<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0"> <channel> <title>Theoreticians and Traditionalists (T&amp;T)</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_category?p_l_id=&amp;mbCategoryId=127451</link> <description>For those discussions focused on technical points of tradition, dogma and doctrine, and sectarian debates over which tradition, term and theory is better rather than actual practice and realization.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2014 00:36:09 GMT</pubDate> <dc:date>2014-10-19T00:36:09Z</dc:date> <item> <title>RE: On Nibbana/Nirvana</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577492</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Dream Walker:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please go into detail on this &amp;#034;understanding&amp;#034; if you would.&lt;br /&gt;Thanks,&lt;br /&gt;~D&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m just referring to any learning that occurs along the way, at and after a so-called cessation event. Some of it is intellectual, but some of it felt somewhat &amp;#034;psycho-somatic.&amp;#034; If you&amp;#039;re asking what I think I&amp;#039;ve learned, I won&amp;#039;t deign to bore you. The question I have though, is the same one presented in my original post: how much of what I think I&amp;#039;ve learned, either purely intellectually or through this &amp;#034;psycho-somatic&amp;#034; process was influenced. One might say all of it, since I don&amp;#039;t exist in a vacuum, but let&amp;#039;s work somewhere a little bit removed from that edge &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Dream Walker:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;EDIT -&lt;br /&gt;Were I christian mystic and had a SE experience what would my understanding be? If I were doing yoga? If I were practicing Hindu stuff? Would any of these &amp;#034;understandings&amp;#034; be the same ones?....interesting questions. I have not the answers but it seems it might have pretty extensive differences.&lt;br /&gt;~D&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That&amp;#039;s my hypothesis too. I wonder if there&amp;#039;s any research into this?</description> <pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2014 01:47:39 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577492</guid> <dc:creator>Small Steps</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-06T01:47:39Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: On Nibbana/Nirvana</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577399</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Small Steps:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Sure, all the experiences of cessations, unconditioneds and deathlesses aren&amp;#039;t worth a pile of beans if one gains no understanding and isn&amp;#039;t consequently changed by them.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please go into detail on this &amp;#034;understanding&amp;#034; if you would.&lt;br /&gt;Thanks,&lt;br /&gt;~D&lt;br /&gt;EDIT -&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Small Steps:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;The question that it brings up for me is: how extensively do we incline and move our minds based on what we&amp;#039;ve read, heard, studied, etc? If it affects something as substantive as the experience of awakening/enlightenment/the unconditioned/the deathless, who&amp;#039;s to say it&amp;#039;s not affecting every move we make along &lt;strong&gt;any &lt;/strong&gt;path or any point on a path.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Were I christian mystic and had a SE experience what would my understanding be? If I were doing yoga? If I were practicing Hindu stuff? Would any of these &amp;#034;understandings&amp;#034; be the same ones?....interesting questions. I have not the answers but it seems it might have pretty extensive differences.&lt;br /&gt;~D</description> <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:19:44 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577399</guid> <dc:creator>Dream Walker</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-05T20:19:44Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: On Nibbana/Nirvana</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577396</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Richard Zen:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Whether you &amp;#034;wink out&amp;#034; or not, you have to come back to normal experience with an understanding that helps you in daily life.  It&amp;#039;s the understanding of dependent arising that all the traditions agree on.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I found SE to be more confusing that illuminating. I did not find MCTB until after the event and having cessations several times a week. What was the understanding I was supposed to have that helps daily life?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;thoughts at the time -&amp;#034;I stroke out each time I meditate but it feels good after....guess I&amp;#039;ll keep at it, and I feel calmer but very altered...I wonder why that is?&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If one hand claps and there isn&amp;#039;t a Buddhist there to not experience it, was understanding achieved? &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/smile.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;How much of our experience gets colored by preconceived understandings&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;~D</description> <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:13:49 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577396</guid> <dc:creator>Dream Walker</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-05T20:13:49Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: On Nibbana/Nirvana</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577372</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Eva M Nie:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Yes, I think it&amp;#039;s an interesting consideration, how many people if they spent years and years fervently looking for something while at the same time believing that something is an exalted something, may eventually find that something, whatEVER it is!  I think that is why many people tend to find/experience that which they were taught they will find/experience.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is why people who&amp;#039;ve had near death experiences may report of an afterlife colored by current experiences/cultural context/location/etc. A Christian goes to heaven, a devotional Buddhist may report of entering the Pure Land, etc.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Eva M Nie:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On the flip side, there does seem to be commonalities and tendencies even amongst those who were not taught anything in particular.  Maybe the commonalities across groups are more likely to be things more people experience.  Looking around, I haven&amp;#039;t even seen much sounding super similar across practitioners for the definition of nonduality.  I often wonder, if one nondualist reads the description from another, does he/she recognize those traits/experiences in the other but just says it in a different way or with different emphasis?  Or are the different nondualist really that different in experience?  If the experiences are very different, how can one even say if a person is there or not?  &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t know much about nondual practitioners, so I won&amp;#039;t conjecture about what they report. However, since no one lives in a vacuum, it would be hard to imagine not being subtly influenced by present conditions (however slightly). I often find reports on DhO that mirror my own experience, despite the practitioner having a different path than my own. Given the context of our practice though, it shouldn&amp;#039;t come as a surprise. Never mind the fact that we&amp;#039;re already here on DhO, and how that might already incline things &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:44:41 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577372</guid> <dc:creator>Small Steps</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-05T17:44:41Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: On Nibbana/Nirvana</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577294</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Richard Zen:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Whether you &amp;#034;wink out&amp;#034; or not, you have to come back to normal experience with an understanding that helps you in daily life.  It&amp;#039;s the understanding of dependent arising that all the traditions agree on.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sure, all the experiences of cessations, unconditioneds and deathlesses aren&amp;#039;t worth a pile of beans if one gains no understanding and isn&amp;#039;t consequently changed by them. Interestingly though, the descriptions of dependent arising vary according to which sutta one reads (with 6, 9, 10 or 12 nidanas). I haven&amp;#039;t read much mahayana or vajrayana literature yet, so I can&amp;#039;t guess at how they describe it.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2014 07:50:08 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577294</guid> <dc:creator>Small Steps</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-05T07:50:08Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: On Nibbana/Nirvana</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577271</link> <description>Yes, I think it&amp;#039;s an interesting consideration, how many people if they spent years and years fervently looking for something while at the same time believing that something is an exalted something, may eventually find that something, whatEVER it is!  I think that is why many people tend to find/experience that which they were taught they will find/experience.   If you look into hypnosis, this would be like a form of self hypnosis where you concentrate over and over on specific things and drill them into your head.  Hypnosis can be a powerful tool.  You pick your scripts to tell yourself and then repeat them over and over with every effort.  What effect would that have?  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On the flip side, there does seem to be commonalities and tendencies even amongst those who were not taught anything in particular.  Maybe the commonalities across groups are more likely to be things more people experience.  Looking around, I haven&amp;#039;t even seen much sounding super similar across practitioners for the definition of nonduality.  I often wonder, if one nondualist reads the description from another, does he/she recognize those traits/experiences in the other but just says it in a different way or with different emphasis?  Or are the different nondualist really that different in experience?  If the experiences are very different, how can one even say if a person is there or not?  </description> <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2014 05:54:48 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577271</guid> <dc:creator>Eva M Nie</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-05T05:54:48Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: On Nibbana/Nirvana</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577133</link> <description>Whether you &amp;#034;wink out&amp;#034; or not, you have to come back to normal experience with an understanding that helps you in daily life.  It&amp;#039;s the understanding of dependent arising that all the traditions agree on.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2014 00:41:03 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577133</guid> <dc:creator>Richard Zen</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-05T00:41:03Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>On Nibbana/Nirvana</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577055</link> <description>I listened to this talk recently, by Guy Armstrong, titled &amp;#034;Bodhisattva Path: Plus Rigpa &amp;amp; Nirvana&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dharmaseed&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;teacher&amp;#x2f;79&amp;#x2f;talk&amp;#x2f;2440&amp;#x2f;"&gt;http://www.dharmaseed.org/teacher/79/talk/2440/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I found it quite fascinating. The interesting bit starts around the 16:00 minute mark or so, wherein Guy expounds on his understandings of the concept of nibbana/nirvana from the perspective of a couple of different traditions. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What makes it so interesting is that these descriptions are the (common) models most Buddhist practitioners use for their own conceptions of enlightenment/nibbana/nirvana. &lt;em&gt;How much of our experiences then get colored by this?&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For a Theravadan practitioner in the style of the Mahasi Sayadaw, nibbana is the cessation, wherein all four of the mental aggregates cease. There&amp;#039;s the &amp;#039;winking out&amp;#039; followed by a &amp;#039;reboot.&amp;#039; Mahasi&amp;#039;s Progress of Insight was in turn informed by Abhidhamma/Visuddhimaga studies and descriptions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For a Thai forest practitioner like Ajahn Maha Boowa, however, &amp;#039;awareness&amp;#039; (what I understand to be our meta-cognitive sense of &amp;#039;that which is aware&amp;#039;) never disappears. There&amp;#039;s no evidence of cessation in the form that the Progress of Insight might suggest.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The question that it brings up for me is: how extensively do we incline and move our minds based on what we&amp;#039;ve read, heard, studied, etc? If it affects something as substantive as the experience of awakening/enlightenment/the unconditioned/the deathless, who&amp;#039;s to say it&amp;#039;s not affecting every move we make along &lt;strong&gt;any &lt;/strong&gt;path or any point on a path.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 21:03:26 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577055</guid> <dc:creator>Small Steps</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-04T21:03:26Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] [MIGRATE]</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5533384</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Chuck Kasmire:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: times&amp;#x20;new&amp;#x20;roman&amp;#x2c;times&amp;#x2c;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Hi Ian,&lt;br /&gt;Based on your suggestion, I started reading &lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Richard Gombrick&amp;#039;s &lt;em&gt;What The Buddha Thought&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;khamkoo&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;uploads&amp;#x2f;9&amp;#x2f;0&amp;#x2f;0&amp;#x2f;4&amp;#x2f;9004485&amp;#x2f;what_the_buddha_thought&amp;#x2e;pdf"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; last night.&lt;br /&gt;This is a great book and I am still reading the introduction - thanks much for the suggestion. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: times&amp;#x20;new&amp;#x20;roman&amp;#x2c;times&amp;#x2c;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: times&amp;#x20;new&amp;#x20;roman&amp;#x2c;times&amp;#x2c;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Glad you like it. Happy to contribute to your education. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think you possess enough life experience to make sense of Gombrich&amp;#039;s take on things and will greatly enjoy the insights he brings forth. There aren&amp;#039;t too many people here that that might apply to. Fitter Stoke, Nicholai, and perhaps Beoman too. I respect each of these people&amp;#039;s practice and level of attainment (in addition to present company, meaning yourself). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Don&amp;#039;t expect me to be able to contribute too much to this discussion, though. I&amp;#039;m bogged down with other writing projects that will keep me busy for the unforseeable future at the moment.  Have to make a living in this god awful economic depression we are being forced to live through. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description> <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 2014 05:13:09 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5533384</guid> <dc:creator>Ian And</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-05-14T05:13:09Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] [MIGRATE]</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5533227</link> <description>&lt;span style="font-family: times&amp;#x20;new&amp;#x20;roman&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;times&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Hi Ian,&lt;br /&gt;Agreed on all counts. I was hoping this topic would pique your interest.&lt;br /&gt;Based on your suggestion, I started reading &lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Richard Gombrick&amp;#039;s &lt;em&gt;What The Buddha Thought&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;khamkoo&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;uploads&amp;#x2f;9&amp;#x2f;0&amp;#x2f;0&amp;#x2f;4&amp;#x2f;9004485&amp;#x2f;what_the_buddha_thought&amp;#x2e;pdf"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt; last night.&lt;br /&gt;This is a great book and I am still reading the introduction - thanks much for the suggestion. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: times&amp;#x20;new&amp;#x20;roman&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;times&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description> <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2014 19:37:28 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5533227</guid> <dc:creator>Chuck Kasmire</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-05-13T19:37:28Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] [MIGRATE]</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5532976</link> <description>&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;Hey all,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Please feel free to check out the new subcategory:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dharmaoverground&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;web&amp;#x2f;guest&amp;#x2f;discussion&amp;#x2f;-&amp;#x2f;message_boards&amp;#x2f;category&amp;#x2f;5531777"&gt;http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/category/5531777&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This thread here has served its purpose to create a new little space in the new DhO house &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description> <pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2014 08:45:30 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5532976</guid> <dc:creator>No-Second-Arrow Z</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-05-13T08:45:30Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] [MIGRATE]</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5532075</link> <description>OK, I&amp;#039;ve made a little list... It&amp;#039;s just off the top of my head and lots of items are not that important, but in case we get bored LOL.&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s a bit messy, has no particular order, probably typo&amp;#039;s, but the first items are maybe good to start with, to get to know some basics. How about:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- a disclaimer (Something to explain what the aim is of the threads. That the focus is purely what the Buddha said (for as far as possible, that is. There are suttas that might have been put in there by others.)&lt;br /&gt;Sentence from Chuck would be nice to put in there: &amp;#034;Anyone that considers themselves Buddhist ought to have a basic understanding of the underlying terminology, principles and skills even if they choose to view and/or apply them differently.&amp;#034; Explanation that these topics by no means mean that everything else is wrong, but that it would be nice to see what the Buddha actually said and meant.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- Who was the buddha (life story, four heavenly messengers), ascetism, awakening)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- 4 noble truths (and why  the Buddha considered this as all important (&amp;#034; I teach suffering and the end of suffering and nothing more&amp;#034;)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- noble eightfold path and division in virtue, concentration and wisdom (and why virtue is important). Explanations on all eight factors and clarification of what &amp;#039;Right&amp;#039; means in this context. I&amp;#039;m sure topics like Right Speech are very interesting to talk about more deeply?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- What did he mean with &amp;#039;dukkha&amp;#039;, is &amp;#039;suffering&amp;#039; an accurate translation?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- Are all kinds of desire bad?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- The three characteristics and why they are crucial&lt;br /&gt;Annicca&lt;br /&gt;Dukkha&lt;br /&gt;Anatta not-self (which will not be an easy task, explaining this in simple terms.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- What is the Pali Canon and what does the tipitaka mean.What are the Chinese agamas. Explanation about how the pali canon is divided in suttas, rules for the monks and nuns and the Abidhamma).and when they were created. And why Pali?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- What are the Visuddimagga and the Vimuttimaggha, are they from the buddha too?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- Meditation:&lt;br /&gt;Vipassana, concentration, jhanas, access concentration (explanation about not something the Buddha used, as are nimittas), satipatthana, anapanasati, kasinas, contemplation on death, walking and lying down meditation, etc.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- factors of enlightenment&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- Dependent origination (dependent co-arising), causes and conditions&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- What are defilements, taints, ...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- Explanation precepts (5, 8, 10, etc)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- What are mental formations, volitional formations, ...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- what did the buddha meant with &amp;#039;letting go&amp;#039; and renunciation?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- Monks, nuns and lay followers: different rules for different people (maybe a topic explaining sex forbidden for monastics, but sex in a wholesome way for the lay followers? And the link between sex and good versus bad desires?)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- differences schools buddhism&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- difference between rebirth and reincarnation; samsara; kamma&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- 4 stages of enlightenment (also explaining the ten fetters). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- 31 realms of existence&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- the six senses&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- the five aggregates&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- paramis&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- brahma viharas (loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- bases of power&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- elaborate discussions on anger and other topics, as Chuck said: &amp;#034;I think it would also be interesting to take a subject like &amp;#039;anger&amp;#039; say and look broadly at how that is treated over say 20 or 30 suttas. I have done this with a number of topics and find it really brings out a much better sense of how that quality is worked with in the practice.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- Maybe a separate thread with all kinds of general, interesting links to texts and podcasts, so that one doesn&amp;#039;t need to open each thread (where we&amp;#039;ll put the links containing information on that particular subject).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- maybe a &amp;#039;top 10&amp;#039; with an overview of very important suttas, well known suttas as well as suttas who don&amp;#039;t get the attention they deserve?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- maybe lesser known subjects, like samvega? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- maybe a topic about death, such as using it as a meditation subject, little explanation about &amp;#039;charnel grounds&amp;#039; . And maybe a little something about dying as a buddhist. What the buddha said about the moment of death.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- maybe a little list of &amp;#039; modern&amp;#039; people who were likely enlightened to a high degree, like Dipa Ma?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- a little topic about the important days for buddhists, like Wesak (Vesak), importance of the moon? I&amp;#039;m not sure if the Buddha himself talked about that, I seem to remember he said that certain things like visiting the place of enlightenment were important for your kamma, or something.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- &amp;#039;fun&amp;#039; facts like the bodhi tree?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think we could work on this for years &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/oh_my.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2014 11:36:33 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5532075</guid> <dc:creator>No-Second-Arrow Z</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-05-12T11:36:33Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] [MIGRATE]</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5532033</link> <description>Wow, a separate category &lt;em&gt;and &lt;/em&gt;a wiki, how cool is that!! Thank you very much!&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/smile.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;And Chuck, Ian, thank you for thinking about what we could do, it&amp;#039;s very valuable.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;I think we are thinking among the same lines; something simple, without lots of scholarly discussions and many links and books that one can read more about the subject.&lt;/span&gt; In depth discussion is always important, no doubt, but my vision would be to give information that one can quickly scan for a bit of a context, but providing sources which one can check if one is interested. I remember that a year or two ago I skipped all kinds of subjects, because they were to complicated or that I didn&amp;#039;t belief, but gradually it became a way of life and I read and listened to podcasts more and more. So, the people who are truly interested have some resources to go to, can discuss the topics, while people who just want to check it out quickly can do so.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m currently making an inventory of things we can discuss, but unfortunately half of my list wasn&amp;#039;t saved as an application crashed&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/oh_my.gif" &gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Should we discuss maybe some kind of standard headers for the topics? I was thinking something like: (buddhism) 101 - subject - early / theravada / tibetan / pure land, etc? Something one can see in one glance as some kind of topic which we set up? Or bad idea?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m not sure how a wiki works; is Chuck the only one who can edit it? Because in that case we could perhaps copy / paste the pure informative stuff from the first (second, etc) posts and people can just discuss a topic later on in the non wiki threads? So, the chatter stays in the threads and the non-chatter goes in the wiki?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m just thinking out loud here, so please chime in here! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;OK, well, next post I will show a list of what topics may be, it&amp;#039;s gonna take me a couple of hours, at most I think.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Wow, I&amp;#039;m quite excited! It will mean that I will learn a lot from al these topics myself. Kind of a sutta study, for me, to filter the most helpful texts to show as examples.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Edited to add&lt;/em&gt;: it might be useful to discuss with each other which topic to tackle first, so we don&amp;#039;t get confusion?</description> <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2014 09:51:20 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5532033</guid> <dc:creator>No-Second-Arrow Z</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-05-12T09:51:20Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] [MIGRATE]</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5531940</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Anyway, personally I&amp;#039;m sort of in the Theravada corner and for me the earliest known texts have a lot of value. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m obviously in agreement with No Second Arrow (and others) on this: that the earliest known texts have &lt;em&gt;a lot of value&lt;/em&gt;. And more than most people will take the time to realize. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The problem for many here is that to do this study any justice takes a lot of time and effort which most people don&amp;#039;t have or aren&amp;#039;t willing to spend. In addition, many are not interested in the nuts and bolts of the traditional practice, preferring to find the latest and quickest method for overcoming their &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt; using meditation practices. But meditation practice alone won&amp;#039;t accomplish this. It has to be mixed with honest to goodness contemplation of these concepts (the &lt;em&gt;dhamma&lt;/em&gt; concepts that we study) with an effort to seeing them reflected in our actual experience. Once that process begins to occur, you&amp;#039;d be amazed at how things begin to fall into place in terms of understanding and confirmation of that understanding. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Chuck Kasmire:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Tend toward Thai Forest myself. One of the things about this topic is that anyone can be involved regardless of practice or tradition. It’s really just asking ‘what do these writings say’. Anyone that considers themselves Buddhist &lt;strong&gt;ought to have a basic understanding of the underlying terminology, principles and skills&lt;/strong&gt; even if they choose to view and/or apply them differently.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Yes, that would be nice. And a lot more helpful than people might think. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Chuck Kasmire:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I would be &lt;strong&gt;happy to leave the ‘lengthy and very complicated theoretical discussions’ to dhammawheel&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;strong&gt;but of course what is complicated or theoretical is subjective&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I totally agree with this. My days of jousting with others over interpretation are long over. I really have little interest in what others think at this point; although I&amp;#039;m always ready to examine my own experience to see if there&amp;#039;s something I&amp;#039;m missing. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;People misinterpret my commentary all the time. They presume it is based on theororetical view I have or some such. But that&amp;#039;s not how I work. My comments are based on my direct objective experience of the concepts I&amp;#039;m speaking about. I only speak from direct objective experience. If I haven&amp;#039;t experienced something, I won&amp;#039;t discuss it without imposing conditions on the discussion (such as &amp;#034;this is speculation&amp;#034; or whatever).  &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Chuck Kasmire:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I would like to &lt;strong&gt;see terminology defined in contemporary language&lt;/strong&gt; and that definition be derived from across a number of different suttas.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;This is something that everyone should be aiming to accomplish. Having an understanding of the terminology in translation &lt;em&gt;that you can relate to&lt;/em&gt; can be game changer in terms of beginning to comprehend what Gotama was talking about while being able to directly observe one&amp;#039;s own experience in order to confirm it. It was an insight I came across regarding the definition of the word &amp;#034;nirvana&amp;#034; that spurred my investigation further into getting all the main Pali words and concepts defined in English so that I could observe them directly from my experience. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Along with this is understanding the texts within the context of the time in which they were spoken. One book that I think people will greatly benefit from in terms of this last is Richard Gombrick&amp;#039;s &lt;em&gt;What The Buddha Thought&lt;/em&gt;. All I can say is: Richard gets it! And he has the historical evidence of the times in which Gotama lived to basically prove it. Although he is an academic, this book is a very easy book to read while it provides some thought-provoking and insightful observations that ring true. At least from my experience and study of these matters it does. For anyone interested in the study of the early teachings of the Buddha this is an essential book to have read and contemplated. &lt;/span&gt;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2014 03:14:43 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5531940</guid> <dc:creator>Ian And</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-05-12T03:14:43Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] [MIGRATE]</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5531898</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;I created a subcategory called Early Buddhism based on your request, and actually am trying to create a section of the Wiki called Chuck&amp;#039;s Corner about whatever you wish to put there, but the approval process of the workflow on 6.2 is not straightforward, such that even I, who own the site, can&amp;#039;t seem to change anything about it. Working on figuring out how 6.2 handles that, and then you will have both a a discussion and wiki place to discuss these important topics.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #12718f"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Arial"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Thanks Daniel. It seems I have wiki access but haven&amp;#039;t tried editing anything yet - I do see a message there &amp;#034;&lt;span style="color: #12718f"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Arial"&gt;There is a publication workflow in process. Some actions may be disabled depending on the status and your role through this process.&amp;#034;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Not sure what my role is so I will leave things alone until things settle down a bit. Best of luck on figuring out this stuff. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2014 00:43:00 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5531898</guid> <dc:creator>Chuck Kasmire</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-05-12T00:43:00Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] [MIGRATE]</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5531811</link> <description>I created a subcategory called Early Buddhism based on your request, and actually am trying to create a section of the Wiki called Chuck&amp;#039;s Corner about whatever you wish to put there, but the approval process of the workflow on 6.2 is not straightforward, such that even I, who own the site, can&amp;#039;t seem to change anything about it. Working on figuring out how 6.2 handles that, and then you will have both a a discussion and wiki place to discuss these important topics.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2014 20:46:01 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5531811</guid> <dc:creator>Daniel M. Ingram</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-05-11T20:46:01Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] [MIGRATE]</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5530261</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;I&amp;#039;m a bit confused; was this category of /Theoreticians and Traditionalists (T&amp;amp;T) already here?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I believe it was.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;A new category would be neat, but if that isn&amp;#039;t an option, we can create new threads here, though it will be messier, I imagine.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think a new category would be easy to add. I don’t have the ability to create categories but I’m sure a moderator would be happy to do that. Do need a title though first. Some suggestions: Early Buddhism, Early Buddhist Terminology and Concepts, Pre-Sectarian Buddhism, Early Buddhist Resources&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Anyway, personally I&amp;#039;m sort of in the Theravada corner and for me the earliest known texts have a lot of value. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Tend toward Thai Forest myself. One of the things about this topic is that anyone can be involved regardless of practice or tradition. It’s really just asking ‘what do these writings say’. Anyone that considers themselves Buddhist aught to have a basic understanding of the underlying terminology, principles and skills even if they choose to view and/or apply them differently. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Accesstoinsight is a great resource, but there are more treasures on the net as well.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I agree. One of the things such a category could provide is links to other sites, books, etc. that people come across.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;To clarify my suggestion of creating a &amp;#039;Buddha Corner&amp;#039;: I&amp;#039;m not suggesting I&amp;#039;m going to create all threads and huge posts, because that would be quite time consuming and I&amp;#039;m not another Ian And, who made these beautiful &amp;#039; all purpose jhana threads and the like&amp;#039;. Besides, I&amp;#039;m not a native speaker and I wrestle a lot with how to formulate certain things.&lt;br /&gt;But I&amp;#039;m sure there are more people who would love to start threads about important Buddha subjects. Perhaps we could start with an inventory about which topics to tackle first?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;No, it’s too much for one person. I can add some and I think there are others here interested in this as well. One of the values of the site is that many people can contribute and it can evolve over time. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;For me the key to these threads is readability; of course we can have lengthy and very complicated theoretical discussions, but my aim would be to just explain in easy wordings basic topics. Just for people to get a taste of what the buddha did and didn&amp;#039;t say. For example, the word &amp;#039;suffering&amp;#039; is a very crooked way of translating &amp;#039;dukkha&amp;#039; (as someone recently mentioned, if only I could remember who and where, to give credit for this example &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I would be happy to leave the ‘lengthy and very complicated theoretical discussions’ to dhammawheel - but of course what is complicated or theoretical is subjective. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I would like to see terminology defined in contemporary language and that definition be derived from across a number of different suttas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m interested in discussing topics like not-self, defilements, jhana, virtue, and others in everyday language but referencing back to specific suttas as reference. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think it would also be interesting to take a subject like &amp;#039;anger&amp;#039; say and look broadly at how that is treated over say 20 or 30 suttas. I have done this with a number of topics and find it really brings out a much better sense of how that quality is worked with in the practice.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As far as initial topics that come to mind:&lt;br /&gt;Terminology - mindfulness, 3 characteristics, suffering, jhana.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Topics for deeper discussions: not-self, fetters, afflictions/defilements, virtue.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 12px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description> <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2014 22:21:29 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5530261</guid> <dc:creator>Chuck Kasmire</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-05-09T22:21:29Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] [MIGRATE]</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5528893</link> <description>Hi Chuck,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nice suggestions you have here! I was thinking about the same lines.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m a bit confused; was this category of /&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dharmaoverground&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;web&amp;#x2f;guest&amp;#x2f;discussion&amp;#x2f;-&amp;#x2f;message_boards&amp;#x2f;category&amp;#x2f;127451"&gt;Theoreticians and Traditionalists (T&amp;amp;T)&lt;/a&gt; already here?&lt;br /&gt;I emailed Daniel with a few questions  / suggestions, he hasn&amp;#039;t responded yet, but with all this upgrading I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting him too &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;A new category would be neat, but if that isn&amp;#039;t an option, we can create new threads here, though it will be messier, I imagine.&lt;br /&gt;Anyway, personally I&amp;#039;m sort of in the Theravada corner and for me the earliest known texts have a lot of value. But we could either put it in the header of new threads, or clearly state it in the post itself.&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m a lurker at Dhammawheel and I really like it, but unfortunately they don&amp;#039;t support rss feeds and for me on my cell phone checking on my browser, isn&amp;#039;t a very pleasant experience. So I tend to forget to check on my computer what&amp;#039;s happening over there.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Accesstoinsight is a great resource, but there are more treasures on the net as well.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To clarify my suggestion of creating a &amp;#039;Buddha Corner&amp;#039;: I&amp;#039;m not suggesting I&amp;#039;m going to create all threads and huge posts, because that would be quite time consuming and I&amp;#039;m not another Ian And, who made these beautiful &amp;#039; all purpose jhana threads and the like&amp;#039;. Besides, I&amp;#039;m not a native speaker and I wrestle a lot with how to formulate certain things.&lt;br /&gt;But I&amp;#039;m sure there are more people who would love to start threads about important Buddha subjects. Perhaps we could start with an inventory about which topics to tackle first?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For me the key to these threads is readability; of course we can have lengthy and very complicated theoretical discussions, but my aim would be to just explain in easy wordings basic topics. Just for people to get a taste of what the buddha did and didn&amp;#039;t say. For example, the word &amp;#039;suffering&amp;#039; is a very crooked way of translating &amp;#039;dukkha&amp;#039; (as someone recently mentioned, if only I could remember who and where, to give credit for this example :rolleyes&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;edited for typo</description> <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 09:52:47 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5528893</guid> <dc:creator>No-Second-Arrow Z</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-05-08T09:52:47Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] [MIGRATE]</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5527510</link> <description>A Buddha thread? [No-Second-Arrow Z] &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;No-Second-Arrow Z - 2014-05-03 04:52:52 - A Buddha thread?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi all,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Lately I noticed some confusion about what I would call &amp;#039;the core teachings of the buddha&amp;#039; or CTB. &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/big_grin.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;Questions come up about what the buddha meant, for instance when he talked about things like desire, anger and suffering. Sometimes it seems as if people attribute things to the buddha, which he didn&amp;#039;t say or even go against the grain of his teachings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, I was thinking: would it be helpful to create a thread where the budhha&amp;#039;s most basic topics are clarified in a clear, down to earth manner, with links added to clarify where you can find the discourses that relate to these topics? &lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; talking about some kind of rigid, dogmatic thread where &amp;#039;this is how it should be and everything else is wrong&amp;#039;. Just an easy to find place where we can read about what the buddha did or didn&amp;#039;t say.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(Or is there all ready such a thread and I totally overlooked it?&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/blush.gif" &gt; )&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;James Yen - 2014-05-03 05:52:01 - RE: A Buddha thread?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Buddha&amp;#039;s teachings are basically united around the nucleus of suffering and the end of suffering. To that end, whatever helps with that goal would be considered his teaching and whatever hinders it would not be his teaching.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But to actually help with your goal, here&amp;#039;s a quick sutta:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I have heard that at one time the Blessed One was staying at Vesali, in the Peaked Roof Hall in the Great Forest.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Then Mahapajapati Gotami went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, stood to one side. As she was standing there she said to him: &amp;#034;It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One would teach me the Dhamma in brief such that, having heard the Dhamma from the Blessed One, I might dwell alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, &amp;amp; resolute.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, &amp;#039;These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome&amp;#039;: You may categorically hold, &amp;#039;This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher&amp;#039;s instruction.&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;As for the qualities of which you may know, &amp;#039;These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome&amp;#039;: You may categorically hold, &amp;#039;This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher&amp;#039;s instruction.&amp;#039;&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Mahapajapati Gotami delighted at his words.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;accesstoinsight&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;tipitaka&amp;#x2f;an&amp;#x2f;an08&amp;#x2f;an08&amp;#x2e;053&amp;#x2e;than&amp;#x2e;html"&gt;Gotami Sutta&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;yoloswag420,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;James&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Rist Ei - 2014-05-03 09:47:23 - RE: A Buddha thread?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Gautama Buddha, also known as Siddh?rtha Gautama,[note 1] Shakyamuni,[note 2] or simply the Buddha, was a sage[3] on whose teachings Buddhism was founded.[4] Born in the Shakya republic in the Himalayan foothills,[5][note 3] Gautama Buddha taught primarily in northeastern India.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Buddha means &amp;#034;awakened one&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;the enlightened one.&amp;#034; &amp;#034;Buddha&amp;#034; is also used as a title for the first awakened being in an era.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition, and first committed to writing about 400 years later.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Anyone played a game where you need to tell a story to the next one and then next one tells it to next one and the story what comes at the end is much more different that its originally was..?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Jesus Christ&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Jesus (/?d?i?z?s/; Greek: ?????? Iesous; 7ñ2 BC to 30ñ33 AD), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity,[12] whom the teachings of most Christian denominations hold to be the Son of God. Christianity regards Jesus as the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament and refers to him as Jesus Christ, a name that is also used in non-Christian contexts.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Intuition&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(psychology)&lt;br /&gt;Dharma eye?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason.[1] The word intuition comes from Latin verb intueri which is usually translated as to look inside or to contemplate.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Intuition is commonly discussed in writings of spiritual thought. Contextually, there is often an idea of a transcendent and more qualitative mind of one&amp;#039;s spirit towards which a person strives, or towards which consciousness evolves. Typically, intuition is regarded as a conscious commonality between earthly knowledge and the higher spiritual knowledge[16] and appears as flashes of illumination.[17] It is asserted that by definition intuition cannot be judged by logical reasoning.[18][19]&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;desire&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Desire is a sense of longing for a person or object or hoping for an outcome. The same sense is expressed by emotions such as &amp;#034;craving&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;hankering&amp;#034;.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;In Buddhism, for an individual to effect his or her liberation, the flow of sense-desire must be cut completely&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;hmm the &lt;strong&gt;flow&lt;/strong&gt; of sense desire? sounds easy peasy&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Richard actual freedom central figure&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://actualfreedom.com.au/&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;The way of becoming actually free is both simple and practical. One starts by dismantling the shadowy social identity which has been overlaid, from birth onward, on top of the innate self until one is virtually free from all the social mores and psittacisms (those mechanical repetitions of previously received ideas or images, reflecting neither apperception nor autonomous reasoning).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;sawfoot _ - 2014-05-03 10:40:40 - RE: A Buddha thread?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Who needs a thread, when you can have a whole forum! I am sure you will find some unconfused people there.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Www.dhammawheel.com&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Chuck Kasmire - 2014-05-03 21:16:36 - RE: A Buddha thread?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;No-Second-Arrow Z:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Hi all,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Lately I noticed some confusion about what I would call &amp;#039;the core teachings of the buddha&amp;#039; or CTB. &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/big_grin.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;Questions come up about what the buddha meant, for instance when he talked about things like desire, anger and suffering. Sometimes it seems as if people attribute things to the buddha, which he didn&amp;#039;t say or even go against the grain of his teachings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, I was thinking: would it be helpful to create a thread where the budhha&amp;#039;s most basic topics are clarified in a clear, down to earth manner, with links added to clarify where you can find the discourses that relate to these topics? &lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; talking about some kind of rigid, dogmatic thread where &amp;#039;this is how it should be and everything else is wrong&amp;#039;. Just an easy to find place where we can read about what the buddha did or didn&amp;#039;t say.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(Or is there all ready such a thread and I totally overlooked it?&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/blush.gif" &gt; )&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think it&amp;#039;s a great idea.&lt;br /&gt;One thing you can do is ask people to please cite their sources when these kinds of statements are made.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You have to decide what texts are core teachings. If you narrow down what he said to the early texts we have -  the Sutta Pitaka and the Vinaya - along with the Chinese agamas - which includes early texts from non-Theravada schools as well - things get simplified as there is fairly wide consensus on these being the closest we have to the original source material - such a focus would be on what is called Pre-sectarian or Early Buddhism. The more you expand out to include say Mahayana suttas and various commentaries, Abhidhamma&amp;#039;s and such the less agreement you will find.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dhammawheel has a focus on Theravada (which is post-pre-sectarian so to speak). It is a good resource and has a section on Early Buddhism. Sutta Central is building a collection of early buddhist material including the Chinese Agamas - but that is more of a resource for source material rather than discussion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A thread would probably become unwieldy quickly. A category or wiki section might be better. There will always be different opinions as to how to interpret these early texts - even how to translate them - but having a summary in contemporary language (or several short summaries where there are different opinions) with links to the underlying relevant texts - I think that would be very helpful. One possible place for such in the wiki is under ìcore principlesî where there is currently a section on Mahayana and Theravada  - a third could be added ìPre-Sectarianî or something like that. The down side of that is that it is limited to those with wiki access - so a category might be better - or a combination.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I&amp;#039;m not talking about some kind of rigid, dogmatic thread where &amp;#039;this is how it should be and everything else is wrong&amp;#039;.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hopefully not but these topics can be sensitive. Even by focusing just on ëWhat does it sayí - there will be room for various interpretations and its probably good to include those various views. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Just an easy to find place where we can read about what the buddha did or didn&amp;#039;t say.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AccesstoInsight is the easiest place to find and search source material that I know of. For example, you can go there and search the suttas for ëangerí and then see how this topic is treated within the early texts. Doing this can be kind of overwhelming until you get a good feel for the terminology and style of the texts but itís a great way to learn.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2014 09:52:16 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5527510</guid> <dc:creator>Migration 6.2 Daemon</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-05-07T09:52:16Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: David Chapman: Enlightenment &amp; Epistemology</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5265461</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;T DC:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I read that blog post&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There are 34 links to different posts that are on that page...he has a lot to say...I read them all and thought he made some great points and pointed out some history that I was not familiar with. &lt;br /&gt;Read some more and see what you think...You bring up some great points though.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2014 05:15:44 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5265461</guid> <dc:creator>Dream Walker</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-03-09T05:15:44Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: David Chapman: Enlightenment &amp; Epistemology</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5265071</link> <description>I read that blog post, and frankly it seems like an argument about enlightenment from someone who has never really experienced attainment. He talks in there about insights that seem to be IT, only to fade over time. However, if one has experienced a level of genuine attainment, perhaps 4th path is a good example, it should be clear that that insight does not fade, and holds up, as it originally was perceived, over time.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So to me, interesting arguments aside, the post seems like discussion and serious doubt of a topic of which the author has no genuine experience. There is a reason that enlightenment is described as being obvious, or &amp;#034;like seeing the face of one&amp;#039;s own mother&amp;#034;(impossible to miss). Rather than assume the teachings are wrong, as he seems to be doing, perhaps a more prudent view would be to acknowledge that perhaps, having not had such an experience personally, he should put more time into meditation, and less into skeptical speculation. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(Personal Rant): The idea that many different enlightenment exist is ridiculous! It is the end of dualistic confusion (for Christ&amp;#039;s sake!). I feel like this shouldn&amp;#039;t be an issue. Why are we practicing? -&amp;gt;4 Noble truths: We are suffering as a result of confusion, and we wish to experience genuine peace by overcoming this confusion. What is the confusion? -&amp;gt;Believing ourselves to separately existing individuals. So what would overcoming this look like? -&amp;gt; Overcoming that delusion, knowing firsthand the unity of all things. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is referred to as the ultimate state due to the fact it trumps all else. It serves as the basis for all other experience. The very point of it is that there is no separation. So how could there be two different enlightenments? Seriously, if overcoming separation is the goal, and this can be done, if all things are one, then how could two people perceive this differently? Does this not seem to be logically incoherent?</description> <pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2014 23:29:09 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5265071</guid> <dc:creator>T DC</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-03-08T23:29:09Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: David Chapman: Enlightenment &amp; Epistemology</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5260443</link> <description>I&amp;#039;ve been reading his blog and find it very interesting&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;meaningness&amp;#x2e;wordpress&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;2011&amp;#x2f;06&amp;#x2f;07&amp;#x2f;the-crumbling-buddhist-consensus-overview&amp;#x2f;"&gt;the-crumbling-buddhist-consensus-overview&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;ve never really read the history of Buddhism....lots of interesting thought here.&lt;br /&gt;~D</description> <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2014 06:02:59 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5260443</guid> <dc:creator>Dream Walker</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-03-07T06:02:59Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Mahayana vs non-Mahayana: scriptural basis for differences in atta</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4898434</link> <description>Meh, the differences are minor at best. All theistic religions assert the existence of an absolute truth: there is one God. The different sects of Christianity itself, do not differ in any great way, besides maybe when the Sabbath day falls on, or whether the Bible is most important etc. etc.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There were though, heretical schools that came up with very... well... heretical ideas. They were short-lived and quickly ousted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(BTW, if you&amp;#039;re going to point out that I should have used the word &amp;#034;monotheistic&amp;#034; in the first paragraph, then we shouldn&amp;#039;t really bother arguing, as you probably knew what I meant.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The point is that theism in general, provides a basis for absolute truth, with which to distinguish what is true and not true.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Buddhism does not have this, the schools of thought within Buddhism (a lot of which are heretical by Theravada standards) differ GREATLY.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The DhO is an example of this, so is the notion that chanting nam-myoho-renge-kyo can get you WHATEVER you want, and so on and so forth.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Peace.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;P.S.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m an atheist.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:50:09 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4898434</guid> <dc:creator>James Yen</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-11-19T09:50:09Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Mahayana vs non-Mahayana: scriptural basis for differences in atta</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4898334</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;James Yen:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is the opposite for theistic religions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Peace.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; 1 Catholicism&lt;br /&gt; 1.1 Catholic Church&lt;br /&gt; 1.1.1 The Latin Church&lt;br /&gt; 1.1.2 Eastern Catholic Churches&lt;br /&gt; 1.2 Other churches&lt;br /&gt; 1.2.1 Independent (self-identified as Catholic)&lt;br /&gt; 2 Eastern Orthodox&lt;br /&gt; 2.1 Eastern Orthodox Church&lt;br /&gt; 2.2 Other churches&lt;br /&gt; 3 Oriental Orthodoxy&lt;br /&gt; 3.1 Other Churches&lt;br /&gt; 4 Church of the East&lt;br /&gt; 5 Other early Christians&lt;br /&gt; 6 Protestantism&lt;br /&gt; 6.1 Pre-Lutheran Protestants&lt;br /&gt; 6.2 Lutheranism&lt;br /&gt; 6.3 Anglicanism&lt;br /&gt; 6.3.1 Anglican Communion&lt;br /&gt; 6.3.2 Other Anglican Churches&lt;br /&gt; 6.4 Calvinism&lt;br /&gt; 6.4.1 Continental Reformed churches&lt;br /&gt; 6.4.2 Presbyterianism&lt;br /&gt; 6.4.3 Congregationalist Churches&lt;br /&gt; 6.5 Anabaptists&lt;br /&gt; 6.6 Brethren&lt;br /&gt; 6.7 Methodists&lt;br /&gt; 6.8 Pietists and Holiness Churches&lt;br /&gt; 6.9 Baptists&lt;br /&gt; 6.9.1 Spiritual Baptists&lt;br /&gt; 6.10 Apostolic Churches &amp;#x2013; Irvingites&lt;br /&gt; 6.11 Pentecostalism&lt;br /&gt; 6.12 Charismatics&lt;br /&gt; 6.12.1 Neo-Charismatic Churches&lt;br /&gt; 6.13 African Initiated Churches&lt;br /&gt; 6.14 Messianic Judaism / Jewish Christians&lt;br /&gt; 6.15 United and uniting churches&lt;br /&gt; 6.16 Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)&lt;br /&gt; 6.17 Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement&lt;br /&gt; 6.18 Southcottites&lt;br /&gt; 6.19 Millerites and comparable groups&lt;br /&gt; 6.19.1 Adventist (Sunday observing)&lt;br /&gt; 6.19.2 Adventist (Seventh Day Sabbath/Saturday observing)&lt;br /&gt; 6.19.3 Church of God movements (Sunday observing)&lt;br /&gt; 6.19.4 Church of God movements (Seventh Day Sabbath/Saturday observing)&lt;br /&gt; 6.19.5 Sabbath-Keeping Movements, Separated from Adventists&lt;br /&gt; 6.19.6 Sacred Name groups&lt;br /&gt; 6.19.7 Movements not related to the Millerites but comparable to them&lt;br /&gt; 6.19.7.1 Sabbath-Keeping movements, predating the Millerites&lt;br /&gt; 6.19.7.2 Sabbath-Keeping movements, Mormon&lt;br /&gt; 6.20 British-Israelism&lt;br /&gt; 6.21 Christian Identity&lt;br /&gt; 6.22 Miscellaneous/Other&lt;br /&gt; 7 Nontrinitarian groups&lt;br /&gt; 7.1 Latter Day Saints&lt;br /&gt; 7.2 Oneness Pentecostalism&lt;br /&gt; 7.3 Unitarianism and Universalism&lt;br /&gt; 7.4 Bible Student groups&lt;br /&gt; 7.5 Swedenborgianism&lt;br /&gt; 7.6 Christian Science&lt;br /&gt; 7.7 Other non-Trinitarians&lt;br /&gt; 8 New Thought&lt;br /&gt; 9 Esoteric Christianity&lt;br /&gt; 10 Syncretistic religions incorporating elements of Christianity&lt;br /&gt; 11 See also&lt;br /&gt; 12 References</description> <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:11:18 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4898334</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-11-19T09:11:18Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Mahayana vs non-Mahayana: scriptural basis for differences in atta</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4897209</link> <description>There is no consistency or coherency within the Mahayana canon, it is only Buddhism inasmuch it has some of the same vocabulary. But other than that, Mahayana Buddhism is largely just a collection of incoherent (in the sense that they do not come together to form a larger framework) scriptures.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So pragmatically speaking, there is nothing particularly useful about delving into the Mahayana sutras. If you really wish to do hardcore spiritual practice I would suggest Theravada Buddhism.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But even then Theravada Buddhism hasn&amp;#039;t had a really good track record for actually producing awakened beings, nor has it really had that much of a beneficial effect on the world as a whole. The other issue is that there is no common thread that runs through the Buddhist teachings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In other words Buddhists deny the existence of absolute truth, thus the only things that were necessarily true, within the canon, were things spoken by the Buddha.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But there really was no criteria for determining exactly what was Buddhism and what it wasn&amp;#039;t. Which is why Buddhism has mutated so much.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is the opposite for theistic religions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Peace.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2013 03:22:25 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4897209</guid> <dc:creator>James Yen</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-11-19T03:22:25Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Mahayana vs non-Mahayana: scriptural basis for differences in atta</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4894551</link> <description>:-) Hi AEN!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;You wrote:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;One school of thought is that the arhat equates with the sixth bhumi of the mahayana model, this teaching is taught by &lt;em&gt;Lankavatara Sutra&lt;/em&gt; and an opinion held by a group of teachers.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Do you know which teachers have held this view? Have they all been Westerners?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One online translation of the &lt;em&gt;Lankavatara Sutra&lt;/em&gt; is from an anthology called &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;sacred-texts&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;bud&amp;#x2f;bb&amp;#x2f;index&amp;#x2e;htm"&gt;&lt;em&gt;A Buddhist Bible&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;. Though based on Daisetz T Suzuki’s English translation of the Sanskrit, the sutra’s editors seem to have done an unintended ‘hatchet job’ (I guess they did not really understand what they were editing:-). It includes such passages as…&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;The Once-returning are the Arhats, and the Never-returning are the Bodhisattvas who have reached the seventh stage …&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The class known as Arhats are those earnest masters who belong to the once-returning class. By their spiritual insight they have reached the sixth and seventh stages ...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Disciples and masters and Arhats may ascend the stages up to the sixth …&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;t the sixth stage all discrimination ceases as they become engrossed in the bliss of the Samadhis wherein they cherish the thought of Nirvana and, as Nirvana is possible at the sixth stage, they pass into their Nirvana, but it is not the Nirvana of the Buddhas.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;sacred-texts&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;bud&amp;#x2f;bb&amp;#x2f;bb17&amp;#x2e;htm"&gt;http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb17.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;…and…&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;In the spirit of these vows the Bodhisattva gradually ascends the stages to the sixth. All earnest disciples, masters and Arhats have ascended thus far, but being enchanted by the bliss of the Samadhis and not being supported by the powers of the Buddhas, they pass to their Nirvana.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;sacred-texts&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;bud&amp;#x2f;bb&amp;#x2f;bb18&amp;#x2e;htm"&gt;http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb18.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;With this unfortunate English rendering, understandably readers would take the 6th bhumi as true arhat stage (though the actual description of that bhumi has anagami features). On the other hand, Daisetz T Suzuki’s full English translation of these parts of the &lt;em&gt;Lanka&lt;/em&gt; reads like a different book! As it is a bit long to reproduce here, a link is: &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;lirs&amp;#x2e;ru&amp;#x2f;do&amp;#x2f;lanka_eng&amp;#x2f;lanka-nondiacritical&amp;#x2e;htm"&gt;http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm&lt;/a&gt;, see chapters XLIX and LXXX. This version makes it fairly clear that arhat fruition is entry to the 8th bhumi.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of the Theravadin four stages from stream-entry to arhat, Bhante Gunaratana comments in &lt;em&gt;Beyond Mindfulness in Plain English&lt;/em&gt;…&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;In the Abhidhamma texts, there is some suggestion that the path and the fruition periods can arise very rapidly, almost simultaneously. I feel that each phase may take a moment, a lifetime, or anywhere in between. The texts say that reflection on what is being accomplished at each stage of the process is very important, and there must be time for this reflection to take place. In addition, some texts talk about the comparative amount of merit in offering gifts to someone who is in one or other of these stages. To me this means that people remain in each stage long enough to be distinguished from one another.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Other suttas imply that the path phase arises first. Then the meditator associates with the path phase, develops it, and cultivates it before attaining the fruition state. This means that the person has time to associate, cultivate, and develop the path before attaining the fruition state. Even if somebody’s attainment seems instant, he still must attain the path first and afterward attain fruition. Attaining path and fruition at once is impossible. It is never mentioned in any sutta.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt; I find this passage very interesting, as this expansion of each of the four stages of the Theravadin Supramundane Path into path and fruition periods appears to me to correspond to the first eight bodhisattava bhumis of the Mahayana. In the Five Paths model, the path stage of stream-winning falls in the Path of Seeing (Path 3), and the fruition stage in the Path of Cultivation (Path 4). (Please excuse me if the above has been mentioned elsewhere in the DhO.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thank you for your scholarship, AEN! (-:</description> <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:44:30 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4894551</guid> <dc:creator>Anne Cripps</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-11-18T11:44:30Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Reviews of recommended books</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4776699</link> <description>I&amp;#039;ve definitely benefited from this book, especially pages 142 - 146.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 13:07:44 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4776699</guid> <dc:creator>Richard Zen</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-10-07T13:07:44Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Reviews of recommended books</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4776145</link> <description>What follows is a review of the book &lt;em&gt;The Five Aggregates, Understanding Theravada Psychology and Soteriology&lt;/em&gt; which I wrote and posted on amazon.com a few years ago. While this book is not an easy read, what I endeavored to do in the review, in order to encourage others to spend the time reading it, was to reveal for the reader the central insight that the book has to offer: namely, that, as they relate to the Dhamma, the five aggregates, traditionally viewed as conventional truth, and dependent co-arising, traditionally viewed as the highest truth, &amp;#034;represent different expressions of the same process.&amp;#034; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One of the reasons some readers have a problem with this book is the insistence by its author that the reader become familiar with the Pali terminology (how it is defined and the processes each term refers to) and be able to identify it within his own experience while also understanding of how these factors relate to a person&amp;#039;s experience of reality. You see, without that understanding (or insight) with regard to the middle eight factors of dependent co-arising and how they correlate to the activation of the five aggregates, being able to see those factors being played out within the reader&amp;#039;s own direct experience, readers are likely to miss completely the insight being pointed out to them. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In order to help correct that possible deficiency, I have inserted (in the review) the bracketed material into the text to help readers better relate to what is being said. If a reader is unable to see how these concepts relate within their own experience, the insight they carry is likely to go over their heads. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In addition, it helps to be able to go back to any referenced discourses themselves to see how that may add to one&amp;#039;s understanding of the material being discussed. In the present case, this would be the Mahavagga of the &lt;em&gt;Anguttara Nikaya&lt;/em&gt; (or &amp;#034;The Great Chapter [or Book]&amp;#034;). While that whole sutta is well worth while reading and examining, I will excerpt a brief portion of it here in order to demonstrate its helpfulness in smoothing out a deeper understanding and appreciation of the insight under discussion. Toward the end of section &lt;em&gt;i 176&lt;/em&gt; there are the following passages: &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;When it was said: &amp;#039;&amp;#034;These are the eighteen mental examinations&amp;#034;: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, irreproachable, and uncentured by wise ascetics and brahmins,&amp;#039; for what reason was this said? Having seen a form with the eye, one examines a form that is a basis for joy; one examines a form that is a basis for dejection; one examines a form that is a basis for equanimity. Having heard a sound with the ear. . . Having smelled an odor with the nose. . . Having tasted a taste with the tongue. . . Having felt a tactile object with the body. . . Having cognized a mental phenomenon with the mind, one examines a mental phenomenon that is a basis for joy; one examines a mental phenomenon that is a basis for dejection; one examines a mental phenomenon that is a basis for equanimity. When it was said: &amp;#039;&amp;#034;These are the eighteen mental examinations&amp;#034;: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted. . . uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins,&amp;#039; it is because of this that this was said. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;When it was said: &amp;#039;&amp;#034; These are the four noble truths&amp;#039;: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncentured by wise ascetics and brahmins,&amp;#039; for what reason was this said? In dependence on the six elements the descent of a embryo occurs.[437] When the descent takes place, there is name-and-form [&lt;em&gt;nama-rupa&lt;/em&gt;]; with name-and-form as condition, there are the six sense bases [&lt;em&gt;ayatanas&lt;/em&gt;; the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind]; with the six sense bases as condition, there is contact [&lt;em&gt;phassa&lt;/em&gt;]; with contact as condition, there is feeling [&lt;em&gt;vedana&lt;/em&gt;]; Now it is for one who feels that I proclaim: &amp;#039;This is suffering,&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;This is the origin of suffering,&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;This is the cessation of suffering,&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.&amp;#039; . . . &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? With ignorance as condition, volitional activities [come to be]; with volitional activities as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and anguish come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering.&amp;#034; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Footnote&lt;br /&gt;437. Mp. [Anguttara Nikaya-atthakatha, or commentary]: &amp;#034;Why does he begin in this way? For ease of understanding. For the Tathagata wants to explain the revolving of the twelve conditions, so he shows the rounds by the term &amp;#039;descent of a embryo&amp;#039;. For when the round has been shown by the descent of a embryo, what follows will be easy to understand. Whose six elements serve as the condition, the mother&amp;#039;s or the father&amp;#039;s? It is neither, but descent of a embryo occurs conditioned by the six elements of the being taking rebirth.&amp;#034; Mp cites MN 38.26, I 265-66 (see too MN 93.18, II 156-57). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Take special note of the reference made to &lt;em&gt;vedana&lt;/em&gt; (feeling; where it references joy, dejection, and equanimity in the sutta passages) and contemplate the role that this factor plays in the whole process of how personal identity becomes established within the mind. When you can see and identify not only the arising of feeling but its quality within any mental activity, you have a clue as to how you create your own identity within the mind, which is without a substantial self nature. The self you create (in reference to oneself and others) and find so difficult to stop clinging to is a mental formation based on pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feeling! Feeling, which is the nearest thing to nothing there is. If that isn&amp;#039;t insight enough for you to realize the significance of &lt;em&gt;anatta&lt;/em&gt;, I don&amp;#039;t know what is! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p style="text-align: center"&gt;=================================================================&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 24px"&gt;The Five Aggregates. . . and then some&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;The Five Aggregates: Understanding Theravada Psychology and Soteriology&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;by Mathieu Boisvert, Sri Satguru Publications, A Division of Indian Books Centre Indological and Oriental Publishers, Delhi, India. Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 1995; First Indian Edition: Delhi, 1997.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The question posed on the back dust jacket of this book sums up it contents quite nicely, if somewhat deceptively in terms of the profound nature of the actual answer which is submitted to the question itself. It asks, &amp;#034;If Buddhism denies a permanent self, how does it perceive identity?&amp;#034; From this simple question, Mathieu Boisvert, a Professor of South-Asian Traditions at the University of Quebec at Montreal, endeavors to show how the Theravadin Buddhist tradition supports its answers to this question in light of the Pali Canon and the tradition&amp;#039;s rich exegetical literature. Yet, the actual scope of the book (within its slight 178 pages of text) is much broader than this introduction might convey, for Boisvert endeavors to demonstrate how the five aggregates of personality view compliment and interact within the Buddha&amp;#039;s great discovery of the &lt;em&gt;paticcasamuppada&lt;/em&gt; or Dependent Co-Arising. He does this by showing the connections between the aggregates and the middle eight factors of the twelve factored dependent arising process.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Boisvert points out up front that because of the great gap in time between the Buddha&amp;#039;s death and the first written repository of his teachings, not to mention the reliance on human memory which itself might be faulty, scholars and Buddhologists alike are unable to definitively ascertain the nature of &amp;#034;original&amp;#034; Buddhism, what the Buddha actually taught, from the extant manuscripts and historical evidence which extend from that time period, and therefore he does not intend to claim that his work will uncover what the Buddha actually said about the five aggregates or anything else. What he does postulate is that &amp;#034;since the commentarial tradition was incorporated within the Theravada tradition itself, the latter must have insured that the former was consistent with every aspect of its own theory. . . . Consequently, I have assumed that the Theravada tradition itself must have assured the integrity of a text before accepting it.&amp;#034; Taking this as his starting point, Boisvert then states: &amp;#034;This book will therefore analyze the five aggregates within the Theravada tradition as a whole [based upon the scriptures of the Pali canon and its exegetical texts].&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He begins this process by stating the core theory according to the Theravada tradition: &amp;#034;. . . the human personality is composed solely of the five aggregates, and to perceive any of these as the self leads to a particular kind of wrong view known as &amp;#039;the view that the body is existing &amp;#039; (&lt;em&gt;sakkayaditthi&lt;/em&gt;). If the entire personality is confined within these five aggregates, the Buddhist theory of perception &amp;#x2014; and of &amp;#039;misperception&amp;#039; as well &amp;#x2014; should become clear through an understanding of their interrelation.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;From here, he proceeds to the heart of his thesis, stating: &amp;#034;Although the theory of dependent origination is traditionally approached as the highest truth, and the five aggregates as conventional truth, I present evidence that these levels of truth are not merely juxtaposable, but represent different expressions of the same process.&amp;#034; And to show this he begins by breaking down the five aggregates in terms of their interaction with dependent co-arising, demonstrating how both the five aggregates and dependent co-arising actually work together in what can become viewed ultimately as a dual process responsible for the arising of suffering. In actuality, it is not a dual process, but rather only appears to be, depending upon which of the two aspects one is focusing on. He states: &amp;#034;According to the Pali canon, both the chain of dependent origination and the five aggregates are responsible for suffering (&lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt;). The Buddha stated repeatedly that the root of all suffering lies in the five clinging aggregates which represent the psycho-physical constituents of the individual.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On the other side of the coin, he shows how the relation between the five aggregates and the doctrine of dependent co-arising is established through a reference in the Mahavagga of the &lt;em&gt;Anguttara Nikaya&lt;/em&gt;*. In this discourse, the four noble truths are shown in terms of the &lt;em&gt;paticcasamuppada&lt;/em&gt;. &amp;#034;The noble truth concerned with the arising of suffering is simply explained by the &lt;em&gt;paticcasamuppada&lt;/em&gt; in normal order, while the noble truth of cessation of suffering is defined by the &lt;em&gt;paticcasamuppada&lt;/em&gt; in reverse order. It is clear, then, that the &lt;em&gt;paticcasamuppada&lt;/em&gt;, traditionally seen as an explanation for the arising and the eradication of suffering, is intimately related to the theory of the five aggregates.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The doctrine of the &lt;em&gt;paticcasamuppada&lt;/em&gt; (dependent co-arising) simply explains the process that the five aggregates go through in their journey toward suffering and the creation of the vicious circle leading to birth, existence, illness, old age, and ultimately to death and the eventual rebirth of the aggregates in a new lifeform. In showing us this pattern within the five aggregates, Boisvert states that: &amp;#034;The physical and psychological elements at work in the individual remain the same whether in the past, present or future. Stated differently, the theory of dependent origination could run thus: within one lifespan (links 11-12: birth [&lt;em&gt;jati&lt;/em&gt; or birth; rebirth] and old age and death [&lt;em&gt;jaramarana&lt;/em&gt; or old age and death]), one keeps generating karmic activities (link 2 [&lt;em&gt;sankhara&lt;/em&gt; or karmic activities]) because of ignorance (link 1 [&lt;em&gt;avijja&lt;/em&gt; or ignorance]), and this generation of karmic activities due to ignorance is more easily understandable by examining the process described by the eight middle links [3. &lt;em&gt;vinnana&lt;/em&gt; or consciousness; 4. &lt;em&gt;namarupa&lt;/em&gt; or name and form; 5. &lt;em&gt;salayatana&lt;/em&gt; or the six sense doors; 6. &lt;em&gt;phassa&lt;/em&gt; or contact; 7. &lt;em&gt;vedana&lt;/em&gt; or feeling; 8. &lt;em&gt;tanha&lt;/em&gt; or craving; 9. &lt;em&gt;upadana&lt;/em&gt; or clinging; and 10. &lt;em&gt;bhava&lt;/em&gt; or becoming].&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He continues, saying: &amp;#034;Through this study, I am able to clearly establish the correlation between Buddhist soteriology and psychology, depicted respectively by the &lt;em&gt;paticcasamuppada&lt;/em&gt; and the five aggregates. By correlating some of the links of the chain of dependent origination with the five aggregates, it becomes clear that these links share the same order as the traditional nomenclature of the five aggregates, and that the latter fulfill the same function as the links of the &lt;em&gt;paticcasamuppada&lt;/em&gt;. No attempt has ever been made before to explicitly connect both doctrines, and to state which links of the theory of dependent origination refer to which particular aggregate.&amp;#034; It is from this point that the heart of the book and his hypothesis begins to take shape as Boisvert proceeds to examine each of the five aggregates one by one while bringing to light, in a very convincing manner, their connection with the doctrine of dependent co-arising.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What this work does is to look at the five aggregates as though with a fine microscope in order to discern and discover the synergistic connections between these two important Buddhist doctrines in an effort to more clearly delineate the liberation process at work within the individual who is, by Buddhist definition, nothing more than an amalgam of the five aggregates. In undergoing this process of discovery of uncovering the minute details of the five aggregates, the reader is led step by step through the process of the workings of his own mind while being shown what needs to be done in order to bring this process leading to the Round of Births to an end &amp;#x2014; in other words, to awakening and liberation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Any reader who wishes to learn more about this process which keeps beings bound to the Round of Births, as proposed by Buddhist teaching, could do no worse than to look into and discover the connections involved which keep him attached to the Wheel of Becoming. Here, in this book &lt;em&gt;The Five Aggregates: Understanding Theravada Psychology and Soteriology&lt;/em&gt;, Boisvert presents a convincing amount of detailed information, painstakingly dissected, which demonstrates this process which binds beings to &lt;em&gt;samsara&lt;/em&gt;. If one reads no other book than this on the subject of the five aggregates, one would be hard pressed to find a better explanation of a more concrete psychological framework for the discovery of the Buddhist soteriological answer to the aspects of existence.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;* AN i, 176-177 [pgs. 268-270]. Mahavagga [The Great Chapter] of the Anguttara Nikaya</description> <pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 03:18:46 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4776145</guid> <dc:creator>Ian And</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-10-07T03:18:46Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Anyone heard of the Jatakas?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4522887</link> <description>I have read a bunch of them and found them a lot of fun, and some of them show up in modern Buddhist mythology.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Enjoyable reading, good for reading to children.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Daniel</description> <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:25:02 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4522887</guid> <dc:creator>Daniel M. Ingram</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-07-29T09:25:02Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Anyone heard of the Jatakas?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4521106</link> <description>They&amp;#039;re pious tales of past lives of the Buddha. They&amp;#039;re not &amp;#034;canonical&amp;#034; (insert your own understanding of what this means here). They&amp;#039;re didactical if you like them to be, fairy tales, otherwise. Traditional Buddhists of most stripes believe the Buddha couldn&amp;#039;t have come to his realizations without the preparation of thousands and thousands of previous lifetimes in which to work off his kharmic burdens. The jatakas are just stories about some of those.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Better a late reply than a never made one, I suppose.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:51:54 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=4521106</guid> <dc:creator>Mike Hodder</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-07-28T15:51:54Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3868118</link> <description>I found the answer to my own questions above about sila in Bhikkhu Bodhi&amp;#039;s writings about the Noble Eightfold Path:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The English word &amp;#034;morality&amp;#034; and its derivatives suggest a sense of obligation and constraint quite foreign to the Buddhist conception of sila; this connotation probably enters from the theistic background to Western ethics. Buddhism, with its non-theistic framework, grounds its ethics, not on the notion of obedience, but on that of harmony. In fact, the commentaries explain the word sila by another word, samadhana, meaning &amp;#034;harmony&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;coordination.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The observance of sila leads to harmony at several levels &amp;#x2014; social, psychological, kammic, and contemplative. At the social level the principles of sila help to establish harmonious interpersonal relations, welding the mass of differently constituted members of society with their own private interests and goals into a cohesive social order in which conflict, if not utterly eliminated, is at least reduced. At the psychological level sila brings harmony to the mind, protection from the inner split caused by guilt and remorse over moral transgressions. At the kammic level the observance of sila ensures harmony with the cosmic law of kamma, hence favorable results in the course of future movement through the round of repeated birth and death. And at the fourth level, the contemplative, sila helps establish the preliminary purification of mind to be completed, in a deeper and more thorough way, by the methodical development of serenity and insight.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;When briefly defined, the factors of moral training are usually worded negatively, in terms of abstinence. But there is more to sila than refraining from what is wrong. Each principle embedded in the precepts, as we will see, actually has two aspects, both essential to the training as a whole. One is abstinence from the unwholesome, the other commitment to the wholesome; the former is called &amp;#034;avoidance&amp;#034; (varitta) and the latter &amp;#034;performance&amp;#034; (caritta). At the outset of training the Buddha stresses the aspect of avoidance. He does so, not because abstinence from the unwholesome is sufficient in itself, but to establish the steps of practice in proper sequence. The steps are set out in their natural order (more logical than temporal) in the famous dictum of the Dhammapada: &amp;#034;To abstain from all evil, to cultivate the good, and to purify one&amp;#039;s mind &amp;#x2014; this is the teaching of the Buddhas&amp;#034; (v. 183). The other two steps &amp;#x2014; cultivating the good and purifying the mind &amp;#x2014; also receive their due, but to ensure their success, a resolve to avoid the unwholesome is a necessity. Without such a resolve the attempt to develop wholesome qualities is bound to issue in a warped and stunted pattern of growth.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The training in moral discipline governs the two principal channels of outer action, speech and body, as well as another area of vital concern &amp;#x2014; one&amp;#039;s way of earning a living. Thus the training contains three factors: right speech, right action, and right livelihood.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;accesstoinsight&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;lib&amp;#x2f;authors&amp;#x2f;bodhi&amp;#x2f;waytoend&amp;#x2e;html&amp;#x23;ch4"&gt;http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html#ch4&lt;/a&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2013 01:42:59 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3868118</guid> <dc:creator>Steph S</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-01-06T01:42:59Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Western Monk moving to Canada</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3867273</link> <description>I have heard it said that there was a correlation between enlightenment and ones land of birth. I wonder if thats whats pushing him to come here.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2013 22:14:12 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3867273</guid> <dc:creator>The Xzanth</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-01-05T22:14:12Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Western Monk moving to Canada</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3865296</link> <description>Montrealer here.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Seems like a better idea to trust that the universe will provide. The street kids seem to be able to do it. He will just have to adapt a little, instead of alms then soup kitchens (or welfare :-D).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Oh and Canadians would love some oppressive heat... the cold in this country (maybe not in Toronto) will make you literally chop off your own toes. I have plenty of friends who are living in the forests of Canada...through the winters (living in wigwams, no electricity and only a well with a hand pump for water).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Plenty of empathy here but very little sympathy... its small peas.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I can understand that he fears for his practice but if this move is coming to him it must become a part of his practice.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:35:31 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3865296</guid> <dc:creator>The Xzanth</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-01-05T13:35:31Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Western Monk moving to Canada</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3864246</link> <description>I&amp;#039;ve really enjoyed his talks this past year and benefited from his openness, his sharing about his life and his willingness to take on lots of touchy subjects. He&amp;#039;s Canadian by birth and hopefully he will be able to pioneer a way for his practice there. Thanks for the update, Florian. I haven&amp;#039;t checked his site in a while.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2013 04:11:01 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3864246</guid> <dc:creator>katy steger</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-01-05T04:11:01Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Western Monk moving to Canada</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3863987</link> <description>I&amp;#039;m in Montreal, rather than Toronto, but I&amp;#039;ll fill out the contact form on the site to see if there&amp;#039;s something I can do to help out a little. Thanks for posting about this.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2013 02:19:35 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3863987</guid> <dc:creator>Jigme Sengye</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-01-05T02:19:35Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Western Monk moving to Canada</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3858655</link> <description>&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;yuttadhammo&amp;#x2e;sirimangalo&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;"&gt;Ven. Yuttadhammo&lt;/a&gt;, a western monk who&amp;#039;s probably best known as the creator of the &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;pali&amp;#x2e;sirimangalo&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;"&gt;Digital Pali Reader&lt;/a&gt; software (a Firefox plugin - you can browse the Pali text of the canon, click on any word, and retrieve dictionary entries and conjucation/declension info) is moving from South East Asia to Canada.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Here&amp;#039;s his latest blog post, &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;yuttadhammo&amp;#x2e;sirimangalo&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;2013&amp;#x2f;01&amp;#x2f;04&amp;#x2f;trippin&amp;#x2f;"&gt;Trippin&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Yuttadhammo:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Off to the city, then another city, then another country. Eighteen days left to change plans.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Feeling more confident about the move to Canada, but the idea of disappearing into the forest still rears its head every so often. Or at least staying in Asia. Life is always so uncertain…&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think the real uncertainty stems from the fact that there is no real support in Canada as far as an experienced Buddhist meditation community. Being picked up at the airport by people I’ve never met to depend on their support for keeping me off the streets of Toronto… and we already know how alms in Toronto goes from last year (it doesn’t). I shy away from explaining the details of my planned residence to people here after getting some fairly concerned expressions from those I have. Even if we do acquire a house (and that’s still a big if), then what? Life in a house, I suppose. Not so bad, but still nothing like the forest.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The benefits are reassuring, though, so let’s go through them again… freedom from pesky things like visas and government regulated monasticism, a culture and society that makes sense and sees me as a member &amp;#x2013; albeit a strange one, and infrastructure that allows international organization and activity. And it doesn’t hurt to remind oneself of things like the absence of oppressive heat (got some wool cloth to make a nice sangati for the cold) and generally healthy food (assuming people want me alive enough to feed me).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I guess the best I can say is it will be interesting. If I don’t disappear in the next eighteen days, that is…&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, for all Traditionalists out there - here&amp;#039;s a real monk to feed and shelter. If the existence of the ordained Sangha is an inspiration to you, here&amp;#039;s an opportunity to provide for them. Of course, there are many other nuns and monks living in Western countries. They all face similar issues: either go live in an Asian cultural center supported by Asian ex-pats, or struggle to get support from Westerners who are not culturally steeped in the idea of providing for holy drop-outs. And then there are the secular Western teachers trying to live off donations.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And if you&amp;#039;re not that excited about Western monks, but still find the Digital Pali Reader useful - well, it&amp;#039;s free (as in beer), but its creator still has to keep warm and wants to eat.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheers,&lt;br /&gt;Florian</description> <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 08:03:03 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3858655</guid> <dc:creator>Florian Weps</dc:creator> <dc:date>2013-01-04T08:03:03Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are (probably) not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3836242</link> <description>My contemplation for the day:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Subject to birth, subject to aging,&lt;br /&gt; subject to death,&lt;br /&gt;run-of-the-mill people&lt;br /&gt;are repelled by those who suffer&lt;br /&gt;from that to which they are subject.&lt;br /&gt;And if I were to be repelled&lt;br /&gt;by beings subject to these things,&lt;br /&gt;it would not be fitting for me,&lt;br /&gt; living as they do.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As I maintained this attitude &amp;#x2014;&lt;br /&gt;knowing the Dhamma&lt;br /&gt;without paraphernalia &amp;#x2014;&lt;br /&gt;I overcame all intoxication&lt;br /&gt;with health, youth, &amp;amp; life&lt;br /&gt; as one who sees&lt;br /&gt; renunciation as rest.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For me, energy arose,&lt;br /&gt;Unbinding was clearly seen.&lt;br /&gt;There&amp;#039;s now no way&lt;br /&gt;I could partake of sensual pleasures.&lt;br /&gt;Having followed the holy life,&lt;br /&gt; I will not return.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;AN 5.57 Trans. by Thanissaro Bikkhu</description> <pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:47:42 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3836242</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-30T15:47:42Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are (probably) not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3835472</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;[...] traditional Buddhism doesn’t actually have anything distinctively useful to teach Westerners about ethics. There’s no single ethical system in Buddhism; it has a slew of contradictory half-systems. Worse, they are mostly quite conservative, often downright horrid, unacceptable to Westerners, and overall no better than the narrow Christianity the hippies rebelled against.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, Consensus Buddhism quietly swapped out traditional Buddhist ethics, and replaced it with “nice” vintage-1990 liberal Western ethics. Which is, roughly, “political correctness,” or the “green meme.”&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This means Consensus Buddhism has more in common with progressive Christianity (Unitarian Universalism or Liberal Anglicanism) than it does with any form of Asian Buddhism.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hmmm, not sure how I feel about this.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On the one hand Buddhism has made many contributions to morality: the Uposatha Sila, Panca Sila, the ten courses of wholesome action, the ten courses of unwholesome action, the roots of merit and demerit, dana, stream-entry as the mastery of morality.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;These are all moral things though.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:55:44 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3835472</guid> <dc:creator>Not Important</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-30T07:55:44Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are (probably) not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3835245</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;the who?:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The translation as &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; was such a bad fit to my own experience that it became something of an impediment to my learning when I first started reading about meditation years ago.&lt;/strong&gt; Before I started practicing, I &lt;u&gt;could really only stomach the most modern, secularized writings (e.g. Charles Tart) about Buddhism&lt;/u&gt; &lt;strong&gt;because I couldn&amp;#039;t get past the idea that &amp;#034;there is suffering&amp;#034; was a premise that the whole thing started from.&lt;/strong&gt; There was something, and something bad, that drove me to try to learn more about this practice, but &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;, with all its baggage, was mostly not it.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is an example of how &amp;#034;Buddhism&amp;#034; (the religion of &amp;#034;Buddhism&amp;#034;) is being packaged and sold to unsuspecting people who have not taken the time to honestly investigate the Dhamma as taught by Gotama beyond just contemporary third person accounts and opinions. The impression these people obtain about &amp;#034;Buddhism,&amp;#034; then, is colored (tainted) by the ideas/opinions that other people have about something that they &lt;em&gt;too&lt;/em&gt; have likely never honestly explored! Either that, or there is a hidden (political?) agenda behind their writings about &amp;#034;Buddhism,&amp;#034; meant to influence people&amp;#039;s minds about, in this case, the religion of &amp;#034;Buddhism,&amp;#034; and, by implication, the Dhamma that Gotama taught. My point is: misunderstandings and misstatements abound around subjects like this. It&amp;#039;s always best to return to source material if you want to have even a shred of a chance of discerning the truth about such things. That is, if the truth is &lt;em&gt;even&lt;/em&gt; what one is interested in obtaining. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If people would go back to source documentation &lt;em&gt;first&lt;/em&gt; rather than rely on biased, contemporary opinions from people who are either ignorant about the source material or who have some kind of hidden agenda to air, they might find that there is less to be skeptical about beyond what they discovered in the contemporary fare they have read and, apparently, digested and accepted as being true. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Source material would be something like the &lt;em&gt;Dhammapada&lt;/em&gt;, which is a compendium of thought gathered in a short volume put in verse form endeavoring to put forth the key fundamentals of early Buddhist philosophy. If, after reading something like this one still has doubts or criticisms, then at least they can claim to have taken a look at source material and honestly say that they were unimpressed. But to base one&amp;#039;s impressions on third person opinions and biases is not giving the source (in this case, the Buddha) a fair shake in the deal.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;From the Samyutta Nikaya at 56.11 (&lt;em&gt;Dhammakakkappavattana Sutta&lt;/em&gt; or Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dhamma) Gotama defines &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt; as follows (Note: I have replaced the translation of the word &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt; originally rendered as &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; with &amp;#034;dissatisfaction&amp;#034; and &amp;#034;unsatisfactory&amp;#034; to more clearly reflect the intent of the passage): &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Dissatisfaction [&lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt;], as a noble truth, is this: Birth is unsatisfactory, aging is unsatisfactory, sickness is unsatisfactory, death is unsatisfactory, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are unsatisfactory; association with the loathed is unsatisfactory, dissociation from the loved is unsatisfactory, not to get what one wants is unsatisfactory &amp;#x2014; in short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are unsatisfactory.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A more complete description of &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt; can be had at accesstoinsight.org &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;accesstoinsight&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;ptf&amp;#x2f;dhamma&amp;#x2f;sacca&amp;#x2f;sacca1&amp;#x2f;index&amp;#x2e;html"&gt;The First Noble Truth&lt;/a&gt; and the translation of the discourse &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;accesstoinsight&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;tipitaka&amp;#x2f;sn&amp;#x2f;sn56&amp;#x2f;sn56&amp;#x2e;011&amp;#x2e;nymo&amp;#x2e;html"&gt;Dhammakakkappavattana Sutta&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What follows is taken from the &lt;em&gt;Dhammapada&lt;/em&gt; (as translated by Ananda Maitreya) in the chapter on Mind: &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Just as an arrowsmith shapes an arrow to perfection with fire,&lt;br /&gt;So does the wise man shape his mind, &lt;br /&gt;Which is fickle, unsteady, vulnerable, and erratic.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Like a fish taken from the safety of its watery home&lt;br /&gt;And cast upon the dry land&lt;br /&gt;So does this mind flutter, due to the lure of the tempter.&lt;br /&gt;Therefore one should leave the dominion of Mara.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;How good it is to rein the mind, &lt;br /&gt;Which is unruly, capricious, rushing wherever it pleases.&lt;br /&gt;The mind so harnessed will bring one happiness.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A wise man should pay attention to his mind, &lt;br /&gt;Which is very difficult to perceive. &lt;br /&gt;It is extremely subtle and wanders wherever it pleases. &lt;br /&gt;The mind, well-guarded and controlled, &lt;br /&gt;Will bring him happiness.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One who keeps a rein on the wandering mind, &lt;br /&gt;Which strays far and wide, alone, bodiless, &lt;br /&gt;Will be freed from the tyranny of the tempter.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A man of fickle mind&lt;br /&gt;Will never attain wisdom to its fullest, &lt;br /&gt;Since he is ignorant of the Dhamma&lt;br /&gt;And has wavering faith.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The heart of the fully conscious man is fearless &amp;#x2014;&lt;br /&gt;He has transcended both good and evil.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Observe this body, as fragile as an earthen vase,&lt;br /&gt;Build a mind as solid as a fortified city,&lt;br /&gt;Then confront Mara with the weapon of insight&lt;br /&gt;And (proceeding without attachment)&lt;br /&gt;Guard what you have already conquered. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Certainly before long this body will lie on the ground,&lt;br /&gt;Lifeless and unconscious, &lt;br /&gt;Cast aside like a useless log.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A mind out of control will do more harm&lt;br /&gt;Than two angry men engaged in combat. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A well-directed mind creates more well-being&lt;br /&gt;Than the wholesome actions of parents&lt;br /&gt;Toward their children.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2012 06:11:23 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3835245</guid> <dc:creator>Ian And</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-30T06:11:23Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are (probably) not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3834628</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I would like to start a campaign - which will be entirely unsuccessful - to stop people from translating &lt;em&gt;dukkha &lt;/em&gt;as &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;. It&amp;#039;s an excessively melodramatic, gloomy translation of the word. It&amp;#039;s also inadequate. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;ve been lurking around here on and off for many months, and this, and not the ever-growing list of practice questions I have, has finally prompted me to get off my ass and register to post. (So, hello.) I agree completely. The translation as &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; was such a bad fit to my own experience that it became something of an impediment to my learning when I first started reading about meditation years ago. Before I started practicing, I could really only stomach the most modern, secularized writings (e.g. Charles Tart) about Buddhism because I couldn&amp;#039;t get past the idea that &amp;#034;there is suffering&amp;#034; was a premise that the whole thing started from. There was something, and something bad, that drove me to try to learn more about this practice, but &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;, with all its baggage, was mostly not it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;John Peacock:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;It&amp;#039;s a hole filled with dirt, grease, and grit, and it went round and round. It also meant a wound inflicted by an arrow. There&amp;#039;s a sense of lack as well. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[...]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dukkha is like slowly rubbing your arm against a brick wall. It’s not stabbing pain. It gets more and more painful as we do it. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is excellent. And enough of this type of rubbing can eventually make suicide seem like a rational option, at which point I suppose it would be reasonable to call it suffering in the conventional sense.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;[...]&lt;em&gt;every &lt;/em&gt;time you use a word with heavy connotation where you could use simpler, more specific words, you&amp;#039;re engaged in covert identification. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Steph S:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Let&amp;#039;s talk about sila then.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I happened to run into this while reading about Aro the other day and thought it was interesting. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/nice-buddhism/&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;[...] traditional Buddhism doesn’t actually have anything distinctively useful to teach Westerners about ethics. There’s no single ethical system in Buddhism; it has a slew of contradictory half-systems. Worse, they are mostly quite conservative, often downright horrid, unacceptable to Westerners, and overall no better than the narrow Christianity the hippies rebelled against.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, Consensus Buddhism quietly swapped out traditional Buddhist ethics, and replaced it with “nice” vintage-1990 liberal Western ethics. Which is, roughly, “political correctness,” or the “green meme.”&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This means Consensus Buddhism has more in common with progressive Christianity (Unitarian Universalism or Liberal Anglicanism) than it does with any form of Asian Buddhism.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2012 02:40:38 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3834628</guid> <dc:creator>cem ber</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-30T02:40:38Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3833136</link> <description>Let&amp;#039;s talk about sila then. Sila sticky thread next? haha&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s a comprehensive topic, so to start: &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you grew up in a Judeo-Christian society I think it&amp;#039;s common that morals are instilled according to Biblical teachings. Since Ian has said he is well versed in Western religion too, it would be helpful to discuss how Biblical morality differs from Buddhist sila (or how they intersect). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I was raised Greek Orthodox and had the fear of God type morality taught - although my parents aren&amp;#039;t intensely religious, they&amp;#039;re quite traditional in many ways. I was trained to feel guilty or shamed when I did something viewed as amoral. For having common sense morality I wasn&amp;#039;t necessarily praised because that was an expected baseline, but if I did something that seemed extra nice or good, I was praised. I started rejecting the church and God from a young age (around 12), and even now I find that those views of morality are very deeply ingrained. So for me, what has been helpful is to investigate really closely whenever feelings of guilt or shame appear - or alternately when there&amp;#039;s pride. It often times stirs up something related to those views of morality/right/wrong/good/bad. This isn&amp;#039;t a practice specifically to cultivate sila, and is moreso a way to discover rooted views on morality and how that seems to play out. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;d like to go at this with fresh eyes and see what Ian has to say about cultivating sila from there...</description> <pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 19:52:46 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3833136</guid> <dc:creator>Steph S</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-29T19:52:46Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3833102</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian And:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;It comes down to this: I end up ignoring ninety-eight percent of the silliness and melodrama that ends up being published here, and focus on finding the two percent who just might stop long enough to consider that I might know what I&amp;#039;m talking about, and who are willing to at least listen and give it a try. It works on the theory &amp;#034;you can bring a horse to water, but you can&amp;#039;t make him drink.&amp;#034; It&amp;#039;s pretty much the same theory that Gotama used: &amp;#034;Come see and find out for yourself.&amp;#034;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Gee, I think you&amp;#039;re doing better than 2% appreciation. I have a copy of your thread on concentration practice on my desk (and it&amp;#039;s a sticky, so I&amp;#039;m probably not the only one.) I appreciated your comments on contemplative problem-solving from a couple months ago, and continue to follow your suggestions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;d be interested to hear more, maybe in another thread, about what you think is missing from people&amp;#039;s practice and why. How do you apply &lt;em&gt;sila&lt;/em&gt; in your practice? How does it engender lasting insights or transformations? It&amp;#039;s true there is a lot of drama and silliness here, some of which is in the nature of any sangha. Plenty come for real teaching and practice, so if we&amp;#039;re missing the boat by your estimation please elaborate. &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 19:11:14 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3833102</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-29T19:11:14Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3831876</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Western society has been introduced to &amp;#034;meditation&amp;#034;, but it&amp;#039;s hardly obvious that (a) we&amp;#039;re doing the same meditation the Buddha was doing or (b) &lt;strong&gt;that meditation was even the main thing the Buddha taught.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;u&gt;The main thing the Buddha seemed to be teaching was sila&lt;/u&gt;. But that&amp;#039;s the part relativistic, hedonistic Westerners don&amp;#039;t want. So we end up with lots of weirdness, confusion, meme-driven behavior and beliefs, and pablum. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I like that you brought up the question about meditation and whether or not it &amp;#034;was even the main thing the Buddha taught.&amp;#034; Then, to bring in the idea that &lt;em&gt;sila&lt;/em&gt; &amp;#034;seemed to be&amp;#034; the main thing the Buddha was teaching, juxtaposing these two related yet not totally different practices against one another. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The former being the main interest on forums like this present one, and the latter hardly even mentioned at all on forums like this. And yet these are both intricate and essential pieces of the puzzle Gotama was attempting to help others put together in their lives. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He taught the systems of meditation in order to help people begin to gain control over their thoughts and minds. Begin to see the content that goes through their minds. Begin to see the mental mechanisms (the processes) that can be triggered by these thoughts so that they might be able to catch them before they exploded in an emotional bomb. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So too, practitioners can become caught up in achieving what they are led to believe is a meditational marvel, this thing called &lt;em&gt;dhyana&lt;/em&gt;. There&amp;#039;s all sorts of confusion about just what is &lt;em&gt;dhyana&lt;/em&gt;, mainly because there are authoritative voices out there sending out conflicting signals. And then too, it can be a very subjective experience for some, mysterious and not quite graspable in conceptual terms. At least not until one experiences it. And yet, &lt;em&gt;dhyana&lt;/em&gt; is only a tool to be used, in order to develop a deepening of &lt;em&gt;samadhi&lt;/em&gt;, which itself is used to assist in insight meditation. If one could find a way to deepen &lt;em&gt;samadhi&lt;/em&gt; without the use of &lt;em&gt;dhyana&lt;/em&gt;, that too would work to accomplish the same thing. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The whole meditation experience is meant to enhance the practitioner&amp;#039;s ability to begin seeing reality as it actually is without all the mental conditioning filters with which most of us are plagued. If people were able to get to this state of mind without meditation, they&amp;#039;d be doing that. But the sad fact is that we all seem to need some help getting there, and meditation provides that vehicle. Meditation and silence, so that we can begin to hear our own thoughts over the cacophony of distractions in the atmosphere. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What &lt;em&gt;seems&lt;/em&gt; to end up happening is that practitioners begin to narrow their focus on a certain few practices (meditation, &lt;em&gt;dhyana&lt;/em&gt;, metta, noting, &lt;em&gt;vipassana&lt;/em&gt;, and whatever else), without attempting to gain a sense of the whole picture of the path that Gotama had painted. Or maybe it&amp;#039;s just a matter of the wooden fence and the four peep holes, where four different people looking through different peep holes see different parts of the elephant that walks by. One day each person will eventually get around to viewing the other three peep holes and begin putting the picture of the whole elephant together. And it will make sense. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian And:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;The whole question about which path (stream entry, once returner etc.) one is at is a personal concern and should remain in the background of one&amp;#039;s practice. Something that one refers to from time to time when attempting to self-analyze their own progress. Not something to bring out in public on a forum like this where it has the possibility of unintentionally arousing competition among fellow practitioners and hence encouraging frustration in those who feel like they can&amp;#039;t or haven&amp;#039;t achieved. The focus should be on understanding the Dhamma and one&amp;#039;s own practice, and not on where they are on some imaginary totem pole of achievement. The achievements will take care of themselves if one concentrates on and practices understanding the path they should be following. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That&amp;#039;s not to say it wouldn&amp;#039;t be helpful to ask questions about such things as stream entry. For personal clarification purposes. But to talk about it in such an offhanded way as &amp;#034;I made stream entry! Woo-hoo!&amp;#034; Such proclamations of self aggrandizement can actually be counter-productive, even and especially within a group of serious practitioners.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Now that is very interesting. &lt;strong&gt;How on Earth do you tolerate this place?&lt;/strong&gt; :-)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The short answer is equanimity with regard to formations! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A more in-depth answer would be that I&amp;#039;ve developed an acceptance of what &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt;. Some people will hear what you have to say, others will not. I try to work with those who I think might listen to my opinion, while realizing that 98% will just tune me out. Basically because they&amp;#039;re only interested in achieving some short term goal they have in mind, which may only be to end a form of suffering (unsatisfactoriness) that they are undergoing at the moment. And, don&amp;#039;t get me wrong, there&amp;#039;s nothing wrong with having something like that as a goal. It&amp;#039;s just that it seems to be to be somewhat short-sighted, to leave a whole other part of the teaching on the table, left for another lifetime to learn and undergo trials with. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It comes down to this: I end up ignoring ninety-eight percent of the silliness and melodrama that ends up being published here, and focus on finding the two percent who just might stop long enough to consider that I might know what I&amp;#039;m talking about, and who are willing to at least listen and give it a try. It works on the theory &amp;#034;you can bring a horse to water, but you can&amp;#039;t make him drink.&amp;#034; It&amp;#039;s pretty much the same theory that Gotama used: &amp;#034;Come see and find out for yourself.&amp;#034;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 05:15:43 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3831876</guid> <dc:creator>Ian And</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-29T05:15:43Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3831812</link> <description>IMO the best resource that exists for the pali canon short of reading the whole thing would be thanissaro bhikku&amp;#039;s &amp;#034;wings to awakening, an anthology from the pali canon&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/wings_complete_v111219.pdf</description> <pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 05:04:40 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3831812</guid> <dc:creator>Adam . .</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-29T05:04:40Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3831796</link> <description>Thanks Steph and Ian. I will look into your suggestions.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 03:59:16 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3831796</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-29T03:59:16Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3831718</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason B:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nevertheless, Ian, is there a specific text and/or publication you would recommend as a starting point for a Suttic beginner?.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I know this was asked of Ian, and he provided some links. I want to add - how about a sutta titled &amp;#034;setting the wheel of dhamma in motion&amp;#034; as a starting point. This is a solid one. Another cool thing about the ATI website is that related suttas are usually linked at the bottom of the page, so you can dive deeper into what the translator feels are closely linked points/ideas. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;accesstoinsight&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;tipitaka&amp;#x2f;sn&amp;#x2f;sn56&amp;#x2f;sn56&amp;#x2e;011&amp;#x2e;than&amp;#x2e;html"&gt;http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html&lt;/a&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:59:47 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3831718</guid> <dc:creator>Steph S</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-29T02:59:47Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3827503</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jane Laurel Carrington:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think householders need this practice. Ona&amp;#039;s comment about renunciation in daily life is spot-on. We can all of us work at it within the context of our lives.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Yes, my thoughts exactly. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jane Laurel Carrington:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t disparage monastic practice at all, &lt;strong&gt;but I would hate to think that the only people who can practice have withdrawn in that way.&lt;/strong&gt; I am, though, deeply curious about how the practice manifests for various people, and it&amp;#039;s not just idle curiosity, &lt;strong&gt;it&amp;#039;s wanting to understand better what it means to be awake. That&amp;#039;s yet another reason for more openness.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Obviously, Gotama taught both householders as well as his monastic community. What he mostly asked of the householders was to keep a strong commitment to maintain high personal standards of themselves (perhaps within the realistic context of their lives). I don&amp;#039;t think even monks and nuns can do much more than that. Obviously, householders are not monks and nuns, so their life&amp;#039;s context is a little wider than their monastic brothers and sisters. In the end, it&amp;#039;s the mental training that matters most, not whether or not one is always a perfect angel at keeping the precepts. As people develop, keeping the precepts become easier. It&amp;#039;s a gradual practice and progression. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Openness is fine. Sharing experiences is fine. Just endeavor to keep the ego out of it (or recognize that you&amp;#039;ve slipped up and try to do better the next time).</description> <pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 06:16:16 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3827503</guid> <dc:creator>Ian And</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-28T06:16:16Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3827500</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason B:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Ian&amp;#039;s admonishment to read the suttas is well taken, &lt;strong&gt;but I always wonder at the claim of historical authenticity.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That&amp;#039;s something that each individual needs to work out on his (or her) own. In my own case, I&amp;#039;d had training in meditation and other spiritual practices (the Latin Mass) from a highly qualified person, in addition to having spent nine years in association with a Western religious order, so I was at an advantage with regard to my ability to discern authenticity from fakery. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What I began to notice almost from the start (as I was able to read the discourses and study essays written in explanation of them) was that the Path of the Dhamma was exactly what I had been searching for my whole life. Not only did it make good intellectual sense, but also good pragmatic sense from my own first hand experience of it&amp;#039;s practice. So, in my case at least, I&amp;#039;ve not had any trouble authenticating the Dhamma that I&amp;#039;ve been exposed to. Much of it parallels my previous spiritual training. Because of my exposure to the Dhamma, I came to better understand some of the training I had already undergone. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason B:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;If renunciation is the only correct practice,&lt;/strong&gt; that unfortunately diminishes the relevance of the teachings - for the vast majority of people - by quite a lot. I suspect there has never been one true practice or one true enlightenment. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Make certain you understand what the word &amp;#034;renunciation&amp;#034; means in terms of the practice. It&amp;#039;s not &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; used in reference to a monastic way of life, a life of austerity and few pleasurable pursuits. Read Ona Kiser&amp;#039;s post for a bit of a discussion of this. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One of the ideas that Gotama stressed was that renunciation implies the development of dispassion for things that cause one &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt;. If one can recognize those things in life that seem on their surface to be pleasant, yet carry the sting of &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt; underneath, the renunciation of those aspects of life will go a long way toward alleviating &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt; altogether from one&amp;#039;s life. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason B:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nevertheless, Ian, is there a specific text and/or publication you would recommend as a starting point for a Suttic beginner?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Well, if you haven&amp;#039;t checked it out already, I posted some of my recommendations in a thread titled &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dharmaoverground&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;web&amp;#x2f;guest&amp;#x2f;discussion&amp;#x2f;-&amp;#x2f;message_boards&amp;#x2f;message&amp;#x2f;1296955"&gt;Essential Books from Theravadin Resources&lt;/a&gt;. As far as a starting point, I was first impressed by the &lt;em&gt;Dhammapada&lt;/em&gt;. The short, pithty verses inscribed there can contain a wealth of valuable knowledge. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yet, if you want to begin wading into the discourses themselves, I would recommend the &lt;em&gt;Majjhima Nikaya&lt;/em&gt; (The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha) first as its contents are fairly accessible to the modern reader and not overly long or repetitive. Make sure you don&amp;#039;t overlook the footnotes as there is a wealth of valuable information covered there. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;From there, either the &lt;em&gt;Samyutta Nikaya&lt;/em&gt; (The Connected Discourses) or the &lt;em&gt;Anguttara Nikaya&lt;/em&gt; (The Numerical Discourses) would be interesting and valuable to read. The &lt;em&gt;Digha Nikaya&lt;/em&gt; (The Long Discourses), of course, is indispensable as it contains several important discourses, not the least of which is the first sutta the &lt;em&gt;Brahmajala Sutta&lt;/em&gt; (The Supreme Net, What the Teaching Is Not) and later on the &lt;em&gt;Mahaparinibbana Sutta&lt;/em&gt; (The Great Passing, The Buddha&amp;#039;s Last Days). Of the smaller volumes, the &lt;em&gt;Sutta Nipata&lt;/em&gt; is excellent as the suttas contained there are relatively short but carry a lot of punch. In that same vein, the &lt;em&gt;Ittivuttaka&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;em&gt;Udana&lt;/em&gt; are also good, containing short pithy discourses easily digestible.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 05:55:33 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3827500</guid> <dc:creator>Ian And</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-28T05:55:33Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3827406</link> <description>Oh my goodness! Such a stir from one little innocent post. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;ll respond by taking these one at a time. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Andy W:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;IanAnd:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;This is not a practice that is easily followed while living the life of a householder. . . .But, the practice, as it has been originally presented, was not designed with the householder in mind. It was designed for renunciates. And the vast majority of today&amp;#039;s modern people are not of a mind to abandoned &amp;#034;the life of the senses&amp;#034; in order to find peace of mind.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ian, do you think it significant that the life of a householder is a somewhat different one from the householder of 2,500 years ago? I am thinking of the fact that we live longer, don&amp;#039;t have to spend all our waking hours in back-breaking labour, are generally healthier and have access to a vast array of teachings and dharma resources. Now obviously there are other obstacles, particularly, as you say, a culture not known for promoting renunciation. But it seems to me that the potential in the householder life might be there in a way that it wasn&amp;#039;t previously.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Well, of course there are differences. Some for the better, some not so much, as you&amp;#039;ve pointed out. In terms of access to the information, it&amp;#039;s probably better today: there are books, magazines, Kindles, the Internet, all kinds of media on which the Dhamma can be found. Also, people are better educated (at least some of us are, on the whole). Yet as far as the practice itself is concerned, the very same hurdles need to be cleared, so in terms of that very important aspect, nothing has changed. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One big difference between now and 2,500 years ago is that householders in ancient India had Gotama himself to consult. He spent a great deal of time traipsing back and forth between the same set of population centers. The people, when they could get through to him, had direct access to him. If you read some of the accounts of these experiences, many counted the direct experience of meeting and conversing with him as being as being key to their development. You cannot discount that personal contact, and the charisma and effect that he had when he spoke and answered questions. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of course, today we don&amp;#039;t have direct access to Gotama. Yet, through those accomplished practitioners (Ajahn Chah during his lifetime and in audios and videos, Bht. Gunaratana, Thanissaro Bhikkhu and many others) we have people we can look up to and consult (if only by reading their works or watching or listening to their talks). So, in that sense, at least, there&amp;#039;s still the availability of that personal contact with accomplished &lt;em&gt;ariyas&lt;/em&gt; (noble persons). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Andy W:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I have a huge respect for monastics and will be the first to defend them against people who accuse them of being &amp;#034;selfish&amp;#034;, &amp;#034;escapists&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;drop-outs&amp;#034;. But I still hold out hope &lt;strong&gt;that one of the achievements of Western Buddhism&lt;/strong&gt; - particularly with &amp;#034;hardcore&amp;#034; input - &lt;strong&gt;will be the careful crafting of an effective path to awakening that can be adopted by householders. This may necessitate some changes to what the Buddha taught, which is dangerous, but probably necessary.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Well, of course. We&amp;#039;ve seen some of that change come from the monastic community itself in terms of the innovations that Mahasi Sayadaw made in the way he taught householders in Burma, which has carried over to the West by Asian trained Westerners (Daniel Ingram being one of them). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;My only point in mentioning that the path was originally designed for renunciates was just to point out the obvious. That it was designed to be rigorous from the beginning. And that anyone who was &lt;em&gt;really serious&lt;/em&gt; about taking up the practice would be at an advantage to take that into consideration. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think that the biggest advantage at present for Western Buddhism is the fact that there are now more accomplished native born Western practitioners to draw from. But not only that, the fact that the discourses themselves (the important ones at least) have now been translated into English by qualified native speaking practitioners who have been able to unpack much of the original intent (in terms of their choice of words to translate complicated terminology and so forth) such that we can now obtain a more accurate account in terms of the subtle intent found in these writings. That in itself is a huge plus. Because it helps to cut down on inauthentic versions of the Dhamma. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you want to find out what the founder said, you can read his words for yourself, and not have to rely upon someone else&amp;#039;s interpretation who&amp;#039;s written a book about the teachings. That was one of my biggest pet peeves in the early days of my journey, was being able to distinguish between what was actually taught and what wasn&amp;#039;t. There&amp;#039;s a lot of misleading information out there that a person needs to wade through. That&amp;#039;s primarily why, when the opportunity was presented, I jumped at the chance to find and read reputable translations of the discourses so that I could find out for myself, firsthand, what was taught.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 04:43:36 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3827406</guid> <dc:creator>Ian And</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-28T04:43:36Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3825307</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Chiming in: I invariably feel a wave of shame when admonished to keep attainments private, because of course this forum is public, and encourages talking about them, as does KFD. So I end up sometimes feeling there are two mutually-contradictory directives: keep it to yourself / talk about it openly. I can see the benefit to keeping it private, because it&amp;#039;s oh-so-tempting to attach to one&amp;#039;s attainments (such as they may be) and think, &amp;#034;I&amp;#039;m a big shot.&amp;#034; On the other hand, it&amp;#039;s inevitable. I wonder whether anyone escapes this. The inevitability of it is the reason why some more traditional dharma teachers make a practice of insulting and belittling their students, making sure they don&amp;#039;t start thinking they&amp;#039;re special.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I have a feeling most of us agree on all but the finer points of this issue. I would like to hear Ian&amp;#039;s take, though. Notwithstanding my question, I assume he posts here because he shares many of our values. Since there&amp;#039;s enough in common, maybe a discussion on the attainment issue would be valuable. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Arguing about whether &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; is the right word is not all that helpful, in my view (sorry, Fitter Stoke; at least your challenge has unleashed a good discussion!).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That “suffering” is an inadequate translation of “dukkha” is the only thing we managed &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; to argue about! LOL!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Oh well. No need to apologize. I can&amp;#039;t even remember the last time I expected my opinions to please people.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:47:15 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3825307</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-27T18:47:15Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3824834</link> <description>Chiming in: I invariably feel a wave of shame when admonished to keep attainments private, because of course this forum is public, and encourages talking about them, as does KFD. So I end up sometimes feeling there are two mutually-contradictory directives: keep it to yourself / talk about it openly. I can see the benefit to keeping it private, because it&amp;#039;s oh-so-tempting to attach to one&amp;#039;s attainments (such as they may be) and think, &amp;#034;I&amp;#039;m a big shot.&amp;#034; On the other hand, it&amp;#039;s inevitable. I wonder whether anyone escapes this. The inevitability of it is the reason why some more traditional dharma teachers make a practice of insulting and belittling their students, making sure they don&amp;#039;t start thinking they&amp;#039;re special. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The directive to talk openly is not for the sake of chatting in a group setting (although I&amp;#039;m afraid it can turn into that, mere chat), but for the sake of helping others know that this is indeed possible. Competition is a byproduct, but sometimes competitive instincts can motivate a person to practice. I&amp;#039;ve seen more than one yogi drop off this forum or KFD, then come back months later and say, &amp;#034;Now that I&amp;#039;ve seen what other people are attaining, I want to get back to my practice.&amp;#034; That&amp;#039;s a good thing. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On another note, I think the vast majority of people practicing any sort of meditation are doing it for stress reduction, not awakening. So talking about attainments with people who are just trying to cope with their lives better is counterproductive. I&amp;#039;ve been there and done that, and it left me feeling silly (deservedly so). What did I expect: for these friends of mine to fall down and bow before me and treat me like a meditation goddess? Actually, to be honest, that is what I expected in my own little mind. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There also, clearly, is a cultural bias involved--that it&amp;#039;s cool to embrace eastern spiritual practices, unlike, say, attending a Billy Graham style revival. This kind of thinking is dualistic. I would bet a year&amp;#039;s salary that most of the people here would not be caught dead at an evangelical revival, because of culturally-based distaste (well, maybe some of the 4th-pathers, and maybe some others, have overcome such thinking). The truth is, though, we all are going to die at some point, some of us will get old and feeble beforehand, others of us will get sick, all of us will confront broken dreams, disappointments, grief, and frustrations, and finally, all of us, in varying degrees, are oppressed at every single moment with the mind-noise of desire, aversion, and delusion. That&amp;#039;s what I call &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt;--all of that. Arguing about whether &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; is the right word is not all that helpful, in my view (sorry, Fitter Stoke; at least your challenge has unleashed a good discussion!). A person close to me just lost his wife of 40 years to cancer. They seemed to have the perfect life and the perfect marriage. Is he suffering as much as someone in a war zone or living in poverty? Who can say? Does it matter? It only matters insofar as some of us (like me, for example) may be inclined to get caught up in a narrative of our own suffering and forget that the whole universe is in the same boat. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think householders need this practice. Ona&amp;#039;s comment about renunciation in daily life is spot-on. We can all of us work at it within the context of our lives. I don&amp;#039;t disparage monastic practice at all, but I would hate to think that the only people who can practice have withdrawn in that way. I am, though, deeply curious about how the practice manifests for various people, and it&amp;#039;s not just idle curiosity, it&amp;#039;s wanting to understand better what it means to be awake. That&amp;#039;s yet another reason for more openness.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:07:08 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3824834</guid> <dc:creator>Jane Laurel Carrington</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-27T16:07:08Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3824660</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian And:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;When I wrote my post, I was thinking of the ideal you&amp;#039;ve set, . . .&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;It isn&amp;#039;t an ideal that &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; have set, but rather one set by Gotama that I happened to uncover through personal study and agree with. Like him, I am a monastic. I live a monastic way of life. Were I alive during the time of Gotama, people would label me &amp;#034;a recluse&amp;#034; in the same way they labeled him.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Right. What I should have said was, I admire the example you set by being rigorous, even if your lifestyle is not one I&amp;#039;m looking to emulate. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian And:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;One of the problems I see with modern people in terms of their desire to learn and practice an ancient system of liberation such as Gotama&amp;#039;s Dhamma is that they seem to want to refuse to consider contemplating the system as it was originally constructed. They want to insist upon adding their own innovations which were not contemplated by the originator.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hmm. I think a lot of people confuse dhamma with &amp;#034;spirituality&amp;#034;, i.e., a system of beliefs or occasional practice that is meant to be comforting to them. &amp;#034;Dhamma&amp;#034; becomes psychotherapy, and psychotherapy becomes &amp;#034;spiritual&amp;#034;. I won&amp;#039;t say that&amp;#039;s a total waste of time, as there are far worse things one could be doing. But it should not be confused with &amp;#034;Gotama&amp;#039;s Dhamma&amp;#034;, I agree.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But I wonder how far we should take this and how helpful it is. For example, I&amp;#039;m under the impression there are plenty of people who adhere to the message of the suttas, but they reject the commentaries. Or they reject later developments as &amp;#034;re-Hinduization&amp;#034; of Buddhism (that&amp;#039;s Peacock&amp;#039;s view). Or they think the only valid form of meditation is jhana, and vipassana is just this made-up thing - or as I was told on retreat by one of the teachers, jhana is &amp;#034;authoritarian&amp;#034;, and the only meditation useful for life is vipassana. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This can be taken to even more absurd levels, where you have one branch of Theravada thinking another branch of Theravada is too deviant (like in the video I linked to in my other reply to you). I can understand where people are coming from with that. If you&amp;#039;re going to put so much time and energy into a practice, you want to maintain high standards. But there does seem to be a point where it goes off the rails into mere sectarianism. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian And:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;The modern voices teaching it from the pulpits of &lt;em&gt;Tricycle&lt;/em&gt; magazine, &lt;em&gt;Buddhadharma&lt;/em&gt; magazine, &lt;em&gt;Shambala Sun&lt;/em&gt; magazine and from other venues seem to have captured the popular imagination of the interested populace and have them following something like what might be described as a &amp;#034;&lt;em&gt;Dharma lite&lt;/em&gt;.&amp;#034; The people who are following this brand of &amp;#034;Buddhism&amp;#034; seem for the most part to be ignorant that there is anything alternative to follow or be realized. And/or they certainly don&amp;#039;t have the time to spend years of their life reading the suttas, going on retreats, contemplating the intricacies of the Dhamma, or even investigating its original historical intent.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;My own theory is that 99% of spirituality (Buddhist and non-Buddhist) in general is just the anti-consumerist meme writ cosmic. It&amp;#039;s 60s and 70s ethics and counterculture turned into a religious system. There&amp;#039;s also a large dose of 80s libertarianism thrown in, with the idea that spirituality is a buffet, and what one should believe comes down to personal choice and personal style. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There&amp;#039;s plenty to be said for anti-consumerism as well as the lessons of the late 20th century, but anyone with a strong focus on competence is going to have trouble with the automatic way these ideas are taken up. Just because some idea is part of the Zeitgeist - or because it&amp;#039;s in the background of your racial, cultural, and socioeconomic demographic - doesn&amp;#039;t mean you should adopt it. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Likewise, I also don&amp;#039;t think the answer to the question is to ask, &amp;#034;What would the Buddha do?&amp;#034; For one thing, we don&amp;#039;t know exactly what the Buddha did or even exactly what practice the Buddha was doing. Secondly, the context was totally different (Andy gets into some of this) - I&amp;#039;d add that the Buddha is living in an Iron Age society that probably wasn&amp;#039;t much more advanced ethically than the Taliban is today. It&amp;#039;s possible to be inspired by some of the things the Buddha taught and to use that constructively - perhaps with &amp;#034;short cuts&amp;#034; and innovations - without embracing the system lock, stock, and barrel. But I haven&amp;#039;t seen a methodology for doing this that I felt wholly comfortable with. (Though I still practice and have enjoyed the fruits of practice.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;This is not a practice that is easily followed while living the life of a householder. And yet, I know of one or two householders who have had the courage and determination to &amp;#034;stick it out,&amp;#034; and who are now very accomplished in their own right. But, the practice, as it has been originally presented, was not designed with the householder in mind. &lt;strong&gt;It was designed for renunciates.&lt;/strong&gt; And the vast majority of today&amp;#039;s modern people are not of a mind to abandoned &amp;#034;the life of the senses&amp;#034; in order to find peace of mind. Of course, it also doesn&amp;#039;t help when the contemporary media (and society in general) promotes &amp;#034;the life of the senses.&amp;#034; In today&amp;#039;s society, a person really needs to take a serious approach to finding peace of mind. A superficial approach to this will only fall short of the mark. A person really has to &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; it, and want it &lt;em&gt;badly&lt;/em&gt; enough to put in the requisite time and effort to achieve it.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yeah. And that&amp;#039;s the tension - probably the contradiction - between the fact that Theravada has pretty much taken over the West. Western society has been introduced to &amp;#034;meditation&amp;#034;, but it&amp;#039;s hardly obvious that (a) we&amp;#039;re doing the same meditation the Buddha was doing or (b) that meditation was even the main thing the Buddha taught. The main thing the Buddha seemed to be teaching was sila. But that&amp;#039;s the part relativistic, hedonistic Westerners don&amp;#039;t want. So we end up with lots of weirdness, confusion, meme-driven behavior and beliefs, and pablum. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In a lot of ways, Tantra seems more suited to the Western mindset. Their sila is almost 180 degrees opposite of sutric Buddhism, and the attitude to the emotions seems more in keeping with how Westerners are likely to view things. Problem is, Vajrayana is hierarchical, which Westerners hate almost more than the idea of not being able to indulge the senses. You can&amp;#039;t just pick up a book on Vajrayana and learn the practices the way you can with things like &amp;#034;mindfulness&amp;#034;. And then there&amp;#039;s what seems to be (not sure if this is real) a higher prevalence for unsavoriness between teacher and student in that system (I&amp;#039;m thinking of what happened around Chögyam Trungpa and his successor). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But the result is that people are doing this thing called &amp;#034;meditation&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;mindfulness&amp;#034;, and there&amp;#039;s very little idea of what it is, what it&amp;#039;s supposed to accomplish, what to expect from it, whether it makes one &amp;#034;spiritual&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;religious&amp;#034; to do it, what sorts of practices and lifestyle are supposed to support it, etc., and then what sorts of things have to be grafted on to have it be applicable to daily life. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;With regard to the &amp;#034;jettison[ing of] Buddhist &lt;em&gt;sila&lt;/em&gt; and ... graft Western psychotherapy on to the practice,&amp;#034; I don&amp;#039;t doubt that there is that going on. However, I don&amp;#039;t see (and I don&amp;#039;t think your statement implies) that an education in or application of psychology and/or psychotherapy cannot be of some help, especially in the area of personal insight. I have a healthy appreciation for the works of people like Carl Jung and Harry Stack Sullivan, the latter of which I found some insightful observations which helped me early on in my study of the mind. But nothing like the insight of the five aggregates which Gotama brought to light and their connection with dependent co-arising.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yeah, that stuff is definitely useful. Though the &amp;#034;mindfulness&amp;#034; movement - which is this Frankenstein&amp;#039;s monster where you have psychotherapy grafted on to Theravadish stuff - is an odd sort of thing to diagnose. I think the main reason for that - to summarize - is that renunciate Buddhism has found its way into or close to the mainstream of an extremely indulgent, extremely individualistic society. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Just to clarify, I don&amp;#039;t consider myself a cultural pessimist. I don&amp;#039;t have much of a problem with the fact that we live in a &amp;#034;Deva realm&amp;#034;, as N A put it. I&amp;#039;d rather deal with the difficulties of a Deva realm than the difficulties of Iron Age India. What I&amp;#039;m pointing out is that Westerners have adopted a style of Buddhism that seems almost 100% against their own cultural interests, and more people should appreciate the weirdness of that, if only it would help us start to unravel all the confusing messaging behind it.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian And:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;The whole question about which path (stream entry, once returner etc.) one is at is a personal concern and should remain in the background of one&amp;#039;s practice. Something that one refers to from time to time when attempting to self-analyze their own progress. Not something to bring out in public on a forum like this where it has the possibility of unintentionally arousing competition among fellow practitioners and hence encouraging frustration in those who feel like they can&amp;#039;t or haven&amp;#039;t achieved. The focus should be on understanding the Dhamma and one&amp;#039;s own practice, and not on where they are on some imaginary totem pole of achievement. The achievements will take care of themselves if one concentrates on and practices understanding the path they should be following. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That&amp;#039;s not to say it wouldn&amp;#039;t be helpful to ask questions about such things as stream entry. For personal clarification purposes. But to talk about it in such an offhanded way as &amp;#034;I made stream entry! Woo-hoo!&amp;#034; Such proclamations of self aggrandizement can actually be counter-productive, even and especially within a group of serious practitioners.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Now that is very interesting. How on Earth do you tolerate this place? :-)</description> <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:05:36 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3824660</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-27T15:05:36Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3824421</link> <description>Ian&amp;#039;s admonishment to read the suttas is well taken, but I always wonder at the claim of historical authenticity. From what I understand, the oldest known documents were written down about 400 years after the Buddha&amp;#039;s death. It&amp;#039;s possible, then, the wonders of ancient memorization techniques notwithstanding, that more modifications were made to Gotama&amp;#039;s teaching before their writing than since. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On the other hand, we have ample first-hand evidence of the efficacy of practice as it is known by householders and internet-surfers on the forums. People have reduced their dukkha AND their suffering greatly. Is it the enlightenment the Buddha attained? I don&amp;#039;t know. But it didn&amp;#039;t take the DhO or Tricycle magazine to create that controversy. It&amp;#039;s nearly as old as the Suttas themselves. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There are multiple divergent traditions, monastic and otherwise, that have sprung from the Buddha&amp;#039;s teaching. Clearly people receive the teachings in different ways. Right or wrong, that fact is not likely to change. And if it came down to choosing guidance from a living teacher, or one in a book, I would have to favor the living. The Dalai Lama, as one credible example of many, teaches lay practice.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If renunciation is the only correct practice, that unfortunately diminishes the relevance of the teachings - for the vast majority of people - by quite a lot. I suspect there has never been one true practice or one true enlightenment. All we have to go by ultimately is our own experience, our own ability to read and understand, and our own bare attention to guide us. The question of historical authenticity strikes me as interesting, but academic. And it points out the value of the word *pragmatic* as a label (unsexy though it may be).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nevertheless, Ian, is there a specific text and/or publication you would recommend as a starting point for a Suttic beginner?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;EDIT: One more thought. Attainment claims that people have made online were the number one reason that I began to practice at all.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:06:19 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3824421</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-27T14:06:19Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3824295</link> <description>What Ian and Andy bring up is interesting. Monastics set themselves up to assist in non-attachment by moving to a location where eating simply, sleeping on the floor, not going to the mall, not watching movies and so on are easier. But - based on the writings of monastics in the Christian tradition at least - there is always the imagination to keep suggesting... oh how lovely to have a feast with my friends, if only a beautiful woman would appear in the door, maybe I could just hang out and chat with my brother monk about idle things, a warm bubble bath would be so lovely... Attachment is an interior process. But you get a lot of support in renunciation because everyone around you is trying to accomplish the same thing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On the other hand, many monks in many traditions work in the world as teachers, priests, or in charitable work which puts them in constant contact with worldly pleasures, and offers them the extra opportunity to apply their practice in ways that a solitary or confined monastic life does not.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The advice to householders in the Christian tradition - in books on meditation written in past centuries, for example - acknowledges the challenges of holding to a simple, modest life in the face of party invitations, wanting to wear the latest fashions, the desire to accrue more money than is necessary, having to say no when your friends want you to go to the coliseum to watch the fights, and so on. Recommended tend to be things like fasting, dressing in simple modest clothing, avoiding gossip and idle talk, avoiding idle curiosity (which is the equivalent of surfing the internet to see what weird or cool thing is in the news), reading only spiritual books, and using mindfulness practices throughout the day while at work, in addition to ones core practice. They also tend to suggest that it&amp;#039;s never appropriate to do practices which impede your ability to perform your responsibilities in your social station. So if you are a businessman, then you need to wear a suit and go to work. If you are a university student, you need to attend class and do your homework. And so on. Those are part of your practice, too.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Many householders have plenty of time to hang out with friends at the pub, watch movies, play video games, eat lavish meals and other unnecessary indulgences. Simplifying those things can be an effective practice of renunciation.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:54:44 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3824295</guid> <dc:creator>Ona Kiser</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-27T12:54:44Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3824233</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;IanAnd:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;This is not a practice that is easily followed while living the life of a householder. And yet, I know of one or two householders who have had the courage and determination to &amp;#034;stick it out,&amp;#034; and who are now very accomplished in their own right. But, the practice, as it has been originally presented, was not designed with the householder in mind. It was designed for renunciates. And the vast majority of today&amp;#039;s modern people are not of a mind to abandoned &amp;#034;the life of the senses&amp;#034; in order to find peace of mind.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ian, do you think it significant that the life of a householder is a somewhat different one from the householder of 2,500 years ago? I am thinking of the fact that we live longer, don&amp;#039;t have to spend all our waking hours in back-breaking labour, are generally healthier and have access to a vast array of teachings and dharma resources. Now obviously there are other obstacles, particularly, as you say, a culture not known for promoting renunciation. But it seems to me that the potential in the householder life might be there in a way that it wasn&amp;#039;t previously.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I have a huge respect for monastics and will be the first to defend them against people who accuse them of being &amp;#034;selfish&amp;#034;, &amp;#034;escapists&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;drop-outs&amp;#034;. But I still hold out hope that one of the achievements of Western Buddhism - particularly with &amp;#034;hardcore&amp;#034; input - will be the careful crafting of an effective path to awakening that can be adopted by householders. This may necessitate some changes to what the Buddha taught, which is dangerous, but probably necessary.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Perhaps we all have multiple lifetimes to become monastics and work out our salvation. But that&amp;#039;s an outside chance as far as I&amp;#039;m concerned, and so it would be preferable to discover a way to awakening for as many people as possible in this current life.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:02:41 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3824233</guid> <dc:creator>Andy W</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-27T12:02:41Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3823525</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;When I wrote my post, I was thinking of the ideal you&amp;#039;ve set, . . .&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;It isn&amp;#039;t an ideal that &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; have set, but rather one set by Gotama that I happened to uncover through personal study and agree with. Like him, I am a monastic. I live a monastic way of life. Were I alive during the time of Gotama, people would label me &amp;#034;a recluse&amp;#034; in the same way they labeled him. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One of the problems I see with modern people in terms of their desire to learn and practice an ancient system of liberation such as Gotama&amp;#039;s Dhamma is that they seem to want to refuse to consider contemplating the system as it was originally constructed. They want to insist upon adding their own innovations which were not contemplated by the originator. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yet, beyond even that, in the interest of an instant solution to their own personal problems with confronting life, they don&amp;#039;t want to bother studying and learning about what Gotama had to say (via a reading of the discourses, because that can&amp;#039;t happen in an instant!), but rather have opted to follow and practice &amp;#034;short cuts&amp;#034; which others have innovated in an effort to modernize the study and practice for the contemporary modern person living in a politicized post-industrial society. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This dovetails very nicely into one of your other comments, which seems to confirm this view: &lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Correct me if I&amp;#039;m wrong, but this was a training in renunciation. If you&amp;#039;re to free yourself from taṇhā, a great way to do that is to live away from women and wine and the class structure of ancient Indian society. &lt;strong&gt;If you&amp;#039;re trained in that context for many years, stream-entry is going to be a different experience for you&lt;/strong&gt; than if you&amp;#039;re Joe Blow from Hoboken doing these same practices while going to school at NYU. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Of course, renunciation doesn&amp;#039;t sit well with post-60s America. We&amp;#039;re used to doing what we want, when we want, and in what position we want.&lt;/strong&gt; We jettison Buddhist sila and instead graft Western psychotherapy on to the practice, with all the promises and perils that brings. I&amp;#039;m curious to hear your thoughts on that.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes, as you may already have surmised, I quite agree. Yet, also, don&amp;#039;t you think, that part of the problem here is that there are so many other voices out in this modern wilderness that it confuses people about what it is that they are putting their time in on. The breakdown in communication of the Dhamma is something that Gotama foresaw would occur. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The modern voices teaching it from the pulpits of &lt;em&gt;Tricycle&lt;/em&gt; magazine, &lt;em&gt;Buddhadharma&lt;/em&gt; magazine, &lt;em&gt;Shambala Sun&lt;/em&gt; magazine and from other venues seem to have captured the popular imagination of the interested populace and have them following something like what might be described as a &amp;#034;&lt;em&gt;Dharma lite&lt;/em&gt;.&amp;#034; The people who are following this brand of &amp;#034;Buddhism&amp;#034; seem for the most part to be ignorant that there is anything alternative to follow or be realized. And/or they certainly don&amp;#039;t have the time to spend years of their life reading the suttas, going on retreats, contemplating the intricacies of the Dhamma, or even investigating its original historical intent. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is not to say that there are not voices out there who are attempting to preserve the original intent of Gotama&amp;#039;s Dhamma. Voices like Narada Thera, Nyanaponika Thera, Ven. H. Gunaratana, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Lee Dhammadaro, Ajahn Fuang Jotiko, Ajahn Sumedho, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Ven. Analayo and countless other monastics too numerous to name here. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is not a practice that is easily followed while living the life of a householder. And yet, I know of one or two householders who have had the courage and determination to &amp;#034;stick it out,&amp;#034; and who are now very accomplished in their own right. But, the practice, as it has been originally presented, was not designed with the householder in mind. It was designed for renunciates. And the vast majority of today&amp;#039;s modern people are not of a mind to abandoned &amp;#034;the life of the senses&amp;#034; in order to find peace of mind. Of course, it also doesn&amp;#039;t help when the contemporary media (and society in general) promotes &amp;#034;the life of the senses.&amp;#034; In today&amp;#039;s society, a person really needs to take a serious approach to finding peace of mind. A superficial approach to this will only fall short of the mark. A person really has to &lt;em&gt;want&lt;/em&gt; it, and want it &lt;em&gt;badly&lt;/em&gt; enough to put in the requisite time and effort to achieve it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;With regard to the &amp;#034;jettison[ing of] Buddhist &lt;em&gt;sila&lt;/em&gt; and ... graft Western psychotherapy on to the practice,&amp;#034; I don&amp;#039;t doubt that there is that going on. However, I don&amp;#039;t see (and I don&amp;#039;t think your statement implies) that an education in or application of psychology and/or psychotherapy cannot be of some help, especially in the area of personal insight. I have a healthy appreciation for the works of people like Carl Jung and Harry Stack Sullivan, the latter of which I found some insightful observations which helped me early on in my study of the mind. But nothing like the insight of the five aggregates which Gotama brought to light and their connection with dependent co-arising.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;It seems like pragmatic/hardcore dharma takes the Buddha&amp;#039;s message&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;u&gt;which was comprehensive and radical&lt;/u&gt; - &lt;strong&gt;and translates it into a problem which is easily solved&lt;/strong&gt; with psychotherapy &lt;strong&gt;or technology rather than enlightenment.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If I&amp;#039;m understanding you correctly, I agree that there seems to be some people here who appear to have that view and anticipation of their practice. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m thinking less about the whole &amp;#034;what constitutes stream-entry&amp;#034; or even &amp;#034;what constitutes jhana&amp;#034; thing (which maybe I ought to think more about) &lt;strong&gt;than the whole &amp;#034;why are we doing this in the first place&amp;#034; thing.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Aahh. I see. A broader overall view. Yes, I agree that such an expanded view of one&amp;#039;s practice would be beneficial. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The whole question about which path (stream entry, once returner etc.) one is at is a personal concern and should remain in the background of one&amp;#039;s practice. Something that one refers to from time to time when attempting to self-analyze their own progress. Not something to bring out in public on a forum like this where it has the possibility of unintentionally arousing competition among fellow practitioners and hence encouraging frustration in those who feel like they can&amp;#039;t or haven&amp;#039;t achieved. The focus should be on understanding the Dhamma and one&amp;#039;s own practice, and not on where they are on some imaginary totem pole of achievement. The achievements will take care of themselves if one concentrates on and practices understanding the path they should be following. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That&amp;#039;s not to say it wouldn&amp;#039;t be helpful to ask questions about such things as stream entry. For personal clarification purposes. But to talk about it in such an offhanded way as &amp;#034;I made stream entry! Woo-hoo!&amp;#034; Such proclamations of self aggrandizement can actually be counter-productive, even and especially within a group of serious practitioners. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To some it must appear like I&amp;#039;m dealing purely in semantics, but it&amp;#039;s clear from where I&amp;#039;m sitting that the word &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; conceals and reveals a lot. &lt;strong&gt;That&amp;#039;s because &lt;em&gt;every &lt;/em&gt;time you use a word with heavy connotation where you could use simpler, more specific words, you&amp;#039;re engaged in &lt;u&gt;covert identification&lt;/u&gt;.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes. That&amp;#039;s a good observation and insight into the processes of the mind.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:12:03 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3823525</guid> <dc:creator>Ian And</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-27T08:12:03Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821650</link> <description>Agreed.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:45:28 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821650</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T18:45:28Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821636</link> <description>It seems to me, upon skimming thorough this exchange, that I made the mistake of thinking you were using the word &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; in a sense far more general than the way you were actually using it, despite your use of examples. But you&amp;#039;ve made the mistake of thinking that I deny people&amp;#039;s experiences, despite my use of examples. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It still seems to me that the disagreement hinges on what the word &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; means. I agree that it&amp;#039;s probably over-the-top to say you&amp;#039;re not suffering unless you&amp;#039;re drinking pee. However, there still seems to me to be something shrill about the way the word gets thrown around in Buddhist circles, to the point where I might conceivably suffer if I don&amp;#039;t get the right number of pumps in my latte (no one actually said this, it&amp;#039;s just a silly example).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Again, I would urge perspective and careful examination of one&amp;#039;s experience to make sure one isn&amp;#039;t blowing some things out of proportion. And instead of saying &amp;#034;meditation reduces suffering&amp;#034;, it&amp;#039;s probably better to be more specific so as to give ourselves and each other a clearer idea of what we&amp;#039;re really accomplishing with all this.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:33:46 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821636</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T18:33:46Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821482</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason B:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; Well, I feel like I understand your position better now that you&amp;#039;ve graced me with some explanations.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You are welcome.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; There&amp;#039;s value in acknowledging how difficult some of the experiences you listed are - though I would have thought it was clear from my previous comments that I already acknowledge how painful many of those same experiences (and more) are.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You acknowledged them after denying them, and then asked me questions about my comments prior to your revisions. That accounts for some confusion.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;No, I didn&amp;#039;t deny any of those experiences. What I denied was that it was useful to call them &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;. Here it is again, from my very first response to you:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I would bet you&amp;#039;re carrying a heavy personal weight right at this moment. I tend to assume that of everyone I interact with, because it&amp;#039;s usually true. We&amp;#039;re all struggling. Each of us has things in our lives that are radically not the way we want them to be. [...] When I reflect upon things, I&amp;#039;m in a lot of physical pain right now. I know someone who&amp;#039;s slowly dying of cancer - it&amp;#039;s heartbreaking to watch. I have a train of emotional baggage extending back over the horizon. I have serious doubts about my ability to do anything worthwhile with my life. And that&amp;#039;s just the tip of the iceberg of things in my experience or that could enter my experience that will cause me (extreme) emotional distress.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But the vast majority of things in my life, in my experience on a moment-to-moment basis, don&amp;#039;t even come close to being bad let alone being something anyone would call &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;. And yeah, here it does make sense to think about how bad things really could be - like if I lived 200 years ago, or if I lived a century ago, or if I were just unlucky enough to be born today in Somalia, where there isn&amp;#039;t even a government, or Botswana, where health and wealth are equal to what they were in Britain in 1800.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All I was attempting to do was to put things in perspective. It surprises me you still haven&amp;#039;t considered that possibility and still insist I meant something I clearly didn&amp;#039;t.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Material privilege does not provide shelter from old age, sickness, nor death.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And yet the Buddha did have to leave the household to learn about those things, and many other forms of dukkha. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The point isn&amp;#039;t that you can achieve immortality by living in a castle. The point is that you misinterpreted the message of the Buddha&amp;#039;s story.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I never said it was part of anyone&amp;#039;s experience all the time. It is part of almost everyone&amp;#039;s experience. I gave a lot of non-trivial and common examples. I&amp;#039;m afraid we&amp;#039;re devolving into argument and leaving discussion behind.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Well, I&amp;#039;m sorry you feel that way. I was merely trying to understand your position based upon a definition you yourself provided. I guess one or both of us is still failing to get their idea across clearly.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:47:59 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821482</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T17:47:59Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821132</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; Well, I feel like I understand your position better now that you&amp;#039;ve graced me with some explanations.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You are welcome.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; There&amp;#039;s value in acknowledging how difficult some of the experiences you listed are - though I would have thought it was clear from my previous comments that I already acknowledge how painful many of those same experiences (and more) are.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You acknowledged them after denying them, and then asked me questions about my comments prior to your revisions. That accounts for some confusion.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:42:32 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821132</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T15:42:32Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821119</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;It&amp;#039;s inaccurate to say that suffering does not occur under conditions of material privilege. There is a famous story of the Buddha setting out from his princely throne because he discovered this fact.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;First of all, the Buddha discovers &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt;, not just &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;. Assuming dukkha = suffering begs the question of our discussion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Secondly, in the story, the Buddha has to go &lt;em&gt;outside&lt;/em&gt; the castle to learn about old age, sickness, and death. Material privilege does provide shelter from at least some forms of dukkha. If it didn’t, there would be no significance to him abandoning the life of a householder and becoming a mendicant.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Material privilege does not provide shelter from old age, sickness, nor death.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Okay. If we’re going to use the word “suffering” to mean anything bad you’re forced to experience &amp;#x2013; whether it be suffering a splinter, suffering a heart attack, having one’s work suffer because of sleepiness, or suffering from malaria - then I agree, suffering is a part of everyone’s life almost all the time.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I never said it was part of anyone&amp;#039;s experience all the time. It is part of almost everyone&amp;#039;s experience. I gave a lot of non-trivial and common examples. I&amp;#039;m afraid we&amp;#039;re devolving into argument and leaving discussion behind.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:38:56 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821119</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T15:38:56Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821113</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason B:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Stretching the limits of my scholarship, I found this on wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Within the Buddhist tradition, dukkha is commonly explained according to three different patterns or categories. In the first category, dukkha includes the obvious physical suffering or pain associated with giving birth, growing old, physical illness and the process of dying. These outer discomforts are referred to as the dukkha of ordinary suffering (dukkha-dukkha). In a second category, dukkha also includes the anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto things that are constantly changing; these inner anxieties are called the dukkha produced by change (vipariṇāma-dukkha). The third pattern or category of dukkha refers to a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of life because all forms of life are impermanent and constantly changing. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards. This subtle dissatisfaction is referred to as the dukkha of conditioned states (saṃkhāra-dukkha).&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Clears some things up, no?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What does it clear up for you? I never denied suffering was part of dukkha. The argument of the OP was that &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; is not an adequate translation of &amp;#034;dukkha&amp;#034;. It&amp;#039;s not reducible to suffering. You could experience a lot of dukkha but relatively little if any suffering.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It clears up the different ways of using the term, and gives some specificity. Please note, I haven&amp;#039;t taken issue with your definition of dukkha.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:33:50 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821113</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T15:33:50Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821096</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I stand by my statement that the prevalence of suffering is obvious.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Well, I feel like I understand your position better now that you&amp;#039;ve graced me with some explanations. There&amp;#039;s value in acknowledging how difficult some of the experiences you listed are - though I would have thought it was clear from my previous comments that I already acknowledge how painful many of those same experiences (and more) are.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I still wonder how useful it is to use the word &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; in such a general way (see my reply to Ona for specifics), and I still strongly suspect that you use the word for things that probably fall short of the actual criteria.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:28:17 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821096</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T15:28:17Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821085</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As you said in the other thread, all these states of suffering can be broken down and seen as creations of the mind. But that makes a tautology of your argument. There is no suffering, because suffering is a delusion. Yet people still experience it. It is a norm, not an exception. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dude, I never said that. Here&amp;#039;s what I actually said:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;But if we&amp;#039;re going to be really honest with ourselves: how much of that - what percent of it - is really &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;, and how much of it is just incredibly annoying? I&amp;#039;m talking about on a basic sensate level [...] But the vast majority of things in my life, in my experience on a moment-to-moment basis, don&amp;#039;t even come close to being bad let alone being something anyone would call &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As you can see, I grant that there&amp;#039;s suffering - even suffering in my own experience - but it&amp;#039;s a small part of what my overall experience is like. A lot of what I might call &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; isn&amp;#039;t, but some of it might be. I&amp;#039;m not defining anything away. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I don&amp;#039;t think you&amp;#039;re a fool, and I seem to be spending a lot of time not dismissing you. I do feel there is an element here of stinking enlightenment. You&amp;#039;ve risen above suffering, so why is everyone complaining?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And that’s hyperbole, and a very uncharitable reading of what I’m trying to say. C&amp;#039;mon.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:20:48 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821085</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T15:20:48Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821081</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;It&amp;#039;s inaccurate to say that suffering does not occur under conditions of material privilege. There is a famous story of the Buddha setting out from his princely throne because he discovered this fact.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;First of all, the Buddha discovers &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt;, not just &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;. Assuming dukkha = suffering begs the question of our discussion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Secondly, in the story, the Buddha has to go &lt;em&gt;outside&lt;/em&gt; the castle to learn about old age, sickness, and death. Material privilege does provide shelter from at least some forms of dukkha. If it didn’t, there would be no significance to him abandoning the life of a householder and becoming a mendicant.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I don&amp;#039;t have a special definition of suffering. The online dictionary gives: 1. Experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant). 2. Be affected by or subject to (an illness or ailment). I would say that&amp;#039;s obvious. As far as connotations - and I do hate to be melodramatic here, but...- I think of common experiences like chronic pain, domestic violence, rape and incest, addiction, mental illness including depression, panic disorders, personality disorders, schizophrenia, etc, etc... How about car accidents, dementia, PTSD and suicide among veterans, broken homes, betrayal, abandonment... Growing old, anyone? Spend some time in a nursing home. Everyone suffers. And then there is - forgive me, this is maudlin yet true - the fact that we do all lose everyone we love. Sorry. Suffering happens.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Okay. If we’re going to use the word “suffering” to mean anything bad you’re forced to experience &amp;#x2013; whether it be suffering a splinter, suffering a heart attack, having one’s work suffer because of sleepiness, or suffering from malaria - then I agree, suffering is a part of everyone’s life almost all the time. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Usually, however, &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; carries the connotation of something harmful. It&amp;#039;s often used where the pain is extreme, not just unpleasant or uncomfortable. It&amp;#039;s relatively rare that I encounter someone who is in extreme pain or who is undergoing something that is harming them. And I certainly wouldn&amp;#039;t put &amp;#034;reducing suffering&amp;#034; at the top of my list of things meditation has helped with. Modern medicine and coming from a background of relative privilege have probably helped more with that than meditation. :-)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, no need to apologize. On the contrary, defining terms and explaining yourself tends to make these discussions easier rather than just saying over and over that something is “obvious”. :-)</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:15:19 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821081</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T15:15:19Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821077</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason B:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Stretching the limits of my scholarship, I found this on wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Within the Buddhist tradition, dukkha is commonly explained according to three different patterns or categories. In the first category, dukkha includes the obvious physical suffering or pain associated with giving birth, growing old, physical illness and the process of dying. These outer discomforts are referred to as the dukkha of ordinary suffering (dukkha-dukkha). In a second category, dukkha also includes the anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto things that are constantly changing; these inner anxieties are called the dukkha produced by change (vipariṇāma-dukkha). The third pattern or category of dukkha refers to a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of life because all forms of life are impermanent and constantly changing. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards. This subtle dissatisfaction is referred to as the dukkha of conditioned states (saṃkhāra-dukkha).&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Clears some things up, no?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What does it clear up for you? I never denied suffering was part of dukkha. The argument of the OP was that &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; is not an adequate translation of &amp;#034;dukkha&amp;#034;. It&amp;#039;s not reducible to suffering. You could experience a lot of dukkha but relatively little if any suffering.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:13:27 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821077</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T15:13:27Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821064</link> <description>Stretching the limits of my scholarship, I found this on wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Within the Buddhist tradition, dukkha is commonly explained according to three different patterns or categories. In the first category, dukkha includes the obvious physical suffering or pain associated with giving birth, growing old, physical illness and the process of dying. These outer discomforts are referred to as the dukkha of ordinary suffering (dukkha-dukkha). In a second category, dukkha also includes the anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto things that are constantly changing; these inner anxieties are called the dukkha produced by change (vipariṇāma-dukkha). The third pattern or category of dukkha refers to a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of life because all forms of life are impermanent and constantly changing. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards. This subtle dissatisfaction is referred to as the dukkha of conditioned states (saṃkhāra-dukkha).&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Clears some things up, no?</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:04:40 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3821064</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T15:04:40Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819943</link> <description>&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;dharmaoverground&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;web&amp;#x2f;guest&amp;#x2f;discussion&amp;#x2f;-&amp;#x2f;message_boards&amp;#x2f;message&amp;#x2f;3809045"&gt;From the &amp;#034;attainments&amp;#034; thread:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fitter :&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;But my life was good before! :-) I&amp;#039;m a white straight dude. It&amp;#039;s like playing the game on &amp;#039;easy&amp;#039;.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;youtube&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;watch&amp;#x3f;v&amp;#x3d;TG4f9zR5yzY"&gt;&amp;#034;Sorry I&amp;#039;m being so negative...&amp;#034;&lt;/a&gt;</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 02:53:25 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819943</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T02:53:25Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819919</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;What makes you think I&amp;#039;m dismissive or inaccurate about experiences common to people? Maybe you think I&amp;#039;m insincere when I say that I believe everyone I meet is carrying a heavy, personal burden, or that I myself deal with sorrow and the prospect of death on a daily basis? I don&amp;#039;t know how to answer that objection - should I have to?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think I was referring to the original thread title: &amp;#034;you are not suffering,&amp;#034; and to comments you made in the attainments thread that spawned this conversation to the effect that if you&amp;#039;re not dying of starvation or malaria, you&amp;#039;re not suffering. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fitter:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;As for the &amp;#034;inaccurate&amp;#034; part - tell me what you mean by &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; exactly. Maybe you and I agree, but we&amp;#039;re just disagreeing on the use of the word. I would still argue that the word carries a certain connotation that is unhelpful &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s inaccurate to say that suffering does not occur under conditions of material privilege. There is a famous story of the Buddha setting out from his princely throne because he discovered this fact. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t have a special definition of suffering. The online dictionary gives: 1. Experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant). 2. Be affected by or subject to (an illness or ailment). I would say that&amp;#039;s obvious. As far as connotations - and I do hate to be melodramatic here, but...- I think of common experiences like chronic pain, domestic violence, rape and incest, addiction, mental illness including depression, panic disorders, personality disorders, schizophrenia, etc, etc... How about car accidents, dementia, PTSD and suicide among veterans, broken homes, betrayal, abandonment... Growing old, anyone? Spend some time in a nursing home. Everyone suffers. And then there is - forgive me, this is maudlin yet true - the fact that we do all lose everyone we love. Sorry. Suffering happens. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;As you said in the other thread, all these states of suffering can be broken down and seen as creations of the mind. But that makes a tautology of your argument. There is no suffering, because suffering is a delusion. Yet people still experience it. It is a norm, not an exception. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jason B:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I do work with people who are suffering in various ways, and many of my friends and family do too. Someone can have the most privileged lifestyle and live with crippling pain every day for decades. Just one common example. You wouldn&amp;#039;t notice unless you knew them well. It&amp;#039;s a strange argument to have to defend: people of all walks of life often endure suffering. You could even say, a certain generous helping is inevitable if you don&amp;#039;t deal with your dukkha. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m not referring to injustice, especially. My hair is not on fire. I am not upon my high horse. Just as you felt a need to be precise about this point of dukkha - as far as I can see no one disagrees - I feel a need to point out the obvious. A thankless job. Woe is me!&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Saying it&amp;#039;s obvious begs the question of everything I&amp;#039;m saying. If you assume it&amp;#039;s obvious, then &amp;#034;obviously&amp;#034; I&amp;#039;m an insensitive fool who should be dismissed. :-) &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t think you&amp;#039;re a fool, and I seem to be spending a lot of time not dismissing you. I do feel there is an element here of stinking enlightenment. You&amp;#039;ve risen above suffering, so why is everyone complaining? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fitter:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;But why is it so obvious? Think about every other &amp;#034;stupid&amp;#034; thing in your life that you dismiss, which is &amp;#034;obviously&amp;#034; wrong. Explain to me why suffering is so obviously a part of life - not just a part of life, but part of every little thing that arises, to the point where I should treat it as a universal &amp;#034;characteristic&amp;#034; of things. From my point of view, that&amp;#039;s &amp;#034;obviously&amp;#034; melodramatic, but I&amp;#039;m willing to hear your side of things if you&amp;#039;ll explain it to me.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I agree with you that dukkha, which is - at least according to the buddha and his gang of buddhists - a universal charcteristic, is not like suffering as I&amp;#039;m describing it. I support you in making that distinction, which I think I did in the beginning. But that does not mean that suffering is not widespread or inevitable.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I say it&amp;#039;s obvious because I know a lot of people who suffer tremendously. (I don&amp;#039;t think this is a special selection of folks. Most of them are straight, middle-class, and white.) I look at history. I look at the world. Look at art, or literature. Look at people&amp;#039;s practice threads - and those are the lucky people who have dharma to help them.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I also agree that the world is improving in general. But that&amp;#039;s a non sequitur.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I stand by my statement that the prevalence of suffering is obvious.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 02:38:25 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819919</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T02:38:25Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are (probably) not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819787</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;United States is a deva world, that&amp;#039;s why there&amp;#039;s so little suffering!&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I like that!</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 01:03:24 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819787</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T01:03:24Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819718</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason B:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;You seem personally offended that I would say any of these things. Do you think I&amp;#039;m diminishing or am trying to diminish your experience of your life and the world? That&amp;#039;s not my intention. So if you feel hurt by what I&amp;#039;ve said, I apologize. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I didn&amp;#039;t take it personally at all. No need to apologize. But it&amp;#039;s confounding. On the one hand you&amp;#039;re very exacting about the definition of dukkha, but so dismissive and inaccurate about experiences common to so many people.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What makes you think I&amp;#039;m dismissive or inaccurate about experiences common to people? Maybe you think I&amp;#039;m insincere when I say that I believe everyone I meet is carrying a heavy, personal burden, or that I myself deal with sorrow and the prospect of death on a daily basis? I don&amp;#039;t know how to answer that objection - should I have to?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for the &amp;#034;inaccurate&amp;#034; part - tell me what you mean by &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; exactly. Maybe you and I agree, but we&amp;#039;re just disagreeing on the use of the word. I would still argue that the word carries a certain connotation that is unhelpful. (See my reply to Ona for more - I&amp;#039;m fleshing out my opinion of this with each reply.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I do work with people who are suffering in various ways, and many of my friends and family do too. Someone can have the most privileged lifestyle and live with crippling pain every day for decades. Just one common example. You wouldn&amp;#039;t notice unless you knew them well. It&amp;#039;s a strange argument to have to defend: people of all walks of life often endure suffering. You could even say, a certain generous helping is inevitable if you don&amp;#039;t deal with your dukkha. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m not referring to injustice, especially. My hair is not on fire. I am not upon my high horse. Just as you felt a need to be precise about this point of dukkha - as far as I can see no one disagrees - I feel a need to point out the obvious. A thankless job. Woe is me!&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Saying it&amp;#039;s obvious begs the question of everything I&amp;#039;m saying. If you assume it&amp;#039;s obvious, then &amp;#034;obviously&amp;#034; I&amp;#039;m an insensitive fool who should be dismissed. :-) &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But why is it so obvious? Think about every other &amp;#034;stupid&amp;#034; thing in your life that you dismiss, which is &amp;#034;obviously&amp;#034; wrong. Explain to me why suffering is so obviously a part of life - not just a part of life, but part of every little thing that arises, to the point where I should treat it as a universal &amp;#034;characteristic&amp;#034; of things. From my point of view, that&amp;#039;s &amp;#034;obviously&amp;#034; melodramatic, but I&amp;#039;m willing to hear your side of things if you&amp;#039;ll explain it to me. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Why can&amp;#039;t we use one of the proposed alternatives, like &amp;#034;annoying&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;uneasy&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;unsatisfactory&amp;#034;?</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 01:01:09 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819718</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T01:01:09Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819707</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason B:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; (Not to say, as Jason suggested I said, that technology and democracy eliminate suffering.)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fitter:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; If the goal is merely to get rid of suffering, then we don&amp;#039;t need the Buddha. Modern technology and democracy can accomplish that.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I didn&amp;#039;t mean to pick a fight, or make you feel attacked personally. I thought you wanted a spirited exchange. I know you&amp;#039;ve clarified your position to some extent, so I&amp;#039;ll let it go.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That&amp;#039;s a really interesting way of letting something go. :-)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But I misspoke. I would say these things have made a large dent in suffering. They&amp;#039;ve affected the human condition in positive ways: average life expectancy has increased, average wealth has increased, the odds of being killed in violent conflict have fallen, and there are far more opportunities for the &amp;#034;untouchables&amp;#034; of society than there were 200 years ago, globally. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://youtu.be/BPt8ElTQMIg&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is not to say that suffering has been completely eliminated, just that (a) democracy and technology have made an impact greater than the Buddha himself probably could have envisioned, and (b) it&amp;#039;s at least possible (if not feasible) that they could go further and eliminate it completely. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you would like to not let it go and argue with me further, that&amp;#039;s okay with me, I don&amp;#039;t think that&amp;#039;s unenlightened. :-)</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:50:44 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819707</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T00:50:44Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are (probably) not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819696</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ona Kiser:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I don&amp;#039;t know if it hinders people to use one word or another. I agree some people can get very dramatic about things that in the big picture are quite small. As my dad used to shout if we complained of being hungry &amp;#034;You don&amp;#039;t know what hunger is!&amp;#034; and he would describe the scene in Stalingrad, where children dug in the dirt for insects, their bodies skeletal with starvation. For a funnier version, see Monty Python&amp;#039;s Four Yorkshiremen sketch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo). Sometimes it can help us have a perspective on things to remember that our psychological shit is not as likely to cause actual death as the shit someone else is dealing with (such as living in a state of war, not having food, etc). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That said, the same basic mind/body reaction kicks in whether we are being chased by a tiger, chased by a crazy stranger with a knife, chased by our angry father with a belt, or having a moment of terror because there might be a monster under the bed and we have to get up in the night to pee. &amp;#034;Real&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;imaginary&amp;#034; dangers, fears and anxieties all trigger the same systems: adrenaline, fight or flight responses, etc. The strength of the reaction will depend on the conditions that trigger it and how habituated one is to having the reaction and ones personality, and upbringing and numerous other factors. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Somewhere recently I read an article by a zen monk who said one of the benefits of the psychological hell practice can reveal and the way in which it develops an understanding of how our anxieties and fears play out in the mind is that we come to have an enormous amount of sympathy for the suffering of others, which leads to the arising of compassion. Interesting in this context to consider how many spiritual traditions include physical austerities in their training (fasting, sleeping on hard surfaces, poverty, mortification of the flesh, etc.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Just offering some additional ponders, not trying to hammer home any particular point of view here.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Awesome. Thank you for the Monty Python. :-)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for the rest, two comments:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;ol style="list-style: decimal outside;"&gt;&lt;li&gt;While from the first person point of view, something may seem really dire, because of endocrine responses and whatnot, that doesn&amp;#039;t necessarily have to mean anything. Here&amp;#039;s where Western psychotherapy is helpful. Healing means coming to see that response as just a response, not as something that necessarily represents reality. People with PTSD have to go through this process of discovery to overcome their condition.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;But even from the first person point of view, it&amp;#039;s possible to perceive the process of dependent origination as it unfolds. Here&amp;#039;s where dhamma is important. With the vipassana or noting or even basic mindfulness techniques, I&amp;#039;m able to see the gap between where the unpleasant sensation arises and where I begin to narrate it in terms of this big, horrible thing (&amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;). It&amp;#039;s possible to see clearly how important connotation is here.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It reminds me of a session I had with my teacher, Abre. We were noting together. I was at a part of the path where there were tons of unpleasant physical sensation. The entire session, I&amp;#039;m feeling heat, itching, fidgeting, and aching. I want to twist my body this way and that. I just can&amp;#039;t get comfortable. We&amp;#039;re noting in triplets, where the first note is the body sensation, the second the vedana, the third the mind-state. So I&amp;#039;m saying things like &amp;#034;aching ... unpleasant ... aversion&amp;#034; and &amp;#034;heat ... unpleasant ... aversion.&amp;#034; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So she stops me and says, &amp;#034;look, don&amp;#039;t call it &amp;#039;aversion&amp;#039;&amp;#034;, and I&amp;#039;m thinking, &amp;#034;what could be more basic than just not liking it?&amp;#034; And she told me, you&amp;#039;re breathing life into it every time you say &amp;#034;aversion&amp;#034; to yourself. It&amp;#039;s getting hotter and hotter, itchier and itchier, etc., because the word means something to your mind. It&amp;#039;s kicking up all these associations. &amp;#034;You could note &amp;#039;compassion&amp;#039; instead, since you want it to end.&amp;#034; And that actually helped me to circle round the thing and become more equanimous about it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I feel like calling it &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; is a grand version of that. It builds Grand Dukkha. It does it by (a) concealing what&amp;#039;s really going on, and (b) setting up identification with that concealed state. Identification &lt;em&gt;always &lt;/em&gt;works by being concealed in just that fashion. We know that at the moment of getting stream-entry, when we see the absurdity of sensations being funneled through a spot in the head. What&amp;#039;s so out-of-bounds by seeing it being funneled through a sense of victimhood?</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:39:44 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819696</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T00:39:44Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819682</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; (Not to say, as Jason suggested I said, that technology and democracy eliminate suffering.)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Fitter:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; If the goal is merely to get rid of suffering, then we don&amp;#039;t need the Buddha. Modern technology and democracy can accomplish that.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I didn&amp;#039;t mean to pick a fight, or make you feel attacked personally. I thought you wanted a spirited exchange. I know you&amp;#039;ve clarified your position to some extent, so I&amp;#039;ll let it go.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:35:13 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819682</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T00:35:13Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819675</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;You seem personally offended that I would say any of these things. Do you think I&amp;#039;m diminishing or am trying to diminish your experience of your life and the world? That&amp;#039;s not my intention. So if you feel hurt by what I&amp;#039;ve said, I apologize. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I didn&amp;#039;t take it personally at all. No need to apologize. But it&amp;#039;s confounding. On the one hand you&amp;#039;re very exacting about the definition of dukkha, but so dismissive and inaccurate about experiences common to so many people.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I do work with people who are suffering in various ways, and many of my friends and family do too. Someone can have the most privileged lifestyle and live with crippling pain every day for decades. Just one common example. You wouldn&amp;#039;t notice unless you knew them well. It&amp;#039;s a strange argument to have to defend: people of all walks of life often endure suffering. You could even say, a certain generous helping is inevitable if you don&amp;#039;t deal with your dukkha. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m not referring to injustice, especially. My hair is not on fire. I am not upon my high horse. Just as you felt a need to be precise about this point of dukkha - as far as I can see no one disagrees - I feel a need to point out the obvious. A thankless job. Woe is me!</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:28:22 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819675</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T00:28:22Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819669</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Nice post, Fitter.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks, Ian! I was hoping you&amp;#039;d respond. When I wrote my post, I was thinking of the ideal you&amp;#039;ve set, and to some extent things that Nikolai has said as well. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;This is a more monumental task than it first appears, because people, in general, do not wish to view their own existence in such grandiose and negative terms.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Is it grandiose? I feel like calling it &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; is grandiose. Using words like &amp;#034;uneasiness&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;wobbliness&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;annoyance&amp;#034; seem to do more justice to what I feel like the Buddha intended. There is no satisfactory life to be lived when one stakes one&amp;#039;s claim on the changing. The only way that would work is if one could control the foundation and protect against caprice (anicca). But you can&amp;#039;t, and that&amp;#039;s the practical meaning of anatta. Because if we could, we would. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Modern technology and democracy offer a challenge to this. (Not to say, as Jason suggested I said, that technology and democracy eliminate suffering.) The claim to the universality of the three characteristics is strong in Iron Age India. It seems very much up-in-the-air at the moment, whether we&amp;#039;re to master nature. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I long ago stopped solely referring to dukkha as only &amp;#034;suffering.&amp;#034; Suffering, it is true, is part of dukkha. But as you have pointed out, there is much more to this than just suffering (be it physical or mental suffering or unpleasantness). I&amp;#039;ve taken to the terms &amp;#034;unsatisfactory&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;dissatisfying&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;unsatisfactoriness&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;dissatisfaction,&amp;#034; which, in one word, at least begins to point toward the definition that Gotama had in mind when he used the word dukkha.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That&amp;#039;s exactly what I had in mind.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Listen to John, not because he is &amp;#034;a Grand Mucky Muck,&amp;#034; but rather because he reflects the original intentions expressed in Gotama&amp;#039;s proclamation of his Dhamma.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I was teasing. In their &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;dharmaoverground&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;web&amp;#x2f;guest&amp;#x2f;discussion&amp;#x2f;-&amp;#x2f;message_boards&amp;#x2f;message&amp;#x2f;3733385"&gt;2009 discussion&lt;/a&gt;, Vince referred to Daniel Ingram as a &amp;#034;Grand Mucky Muck&amp;#034;. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;And keeping with one of the last points made (&amp;#034;that keeps us from looking at ourselves&amp;#034;), the Dhamma wasn&amp;#039;t designed or intended to be used as a &amp;#034;spot therapy&amp;#034; to assist someone alleviate a momentary experience of unpleasantness or anxiety like what psychotherapy claims to do. If a person needs that kind of assistance beforehand, they need to get their psychological field straightened out prior to undertaking the practice, as a poor psychological field may compromise the attainment of &amp;#034;right view&amp;#034; in practice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s its own ball of wax. Sutric Buddhism seems to have included its own education in Sila as a propaedeutic to instruction in wisdom and concentration. Correct me if I&amp;#039;m wrong, but this was a training in renunciation. If you&amp;#039;re to free yourself from taṇhā, a great way to do that is to live away from women and wine and the class structure of ancient Indian society. If you&amp;#039;re trained in that context for many years, stream-entry is going to be a different experience for you than if you&amp;#039;re Joe Blow from Hoboken doing these same practices while going to school at NYU. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of course, renunciation doesn&amp;#039;t sit well with post-60s America. We&amp;#039;re used to doing what we want, when we want, and in what position we want. We jettison Buddhist sila and instead graft Western psychotherapy on to the practice, with all the promises and perils that brings. I&amp;#039;m curious to hear your thoughts on that. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It seems like pragmatic/hardcore dharma takes the Buddha&amp;#039;s message - which was comprehensive and radical - and translates it into a problem which is easily solved with psychotherapy or technology rather than enlightenment. I haven&amp;#039;t thought this issue all the way through, but that&amp;#039;s my off-the-cuff impression.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Ian:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;So too, getting &amp;#034;stream entry&amp;#034; is not meant as a cure-all for one&amp;#039;s personal psychological ills. In addition, one might do well to be wary of whose definition of &amp;#034;stream entry&amp;#034; they are accepting. And the methods being espoused for gaining it. Stream entry has more to do with one&amp;#039;s personal overall intentions and realization of the Path that Gotama declared (the noble eightfold path) than it does with any given definition or praxis.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yeah. This goes back to something I think D Z said in another post. This also gets into the whole thing &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;youtu&amp;#x2e;be&amp;#x2f;m3tUCtwmVGY"&gt;Ajahn Sujato was on about&lt;/a&gt;. I don&amp;#039;t have much of a response to that, as I don&amp;#039;t consider myself a traditional Theravadaist. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m thinking less about the whole &amp;#034;what constitutes stream-entry&amp;#034; or even &amp;#034;what constitutes jhana&amp;#034; thing (which maybe I ought to think more about) than the whole &amp;#034;why are we doing this in the first place&amp;#034; thing. To some it must appear like I&amp;#039;m dealing purely in semantics, but it&amp;#039;s clear from where I&amp;#039;m sitting that the word &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; conceals and reveals a lot. That&amp;#039;s because &lt;em&gt;every &lt;/em&gt;time you use a word with heavy connotation where you could use simpler, more specific words, you&amp;#039;re engaged in covert identification. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There are tons of assumptions loaded into the word &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;. It makes me wonder why people who consider themselves adept at examining first-hand experience won&amp;#039;t unpack it.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:22:06 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3819669</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-26T00:22:06Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are (probably) not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818946</link> <description>Dukkha is something Buddhists made up, everyone else loves life. Very few people share the Buddhist idea that it would be a good thing to just quietly stop all existence and enter a state of nothingness. Most people would prefer getting reincarnated to not getting reincarnated.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also re the comment that suffering is only in the third world, here&amp;#039;s my favourite quote from In This Very Life by U Pandita:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;There are heaven realms right on this planet. Is true and permanent happiness to be found in any of them? The United States, for example, is a very advanced country materially. There, a vast array of sense pleasures is available. You can see people intoxicated, drowning in luxury and pleasure. Ask yourself whether such people think about looking deeper, of making an effort to seek the truth about existence? Are they truly happy?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;United States is a deva world, that&amp;#039;s why there&amp;#039;s so little suffering!</description> <pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2012 18:32:48 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818946</guid> <dc:creator>N A</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-25T18:32:48Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are (probably) not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818876</link> <description>I don&amp;#039;t know if it hinders people to use one word or another. I agree some people can get very dramatic about things that in the big picture are quite small. As my dad used to shout if we complained of being hungry &amp;#034;You don&amp;#039;t know what hunger is!&amp;#034; and he would describe the scene in Stalingrad, where children dug in the dirt for insects, their bodies skeletal with starvation. For a funnier version, see Monty Python&amp;#039;s Four Yorkshiremen sketch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo). Sometimes it can help us have a perspective on things to remember that our psychological shit is not as likely to cause actual death as the shit someone else is dealing with (such as living in a state of war, not having food, etc). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That said, the same basic mind/body reaction kicks in whether we are being chased by a tiger, chased by a crazy stranger with a knife, chased by our angry father with a belt, or having a moment of terror because there might be a monster under the bed and we have to get up in the night to pee. &amp;#034;Real&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;imaginary&amp;#034; dangers, fears and anxieties all trigger the same systems: adrenaline, fight or flight responses, etc. The strength of the reaction will depend on the conditions that trigger it and how habituated one is to having the reaction and ones personality, and upbringing and numerous other factors. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Somewhere recently I read an article by a zen monk who said one of the benefits of the psychological hell practice can reveal and the way in which it develops an understanding of how our anxieties and fears play out in the mind is that we come to have an enormous amount of sympathy for the suffering of others, which leads to the arising of compassion. Interesting in this context to consider how many spiritual traditions include physical austerities in their training (fasting, sleeping on hard surfaces, poverty, mortification of the flesh, etc.)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Just offering some additional ponders, not trying to hammer home any particular point of view here.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2012 18:05:08 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818876</guid> <dc:creator>Ona Kiser</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-25T18:05:08Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>You are not suffering. . . Oh Yeah?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818861</link> <description>Nice post, Fitter. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I would like to start a campaign - which will be entirely unsuccessful - to stop people from translating &lt;em&gt;dukkha &lt;/em&gt;as &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;. It&amp;#039;s an excessively melodramatic, gloomy translation of the word. It&amp;#039;s also inadequate.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;No need to start a campaign. . . rather, insist that people &lt;strong&gt;fully understand &lt;/strong&gt;the first noble truth: that this life we live &amp;#x2013; in a universe of finite existence &amp;#x2013; &lt;strong&gt;is&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt;! This is a more monumental task than it first appears, because people, in general, do not wish to view their own existence in such grandiose and negative terms. So the number of people to whom this might appeal becomes limited at the very start. This is why we don&amp;#039;t read about accounts of hoards of householders (either in ancient times or contemporary times) flocking to become monks and nuns, or to study and practice the Dhamma. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, I like John Peacock&amp;#039;s breakdown of the definition of &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt;, too. &amp;#034;Unpleasant space.&amp;#034; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Here to tell you why is &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;gaiahouse&amp;#x2e;co&amp;#x2e;uk&amp;#x2f;pages&amp;#x2f;retreats&amp;#x2f;about-the-teachers&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x23;John-Peacock"&gt;John Peacock&lt;/a&gt;. This is from his lecture &amp;#034;Buddhism Before the Theravada&amp;#034;:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;John Peacock:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The prefix “du” (as in du-kkha) means dirty, unpleasant, painful. “Kha” means space. Dukkha is a dirty space, an unpleasant space to be in.&lt;/strong&gt; It referred to the hole to which an axle fitted in a wheel. It&amp;#039;s a hole filled with dirt, grease, and grit, and it went round and round. It also meant a wound inflicted by an arrow. There&amp;#039;s a sense of lack as well. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;“Suffering” does not do dukkha justice. Suffering is a very, very inadequate translation. It means anything unpleasant or qualified by lack in your life. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dukkha is what you’re experiencing right now. &lt;strong&gt;Anything you find you want to have changed at this moment in time as you sit there.&lt;/strong&gt; “I wish the chairs were more comfortable.” “I wish it were sunnier and cooler.” Not something happening in the future. It’s happening right now. Fundamental aspect of human experience.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I long ago stopped solely referring to &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt; as only &amp;#034;suffering.&amp;#034; Suffering, it is true, is part of &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt;. But as you have pointed out, there is much more to this than just suffering (be it physical or mental suffering or unpleasantness). I&amp;#039;ve taken to the terms &amp;#034;unsatisfactory&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;dissatisfying&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;unsatisfactoriness&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;dissatisfaction,&amp;#034; which, in one word, &lt;em&gt;at least&lt;/em&gt; begins to point toward the definition that Gotama had in mind when he used the word &lt;em&gt;dukkha&lt;/em&gt;. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And you should listen to John Peacock, &lt;em&gt;because he is a Grand Mucky Muck&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think I know what you mean, but I don&amp;#039;t think you really meant what you said. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Listen to John, not because he is &amp;#034;a Grand Mucky Muck,&amp;#034; but rather because he reflects the original intentions expressed in Gotama&amp;#039;s proclamation of his Dhamma. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Even Gotama didn&amp;#039;t view himself as a high &amp;#034;mucky muck.&amp;#034; Although those around him seemed to want to apply those attributes to him, which he rejected at every opportunity (if we can rely on the discourses as evidence). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Some quotes I thought were particularly relevant.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dukkha should bring to mind disappointment, irritation, annoyance, uneasiness, unsatisfactoriness - not just complete human misery.&lt;/strong&gt; Because that trivializes real human misery while it allows you to solidify a situation that is annoying and blow it up into a cosmic travesty. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The connection with anicca and anatta is instructive.&lt;/strong&gt; One of the main ways we invite dukkha into our lives is by trying to build our lives on a secure foundation which in fact cannot support the weight of a good life.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of course, it was the Buddha&amp;#039;s view - and it was the view of many holy men in his time and throughout the ages - that things like love and money shouldn&amp;#039;t be pursued at all if you want to be happy. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;You should only pursue that which is outside of time and hence &lt;em&gt;beyond&lt;/em&gt; all cause and effect.&lt;/strong&gt; In Buddhism, this unconditioned is called Nibbana. It signifies the blowing out of greed, aversion, and delusion, &lt;strong&gt;but really it signifies the blowing out of all attachment to things that are conditioned,&lt;/strong&gt; the way the element of fire was said to disperse back into the air once it was detached from the wood. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, like it or not, Buddhism - at least sutric Buddhism - is about renouncing all conditioned things - &lt;em&gt;especially &lt;/em&gt;sex, drinking, and money - and extinguishing all craving, &lt;strong&gt;not merely attentuating it or observing it as not-self&lt;/strong&gt;. The sutric ideal is the renunciate, the monk. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;We&amp;#039;re free to take that or leave that. But that does seem to be the message. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dukkha is supported by the failure to realize that happiness cannot be staked on anything conditioned (i.e., &lt;span style="color: #E10000"&gt;anything that &lt;strong&gt;exists&lt;/strong&gt;/is in time)&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;because all those foundations are wobbly and outside our control.&lt;/strong&gt; So the only solution is to get off the ride, i.e., detach from worldly things and stake a claim solely in the timeless. [Or the Deathless] &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And this dimension of it is likely to be lost if we think of dukkha as &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; and the goal of sutric Buddhism as &amp;#034;the end of suffering&amp;#034;. &lt;strong&gt;Because the Buddha was actually saying something far more radical than that.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But if your goal is to uproot all the uneasiness of existence and to stake a claim in the unconditioned, it seems there are relatively few ways to do that. &lt;strong&gt;You really must extinguish your desire (the word in Pali is &amp;#034;taṇhā&amp;#034;) for this world&lt;/strong&gt;. At least according to this and other ancient traditions, that&amp;#039;s the only way it can be done.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Yeah? So?&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, why are you really doing whatever practice it is you&amp;#039;re doing? The Buddha&amp;#039;s term &amp;#034;dukkha&amp;#034; seems vague, but he had something pretty definite in mind when he said it, and it&amp;#039;s probably not what you have in mind when you use the term &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;. &amp;#034;Reducing suffering&amp;#034; is an answer that isn&amp;#039;t an answer. &lt;strong&gt;Or it&amp;#039;s a reply that avoids an answer, which avoids the real reasons we&amp;#039;re doing this.&lt;/strong&gt; It&amp;#039;s a blanket term &lt;strong&gt;that keeps us from looking at ourselves, that deflects attention from the true motivations for doing this, the real, underlying pain or set of problems we secretly hope will go away with enough hours clocked on the cushion&lt;/strong&gt;. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Let&amp;#039;s stop using it. Let&amp;#039;s start using simpler, more specific terms to talk about what we&amp;#039;re trying to do and what this practice really accomplishes.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And keeping with one of the last points made (&amp;#034;that keeps us from looking at ourselves&amp;#034;), the Dhamma wasn&amp;#039;t designed or intended to be used as a &amp;#034;spot therapy&amp;#034; to assist someone alleviate a momentary experience of unpleasantness or anxiety like what psychotherapy claims to do. If a person needs that kind of assistance beforehand, they need to get their psychological field straightened out prior to undertaking the practice, as a poor psychological field may compromise the attainment of &amp;#034;right view&amp;#034; in practice.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So too, getting &amp;#034;stream entry&amp;#034; is not meant as a cure-all for one&amp;#039;s personal psychological ills. In addition, one might do well to be wary of whose definition of &amp;#034;stream entry&amp;#034; they are accepting. And the methods being espoused for gaining it. Stream entry has more to do with one&amp;#039;s personal overall intentions and realization of the Path that Gotama declared (the noble eightfold path) than it does with any given definition or praxis. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of course, the drawback to that view is: there&amp;#039;s no appeasing the ignorant, who, in their rugged determination, still proceed in seeking that which cannot be had by following such a course in belief that a path fruition will end their troubles.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2012 17:58:50 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818861</guid> <dc:creator>Ian And</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-25T17:58:50Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818718</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason B:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;You&amp;#039;re conflating a known translation issue with your belief that &amp;#034;you&amp;#039;re not suffering.&amp;#034; Meditation is certainly relevant to both dukkha and suffering. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Seriously, you think technology and western democracy have cured suffering? Do you know any, um, people? Seen a newspaper lately? Come on!&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes, contrary to rumors, I am a person and know people. :-) &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You seem personally offended that I would say any of these things. Do you think I&amp;#039;m diminishing or am trying to diminish your experience of your life and the world? That&amp;#039;s not my intention. So if you feel hurt by what I&amp;#039;ve said, I apologize. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What I&amp;#039;m trying to get across - imperfectly, in the medium of text - is that using this word (with all its connotations) to describe our experience probably does harm to our own experience by making these things seem much worse than they are. I don&amp;#039;t see it as conflation. I see it as making distinctions and keeping things in perspective.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And if you&amp;#039;re really concerned about injustice in the world - I take it that&amp;#039;s what you&amp;#039;re alluding to - then it seems like it would be helpful to be specific about what we mean by &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; and not use it to describe every little thing in our lives we don&amp;#039;t like. Clearly there is real suffering in the world that needs to be pointed out, addressed, and fixed. I just don&amp;#039;t think me being pissed off about traffic is at the top of the list. :-)</description> <pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2012 16:46:27 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818718</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-25T16:46:27Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: You are not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818687</link> <description>You&amp;#039;re conflating a known translation issue with your belief that &amp;#034;you&amp;#039;re not suffering.&amp;#034; Meditation is certainly relevant to both dukkha and suffering. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Seriously, you think technology and western democracy have cured suffering? Do you know any, um, people? Seen a newspaper lately? Come on!</description> <pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2012 15:54:36 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818687</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-25T15:54:36Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>You are (probably) not suffering.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818665</link> <description>&lt;strong&gt;DISCLAIMER: I edited the subject of this post to include the &amp;#034;probably&amp;#034;, because I do not know any of you personally, and so, for all I know, some of you may actually be suffering even in a stricter, more precise sense of the word. The intention of this post is not to dismiss anyone&amp;#039;s experience, including their very real pain and hardship. I understand there&amp;#039;s not a person reading this who is not carrying a heavy personal burden at the moment. The point I&amp;#039;m trying to make is that calling every act of identification &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; or calling anything unpleasant in experience &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; is not helpful for practice or for one&amp;#039;s psychological health. It&amp;#039;s also probably useful from a social justice perspective not to label everything unpleasant with the word &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;, since the mind could easily and automatically interpret that to mean that there&amp;#039;s injustice in my minor difficult experience when in fact it&amp;#039;s just very annoying. In any event, I do not mean to hurt anyone&amp;#039;s feelings with the post. I&amp;#039;m just some guy on the internet, so don&amp;#039;t suffer needlessly because of me. :-)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I would like to start a campaign - which will be entirely unsuccessful - to stop people from translating &lt;em&gt;dukkha &lt;/em&gt;as &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;. It&amp;#039;s an excessively melodramatic, gloomy translation of the word. It&amp;#039;s also inadequate. Here to tell you why is &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;gaiahouse&amp;#x2e;co&amp;#x2e;uk&amp;#x2f;pages&amp;#x2f;retreats&amp;#x2f;about-the-teachers&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x23;John-Peacock"&gt;John Peacock&lt;/a&gt;. This is from his lecture &amp;#034;Buddhism Before the Theravada&amp;#034;:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;John Peacock:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;The prefix “du” (as in du-kkha) means dirty, unpleasant, painful. “Kha” means space. Dukkha is a dirty space, an unpleasant space to be in. It referred to the hole to which an axle fitted in a wheel. It&amp;#039;s a hole filled with dirt, grease, and grit, and it went round and round. It also meant a wound inflicted by an arrow. There&amp;#039;s a sense of lack as well. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;“Suffering” does not do dukkha justice. Suffering is a very, very inadequate translation. It means anything unpleasant or qualified by lack in your life. &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dukkha is what you’re experiencing right now. Anything you find you want to have changed at this moment in time as you sit there. “I wish the chairs were more comfortable.” “I wish it were sunnier and cooler.” Not something happening in the future. It’s happening right now. Fundamental aspect of human experience.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[...]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dukkha is like slowly rubbing your arm against a brick wall. It’s not stabbing pain. It gets more and more painful as we do it. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[...]&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dukkha is like the bridge between them [anicca and anatta]. We don’t perceive things as anicca or as anatta, we perceive them as dukkha.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And you should listen to John Peacock, because he is a Grand Mucky Muck.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Dukkha should bring to mind disappointment, irritation, annoyance, uneasiness, unsatisfactoriness - not just complete human misery. Because that trivializes real human misery while it allows you to solidify a situation that is annoying and blow it up into a cosmic travesty. Going with the image of the axle wheel, I imagine trying for a destination in a cart where the axle is not perfectly fitted to the wheel, so the ride is bumpy and unpleasant, and the vehicle is prone to breaking down and needing repair, thus (permanently?) delaying arrival.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The connection with anicca and anatta is instructive. One of the main ways we invite dukkha into our lives is by trying to build our lives on a secure foundation which in fact cannot support the weight of a good life.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For example, a person decides his life will be fulfilled, if only he gets a job that pays such and such, and only if he has an apartment in the city. There&amp;#039;s the obvious dukkha involved in going after those things and not attaining them. But there&amp;#039;s also dukkha when he finally gets them and realizes that they cannot provide the satisfaction he thought they could provide.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Then he decides to build his happiness on love. &amp;#034;If I marry my true love, I will be happy.&amp;#034; But then he finds out that love isn&amp;#039;t all there is, either. In these cases, dukkha arises, not from not getting what we want, but instead from getting it and finding out it can&amp;#039;t deliver the goods. It can&amp;#039;t support the weight of the good life. But what can? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of course, it was the Buddha&amp;#039;s view - and it was the view of many holy men in his time and throughout the ages - that things like love and money shouldn&amp;#039;t be pursued at all if you want to be happy. You should only pursue that which is outside of time and hence beyond all cause and effect. In Buddhism, this unconditioned is called Nibbana. It signifies the blowing out of greed, aversion, and delusion, but really it signifies the blowing out of all attachment to things that are conditioned, the way the element of fire was said to disperse back into the air once it was detached from the wood. So, like it or not, Buddhism - at least sutric Buddhism - is about renouncing all conditioned things - &lt;em&gt;especially &lt;/em&gt;sex, drinking, and money - and extinguishing all craving, not merely attentuating it or observing it as not-self. The sutric ideal is the renunciate, the monk. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;We&amp;#039;re free to take that or leave that. But that does seem to be the message. Dukkha is supported by the failure to realize that happiness cannot be staked on anything conditioned (i.e., anything that exists/is in time), because all those foundations are wobbly and outside our control. So the only solution is to get off the ride, i.e., detach from worldly things and stake a claim solely in the timeless. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And this dimension of it is likely to be lost if we think of dukkha as &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034; and the goal of sutric Buddhism as &amp;#034;the end of suffering&amp;#034;. Because the Buddha was actually saying something far more radical than that. If the goal is merely to get rid of suffering, then we don&amp;#039;t need the Buddha. Modern technology and democracy can accomplish that. The goal is in fact a great deal higher: to achieve absolute freedom and happiness. There are many ways you could alleviate or get rid of suffering. But if your goal is to uproot all the uneasiness of existence and to stake a claim in the unconditioned, it seems there are relatively few ways to do that. You really must extinguish your desire (the word in Pali is &amp;#034;taṇhā&amp;#034;) for this world. At least according to this and other ancient traditions, that&amp;#039;s the only way it can be done.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Yeah? So?&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, why are you really doing whatever practice it is you&amp;#039;re doing? The Buddha&amp;#039;s term &amp;#034;dukkha&amp;#034; seems vague, but he had something pretty definite in mind when he said it, and it&amp;#039;s probably not what you have in mind when you use the term &amp;#034;suffering&amp;#034;. &amp;#034;Reducing suffering&amp;#034; is an answer that isn&amp;#039;t an answer. Or it&amp;#039;s a reply that avoids an answer, which avoids the real reasons we&amp;#039;re doing this. It&amp;#039;s a blanket term that keeps us from looking at ourselves, that deflects attention from the true motivations for doing this, the real, underlying pain or set of problems we secretly hope will go away with enough hours clocked on the cushion. Let&amp;#039;s stop using it. Let&amp;#039;s start using simpler, more specific terms to talk about what we&amp;#039;re trying to do and what this practice really accomplishes.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2012 15:31:11 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3818665</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-25T15:31:11Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: David Chapman: Enlightenment &amp; Epistemology</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3781688</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Stian Gudmundsen Høiland:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I haven&amp;#039;t had a powerful non-dual experience since &lt;em&gt;before &lt;/em&gt;I started meditating.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;+1&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While I&amp;#039;ve had a handful of novel and exciting experiences in the context of meditation[1], the utter-most powerful experiences I&amp;#039;ve had has always been outside the context of meditation[1].&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[1] By &amp;#034;meditation&amp;#034; I mean formally executing instructions for traversing the jh/nanic arc.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;ve been trying for two or three weeks now to reproduce one of my earlier experiences but can only generate a mere shadow. I&amp;#039;m thinking I&amp;#039;ll give it a little more time and then go back to wholeheartedly mastering the progressive, developmental path for a few more months and then try again.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:49:11 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3781688</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-11T11:49:11Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: David Chapman: Enlightenment &amp; Epistemology</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3781497</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Fitter Stoke:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I haven&amp;#039;t had a powerful non-dual experience since &lt;em&gt;before &lt;/em&gt;I started meditating.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;+1&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While I&amp;#039;ve had a handful of novel and exciting experiences in the context of meditation[1], the utter-most powerful experiences I&amp;#039;ve had has always been outside the context of meditation[1].&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;[1] By &amp;#034;meditation&amp;#034; I mean formally executing instructions for traversing the jh/nanic arc.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:29:12 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3781497</guid> <dc:creator>Stian Gudmundsen Høiland</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-11T09:29:12Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: David Chapman: Enlightenment &amp; Epistemology</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3780598</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jason B:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Thanks for the link. I listened to the podcast, and read Chapman&amp;#039;s &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;meaningness&amp;#x2e;wordpress&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;2012&amp;#x2f;09&amp;#x2f;13&amp;#x2f;epistemology-and-enlightenment&amp;#x2f;"&gt;blog post&lt;/a&gt; that initiated the discussion. The blog post has a little more meat than the podcast, which is hampered by a bit of a dismissive or smug tone. It (the podcast) reminds me of a lot of professional skeptic blogs (Quackwatch, etc.) or Atheist-with-a-capital A discussions in which the speaker or author is enamored of his logical argument but grossly inaccurate or vague in characterizing that which he criticizes. Interesting that the interview is preceded by a defense against the accusation of scientism, and I can see why. I don&amp;#039;t think they really bothered to criticize, much less describe, the Mahasi (or any other tradition). They just had a good chuckle over how misguided it is. So, that was a little annoying.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He certainly comes across that way. Though I&amp;#039;ve challenged him in the past, and he&amp;#039;s always been receptive, open-minded, and patient. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He admits he doesn&amp;#039;t know much about Theravada, and his engagement with pragmatic dharma is somewhat superficial. I still find a lot of what he says valuable. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;But the blog post raises some good questions, and it would be interesting to see an in-depth discussion of them. The most concrete remarks are made by Ven. Sujato in the attached youtube videos. His comment that Mahasi-style practice is hampered by providing only one technique seems insightful.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Sujato stuff was hilarious. I cracked up. It&amp;#039;s a whole series of videos where he&amp;#039;s dissing other Theravada schools. It&amp;#039;s not even other branches of Buddhism. It&amp;#039;s just other Theravada schools. I mean, c&amp;#039;mon. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I find &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;youtu&amp;#x2e;be&amp;#x2f;hnsDC7pchfQ"&gt;Yuttadhammo &lt;/a&gt;a lot more down to earth about the same sort of stuff.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;But the argument that stream-entry claims by Mahasi-followers are invalid because they are common is itself a logical fallacy. I don&amp;#039;t know what proportion are bogus, or what the situation is in Burma, but I think the claims made here are fairly common and mostly legit because A) the technique is unusually effective, and B ) the definition of stream-entry is a limited, but meaningful, definition. To some it may look like the game is rigged. They just lowered the bar. And yet the outcome is something profound, beneficial, and yes, hard to explain.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yeah. I can&amp;#039;t pay attention to that kind of stuff at all. If I had an opportunity to go sit with Sujato and have him guide me up through the jhanas to a fruition, I&amp;#039;d take it. Who cares what you call it? It might be an interesting experience, and it would be cool to compare. But I could really care less if someone on youtube says I&amp;#039;m not sotapanna because I jerked off or ate a meal after 12. C&amp;#039;mon. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;All that said, I have noticed lately that the idea I&amp;#039;ve attained anything like enlightenment at any stage is a little embarrassing. I don&amp;#039;t feel like I have much insight into the nature of being, and I&amp;#039;m not abnormally happy. I just know I went through those cycles (2), and I met those criteria. So I assume others have too. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The other definition of enlightenment that I subscribe to is Kenneth&amp;#039;s &amp;#034;happiness that is independent of conditions.&amp;#034; For now, that&amp;#039;s a matter of faith.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yeah. And this is the interesting stuff, and this is why I posted it. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Just as a point of discussion, I think Kenneth&amp;#039;s definition is useful for two reasons: (1) it just sounds like what you&amp;#039;d expect enlightenment to be, and (2) it turns out to describe perfectly the experience of rigpa or PCE or whatnot (I don&amp;#039;t know if they&amp;#039;re the same - another interesting question). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you hear the phrase &amp;#034;happiness without conditions&amp;#034;, it sounds abstract. Very lofty. But in those non-dual experiences, it really DOES seem that way! Not in the sense &amp;#034;oh, this happiness will never end&amp;#034;, but rather, &amp;#034;this happiness I&amp;#039;m experiencing now is based in unconditioned knowledge of the perfection of being.&amp;#034; Perfect fit. Once I put all that together, I started doing Kenneth&amp;#039;s 3rd gear stuff. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This kind of goes back to my post on the personality under conditions of awakening. The MCTB definition of awakening is really abstract. Kenneth&amp;#039;s definition, by contrast, is concrete. Very easy to describe what one of those is like: &amp;#034;Everything was perfect.&amp;#034; &amp;#034;I forgave everyone.&amp;#034; You can&amp;#039;t get anymore straightforward than that.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Problem is, landing a hard non-dual experience is hard. It&amp;#039;s much easier to land a jhana. It may even be easier to get path. I don&amp;#039;t know. People keep saying that if you get a few paths, the 3rd gear stuff is easier, but I haven&amp;#039;t found that to be the case. I haven&amp;#039;t had a powerful non-dual experience since &lt;em&gt;before &lt;/em&gt;I started meditating. Interesting stuff.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Anyway, I&amp;#039;m probably misusing terms. But if Chapman is right, we&amp;#039;re all usually misusing terms all the time anyway.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:33:44 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3780598</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-11T00:33:44Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: David Chapman: Enlightenment &amp; Epistemology</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3780489</link> <description>Thanks for the link. I listened to the podcast, and read Chapman&amp;#039;s &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;meaningness&amp;#x2e;wordpress&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;2012&amp;#x2f;09&amp;#x2f;13&amp;#x2f;epistemology-and-enlightenment&amp;#x2f;"&gt;blog post&lt;/a&gt; that initiated the discussion. The blog post has a little more meat than the podcast, which is hampered by a bit of a dismissive or smug tone. It (the podcast) reminds me of a lot of professional skeptic blogs (Quackwatch, etc.) or Atheist-with-a-capital A discussions in which the speaker or author is enamored of his logical argument but grossly inaccurate or vague in characterizing that which he criticizes. Interesting that the interview is preceded by a defense against the accusation of scientism, and I can see why. I don&amp;#039;t think they really bothered to criticize, much less describe, the Mahasi (or any other tradition). They just had a good chuckle over how misguided it is. So, that was a little annoying.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But the blog post raises some good questions, and it would be interesting to see an in-depth discussion of them. The most concrete remarks are made by Ven. Sujato in the attached youtube videos. His comment that Mahasi-style practice is hampered by providing only one technique seems insightful.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But the argument that stream-entry claims by Mahasi-followers are invalid because they are common is itself a logical fallacy. I don&amp;#039;t know what proportion are bogus, or what the situation is in Burma, but I think the claims made here are fairly common and mostly legit because A) the technique is unusually effective, and B ) the definition of stream-entry is a limited, but meaningful, definition. To some it may look like the game is rigged. They just lowered the bar. And yet the outcome is something profound, beneficial, and yes, hard to explain.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All that said, I have noticed lately that the idea I&amp;#039;ve attained anything like enlightenment at any stage is a little embarrassing. I don&amp;#039;t feel like I have much insight into the nature of being, and I&amp;#039;m not abnormally happy. I just know I went through those cycles (2), and I met those criteria. So I assume others have too. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The other definition of enlightenment that I subscribe to is Kenneth&amp;#039;s &amp;#034;happiness that is independent of conditions.&amp;#034; For now, that&amp;#039;s a matter of faith.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:20:00 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3780489</guid> <dc:creator>Some Guy</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-10T23:20:00Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>David Chapman: Enlightenment &amp; Epistemology</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3779748</link> <description>&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;secularbuddhism&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;2012&amp;#x2f;12&amp;#x2f;07&amp;#x2f;episode-146-david-chapman-enlightenment-and-epistemology&amp;#x2f;"&gt;Interview with David Chapman over on Secular Buddhist Association.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I like David Chapman. I even/especially like his Buddhist tantra vampire romance novel. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In this interview he talks about things like &amp;#034;what is enlightenment?&amp;#034; and especially &amp;#034;how could we know what enlightenment is?&amp;#034; Some criticisms of the Mahasi tradition, too. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Likely to be uninteresting to those concerned 110% with practice every waking minute of the day, so I put it in the wanker section of the discussion board.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:04:56 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3779748</guid> <dc:creator>Fitter Stoke</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-12-10T17:04:56Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Kundalini or Enlightenment?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3728292</link> <description>You may already know this, but as far as I know, &amp;#034;kundalini&amp;#034; and &amp;#034;completing the circuit&amp;#034; are two different stages in the energetic path paradigma, that parallels &amp;#034;arising and passing&amp;#034; and &amp;#034;4 path&amp;#034;. Check out the book &amp;#034;Tao &amp;amp; Longevity&amp;#034; from Huai-Chin Nan, that gives a description of how Taoist and Buddhist paths run side by side, just different cultural approaches from a NLP point of view.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 04:16:46 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3728292</guid> <dc:creator>Pablo . P</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-11-26T04:16:46Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Kundalini or Enlightenment?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3728288</link> <description>I see.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think the issue you&amp;#039;re getting at is:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;How can a physio-energetic process be related to theravada enlightenment?&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And I totally agree!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To me they are, well first of all I don&amp;#039;t believe there is such and such a &amp;#034;valid&amp;#034; physio-energetic process that actually occurs, to me the only game in town is classical theravada enlightenment.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For me it takes years of working with emptiness (as per gradual slope metaphor of the Buddha) to reach the goal, BUT:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Even though it may be hard for you to see a link between Bodhi and kundalini/energetic practices, they may in fact be helpful.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though for the most part I did not think they were, they are however, merit producing, if you like that stuff.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Peace!</description> <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 04:06:47 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3728288</guid> <dc:creator>James Yen</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-11-26T04:06:47Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Kundalini or Enlightenment?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3727562</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;John P:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The way in which it disagrees with my current beliefs it that, I believe that such a description is the description of Kundalini(which I must admit I don&amp;#039;t understand much beyond that it gives one great mental power and health), and is not the description of the buddhist enlightenment as usually seen in this forum.&lt;br /&gt;I believe enlightenment to a person is in the face of the nature of things(impermanence, not-self and suffering) to become a deeply peaceful, satisfied and possibly compassionate person.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One can say it&amp;#039;s just a matter of definition, but is it? That&amp;#039;s what I want to ask. Can you only attain &lt;em&gt;perfect inner stillness&lt;/em&gt; only with such an experience? What does one get with it? &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think it is a matter of what definition of whatever concept (such as &amp;#039;enlightenment&amp;#039;) one assigns to an experience and whether there is some group consensus to re-enforce such a view. I think it best be left asid if it doesn&amp;#039;tfit the paradigm that you adhere to. Perhaps you may experience some weird stuff that could be assigned &amp;#039;meaning&amp;#039; but does assigning &amp;#039;meaning&amp;#039; to such experiences fit with the objective of the paradigm that you adhere to? or does it mess with it, insert doubt into one&amp;#039;s mind? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;One of the reasons I don&amp;#039;t believe that description is of enlightenment is &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;actualfreedomjustine&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;about-me&amp;#x2f;"&gt;Justine&amp;#039;s &amp;#034;Biography&amp;#034; page&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;) I was born in 1951, in Tamilnadu, INDIA. I was a Government Stenographer by profession.&lt;br /&gt;2) For 35 long years, I was an ardent spiritual practitioner, first in deep Catholic Christian faith.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;3) And then, as a meditator in the traditional yoga path, of Indian spirituality. I was blessed with successful kundalini awakening, and enlightenment, with the help of my spiritual Guru.&lt;br /&gt;4) But, I found to my utter consternation, that I was not having real peace, happiness, and freedom.&lt;br /&gt;5) On 19-2-2007, 12-15 PM, I casually stumbled upon a website, www.actualfreedom.com.au. I am happy to say, I found actual Peace and Freedom there.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;6) Soon, I was officially declared by Richard, the progenitor of AF, that I have become actually free, as the first one, without ever having met him in person, or having had any mail contact with him, and just by reading his web site.&lt;br /&gt;7)This is my personal experience. It is not my intention,to hurt anyone’s faith, or finer sensibilities.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;8) Each one has freedom, to choose one’s own way.&lt;br /&gt;9) DISCLAIMER: The Author and Owner of this site ‘Actual Freedom Justine’, shall not be responsible for the results of any actions arising out of the use of any information in this blog nor for any errors or omissions contained therein. The Author expressly disclaim all liability to any person in respect of anything and the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether whole or partial upon the whole or any part of the contents.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thank you for your attention&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;More definitions of the concept of &amp;#039;enlightenment&amp;#039;, oh my. Stick with what works for and motivates &amp;#039;you&amp;#039; to keep at your chosen practice. Kundalini schmini......unless the concept of &amp;#039;kundalini&amp;#039; is part of your paradigm, I&amp;#039;d drop all thought on it if not. I went through &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;thehamiltonproject&amp;#x2e;blogspot&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2e;au&amp;#x2f;2010&amp;#x2f;09&amp;#x2f;physio-energetically-speaking&amp;#x2e;html"&gt;a similar &lt;/a&gt; pondering a while back. I then dropped it when I saw it was just one aspect of possible development which could be assigned whatever meaning one wanted to...such as the concept of &amp;#039;kundalini&amp;#039; or whatever. Further permanent baseline shifts showed me that adhering to the concept of &amp;#039;kundalini&amp;#039; had little to do motivating me to do what needed to be done.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nick</description> <pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:06:36 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3727562</guid> <dc:creator>Nikolai .</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-11-26T00:06:36Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Kundalini or Enlightenment?</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3727288</link> <description>The other day I was reading some texts from KFD, and found one that went against my current beliefs, and would like to discuss it with the members here, please do point it out my misconceptions, and in a way as gentle and non-dogmatic as possible. If I disagree with something, I most likely will question more.&lt;br /&gt;Yes, I do think this would matter for my practice&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The text I read was &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;kennethfolkdharma&amp;#x2e;wetpaint&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;page&amp;#x2f;Realization&amp;#x2b;and&amp;#x2b;Development"&gt;Realization and Development&lt;/a&gt;, and the part I disagreed more specifically was:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;According to Ramana, there is an energy that develops within the body, moving gradually upward with time and practice. It eventually rises out of the crown shakra at the top of the head, curves around, and comes to rest at the heart center, thereby permanently completing the circuit.*&lt;br /&gt;This is the best description of arahatship that I have ever heard! This takes &amp;#034;full enlightenment&amp;#034; out of the realm of the speculative and plants it squarely in the realm of, as I call it, the physio-energetic. Arahatship, the logical culmination of development practice, is a normal, organic, human, biological process that is, according to Ramana, Gotama Buddha, and many others, accessible to ordinary people. Once again, the centuries of hero-worship and wishful thinking that grew like barnacles over the core reality of the experience have been shaken off. Ramana, speaking with the simple authority of personal experience, repeatedly denied having supernatural powers, and insisted that anyone could do what he had done.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The way in which it disagrees with my current beliefs it that, I believe that such a description is the description of Kundalini(which I must admit I don&amp;#039;t understand much beyond that it gives one great mental power and health), and is not the description of the buddhist enlightenment as usually seen in this forum.&lt;br /&gt;I believe enlightenment to a person is in the face of the nature of things(impermanence, not-self and suffering) to become a deeply peaceful, satisfied and possibly compassionate person.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One can say it&amp;#039;s just a matter of definition, but is it? That&amp;#039;s what I want to ask. Can you only attain &lt;em&gt;perfect inner stillness&lt;/em&gt; only with such an experience? What does one get with it? &lt;br /&gt;One of the reasons I don&amp;#039;t believe that description is of enlightenment is &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;actualfreedomjustine&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;about-me&amp;#x2f;"&gt;Justine&amp;#039;s &amp;#034;Biography&amp;#034; page&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;) I was born in 1951, in Tamilnadu, INDIA. I was a Government Stenographer by profession.&lt;br /&gt;2) For 35 long years, I was an ardent spiritual practitioner, first in deep Catholic Christian faith.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;3) And then, as a meditator in the traditional yoga path, of Indian spirituality. I was blessed with successful kundalini awakening, and enlightenment, with the help of my spiritual Guru.&lt;br /&gt;4) But, I found to my utter consternation, that I was not having real peace, happiness, and freedom.&lt;br /&gt;5) On 19-2-2007, 12-15 PM, I casually stumbled upon a website, www.actualfreedom.com.au. I am happy to say, I found actual Peace and Freedom there.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;6) Soon, I was officially declared by Richard, the progenitor of AF, that I have become actually free, as the first one, without ever having met him in person, or having had any mail contact with him, and just by reading his web site.&lt;br /&gt;7)This is my personal experience. It is not my intention,to hurt anyone’s faith, or finer sensibilities.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;8) Each one has freedom, to choose one’s own way.&lt;br /&gt;9) DISCLAIMER: The Author and Owner of this site ‘Actual Freedom Justine’, shall not be responsible for the results of any actions arising out of the use of any information in this blog nor for any errors or omissions contained therein. The Author expressly disclaim all liability to any person in respect of anything and the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether whole or partial upon the whole or any part of the contents.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thank you for your attention</description> <pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:42:41 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3727288</guid> <dc:creator>John P</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-11-25T22:42:41Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Path vs. fruition</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3567991</link> <description>Keminda Thera writes about how path and fruition are distinct in detail. See below link to download a pdf of his book Path, Fruit and Nibbhana.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://pathpress.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/path-fruit-and-nibbana/</description> <pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2012 19:56:58 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3567991</guid> <dc:creator>jenny v birkett</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-10-02T19:56:58Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Nibbana / NS</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3439002</link> <description>Because I don&amp;#039;t see that any good will come from me revisiting this topic and throwing my opinions in again, I&amp;#039;ll just offer you a practical thought:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;John Baker:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Just like her, I felt what seemed like the infinite suffering of all beings. On a physical level I could feel how each instant of perception was a suffering or stress located in the heart center.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Was &lt;strong&gt;perception&lt;/strong&gt; located there, or did perception nearly instantaneously lead to an &lt;strong&gt;additional experience&lt;/strong&gt; which was located there?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Disentangling this might be helpful for your practice, because analogous things pop up all the time. For example, at one point it was common for me to judge &amp;#034;this moment of visual experience is pleasant / unpleasant&amp;#034; on the basis of pleasant or unpleasant-seeming sensations in my body. Disentangling the visual experience from the sensations in the body (&amp;#034;there is this visual experience, and it causes these body sensations...&amp;#034;) was very beneficial to me...but easier said than done!.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In general, different experiences easily get mixed together, and qualities of one are easily seen as being qualities of the other.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:51:39 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3439002</guid> <dc:creator>End in Sight</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-08-17T16:51:39Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: texts of the buddha debating adversaries</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3357763</link> <description>http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/27.1-Upali-S-m56-piya.pdf&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;^The Buddha debates a Jain, and converts him.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/3.2-Refuge-2-Listening-beyond-the-ear.pdf&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;^Harsh assessment of the mother, towards the end.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/3.13-Alagaddupama-S-m22-piya.pdf&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;^Chastises Arittha harshly.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/24.8-Anussatitthana-Udayi-S-a6.29-piya.pdf&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;^Harsh to Udayi.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Just search for the six heretical teachers at the time of the Buddha (Nigantha Nataputta) etc.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You may be interested to read about them.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Buddha was often harsh.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:01:13 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3357763</guid> <dc:creator>James Yen</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-07-30T19:01:13Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: texts of the buddha debating adversaries</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3355456</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That&amp;#039;s a fair point. I guess I was more looking for texts where the Buddha interacts with somebody who doesn&amp;#039;t agree with him. I&amp;#039;m curious about the ways he handled such situations.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Beo ,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This reminded me of this quote from Milton Erickson: &amp;#034;Too many people who use hypnosis try to argue with skepticism. I don&amp;#039;t bother. That is part of my prestige &amp;#x2014; I just don&amp;#039;t argue&amp;#034;. Nice.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The again, I do like Osho&amp;#039;s hard hitting style. He rips into Mother Teresa, Dalai Lama and others very skilfully, making them look ridiculous. This is important work he did; he probably saved quite a few from following them down the wrong path.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Most of written communication is in the tone. And if you&amp;#039;re with someone in person, silence is the best tone to use. I don&amp;#039;t mean that you stop speaking, just that as you speak, there&amp;#039;s a witness to it. So if someone writes something - anything - , I can tell immediately how much silence there was around him as he wrote. Adyashanti&amp;#039;s writings have a hidden layer of silence that comes across to the reader. Other teachers are hard scientists, and they should not be teachers at all.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 03:11:08 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3355456</guid> <dc:creator>C C C</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-07-30T03:11:08Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: texts of the buddha debating adversaries</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3354967</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I guess I was more looking for texts where the Buddha interacts with somebody who doesn&amp;#039;t agree with him. I&amp;#039;m curious about the ways he handled such situations.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you&amp;#039;re really all that curious, you ought to pick up translations of the &lt;em&gt;Majjhima&lt;/em&gt; and the &lt;em&gt;Digha Nikayas&lt;/em&gt;, and begin reading through them. You&amp;#039;re sure to find something of what you&amp;#039;re looking for, in addition to being exposed to quite a bit of information on what Gotama thought about a variety of things and the way he responded to those who questioned him. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One discourse that comes to mind is MN 71 &lt;em&gt;Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta&lt;/em&gt; where Gotama denies possessing complete knowledge of everything at all times and defines the three fold knowledge he does possess. The exchange takes place between himself and the wanderer Vacchagotta. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Another discourse in a similar vein is MN 72 &lt;em&gt;Aggivacchagotta Sutta&lt;/em&gt;, where Gotama explains to the wanderer Vacchagotta why he does not hold any speculative views. Vaccha asks questions and Gotama responds. With the simile of an extinguished fire, Gotama tries to indicate the destiny of the liberated being. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the Digha Nikaya, there are DN 11 &lt;em&gt;Kevaddha Sutta&lt;/em&gt; and DN 13 &lt;em&gt;Tevijja Sutta&lt;/em&gt;. In the former, Kevaddha urges Gotama to perform miracles to strengthen people&amp;#039;s faith. But Gotama refuses, saying the only kind of miracle he approves is the &amp;#034;miracle of instruction.&amp;#034; He tells the story of a monk who wanted to know &amp;#034;where the four great elements cease without remainder.&amp;#034; By psychic power the monk ascended into the heavens, but none there could tell him &amp;#x2014; not even the Great Brahma, who referred him back to the Buddha for an answer. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In the latter, two young Brahmins are puzzled because different teachers speak of different ways to attain fellowship (or union) with Brahma, which to them is the highest goal. Gotama gets them to admit that none of their teachers, or even those from whom the tradition stems, have ever seen Brahma face to face, then instructs them in the Brahmaviharas, which do lead to that goal &amp;#x2014; which is not, of course, the goal of the Dhamma he teaches.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m sure there are other discourses within these volumes which portray Gotama in discussion with those who either disagree with him or are seeking his opinion on certain points, but off the top of my head they don&amp;#039;t come to mind.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 00:14:25 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3354967</guid> <dc:creator>Ian And</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-07-30T00:14:25Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Mahayana vs non-Mahayana: scriptural basis for differences in atta</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3249685</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;End in Sight:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;An Eternal Now:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;One school of thought is that the arhat equates with the sixth bhumi of the mahayana model, this teaching is taught by Lankavatara Sutra and an opinion held by a group of teachers.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;What other sutras make this claim, if you know?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Then there is another school of thought, based on other scriptures, that the arhat cannot be equated at all with the bhumi system since the bhumi system eradicates both affective and knowledge obscuration in contrast to merely the affective obscuration of arhat path.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;References?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;However no Mahayana teaching as far as I know, actually equate &amp;#034;hinayana arhat&amp;#034; with buddhahood, including the lotus sutra.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes, the excerpt of the Lotus Sutra I provided seems to imply that there is no such thing as an arahant (as described in the &amp;#034;Hinayana&amp;#034; tradition) in the first place.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Hi, I do not think the Lotus Sutra denied the existence of arhat. It just says all yanas are expedient means for Buddhahood. So ultimately there is only one buddha vehicle as it was buddha&amp;#039;s intention for all to attain buddhahood and other yanas were merely stepping stones. This does not make hinayana arhat equivalent to buddha. Eventually according to Mahayana, all arhats must convert from hinayana to mahayana (&amp;#034;hui xiao xiang da&amp;#034; in chinese) even if it means rousing from a state or nirvana.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t have sutra reference for now but found this:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level4_deepening_understanding_path/path/five_pathway_minds_five_paths/5_pathway_minds.html&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;If, as resultant abider shravaka or pratyekabuddha arhats, we were to develop unlabored bodhichitta and become bodhisattvas, then in order to achieve enlightenment:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;According to Svatantrika, we would need to develop first a Mahayana seeing pathway mind. This is because bodhisattvas begin to rid themselves of the cognitive obscurations with a seeing pathway mind.&lt;br /&gt;According to Prasangika, we would start the Mahayana path with a liberated eighth level bhumi mind. This is because it is only with a purified bhumi mind that bodhisattvas begin to rid themselves of the cognitive obscurations.&amp;#034;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:25:44 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3249685</guid> <dc:creator>An Eternal Now</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-06-25T10:25:44Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Mahayana vs non-Mahayana: scriptural basis for differences in atta</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3248961</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;End in Sight:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I didn&amp;#039;t mean to suggest that prostrations were a bad idea, but merely that one can&amp;#039;t evaluate a tradition based on what methods it&amp;#039;s familiar with; one should also especially include e.g. the exact way they prescribe practice, in relation to whether that way is suitable or not suitable for a person.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; If 100,000 prostrations are a requirement for certain teachings, and if a person gets hurt at prostration #5831, and so doesn&amp;#039;t get the teachings, well...&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;why do you think they would not get the teaching, &lt;br /&gt;there are many forms of preliminaries both external and internal,</description> <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:29:50 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3248961</guid> <dc:creator>Jeff Grove</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-06-25T01:29:50Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: This/That Conditionality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3248734</link> <description>Thanks, Tommy, that&amp;#039;s an interesting interpretation. Have to play with it some.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:49:39 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3248734</guid> <dc:creator>fivebells .</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-06-24T23:49:39Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: This/That Conditionality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3248448</link> <description>I was looking at this on a more basic level, just the formula of:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&amp;#034;(1) When this is, that is. (2) From the arising of this comes the arising of that. (3) When this isn&amp;#039;t, that isn&amp;#039;t. (4) From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that.&amp;#034;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For me, that&amp;#039;s a beautifully simple breakdown of the entire practice of vipassana which has been a very useful framework in my own practice recently; today, for example, while sitting outside I would observe how there was a subtle but noticeable tension around the eye area which, when I consciously chose to let go of any effort involved in &amp;#034;seeing&amp;#034;, stopped dead leaving only the experience of seeing, no &amp;#034;seer&amp;#034;, only the seen. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Looking at this through the Buddha&amp;#039;s formula: &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(1) Tension was present around the eye, as was a subtle sense of effort, like a conditioned physiological response involved when one thinks &amp;#034;they&amp;#034; are &amp;#034;seeing&amp;#034;. Closer investigation revealed that the tension arose as a result of that effort.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(2) Attentiveness to that tension allowed the discernment of it&amp;#039;s cause, in this case the continuing imputation of a &amp;#034;seer&amp;#034; via a misinterpretation of the process of focusing. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(3) On clearly seeing how the mind compartmentalized the experience of &amp;#034;seeing&amp;#034; into it&amp;#039;s different aspects, stopping that process of fabrication led to the cessation of any sense of tension. The experience of &amp;#034;seeing&amp;#034; became &amp;#034;in the seeing, only the seen&amp;#034;, no more splitting up of the process into a &amp;#034;seer&amp;#034; and a &amp;#034;seen&amp;#034;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(4) I realized how I was still reading the process of the eyes focusing as being something &amp;#034;I&amp;#034; had to do, but recognizing that focusing would continue depending on what the eye was pointed at, e.g. the words of a book, or the panoramic field of sensation, without any effort allowed it to stop.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:09:43 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=3248448</guid> <dc:creator>Tommy M</dc:creator> <dc:date>2012-06-24T21:09:43Z</dc:date> </item> </channel> </rss> 