Message Boards Message Boards

Insight and Wisdom

Authenticity of noting

Toggle
Authenticity of noting Nikolai . 3/25/15 1:38 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 3/25/15 4:38 AM
RE: I was wrong. (Also, ngondro.) Nikolai . 3/25/15 2:52 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Nikolai . 3/25/15 5:26 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Daniel M. Ingram 3/25/15 7:01 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 3/26/15 4:32 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Ryan J 4/2/15 2:33 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 4/2/15 6:54 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Ryan J 4/2/15 7:38 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 4/2/15 11:09 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Echo 10 4/5/15 7:00 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Ryan J 4/5/15 10:02 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Echo 10 4/5/15 10:28 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Ryan J 4/6/15 9:21 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Banned For waht? 4/6/15 6:49 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Chuck Kasmire 3/27/15 3:23 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 3/27/15 4:16 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 3/27/15 4:25 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 3/28/15 3:12 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 3/28/15 10:04 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Chuck Kasmire 3/28/15 1:18 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Eelco ten Have 3/28/15 1:52 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Chuck Kasmire 3/29/15 2:43 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 3/27/15 4:29 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 3/27/15 6:55 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 3/28/15 3:21 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 3/28/15 8:43 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Chuck Kasmire 3/28/15 8:26 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Not Tao 3/28/15 9:32 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Chuck Kasmire 3/29/15 2:38 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 3/30/15 6:25 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/20/15 6:16 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 3/29/15 9:55 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 3/29/15 8:40 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 3/29/15 10:19 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Mark 3/29/15 10:35 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 3/29/15 1:00 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 3/29/15 1:33 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Not Tao 3/29/15 11:00 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/20/15 6:17 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Brother Pussycat 3/28/15 11:38 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Chuck Kasmire 3/30/15 2:57 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 3/30/15 7:58 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 3/25/15 4:44 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Not Tao 3/25/15 11:48 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Jake 3/25/15 11:52 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Nikolai . 3/25/15 12:15 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Jenny 3/25/15 12:21 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Not Tao 3/26/15 5:44 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Jenny 3/30/15 5:59 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Ross Alan Keller 3/27/15 3:04 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 3/27/15 4:01 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Ross Alan Keller 3/27/15 4:27 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Chuck Kasmire 3/28/15 1:25 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Jean B. 4/1/15 9:31 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 4/2/15 3:04 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Jean B. 4/2/15 3:34 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 4/2/15 4:50 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 4/2/15 8:06 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 4/2/15 8:58 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 4/2/15 9:50 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 4/2/15 10:04 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 4/2/15 10:40 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Oochdd 4/2/15 9:26 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 3/25/15 3:52 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 3/30/15 9:23 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 3/31/15 6:07 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting b man 3/31/15 9:02 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 3/31/15 9:37 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 3/31/15 9:58 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 3/31/15 3:09 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 3/31/15 4:45 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 3/31/15 5:10 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 3/31/15 1:29 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting b man 4/4/15 7:41 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/4/15 9:38 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting b man 4/5/15 6:01 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/5/15 9:50 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 4/5/15 4:05 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Echo 10 4/1/15 10:41 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting FM Cetin 4/2/15 5:46 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/6/15 8:51 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Matt 4/6/15 9:51 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/6/15 10:57 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Nikolai . 4/6/15 5:09 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/7/15 10:08 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/7/15 10:57 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Matt 4/7/15 11:32 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/7/15 1:21 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Matt 4/7/15 1:46 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/7/15 2:27 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Matt 4/7/15 3:33 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting b man 4/7/15 4:02 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting CJMacie 4/8/15 7:26 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Bill F. 4/8/15 8:01 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting CJMacie 4/9/15 2:13 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Bill F. 4/9/15 6:55 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 4/7/15 11:37 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/7/15 1:43 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 4/7/15 2:20 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/7/15 6:15 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Ryan J 4/7/15 9:58 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/8/15 5:27 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 4/8/15 9:21 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/8/15 10:58 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 4/8/15 11:40 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/8/15 1:07 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Jenny 4/8/15 4:37 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Ryan J 4/8/15 5:07 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 4/8/15 5:22 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Bill F. 4/8/15 5:39 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 4/8/15 7:13 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Bill F. 4/8/15 8:12 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Andreas 4/8/15 8:35 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Echo 10 4/8/15 8:33 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Alin Mathews 4/8/15 9:13 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Echo 10 4/8/15 9:30 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Alin Mathews 4/8/15 11:07 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/9/15 4:07 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Bill F. 4/9/15 7:01 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/9/15 9:33 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Ryan J 4/9/15 11:10 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Psi 4/9/15 11:14 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Banned For waht? 4/9/15 11:36 AM
RE: Authenticity of noting Ryan J 4/9/15 2:53 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/9/15 4:29 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/9/15 3:50 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Bill F. 4/9/15 4:01 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Ryan J 4/9/15 4:19 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/9/15 5:16 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Bill F. 4/9/15 11:07 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Nikolai . 4/11/15 5:32 PM
RE: Authenticity of noting Pål 4/9/15 9:49 AM
Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/25/15 1:38 AM
I'm starting to think you are trolling, pal. Some here may consider noting and other practices the "Buddha dhamma". 

Nick (mod)

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/25/15 4:38 AM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Nikolai .:
I'm starting to think you are trolling, pal. Some here may consider noting and other practices the "Buddha dhamma". 

Nick (mod)


Ok sorry I'll make it clear: I don't think noting, the way it's usually practiced nowadays, is in line with the suttas. If anyone think it is, please explain it to me because there is a risk I've misunderstood it.

RE: I was wrong. (Also, ngondro.)
Answer
3/25/15 2:52 PM as a reply to Pål.
Hi Pal

The Dho is about pragmatic dharma.please read the front page again. 

I've shown you the argument for finding a noting approach in the suttas. You conveniently ignored it.

 If you wish to derail threads by dogging people about authenticity, please go and post here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/. Otherwise practice, talk about your actual experience of noting or other practices or stfu.
nick (mod)**




**testing new approach

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/25/15 5:26 AM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Pal
argue to your hearts content in this thread.   No more derailing threads.
nick(mod)

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/25/15 7:01 AM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Read MN 111, One by One as They Occurred, and notice what Sariputta is doing in that sutta, then read Practical Insight Meditation, and see if you can tell some significant difference. Regardless, the technique works with almost mechanically predictable progress seen in most who actually do it.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/25/15 11:48 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pal,

I think of noting as a crutch for letting go of clinging.  You don't have to note to let go, it just seems to help.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/25/15 11:52 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Pal,

I think of noting as a crutch for letting go of clinging.  You don't have to note to let go, it just seems to help.

It helps with letting go of clinging and letting go of all other things I think. I was messing around trying to climb up the progress of insight the other day without noting but using only bare awareness. I felt my mind clinging to how I felt and what I was thinking even though I was just observing. After trying that for a few sits, I brought the notes back and simply by feeling something and mentally saying 'feel', something definitely happens to the stickiness of the mind that I can't explain yet. It lets go and disembeds from things much easier than without the notes.

Thats my experience anyway

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/25/15 12:15 PM as a reply to Jake.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/25/15 12:21 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Pal,

I think of noting as a crutch for letting go of clinging.  You don't have to note to let go, it just seems to help.

"Letting go" isn't a workable shortcut around insight. Seeing through the Three Illusions, meaning directly, experientially, discerning the Three Characteristics is insight. When insight happens, "letting go" is the eventual result.

I myself rarely use noting (with the labeling); however, there is no getting around noticing (with or without labeling) if "letting go" is your goal.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/25/15 3:52 PM as a reply to Nikolai ..
We all know that the mahasi noting and its derivatives are a modern invention. There is no doubt about it. They couldnt understand the sutthas and invented the whole thing.
How to do  vipassana according to the suthhas is anyones guess. No one that has no clue about meditation can read a suttha and understand what to do. Hence the forementioned invention. Those that do know about meditation can read them and interpret according to their own understanding of what it is.
I cant see what is so offensive about that. Seems there is a lot of clinging =).

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/25/15 4:44 PM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Nikolai .:
Pal
argue to your hearts content in this thread.   No more derailing threads.
nick(mod)

Thanks. Should have started this thread myself. I'll start arguing tomorrow, need to sleep now!

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/26/15 4:32 PM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Daniel, your the one I want to discuss this with the most emoticon I'll come back (probably tomorrow) when I've read through Practical Insight meditation. Until then I'll just say MN 111 doesnt describe dry noting of everything ones attention is drawn to, at least not the way I read it. If  anyone manages to see that instruction in the sutta please tell me how!

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/26/15 5:44 PM as a reply to Jenny.
Jenny,

Letting go does lead to insight.  I think if we compared notes it could be said that I come from a samatha-heavy side of practice, and you come from a vipassana-heavy side of practice.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to point out the three characteristics to a samatha meditatior because they're focusing on the aspect of liberation rather than the aspect of samsara.  By practicing letting go of objects and looking for a state of non-discrimination, the "no-self" characteristic appears as a kind of total reality, all inclusive, disembodied awareness of phenomena (a Self that is not found in the aggregates).  Impermanence is not the insight but rather the opposite: when there is nothing held on to, there is nothing to let go of, impermanence is itself permanent and stable.  By stepping back into this, the stability that's created as a background within the instability is blissfully still and perfect, which is to say, there is no more suffering.

I think it's important to remember that even insight is a conditioned phenomena.  It's direct until you try to explain it, then it's no longer reliable.  I think the way the Buddha explains things in the suttas is very good.  He doesn't say "these three characteristics describe reality" but rather "by looking this way, specifically, you can see how your suffering works."  Because of this I was able to see my own understanding in what he was saying.  When you break down the teaching into "three illusions," as you said, it loses a lot of meaning, I think.

To put it succinctly, noticing may lead to letting go, but letting go also leads to noticing.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/27/15 3:04 PM as a reply to Pål.
If ones practices with right view in mind it's in line with Dhamma . Consider the Buddhas advice for recognizing the dharma instruction given to his aunt... It's not the technique, it's the view on reality incorporating the 3 characteristics to experience and the experiencer... Note away ... Fabrications are subject to passing away. Achieve consummation through heedfulness.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/27/15 3:23 PM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Daniel M. Ingram:
Read MN 111, One by One as They Occurred, and notice what Sariputta is doing in that sutta, then read Practical Insight Meditation, and see if you can tell some significant difference. Regardless, the technique works with almost mechanically predictable progress seen in most who actually do it.

I think if you want to look for evidence of noting practice in the early suttas (those that are likely to have existed at the time of the Buddha) you need to first specify just what you mean by noting practice. One needs to somehow identify those unique qualities of the practice that separate it out from the descriptions of mindfulness and clear comprehension found in the suttas.

You would then need to find examples of this practice in several suttas - ideally those that do not exhibit obvious signs of alteration. Additionally, you need to be careful not to lift phrases out of their context.

It’s been a year or so since I read Practical Insight Meditation but from what I recall, here are some general features of that practice:
- as long as there is anything to note then continue doing this rapidly and continuously either verbally or mentally.
- if there is nothing to note, focus awareness on the abdomen.
- there is no language in PIM suggesting that one should relax the body, calm the mind, or focus on pleasurable qualities of experience.
- there is nothing in PIM to suggest jhana as part of the experience - cultivated or otherwise

Additionally, you have written about:
- the need to work up to noting 10 times per second
- the goal is to be able to work on the level of subtle vibrating quality of moment to moment experience seeing the 3 characteristics in these
- if vipassana jhanas arise then to note them into their constituent parts

From these statements we can rule out suttas where:
- hindrances are dealt with using non-noting techniques
- jhana is intentionally part of the practice or if it arises it is not broken-up and seen from the perspective of the 3 characteristics
- where calming and relaxing of body and or mind is part of the instruction

That’s what I would be looking for in the suttas.

I think the most logical place to look for evidence of a noting practice is in how hindrances are dealt with as the noting practice technique with regard to these is very unique and should stand out.

One obvious problem with using MN 111 is that Sariputta is cultivating jhana - the word cultivating implies intention. He is by definition attending to rapture and pleasure and these are not qualities that he seems to be breaking up.

Other issues with MN 111:
This sutta is on the list of questionable suttas by Leigh Brasington because it contains abhidhammic language, its choppy feel, and because it clashes with another sutta MN 74 in that both of them describe Sariputta’s awakening in very different ways (in MN 74 Sariputta awakens while fanning the Buddha and listening to a dhamma talk).

MN 111 was discussed at length a couple of years ago during a workshop (first 25 minutes) on the authenticity of suttas and how textual analysis can be used to figure out which are early and which are late. MN 111 failed all 6 tests that could be applied to it. One of the areas it fails is that it is only found in the pali cannon (Theravada) and not in the Agamas - indicating it may be post sectarian. MN 74 on the other hand is found in both places. The language that Theravadans are bound to like in this sutta is the abhidhammic list of qualities and how they are ferreted out and such - the problem with this language is that it is indeed abhidhammic - that is, this style and terminology is not found until maybe a couple hundred years later - it occurs no where else in the suttas. MN 111 was almost certainly heavily modified long after Buddha’s passing. If you strip out all the later language what is left is a monk that develops the seven factors of awakening and awakens - a theme found over and over again throughout the suttas.

Personally, I think it would be more productive to look at ones current practice - see what aspects of that practice can be found in the early suttas and also notice what might be missing and if that would or would not be useful to incorporate - which probably means some experimentation and specific instruction. It seems unlikely that any modern tradition’s practice is going to be found in the suttas in it’s present form.

There seem to be many different ways that awakening occurs. I suspect that most important is a deep desire to know the truth, to be willing to look deep into ones own experience. The suttas describe a recipe for doing this. I imagine there are others as well. Whatever practice one does - does it deliver the goods? Do the descriptions of the result of the practice found in the suttas resonate with you? I recently watched a film by Matthew Flickstein called With One Voice. Kind of religiousy for me - but they interview awakened people from different religions and traditions as well as no tradition or religion about the nature of their experience. There is a quality of this experience and how it is expressed that comes through regardless of language or tradition - it isn’t about can arahats have sex or show anger - it’s about freedom, spaciousness, and ease.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/27/15 4:01 PM as a reply to Ross Alan Keller.
I kind of recognize that advice... Which sutta was it? emoticon

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/27/15 4:16 PM as a reply to Chuck Kasmire.
Still haven't read all of PIM, but...

why can we rule out suttas where:

- hindrances are dealt with using non-noting techniques
- etc (the other two examples you gave)
?
Then we would have to rule out a LOT of suttas.

Thanks for the link and the film tip!

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/27/15 4:29 PM as a reply to Chuck Kasmire.
Interesting read Chuck. Very informing. Subscribed to the dhammaloga channel on YT.
OT 
Hilarious video that "with one voice". I like that they have sadhahana guru in it. He charges alot. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/sadhguru-isha-cult-london he sounds like a egomaniac and is a big fraud from the looks of it.
Also most of the peoples in such videos they know the language one should speak to sound "enlightened". Just like politicians.
I will probably watch it anyway.
EDIT:
"Sadhguru was also charged with murdering his wife. You might think that would put people off following him as a near-deity, but don't worry, he  has explained his wife's death as a case of "Mahasamādhi" – leaving one’s physical body during meditative enlightenment – which makes it totally OK."
How in gods name can he be in such a video lol. Wonder how Goldstein and the rest of them feel about that =).

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/27/15 4:25 PM as a reply to Pål.
Pål we probably should rule out a lot of suttas, also recognise that there isnt any root sutthas. hinayana,mahayana, vajrayana ideas were around at the same time. They were formed into specific yanas much later.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/27/15 4:27 PM as a reply to Pål.
its the Gotami sutta
Mahapajapati Gotami in no long time after became another one of the arahants...

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/27/15 6:55 PM as a reply to Chuck Kasmire.
I am not weighing in on the MN 111 breakdown. 

I add, again, the caution: What can be said about agama-nikaya liguistic fidelity is simply there are some Buddhist verses (aka: discourses) with agama-nikaya linguistic fildelity.

It should be noted that location assignment is not always across traditions the same even if there is linguistic fidelity across language and traditions. So it is known that where one tradition may carry a verse through time in one location among certain verses, another tradition places their linguistically similar text in another location among different verses.  

So a locational basis, like what we call MN 111 and MN 74, lacks substance as a effective tool in a rigorous person's arsenal of defense of their views. Location is based on cultural carriage and differs among traditions. 

It would be most honest with actual conditions for scholars and students alike to be true to the conditions at hand and to call not certain texts "early" nor to call them "at the time of the Buddha": such data is not known*. (Well, "Early" could be fine relative to an authorship of a known date and where insinuation of "authentic" is not made).

Rather students and teachers can with ease remain candid about linguistic fidelity and locations and not promote stressful, baseless elaborations.

*When people insist on asserting a bias in or out of favor with their speculation of person/time authenticity (as in "This is probably from the Buddha's own time/mouth"), such people are usually advocating for their "team", their views and making thinking errors with emotional conceit and self-defense. 

The position at ease is the position that just state things as they are known without speculative elaboration, that releases self-righteous conceit and defense.

The ability to transmit oral and human/culturally-copied and human/culturally-stored data (culturally-influenced, culturally preferential transmission as in this thread) through hundreds of years and over huge regional swathes while being affected also by wartimes and persecution asserts a reasonable possibility that there may be at least as much that is unknown as is known.

Hence, what is reliable now in what is known? What is a reliable outcome of practice? So, yes, if the paramis (paramitas) are similar enough across traditions, or if the factors of release re similar across a few tradition, then that can be a wise place for a newbie to start, knowing those lists are similar, give or take a factor.

For example, for me, I use the fetter model, not because I think it's authentic, but because its forecast outcome of practice is a pragmatic standard worth the study and practice over these years, to me. I would not want to work on any model that left me angry/snarky, defensive, conceited, etc. So it's slow-going, but I have conviction in that particular model because I see it as truly pragmatic.


________
Edited x3 for typos, clarity, and to footnote this

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/28/15 3:12 AM as a reply to Andreas.
Yes but I still don't see why the jhana and relaxation oriented suttas should be ruled out. It's a side note that there are a huge number of them. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/28/15 3:21 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Interesting. I also try to work with the ten fetter model (but because it seems to be authentic haha). Have you attained MCTB paths? If so, how have they affected progress in the ten fetter model? Which ten fetter path are you on? Which meditation method have you found to be the most effective for progress on the ten fetter model. My hypothesis, which is mostly  based on the suttas, indirectly on MCTB and DhO, the thai traditions and a little on my personal experience, is that jhanas, especially the fourth, should be a priority for progress on the ten fetter path.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/28/15 8:43 AM as a reply to Pål.
Hi Pål, I don't compare people's models; I am interested in obvious outcomes/behavioural exhibits in others' practices and in myself now, too, the momentary outcomes/seeds. Two people can use the same model and have different outcomes, with some behavioural outcomes I'd love to see more of in community and some behavioural outcomes I'd prefer to see not in community. In the process (to borrow from Grombrich, 2009) demarcation of any sort of path has is for the moment surfeit (though in general demarcations are not useless inherently useful or useless); I do like the sentiment often attribute to Kornfield: no enlightened beings, just moments. Ānāpānasati is the practice I've used and I try other practices, too, because I'm curious how they work and are taught and because to do something new re-ignites the brain with don't-know working, new territory. Otherwise, I've been reading "Buddhist Economics" (2010) by Phadet Dattajeevo to understand a Theravadan view on this (in additition to Ven. Bodhi's economics talk given in 2009); many traditions have prosocial economic structures to thwart the stress of extreme resource competition. Okay, best wishes. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/28/15 10:04 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
Yes but I still don't see why the jhana and relaxation oriented suttas should be ruled out. It's a side note that there are a huge number of them. 
Obvious fake ones and those that are meant for hardcore lobbying is probably not very good ones anyway.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/28/15 11:38 AM as a reply to Chuck Kasmire.
The authenticity of a technique with regard to the Buddha's words is distinct from the degree of freedom from suffering provided by this technique. 

I've developed a habit of borrowing the point of view of my deeply christian friend* and looking at the discussions here thorugh that. From this vantage point, what I've not had enough of so far is evidence of the techniques that are 100% kosher from the suttic/agema point of view -  leading to freedom, spaciousness, ease, metta etc. in a context chock full of hindrances, specifically those related to helping the seriously sick, disabled, abused etc. in non-clinical circumstances (to put it mildly: think wartorn towns, piss-soaked mattresses, screaming, lack of sleep, food, basic medical supplies  and a threat of violence).

As opposed to the comparatively extremely comfy context of a monastery, or a retreat. The point I think is that it's not that difficult to be enlightened in the latter - the former is another story entirely.

Now you can still say that all of the above hindrances are just another example of your 'you' being a jerk through vedana, and it's ultimately not any different from learning not to be bothered by an itch during a sitting session. Fine, that's the theory, but where's the pratctical evidence?

Specifically, where's the practical evidence from someone who is widely regarded as true to the authentic teachings of the Buddha?

And, if found, how would this evidence be superior to evidence from those who follow the path of a boddhisatva, or someone like Dipa Ma, or heck, Daniel, who works long hours in trying circumstances (sometimes in great pain), including a stint in the worst areas of Calcutta? As far as I understand, none of these people are considered kosher with "What the Buddha Really Said "(trademark).

Maybe it's just my insufficient knowledge of the suttas, but isn't the 100% kosher, true, unadulaterated arahant basically a vegetable that would admittedly be able to blast through the jhanas in the circumstances I mentioned above, but wouldn't be able to hand a thirsty patient a glass of water because handing things is dukkha?

I do remember reading a story of a monk transforming his monastery into a sanctuary for the sick - against vicious resistance from other monks. It was in South-East Asia, but whether it was Thailand (insert the Buddha's seal of approal here) or Burma (insert Mara's seal of approval here), or (Nirvana forbid) Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos, I don't know.

So yeah, how exactly is adherence to whatever one believes the Buddha said superior to the results of other practices when they have been proven to ensure happiness AND full functionality (possibly including the showing of emotions) in extremely unfavourable circumstances? You could say that the former guarantees Nirvana and the latter do not, but good luck actually proving that, and you could equally readily state that the latter guarantee something deeper than Nirvana. Especially when you have opinions like John Paul II's, who said that in the grand mystical ranking the Buddha is below St. John of the Cross and nowhere near Jesus (but of course he would say that, so I'm not taking this at face value).

Apologies for the sometimes acerbic tone, but I keep hearing of people leading extremely fulfilling and valuable lives without knowing how to spell "Buddha", and I come here and every third topic is basically "If you ain't sutta you's a sucka", and all I wanna think is "Seriously?"


  *Pal, take note, true christianity is by no means an easy path.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/28/15 1:18 PM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
why can we rule out suttas where:

- hindrances are dealt with using non-noting techniques
- etc (the other two examples you gave)
?
Then we would have to rule out a LOT of suttas.

No doubt - there are however something like 5-10,000 of them to choose from. If we are looking for examples of the noting practice in the suttas as defined in PIM - PIM has a very specific and consistent method for dealing with the hindrances - you note them continuously until they subside. So I am saying if you come upon a sutta dealing with the hindrances in some other way - that can’t be describing a noting practice. But if you do find one that describes it that way - that would be good evidence.

Similarly, as jhana in the suttas is developed through practices calling for relaxing the body and calming the mind - then this cannot be a noting practice as defined in PIM either - the focus there is always on speed and increasing effort. Similarly, a focus say on cultivating jhana needs to be set aside - its not part of the noting practice.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/28/15 1:25 PM as a reply to Ross Alan Keller.
Ross Alan Keller:
If ones practices with right view in mind it's in line with Dhamma .
12.5% in line actually (there are 8 folds to the path). But it’s a good point - if the practice is a functional equivalent then it counts - but the question here is not ‘is the noting practice a functional equivalent’ but rather ‘did the Buddha teach it’. The difference may seem unimportant but deciding if this or that practice is a functional equivalent is very dependent on how you define the result of the practice. As different schools cannot agree even on basic concepts like sati  and samadhi - there is no common ground for determining if something is a functional equivalent. On the other hand, if we can define what distinguishes noting from other types of practices - then we have something specific to look for.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/28/15 1:52 PM as a reply to Chuck Kasmire.
Chuck Kasmire:

PIM has a very specific and consistent method for dealing with the hindrances - you note them continuously until they subside. So I am saying if you come upon a sutta dealing with the hindrances in some other way - that can’t be describing a noting practice. But if you do find one that describes it that way - that would be good evidence.

Similarly, as jhana in the suttas is developed through practices calling for relaxing the body and calming the mind - then this cannot be a noting practice as defined in PIM either - the focus there is always on speed and increasing effort. Similarly, a focus say on cultivating jhana needs to be set aside - its not part of the noting practice.

I am no sutta scholar by a long shot. I do have a little noting experience.
From that I found I had/am having trouble with the sheer amount of sensations to choose from at any giving moment. So when I started meditating again a few weeks ago I decided to do concentration practise. using the first verse of the anapanasati sutta. I found after 3 weeks now I am having some concentration going on maybe some acces concentration even. I also find that as I am still developing towards a "hard" Jhana i can see the different sensations on all 6 sense doors more clearly.
For now it seems as if a side effect of my concentration practise is developing "insight" as i get a clear few of what I am dropping every moment to stay on the breath.

For now I am adopting the temporary idea that at least the proces of building up concentration makes me involuntarily "silently note" every hindrance on the path towards 1st Jhana in order to drop it to return to the anapanasani spot.

Does that make sense?
It feels like for now anyway basic vipassana and basic concentration on the breath, builds some momentum in both.
In daily life as I go about my business i can concentrate better and at times note the shifts in sensations from moment to moment better. All in all a result I did not expect, am very happy with. Which feeds some of the faith in the path.

A positive feedbackloop is palpabily developing from the place I am now...

With Love
Eelco

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/28/15 8:26 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
katy steger:
I am not weighing in on the MN 111 breakdown. 

I add, again, the caution: What can be said about agama-nikaya liguistic fidelity is simply there are some Buddhist verses (aka: discourses) with agama-nikaya linguistic fildelity.
Looking through the 154 entries in the Majjhama Nikaya you can see that parallel’s have been found for almost all. Of the first 100 discourses in the Saṃyuktā Agama, maybe 80% have close parallels in the pali and most others have at least a partial - (the * indicates partial).

Katy: It should be noted that location assignment is not always across traditions the same even if there is linguistic fidelity across language and traditions. So it is known that where one tradition may carry a verse through time in one location among certain verses, another tradition places their linguistically similar text in another location among different verses.  

So a locational basis, like what we call MN 111 and MN 74, lacks substance as a effective tool in a rigorous person's arsenal of defense of their views. Location is based on cultural carriage and differs among traditions.

Locations are not being used as a basis for these parallels - they are based on content. As an example, parallels for MN 74 have been found in SA 969, T 200.90, T 1545.98, T 1509.1, SA2 203, SF 133, Avs 99, and last but not least SF 81.  

As pointed out in the workshop, this is just one tool among others and should not be relied on by itself. The other tests deal with different types of textual analysis. If I was reading something that mentions visiting the Soviet Union, or checking email on a phone, or double shifting a new car - these give me a pretty good indication of time frame - this is one type of analysis. Another: If I am reading an authentic Shakespearean script and I find the phrase ‘Dude that is like totally awesome’. It is reasonable to question its authenticity - even though we cannot be 100% certain that Shakespeare ever existed. Altogether, scholars have around 7 differnet methods of analysis along these lines.

Authentic meaning: as far as we can determine.

For those who have no idea what we are talking about: Buddhism enjoyed a brief period (maybe a 100 years or so) of pre-sectarian bliss before breaking up into various schools. Each school maintained its own suttas and developed its own abhidhamma. During the 5th century AD or thereabouts, the Chinese started sucking up and translating all the Buddhist stuff they could get their hands on and at that point a number of these schools still existed. This Chinese collection is known as the Agamas. So when a sutta is found in both the Theravada collection and the Agamas it indicates that it most likely was in existence during that blissful first 100 years or so.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/28/15 9:32 PM as a reply to Chuck Kasmire.
Chick, is there a list of these suttas somewhere?

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/29/15 9:55 AM as a reply to Chuck Kasmire.


~+~
Chuck
:
As pointed out in the workshop, this is just one tool among others and should not be relied on by itself. The other tests deal with different types of textual analysis. If I was reading something that mentions visiting the Soviet Union, or checking email on a phone, or double shifting a new car - these give me a pretty good indication of time frame - this is one type of analysis. Another: If I am reading an authentic Shakespearean script and I find the phrase ‘Dude that is like totally awesome’. It is reasonable to question its authenticity - even though we cannot be 100% certain that Shakespeare ever existed. Altogether, scholars have around 7 differnet methods of analysis along these lines.


In the scriptures you study, Chuck, are there any scriptures that say the Dharma you study should be told in the language of its people and that that dharma is timeless?


~+~
Chuck:
Authentic meaning: as far as we can determine.


Authentic as far as you can determine what, Chuck? 


_______________
Questions for you/anyone:

1. In what language spoke the historical buddha?
  • Was it (a) Prakrit?


2. In what language wrote the historical buddha?
  • This teaching person did not write nor leave a record for himself, as far as you can determine?


3. If the historical Gautam buddha did not leave a written record, nor write, then how is there today a written word?
  • Did a group of men get together about 100 years (generations) later form a written record in a liturgical language?


4. Was that congress of men an inclusive event to record as best as possible all the memories of the dead teacher? 
  • Or did that group of men convene as a political congress, wherein powerful parties overpowered other groups, memories and stories and demand assimilation of those less power-minded/less power-ful groups or demand they be outcast?


5.  Would such a political congress-- the first congress forming after the death of a teacher, say, 100 years (generations) later, write?
  • Would a political group (forming at the death of the teacher or after), whose nature is power and which power demands asssimilation or outcast-ness--- would such a group be prone to continue to reinforce itself (once purging the others) with a continuation of power-play tools to reinforce its "authenticity", such as making sure their written words are rendered perfect and unquestionably verbatim?
  • e.g. What is the historical evidence for there having been a Prince Siddhartha [2]?
  • Is there historical evidence of a audographic cousin Ananda to a Prince Siddhartha?
  • Is it typical a congress motivated to outcast/purge less powerful and non-alliegant persons to create for itself a powerful self-reinforcing story/interpretation much the way a congressional document in the modern era is actually amended by parties in power every few decades (generations)?


6. Is it possible that a truely smart and released person (akumpam mi vimutti, anyone?) who "sees things as they are" would leave a power-vying, argumentative, survivalistic group of men after the death of the teacher, seeing easily for themselves what untrained men do over time (compete survivalistically, cast aside anything that does not support their own existence or threatens it)? 
  • Could clans of men today who call their speculation "authenticity"--- do accurarely represent their forebears: a group of overpowering clansmen who gained control and kept it as like animals on a trajectory towards apex-ness are want to do? 


7. Now, in what language spoke/wrote the historical buddha and how did his history find its way into words and the modern era?





_______________
A note: even if males and their overwhelming proclivity to overpower and inseminate the future with their ideas and offspring and to kill/silence outside their own victorious clans-- even if males were GMO-ed out of the species, given 100,000 years it is the nature of life that the women would evolve the same dichotomy of strong overpowering weak and producing ultimate an apex'ing line of  descendents. You may like the book Buddhist Biology.

But, this is why you must think for yourself [1] about all own-actions and not be bound to a club who's seed of survival was to overpower others and to co-opt evidenceless histories, for seeds tend to give rise to like fruit, and could, for example, overstretch a nice academic finding (linguistic fidelity) into an ideological semen proclaiming its authenticity (purity) into the future (An aryan ideal in the sense of skinheads).


[edit x7: format, typoes, footnote 1 & 2, updating the edit count, bold font]

[1] This is why I like to read many dhammas, no matter the tradition (including secular), because in each that I've seen there's often something that sees what is our species (inherently suvival-oriented when viewed en masse) and has attempted to create a path to deminish the causes of suffering which imprisons the potential of the human brain, the way a prosocial enculturation with respect and non-conceit would not. One has to see things as they are: life that continues through generations promotes itself, the will to live is to self-promote (not bad at all, just the way nature of a sustaining life/genome is). 

One of the Dhamma lists I have liked (perhaps perserved by political congresses having also realized and realeased attendees): Svakkhato Bhagavata Dhammo (i.e, it's not proclaimed by a political (overpowering) congress, but by one who is realized, sees things as they are, has let go-- an awakened one), Sanditthiko (visible here and now, not dependent on interprative teachers subtlely or grossly defiling the gift of study and scholarship with halucinations of self-authenticity) , akaliko (timeless), ehipassiko (to be inspected for yourself, again not dependent on others/domineering groups), opanayiko (to be brought inside oneself) and Paccattam Veditabbo Vinnuhi (to be understood by a wise student-- to me, a reflective and rigorous person, one who is going to see for themselves what they are, the nature of their species, their conditions in the cosmos and to know the limits of knowledge, the limitlessness of the unknown and the non-conceit therein)

___________
[2]  I speculate that the historical buddha was likely to have been from a regionally powerful family on the simple basis that many people lack outright power and also who challenge clans of powerful men are, well, they are beaten to death and/or outcast actually and/or through demeaning and demoting means, and it seems some buddhist councils did at least outcast; as such, there may be many actual, authentic words from the historical buddha which carriers did not survive/join powerful clansmen and its editing. 

{edit: further, one can have sincere compassion and thanks for a prince/heir of a powerful family whose birthright/duty is to lead people and community and they decided to try to teach/lead to promote prosocial well-being regardless of clan/cast and despite the context of being human (a naturally self-survivalistic creature), much the way an animal shelter manager has to figure out how to teach both stubborn strays as well as obedient pups and all those characters in between, how to live with well-being within the context of their own species and eventual owners without being overbearing, angry, controlling conceited themself.

In essense, they have to figure out step-by-step how to sew and demonstrate and encourage useful conduct to the species and to restrain themselves from conduct behavior that would increase struggle in the community. It requires no patience nor step-wise and care-ful planning to be instinctually conceited and controlling though.}

I admire/seek the teachers who check their conceits at the door and just teach what they directly know and trust their teaching is powerfully worthwhile enough to survive in quiet streams as much as powerful, deliberate dams.
 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/29/15 8:40 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Therefore, is "noting" authentic? 

Who knows. What is authentic? Authentic implies a known/knowable origin that can bear the stamp of "genuine" by someone who thinks they know (human knowledge has a human history of being a human-exchanged commodity, especially if one can say their human knowledge is the best/genuine thing).

Is it pratical to some people?
It is by their own account.

Noting can be seen like any inspection tool or system of inspection: Some scientists use fMRIs, some scientists use genetic testing, some scientists use behavioral studies-- some persons try to use / incorporate as many tools and/or data as possible to understand something from as many perspectives/views and as much data as possible in order to see as clearly as possible based on what's already known/shown.

What is practical outcome/insight/knowledge (to me)?
Many behavioral practices are celebrated across traditions, including secular humanism, and are ubiquitous across traditions, what buddhism has called in pali/sankrit as "paramis/paramitas", some forms of:
  • kindness (non-barrier or non-permanent affront to kindness),
  • self-restraint/composure (some forms of ethics discipline),
  • generosity (dana),
  • patience (forebearance),
  • joyous perverance (non-tortuous or non-strained effort/vigor/rigor),
  • compassionate pro-action,
  • calm reflection (or meditative stabilization/serenity/ non-teamism/equanimity)
  • non-conceit (aka: humility), and
  • broad, deep understanding ("wisdom", knowledge, insightfulness).


So noting is one tool/system that can help a person and has, by their own accounts, helped people. 

___________
[editx2 format]

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/29/15 10:19 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
katy steger:
Therefore, is "noting" authentic? 

Who knows. What is authentic? Authentic implies a known/knowable origin that can bear the stamp of "genuine" by someone who thinks they know (human knowledge has a human history of being a human-exchanged commodity, especially if one can say their human knowledge is the best/genuine thing).

Is it pratical to some people?
It is by their own account.

Noting can be seen like any inspection tool or system of inspection: Some scientists use fMRIs, some scientists use genetic testing, some scientists use behavioral studies-- some persons try to use / incorporate as many tools and/or data as possible to understand something from as many perspectives/views and as much data as possible in order to see as clearly as possible based on what's already known/shown.

What is practical outcome/insight/knowledge (to me)?
Many behavioral practices are celebrated across traditions, including secular humanism, and are ubiquitous across traditions, what buddhism has called in pali/sankrit as "paramis/paramitas", some forms of:
  • kindness (non-barrier or non-permanent affront to kindness),
  • self-restraint/composure (some forms of ethics discipline),
  • generosity (dana),
  • patience (forebearance),
  • joyous perverance (non-tortuous or non-strained effort/vigor/rigor),
  • compassionate pro-action,
  • calm reflection (or meditative stabilization/serenity/ non-teamism/equanimity)
  • non-conceit (aka: humility), and
  • broad, deep understanding ("wisdom", knowledge, insightfulness).


So noting is one tool/system that can help a person and has, by their own accounts, helped people. 

___________
[editx2 format]

To all, 

Is Noting Authentic?  

Check it out and see for yourself.  If Noting is profitable for the mind, brings insights, and purifies the mind, lessens the arisings of defilements , or even eliminates some defilements through practice you will know over time through reviewing whether there is a change in the mind or not, will know for yourself.  In this way one will know the authenticity.

If Noting is practiced and it is not profitable to the mind, does not bring insight, does not purify the mind, does not lessen the arising of defilements, or even eliminate some defilements through practice you will know over time through reviewing whether there is a change in the mind or not, will know for yourself.  In this way one will know the authenticity.

This is the only way one can know for themselves, checking it out and seeing, the same goes for the Eightfold Path.  And indeed, any other methods or trainings.

And if one can not find authenticity in any of the teachings, then abandon them.

Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/29/15 10:35 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Katy, based on reports we see on this forum noting provides a rapid path to stream entry for at least some people. This seems largely independent of progress on other aspects of the 8 fold path and perhaps that is something particular with noting ? It also seems to appeal strongly to young men and fits with a narrow definition of the path (largely related to subjective states and low stress). Noting seems to be a refinement of earlier techniques to get rapid and measureable progress (seems to correlate well with maps).

I see it a little like how the MBSR movement in the west has taken a technique out of the larger Buddhist context and is achieving significant medical results. Noting is a technique that aims at far more radical changes than MBSR and seems effective outside of a Buddhist context (of course it could be used within that context too).

Would be great to hear your thoughts.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/29/15 1:00 PM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:
Katy, based on reports we see on this forum noting provides a rapid path to stream entry for at least some people. This seems largely independent of progress on other aspects of the 8 fold path and perhaps that is something particular with noting ? It also seems to appeal strongly to young men and fits with a narrow definition of the path (largely related to subjective states and low stress). Noting seems to be a refinement of earlier techniques to get rapid and measureable progress (seems to correlate well with maps).

I see it a little like how the MBSR movement in the west has taken a technique out of the larger Buddhist context and is achieving significant medical results. Noting is a technique that aims at far more radical changes than MBSR and seems effective outside of a Buddhist context (of course it could be used within that context too).

Would be great to hear your thoughts.

Hmm.. Well, my thoughts are that if one determines to go from their known position at Point A to a theoretical or even evangelized position at Point THX1138 (that is a sci-fi play on words just for fun and its released-nibbanicy ending =), one has to indentify what is the next step, a Point B and/or a Point 0101, etc.

So, leary of red flags in the surfeit conduct of self-promoting/augmenting persons and/or texts, one may wonder "How can I at least learn what I am at the simplest level? To what extent can I practice reliably on my own until I can know how to handle teachers with their own hindrances?"

To train in noting is to develop our human cognitive capacity to detect a great deal of what one does, thinks, feels and in sensation detection.  Noting is a very safe practice in that a person does not draw attention to themselves as a "meditator" nor create any sort of affront to ambient powers and yet, quietly, alertly, one can see for themselves about "What am I?" though training in note-taking.

It is so-called S.M.A.R.T. learning: specific, measurable, attainable, rigorous and timely.

So much can be learned in self-observation by this dedication to noting: Do I hunger for the natural gains/pleasant sensations in life? Noting this.  Do I recoil from the losses and unpleasant sensations in life; noting this, too. 

How long should one try? Consider the story of Barbara Arrowsmith (2013, Tedtalk), severely learning disabled at birth, no leftside sensation (could burn her own arm off), damaged/undeveloped part of the brain, which woman, step-wise, at the age of 25 started using clocks with two-hands, three-hands, four-hands... ten hands to see if her brain could change. Indeed: About four months later, inexplicably, she sat in a library and picked up a book of philosophy and found she could read it and make sense of it. Studying clocks many hours a week developed her capacity for cognizing symbolic concepts.  She developed feeling for her body's left side in this step-wise way (not with clocks), too.

So one can see in noting, "Okay, my own self-reflection may have been obfusated my first week in training, but here, X-time into the practice, my brain observes without asserting the narrative frames of its life conditioning and even its consciousness is not exhalted more than its scope of (potenial) functionality," (if training is in a relatively safe place).

Seeing oneself by way of a rigorous (not strained), sustained, friendly training (friendly is key for the brain to learn and by-pass the brainstem's reasonable and vigilant threat-hunting) is also an excellent, sincere, unshakeable means to develop compassion for others, and can certainly cause unexpected insights just like Arrowsmith's understanding for philosophy came from clock-study.

But noting is not for everyone, nor should it be. One can find a S.M.A.R.T. model for themselves.


When I first really got into Buddhism a few years ago I interviewed with a tired senior monk who had seen his reputation rise and fall and rise and fall. I complained about the ridiculous conceit found everywhere in our pan-Buddhist studies. I said something like "There's a lot of promoted suffering in this study. I have no conviction in texts and people who self-promote like people who promote their god(s) over others." Luckly, that teacher said, "The buddha left a comfortable home to try to find an end to the causes of suffering. You can try, too."  I am so grateful for this teacher and the freedom to learn and test which has ensured.


Best wishes in your practice(s).  I have enjoyed your posts, your grammar, spelling and easy-to-read composition, Mark.


_________________
editx1: typos abound
Also, I am drawing on memory for 2013 Tedtalk. If I am wrong about Arrowsmith's account, I hope someone will note and offer a correction

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/29/15 1:33 PM as a reply to Mark.
It's also worth considering the utility (not any promoted 'authenticity') of the sutta wherein sotapannas are analogized to dung-and-lye washed clothes: They still smell of dung and show stains.

Yet, like anything patient, it proposes is a step-by-step study and I encourage myself in re-efforting when I see the way some great teachers of all traditions have gotten through the massive erection/construction of conceit =)



_______
Edit3: Psi, thank you. I am going to reiterate this for myself over any practice, the outcomes I value.

Because what are practical outcomes/insights/knowledges (to me) to cultivate and sustain in our species as the species evolves (because I know what not cultivating and sustaining these traits creates in our species when we do not foster these traits' own genomic survivability: It looks like violent competition, many painful sensations for many beings, alas epically stupid failures to thrive). 

So many behavioral practices are celebrated across traditions, including secular humanism, and are ubiquitous across traditions, what buddhism has called in pali/sankrit as "paramis/paramitas", some forms of: 
  • kindness (non-barrier or non-permanent affront to kindness), 
  • self-restraint/composure (some forms of ethics discipline), 
  • generosity (dana), 
  • patience (forebearance), 
  • joyous perverance (non-tortuous or non-strained effort/vigor/rigor), 
  • compassionate pro-action, 
  • calm reflection (or meditative stabilization/serenity/ non-teamism/equanimity) 
  • non-conceit (aka: humility), and 
  • broad, deep understanding ("wisdom", knowledge, insightfulness)

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/29/15 2:38 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
Chick, is there a list of these suttas somewhere?

The list of parallels?

suttacentral.net is where these can be found. As most of the agamas have yet to be translated into English - the determination of parallels must have been done working from the Chinese. Many of the suttas found in Saṃyuktāgama (1st) have been translated so if you want to get a sense of what they mean by parallel or near parallel - looking through those and comparing them to the pali versions can give you a good idea.

All the lists of suttas pali or otherwise have a column with links to parallels where found (most of them).

From any given sutta, you can switch to parallels by opening the navigation tool on the left and selecting the Navigation tab and then going to Textual Details - this give you all the parallels and translations available.

They also have a rather cool pop-up dictionary that works on the pali and chinese text - you have to load it for each sutta it seems. It is available using the navigation tool also - just open that, select the Controls tab and then Chinese->English Lookup. Then by moving the mouse over a Chinese character in the sutta it will show you the various meanings of it.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/29/15 2:43 PM as a reply to Eelco ten Have.
Eelco ten Have:

For now I am adopting the temporary idea that at least the proces of building up concentration makes me involuntarily "silently note" every hindrance on the path towards 1st Jhana in order to drop it to return to the anapanasani spot.

Does that make sense?
It feels like for now anyway basic vipassana and basic concentration on the breath, builds some momentum in both.
In daily life as I go about my business i can concentrate better and at times note the shifts in sensations from moment to moment better. All in all a result I did not expect, am very happy with. Which feeds some of the faith in the path.

A positive feedbackloop is palpabily developing from the place I am now...
Hi Eelco,
It makes sense to me and sounds quite nice.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/29/15 11:00 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Katy, I think the main point of trying to find the earliest records of the Buddha's teachings are that they are going to be closest to what he taught.  Even if your misandrist hyperbole is true, the group of vicious, politically motivated, opponent-destroying men are going to have a closer record of the Buddha's original teachings than anything that would be written based off of what these men came up with.  In the game of telephone, the second person to hear the secret phrase is going to be more accurate than the third, and the third will be more accurate than the fourth (unless the accuracy is 100%, but this would be easy to verify - everything would just be the same).  What makes this area of study interesting is the very modern debate between different styles of meditation and different reported outcomes.

On the other hand, in my own practice, I'm seeing a convergence of methods I used to think were quite different. In the end, meditation is probably self-correcting as long as you listen to your own mind. I think the worst thing anyone can do is question their own intuition because it doesn't fit someone else's description of progress. If noting is working, who cares why?

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/30/15 6:25 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
it can be very beneficial to listen to a few or even alot or Ajahn Sujato and Bramali sutta workshops, as it provides good grounding and ways of using suttas that are helpful.

I really enjoy such sutta classes; they have definitely helped me practically speaking. Along with the portions I've read or heard from Sujato-- who re-writes and tells them with moden language humorously, there is another sutta scholar I find to be for me an excellent teacher and it's largely his honesty and humanity which he does not hide from learners: he can break down into hilarious laughter about some of the suttic presentations of others or even with obvious disappointment, "I don't know why the suttas were so insulting to XYZ...," etc,  acknowledgement from a scholar-monastic perspective that not all is perfectemundo in the Buddhist world of humans and their works and history (read the Vinaya..).  


And with Sujato I like his good humor and candor about the modern global situation now, too: "And to extrapolate a survivable future, we have to assume a massive change in behaviour and values, and there is simply no evidence of this." But sanity (and human animal nature) insists on trying for a worthwhile survival and less stressful evolution. 


Makes me wonder more why any such old and budding scholars alike would waste time of Aryna purity to try to place discources that come from a congressional meeting after the death of the historical buddha and which congress outcast groups, memories, understanding. As if politics today are not enough, they bring a losing speculation of 'authenticity' (an 'Aryan purity' teaching) to their students today.  

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/20/15 6:16 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
So other schools that could easily have their "authentic" origins from the historical buddha via realized person who remained or became recluses (as mentioned before) the story Vaccigotta, or led renunciant and model lives (e.g., Jotikara, the householder story) one could say Pure Land is just as authentic and Jhana-->Ch'an--> Zen, also authentic.  

One can see the Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation doing lots of practical and compassionate work well needed and appreciated, not wasting the priviledge of scholarship and sangha support of monastic life of incorrectly calling the edited works of a congress the authentic words of the historical buddha, how is not know to have written, who is not known to have edited nor used the language of the works arising from a buddhist congress.

[redacted: no one has provided a verbatim transcript and citation showing a teacher calling their tradition "authentic"]

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/20/15 6:17 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Katy, I think the main point of trying to find the earliest records of the Buddha's teachings are that they are going to be closest to what he taught.
http://www.forbes.com/global/2010/0412/companies-cheng-yen-taiwan-philanthropy-widjaja-sister-of-charity.html
Some practical buddhism. 
Do you think Taiwan Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation is close or far from the long-dead founding teacher's own actual words?

Do you think the Rohinga citizenless need a speculative debate from some monks about linguistic fidelity or do they need more than lip service to get rights, legal status, and equal citizen dignity.

[redacted: no one has provided a verbatim transcript and citation showing a teacher calling their tradition "authentic"]

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/30/15 2:57 PM as a reply to Brother Pussycat.
Brother Pussycat:
The authenticity of a technique with regard to the Buddha's words is distinct from the degree of freedom from suffering provided by this technique. 
I agree.

Brother: Apologies for the sometimes acerbic tone, but I keep hearing of people leading extremely fulfilling and valuable lives without knowing how to spell "Buddha", and I come here and every third topic is basically "If you ain't sutta you's a sucka", and all I wanna think is "Seriously?"

No problem on the acerbicness - I tend toward dry sarcasm and stupid puns.

In a forum like this the background to a discussion is often not apparent. I come from a Taoist practice and came to Buddhism well after this awakening thing started happening to me - that was 20 years ago. All the energy channel stuff I learned - and liked and found useful - cannot be found anywhere in the suttas - no authenticity there at all - it doesn’t bother me.

What I have gone through over the years lines up quite well with descriptions from many different people Buddhist and not. With regard to Buddhist traditions - my experience seems to match those found in every tradition except Mahassi. My underlying theme in all this discussion is not that the noting practice is good or bad or useful - just that what it seems to lead to is not the same thing as what the other Buddhist traditions are describing. As an example outside of Buddhism - I have remarked how Bernedette Roberts experience is very similar to my own - I am quite sure we are talking about the same thing. She remarks that one of the few places she has found language that she can relate to is from Buddha and Meister Eckhart - while Daniel has remarked that he doesn’t relate to her experience. This is just one example. There are a number of Buddhist teachers that have pointed out this kind of disconnect between the path and results described by Mahassi and that of their own.

If Mahassi practitioners find what they are looking for in that practice - no problem - I think that’s great.

I am surprised by the reactions that this discussion has brought out. For me the question is like asking if a given painting is a genuine picasso - well, break out the chemistry set and the magnifying glass and have at it. The question has nothing to do with is it a nice painting or not - a separate and rather subjective issue. Nor is it about 100% proof. On the other hand, I have no investment in the painting.

I find in the suttas the importance of cultivating mindfulness within the context of tranquility something that was also true of my Taoist practice. There are also many other very useful tips to be found there - this is why I am interested in early Buddhism - specifically, what did the teaching look like while he was alive. At that time, people would have been exposed to only a handful of teachings - described in contemporary language - not the dizzying array of cryptic suttas we have today - and it seems to have worked out pretty well for them.

Maybe it's just my insufficient knowledge of the suttas, but isn't the 100% kosher, true, unadulaterated arahant basically a vegetable that would admittedly be able to blast through the jhanas in the circumstances I mentioned above, but wouldn't be able to hand a thirsty patient a glass of water because handing things is dukkha?

1) vegetables are unable to attain the formless realms.
2) vegetables don’t hand patients water because they don’t have hands while Arahats don’t because hands are not-self (one could argue that not-self and dukkha are among the 3 characteristics but remember the arahat is free from dukkha).

Bro, these are Buddhist fundamentals - you need to pay attention!

On the piss-soaked mattresses thing - I don’t think 5th century BC India was a cake walk. You might find Michael Hutchison’s story interesting.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/30/15 5:59 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:
I think if we compared notes it could be said that I come from a samatha-heavy side of practice, and you come from a vipassana-heavy side of practice.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to point out the three characteristics to a samatha meditatior because they're focusing on the aspect of liberation rather than the aspect of samsara. 

I have not spent more time and effort on vipassana than on samatha jhana; in fact, it may well be that I've spent more time with samatha. I practice all 8 jhanas and Pureland 1 regularly, to good effect usually. I think that samatha jhana mastery is an important skill to have, for many reasons, including that factors of the jhanas and loss of factors between them can serve as pointers and objects in vipassana practice. That isn't the only benefit of the samatha jhanas, but it is an important one. 
Letting go does lead to insight.

So you "just let go" in order to have an insight that allows you to "just let go"? That's a tautology, at best, no? What purpose does the insight serve if you can "just let go" from the start? If we were able to "just let go," by mere intention to do so, then why would we need a gradual path, with all the practice it entails, at all? If insight into the Three Characteristics is unnecessary to letting go, then why do you introduce such an inefficiency as "insight" in this quote at all?
It doesn't make a lot of sense to point out the three characteristics to a samatha meditatior because they're focusing on the aspect of liberation rather than the aspect of samsara. 

Awakening is to Everything, without exception, or by definition it isn't awakening. If you are focusing on one aspect, and only the pleasant, than you are dwelling in illusion by choice. That's fine to do, if that is your choice; however, that is not what I understand the word awakening, liberation, or enlightenement to be.
By practicing letting go of objects
Please describe your practice technique of "letting go." How do you just let go? And what are you letting go of? Only aversion? It sounds from your description that you are clinging to pleasant jhana states, reinforcing aversion to parts of experience that you judge to be samsara, and actively ignoring the latter to the extent possible. So, of the Three Poisons--attachment, aversion, and ignorance--you are actively practicing the latter two with regard to your supposed "totality" and doing so by taking refuge in the first poison with regard to pleasant states.

No-self isn't realized this way. Insight into the fact that everything is empty of inherent existence isn't had by this sort of divisive scheme. Nonduality is not attained by way of this divisive scheme. Fundamental attraction and aversion, and therefore clinging, becoming, birth, and samsara depend on Fundamental Ignorance. Awakening, according to the Buddhist paradigm, which is what I happen to be talking about and practicing, cannot, at bottom, be a practice that promote ignorance of some parts of our experience. By ignoring the averse, you are fundamentally practicing clinging to what is part illusion.

This isn't a value judgment. If you want to practice only samatha jhana because it produces what you want, then power to you. However, I cannot accept, intellectually or experientially as a practitioner of the Buddhadharma, that what you are doing is leading either to insight or nonclingling. Awakening requires cutting the Chain of Becoming (Dependent Origination) at the fundamental level of Ignorance. Nothing can be ignored in awakening, especially suffering.
and looking for a state of non-discrimination, the "no-self" characteristic appears as a kind of total reality, all inclusive, disembodied awareness of phenomena (a Self that is not found in the aggregates). 
Are you referring to a particular jhana here? I'm trying to figure out what you think you mean. You enter a jhana and then, somehow, "awareness" is both "inclusive," in other words a "total reality," and yet "disembodied" and apart from the phenomena it is aware of? This is pretty messed up as articulated. You are reifying "not-self" into a Self, a totality that nonetheless is "disembodied," apart from its objects. Again, as you yourself are describing whatever it is you are doing, it is neither not-self nor total. It is Self-reifying and divided fundamentally. It is, in other words, clinging par excellence.
Impermanence is not the insight but rather the opposite: when there is nothing held on to, there is nothing to let go of, impermanence is itself permanent and stable.  By stepping back into this, the stability that's created as a background within the instability is blissfully still and perfect, which is to say, there is no more suffering.

So you are fabricating the illusory refuge of permanence and stability within what you nonetheless seem to acknowledge is the reality of impermanence. And this is not super-clinging, let alone clinging? I confess that I don't get it, for you haven't articulated anything that isn't self-contradictory and based, according to your own terms, on a sustained practice of clinging to the pleasant (jhana), averting from the unpleasant (samsara, suffering), and ignoring vast parts of reality/experience to introject the only pleasant part as the "totality." This is not a path of letting go; it is a path of practing ignoring (Ignorance). Letting go and Ignorance are not the same thing.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/30/15 7:58 PM as a reply to Chuck Kasmire.
I am surprised by the reactions that this discussion has brought out. For me the question is like asking if a given painting is a genuine picasso - well, break out the chemistry set and the magnifying glass and have at it. The question has nothing to do with is it a nice painting or not - a separate and rather subjective issue. Nor is it about 100% proof. On the other hand, I have no investment in the painting. 

If one goes by your painting analogy, it would be said, in truth: These words recorded in a liturgical language are not the words of the historical buddha, who left no written record for himself (pls let me know who may have come out to say otherwise) and is said to have spoken a prakrit; these are the written words of a political congress convened generations after the historical buddha died to settle the growing discord in the herd.

Any trustworthy person who says their documents are "authentic" or even "probably authentic" or "closest", "at the forefront", etc, would simply show their actual math for asserting this promixity and/or probability. Else: conceit jiggling in gibberish, like marshmallows in JELLO.



RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/30/15 9:23 PM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Authenticity of Noting

Firstly , I would like to state a few things for clarification. I am not saying that there is any one special teacher, and I do myself look to many resources as far as Spiritual practices go

But, I would like to help make clear something that relates to the subject at hand, The Authenicity of Noting.

The most important, and really the only point that I would like to bring up, is that Mahasi Sayadaw and the Noting Techinique he helped to bring to our available list of tools and methods, is not the only thing he taught, and indeed is not the only thing that he explicitly said needed to be done.  There are many different types of minds, and some strategies work better for some than others.

Indeed, he also taught and wrote about, Jhanas, Brahma Viharas, The Noble Eightfold Path, Nibbana, etc.

I do not know why it is taken to heart that he only taught Noting, and that one should only practice Noting.  The Practical Insight Method Basic Practice is just that, the Basics.  One small little minute chapter, of many, many books and discourses as will be seen in the link below, for those willing to investigate, or not, no matter.

One can not just Note everything and expect to be proficient in the rest of the Eightfold Path, it helps , but it is a different training, albeit interwoven with the rest of the path, one can not expect to grow morally just by Noting alone, that is absurd.  But, it is a great start, one does have to first be aware.  One can not be aware of what needs to be worked on if they are unaware of it first.  

I think everyone in every practice notes.  Just think, what does one do when they are mindful of anger?  They think, "this is anger"  That is noting, labelling, identifying, call it whatever. When one is mindful of wanting something, they label it as greed, or craving, again, that is noting, labelling, identifying, whatever.

And of course there are other more developed levels and techniques that can be applied and adopted, than just simply Noting.

Anyway, what if Mahasi came and first taught only Jhanas, what would we be discussing then, the Authenticity of Jhana Methods?  

Or the authenticity of the Brahma Viharas, or the Authenticity of the Noble Eightfold Path, or  Authenticity of Nibbana.

For instance, he mentions jhana 93 times in the Discourse on the Cūḷavedalla Sutta

http://www.saraniya.com/page/ebooks/ebooks-mahasi-sayadaw.html

 funny, emoticon

But, no clingin', just sayin'

Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/31/15 6:07 AM as a reply to Psi.
Does the experience of those practicing Mahasi noting match those described by the tibetan, chinsese and japanese lineages? My impression is no. 
Mahasi noting is a modern invention that seem to result in experiences that has very little to do with the other buddhist sects and their methodologies. Goenka body scan seems to result in even weirder stuff since that whole thing has become a cult where there aint even teachers on the retreats just old VCR recordings of Goenka.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/31/15 9:02 AM as a reply to Nikolai ..
yawn. Wow. this is the most tiresome thread I have ever read !

When I first joined this forum, I liked it because it stood for a no-nonsense approach and was:

1. Full of Practical advice 
2. Not full of overly interlectual dogma
3. People talked about and could verify the simple steps of a practice which they verified could liberate you. 


I've thought long and hard about whether to post anything negative on here, because in most cases I feel its uncalled for but recently this forum has become obsessed with defending itself against suttas, which feels really wierd to me and precicely the kind of Buddist dogma that turns be right off in caring about meditation. I loved that you didnt need to get bogged down in boring Buddist teachings and could just talk about practice. In real, modern, unpretentious terms. And talk about results. And leave all the other rubbish to other websites. I'll only say this once because I feel like I might as well have my say, but  who cares, really, honestly, if something that works to achieve enlightenment is or isnt part of some old texts?

Does it really matter? I dont think it does.

Guess what. In the old days we used to ride horses to get somewhere. Now we have cars and we get somewhere faster. Does it mean that cars aren't valid because they werent written about thousands of years ago? No. Does it mean that we can use cars to get to somewhere faster than using horses. Damn right it does. Does it matter that someone doesnt believe in cars? Not really, I dont care, let them ride a horse if they want, but Im gonna use a car.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/31/15 9:37 AM as a reply to b man.
My issue is mostly that where the practictioners of the different methods seem to end up is not the same. Reading the poetry etc from the chan and zen folks and then comparing it to the theravada folks and you get the impression that the theravada peeps seem to have missed something vital. That is you can hardly find any poetry. (At least from my experience, got lots of books with poetry from for example (sufi and other non buddhist traditions), chan and zen traditions but none from the theravadan tradition. Been hard pressed to find any old or new. If one has any good anthologies to recommend I glady accept.). The modern theravadan tradition does not seem to end up in a joyous expressive state of being.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/31/15 9:58 AM as a reply to Andreas.
Andreas:
The modern theravadan tradition does not seem to end up in a joyous expressive state of being.

Andreas, this is not true, this is just your projection, your impression.  Just drop the clinging and identifying with traditions and what not, just be joyful.   

Are you just imagining grim faced Theravada practioners grunting out piles of dukkha with sweat arising on their furrowed brow?

What if Theravada practioners were simply content and peaceful with whatever arises, and carried joy and contentment within their hearts, and spread this joy with those they encountered in daily living?

What if we just dropped the labels , and perhaps there were just humans being peaceful, wise, joyful and content.

How many Theravada monks have you actually gone for a long walk and talk with? Or is this in your imagination?

And if you did see a Theravada monk that was depressed and grumpy , would you have compassion?

If you saw a Theravada monk that was happy and joyful, would you experience sympathetic joy?  

Would you label them as silly, and perceive them as fools?

emoticon

Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/31/15 1:29 PM as a reply to b man.
I've thought long and hard about whether to post anything negative on here, because in most cases I feel its uncalled for but recently this forum has become obsessed with defending itself against suttas, which feels really wierd to me and precicely the kind of Buddist dogma that turns be right off in caring about meditation. I loved that you didnt need to get bogged down in boring Buddist teachings and could just talk about practice. In real, modern, unpretentious terms. And talk about results. And leave all the other rubbish to other websites. I'll only say this once because I feel like I might as well have my say, but  who cares, really, honestly, if something that works to achieve enlightenment is or isnt part of some old texts?

Does it really matter? I dont think it does.

Hi b man,

Yeah, I think it's really hard to join in dialog like this. 

However, people often seem to me to come to the Buddhist meditative practices based on ideology and hope for a useful ideology and/or practice (like the end of suffering) and even a good-feeling community while one practices, where one is valued in the community.

So a buddhist objective of "seeing things as they are" often, to me, sees a lot of biology of own-species.

For humans, as we know, there's a whole, long period of human biological development that often expresses these social biological drives: community and value-placement in the community. Value-placement can occur by physical skill, emotion skills, and intellectual skill. Sometimes one person has all three of those skills more than anyone else in the community-- they are probably at the top of that community. For everyone else, there's locathing themselves at a level of value they can live with (or eventually destroy/self-destruct).

So for to better house human skills and the need for togetherness and inter-competition, we make play of our inherently brutal survival skills :we have made international prizes like the Olympics and Nobels in order to try to move our physical, emotional intelligence and intellectual skills into non-violent and pleasing ways (the physical sensations of pleasure possibly coming from brain's pleasure with novelty and with prosocial sensations in events that are ultimately safe (Just for Laughs festivals, movies which safely proxy dives lives/adventure for us, novel cuisine..)).

In the world outside and inside of this website club there is very much the opportunity to self-radicalize as one searches for that "best" human herd, which drive is a strong biological drive in much of our species. People looking for a safe herd (relative to that person, not 'safe' relative to another community with which it competes)-- that seeker will look for a community, a place, a role with self-value and the "best" ideology to preserve/promote their role-- a ladder one can broadly or specifically use for orienting their lives for best survival and rewards. People who promote their herd as the "best" (the most authentic in this thread) are like other supremacists and doing something natural to biology, not always great for reducing suffering though.

So it's practical to take up the investigation with people who are considering  joining and/or advocating for a supremacity community. Supremacy causes suffering from start to finish, seed to flower. 

Even the instructions for who can teach the dhamma are ideological instructions, not meditative instructions (knowing people are both 'wet' and 'dry' realisers of what Buddhism teaches), AN 5.159:
1. One who can teach the dharma does so step-by-step;
2. One who can teach the dharma teaches cause and effect;
3. One who can teach the dhama teaches with a mind of compassion;
4. One who can teach the dhama teaches not for material gain;
5. One who can teach the dhama does not promote/demote* themselves or others.

Concluding: It is not easy to teach the dhamma and one should only teach when one has those five skills established [2].

(*see accesstoinsight for more on this word)

Indeed,
a good deal of Theravadan buddhist texts confront a lot of human ideology with buddhist human ideology: Vinaya, Mahjima Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, and Dhammapada. Meditation is found more abundantly (sutta-per-sutta) in the Samyutta Nikaya. 


So there is the practical, "seeing things as they are" biological basis for engaging intellectually, engaging supremacist ideologies as well as engaging about meditation practices and behavioral outcomes. 



_____
editx1: typos clarification
editx2: [2] I don't teach and I find this has been a nice site for learning moments with peers.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/31/15 3:09 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:

Andreas, this is not true, this is just your projection, your impression.  Just drop the clinging and identifying with traditions and what not, just be joyful.   

Are you just imagining grim faced Theravada practioners grunting out piles of dukkha with sweat arising on their furrowed brow?

What if Theravada practioners were simply content and peaceful with whatever arises, and carried joy and contentment within their hearts, and spread this joy with those they encountered in daily living?

What if we just dropped the labels , and perhaps there were just humans being peaceful, wise, joyful and content.

How many Theravada monks have you actually gone for a long walk and talk with? Or is this in your imagination?

And if you did see a Theravada monk that was depressed and grumpy , would you have compassion?

If you saw a Theravada monk that was happy and joyful, would you experience sympathetic joy?  

Would you label them as silly, and perceive them as fools?

emoticon

Psi
I think lots of people on this forum should stop clinging to the need to tell people that they are clinging emoticon. I only write from my impression of various cultures and their expression. No need to take it personally.
A monk is a monk a monk by itself does not tell you anything about its practices. A robe does not a practioner make.

The greatest fool of all was Ryokan.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/31/15 4:45 PM as a reply to Andreas.
Andreas:
Psi:

Andreas, this is not true, this is just your projection, your impression.  Just drop the clinging and identifying with traditions and what not, just be joyful.   

The greatest fool of all was Ryokan.
Yes!  Exactly Andreas!  Drop it all, Renounce it all, just like Ryokan!  That is what I am saying, I am not trying to annoy you with clinging talk, I am trying to annoy you with non clinging talk!  

Taigu Ryokan
(1758-1831)
The Wind Has Settled


The wind has settled, the blossoms have fallen;
Birds sing, the mountains grow dark --
This is the wondrous power of Buddhism.

Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
3/31/15 5:10 PM as a reply to Psi.
He werent modern theravada noting munk so my impression still stands :p. Im not clinging, telling ones impression of things is not clinging. Not changing ones view after beeing shown its wrong is clinging.If the choice is between eating good food and cowdung choosing good food is not clinging. Thereby not saying noting is cowdung, since I think some would interpret it that way. But this is the last I write on this subject interpret that however you want.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/1/15 9:31 PM as a reply to Pål.
Buddha literally asks the monks to “note”, or “label” any form (saying but more likely thinking) “impermanent”.
https://theravadin.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/iti-and-sallakkheti/

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/1/15 10:41 PM as a reply to Nikolai ..
May the gods, bodhisattvas, pious attendants, Buddhas, Tathagatas, vidyadharas, dharmapalas, Dalai Lamas, Richards, Daniel Ingrams, Jesus Christs and historical and current presidents of the USA and any and all other countries please accept my sincere apologies if I get this next part wrong.

Some translations by Bodhi used.

Gautama Buddha action figure sold separately, batteries not included.

So, there's a big ole chunk of the Samyutta Nikaya that goes somewhat like this:



So I hope you get the format.

Trouble is, the Buddha continuously repeats this discourse listing different things as the "path leading to the unconditioned", here's the full list:

  • serenity and insight (samatha ca vipassana)
  • concentration with thought and examination, without thought and just examination, both without thought and examination
  • the emptiness concentration, the signless concentration, the undirected concentration
  • the four establishments of mindfulness 
  • the four right strivings
  • the four roads to power
  • the five spiritual faculties
  • the five powers
  • the seven factors of enlightenment
  • the noble eightfold path
But that's not all, because the next subsection goes similarly, however instead of those 11 items above, he replaces the "path leading..." with:

  • serenity (samatha)
  • insight (vipassana)
  • (etc etc etc)
He lists out the individual members of the aforementioned groups but in a distinct way, for example:

And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned? Emptiness concentration...

and

And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned...

and

And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops the faculty of faith, which is based upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, maturing in release: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned...

and

And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the unconditioned? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops right view, which is based upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, maturing in release: this is called the path leading to the unconditioned....

And of course for the other factors of the path etc etc.

And even more interestingly, he lists out a variety of synonyms for the goal! Them being:

  • the uninclined
  • the taintless
  • the truth
  • the far shore
  • the subtle
  • the very difficult to see
  • the unaging
  • the stable
  • the undisintegrating
  • the unmanifest
  • the unproliferated
  • the peaceful
  • the deathless
  • the sublime
  • the auspicious
  • the secure
  • the destruction of craving
  • the wonderful
  • the amazing
  • the unailing
  • the unailing state
  • Nibbana
  • the unafflicted
  • dispassion
  • purity
  • freedom
  • the unadhesive
  • the island
  • the shelter
  • the asylum
  • the refuge
  • the destination
In other words, the entire above section, for "the unconditioned", was repeated for those following synonyms.

I probably gave a bad explication for it, so you should probably check out Bhikkhu Bodhi's "The Connected Discourses of the Buddha"

Thanks Bodhi!

Hopefully this sheds some light on whatever issues of dogmatism we're facing here.

Cheers.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 3:04 AM as a reply to Jean B..
Jean B.:
Buddha literally asks the monks to “note”, or “label” any form (saying but more likely thinking) “impermanent”.
https://theravadin.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/iti-and-sallakkheti/
Yeah yeah im clinging. But this is obviously wrong. When i read that i immeadiatly think of the description from tibetan instructions. he talks in the example there about shamatha which when perfected leads to vipassana. There is no mention anywhere in the examples of noting etc from the get go. No quotes says anything about labeling, noting etc.That whole post reads like a confirmation bias as it is currently.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 3:34 AM as a reply to Andreas.
I don't know, man. I have no personal view about all of this, and how could I given my poor knowledge and experience? Just wanted to share and feed the debate.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 4:50 AM as a reply to Jean B..
Ihehe k. But the quote that the post starts with is contratictory to how mahasi said to do stuff. He thought starting with shamatha or concentration was waste of time and that that was covered by his vipassana method anyway. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 5:46 AM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Kind of unrelated, but I'm curious to hear what people's experiences and opinions are regarding whether or not the repeated cycling through insight stages is brought about or made more prominent by the noting practice in any way.

Maybe that can also be factored in to gauge authenticity.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 8:06 AM as a reply to Andreas.
Andreas:
He thought starting with shamatha or concentration was waste of time and that that was covered by his vipassana method anyway. 


You are just making that statement up. That is your thought and impression and you are projecting it onto Mahasi Sayadaw. Now, I do not proclaim to know his thoughts and have never met him in person, so how do you know that is what he thought?

I have already showed you in earlier links of his discourses how he taught jhana, brahma viharas, Eightfold Path, Seven Factors of Enlightenment, Morality Training, etc. etc, etc,


For example,

http://www.saraniya.com/books/mahasi-sayadaw/pdf/mahasi_sayadaw-1965_brahmavihara_dhamma.pdf

Why do you falsely bad mouth Theravada Tradition?  What is your beef?  If you can prove to me your statement is true I will surely apologize, maybe there should be a different thread to clear up what exactly is taught is the Theravada Tradition, where you can teach all of us what you know about it.

Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 8:58 AM as a reply to Psi.
I was paraphrasing. I dont get why you think im making stuff up or badmouthing. Stop clinging to your theravada tradition set yourself free. The whole point of the mahasi is to skip doing shamata and just do vipassana and develop shamatha as you proceed. This thread is just about noting etc. His vipassana jhanas etc is not discussed.

By Bhikkhu Pesala

It is important to understand the difference between Samatha and Vipassana meditation. Samatha leads to jhana and psychic powers. Vipassana leads to insight and nibbana. One can practise Samatha first, then Vipassana, or one can practise just Vipassana.

My preceptor, Mahasi Sayadaw, became world famous through teaching the practice of "bare insight" which does not require the meditator to attain jhana before realisation of the path and its fruition.
http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=15

Mahasi made several innovations. The most important was skipping samatha and the development of the jhanas (concentration states) and going directly to vipassana. He thought that samatha would take care of itself, if you practice vipassana correctly. The jhanas are not ends in themselves, so bypassing samatha is a practical shortcut.
https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/theravada-reinvents-meditation/

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 9:26 AM as a reply to Psi.
My understanding of Mahasi is that his methods (or at least the small subset of his teachings that became widely known) were designed to help (largely uneducated) Burmese householders get a taste of the path. With daily life practice and short retreats it is very hard to reach the hard jhana's from the visuddhimaga, and the average peasant in Burma could not be expected to learn large amounts of suttas and dharma lists by heart. So the noting practice is a kind of 80/20 solution. Yes, you lose a lot of the intricacies and depth of the full abidhamma, but it is a) easy to explain b) doable with a minimum of samadhi and thus attainable in daily life. 

And the practicality of his method can be seen by the fact that by now probably 10s of millions (including all basic mindfulness practitioner) are practicing mahasi derived methods in daily life and finding at least some relief in it.

It also seems to allow people to progress pretty quickly and have some breakthroughs that make their life easier. (whether those paths line up to the paths in the suttas or not)

One drawback of noticing practice in my opinion is that it tends to focus on the impermanence aspect (as that one is easiest to see in the beginning) and this focusing on impermanence and 'vibrations' leads potentially to more destabilizing states.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 9:50 AM as a reply to Andreas.
Andreas:
I was paraphrasing. I dont get why you think im making stuff up or badmouthing. Stop clinging to your theravada tradition set yourself free. The whole point of the mahasi is to skip doing shamata and just do vipassana and develop shamatha as you proceed. This thread is just about noting etc. His vipassana jhanas etc is not discussed.

By Bhikkhu Pesala

It is important to understand the difference between Samatha and Vipassana meditation. Samatha leads to jhana and psychic powers. Vipassana leads to insight and nibbana. One can practise Samatha first, then Vipassana, or one can practise just Vipassana.

My preceptor, Mahasi Sayadaw, became world famous through teaching the practice of "bare insight" which does not require the meditator to attain jhana before realisation of the path and its fruition.
http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=15

Mahasi made several innovations. The most important was skipping samatha and the development of the jhanas (concentration states) and going directly to vipassana. He thought that samatha would take care of itself, if you practice vipassana correctly. The jhanas are not ends in themselves, so bypassing samatha is a practical shortcut.
https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/theravada-reinvents-meditation/
And , the parts you skipped over, conveniently, 

One should encourage the practice of jhana, as deep concentration is very helpful to later gain insight. However, some people can be adept in jhana without attaining any insight at all -- as was the case with Devadatta!

The importance of gaining insight during this waning era of the Buddhasäsana cannot be overemphasized. Jhänas can be attained at any time, even outside of the Buddha's dispensation, but insight requires the unique Satipatthäna method taught by the Buddha, there is no other method, whether one develops jhänas first or not.

So, Right is not required to attain jhana before the Insight Method is to be practiced, but that is differnet from claiming that Mahasi Sayadaw did not teach jhana.

Mahasi:

In the course of concentrating on a sense-object with due awareness, Right Mindfulness will be established together with Right Concentration, which the Buddha elaborated as the four jhānas, the highest stage of concentration.

Mahasi:

Among the eight path factors, Right Speech, Right Action, and Light Livelihood are in the morality group. If one abstains from lying, slander, harsh speech, and frivolous talk, one may be regarded as practising Right Speech. If one abstains from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct, one would be regarded as practising Right Action. If one abstains from the seven kinds of misdeeds so far described, one would also be regarded as practising Right Livelihood. These path factors of morality are the basic steps to be observed before practising the Dhamma.

Mahasi:

Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration are in the concentration group. It is achieved only after developing concentration. When the noting mind notes each object of tranquilliy and insight, he is said to have made the Right Effort which can accomplish four tasks: 1) the task of preventing unwholesome states that have not yet arisen from arising, 2)  the task of eliminating unwholesome states that have already arisen, 3) the task of developing wholesome states that have not yet been developed and 4) the task of establishing wholesome states that have been developed.

Mahasi:

Some direct the meditator to concentrate on the three characteristics before any concentration has been established, but this does not augur well for the development of insight.

But, you said 
He thought starting with shamatha or concentration was waste of time and that that was covered by his vipassana method anyway. 
Anyway, your mind is like a full cup of tea, my teapot is empty for now, and I need a mop.

And , btw, I am not clinging to my Theravada tradition.

Talk is always easy
Practice always hard
It’s no wonder people try to make up for
their lack of hard practice with easy talk
But the harder they try, the worse things get
The more they talk, the more wrong they go
It’s like pouring on oil to put out a fire
Just foolishness and nothing else


Ryokan



Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 10:04 AM as a reply to Psi.
I didnt write he didnt teach jhanas, he however from what i understand taught vipassana jhanas. Also what you quote is not a comment on anything mahasi wrote but on kitigari sutta.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 10:40 AM as a reply to Andreas.
Andreas:
I didnt write he didnt teach jhanas, he however from what i understand taught vipassana jhanas. Also what you quote is not a comment on anything mahasi wrote but on kitigari sutta.


Okay, but I got the Mahasi quotes from his discourse.


http://www.saraniya.com/books/mahasi-sayadaw/pdf/mahasi_sayadaw-1971_to_nibbana_via_the_noble_eightfold_path.pdf

I am just trying to show that he taught more than Noting as is the common misconception. 

I would do the same if someone were to, for example,  say Schopenhauer only taught pessimism.

But, to start the practice of noticing and labelling the arising and falling of the abdomen, is , from experience , very tranquil and mind settling.

The Buddha taught the same , to notice the breath, to be aware of breathing in and to be aware of breathing out.

Also, I have no specific tradition, I try to practice what works and what is wholesome, and I do make mistakes, as I am sure you have noticed, but you may label me if you want, I can not stop you from noting and labelling me.

I really hope you have a peaceful day Andreas, I do not wish to disturb you.  I does seem you are speaking out of compassion and trying to protect people from making a mistake and going down some dark and dangerous path.  But, the path is not like that if practiced correctly.  It is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end.

Psi

Now to bring the attention back to the abdomen
Rising....Sitting...Falling...Sitting...

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 2:33 PM as a reply to Pål.
I'm not going to participate in this thread with the exception that on the topic of authenticity, we have more reason to believe the Buddha of the Pali Canon is a historical fiction who never existed. Which is a huge, important fact if you are concerned about authenticity, when the whole story is a fiction in the first place:

http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-very-idea-of-buddhist-history.html

Jayarava concludes, "An over-arching question here is: Was the Buddha a poor philosopher who could not articulate a coherent system of thought, even with the restrictions that he himself placed on epistemology? Was he like many of his contemporary disciples an anti-rationalist dedicated to subverting reasoned discussion? Or was the Buddhist tradition a syncretic mishmash from the beginning, in search of unifying narratives (like Siddhartha Gotama) from the beginning and only really finding sufficient coherence after some centuries had passed? Or is there some better answer to the philosophical mess we find in the suttas?"

To me Buddhism makes more sense if the story of the Buddha marks the culmination of a process of assimilating a wide range of cultural influences that is a new synthesis of religious ideas in India. In this we see the same kind of pattern in the advent of Tantra in the 6th century CE. Tantra is a grand synthesis of religious ideas, attitudes and practices that revitalising Indian religion, but older religious ideas are also conserved and propagated alongside. I argue that something like the Tantric synthesis happened in Indian in the 6th - 4th centuries BC, and that it took a long time for doctrines and narratives to settle into the familiar patterns."

I am am amazed at the shameless argument from authority fallacy that most people here employ. It's like arguing with Christians who say, "Because Jesus said so." No, it's not like that, it IS that. But it's increased my psychological models of people in trying to understand this phenomenon, so that's nice. I care about awakening, not 1st, 3rd century religious politics.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 6:54 PM as a reply to Ryan J.
Ryan Kenneth Johnson:
I'm not going to participate in this thread with the exception that on the topic of authenticity, we have more reason to believe the Buddha of the Pali Canon is a historical fiction who never existed. Which is a huge, important fact if you are concerned about authenticity, when the whole story is a fiction in the first place:

http://jayarava.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-very-idea-of-buddhist-history.html

Jayarava concludes, "An over-arching question here is: Was the Buddha a poor philosopher who could not articulate a coherent system of thought, even with the restrictions that he himself placed on epistemology? Was he like many of his contemporary disciples an anti-rationalist dedicated to subverting reasoned discussion? Or was the Buddhist tradition a syncretic mishmash from the beginning, in search of unifying narratives (like Siddhartha Gotama) from the beginning and only really finding sufficient coherence after some centuries had passed? Or is there some better answer to the philosophical mess we find in the suttas?"

To me Buddhism makes more sense if the story of the Buddha marks the culmination of a process of assimilating a wide range of cultural influences that is a new synthesis of religious ideas in India. In this we see the same kind of pattern in the advent of Tantra in the 6th century CE. Tantra is a grand synthesis of religious ideas, attitudes and practices that revitalising Indian religion, but older religious ideas are also conserved and propagated alongside. I argue that something like the Tantric synthesis happened in Indian in the 6th - 4th centuries BC, and that it took a long time for doctrines and narratives to settle into the familiar patterns."

I am am amazed at the shameless argument from authority fallacy that most people here employ. It's like arguing with Christians who say, "Because Jesus said so." No, it's not like that, it IS that. But it's increased my psychological models of people in trying to understand this phenomenon, so that's nice. I care about awakening, not 1st, 3rd century religious politics.
Hey Ryan,

Though this is not about the authenticity of Noting, but the authenticity of the Suttas and the Buddha, Leigh Brasington has a nice article on the subject.

Leigh:

Given the huge variety in these suttas, how literally should we take this material? Is it all really the words of the Buddha and his close disciples? Well, unless you are willing to believe, for example as found in MN 123, that the newly born baby Buddha-to-be took seven steps to the north and exclaimed in a loud voice "I'm the chief in this world, the most accepted and the most senior. This is my last birth, I will not be born again”, you are going to have to let go of literalism. You will need to use your critical thinking ability to decide what is authentic, what is mythology, and even what was a later creation to serve some sectarian purpose.

And another excerpt, by Leigh:

Below I include discussions of some suttas to begin to give you hints as to how to proceed on your own to decide what is authentic and what is a later fabrication. But the long and the short of sutta study is simply this:
    Read lots of suttas looking for practices the Buddha repeatedly says you should do - and then go do them. Don't worry too much about the stories, contradictions, mythology, etc. Remember the Buddha was only concerned about showing the way to end dukkha - find his instructions concerning this and follow them.
http://www.leighb.com/palisuttas.htm


Psi :

Personally, I look at the Suttas like old treasure maps, and maybe even some are fakes, those can be thrown ou, no treasure.  But some of the Suttas, when transcribed onto our neurons, nerve pathways, galndular functions, and whatnot, will prove themselves to be authentic, at least in the sense that they are real, and have predictable results.  Kind of like a prescription, or a recipe.

Are the Suttas, word for word authentic in the sense that Buddha spoke everything word for word, and it was written down exactly as he spoke it centuries later? lol  emoticon

But pragmatically, can the Suttas, or instructions from any Buddhist Tradition be used effectively?  Personally , I do not think so.  But, I do know so. It works, and can be proven for oneself in the laboratory of the mind. Are all Suttas effective? Word for word. Probably not. But then again that would be subscribing to rites and rituals.  A kind of Book Worship, books as an idol, Book Idolatry.  

Which ironically is what some scholars turn to, only they worship their own thoughts,ideas and books,  and never try out the Buddha's system for themselves.  Hence they get stuck in the thicket of views.  

A scholarly view of Buddhism by those that do not practice the Eightfold Path is absolutley ridiculous.  They are just subjectively talking about phenomenon of which they had never experienced.  It would be like an airline passenger criticizing the pilot on how to fly.

I suppose they could look at it from a historian or anthropological point of view, but I do not know what good really becomes of that.

And, one last comment, there are delusions among all types of peoples all over the world.  Delusions are part and parcel of the Human Mindset.

Hell, 1/4 of people think the Sun goes around the Earth, and this is 2015!!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says

Good Times

Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 7:38 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi,

I dont disagree, it doesn't matter if the Buddha in the Canon didn't exist: what matters are teachings that lead to awakening, 'good things' etc.

I think there is something more sweet about a Buddhism without the Buddha, because then when must give gratitude, it isn't to just one super genius, it's to multiple generations of people, it's more orientating toward a fellowship of humanity on the grounds that awakening paths are made possible by lots of people working together, not just the product of one essentially alien super genius intradimensional passerby called the Buddha.

This is about the authenticity of noting, but most people who are about the authenticity of noting generally will say something like, "Well, that's not what the Buddha did!" There is, what I suspect, a sort of emotional unmet need for a leader figure. One that I presume Jesus failed to capture, deeply ingrained into the western cultural programming, so it gets thrusted on to the Buddha. I'm saying, the excessive push for the Suttas and the authenticity of the Buddha are correlated. The most cold and logical answer is that none of this matters, only awakening does. Perhaps you are an exception to this rule. But that level of barebones is too much for 98% of people, so they need a tradition.

I bet at least 60% of the people on the DhO believe the Buddha existed and is THE absolute unquestionable  authority on awakening, and therefore logically one should go back in time to early Pali Canon to copy his techniques. If the bests scholarly research suggests he didn't even exist, well, their mission is pretty fucked. And someone committed to that will be in conflict with those who don't care about this  authenticity. These two different value systems make up a large amount of the endless argumentation on this site.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/2/15 11:09 PM as a reply to Ryan J.
Ryan, 

Well, I have been contemplating whether the Buddha was a real historical person, I must admit, I had always assumed that he was.  And I had always assumed that he was human, with legends and myths interwoven and surrounding him as often happens with recountings of stories.

And, I have to say, there may be no way to really know for sure, unless we had his bones or could clone some of his DNA or something, which might irritate him as he would have gone through all the trouble to evade rebirth, only to be resurected in a science clone lab, how ironic.

But, I will say that this person probably did exist.  The Teachings are deep, and just when I had thought I had it figured out, another level opens up.  Also, what is being taught, by the Buddha, if I may say that, is profound to the point that when understood, even partially, it could not have just come from a bunch of storytellers, but would have to have come from a genius that had actually gone through the path themselves.  And that the teachings, while similar to other teachings, do seem to go a little farther.

So, out of curiosity, I looked up the authenticity of Bodhidharma, which is one figure I have really related to and clicked with.

Story, from Wikipedia 

The biographical tradition is littered with apocryphal tales about Bodhidharma's life and circumstances. In one version of the story, he is said to have fallen asleep seven years into his nine years of wall-gazing. Becoming angry with himself, he cut off his eyelids to prevent it from happening again.[31] According to the legend, as his eyelids hit the floor the first tea plants sprang up; and thereafter tea would provide a stimulant to help keep students of Chán awake during meditation.[32]

Just kinda crazy , huh?

But, to sum up, there is a mind behind all this, perhaps more than one mind, "On the Shoulder's of Giants", which makes the teachings real enough as they are,

Viewer discretion is advised.

Psi Out

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/4/15 7:41 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
katy steger:
I've thought long and hard about whether to post anything negative on here, because in most cases I feel its uncalled for but recently this forum has become obsessed with defending itself against suttas, which feels really wierd to me and precicely the kind of Buddist dogma that turns be right off in caring about meditation. I loved that you didnt need to get bogged down in boring Buddist teachings and could just talk about practice. In real, modern, unpretentious terms. And talk about results. And leave all the other rubbish to other websites. I'll only say this once because I feel like I might as well have my say, but  who cares, really, honestly, if something that works to achieve enlightenment is or isnt part of some old texts?

Does it really matter? I dont think it does.

Hi b man,

Yeah, I think it's really hard to join in dialog like this. 

However, people often seem to me to come to the Buddhist meditative practices based on ideology and hope for a useful ideology and/or practice (like the end of suffering) and even a good-feeling community while one practices, where one is valued in the community.

So a buddhist objective of "seeing things as they are" often, to me, sees a lot of biology of own-species.

For humans, as we know, there's a whole, long period of human biological development that often expresses these social biological drives: community and value-placement in the community. Value-placement can occur by physical skill, emotion skills, and intellectual skill. Sometimes one person has all three of those skills more than anyone else in the community-- they are probably at the top of that community. For everyone else, there's locathing themselves at a level of value they can live with (or eventually destroy/self-destruct).

So for to better house human skills and the need for togetherness and inter-competition, we make play of our inherently brutal survival skills :we have made international prizes like the Olympics and Nobels in order to try to move our physical, emotional intelligence and intellectual skills into non-violent and pleasing ways (the physical sensations of pleasure possibly coming from brain's pleasure with novelty and with prosocial sensations in events that are ultimately safe (Just for Laughs festivals, movies which safely proxy dives lives/adventure for us, novel cuisine..)).

In the world outside and inside of this website club there is very much the opportunity to self-radicalize as one searches for that "best" human herd, which drive is a strong biological drive in much of our species. People looking for a safe herd (relative to that person, not 'safe' relative to another community with which it competes)-- that seeker will look for a community, a place, a role with self-value and the "best" ideology to preserve/promote their role-- a ladder one can broadly or specifically use for orienting their lives for best survival and rewards. People who promote their herd as the "best" (the most authentic in this thread) are like other supremacists and doing something natural to biology, not always great for reducing suffering though.

So it's practical to take up the investigation with people who are considering  joining and/or advocating for a supremacity community. Supremacy causes suffering from start to finish, seed to flower. 

Even the instructions for who can teach the dhamma are ideological instructions, not meditative instructions (knowing people are both 'wet' and 'dry' realisers of what Buddhism teaches), AN 5.159:
1. One who can teach the dharma does so step-by-step;
2. One who can teach the dharma teaches cause and effect;
3. One who can teach the dhama teaches with a mind of compassion;
4. One who can teach the dhama teaches not for material gain;
5. One who can teach the dhama does not promote/demote* themselves or others.

Concluding: It is not easy to teach the dhamma and one should only teach when one has those five skills established [2].

(*see accesstoinsight for more on this word)

Indeed,
a good deal of Theravadan buddhist texts confront a lot of human ideology with buddhist human ideology: Vinaya, Mahjima Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, and Dhammapada. Meditation is found more abundantly (sutta-per-sutta) in the Samyutta Nikaya. 


So there is the practical, "seeing things as they are" biological basis for engaging intellectually, engaging supremacist ideologies as well as engaging about meditation practices and behavioral outcomes. 



_____
editx1: typos clarification
editx2: [2] I don't teach and I find this has been a nice site for learning moments with peers.

Thanks for the reply Katy. So are you saying that you need to be able to teach / understand budhist teachings to get enlightened? My understanding from MTCB was that it wasnt necessary, but maybe I have misunderstood. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/4/15 9:38 PM as a reply to b man.
Thanks for the reply Katy. So are you saying that you need to be able to teach / understand budhist teachings to get enlightened? My understanding from MTCB was that it wasnt necessary, but maybe I have misunderstood.

Thanks for participating here.

I'm not saying that (excerpted above). I just mean about your aversion to this thread:
"yawn. Wow. this is the most tiresome thread I have ever read !

When I first joined this forum, I liked it because it stood for a no-nonsense approach"

a) .. that I "get" that threads about actual meditative practice are interesting and that argumentative threads can be a put off;


b) But that discursiveness/arguing about ideology happens often anywhere; and a lot of the Pāli canon deals with such ideological argumentation: the Pali portrayal of buddha is often one in which people are convinced to follow him based on his logical argumentation of ideology.

c) So debate is a practice, not generally a quiet one, but valid and historically it was the way of conversion (taking refuge in the buddha was to be persuaded by the intelligence of the ideas for the Pali canon --- "tire kicking" so to speak --- whereas in the Pure Land texts there's more focus on compassion and devotion and forgiveness delivered in chanting/prayer meditation.

Who can honestly say who is more authentic they should simply show proof, not speculation.

Therefore, to me*, a reliable teacher shows in their action the reliability of their teachings as life goes on, same as a non-teaching practitioner knows if and how their practice is reliable or is becoming reliable. Not easy; growing mindfulness, like any learning.
 

Such a teacher could rather drop that which cannot be validated ("authenticity" claims, aka "our teachings may be kept at the forefront"), and spend time joining their minds and hands with any other willing persons in the measurable challenges to which such a teacher may have already given lip service on their own blogs: say, the plight of de-nationalized citizens and climate change. 



Edit: daring to format, daring to format!
*And Asterix. Soon I will add obelix...

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/5/15 6:01 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Sure. I totally accept that there is debate as part of certain buddhist traditions, and what I fail to see is what value this adds to actually getting enlightened. To me it seems more part of the dogma of certain traditions, or just that, a traditional thing to do. Dating back to before TV existed, used as a past time, or a way to establish some kind of intellectual hierarchy so that leaders may emerge and the teachings may continue. 

Perhaps it is required that those who teach do understand and have explored all the ancient buddist texts. Purely so they can put discussions like this to bed quickly, and make people use thier time to meditate instead of arguing! 

Is there a reason that arguing isnt part of 10 day retreats? Because it disturbs the peace of the mind and makes it harder to make progress in meditation maybe? Arguing strikes me as being in direct opposition to noble silence in a lot of ways.

My orignial point was really that I love this website as it is (ussually) a place for people to discuss methods of what works and what doesnt and not a debating site for the suttas. Maybe its that I dont understand why reading all these old texts is really nessesary. Thats the beauty of books like MTCB, someone else has done all that for you, and brought it into the 21st centuary. To use an anology of how I see this game - I wanna be a racing driver, and in order to to be a great racing driver I dont need to understand the history of car mechanics to do that. I need to learn racing theory, and I need to get my body in great physical shape so it can withstand the g-forces of racing. I trust that the team who has done all the research into building racing cars has done a great job and I just drive the car. How can I trust them without having read all the mechanics manuals from the beggining of time though, I hear you ask? well because I just look at who has already won the race using that car. The fact that there are countless people on this and other message boards that attest to having gained paths via these methods is enough for me.

If there is antoher reason to learn the suttas then maybe they have validity in terms of morality etc, but I hold strong in the fact that this website was build around Pragmatic Dhama, and that can be distilled to a set of teachings that mean that we dont need to read 10s of thousands of suttas right?

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/5/15 9:50 AM as a reply to b man.
If there is antoher reason to learn the suttas then maybe they have validity in terms of morality etc, but I hold strong in the fact that this website was build around Pragmatic Dhama, and that can be distilled to a set of teachings that mean that we dont need to read 10s of thousands of suttas right?

Yep, agree-ola. To sit and observe life/ "what is this?" seems to me a common feature of many childhoods, long before texts...

And people can use any meditative/contemplative tradition or novelty they want to find what's pragmatic guidance for them. So I have liked the ānānāpasati as a practice.

This thread is, to me, in the "discourse family" of practice (outside of a "noble" silence practice, but for listeners/readers) --- the discurive way people may come to terms with how to use or not use certain texts and schools. The concern about "Who can teach me? Who/what can I trust?", the search for something reliable/valid, is a common and natural one. 

One of most moving exhibits I ever saw was the violent dystopias created by people who promote their Utopias, their ideologies of what's "best", what's most true/most valid/most authentic; it showed the value of an argumentative, discoursive, slow republic, for example.

In a buddhist framework, when people get sick of something (sick of discourse, sick of 'noble' silence, sick of one practice or another, sick of one camp or another, sick of lay people, sick of monastics, sick of this and that) it's anticipated par for the course as understand the mind and condition of dukkha.

So it's useful to some people, blowhardism to others emoticon

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/5/15 4:05 PM as a reply to b man.
b man:
Sure. I totally accept that there is debate as part of certain buddhist traditions, and what I fail to see is what value this adds to actually getting enlightened. To me it seems more part of the dogma of certain traditions, or just that, a traditional thing to do. Dating back to before TV existed, used as a past time, or a way to establish some kind of intellectual hierarchy so that leaders may emerge and the teachings may continue. 

Perhaps it is required that those who teach do understand and have explored all the ancient buddist texts. Purely so they can put discussions like this to bed quickly, and make people use thier time to meditate instead of arguing! 

Is there a reason that arguing isnt part of 10 day retreats? Because it disturbs the peace of the mind and makes it harder to make progress in meditation maybe? Arguing strikes me as being in direct opposition to noble silence in a lot of ways.

My orignial point was really that I love this website as it is (ussually) a place for people to discuss methods of what works and what doesnt and not a debating site for the suttas. Maybe its that I dont understand why reading all these old texts is really nessesary. Thats the beauty of books like MTCB, someone else has done all that for you, and brought it into the 21st centuary. To use an anology of how I see this game - I wanna be a racing driver, and in order to to be a great racing driver I dont need to understand the history of car mechanics to do that. I need to learn racing theory, and I need to get my body in great physical shape so it can withstand the g-forces of racing. I trust that the team who has done all the research into building racing cars has done a great job and I just drive the car. How can I trust them without having read all the mechanics manuals from the beggining of time though, I hear you ask? well because I just look at who has already won the race using that car. The fact that there are countless people on this and other message boards that attest to having gained paths via these methods is enough for me.

If there is antoher reason to learn the suttas then maybe they have validity in terms of morality etc, but I hold strong in the fact that this website was build around Pragmatic Dhama, and that can be distilled to a set of teachings that mean that we dont need to read 10s of thousands of suttas right?
Well what has this to do with enlightenment? It has EVERYTHING to do with that. Because the implicit main concern regarding most of these debates is wether the state "reached" using various practices are actually the same. Is the modern theravada end state the same as the mahayana chan, zen or san state? What about vajrayana etc. Is the enlightenment state reached using mahasi noting the same as the one reached using tantric practices, or the shikantaza of the japanese zen via Dogen?

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/5/15 7:00 PM as a reply to Ryan J.
Ryan,

I have never heard anyone say or believe that the historical Buddha did not exist and that his teachings were synthesized by a group of people. I somewhat agree with you on the need for looseness and "non-dogmatism", but non-dogmatism for its own sake is just a stupid as dogmatism however. It reminds me of the "secular rationalism and superior intelligence that the atheistkult propound, based on the idea that they believe that after death they will be annihilated". It's literal stupidity.

I don't think any scholar actually had any good reason to believe the historical Buddha did not exist, and that his teachings are merely fabrications that point to real truths or are "practical" (they work) and that the Buddha was some created "central figure", mast, or literary device.

I have never heard that view propounded, in a serious manner. On the flip side, people have indeed said that of the author of the Zhuangzi for example, and in some cases, Jesus of Nazareth. But I don't take their views concerning Jesus of Nazareth (that he didn't exist as a historical personage either) seriously, and neither should you.

Please see this link for your convenience: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon#Views_concerning_attribution_to_the_Buddha_himself

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/5/15 10:02 PM as a reply to Echo 10.
Echo10,

You write, "I have never heard anyone say or believe that the historical Buddha did not exist and that his teachings were synthesized by a group of people." 

Well, you just heard it from me. Let me be the first person to write that the Buddha of the Pali Canon didn't exist, probably, to your virgin eyes. Then let me introduce a second and third person who don't believe in the historical Buddha, one who is one of the foremost Buddhist scholars in the world and another scholar who has potentially in some ways equal scholarly might: Jayarava and David Chapman. Three's a party! Now, I linked Jayarava's article, did you read it?

I'm going to assume you did not read it, because that was the whole point of Jayarava's article. He makes point after point that are convincing, to me at least. I'm too lazy to make his points for him again, especially when he's a formidable writer in his own right. Since you didn't refute the article there is nothing for me to refute in your post. All you did was just try to shut me up from saying an opinion with sensible reason to believe backed by world class scholarly research.

"I have never heard that view propounded, in a serious manner." Jayarava's article? That couldn't be more serious if he tried. That article is the culmination of a man who dedicated his life to Buddhism. That article is the culmination of tens of thousands of hours that resulted in hard earned knowledge. Serious doesn't even BEGIN to capture the majesty of AMAZINGNESS that is that article, dude. To say, "Fuck you you stupid piece of shit!" to Jayarava would be polite to him relative to saying that article isn't serious, given all he has sacrificed to his studies.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/5/15 10:28 PM as a reply to Ryan J.
Sup Ryan,

It's kind of hard to talk to you if you're so insistent on shoving a "non-existent Buddha" down my throat. But I will try anyway, out of compassion, and because I feel I would be slighting you if I dismissed you. In short: because I want too.

One: I'm not going to read the article you linked. It is of no consequence or matter to me, whether or not the Buddha existed. The short reason being that the person of the Buddha is easily seen, if one divines the coherency of the original texts.

dhammaṃ passati so maṃ passati; yo maṃ passati so dhammaṃ passati

Two: and this more of a common sense thing. I don't see a reason to believe he didn't exist, either way he persists in the dhamma, but it's odd to "go out of your way to find some reason to believe he didn't exist". Sure there may be inconsistencies in whatever textual remnants we have, I don't believe that is a --- reason --- to disbelieve in the existence of a historical Buddha.

But like I said it is of no consequence to me whether or not the person existed. I merely do not like your secular-ish attitude, and your insistence on proving to others (and thus yourself) that he did not exist. And that therefore we do not have to follow him verbatim etc etc.

There's a lot I'd like to say about the secular attitude of this forum, but that would essentially involve overturning this entire forum, which means this forum as a "unique and special place" would cease to exist.

Cheers.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/6/15 6:49 AM as a reply to Ryan J.
deleted, because i was offtopic.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/6/15 8:51 AM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Wow, I was on a vacation and this thread grew a bit. Could anybody give a summare? ^^
here's a summary of my arguments against the authenticy of noting:

Noting is not in line with the dhamma as presented in the suttas because:
 •There is, as far as I know, no sutta that says "make a mental note of every single thing that comes into awareness".
•If it doesn't induce jhanas it's not samma samadhi. (Source, for example the Magga-Vibhanga sutta) 
•The paths/baseline shifts/attainments attained by hardcore noters do not seem to be in line with the ten fetter model presented in the suttas. I want to progress on the ten fetter model. 
(Sources: Bhante Vimalaramsi, the DhO and MCTemoticon

Maybe I had some more opinions, can't come up with them right now. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/6/15 9:21 AM as a reply to Echo 10.
Echo10,

If you have read my other posts you would know I believe in magick, think religion is a good thing, think ritual is a good thing, and so on, I'm not quite secular and I'm not quite religious.

The way your wrote your post associates me with a pretty negative interpretation of the new atheist movement and then begs me to stop 'believing something so silly.' It's a dismissive attitude with no refutation to one of the foremost respectable Buddhist scholars.

You have pretty strong opinions for something that is of no consequence to you as you claim. There is a lot to say about secularism, but for every word there is to say about that, there's two or three words to say about the pseudo-traditionalist fundamentalism that's a product of modernism that's being shoved down people's throats, hence this topic. (How many times have I read someone somehwere demand Daniel give up his Buddhism because it doesn't match a more correct 10 fetter version of their Buddhism?) Again, if authenticity is important for you, there is Dhammawheel.com. It's best to have a diversity of mutually value conflicting communities, so it's a great place for you if strict adherence to scripture and going back to the original true doctrine (fundamentalism) is your mission.

Fundamentalism contradicts the constitutional values of this forum. What you propose is akin to destroying the US Constitution because it contradicts Christian values. It isn't going to happen.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/6/15 9:51 AM as a reply to Pål.
Your unwillingness to even read the thread started for you makes me think there are better uses of my time.

Good luck.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/6/15 10:57 AM as a reply to Matt.
matthew sexton:
Your unwillingness to even read the thread started for you makes me think there are better uses of my time.

Good luck.

I'm going to read all of it when I'm home with good internet connection, computer and time. I'm really thankful for all the responses!

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/6/15 5:09 PM as a reply to Pål.
Gordo . .:
Hi Pal; summary, strong response and a mixed bag. Certainly the horse is not dead anymore, its back on its feet and reeking havoc on the dho. 
Regards Gordo.
Currently only "reeking havoc" in one thread. 

nick (mod)

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 10:08 AM as a reply to Pål.
Wow, I was on a vacation and this thread grew a bit. Could anybody give a summare? ^^
here's a summary of my arguments against the authenticy of noting


Hi Pål,
 
My point, starting a little earlier than needs be, but is helpful (to me):

A. There is not evidence that a "Prince Siddhartha" lived outside of some of the earliest written Buddhist documents. 

B. The earliest known written texts of Buddhism were written at something called the "Third Council" held under the kingship of Ashoka the Great in approximately the year 250 BCE; this congress convened about 200-300 years after the death of their teacher.

It is the record of Ashoka the Great and his actual, royal legacy of disseminating Buddhist teachings (as far away as Greece) and implementing those teachings in his governance that establishes for me that there probably was a Siddhartha Gautam, who probably did come from a powerful family.


C. The Theravada lineage comes from that Third Council and its written record (council meetings 'minutes', if you will), Vibhajjavada. Either a majority of monastics or King Ashoka, or both, outcast other monastics from that council (which council, again, took place 250 BCE (which is 200-300 years after the death of their teacher)) if those monastics would not adhere to the record (Vibhajjavada).

D. And the written Chinese āgamas do not get any "closer" to the historical buddha than the Pāli canon. Where agamas are dated, the dates begin (to my knowledge) in 300-400 CE.  The agamas may be direct translations from the records of the Third Council.


E. Rules are important to rulers, so I can see why Ashoka allowed for, or even influenced, the chasing off of monastics who did not want to adhere to soley the Vibhajjavada: 

F. However, even this Pāli canon, from hundreds of years after the death of the historical buddha, notes that the dying words of the historical buddha were something like:
 
Buddha:  "[Ananda, just keep the important rules, the minor rules can be let go.]"  

And Ananda, knowing there were hundreds of rules (vinaya) the Buddha has established for the mass of practitioners collecting around him, reportedly asked,
   
Ananda: "[Lord Buddha, but which ones are the importants ones?]"

But, alas, Lord Buddha reportedly died before answering.

So all the rules were kept, hundreds of them, and those were recorded in a liturgical language several hundred years after Buddha's parinibbana.



So, there is a 200-300-year window of time from the death of the historical buddha (who is said to have spoken,  but not to have written) until the first writings, and the writings were a liturgical form, and the writings occurred in a political process with exclusions.


Further, to read the Pāli canon, one can see that that record even records the buddha explainging, "Who can teach this dhamma?" And in the five points he reportedly gives of "Who can teach the dhamma?", not one point in this Pali canon record says "one who teaches the authenic dhamma says what I have said literally."

Rather, the Pali canon notes the Buddha saying who can teach the dhamma (Pāli canon AN 5.159) are those said to speak (my paraphrase):
1) step-by-step (i'm out!),
2) with a mind of compassion,
3) to cause-and-effect (dependent origination),
4) without the purpose of material gain, and
5) without promoting* self, demoting* others.

*Attānam ca param caanupahacca (without + troubling or without + hurting) katham kathessāmīmīti paresam dhammo desetabbo.  
Accesstoinsight on this translation and that word "hurting": 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.159.than.html



Further, the Buddha in the Pāli canon shows people who go off on their own (e.g., the pot maker, JotiKara, lives with his folks making pots out of rat-vomited clay (not kidding, you can read it...) and  Vacchigotta returns to his reclusive spot on the hill)...


...sooooo, according to the Pāli canon (recorded much later than the Buddha), during the life of the Buddha, Buddha encouraged realized people to go off, be reclusive. An so such recluses easily could have given rise to the other schools of buddhism, just as "authentic" (or, if one is arguing for an authenticity (not me), one could say teachings apart from the Third Council are more authentic as they would lack political vetting, co-opting.. )


And for those 200-300 years after the death of the historical person and before the political gathering and writings at the Third Council, people could have wandered of to teach and given rise to other lineages.


Unless someone can show step-by-step how their texts back up through 200-300 years from a council meeting, step-by-step showing how the council minutes actually go to the lips of the historical buddha, there is no truthful nor helpful business being conducted to call one's school authentic, closest, proximal, at the forefront. 

Any proposal of "authenticity" by Aryan monks ("Arya" is the word for "noble ones", "pure ones", a common reference for monastics) would be baseless, harmful, Aryan supremacist ideology, twins with other baseless harmful supremacist ideology.


Rather many traditions, including secular humanism, support fostering values similar to the buddhist paramis:
genorosity (non-greed)
ethical discipline,
patience 
joyous perseverance (improvement, effort)
Meditative stabilization/contemplation/reflection (e.g., St. Romuald's Rules..)
Wise understanding (functional, adaptive intelligence, i.e., not memorization)


So if you like noting, go for it. Give it a reasonable try. It's not the practice I've used, but I have friends who've used it well. (see again Arrowsmith's 2013 ted talk to build convinction in what you do for youself, if you like). 

Best wishes !

(editx1)
Edit 2: I would just add personally that I have benefitted quite a lot from one senior Theravadan scholar-practitioner monastic, well versed across traditions, who teaches the Pali canon. In my few years hearing him, he laughs readily about some of the record and questions occasionally insulting language in the canon; as well he teaches the canon in a memorable way which inspires personal investigation and application. He is intent on relief of suffering and not hurting others nor promoting self/his tradition. So I would just hope that his fellow monastics and any lay scholars in the proofless "authenticity" realm would obtain in their lives such his broad scope of experience and knowledge of others so as to not posit such false authenticities or, at least, that they would find independently verifiable proofs before they would evangelize their way.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 10:57 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Now I've read through most of the posts.

@Katy Steger:
If noting doesn't necessarily develop jhanas then it's not very good parami-wise either. Last time I checked the meditation parami was not "meditative reflection" but "jhana/dhyana". 

@everyone wondering what the point if this discussion is: 

Many of you seem to think everyone talking about enlightenment is talking about the same thing. I'm not so sure about that and I want the sutta enlightenment: the end of suffering through the end of desire. Fits very well with the ten fetter model, right? 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 11:32 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
Many of you seem to think everyone talking about enlightenment is talking about the same thing. I'm not so sure about that and I want the sutta enlightenment: the end of suffering through the end of desire. Fits very well with the ten fetter model, right? 
I say, pick up your practice, start or get back to your practice log (the first one I saw ended with you saying you're lazy), let us know what's happening in your practice.  All this chit chat sounds like 'analysis paralysis' and it may be holding you back.

This is the 'do it' website.

Go for it man!  If you are really uncomfortable trying to something you are not sure about, then try to figure that out somehow.

Matt

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 11:37 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
Now I've read through most of the posts.

@Katy Steger:
If noting doesn't necessarily develop jhanas then it's not very good parami-wise either. Last time I checked the meditation parami was not "meditative reflection" but "jhana/dhyana". 

@everyone wondering what the point if this discussion is: 

Many of you seem to think everyone talking about enlightenment is talking about the same thing. I'm not so sure about that and I want the sutta enlightenment: the end of suffering through the end of desire. Fits very well with the ten fetter model, right? 

Note is just a word, it means to notice or to pay attention, in other words to be aware, to be mindful.

Mindful we breathe in, mindful we breathe out

Note  breathing in, Note breathing out

Noticing breathing in , Noticing breathing out

Note when you are unwholesome, Note when you are wholesome

When you Note, are aware , or are mindful, only then can you line back up with the Noble Eightfold Path.

Note , ot Notice harmful speech, Note or Notice Harmonious Speech

If one has a sensation arise and it passes away and one is unaware of the sensation, one was mindless of the sensation

If one has a sensation arise and pass away and one is aware of the sensation, one either Notes it verbally, or Notices it non verbally, one was mindful of the sensation

Note or notice within these four foundations, in other words be mindful or aware.

kayanupassana, vedananupassana, cittanupassana, dhammanupassana

Does that sound Authentic with what the Buddha taught, in your view, supported by the Suttas,  once contemplated upon, Pal?

Noting is used as a base camp method.  One can start with this, or always go back to base camp and use Noting.  When the mind becomes tranquil, or the awareness level increases to where the verbalizing is interfering with the awareness of sensations arising and passing away, then one naturally proceeds to noticing non verbally.

If the mind becomes distracted or off path one can always go back to verbally noting, it is a method to help keep one on Path. 

Notice what the Mind is doing in the present moment, that is the start, not the end all.  One can not fix what one is unaware of, right?  Mindfulness is the lead horse.  But not the only horse.



Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 1:21 PM as a reply to Matt.
Wait did I write a practice log? Can't even remember that haha
yes I'm kinda lazy, doing breath awareness barely an hour a day, half an hour last week because of the trip :/

"do" what? 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 1:43 PM as a reply to Psi.
Hm... Maybe
Could you give a practical example of dhammanupassa with noting?
Do you, like many noters, think that the hindrances should be overcome through noting them again and again? I've never seen noting being taught as a method for aknowledging faults and that one should use other methods to deal with them (like for example the Satipatthana suttas together with Dvedhavitakka, Vitakkasanthana and Ahara suttas teaches if I've gotten them right). Instead we ate taught by the mahasi tradition (correct me if I'm wrong) to just note hindrances until they go away by themselves. But sure, if this too leads to ten fetter progress then I would consider it authenthic. In your experience, does it? It weakens my faith in noting when Daniel says the ten fetter model is unrealistic.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 1:46 PM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
Wait did I write a practice log? Can't even remember that haha
yes I'm kinda lazy, doing breath awareness barely an hour a day, half an hour last week because of the trip :/

"do" what? 
Wiseguy. emoticon

You go to the practice log subforum, start a post entiled "Pal practice log".  State to the world there that you will twice daily sit for 1 hour and spend 1 minute reporting back every day for the next week.

Sitting: find a comfortable quite spot.  Close your eyes.  Sit still.  Focus attention on breath sensations at the nose.  When you notice wandering, return to actual present moment sensations at the nose.  Or do whatever your favorite sutta says to do, but don't read any more suttas till you've spent a month sitting two hours/day.

Let the magic happen.  If you freak out, take care of yourself and report.

Begin today!

Matt

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 2:20 PM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
Hm... Maybe
Could you give a practical example of dhammanupassa with noting?
Do you, like many noters, think that the hindrances should be overcome through noting them again and again? I've never seen noting being taught as a method for aknowledging faults and that one should use other methods to deal with them (like for example the Satipatthana suttas together with Dvedhavitakka, Vitakkasanthana and Ahara suttas teaches if I've gotten them right). Instead we ate taught by the mahasi tradition (correct me if I'm wrong) to just note hindrances until they go away by themselves. But sure, if this too leads to ten fetter progress then I would consider it authenthic. In your experience, does it? It weakens my faith in noting when Daniel says the ten fetter model is unrealistic.
One Dhammanupassana example ,

One notes that there is the factor of equanimity within, or notes there is not the factor of equanimity within.
If one notes that there is the equanimty factor within then one maintains the factor of equanimity within.  If one notes that there is not the factor of equanimity within then one abadons the non-equanimity factor, arouses the equanimity factor, then one maintains the equanimity factor.

From Mahasi Sayadaw.

When the noting mind notes each object of tranquilliy and insight, he is said to have made the Right Effort which can accomplish four tasks: 1) the task of preventing unwholesome states that have not yet arisen from arising, 2)  the task of eliminating unwholesome states that have already arisen, 3) the task of developing wholesome states that have not yet been developed and 4) the task of establishing wholesome states that have been developed.
 
From page 13
http://www.saraniya.com/books/mahasi-sayadaw/pdf/mahasi_sayadaw-1971_to_nibbana_via_the_noble_eightfold_path.pdf


Personally , I do not feel at liberty to discuss what other people know or do not know about the ten fetter model.

From my view Daniel is indeed a wholesome individual and does not need to defend his moral actions or deeds, or should he be judged either.

But firstly, Can you first show me which Sutta and where in the Sutta is the Ten Fetter Model so we may discuss?

Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 2:27 PM as a reply to Matt.
Two hours is a bit much for me right now but when june comes and school ends I'll double my practice and start logging it!

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 3:33 PM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
Two hours is a bit much for me right now but when june comes and school ends I'll double my practice and start logging it!

Instead of reading/writing about Buddhism, meditate.  If you're doing it, write about it's raw experience.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 4:02 PM as a reply to Matt.
matthew sexton:
Pål:
Two hours is a bit much for me right now but when june comes and school ends I'll double my practice and start logging it!

Instead of reading/writing about Buddhism, meditate.  If you're doing it, write about it's raw experience.

lol. Dont let them push ou into anything your not comfortable with, Pal !! ;-)

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 6:15 PM as a reply to Psi.
I'll read the link tomorrow, looks interesting! 

The ten fetter model is in many suttas. For example read these together:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.013.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html

(Before he starts giving meditation instructions)

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/7/15 9:58 PM as a reply to Pål.
Pal, I want to know your reasoning on three things: (And all the other people who demand the 10 fetter model be THE measurement of awakening)

1) Where and what do you imagine your own biases of interpretation of the 10 fetter model are? Do you think it's possible that your psychological, linguistic, cultural structuring of mind has any influence on how the meaning of the 10 fetters processes through your conceptual-emotional-cultural information processing mind aka your brain? How much? Zero? A little? A bit? A lot? Why?

2) Why do you assume the 10 fetter model is the correct model or the end all be all model for the human phenomenon known as awakening? Where does the authority of the 10 fetter model come from? Why is it the correct one? How are you so sure if you think so? Why do you assume it necessarily true? Can you explain why it is true without appealing to, "Because the scripture says it is true, it is true?" Or, "Theravada Buddhism is the only authority on world mysticism and all mysticism (awakening) is judged as valid or worthy quality by (my) Theravadan 10 fetter standards."

3) Do you think your perspectives may potentially ever be limited, and how do you think this relates to being vocal about how mysticism ought to be? Related and perhaps most important: do you think the 10 fetter model has any shadow sides, and if so, what might they be?

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 5:27 AM as a reply to Ryan J.
1) Not completely sure exactly how I misinterpret it but I must do it to some extent since I'm human and unawakened.

2) What are you talking about? THE human phenomenon known as awakening? Your human phenomenon known as awakening? Study the religions and psychological of the world and you'll probably find, unless you're Jungian, that there is no single definition of awakening like there is a single definition of a chair. The fact that I want to progress in the ten fetter path doesn't mean all other definitions of awakening and all other spiritual aspirations are wrong! However, the suttas pretty clearly give instructions for progressing ten fetter-wise. I'm testing for myself right now whether it's true or not, will give it a few years because of faith and that it's pretty enjoyable.  If you want to progress in some other way feel free to use some other system. We might use different definitions of awakening and that's fine. Imo a definition can't be wrong. Why would there be only one single kind of enlightenment? 

3) Definitions are always limited. That's their point. Shadowsides? Might be that some people jist surpress the fetters without really uprooting them wgile thinking they have done so. That can be pretty dangerous.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 7:26 AM as a reply to Matt.
Here's a grab-bag of comments…

re: Ryan Kenneth Johnson
(4/2/15 2:33 PM as a reply to Pål.)
"I am am amazed at the shameless argument from authority fallacy that most people here employ. … But it's increased my psychological models of people in trying to understand this phenomenon, so that's nice. I care about awakening, not 1st, 3rd century religious politics."
"…shameless… fallacy… most people here…" – What do you find so threatening that you need to characterize other viewpoints in such extreme and largely derogatory terms?

re: Ryan Kenneth Johnson (4/2/15 7:38 PM as a reply to Psi.)
"I'm saying, the excessive push for the Suttas and the authenticity of the Buddha are correlated. … none of this matters, only awakening does. … But that level of barebones is too much for 98% of people, so they need a tradition."
"No man is an island." Tradition is invoked as representing something on a spectrum from one extreme to an other. A middle understanding might be that some find it useful to "stand on the shoulders" of those that have gone before; the wheel may not need to be re-invented; maybe can be improved upon. And re-inventing the flat-tire is worth avoiding. (Alluding to an idea from Alan Kay)

"I bet at least 60% of the people on the DhO believe the Buddha existed and isTHE absolute unquestionable authority on awakening, and therefore logically one should go back in time to early Pali Canon to copy his techniques. If the bests scholarly research suggests he didn't even exist, well, their mission is pretty fucked. And someone committed to that will be in conflict with those who don't care about this authenticity. These two different value systems make up a large amount of the endless argumentation on this site."
I see it as a mandala of viewpoints, and being exposed to and tolerant of which often brings insight – not unlike your "psychological models of people", but less ad hominem.

re: b man
(4/5/15 6:01 AM as a reply to katy steger.)
"…a place for people to discuss methods of what works and what doesnt and not a debating site for the suttas. Maybe its that I dont understand why reading all these old texts is really nessesary."
Clearly it's not, but some are helped by it.

"Thats the beauty of books like MTCB, someone else has done all that for you, and brought it into the 21st century."

MTCB is that much different from some old text? (Then why MTCB2?) And there's the aspect "those who ignore history might end up re-living it." Not to argue for slavish and comprehensive mastery of "all these old texts", but some familiarity can be useful, for some people.

"…but I hold strong in the fact that this website was build around Pragmatic Dhama, and that can be distilled to a set of teachings that mean that we dont need to read 10s of thousands of suttas right?"
Right. And see below (quotation from DhO mission statement in red) to the effect that this forum admits a range of relevant viewpoints (including your "hold strong in the fact…"), which are all expected to show a modicum of respect for the expression of other relevant viewpoints.

re: Ryan Kenneth Johnson (4/5/15 10:02 PM as a reply to Echo 10.)
"… a second and third person who don't believe in the historical Buddha, one who is one of the foremost Buddhist scholars in the world and another scholar who has potentially in some ways equal scholarly might: Jayarava and David Chapman. Three's a party! Now, I linked Jayarava's article, did you read it?"
I'm not Echo 10, but I have read Jayarava, and David Chapman; AND Alexander Wynne, Rupert Gethin, Ven. Analayo, Ven. Sujato; and Stephen Batchelor, Leigh Brasington, Rod Bucknell, Martin Stuart-Fox, Linda Blanchard, Johanna Jurewicz; and Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk; and Noa Ronkin, Alexander Piatigorsky; and Nyanatiloka Mahathera, Nyanaponika Thera, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, Ayya Khema, Ajahn Brahm; and Shaila Catherine, Richard Shankman, Jack Kornfield, Gil Fronsdal, Sharon Salzberg, Andrew Olendzki; and PaAuk Sayadaw, Ven Ledi Sayadaw, Mahasi Sayadaw, U Pandita Sayadawgyi, Sayadaw U Silananda; and Elaine Pagels, Karen King, Karen Armstrong; and Visudhimagga, a bunch of suttas , and a couple of Abdhidhamma texts; … and a bunch more and many yet to read. And every one of them had something worth pondering and to inform practice. That's all quite a party too. (A technique I picked up back in university days – comparative cultural (or religious, orscientific or whatever) history. Triangulate from multiple diverse viewpoints to help form my own sense of what's what. Which in the end is yet another POV.)

(and yes, I do just sit and watch, struggle with aching joints, and enjoy jhanas, etc.…)

re: Ryan Kenneth Johnson (4/6/15 9:21 AM as a reply to Echo 10.)
"(How many times have I read someone some here demand Daniel give up his Buddhism because it doesn't match a more correct 10 fetter  version of their Buddhism?) Again, if authenticity is important for you, there is Dhammawheel.com. It's best to have a diversity of mutually value conflicting communities, so it's a great place for you if strict adherence to scripture and going back to the original true doctrine (fundamentalism) is your mission."
Yes, just how many times? (I've not noticed any.) Again, what's with the systematically extreme characterizations?

"Here you will find a robust and variable community of people with a wide range of experience levels, perspectives and interests, though all loosely bound by the same basic principles of empowering, helpful, engaged knowledge and exploration of the possibilities of the mind and how it may be modified to reduce suffering and enhance wisdom."

Pop quiz: Where's this quoted from?

Pål.
"do" what?

re: matthew sexton (4/7/15 1:46 PM as a reply to Pål.)
"You go to the practice log subforum, start a post entiled "Pal practice log".  State to the world there that you will twice daily sit for 1 hour and spend 1 minute reporting back every day for the next week."
I've looked and not found on the DhO home-page any statement that Mahasi-style reporting protocol is mandatory here. (I get enough of that in retreats at TMC.) Rather, see above, and also the guidelines on that page.


And this all, too, arises and passes away…emoticon

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 8:01 AM as a reply to CJMacie.
re: Ryan Kenneth Johnson (4/6/15 9:21 AM as a reply to Echo 10.)
"(How many times have I read someone some here demand Daniel give up his Buddhism because it doesn't match a more correct 10 fetter  version of their Buddhism?) Again, if authenticity is important for you, there is Dhammawheel.com. It's best to have a diversity of mutually value conflicting communities, so it's a great place for you if strict adherence to scripture and going back to the original true doctrine (fundamentalism) is your mission."
Yes, just how many times? (I've not noticed any.) Again, what's with the systematically extreme characterizations?

I understand Ryan's p.o.v on this, and it did happen quite frequently a couple of months back (I have to get ready for work and finish this bowl of rice so I can't link now) but Not Tao, Pal, and Daniel Leiffler frequently expressed disdain for members referring to paths who had not followed the ten fetter model. Daniel L. specifically prescribed for everyone on the message board that those who did not follow his idea of paths (10 fetter) should not be allowed to use Buddhist language, the implicaton being that they were not true blue as they did not believe in his model, and his model was correct. It was one of the funnier and more illogical ideological stances I've seen put forth, i.e: These practitioners integrity is at stake because they say they have paths, and yet they act and feel this way, even though the model itself does not prescribe behavioral and emotional limitations, but perceptual change, which was also seen to be at fault.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 9:21 AM as a reply to Pål.
Gordo . .:
Hi Pal; when told that the Mahasi Sayadaw technique does away with alot of the preliminary stuff that the Buddha seems to suggest and that the more important preliminaries will be developed along the way. I can accept that. When told that the form of concentration developed is different, but just as effective. I can accept that. When told that the final outcome does not match, but that is because the models were wrong. My alarm bells start ringing.


Except, that is not what Mahasi Sayadaw taught, his technique seems to have been misconcieved as the entire path.
So, Noting is just a technique, all methods are just methods, no more, no less.
When told that the final outcome does not match
So, what did Mahasi Sayadaw say about the outcome?  Here is but one excerpt.

Mahasi Sayadaw

He learns that it has to be carried not for one brief moment, but for one’s entire life, and throughout saṃsāra, without any respite, without any limit of weight,.

38 On the Nature of Nibbāna distance, or time. I have told you elsewhere about the cycles of defilement, actions, and results. In essence, these three cycles have a bearing on the three burdens that I am talking about. To sum up, all defilements like greed, anger, and ignorance constitute the burden of defilements, all moral or immoral actions constitute the burden of actions, and the five aggregates constitute the burden of aggregates. Discarding All Burdens Since Arahants have eliminated all defilements through Path consciousness, they succeed in laying down the burden of defilements; and that being so, their past kammas are rendered ineffective aer their parinibbāna. That is past kammas can no longer create new “becoming” for them. However, during their lifetime, they continue to give results.

From Mahasi here on page 38

http://www.saraniya.com/books/mahasi-sayadaw/pdf/mahasi_sayadaw-1964_on_the_nature_of_nibbana.pdf

Disclaimer , just in case people want to label me, which you may, I am whatever you say I am. And again, I read and learn from many, many teachers, traditions, just trying to clarify a common misconception.  

Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 10:58 AM as a reply to Psi.
Thanks, you put my question very well. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 11:40 AM as a reply to Psi.
Gordo . .:
Hi Psi; the first point is about getting straight into vippassana and build up concentration as you go. Second points about momentary concentration. Third how many practitioners say that original models are incorrect from their experiences. This is general descriptions and feedback I've been hearing for many years. There's no mention of the man himself saying anything. 
The rest is encouragement for Pal to do whatever he needs to do to gain confidence. And finally the invitation for people to help him.
Regards Gordo.
Hiya Gordo!

First point, EDIT there is said to be three ways, Samatha as vehicle, Vipassana as vehicle, and Samatha Vipassana conjoined as vehicle.
The above statement may be falsley misconstrued to believe that one may  use Samatha only to reach final liberation, thus it is being striked out, sorry

Mahasi Sayadaw,

Samatha and Vipassana

Only if vipassana insight-meditation is practised, one will be able to realize nibbāna and be completely free from all kinds of misery and sufferings, such as old age, disease and death. There are two modes of practising vipassana meditation. They are 1) practising samatha using it as a vehicle for the attainment of vipassana ñana;(2) practising meditation vipassana pure and directly without the basic exercise of samatha.A person who practises meditation for realization of nibbāna making use of samatha as a frame-work is known as samathayanika which means a person who 'makes his way' to nibbāna using samatha as a vehicle.A person who practises meditation vipassana meditation without using samatha as a ground work, is known as suddha-vipassanayanika. If, therefore, a person wishes to practise meditation following the path of samathayanika, he should first and foremost practise samatha.
 



Second Point, Momentary Concentration, this has been said to be sufficient to start Insight.

Third point, Well, I am sure there are numbered in the billions,  people that would say the original model does not line up with their experiences, what does a few more add to any conclusions?

It was once thought to be impossible to break a 4 minute Mile, and this did indeed line up with everyone's personal experiences at that time. 

Guess everyone was wrongo...

I prefer not to set limitations on the mind or model after some thing, I prefer to keep an open mind, and just practice , practice, practice. Then when experience lines up with a model or map or whatnot, then it is what it is.  For me, the ten fetter model seems to be what happens as a result when one practices the Noble Eightfold Path, and, so what?  It should, you get results from that with what you pracitce, that should be no surprise.

The purpose of religion is to control yourself, not to criticize others. Rather, we must criticize ourselves. How much am I doing about my anger, about my attachment, about my hatred, about my pride.. my jealousy ? These are the things we must check in our daily life."-His Holiness the Dalai Lama

Many Blessings,

Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 1:07 PM as a reply to Psi.
As I understood the MCTB, the enlightenment that comes from noting, according to Daniel's experience (and many others ob the DhO), is not about uprooting attachment, ill-will etc. Obviously, he doesn't agree woth Mahasi Sayadaw.
This makes me wonder what kind of enlightenment that is and if I really want to pursue it. I do, however, try to practice to attain the paths described in the suttas which are said to transform ones personality radically. At the suttaic arahantship, all ten fetters are gone. Maybe MCTB arahants could reach further if they only tried, or noting everything is just not sufficient. But then Mahasi maybe agreed about this, right?

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 4:37 PM as a reply to Pål.
That sutta mentions the 10 defilements. It does not equate awakening with overcoming them. That latter notion comes from the Theravadan tradition alone.

It would certainly do that tradition and idealized notion some good if even a single person who had eliminated the fetters could be pointed to and held up as a realistic and inspiring exemplar for the rest of us. Anyone? The Lutheran pastor of my childhood church may have been nearly a saint, but I can't say I've crossed a single human being since that time who would qualify as even a remote second.

Any nominations for a real person who has eliminated all those fetters and reached moral and emotional perfection?

Anyone?

There is a concerted effort on this forum the past few months to smear vipassana and what MCTB stands for, particularly but not exclusively noting practice, in favor of various other pursuits, such as samatha jhana and actualism, as means to some ill-defined or undefined liberation. When I say "concerted effort" that is exactly what I mean, and it is more than a little suspicious how relentless and concerted the effort is indeed.

To any genuine new DhO members or lurkers seeking liberation from all-pervasive suffering, such liberation being the nondual model of awakening, I highly recommend that you read Daniel M. Ingram's MCTB, and then MCTB2 when it comes out (Part 1 is already posted), put the knowledge and practices laid out there to the experiential test (ie, actually do them rather than debate them here), start and diligently maintain a practice log or journal on the site to attract those DhO commentators whose MCTB-based practice has actually worked to attain paths, and that you maintain a high index of suspiction against blocks of avatars here who are nightly yammering on to each other to discredit noting practice and vipassana. Do not allow yourself to be confused by deliberate anti-MCTB noise-making currently tolerated here.

Do not get sucked in by trolling, which is rampant here. The arguments are time wasted that you could be putting to good use by reading MCTB and actually practicing vipassana.

As for the nearly continous trolling on this forum--I agree with Bill F. And Kenneth Ryan Johnson, for I, along with others who've been here a while, are paying attention to the bigger patterns across posts night after night.

And everyone else who wishes to quote yet again the language at the entrance to the site as excusing such behavior should bear in mind that reform of this site was promised in February and will come to be. If you wish to provide fodder for even more reform than is already planned, then go right ahead, please. Nothing will make me gladder than a DhO that is more narrowly defined and strictly moderated than the present iteration, and you are no doubt helping to make that happen.

Those of you who now will take my comments and try to create a brand new membership-polarizing debate on how the site should be structured and moderated, your efforts will prove short-lived. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 5:07 PM as a reply to Jenny.
I try to keep my investment here minimal compared to my other life pursuits, so I simply want to say Jenny's post (Also Bill Fs, I was going to link an old Buddhist Geek thread on Google+ and a few random posts around the internet basically upset at Daniel Ingram & him not following their Ten fetter model, won't name names) but her post captures my sentiments well enough that any further replies I would have made are essentially captured by this post, nice.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 5:22 PM as a reply to Jenny.
I liked MCTB. Recommended it to a couple of people. That does not mean one cant have thoughts regarding the focus on noting or the nature of the end goal.
I think one should strive to find a "tool" that is inline with who you are and go from there. Thats why Im going the "tibetan route". 
Just checkout A Meditation Guide For Mahamudra. http://www.mahamudracenter.org/mmcmembermeditationguide.pdf
This meditation manual provides instructions for a cycle of six series
of Tibetan meditations taught and practiced at the Mahamudra
Meditation Center in Petaluma, California, U.S.A.
[...]
This text provides a comprehensive and thorough introduction to the
meditation practices of Mahamudra according to Dakpo Tashi Namgyal,
as described in his authoritative meditation manual from the sixteenth
century, Moonbeams of Mahamura. In addition, select meditation
maintenance and enhancement practices are included from a variety of
other sources. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 5:39 PM as a reply to Jenny.
That sutta mentions the 10 defilements. It does not equate awakening with overcoming them. That latter notion comes from the Theravadan tradition alone.

It would certainly do that tradition and idealized notion some good if even a single person who had eliminated the fetters could be pointed to and held up as a realistic and inspiring exemplar for the rest of us. Anyone? The Lutheran pastor of my childhood church may have been nearly a saint, but I can't say I've crossed a single human being since that time who would qualify as even a remote second. 

Any nominations for a real person who has eliminated all those fetters and reached moral and emotional perfection?

Anyone?

There is a concerted effort on this forum the past few months to smear vipassana and what MCTB stands for, particularly but not exclusively noting practice, in favor of various other pursuits, such as samatha jhana and actualism, as means to some ill-defined or undefined liberation. When I say "concerted effort" that is exactly what I mean, and it is more than a little suspicious how relentless and concerted the effort is indeed.

To any genuine new DhO members or lurkers seeking liberation from all-pervasive suffering, such liberation being the nondual model of awakening, I highly recommend that you read Daniel M. Ingram's MCTB, and then MCTB2 when it comes out (Part 1 is already posted), put the knowledge and practices laid out there to the experiential test (ie, actually do them rather than debate them here), start and diligently maintain a practice log or journal on the site to attract those DhO commentators whose MCTB-based practice has actually worked to attain paths, and that you maintain a high index of suspiction against blocks of avatars here who are nightly yammering on to each other to discredit noting practice and vipassana. Do not allow yourself to be confused by deliberate anti-MCTB noise-making currently tolerated here.

Do not get sucked in by trolling, which is rampant here. The arguments are time wasted that you could be putting to good use by reading MCTB and actually practicing vipassana.

As for the nearly continous trolling on this forum--I agree with Bill F. And Kenneth Ryan Johnson, for I, along with others who've been here a while, are paying attention to the bigger patterns across posts night after night. 

And everyone else who wishes to quote yet again the language at the entrance to the site as excusing such behavior should bear in mind that reform of this site was promised in February and will come to be. If you wish to provide fodder for even more reform than is already planned, then go right ahead, please. Nothing will make me gladder than a DhO that is more narrowly defined and strictly moderated than the present iteration, and you are no doubt helping to make that happen.

Those of you who now will take my comments and try to create a brand new membership-polarizing debate on how the site should be structured and moderated, your efforts will prove short-lived. -
Jenny

Very nice! The current tide or phase seems to be fundamentalist Buddhism. This is not everyone, but a general movement towards as a trend here. Previously this was a fundamentalist AF site, not everyone but general climate at the time. Then, as now, you have folks who have very little experience and insight, but lots of strong beliefs, beliefs not yet validated but held to for emotional reasons, primarily it would seem the falsely held notion of superiority. Daniel is mostly to blame as it is his message board, and he then, as now, has failed to do much of anything about it. He's like the absentee father sticking his head into the smoke filled bedroom of his wayward child on visiting weekends, saying "you kids knock it off!" and then walking away. I like Daniel though. He seems like a nice guy.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 7:13 PM as a reply to Bill F..
This is very OT
Trend towards fundamentalist Buddhism? Holy crap captain. Because one dude have concerns about the validity of the mahasi noting practice in relation to his spiritual goals? I wonder who really is the fundamentalists.
Personally Ive pondered Jayaravas buddhism practice and said it all seem to be much more like epicurianism and stoicism (most modern Buddhist practioners seem to lean that way though no clue whats wrong with epicurianism though that makes them take offence. Gives you lots of the same stuff but no need to remove Buddhist beliefs.), but that was on his site.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 8:12 PM as a reply to Andreas.
Obsessing over doctrine rather than sharing lived experience is fundamentalist. I can't think of a better definition. Also, you know that I've pointed out several members, there are several others, and that it is not about asking "is noting useful?", but about saying "This is is the true Buddhism, and if you don't believe as I do then you shouldn't use Buddhist terminology".
That is the core of fundamentalism: Assuming one has a hold on the truth and that intepreting texts in a literal way outside of their historical/cultural/religious context is the most accurate way to the truth. Did you miss my previous post? If you didn't, then you know I am not talking about one member and an admission that you read my previous response this morning would be to acknowledge that you are misrepresenting my opinion. If you did not read my post from this morning, then go back and read it, because you are misrepresenting my opinion.


Edit: Edited to delete potentially inflammatory material.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 8:33 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Yeah he does seem like a nice guy. Personally I think he has 3 more fetters to go, but that's just me.

Edit: Why am I not banned yet?

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 8:35 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Depends on the nature of the doctrine. When the lived experience is interpreted from the standpoint of doctrine in weird ways then I think its good to discuss such matters. But I honestly dont care very much either way. Im just curious about mahasi noting and its relation to awakening.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 9:13 PM as a reply to Echo 10.
Echo 10:


Why am I not banned yet?

James,

because you will just keep coming back in through the window until you get psychiatric help for your disorder.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 9:30 PM as a reply to Alin Mathews.
Alin,

I was being sarcastic.

But even if you were genuinely answering my question (which you weren't, you were using the opportunity to dispense your 'on-high' wisdom about how sane you are because you listen to Richard -- which by the way I like that guy), your answer doesn't make sense. It doesn't actually answer the question. It's just a dig. 

I get it though, you need to get over your uniqueness complex about how you don't have to think critically anymore because you can just look up what Richard wrote (about any topic -- he writes about a lot of stuff) and then just parrot what he wrote.

Ignoring Richard for now, the vast majority of people who "follow AF" are people who "follow AF", as in that's what they are and do. They don't really seem to have any intention of doing what Richard did.

Because if they did, they wouldn't be Richard! They would be themselves.

Don't set up Richard as your arbiter.

That would be doing yourself a disservice.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/8/15 11:07 PM as a reply to Echo 10.
Echo 10:
Alin,

I was being sarcastic.



and I wasn't James. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 2:13 AM as a reply to Bill F..
re: Bill F. (4/8/15 8:01 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)

"I understand Ryan's p.o.v on this, and it did happen quite frequently a couple of months back…"


Thanks for pointing that out. Not that my memory is perfect (having in fact read a lot of what you refer to), but perhaps one adjusts to the many kinds of sharply-worded claims, counterclaims and accusations here in DhO; one starts to just filter-out much of it.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 4:07 AM as a reply to Jenny.
Since you start by discussing the authenticity och the Ten Fetter approach to awakening: Didn't I post the Anapanasati Sutta too and suggest you read them together? Please do so. In the very basic Aps sutta the Buddha explains the ten fetter model and it's relationship to the stages of awakening, but he doesn't describe the fetters, which is why you should read the Sanyojana Sutta first.

Now, obviously you want the DhO to be a forum that is only about non-dual awakening. 
It isn't emoticon

OK, so I don't know any ten fetter arahant for sure, that means there is no such a thing?¿?¿
Very few people can run a hundred meters in 10 seconds. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be possible if I didn't know about Usain Bolt. Why do you underestimate humans so much? If people can be like completely evil which they obviously can, I think the opposite is possible too.

@Bill F
I am actually asking if noting is useful. But I'm asking if it's useful for the kind of awakening I want, rather than your awakening (maybe). I want suttaic awakening.

@ those who think all awakenings are the same:

please explain why this is the case w/o being very subjective?

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 6:55 AM as a reply to CJMacie.
Ha. You're welcome.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 7:01 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pal,

       I actually have not read this thread. I have no idea what went on upstream. I simply read what Ryan and Chris wrote as I value their perspectives and then responded to those two posts. That Andreas extrapolated from that that I was talking specifically about you, is simply not true, and does not reflect the nature of my comments. It was an emotional, illogical response.
      So ask away. And keep asking. And if at the end of all that asking you only feel more confused, as seems to be the pattern, then try it out for yourself in a committed, sincere way. Or dont. Whether or not the Buddha taught noting or pottery will make no difference in your or my life if we do not practice but just talk about it over the internet. Which we are free to do, but it was not the original intention of the site.
      As for there only being one awakening, can you reference where someone has said this apart from proposing the ten fetter model as truth?

Bill

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 9:33 AM as a reply to Bill F..
Mainly those who seem to be asuming awakening is one thing to me were...

•Ryan, in his three questions to me. He asked why I asume the 10 fetter model to be the correct model for "the human phenomenon known as awakening". What phenomenon? What I call awakening might not be the same as what someone else calls awakening but Ryan seems to be asuming there is one established definition for everyone. If there is such a definition I've missed it. What the Buddha in the suttas calls arahantship is however to be free from the ten fetters. Se the Anapanasati Sutta for example. 

•B man

" I'll only say this once because I feel like I might as well have my say, but  who cares, really, honestly, if something that works to achieve enlightenment is or isnt part of some old texts?

Does it really matter? I dont think it does. 

Guess what. In the old days we used to ride horses to get somewhere. Now we have cars and we get somewhere faster. Does it mean that cars aren't valid because they werent written about thousands of years ago? No. Does it mean that we can use cars to get to somewhere faster than using horses. Damn right it does. Does it matter that someone doesnt believe in cars? Not really, I dont care, let them ride a horse if they want, but Im gonna use a car."

What if it's more like several horses, cars and trains leading to different stations? Where do you want to go?

I hope nobody gets offended. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 9:49 AM as a reply to Pål.
"All these..." It was just two haha
Thought I was working with sceptical doubt. How do you think I should work with it? 
Btw do you know any explanation on the Kayagatasati sutta by Ajahn Brahm or any of his disciples/co-workers/hangarounds?
I'll leave the body for now but for later I mean.
can't remember the name of the sutta you're talking about, I've read it in the oast though.
That test sounds interesting.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 11:10 AM as a reply to Bill F..
For clarity just in case: I have multiple posts explicitly saying that awakening is mysterious and possibly multiple types depending on factors like techniques used and soforth. I have explicit multiple posts that show I don't forward only one awakening and also show extreme tolerance of different paths I myself do not practice: AF and so on. I encourage diversity of paths and my post history shows this. That's particularly why I am not a fan of dismissing anyone because they are not in line with ancient doctrine X.

For the record I am mainly Shinzen inspired among many other inspirations. That is different than knocking on someone for authenticity purposes because it doesn't match their interpretation of Sutta X. As Bill F states, lived experience, trial and error, theory into practice are what I value over doctrine or authenticity of ancient scripture as final authority, as that is the heart of what the founding members of this site, not simply Ingram, but Folk, Vincent Horn, Hokai Sobol, etc. seem to value and I independently conclude that this is sensible and effective and was why I ever signed up to this forum in the first place to meet like minded people for something so rare and overpowered.

Lastly, to shred any doubt I think there is only one awakening, one of the MAIN thrusts of my path currently is examining the anomoly Stephen Jourdain as reading carefully about how he talks and his phenomenology leads me to believe that his awakening is several orders of magnitude greater than what we take for granted as awakening. That he is the Mozart of awakening. He is the ramanujan and Isaac Newton of awakening. I'm not really sure about this so it's sort of a thought based side project and random curioisity and not a distraction from my practice as I meditate as much as full time monastics do, but I want to shoot down that assertion I only believe in one awakening with irrefutable clarity.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 11:14 AM as a reply to Ryan J.
Ryan Kenneth Johnson:
For clarity just in case: I have multiple posts explicitly saying that awakening is mysterious and possibly multiple types depending on factors like techniques used and soforth. I have explicit multiple posts that show I don't forward only one awakening and also show extreme tolerance of different paths I myself do not practice: AF and so on. I encourage diversity of paths and my post history shows this. That's particularly why I am not a fan of dismissing anyone because they are not in line with ancient doctrine X.

For the record I am mainly Shinzen inspired among many other inspirations. That is different than knocking on someone for authenticity purposes because it doesn't match their interpretation of Sutta X. As Bill F states, lived experience, trial and error, theory into practice are what I value over doctrine or authenticity of ancient scripture as final authority, as that is the heart of what the founding members of this site, not simply Ingram, but Folk, Vincent Horn, Hokai Sobol, etc. seem to value and I independently conclude that this is sensible and effective and was why I ever signed up to this forum in the first place to meet like minded people for something so rare and overpowered.
Ryan, 

I agree with you, it seems there are many paths with many results.  

Many paths with many results coupled with the fact that we inherit what we are born with biologically, gives rise to many possibilities for the expansion and training in consciousness.

Paradoxically, this is why I can not scratch the possibility that someone could eliminate all ten fetters as stated in the Suttas.  How would I know for sure that this is not possible, how could anyone?  If someone had done it , why would they admit to it?  No one would believe them anyway, cuz a Fully Enlightened person would not have a halo as proof and besides, they would still get boogers.

So, I would not dismiss anyone for being in line with ancient doctrine x, or for being in line with modern doctrine y, or a for being in line with a doctrine of no doctrine.

It seems that people get what they practice to get, i.e. the Results as the Path.  

And that has been shown proof enough.

Psi

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 11:36 AM as a reply to Psi.
i wonder why people stop at some point practicing if they have working system.

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/Jhana+and+%C3%91ana+/en
"Full enlightenment," then, as defined by the Theravada Buddhists, is not a mysterious process. It is purely a matter of accessing a finite number of strata of mind and seeing them clearly. Set 'em up and knock 'em down. The "seeing clearly" is automatic, or at least not difficult for anyone who has crossed the first Arising & Passing of Phenomena (4th ñana). So concentration is the whole game for an intermediate or advanced meditator. For those of a poetic or mystical bent, it could even be a disappointment to learn that we are dealing with such a mechanistic process. Nevertheless, such is the situation as I see it. In any case, the subjective experience is far from dry, and there is no need to abandon the infinitely mysterious non-dual practice while developing the jhanas.

why not to aspire clean the mind strata completely?

There is rsis and other seers, psychics etc lol and extraterrestails walking amongst us. I starting to think we are not serious enough and just too simple minded as some ET's tell us.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 2:53 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi,

I agree we are in agreement. I made a huge post about magick, so I'm willing to accept absurd conclusions. I think the crux of the issue isn't whether or not 10 fetter model is correct or not, but rules of engagement, rules of conversation, thread ettiquette.

Meaning, if you argue for something, show evidence or some other sensible point in favor for your argument: who lives up to the 10 fetter model? What techniques produce it? Contrasted to saying, "Oh your realization is nice, but that's not what the Suttas say." Where it's both dismissive to the poster, adds no pragmatic information, and is off topic. I can't speak for others like Daniel Ingram, but I suspect him, myself, and many others would be more than interested in acquiring this information and the practical techniques that would arise from said information.

If I wanted to prove the 10 fetter model correct, here's how I'd do it: list off examples of the 7.2 billion human beings alive today the potentially 12 or so who have shredded all 10 fetters and why, and explain in meticulous detail. If I couldn't do that, I'd utilize the entire thrust of my practice, which to brag, I practice a lot, and orientate it towards eliminating all fetters. I wouldn't speak about it until I made large progress and then I'd make my own thread explaining my project, guesses at why I think it will work, techniques I use, etc. I simply wouldn't go into other threads and expect them to adhere to something so theoretical. Now, if I had 20 years of practice on my side and reason to believe I had succeeded or was close, I would put forth a case. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 3:50 PM as a reply to Psi.
Exactly, people seem to get what they practice for which is a main reason of why I care about authenticity. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 4:01 PM as a reply to Pål.
•Ryan, in his three questions to me. He asked why I asume the 10 fetter model to be the correct model for "the human phenomenon known as awakening". What phenomenon? What I call awakening might not be the same as what someone else calls awakening but Ryan seems to be asuming there is one established definition for everyone. If there is such a definition I've missed it.

He seems only to be saying that it a phenomenon (observable occurence) that happens to humans. He is not saying anything in terms of it looks like this, but not like this. I read stuff like this all the time on the Dho, misrepresenting the opinion of another with flimsy backing evidence to try to prove a point, however incoherently it comes off. When you have to misrepresent another's viewpoint to support your own it means you don't know what you are talking about, and are reacting emotionally.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 4:19 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Bill F wrote, "He seems only to be saying that it a phenomenon (observable occurence) that happens to humans. He is not saying anything in terms of it looks like this, but not like this." 

That was exactly my intention of handling awakening in this topic.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 4:29 PM as a reply to Ryan J.
Evidence? Can we ever know who has a meditative attainment for sure? 

Technique would the noble 8-fold path with an emphasis on the fourth Jhana if we are to believe the suttas. See for example the Samadhanga, Sankhita and Magga-vibhanga suttas. 

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 5:16 PM as a reply to Bill F..
Noticed how he asked why I thought a model was "correct" for "the" phenomenon? That at least made me think he thought that the word awakwning describes one phenomenon. And I did write that it was - my impression - that he had that opinion. But your right in that I'm reacting emotionally. Always do to a lot of things. That's something I'm trying to erase with meditation. You know, ten fetter model ;)

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/9/15 11:07 PM as a reply to Pål.
Perhaps more useful to work with how you interpret the arising of emotions, emotions being primarily a physical response to external stimuli that if not opened to become claustrophobic, subjective, dissasociative and dualistic feelings. Real-life model. And all the more transformative and nourishing for that.

RE: Authenticity of noting
Answer
4/11/15 5:32 PM as a reply to Bill F..
I split off the converstion about Daniel and the DhO so that this thread stays on topic. You can find it in the Talking about the DhO titled thread.
Nick (mod)