-yet-experienced, state-of-mind.

Do you not agree?

Totally agree.

It's just that when I re visit Samahdi, there aren't any experiences anything like it in our usual conscious state to compare with.

The deeper you go, the more this is the case.

Rocky,

This is really a huge problem for those of us who have not been brought up in a Buddhist tradition and who might doubt the reality or accuracy of Buddhist concepts of rebirth and karma.

Normally, everything we learn is to some degree an extension of what we already know and have already experienced. I can imagine that a new experience which one cannot relate to any previous experience could actually be unsettling.

However, because I have read verbal descriptions of the state of 'Samadhi', along the lines of a 'stillness of the mind', a 'state of being totally aware of the present moment', a 'one-pointedness of mind', and so on, I can relate such descriptions of Samadhi to my own experiences of sometimes feeling unusually calm and worry-free.

I can also imagine there could be a 'heightened' state of calmness beyond anything that I have yet experienced, and which is sometimes described as Samadhi, and perhaps Nirvana beyond that, but I cannot imagine anything that is totally unlike anything I have experienced before, or to put it another way, I cannot imagine the unimaginable.

[trd]

Hi Rocky,

Surely all verbalisation is a response to, and/or an attempt to share, some type of experience. The types of experiences no doubt vary considerably from trivial to profound.

The verbalization of such experiences cannot be a substitute for something which has not been experienced by another, but is rather an attempt to describe the experience in terms of analogies, using events and situations that may have already been experienced by another so that the other, using his imagination and processes of extrapolation and empathy, might get at least some understanding of the nature of the new, not-yet-experienced, state-of-mind.

Do you not agree?

Totally agree.

It's just that when I re visit Samahdi, there aren't any experiences anything like it in our usual conscious state to compare with.

The deeper you go, the more this is the case.

Rocky,

This is really a huge problem for those of us who have not been brought up in a Buddhist tradition and who might doubt the reality or accuracy of Buddhist concepts of rebirth and karma.

Normally, everything we learn is to some degree an extension of what we already know and have already experienced. I can imagine that a new experience which one cannot relate to any previous experience could actually be unsettling.

However, because I have read verbal descriptions of the state of 'Samadhi', along the lines of a 'stillness of the mind', a 'state of being totally aware of the present moment', a 'one-pointedness of mind', and so on, I can relate such descriptions of Samadhi to my own experiences of sometimes feeling unusually calm and worry-free.

I can also imagine there could be a 'heightened' state of calmness beyond anything that I have yet experienced, and which is sometimes described as Samadhi, and perhaps Nirvana beyond that, but I cannot imagine anything that is totally unlike anything I have experienced before, or to put it another way, I cannot imagine the unimaginable.

Vincent, I wonder what you are trying to tell Rocky because he actually experiences samadhi in his practice and you are telling him about it theoretically. I think he knows it already. If you sometimes experience what you call calmness does that make you want to explore it more? The next time it happens I would advise you to clear your diary for the day and just abide in it passively for a while and get acquainted with it.

[VincentRJ]

Rocky,

This is really a huge problem for those of us who have not been brought up in a Buddhist tradition and who might doubt the reality or accuracy of Buddhist concepts of rebirth and karma.

Normally, everything we learn is to some degree an extension of what we already know and have already experienced. I can imagine that a new experience which one cannot relate to any previous experience could actually be unsettling.

However, because I have read verbal descriptions of the state of 'Samadhi', along the lines of a 'stillness of the mind', a 'state of being totally aware of the present moment', a 'one-pointedness of mind', and so on, I can relate such descriptions of Samadhi to my own experiences of sometimes feeling unusually calm and worry-free.

I can also imagine there could be a 'heightened' state of calmness beyond anything that I have yet experienced, and which is sometimes described as Samadhi, and perhaps Nirvana beyond that, but I cannot imagine anything that is totally unlike anything I have experienced before, or to put it another way, I cannot imagine the unimaginable.

Vincent, I wonder what you are trying to tell Rocky because he actually experiences samadhi in his practice and you are telling him about it theoretically. I think he knows it already. If you sometimes experience what you call calmness does that make you want to explore it more? The next time it happens I would advise you to clear your diary for the day and just abide in it passively for a while and get acquainted with it.

Hi Trd,

I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm basically questioning whether it is always the case that an experience of Samadhi, and beyond, is 'not anything like' previous experiences, as Rocky has stated in relation to his own experiences.

Why can there not be a dozen or more varying degrees of Samadhi that all have something in common and that can be verbalized in terms that one is even more luminous or one-pointed than a previous one? This situation would appear to make more sense to me

On the one hand, Trd, you have made a case in previous posts that the normal state of human consciousness is an experience of duality, an awareness that we are separate from our surroundings, and that enlightenment allows us to become aware of the falsity of such duality, yet on the other hand you appear to be defending a statement from Rocky which appears to express the nature of Samadhi in dualistic terms, that is, Samadhi is separate from normal consciousness.

In case this is not clear, I'm defining a description of something as being 'not anything like' something else, as being separate from that something else.

[TuskegeeBen]

Indeed, and if I were in search of a "master", to teach me meditation techniques, then I'd be looking more toward the Bhikkhuni (female monks). They tend to teach mostly by example

[trd]

Hi Trd,

I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm basically questioning whether it is always the case that an experience of Samadhi, and beyond, is 'not anything like' previous experiences, as Rocky has stated in relation to his own experiences.

Why can there not be a dozen or more varying degrees of Samadhi that all have something in common and that can be verbalized in terms that one is even more luminous or one-pointed than a previous one? This situation would appear to make more sense to me

On the one hand, Trd, you have made a case in previous posts that the normal state of human consciousness is an experience of duality, an awareness that we are separate from our surroundings, and that enlightenment allows us to become aware of the falsity of such duality, yet on the other hand you appear to be defending a statement from Rocky which appears to express the nature of Samadhi in dualistic terms, that is, Samadhi is separate from normal consciousness.

In case this is not clear, I'm defining a description of something as being 'not anything like' something else, as being separate from that something else.

Samadhi is not dualistic. Duality consists of experience. Experience requires a subject/object relationship between mind and an object. An object can be a thought or something which is perceived by the senses. It is the mind in motion. Like anything else, if something is described it becomes a concept to the listener because the nature of language is dualistic, but this shouldn't be confused with the actual (non) experience of samadhi which is non dual in nature. It is simply the one pointedness of mind where there is no object, only subject as awareness. Awareness being aware of itself. It can happen when the mind settles down and becomes very quiet, usually as a result of meditation practice.

[VincentRJ]

Hi Trd,

I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm basically questioning whether it is always the case that an experience of Samadhi, and beyond, is 'not anything like' previous experiences, as Rocky has stated in relation to his own experiences.

Why can there not be a dozen or more varying degrees of Samadhi that all have something in common and that can be verbalized in terms that one is even more luminous or one-pointed than a previous one? This situation would appear to make more sense to me

On the one hand, Trd, you have made a case in previous posts that the normal state of human consciousness is an experience of duality, an awareness that we are separate from our surroundings, and that enlightenment allows us to become aware of the falsity of such duality, yet on the other hand you appear to be defending a statement from Rocky which appears to express the nature of Samadhi in dualistic terms, that is, Samadhi is separate from normal consciousness.

In case this is not clear, I'm defining a description of something as being 'not anything like' something else, as being separate from that something else.

Samadhi is not dualistic.

I should hope not, which is why I'm a bit puzzled that anyone would describe the state of Samadhi in a dualistic manner, such as, 'it is unlike any other experience'.

Here's a common definition of dualism: "The division of something conceptually into two opposed or contrasted aspects, or the state of being so divided".

Some examples of dualism would be, (1) the view that the world consists of two fundamentally distinct entities, such as animate and inanimate matter, and mind and matter. (2) The view that the mind and body are separate entities that don't interchange or influence each other. (clearly a false view, as modern science has demonstrated). (3) The view that the world is ruled by two antagonistic forces of Good and Evil.

Many dualistic descriptions from the past are now known to be false or at best only partially true. We understand through modern science (perhaps even without any help from Buddhist ideas ) that most things are connected to some degree and that there is always a 'cause and effect' relationship in play.

Modern DNA science informs us that 50% of our genes are the same as those of a banana. The implication is, we are not entirely separate from a banana, nor indeed from all other lifeforms and all matter. However, there are numerous degrees of separateness, or differences we can discern.

Also, in ordinary experience, uninformed by science, or even by Buddhist teachings, there are various degrees of empathy that ordinary people experience and display when they witness the suffering of others, not only other members of the same family, or other members of the same species, Homo Sapiens, but other creatures. As I'm sure you have observed, people often treat dogs as though they are Homo Sapiens children.

Many people who do not claim to be Buddhists, are very concerned about issues such as the welfare of other species, cruelty to animals, and the extinction of other species. Some people even like to hug trees.

In view of this general understanding that I've expressed, perhaps you can appreciate that I'm rather puzzled by a description of Samadhi as being 'unlike any other experience'. Such a description sounds a bit like the sorts of exaggerations that are employed by Advertising Agencies.