Message Boards Message Boards

Insight and Wisdom

What is not contained in the four foundations?

Toggle
What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/9/15 4:53 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Ian And 4/9/15 11:29 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/10/15 5:36 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Eelco ten Have 4/10/15 10:05 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/10/15 10:35 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Eelco ten Have 4/11/15 12:57 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/12/15 6:33 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Eelco ten Have 4/12/15 9:57 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/13/15 1:09 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Eelco ten Have 4/13/15 4:07 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? tom moylan 4/13/15 4:28 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/20/15 3:07 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Not Tao 4/20/15 4:29 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/21/15 10:33 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/21/15 9:47 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/22/15 4:19 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/22/15 6:02 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Andy R 4/22/15 12:15 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/22/15 12:32 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/22/15 3:48 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/23/15 2:19 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/23/15 8:38 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/23/15 10:18 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/23/15 2:37 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? . Jake . 4/23/15 3:11 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/23/15 3:27 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Psi 4/23/15 9:23 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/23/15 10:21 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Psi 4/23/15 11:09 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/23/15 11:24 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Psi 4/23/15 8:05 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/24/15 2:26 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Psi 4/24/15 10:37 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/24/15 11:50 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Psi 4/24/15 12:50 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/25/15 1:03 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/26/15 3:38 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Psi 4/26/15 7:43 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/26/15 10:27 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Psi 4/26/15 11:24 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/26/15 1:02 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Psi 4/26/15 11:13 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/27/15 1:21 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Psi 4/27/15 9:00 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/27/15 10:52 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/28/15 1:21 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/28/15 10:29 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/28/15 11:04 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/28/15 12:01 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Psi 4/28/15 12:31 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/28/15 2:08 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Psi 4/28/15 9:43 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/28/15 10:53 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/26/15 11:40 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/26/15 1:30 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/22/15 4:29 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Mark 4/23/15 2:00 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Change A. 4/28/15 9:09 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/28/15 11:25 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Change A. 4/28/15 10:02 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/29/15 9:41 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Change A. 4/29/15 9:59 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/29/15 12:26 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Richard Zen 4/24/15 1:48 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/28/15 3:22 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/28/15 8:53 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/28/15 11:20 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/28/15 11:49 AM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/28/15 3:17 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 4/28/15 8:01 PM
RE: What is not contained in the four foundations? Pål 4/29/15 9:37 AM
What is not body, vedanas, mind or dhammas? There must be something, otherwise the Buddha wouldn't have made that limitation, right?

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/9/15 11:29 PM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
What is not body, vedanas, mind or dhammas? There must be something, otherwise the Buddha wouldn't have made that limitation, right?

I'm not sure I understand your question. However, from your comment, it may be that you are overthinking this and transforming it into a problem to be solved. If that is the case, you will need to drop your attachment to the presumption in the comment, and just examine the phenomena mentioned in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of the process of self realization.

It might help to look at the term we are using (cattaro satipatthana) and endeavor to translate it in a way that makes more sense in terms of how Gotama may have intended to use it. This may help to shed some light on the question about which you are perplexed, and perhaps may hasten the exit of the presumption.

In the Introduction of his translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote the following:

"The phrase cattaro satipatthana is commonly translated 'the four foundations of mindfulness,' a rendering which takes the compound to represent sati + patthana and emphasizes the objective bases of the practice: the body, feelings, mind, and phenomena. It seems more likely, however, that satipatthana should actually be resolved into sati + upatthana, and thus translated 'the establishment of mindfulness.' Such an interpretation, which puts the spotlight on the subjective qualities marshalled in the development of mindfulness, is implied by the adjective upatthitasati used to describe one who has set up mindfulness."

Bodhi isn't the only monk to have made this connection. In his ebook Wings to Awakening (which I recommend that you find, download, and read if you haven't already), Thanissaro Bhikkhu, in Part II, The Seven Sets points out the following in Section Two, The Four Frames of Reference:

"The four frames of reference (satipatthana) are a set of teachings that show where a meditator should focus attention and how. This dual role — the 'where' and the 'how' — is reflected in the fact that the term satipatthana can be explained etymologically in two ways. On the one hand, it can be regarded as a compound of sati (mindfulness, reference, the ability to keep something in mind) and patthana (foundation, condition, source), thus referring to the object that is kept in mind as a frame of reference for giving context to one's experience. Alternatively, satipatthana can be seen as a compound of sati and upatthana (establishing near, setting near), thus referring to the approach (the how) of keeping something closely in mind, of maintaining a solid frame of reference. Scholars are divided as to which interpretation is right, but for all practical purposes they both are. The Buddha was more a poet than a strict etymologist, and he may have deliberately chosen an ambiguous term that would have fruitful meanings on more than one level. In the practice of the frames of reference, both the proper object and the proper approach are crucial for getting the proper results. In fact, as we shall see, the taking of a proper object entails the beginning of the proper approach, and the approach ends by taking as its objects the qualities of mind developed in the course of pursuing the approach itself. In other words, as we mentioned in the Introduction concerning the Buddha's Awakening, the 'what' merges with the 'how' as the 'how' of the investigation ultimately becomes what gets investigated."

Using this little insight that we've just been given, then, the four establishments of mindfulness, as I am fond of translating the word, tells you exactly what is needing to be done: that is, establishing mindfulness of the body (rupa) or physical forms; feeling (vedana) the affective associations with like, dislike, and neutral impressions of phenomena; mind states (citta) like awareness of states of anger or non-anger, happiness, sadness, distractedness, lust and non-lust, delusion and non-delusion etcetera), and mind objects (dhammas, or mental phenomena, such as ideas, mental impressions, and concepts). This is not easy, but it can be done. If need be, take it one step at a time. Eventually, mindfulness of all four will fall into place.

For instance, I recall on one occasion being aware of having experienced bodily pain as "this is me, this I am, this is myself" — oh woe is me (unpleasant feeling or vedana associated with the pain) to have to undergo this pain. I connected the pain with mySELF, my sense of self, rather than only within the body as an object that was not myself. Once I realized that the pain belonged ONLY to the body, I stopped causing myself pain (dukkha) and dissatisfaction. I stopped "feeling" sorry for myself for having to be in pain, and let the pain exist outside myself. That way, it stopped being a distraction, and I could focus on attending to ways to relieve the pain rather than just immersing myself in the mental impression (dhamma) of pain, making it the focus of my awareness and becoming helplessly immersed in it.

Establishing mindfulness of the origin of the pain (as being part of the body) became a way of confronting the pain directly and at the same time releasing the pain from effecting the way I dealt with enduring it. I developed equanimity in response to the pain. This didn't make the pain go away; it was still there physically. But my reaction toward the pain had changed, deflating its energy to cause me a disturbance.

When you start to look deeper into the source of your dukkha as it can arise when examining the body or form, the pleasant or unpleasant or neutral feeling associated with the arising of phenomena, mental states which can color our impression of things, and mind objects, concepts and ideas which become seen as being real and palpable things, you begin to see that there is no YOU there. There is only a mental impression of a personality which you associate with a YOU.

Once again, Bhikkhu Bodhi points these same things out in his Introduction:

"The heart of the practice is succinctly stated in the formula found in almost every sutta in this chapter [47. Satipatthanasamyutta]. The formula shows the exercise of sati has a reflexive character: one is to contemplate the body in the body, feelings in feelings, mind in mind, phenomena in phenomena. The reiteration signals that the contemplative act must isolate each domain of mindfulness from the others and attend to it as it is in itself. This means the given object has to be laid bare, stripped of the layers of mental proliferation which usually clutter our perception and prevent us from seeing the true characteristics of phenomena. The meditator must see the body in the act of breathing as simply a breathing body, not a person or self who is breathing; feelings as simply feelings, not as episodes [or a narrative] in a long biography; states of mind as simply states of mind, not as scenes in a personal drama; phenomena as mere phenomena, not as personal achievements or liabilities."

Perhaps that will give you something to chew on in your next few contemplations.

In peace,
Ian

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/10/15 5:36 AM as a reply to Ian And.
Thanks, it does.
Reason I'm asking is partly to evaluate modern vipassana methods. For example, in the basics of mahasi noting, we are told to note everything that comes to our awareness. I mean, there must be something that can be noted that isn't a satipatthana. Noting everything seems to be counting in too much.  And the Goenka method (which I'll probably try out sometime soon if I've got the time and courage) seems to instead focus to narrowly on just body and vedanas. But I guess that's a nice start. Just afraid of the dark nights since I'm not convinced they're necessary :s On the other hand I've heard from practitioners of ceremonial magick, and the vipassana DN:s seem like paradise compared to their hellish one... But now I'm wandering into OT-land :p

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/10/15 10:05 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
What is not body, vedanas, mind or dhammas? There must be something, otherwise the Buddha wouldn't have made that limitation, right?


In the Simsapa Sutta the Buddha himself hints at the fact that there is more to know, but also saying not to bother with it for the purposes of attaining what he was teaching..


Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"

"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."

"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"

With Love
Eelco

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/10/15 10:35 AM as a reply to Eelco ten Have.
Thank you, that's a very interesting sutta, but I mean more like: what should why not try to be mindful of? Are there sensations why should ignore? I think the Vitakkasanthana sutta and Ahara sutta might hint at this.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/11/15 12:57 AM as a reply to Pål.
Hmm, I've been reading the sutta's you refer to, but I don't see where the buddha is instructing us to ignore anything.
From the refrain of the satipathana sutta..
Mindfulness is established in him to the extend neccisary for bare knowledge and continuous mindfulnes
I think the instruction to ignore it is after you have excerted all you powers to pierce through the illusions some state triggers within you.
If you fail to see it for what it is and let it go. If you find you can't somehow. then ignore it. else.. Sit with it, breathe through it, allow it,brace yourself against it. yell at it, experience it in full... then if it remians a seemingly solidified state. acknowledge the teaching that everything must be impermanent, unsatisfying and not you. So the state must be that even though you fail to see it and ignore it for the time being...

At least that's how i see it at the present moment.

With Love
Eelco

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/12/15 6:33 AM as a reply to Eelco ten Have.
The third step of the method presented in the Vitakkasanthana Sutta is about inattention of distraction:

"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a man with good eyes, not wanting to see forms that had come into range, would close his eyes or look away; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it."

I think this method (of which the above quote is the third step to be used if the first and secobd fail) is meant to be practiced during regular Satipatthana/anapana/other meditation when distractions arise. That's hiw Thanissaro Bhikkhu interprets it at least. What do you think?

I might be reading in too much in the Ahara sutta. 

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/12/15 9:57 AM as a reply to Pål.
Well the way I see it. For what it's worth is that you are right.
Your first question however was what is not body, vedanas, mind or dhammas. 

I think we've found that any consciousness of experience is grounded in one of those 4.
It takes mindfulness to recognize if a thought is evil or unskillfull. Once we recognized that, the Buddha is giving instructions in various places throughout the sutta's on how to deal with those..
Each time trying something else to get those mindstates to subside if our efforts don't produce the "desired" results. That is come to a place of understanding and let wholesome states rise.

WIth Love
Eelco

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/13/15 1:09 AM as a reply to Eelco ten Have.
If all experiences are related to one or more satipatthanas, then why use that cathegorization? Why not just say: "be mindful of everything"?

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/13/15 4:07 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
If all experiences are related to one or more satipatthanas, then why use that cathegorization? Why not just say: "be mindful of everything"?


I'm sure there is a teaching out there that says just that.
But didn't we cover this in my second reply about the Simsapa Sutta?

The cathegorization is in order to keep the mind pointed towards the goal of ending suffering.
Which is what the Buddha was teaching and hilighting in the Satipatthana suta.
Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus as follows: "This is the only way, O bhikkhus, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the destruction of suffering and grief, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of Nibbana, namely, the Four Arousings of Mindfulness."
So it has a goal in mind. To end suffering. Not to formulate a unified theory of everything.

With Love
Eelco

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/13/15 4:28 AM as a reply to Pål.
I love reading Ianands posts.

For me the four foundations are simply a method or practice.  this is all samsara and an investigation of ever finer levels of experience.  when one finally succeeds in breaking down the illusions and misconceptions of reality the mind springs into nirvana.

so there are certainly specific descriptions of phenomena not included in his sutta but the broad categories are extremely comprehensive and this methodology allows one to experience and disrobe conceptual thought through and through.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/20/15 3:07 PM as a reply to tom moylan.
Which satipatthana am I paying attention to if I'm doing a) kasina/trataka? Kaya, right? b) mantra japa?

Thanks for your patience, I still don't get this...

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/20/15 4:29 PM as a reply to Pål.
Hey Pal, I've got a thread ender for you here:

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

"The All" in pali is "sabba" which I'm sure you're familiar with. emoticon

EDIT: The Satipathanna Sutta is encyclopaedic, so instead of saying "pay attention to everything" they were trying to demonstrate that using the Buddha's own words. You can certainly just say, "pay attention to everything," if you like the simplicity. Something else to remember, too, is that the SS uses a lot of Or's, like, 'watch the body, or the sensations of the body, or the movements of the body (or whatever he actually says, I'm being lazy here). It's meant as a list of possibilities more than a long description of everything to watch at once. The Satipathannas are often called the "four frames of reference" - which is a good cue how to use them. In terms of noting, Daniel points out in his book that, if concentration is honed, you only need to note the things that are within the field of awareness. At a very fine level of concentration/letting go, there isn't much left to pay attention to, so "the all" becomes very sparse.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/21/15 10:33 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Wow, you're right:

[3] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal & external sense media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unarisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no future arising of a fetter that has been abandoned. (The same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.)


But where does mantra japa fit in? According to Vimalaramsi it doesn't, but I've been doing buddho breathing for three days and I find it makes it easy to concentrate and experience the length if the breath. Maybe it would be a different story with mantra only, but I can't see what that would be. In Thai Theravada it seems to be popular but not in Burmese/Lankese.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/21/15 9:47 PM as a reply to Pål.
Whether satipaṭṭhāna is concerned as foundational or establishment, it is also observing that there are these four broad categories of mind and these are the four "buckets" the mind is and busies itself.

So subtle/gross mentation arises in and busies itself on issues of the body (our sense bases contacting the environment, e.g., each species contacting the environment with their own sense-based perceptions).
Subtle/gross mentation arises in and busies itself with feelings or sensations (broadly, pleasant, neutal, unpleasant).
There is subtle/gross mentation in and busying itself with mind activity/consiousness itself.
And there is subtle/gross mentation in mental activity and objects. 

Outside of these "buckets" mind would be "we can't know what we can't know"; if there's something else beyound these buckets we don't know it. So mind is considered as a sense in this tradition (a bit different in Mahayana traditions) like the other senses, because it has its limited range of perception to (limited to those four buckets) just like human sight doesn't see certain spectrums.

So satipaṭṭhāna is also sort of defining the 24-hr gym of practice: "Yo, we got these four machines here... you can work with any of them any times; you gotta a lotta ways to work these four machines... If there's more than four machines here, ain't nobody gonna know about it, not detectable by mind."

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/22/15 4:19 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Ah thanks for the gym analogy, that's a language I understand emoticon 
Would mantra japa be considered bad form, like bending the lower back while deadlifting? 

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/22/15 6:02 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
katy steger:
Whether satipaṭṭhāna is concerned as foundational or establishment, it is also observing that there are these four broad categories of mind and these are the four "buckets" the mind is and busies itself.

So subtle/gross mentation arises in and busies itself on issues of the body (our sense bases contacting the environment, e.g., each species contacting the environment with their own sense-based perceptions).
Subtle/gross mentation arises in and busies itself with feelings or sensations (broadly, pleasant, neutal, unpleasant).
There is subtle/gross mentation in and busying itself with mind activity/consiousness itself.
And there is subtle/gross mentation in mental activity and objects. 

Outside of these "buckets" mind would be "we can't know what we can't know"; if there's something else beyound these buckets we don't know it. So mind is considered as a sense in this tradition (a bit different in Mahayana traditions) like the other senses, because it has its limited range of perception to (limited to those four buckets) just like human sight doesn't see certain spectrums.

So satipaṭṭhāna is also sort of defining the 24-hr gym of practice: "Yo, we got these four machines here... you can work with any of them any times; you gotta a lotta ways to work these four machines... If there's more than four machines here, ain't nobody gonna know about it, not detectable by mind."
That is the first time "mind as a sense" made sense, thanks.

I'm wondering if the shadow concept is outside of those buckets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology). This might be a concept that western psychology figured out and earlier buddhism did not ?

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/22/15 12:15 PM as a reply to Mark.
The idea of shadow cannot exist for me outside of me thinking about it. Even if, as the article says, we imagine that shadow exists outside of consciousness, we still have to imagine. There has to be mental activity in order for there to be concepts in my mind about shadow.

What could my experience of the concept of shadow be other than an experience of thinking?

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/22/15 12:32 PM as a reply to Andy R.
Andy R:
The idea of shadow cannot exist for me outside of me thinking about it. Even if, as the article says, we imagine that shadow exists outside of consciousness, we still have to imagine. There has to be mental activity in order for there to be concepts in my mind about shadow.

What could my experience of the concept of shadow be other than an experience of thinking?
Hi Andy, from a pragmatic point of view I think the shadow is not accessible through classical meditation or rational thought. The shadow might be defined by some of the thoughts/emotions that do not arise or experiences that don't point directly at the shadow. 

You might experience the shadow in things like your facial expressions, emotions, body language, attention, awareness etc. 

I hope that is of some use!

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/22/15 3:48 PM as a reply to Mark.
I'm wondering if the shadow concept is outside of those buckets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology). This might be a concept that western psychology figured out and earlier buddhism did not ?

This shadow is in the "citta" or third bucket of where mind activity arises (be founded, established), a mind-set that has influences, consciously known and unknown. Here is the wikipedia entry on Citta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citta
But the shadow thing you mention, that can also be a source of investigating objects of mind (dhammas) since some of that shadow business I read is not entirely sub-conscious, so this 'mindfulness' can be in the citta and dhamma buckets of study/establishments/foundation.

To be an aspect one of the four gym machines, doesn't mean there is any awareness of the whole machine. So let's say I go to the gym and work out on machine three (citta) for fifteen years. Later a personal trainer comes over and says, "Say, you never adjusted the machine and you've gotten taller these fifteen years. Let me show you the shadow or back side of machine three. You can adjust the settings or not. But I'll help you figure them out if you want." (This is maybe like the psychoanalyst in your link). Or, another analogy, we can look at a healthy two-year old and tell them, "In a few years you're going to have a strong ability in symbolic communications, like a lot of other humans, but right now, even though that is a part of your human mind, it's you don't know it."

It's a little like horoscopes: you have a birthday on a modern calendar, yes? So you have a horoscope, because the horoscope system covers every day of the calendar (Julian?). But if you leave the modern calendar, no horoscope: you go to the horoscopist and just say, "I was born at night" because your system is night& day, that's it. So horoscopist is, like, "Sorry, can't help you. No horoscope for the night-day folks." So you have to go find a helio-lunarist systemist: "Oh, you're a gibbous mooner.. ah-ha, you will have a long, easy life with swollen ankles though..." =) 


Like somebody mentioned, what can be found in meditation (some study inherently within the four buckets if one trust the satipatthana system) are as many as the leaves on a forest floor, on the branches of the forest tress, and in the in the forest's soil (so in that system all experiences of so-called siddhis would be here as well as experience of God, without any demotion between dhammas). Still this is not (yet) saying "All is mind" (though there is that school of buddhism and debate frenzy of sparring conceits).


But, simply put, what is said to be useful in the satipatthana system are just four leaves (out of that whole forest): that a sentient being studying how their mind occurs in one of those four buckets, that sentient will see 1) there is for sentient beings dukkha, 2) there are causes of dukkha, 3) there is cessation of dukkha, and 4) there is a path of study in learning the cessation of dukkha. 


Next stop: dependent origination, tanha and letting go =]


What do you think?

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/22/15 4:29 PM as a reply to Mark.
If I get Jung right, the Shadow, and everything elee should become concious. The concious and the unconcious should merge - that's nibbana, gnosis, moksha etc.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 2:00 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
If I get Jung right, the Shadow, and everything elee should become concious. The concious and the unconcious should merge - that's nibbana, gnosis, moksha etc.
Hi Pal,

From the little I've read (not Jung directly) shadow work is never finished. This seems to be one big difference in the understanding of the mind between buddhism and psychology. 

I get the impression many people are banking on meditation (particularly insight) as being able to "clean up" all the poor habits of mind. There seems to be quite some evidence that is not the case. At an academic level one could argue that it works but on a prgamatic level I don't think there is anyone who has achieved 4th path who makes the claim.

There is another thread which is somewhat related to this http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5565127 It would be great to see more discussion on this topic.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 2:19 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Hi Katy,

There is a theory that no theory can be 100% correct or 100% incorrect. Excluding obvious attempts to be completely wrong emoticon There is some wisdom in that I think. It allows us to integrate what might appear to be otherwise conflicting truths and also allows for some things to be "truer" than others. 

In regards to psychology I think the buddhist insights are far more profound i.e. there is more truth. But I'm not assuming buddhism got it all right and human understanding pretty much stopped 2500 years ago.

Do we open the door to saying there may be some shortcomings in the buddhist model ? If you don't want to do that then it may be a perfectly sensible approach. There is a lot to be said for faith in a system. The conversation doesn't need to go any further.

If we open that door then how to filter the various "truths" and fit things together. I don't feel capable of that myself so I'm leaning on people who seem to have a better handle on the topic. But I'll try to argue why I see citta as not quite the same thing:

From wiki

"One may "make citta turn according to" his wishes most effectively by developing skill in meditative concentration which brings mental calm and clarity."
"Attaining a purified citta corresponds to the attaining of liberating insight. This indicates that a liberated one's state of mind reflects no ignorance or defilements."

Shadow seems to be something that is best worked with other techniques than meditation. Shadow cannot be completely removed - as long as there is light there is shadow. These stand out as fundamental differences.

I think shadow is pointing at the limits of meditation and the four foundations are perhaps pointing at the same thing. As you wrote earlier mind as a sense is inherently limited. So it stands to reason that there are aspects of mind that are not accessible to mind. It seems shadow may be one of them. That seems to be a way out of this while respecting both truths ?

 

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 8:38 AM as a reply to Mark.
We're learning about Jung in religion class in school right now and as far as I understand The Shadow is not an actual entity, it's a personification/archetype representing childhood traumas, karmic/psychological garbage and parts of our personality that we don't want to aknowledge and surpress fro the concious to the unconcious. One of the goals on the road towards Jungian enlightenment is to bring these uncomfortable things that we surpress (the Shadow) up to the level of normal conciousness, which is accomplished through ,among other things, for example dream work AND meditation. So Jungian therapy and individuation process is a kind of cittanussati emoticon

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 9:23 AM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:



Just want to add a couple of things.  
First I really like Jung and his work, like his biographies and such also.  
Second, One should not confuse Buddhism and Meditation, Meditation is but one aspect of Buddhist practice. And of which even that there are many techniques and methods, you can even make up your own, whatever works , this is a do it yourself job.  If meditating on the underlying meanings of Tarot Card symbolism works, then it works, and indeed it will drudge up stuff from the unconsciousness.  There does seem to be areas of the mind that deals in symbols, some areas of mind just does not communicate with words, also there are parts of mind that communicates with only sensations and such, many layers, many areas.  This may be one of the drawbacks and limitations to trying to deal with the shadow stuff intellectually, it may have to be dealt with on a deeper, more ancient form of inner mental and bodily communication., sans words.

But, mostly, any practice that clears out the underlying shunted off mental and bodily aspects, brings them to light and awareness, so one may  then deal with these mental phenomenon appropriately, so that one is unhindered by hidden mental formations would be beneficial.  

Perhaps Buddhism would be better understood if it was called Investigationism. But the word Buddhism works too, Budh, to awake , know , perceive......gnosis, gnosticism, all sounds so familiar, just words.  

Psi

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 10:21 AM as a reply to Psi.
Hi Psi,

I've edited this, initially I did not notice that it was from you not Pal.

To reassure you I don't think that Buddhism is reducable to meditation. Did you think I believed that ? I guess you are replying to me in regards to how Buddhism "would be better understood" because you understand it much better than I do.

Could you take that deep knowledge of Buddhism and reply to Pal's question i.e. keep on topic.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 10:18 AM as a reply to Pål.
Hi Pal,

Jung seems to be the first one to define the term. It has been picked up by lots of people from there. In the big picture it is early days in regards to that theory and we'll probably continue to learn more and hopefully better approaches for dealing with it.

When you say "actual entity" do you know of anything that is an actual entity ? 

There might be a temptation to read everything from psychology to quantum physics into the suttas. There is certainly a lot of wisdom there! But your question is related to what is not covered by the four foundations and shadow seems like a good candidate ? 

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 11:09 AM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:
Hi Psi,

I've edited this, initially I did not notice that it was from you not Pal.

To reassure you I don't think that Buddhism is reducable to meditation. Did you think I believed that ? I guess you are replying to me in regards to how Buddhism "would be better understood" because you understand it much better than I do.

Could you take that deep knowledge of Buddhism and reply to Pal's question i.e. keep on topic.
Sorry, I did not mean for you to take the post personally, or to go off topic, or try to display any knowledge or experience.  Maybe that is my Shadow side, eh? emoticon

Psi

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 11:24 AM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Mark:
Hi Psi,

I've edited this, initially I did not notice that it was from you not Pal.

To reassure you I don't think that Buddhism is reducable to meditation. Did you think I believed that ? I guess you are replying to me in regards to how Buddhism "would be better understood" because you understand it much better than I do.

Could you take that deep knowledge of Buddhism and reply to Pal's question i.e. keep on topic.
Sorry, I did not mean for you to take the post personally, or to go off topic, or try to display any knowledge or experience.  Maybe that is my Shadow side, eh? emoticon

Psi

Hi Psi,

You replied to me and I assume it was for me. You might be right. Hapy to explore if you are up for it.

What were you feeling & thinking about me that motivated your post ?

Is what you felt & thought about me part of how you see yourself ? If not then it might be shadow.

Interested to hear about that.
 

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 2:37 PM as a reply to Mark.
That's right, anatta!

I think that the Shadow could be counted into the satipatthanas as a cluster of unwholesome stuff in the citta. 

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 3:11 PM as a reply to Pål.
There can be positive qualities in the shadow as well, they're just undeveloped/undifferentiated. This is of key importance for the pragmatics of Jungian-inspired work.

A better characterization of Jung's goal of individuation may be that the conscious sinks a bit towards the unconscious and the unconscious rises a bit towards the conscious, so there is more connectivity and integration of both domains while each retains its character (as opposed to the notion that his view was that the unconscious needed to rise to consciousness). 
ETA sorry if this is off topic or tangential. Just thought I'd clear those two points up. 

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 3:27 PM as a reply to Pål.
Hi Pal,

It might make more sense to think of shadows rather than "the shadow". Perhaps the focus should be more on whether meditation is the right effort in dealing with shadow. I'm tending toward using other methods. Some evidence supporting this. For example very advanced practitioners who behave immorally (sex scandals etc). Another would be Western Buddhist teachers calling for wiser safeguards for students e.g. some of the practices well used by psychologists to avoid teachers being isolated from peer review and falling into abusive relationships with students. Shinzen Young makes a case for behavioral therapies too and he seems to be extremely advanced in meditation but talks openly of having needed psychotherapy to deal with some issues.

I suspect we are going to agree to disagree which is perhaps not a bad result!

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/23/15 8:05 PM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:
[quote=
]
Hi Psi,

You replied to me and I assume it was for me. You might be right. Hapy to explore if you are up for it.

What were you feeling & thinking about me that motivated your post ?

Is what you felt & thought about me part of how you see yourself ? If not then it might be shadow.

Interested to hear about that.
 Well, I just responded to your reply mainly in reference to your point about meditation may not be the only or best method in dealing with a Jungian Shadow side, and to make a point that the pracitce path of Buddhism is more than just meditation, and that the other aspects of the Path do indeed help one to overcome and shine light to the Shadow.  Right Speech, Right Livelihood, Right Action, Just to practice these three will help one to find what is or is not a Shadow process working beneath the layers of awareness.  One has to contunually investigate some of the after the fact actions.  Like asking , Now, why did I really say this or that?  Why did I really go to the other side of the street?  Why did I , or do I take this route home?  Alot of times these simple investigations will uncover the Shadow process.  I have found that I used to take a certain route home because I was, Shadow urging a candy bar.  Or I said things because I had a Shadow restlessness.  Or actions because of the Shadow sexual tension, or whatever.

So, back to Topic, What is not included in, 

Four Foundations of Mindfulness(from the Satipatthana Sutta)
  1. Mindfulness of the body (kaya)
  2. Mindfulness of feeling (vedana)-pleasant, unpleasant, neutral; initial reactions to sensory input
  3. Mindfulness of mind/consciousness (citta), of the mind-states, moods (greed, aversion, delusion and their opposites)
  4. Mindfulness of mind objects-mental events (dharmas); Five categories of dhammas: Five hindrances, Five aggregates, 6 sense bases, Seven factors of enlightenment, Four Noble Truths
Excerpted from link here

http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/

And from what I can see, the Noble Eightfold Path is like an Eight Pronged approach upon the Shadow, the Shadow being that of which one is unaware.  Then to bring awareness to Shadow, then it is no longer Shadow.

If the Shadow has functions and processes that can one can never be aware of , or change, then nothing can be done with those types of things.  This is like trying to consciously trying to change the growth of our fingernails, the density of our bones, or the creation of  freckle.  These are kinds of things we can really only see the results of, but not consciously control.

But, we can affect change, we can clip our fingernails, eat a proper diet, and get some sunshine.  So, in this way, even if one may not know consciously a Shadow, one can still incline the mind in one direction or another.

The Shadow itself is included within the Four Foundations, as The Shadow is a concept, a mind object, a mental event.  Anything we discuss or use words for is a mental formation, and thus included within the Four Foundations.  Also, Shadow is a phenomenon, that has cause and effects, a part of body and mind, which also includes it within Four Foundations.

But, Shadow, is an excellent candidate for something that is not contained in the Four Foundations.

But, more formally to your questions of what did I think and feel about you, and what prompted me to respond?  

I thought it was cool to discuss Jung a little with someone who seemed to have some interest in his work, you seemed like a reasonable person to respond to and discuss with, also I was not sure if you thought Buddhism was just meditation and wanted to clarify  that point with you, and lastly was wanting to discuss that the Shadow actually is part of Four Foundations but thought the post was getting too lengthy.

Soemtimes when I write I start thinking out loud, and am also writing to everyone who may ever read a post now or in the future, mind to mind, so I get kind of impersonal,  sorry.   I am really trying to work on this.  

Right Speech, or rather Right Communication is a tough one for me right now, especially in a Discussion Forum format.  

Words seem to get taken every which way but loose, it is just crazy.

Psi onara  emoticon

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/24/15 1:48 AM as a reply to Pål.
I would agree with Ian And that investigating will be better. Basically any experience is known by consciousness while you are awake (including some dreaming). If you try not to exclude any kind of colour, shape, measurement, time (short-term memory for the present moment and long-term memory for the distant past), analyzing, strategizing etc you'll find that there's no inherent separate self that is found. Also the typical self people believe in is not separate from cause and effect but interdependent all the way. You might like some of the Chariot 7 fold reasonings with Chandrakirti and writings of Nagarjuna on how unfindable the demarcation lines are between cause and effect. Though these reasonings must be put into meditation.

I particularly like noticing how attention moves around like a spotlight on the sense doors in a habitual way and how some desire and aversion can be detected.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/24/15 2:26 AM as a reply to Psi.
Hi Psi,

Wild speculation folows emoticon

This thread is about one of the foundations of Buddhism, anyone interested in that will know that Buddhism is not reducible to only meditation.  So I don't buy "I was not sure if you thought Buddhism was just meditation" and I suspect you are not being honest with yourself.

If we look at your post it start with announcing that you like Jung, that you have read his biographies and such. This seems to give you the credibility to interject into the conversation because what follows is nothing to do with Jung. You then write "One should not confuse Buddhism and Meditation" which is saying I confused them. 

In the last post you wrote "I was not sure if you thought Buddhism was just meditation" if that were the case then you would have asked a question, rather than providing an explanation of what Buddhist meditation is in your opinion.

You mentioned "I thought it was cool to discuss Jung" that might be a start of an explanation.

The tone of your message might give a hint at the mind state that inspired it. It is centered on you (your opinion about liking Jung), you want to be "cool" (not sure what that really means), it is condescending and judgemental, there is a quite some grandiose in leaving an explanation of your opinion of what Buddhism is for future generations.

You mention some challenges in communicating at the moment. If you dig a bit more regarding that message you might strike gold.

You mention right speech and I guess you could memorize a definition of right speech and check if your posts are in accordance with that before hiting submit. It might be more effective in the short term than more time on the cushion.

Thanks for taking up the question - the whole idea of shadows is fascinating and we might have a live specimen emoticon I'm sure we could find a lot of problems in what I write too. I'm more interested in this concept of shadow than the content of what you wrote in that message - I have a hide nearly as thick as my skull emoticon

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/24/15 10:37 AM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:
Hi Psi,

Wild speculation folows emoticon

This thread is about one of the foundations of Buddhism, anyone interested in that will know that Buddhism is not reducible to only meditation.  So I don't buy "I was not sure if you thought Buddhism was just meditation" and I suspect you are not being honest with yourself.

If we look at your post it start with announcing that you like Jung, that you have read his biographies and such. This seems to give you the credibility to interject into the conversation because what follows is nothing to do with Jung. You then write "One should not confuse Buddhism and Meditation" which is saying I confused them. 

In the last post you wrote "I was not sure if you thought Buddhism was just meditation" if that were the case then you would have asked a question, rather than providing an explanation of what Buddhist meditation is in your opinion.

You mentioned "I thought it was cool to discuss Jung" that might be a start of an explanation.

The tone of your message might give a hint at the mind state that inspired it. It is centered on you (your opinion about liking Jung), you want to be "cool" (not sure what that really means), it is condescending and judgemental, there is a quite some grandiose in leaving an explanation of your opinion of what Buddhism is for future generations.

You mention some challenges in communicating at the moment. If you dig a bit more regarding that message you might strike gold.

You mention right speech and I guess you could memorize a definition of right speech and check if your posts are in accordance with that before hiting submit. It might be more effective in the short term than more time on the cushion.

Thanks for taking up the question - the whole idea of shadows is fascinating and we might have a live specimen emoticon I'm sure we could find a lot of problems in what I write too. I'm more interested in this concept of shadow than the content of what you wrote in that message - I have a hide nearly as thick as my skull emoticon
So under cover of wild speculation, this is your view,  

I am not being honest with myself, I am claiming credibility, I called you confused by implication, I had a tone in the message, I was condescending, judgemental, and grandiose.  I have admitted to communication challenges.  

I have received instructions by you to dig into these challenges,  I am instructed to memorize the formula for Right Speech, and double check my posts before hitting the submit button.  I should practice Right Speech more, and cut down my meditation time.

I am a live specimen. You are more interested in Shadow work than the content of my messages.  

Psi

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/24/15 11:50 AM as a reply to Psi.
Hi Psi,

That is pretty accurate. I can't instruct you. Practicing right speech does not need to reduce your meditation time. I was suggesting other strategies could be more effective than more meditation.

This thread is about shadow work. I was referring to your earlier message. I'm paying attention to the content of your message and future messages.

To keep things in perspective all those adjectives are shades of grey. Your last message does not show any of those traits. It is one message on a forum, up to you if you want to dig for a shadow. You have the best information to decide if my view was simply wrong.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/24/15 12:50 PM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:
Hi Psi,

That is pretty accurate. I can't instruct you. Practicing right speech does not need to reduce your meditation time. I was suggesting other strategies could be more effective than more meditation.

This thread is about shadow work. I was referring to your earlier message. I'm paying attention to the content of your message and future messages.

To keep things in perspective all those adjectives are shades of grey. Your last message does not show any of those traits. It is one message on a forum, up to you if you want to dig for a shadow. You have the best information to decide if my view was simply wrong.
Perhaps your view is,

Accurate, as in,  your view of my writing is accurate. 

Or accurate as in, your view of my writing is actually a Psychological Projection.

6. Projection Projection is the misattribution of a person’s undesired thoughts, feelings or impulses onto another person who does not have those thoughts, feelings or impulses. Projection is used especially when the thoughts are considered unacceptable for the person to express, or they feel completely ill at ease with having them. For example, a spouse may be angry at their significant other for not listening, when in fact it is the angry spouse who does not listen. Projection is often the result of a lack of insight and acknowledgement of one’s own motivations and feelings.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-defense-mechanisms/0001251



But, this is all off topic, and you instructed me earlier to i.e. stay on topic

So, yes, Shadow is contained within the Four Foundations, it can not exist in never never land.  The Never Never Land comment was kind of sarcastic , and probably not Right Speech, but then again I am not fully Enlightned, so I will start Right Speech training again right after I hit the submit button.

Psi

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/25/15 1:03 PM as a reply to Mark.
Hi Mark,

Do we open the door to saying there may be some shortcomings in the buddhist model ? If you don't want to do that then it may be a perfectly sensible approach. There is a lot to be said for faith in a system. The conversation doesn't need to go any further.
I agree: There is a lot to be said for faith. I met one person whose faith in God was suffusive and therefore they respect everyone and everything. Extradoinarily calm senior citizen, a real quiet fixer-type (fix/make things frugally), never said boo about their faith.  I am very glad I got to interact with them on several occasions through a shared hobby or I wouldn't have believed a human could be actually have that child-like trust in God and respect for all things. 

Anyway, I had to look up "shortcomings" just to make sure we're on the same-ish page; the first Google search reply was this:
"a fault or failure to meet a certain standard, typically in a person's character, a plan, or a system."

I would say wholeheartedly, yes, anything, including buddhist models, have shortcomings. It depends on the human standard set/expected.

What various buddhist models tend to agree on are three characteristics:
1. Nothing stays the same so there is no steady thing (anicca); it's impermance-changeability everywhere,
2. Not even within selfhood is there something of consistant and enduring (anatta), and 
3. There is stress/suffering/unreliability (dukkha)
and the schools of buddhism offer a path of relief from/ end of dukkha.

So it stands to reason that there are aspects of mind that are not accessible to mind. It seems shadow may be one of them. 

Yes, I agree with you: I can't know what I can't know.  


Did I understand where're you're coming from?

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/26/15 3:38 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
katy steger:
Hi Mark,

Do we open the door to saying there may be some shortcomings in the buddhist model ? If you don't want to do that then it may be a perfectly sensible approach. There is a lot to be said for faith in a system. The conversation doesn't need to go any further.
I agree: There is a lot to be said for faith. I met one person whose faith in God was suffusive and therefore they respect everyone and everything. Extradoinarily calm senior citizen, a real quiet fixer-type (fix/make things frugally), never said boo about their faith.  I am very glad I got to interact with them on several occasions through a shared hobby or I wouldn't have believed a human could be actually have that child-like trust in God and respect for all things. 

Anyway, I had to look up "shortcomings" just to make sure we're on the same-ish page; the first Google search reply was this:
"a fault or failure to meet a certain standard, typically in a person's character, a plan, or a system."

I would say wholeheartedly, yes, anything, including buddhist models, have shortcomings. It depends on the human standard set/expected.

That is a great point. Not easy to set reasonable expectations. Most of the Buddha's practise experience was as a renunciate - he spent considerable time following extreme ascetic practises before finding the middle way. That earlier period as an ascetic must have given him some extreme abilities e.g. concentration and will power (e.g. not eating for extended periods of time). Most people on DhO are not monks but it is in those types of environments that most of the "technology" for awakening has evolved in the Buddhist traditions.

I'm aware of reports of lay people waking up through following the Buddha's instruction. There are also reports of lay people waking up without the Buddha's instruction. I suspect the Buddha's instruction can be crucial in many cases but there is likely a strong selective bias - the suttas do not mention how many lay people listened to the Buddha and did not wake up.

If the Buddha did not create a religion we would probably have lost the information he transmitted. It seems like that was the right effort 2500 years ago. I doubt the Buddha would do everything in exactly the same way if he was alive today. He searched for answers in the tradition he grew up in, today he would probably also learn about modern science, psychology etc

What various buddhist models tend to agree on are three characteristics:
1. Nothing stays the same so there is no steady thing (anicca); it's impermance-changeability everywhere,
2. Not even within selfhood is there something of consistant and enduring (anatta), and 
3. There is stress/suffering/unreliability (dukkha) and the schools of buddhism offer a path of relief from/ end of dukkha.


Agreed and it seems the schools of buddhism offer a path to awakening as a monk - not as a lay person (they all offer a way to get started as a lay perosn). As far as I understand, for example in Tibetan traditions you need to be reborn as a Tibetan to even have a shot at it.


So it stands to reason that there are aspects of mind that are not accessible to mind. It seems shadow may be one of them. 

Yes, I agree with you: I can't know what I can't know.  


Maybe the mind can't know some things through introspection. But can discover more about the mind using other techniques. I assume that will still leave things that the mind cannot know. But it could leave fewer things that what a purely introspective approach does.



Did I understand where're you're coming from?

Yes I think so. I'm interested in understanding what compliments the meditative approaches for dealing with shadow. This seems to be one area where psychology may bring value.

DhO is an interesting in this regard, we see several threads focused on DhO itself. Some people with very strong meditive practises seem to really struggle with communicating and that is perhaps a great example of the shadow process playing out. Or maybe not emoticon

The 8 fold path is a lot more than meditation and there is a lot of value there but there is also a huge amount of flexibility in those broad guidelines - plenty of room to turn in cirlces. I'm not sure if the 8 fold path offers anything that deals with shadow explicitly.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/26/15 7:43 AM as a reply to Mark.
Mark:


Hi Mark and everyone, 

I just went through some guided methods and introspection techniques for Shadow Work that I got from audible.com, and also investigated into Shadow work.

Shadow work is very basic, and the Insight Method and Mindfulness bascially is Shadow Work, one could say Shadow work is a subset of Insight.  I returned the Shadow work audio back to audible.com., because it was so basic and elementary.  But , that is not to say that it may not be of value to some.  But, for anyone practicing Insight, they are already doing Shadow work, the bases are already well covered, so to speak.

The trouble I have in communicationg is not really one of wrong or unwholesome communication but rather one of communicating Right View and Right Understanding, and the obstacle of personality filters being overlayed upon what is written, and trying to communicate and not planning out enough to deal with ego overlay phenomenon of reading.  But,  that may be impossible in an internet forum.  Anything written is read from another persons viewpoint and thus murkied up by that viewpoint.

  Trying to convey an experience to anyone that has not had that experience, is probably just not possible.  Like an Astronaut describing weightlessness, or a women describing the pain of childbirth, no matter what words are to be used by them, I will not know what they are describing exactly.  This phenomenon coupled with the human trait of mistrust usually leaves one with skeptical doubt about such matters.  Which is fine, that is why one should always, always investigate for themselves.

But as to your most recent post reply, it seems you have not really plumbed the depths of what the Buddha taught in order to have the type of view you share about what the Buddha taught, but that is okay.  

I submit this post in honesty and peacefulness and hope that no one will take any of this personally, but that is just a form of craving I suppose.  

Psi

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/26/15 10:27 AM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
Mark:


Hi Mark and everyone, 

I just went through some guided methods and introspection techniques for Shadow Work that I got from audible.com, and also investigated into Shadow work.

Shadow work is very basic, and the Insight Method and Mindfulness bascially is Shadow Work, one could say Shadow work is a subset of Insight.  I returned the Shadow work audio back to audible.com., because it was so basic and elementary.  But , that is not to say that it may not be of value to some.  But, for anyone practicing Insight, they are already doing Shadow work, the bases are already well covered, so to speak.

The trouble I have in communicationg is not really one of wrong or unwholesome communication but rather one of communicating Right View and Right Understanding, and the obstacle of personality filters being overlayed upon what is written, and trying to communicate and not planning out enough to deal with ego overlay phenomenon of reading.  But,  that may be impossible in an internet forum.  Anything written is read from another persons viewpoint and thus murkied up by that viewpoint.

  Trying to convey an experience to anyone that has not had that experience, is probably just not possible.  Like an Astronaut describing weightlessness, or a women describing the pain of childbirth, no matter what words are to be used by them, I will not know what they are describing exactly.  This phenomenon coupled with the human trait of mistrust usually leaves one with skeptical doubt about such matters.  Which is fine, that is why one should always, always investigate for themselves.

But as to your most recent post reply, it seems you have not really plumbed the depths of what the Buddha taught in order to have the type of view you share about what the Buddha taught, but that is okay.  

I submit this post in honesty and peacefulness and hope that no one will take any of this personally, but that is just a form of craving I suppose.  

Psi

Hi Psi,

I'm not sure what you want, there are no questions in what you wrote. You raise a few points. 

When you wrote "you have not really plumbed the depths of what the Buddha taught in order to have the type of view you share about what the Buddha taught" that seems directed at me i.e. personal. If you point out what is incorrect in my assumptions I'd welcome that but only telling me I have a wrong view seems to be aimed at hurting rather than helping ?

You consider yourself to have plumbed the depths of what the Buddha taught and you have understood insight meditation more profoundly than other experienced meditators. I should consider you as extremely skillful in insight meditation, not enlightened yet but still much further along the path. Should I take your behavior as a model of what I can hope to achieve if I spend a lot more time meditating ?

Given that you are much further along the path and have profound understanding of the Buddha's teachings and insight meditation I should probably thank you and work on adjusting my view to align with yours. I will give that some thought.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/26/15 11:24 AM as a reply to Mark.
[quote=
]Hi Psi,
I'm not sure what you want, there are no questions in what you wrote. You raise a few points. 

When you wrote "you have not really plumbed the depths of what the Buddha taught in order to have the type of view you share about what the Buddha taught" that seems directed at me i.e. personal. If you point out what is incorrect in my assumptions I'd welcome that but only telling me I have a wrong view seems to be aimed at hurting rather than helping ?
Well, I have not yet plumbed the depths of what the Buddha taught myself, so I was considering us as being in the same boat.  It seemed as if you were implying that when the Buddha taught enlightenment, but that it is only accessible to monks, and not laypeople, I do not see that as being the case.  You also stated that the Buddha could learn from science and psychology if he were alive today, that may be true, but it is also true that science and psychology seem to be supporting what the Buddha taught, i.e. the idea of no self, cognitive behavior therapy, mri brainwave work, etc.

And, from my view, I am sorry, it just seems that you want to find out what is wrong with what the Buddha taught, but when you say the Suttas do not mention how many laypeopel did not become enlightened, but by implication that would seem to state that the Buddhas teaching might be a waste of time, is that what you were saying? But, true, if it is a waste of time, why bother, it is not like we get to live forever.

But, think of it this way, how many lay people that actually understood and followed the Buddhas teaching had improved their lives?

Also, the Buddhas teaching is like training to ride a bike,the riding is the practice, and the bike is the teaching.  The instructions are to get on the bike and ride, do not fall off, if one does fall of, get back on and keep riding, but maintain a well balanced lifestyle, rest and eat when needed, take care of your responsiblities to society, etc.

But, the Buddhas teaching, like training to ride a bike, some may not get on the bike, some may fall off and never get back on, some may only shine the, some may try to ride the bike in the mud or thickets.  So, while the Buddhas teaching may be sound it is still up to the human to practice.  

So blaming the Buddha or the Buddhas teaching is like blaming the Bike, or the biking instructions.

Personally, a monk and a layperson are both human, so both should be able to become enlightened.  It is just like the water in a pond, and the water in the ocean.  One may view one as pond water, and one may view the other as ocean water, but when distilled there is only the h2o.

You consider yourself to have plumbed the depths of what the Buddha taught and you have understood insight meditation more profoundly than other experienced meditators. I should consider you as extremely skillful in insight meditation, not enlightened yet but still much further along the path. Should I take your behavior as a model of what I can hope to achieve if I spend a lot more time meditating ?
No, I do not consider myself anything of any such sort, I know what I know and that is it.  There are many in the world with meditative experience that leaves this mind as more than humbled.  But, for me, that is just inspriation, to know that with which is possible for the mind.  It is not that one mind is better or not better, a mind is a mind, a trained mind is a trained mind, as is an untrained mind.  But we can only train the mind we are born with and learn or not learn from other minds.  Minds are like the water metaphor.

Please do not try to view or follow what you see as my behavior or not my behavior, you should not consider or not consider me as skillful or not skillful in insight meditation.  It does not matter if one is further or not further along any path, forget about paths, stages, enlightenment, there is just mind and practice.
Given that you are much further along the path and have profound understanding of the Buddha's teachings and insight meditation I should probably thank you and work on adjusting my view to align with yours. I will give that some thought.
Mark, if one swings a stick at the wind, they will only strike the air.  I know you wrote the above to scoff at what you think is me, and that we are in some sort of argument, and it actually is pretty funny if you were exposing some egotistical, grandiose, delusional, internet sock puppety avatar.  Let us all laugh at the folly of delusion.  emoticon  

But maybe just for a moment, it could be seen not as Mark vs. Psi , but rather as Mark and Psi.


You are a good guy Mark, and you have my utmost respect, always, and I really mean that.  Do not let my inferior writing and communication skills irk you too much, keep investigating.  Take what I say with a grain of salt, do not believe any of it, investigate.

Maybe I am just overly sensitized to Buddha bashing, Buddhas teaching has really helped.  It is real for me, not some type of pychological mumbo jumbo.  

So, I will work on being more understanding of other points of view.

Metta 

Psi

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/26/15 11:40 AM as a reply to Mark.
Should I take your behavior as a model of what I can hope to achieve if I spend a lot more time meditating ?

For me, this question, is a good way to know if one has found a teacher for oneself: what behaviour is happening as a result of a would-be teacher's study and do I value the conduct and outcomes? It certainly doesn't rule out having a troublesome personality as a teacher*.

I have to say, the Pali canon shows a lot of discourse and its faith stories are relatively few. Though I'm no canon scholar, this can be seen in reading for oneself that often in the Pali Canon the Buddha is recalled overcoming doubt in people with debate and also he is shown disparaging any displays of siddhis as a way to get students (but for maybe a couple of stories). I mean, let's face it, if a person like the Buddha wanted a faith-based system, the display of siddhis would be rampant. Instead, the Pali canon deals with lots and lots of chatting/questioning about systems, self-identity in cultures/obligations, other religious frameworks.

So myself, I think the Pali canon, with its roots apparently close to Indian logic and lists, as with the Tibetan canon, invites discursive breakthroughs --- sort of a winding down, wearing out the energy --- and I think this relates strongly to the first breakthrough: sotapanna (but also a later area: conceit).

So this is why I feel it is healthy and normal and obviously actually happening in several forums and is in line with the discoursive traditions.

Even today and there is much, much debate forming the various schools of buddhism and continuing today with "secular" buddhism and "authentic" buddhism so forth.)


----------------------------
=] Psi,

I think sometimes --- and I have done this also in my understandable parroting a bit of someone who helped me here a few years ago --- that there has been a tendency to say, "Are you even practicing? Are you spending too much time on a chat forum/Internet addicted? Are you talking about this too much? Are you just nitpicking and not diving into the practice" --- and I get that --- not that this is your point (this is how I related to your post).

But debate and discourse, our consideration of our conditions, our inculturation and others' systems and then curiosity/speculation --- all these discoursive things --- are sort of a solvent on our personal history (as well as the act of discourse much of the Pali canon, aka "Discourses").

And the importance of this discursive solvent is, to me, on par with bhavana (meditative training) and the need for discursive unwinding/upwinding/exhaustion is well in evidence in the Pali and Tibetan canons, too: debate ideas, debate ideas, debate ideas.

Where do ideas come from? Me, an idea is born from a "me".  So, a natural part of the human condition.

Even among the monastics and scholar lay people and meditative practitioners there continues today debate and concept-based discourse (the authenticity feild, the secular field, the quietism field, etc).

At the outset these debates can unravel one, I think, into the sotapanna breakthrough of sakyaditthi --- identity view  (cultural upbringing and own context and one's exposures/contrasts to others' contexts and views, "going out into the world", so to speak, at any age) --- and similar discursiveness can continue to be solvent on conceit in those prationers who are not in "indentity view" but deal with own-primacy,  their recurrent "me"*. 

That identity view and conceit are bookends to the start and stop of the Pali fetter model practice is telling: own narrative, own righteousness are hindrances in that there is not release, there is unreliablity, in them.




(*"Small Steps" linked a talk this weekend on breaththrough which I though was just a really good, simple hour-long layout of this Pali idea).

Editx2

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/26/15 1:02 PM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:
[quote=
]Hi Psi,
I'm not sure what you want, there are no questions in what you wrote. You raise a few points. 

When you wrote "you have not really plumbed the depths of what the Buddha taught in order to have the type of view you share about what the Buddha taught" that seems directed at me i.e. personal. If you point out what is incorrect in my assumptions I'd welcome that but only telling me I have a wrong view seems to be aimed at hurting rather than helping ?
Well, I have not yet plumbed the depths of what the Buddha taught myself, so I was considering us as being in the same boat.



This is fooling yourself, when you write "you have not" this does not mean "we have not". There is a judgement in what you wrote. You believe I have the wrong view and you can see that, we are not in the same boat.



 It seemed as if you were implying that when the Buddha taught enlightenment, but that it is only accessible to monks, and not laypeople,



That is not what I implied, I wrote "I'm aware of reports of lay people waking up through following the Buddha's instruction" I don't have any reason to doubt those reports. I implied enlightenment is more accessible to monks than to lay people - this seems obvious.


I do not see that as being the case.  You also stated that the Buddha could learn from science and psychology if he were alive today, that may be true, but it is also true that science and psychology seem to be supporting what the Buddha taught, i.e. the idea of no self, cognitive behavior therapy, mri brainwave work, etc.

That seems a strange way of agreeing with me. I did not say the Buddha would have nothing to add! Cognitive behavior therapy is inspired more by Stoicism.



And, from my view, I am sorry, it just seems that you want to find out what is wrong with what the Buddha taught, but when you say the Suttas do not mention how many laypeopel did not become enlightened, but by implication that would seem to state that the Buddhas teaching might be a waste of time, is that what you were saying?


That is completely in your imagination. Nowhere have I said that or implied it. I've been mentioning that there could be some things that were discovered in the last 2500 years that could be complimentary. I am implying the buddhist traditions and teachings we have today (which are only a partial view of what the buddha said and need to be interpreted through culture and language) may not be the best answer to everything all the time. This particular thread is about "What is not contained in the four foundations?" so I raised some criticism I have seen (I am not inventing these ideas just relaying them)



But, true, if it is a waste of time, why bother, it is not like we get to live forever.

But, think of it this way, how many lay people that actually understood and followed the Buddhas teaching had improved their lives?


Nobody is denying the teachings are of enormous use and value.



Also, the Buddhas teaching is like training to ride a bike,the riding is the practice, and the bike is the teaching.  The instructions are to get on the bike and ride, do not fall off, if one does fall of, get back on and keep riding, but maintain a well balanced lifestyle, rest and eat when needed, take care of your responsiblities to society, etc.

But, the Buddhas teaching, like training to ride a bike, some may not get on the bike, some may fall off and never get back on, some may only shine the, some may try to ride the bike in the mud or thickets.  So, while the Buddhas teaching may be sound it is still up to the human to practice.  

So blaming the Buddha or the Buddhas teaching is like blaming the Bike, or the biking instructions.


Nobody is blaming the Buddha - where are you getting these assumptions from ?



Personally, a monk and a layperson are both human, so both should be able to become enlightened.  It is just like the water in a pond, and the water in the ocean.  One may view one as pond water, and one may view the other as ocean water, but when distilled there is only the h2o.


Yes there are accounts of both monks and laypeople becoming enlightened. It would seem reasonable to assume that there is more chance of a monk becoming enlightened than a layperson - otherwise the monks are making a pretty big mistake!


You consider yourself to have plumbed the depths of what the Buddha taught and you have understood insight meditation more profoundly than other experienced meditators. I should consider you as extremely skillful in insight meditation, not enlightened yet but still much further along the path. Should I take your behavior as a model of what I can hope to achieve if I spend a lot more time meditating ?
No, I do not consider myself anything of any such sort, I know what I know and that is it.  There are many in the world with meditative experience that leaves this mind as more than humbled.  But, for me, that is just inspriation, to know that with which is possible for the mind.


I am basing an opinion on the writings of meditators who are vastly more experienced than you or I. You are basing your opinion on having listened to one audio book. When you say shadow work is of no use and easily covered by insight techniques you are implying that meditation teachers like Shinzen Young have simply not understood insight meditation - I suspect it is much more likely you have not understood.


 It is not that one mind is better or not better, a mind is a mind, a trained mind is a trained mind, as is an untrained mind.  But we can only train the mind we are born with and learn or not learn from other minds.  Minds are like the water metaphor.

Please do not try to view or follow what you see as my behavior or not my behavior, you should not consider or not consider me as skillful or not skillful in insight meditation.  It does not matter if one is further or not further along any path, forget about paths, stages, enlightenment, there is just mind and practice.


You are an example of behaviour with a certain view, I think we can learn from that. So I do consider your behaviour and wonder what I can learn from these exchanges.



Given that you are much further along the path and have profound understanding of the Buddha's teachings and insight meditation I should probably thank you and work on adjusting my view to align with yours. I will give that some thought.
Mark, if one swings a stick at the wind, they will only strike the air.  I know you wrote the above to scoff at what you think is me, and that we are in some sort of argument, and it actually is pretty funny if you were exposing some egotistical, grandiose, delusional, internet sock puppety avatar.  Let us all laugh at the folly of delusion.  emoticon  



Great, glad you caught that.



But maybe just for a moment, it could be seen not as Mark vs. Psi , but rather as Mark and Psi.



Right, there are two different views. You seem to believe there is nothing we can add to the techniques documented in the suttas. I believe there may be. There is a confrontation of different ideas and that in itself is not a bad thing.


You are a good guy Mark, and you have my utmost respect, always, and I really mean that.  Do not let my inferior writing and communication skills irk you too much, keep investigating.  Take what I say with a grain of salt, do not believe any of it, investigate.

Maybe I am just overly sensitized to Buddha bashing, Buddhas teaching has really helped.  It is real for me, not some type of pychological mumbo jumbo.  



It is not that you are overly sensitive to it. It is that you are misinterpreting enquiry as Buddha bashing. Those are really strong words and you are getting those ideas from somewhere else than the posts in this thread. You are assuming bad intentions and that says more about you than me.



So, I will work on being more understanding of other points of view.

Metta 

Psi


It is hard to know how to best interact with you. This thread is a bit particular as it is about possible limitations in the four foundations and raises the general question of whether the suttas cover everything for all time, everywhere.

The way you judged shadow work after listening to one audio book indicates you are not open to the possibility of other techniques complimenting techniques mentioned in the suttas. I'm not presenting personal opinions I'm just sharing opinions of others - I don't know if shadow work is redundant when using insight meditation but people I respect say it is not. I'm applying insight meditation and maybe that will make me perfect but I very much doubt it!

I'll try to be helpful but I'm not sure if you are able to listen with an open mind. I say that with the hope it will help you listen. You did look into shadow work so there seems to be some real interest on your part. The way you looked into it indicates you want to confirm your current view rather than question it. That makes sense - we all have a lot invested in out current views.

I've got the somewhat easier position here, I'm not claiming to know the answer. I'm keeping an open mind and exploring what shadow work might be and why experienced meditators say it covers ground that insight meditation does not. At the same time I'm applying insight meditation. Perhaps I will end up with the same opinion as you but for now the weight of evidence is not in that direction.

Besides shadow work another criticism of buddhism (this is not me saying buddhism is bad or useless) is that the concept of multiple intelligences are not well understood. This might apply to you, communication is a type of intelligence, spirituality is another, meditation will help a lot in regards to spirituality but not much in regards to communication. To get better at communication it is better to spend time learning about communication. Without reducing your meditation time.

Another criticism of buddhism is the confusion between states and stages. The ability to reach advanced states through meditation unfortunately does not transfer across to developing a wiser view. So for example is is possible to have zen masters who are samurai warriors. It is possible to have quite an egocentric world view while attaining advanced states on the cushion, I don't doubt your meditation skills but this insight might be of value.

Another concept worth investigation is "spiritual bypassing" basically this is focusing a lot of energy on spiritual intelligence at the expense of developing other necessary skills for a layperson. Then the world is misinterpreted because the person has a great level of spiritual intelligence but is unable to impact the world in the way they desire. Rather than questioning themselves they create all sorts of projections onto the world to explain why other people can't see how skilled they are. There is a huge risk in this I think - many people turn to spirituality because things are not working as they want in their life. When they make progress on the cushion this can be comforting and provide a way to ignore the earlier challenges (which are still there but now more easily ignored).

All that may be a waste of my time. But I hope you can find something of use. It is a bit of a shotgun approach...

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/26/15 1:30 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
katy steger:
Should I take your behavior as a model of what I can hope to achieve if I spend a lot more time meditating ?

For me, this question, is a good way to know if one has found a teacher for oneself: what behaviour is happening as a result of a would-be teacher's study and do I value the conduct and outcomes? It certainly doesn't rule out having a troublesome personality as a teacher*.



Agreed, the behaviour is the best indicator we have. Maybe troublesome teachers attract troublesome students emoticon



I have to say, the Pali canon shows a lot of discourse and its faith stories are relatively few. Though I'm no canon scholar, this can be seen in reading for oneself that often in the Pali Canon the Buddha is recalled overcoming doubt in people with debate and also he is shown disparaging any displays of siddhis as a way to get students (but for maybe a couple of stories). I mean, let's face it, if a person like the Buddha wanted a faith-based system, the display of siddhis would be rampant. Instead, the Pali canon deals with lots and lots of chatting/questioning about systems, self-identity in cultures/obligations, other religious frameworks.

So myself, I think the Pali canon, with its roots apparently close to Indian logic and lists, as with the Tibetan canon, invites discursive breakthroughs --- sort of a winding down, wearing out the energy --- and I think this relates strongly to the first breakthrough: sotapanna (but also a later area: conceit).

So this is why I feel it is healthy and normal and obviously actually happening in several forums and is in line with the discoursive traditions.



I have to admit that having no doubt about the teachings is something I can't imagine emoticon I have no doubt in the Buddha having reached enlightenment and I have no doubt that he taught a path that leads to enlightenment. I do have doubt in the ability of religious institutions to accurately reflect those teachings. But I suspect the goal is to have faith in the path not in the specific teachings of a specific school ? Mind you it is a stroke of religious genius putting that in at number two emoticon



Even today and there is much, much debate forming the various schools of buddhism and continuing today with "secular" buddhism and "authentic" buddhism so forth.)



The discussion seems healthy as long as it is backed up with serious practise. That seems to be the case in what I've seen.

In Integral Theory practise can be split into shadow, body, mind, spirit with a lot of overlap. It suggests continually finding fresh perspectives as a sort of mind training. Basically if you are not learning things that raise questions about previous learnings then there is stagnation and that will slow down progress in the other practises. I suspect we've all seen people who are overly focused on one of those four areas and some balance (while playing to one's strengths) seems wise.

Are you familiar with Integral Theory ?

 

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/26/15 11:13 PM as a reply to Mark.
Mark
Besides shadow work another criticism of buddhism (this is not me saying buddhism is bad or useless) is that the concept of multiple intelligences are not well understood. This might apply to you, communication is a type of intelligence, spirituality is another, meditation will help a lot in regards to spirituality but not much in regards to communication. To get better at communication it is better to spend time learning about communication. Without reducing your meditation time.

Another criticism of buddhism is the confusion between states and stages. The ability to reach advanced states through meditation unfortunately does not transfer across to developing a wiser view. So for example is is possible to have zen masters who are samurai warriors. It is possible to have quite an egocentric world view while attaining advanced states on the cushion, I don't doubt your meditation skills but this insight might be of value.

Another concept worth investigation is "spiritual bypassing" basically this is focusing a lot of energy on spiritual intelligence at the expense of developing other necessary skills for a layperson. Then the world is misinterpreted because the person has a great level of spiritual intelligence but is unable to impact the world in the way they desire. Rather than questioning themselves they create all sorts of projections onto the world to explain why other people can't see how skilled they are. There is a huge risk in this I think - many people turn to spirituality because things are not working as they want in their life. When they make progress on the cushion this can be comforting and provide a way to ignore the earlier challenges (which are still there but now more easily ignored).

All that may be a waste of my time. But I hope you can find something of use. It is a bit of a shotgun approach...
No,  this is all panpanca.  Believe what you want, you are smart you will figure it all out, I have read and studied alot, from psychology, and various religions, to alchemy and the esoteric, pretty much everything I could find.  But, what the Buddha taught somehow just made sense at one point, got very deep, and goes deeper and encompasses anything else I have ever found.

But do not judge Buddhism by looking at my personality flaws, you do not know my starting point, how much unwholesomeness that has already been overcome and abandoned for me to get to this new baseline.  Perhaps, you are lucky and just started out more wholesome than I , some people are born with different traits.

You seem to still be searching for the way, trying to find that inner peace, and I sincerely hope you do.

Perhaps what you sense in me is the lingering fragrance of evil, of one who is not yet purified, and that is a true observation on your behalf.  I know my Shadow better than you give me credit for, for that is why I practice, to hopefully bring it to cessation once and for all, someday.

Psi

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/27/15 1:21 AM as a reply to Psi.
Psi:

No,  this is all panpanca.  Believe what you want, you are smart you will figure it all out, I have read and studied alot, from psychology, and various religions, to alchemy and the esoteric, pretty much everything I could find.  But, what the Buddha taught somehow just made sense at one point, got very deep, and goes deeper and encompasses anything else I have ever found.

But do not judge Buddhism by looking at my personality flaws, you do not know my starting point, how much unwholesomeness that has already been overcome and abandoned for me to get to this new baseline.  Perhaps, you are lucky and just started out more wholesome than I , some people are born with different traits.

You seem to still be searching for the way, trying to find that inner peace, and I sincerely hope you do.

Perhaps what you sense in me is the lingering fragrance of evil, of one who is not yet purified, and that is a true observation on your behalf.  I know my Shadow better than you give me credit for, for that is why I practice, to hopefully bring it to cessation once and for all, someday.

Psi
Hi Psi,

I'm sure we could find many people from many different religions that would state "what X taught somehow just made sense at one point, got very deep, and goes deeper and encompasses anything else I have ever found" But X would be their own religion.

The definition of shadow is that you don't know it. Once you know it then it is no longer shadow. I don't doubt you've made progress and I don't doubt that your belief in Buddhism having the best answers to all your questions was part of that progress. Things change.

The Buddha does not teach that you should ignore other sources of information. The Buddha does not teach that he answers all questions, there are suttas that explicitly state the Buddha does not teach many things. So for example if you need to improve communication, manage a career, raise a family, the list goes on and on then you should be looking to other sources of information to compliment the suttas. That does not mean there is no relevant information in the suttas it just means that the Buddha did not try to give exhaustive answers for those issues, in particular he did not discuss what it would mean to address those issues in the 21st century.

You suggest that I will "figure it all out", this gives us some insight into your view. I will never "figure it all out" and believing that I could or should would be a recipe to a closed mind. The only way one could "figure it all out" would be to reduce "all" to something very limited. I suspect you think both yourself and I are much smarter than the reality of our abilities.

At the end of the day the best indicator for you and I regarding progress is behavior. If you are seeing significant progress off the cushion then I guess you should keep doing what you are doing. If you are seeing an open mind becoming a closed mind or undesirable behaviors persisting then there is an alarm bell ringing.

I hope you'll demonstrate the truth of what you've been telling me in this thread through behavior changes. I'll try to do the same!

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/27/15 9:00 AM as a reply to Mark.
Yet, here we are, everything you have  written on this very thread is in fact contained within the Four Foundations.  It is all Mental Phenomenon.


Psi

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/27/15 10:52 PM as a reply to Psi.
Mark:
In Integral Theory practise can be split into shadow, body, mind, spirit with a lot of overlap. It suggests continually finding fresh perspectives as a sort of mind training. Basically if you are not learning things that raise questions about previous learnings then there is stagnation and that will slow down progress in the other practises. I suspect we've all seen people who are overly focused on one of those four areas and some balance (while playing to one's strengths) seems wise.


Are you familiar with Integral Theory ?


I think I get your drift. Do I? --> I think bhavana (Pali for Buddhist mental development via meditative practices) does show continually fresh perspectives, like Heraclitus seeing no stepping into same stream twice (and no same stepper). I know you know this...

The teachings of the Pali canon school of Buddhism understands that "continually fresh perspectives" are also phenomena which arise and pass away. As such, stagnation is not ultimately possible in this model (if you investigate it and agree with it).



Regardless, the Pali canon schools of buddhism would, I think, recognize the "Integral Theory", as you described it, as mental phenomena (this is not a demotion) and which mental phenomena arise and pass (and which could accurately describe something actual like how boats float or how not to stagnate) but which particular phenomena do not, in the Pali canon view, ultimately resolve the question of dukkha, the causes of dukkha, the end of dukkha. The resolution of dukkha is the mental phenomena of buddhadharma.

But for you, Integral Theory could give you the end of dukkha and that would be the Mark canon, Mark Dharma. And it could work satisfactorily. People do have their own schools of dharma for this reason. They find other answers to the question of dukkha (suffering, the human condition, original sin, malcontentness, ignorance..)


Psi

Yet, here we are, everything you have  written on this very thread is in fact contained within the Four Foundations.  It is all Mental Phenomenon.


Psi



Psi, do you agree that the four foundations are also mental phenomena (I think you do when i read your sentence)? That even these are just deemed skillful mental pheonomena (like the super-skillful mental phenomena of kindness, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity-- the "brahmanviharas"), but that nibbana is the result of all release? So what is releasing the four foundations into another expression, like, pointing at the moon is not the moon and having a zen practice?* Or that all is God?* Or that all is non-dual/oneness?* What is there if four foundations is released? *




Ol' Bump on a log...


_________________
editsx3 format 
Editx5 guh.. new foto, psi! nice rafters?

Edit * So I'm not actually smushing all these things together, Señor Psi. I am jiggling the handle on the four foundations model (yes, commode analogy of the tank not quite releasing --- not because there's anything wrong with the four foundations, the eight-fold.. the six-part.. the 32 bits (body and old kernel!).. but because I do feel like once someone has trained in this for a long time there can be a mind-meld with it, repeating, "This (view) is reliable, this (school) is reliable, this (text is reliable)?" But if the Pali canon notes wholesomes conduct is smart/wise/benefical, yet release is the end of dukkha, what does release look like without holding any of this? (I'm not challenging from on high --- unless this is a pizza eating contest --- just looking at what is reliable? and your thoughts. But may not be answerable in writing/concepts/words/werd.)

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 1:21 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
katy steger:

I think I get your drift. Do I? --> I think bhavana (Pali for Buddhist mental development via meditative practices) does show continually fresh perspectives, like Heraclitus seeing no stepping into same stream twice (and no same stepper). I know you know this...


Yes for sure that would fit within Integral Theory. Basically going deeper into any theory or learning about new theories (not necessarily spiritual stuff e.g. work related or hobbies etc) is going to help Mind.

The actual practise of insight and other types of meditation would fit more within the Spirit "module" of Integral Practise. Mind and Spirit go hand in hand - as we gain insight through meditation we hang those insights onto a theoretical framework to make sense of them.



The teachings of the Pali canon school of Buddhism understands that "continually fresh perspectives" are also phenomena which arise and pass away. As such, stagnation is not ultimately possible in this model (if you investigate it and agree with it).


That fits well too, the framework is just a way to think about things. Integral Theory is perhaps interesting because it is very broad and recent so it also deals with concepts like evolution, postmodernism (the list is long). But it leaves plenty of space for insights from the wisdom traditions, the author of Integral Theory seems very familiar with the Buddhist theory and practise.

There is no risk of stagnation in spiritual intelligence the way you are interpreting the Pali canon school of Buddhism. Integral Theory is very broad so there are a lot of areas of knowledge that probably do stagnate, for example most of us stop learning mathematics. That in itself is not a problem but some areas could bring about problems if they stagnate, for example if interpersonal communication stagnates then it could become very difficult for someone advancing in spiritual practise to relate to people who are not progressing spiritually. 



Regardless, the Pali canon schools of buddhism would, I think, recognize the "Integral Theory", as you described it, as mental phenomena (this is not a demotion) and which mental phenomena arise and pass (and which could accurately describe something actual like how boats float or how not to stagnate) but which particular phenomena do not, in the Pali canon view, ultimately resolve the question of dukkha, the causes of dukkha, the end of dukkha. The resolution of dukkha is the mental phenomena of buddhadharma.


Integral Theory is not an explanation itself, more like a meta-theory. For example it could help interpreting the Pali canon. It leaves space for many diverse religions and theories - you could be Buddhist and use the Integral Theory or you could be Secular. Perhaps the biggest constraint is that Integral Theory does not allow for any one religion or culture or society or view etc to hold all the truth, there is a recognition that there is some truth in pretty much everything. Considering it as mental phenomena makes sense (it is conceptual).



But for you, Integral Theory could give you the end of dukkha and that would be the Mark canon, Mark Dharma. And it could work satisfactorily. People do have their own schools of dharma for this reason. They find other answers to the question of dukkha (suffering, the human condition, original sin, malcontentness, ignorance..)


I hope I'm not going to be inventing a Dharma! So far it seems Integral Theory can help thinking about the Buddhist dharma (all the various schools) and appreciate some of the truth that they all have. As far as ending dukkha I believe the Buddha provides more insight than any approach I've met. So I practise Vipassana and try to understand the fundamentals of Buddhism.

Integral Theory can help find a place for something like shadow work while still respecting and trusting the Buddha dharma. Of course it is all conceptual, but people often feel they need to ignore the wisdom of other traditions, because they don't have a conceptual framework that can hold both. Obviously there are deeply religious people with very open minds but there are a lot more deeply religious (and non religious) people with closed minds.

Open and closed are probably not good words to choose ! Because it gives an idea of two opposites. In reality everyone has a closed mind because we can only work with limited conceptual frameworks. Most of us have picked up that framework from the culture we grew up in and the education we received. The default framework is usually pretty poor - it typically limits what can be heard so it can remain consistent. Integral Theory is just one approach but the idea of integral is fascinating as a way of being able to hear a broader range of views. 

I hope I'm not making Integral Theory sound like it is in competition with the dharma, I see them as complimentary. I don't think a monk observing a Buddhist tradition has anywhere near the same use for Integral Theory as a layperson because the layperson has a much more complicated environment - work, children, politics etc

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 3:22 AM as a reply to Pål.
I've lost track of this thread haha but anyway I've become kind of convinced the four satipatthanas contain everything we can experience except maybe nibbana. 

One new thought: why is mindfullness of the six senses considered dhammanupassa?

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 10:29 AM as a reply to Mark.
Hi Mark, 

I appreciate what you wrote and I had a look at the wikipedia entry on this field.

While I don't need everything to be fit into a Giant Buddhist Burrito that contatains everything, my own caveat is that Integral Theory also can look like an Everthing Burrito -- not that it is trying to do that. But a lot of systems are offended by being swept into other systems' burritos, and a lot of systems feel that their burrito is the Everthing Burrito---> poof: strife and conflict.

What to do?

When I look at sentient conditions, like birds swimming 100 miles to find food and bringing back just plastic bottle caps to feed their young,
a) this depresses me(2), and b)  it's clear my own species creating/allowing the same suffering for itself

So I wonder if we'll be able to abide the Golden Rule as pressures mount and keep developing altruistic skills. I hope so.*

I also agree with you, to your earlier point in a reply to Psi, that meditative practices can become comfy/smug practices which take away time from other skill development (yet I do believe in long-term retreat so that people who are in a suffusive amount of ontological/emotional pain can have care and self-directed study). But in terms of cause and effect, I hope people see that to meditate for three years; the outcome is to have a meditative skill. However, if a peson needs food, water and harmonious community, then farming and water cachement/engineering and council meetings need to be practiced into skill. If one wants wild ecology, then that needs to be practiced skilfully. So one has to be thoughtful about spending all one's time in a meditative practice if one wants other aspects of life to also flourish.

Hi Pål,
I've lost track of this thread haha but anyway I've become kind of convinced the four satipatthanas contain everything we can experience except maybe nibbana. 

One new thought: why is mindfullness of the six senses considered dhammanupassa?

Well, sattipathana is a system of investigation that is supposed to de-fund the urges of lust and hatred by investigating all mental phenomena that arise and pass in the mind. So on retreat, probably all of us have fallen in some kind of attraction with a fellow retreatant as much as an aversion to another retreatant (Day 2 retreat thoughts: "That's my mug! F*ckall, how'd h/she get my mug?! I wrote my name on it! Wait.. what's this? Mr/Ms. Cutie Pie is bringing me a new mug? Yay! What old mug?") So nibbana is  can be said to be a non-clinging mind free of the pain of clinging to unreliable/poorly understood impulses, equanimous and skillful with the natural arising and passing of mental phenomena (aka: impulses, urges).

A non-clinging mental training can be confused with selfish dissociation, and not everybody's idea of solving human condition suffering; Clara Barton is maybe a more accessible, obvious American example of useful practice. But taking action like her example, would be considered (if she were shoehorned into a Buddhist model) a skillful nurturing of the arising mental phenomena: compassion and metta and letting go of unskillful mental phenomena (such as enmity).

Dhammānupassanā: this word means I think contemplation of mental objects. But the monk Analayo has a restatement of the definitaion in his first book on Sattipathana and I find that useful and this is my paraphrasing of what I felt he covers: whatever becomes an object of mind is a base of mindfulness (sati, attention, recalling the mind to) and to be investigated in a satipatthana practice. So sitting one can notice "Knees": right now, "knees" and sensation are the objects of mind. Later, "aversion to sensation in the knees" maybe becomes the mental object and one may move. Similarly: seeing a person on retreat-- seeing person is the mental object. Later, it may become attraction/aversion to sensing that person as the mental object. And so seeing these arise and pass eventually can de-fund the action, or de-fund impulses and even long-term desires, which can get someone into stress.

So the study can prepare one for the natural consequences of their action. I have to take actions being alive; it's helpful if I can understand the impulses, short- and long-term, though I certainly don't always and it's a thin line between trying to foster beneficial conditions and clinging to them. <sigh>

Editx1 Tweaks
Edit(2) lemme just brighten things up a bit, 'cause there's a bleak bias in my reply. So (katy,) there's lots of lovely work being done to remediate stuff. I had a look in the May 2015 Smithsonian as antedote, because they print things that are easy on the mind, not scary, but which also respond to very hard condition.
Edits-a-plenty: formatting hell, sorry, many edits to try to figure out "What's Happening?

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 8:53 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:
(...)
One new thought: why is mindfullness of the six senses considered dhammanupassa?

A short summary could be that if the six senses were not mental objects, we wouldn't know about them. Does that makes sense? (Hee hee, language play, but really...)

We can't (apparently) throw our minds into objects --- I can't throw my mind into the keyboard --- but eyes "contact" the object, keyboard, and import it sensately in a mental base of already-learned alphabet and, voila, keys, tapping -- mental objects expressing mental objects (concepts). 

So in buddhism, the actual senses, importanted/perceived by mind, give us a range of mental objects, classified in three ways: Pleasant, neutral and unpleasant. And if you're like me, we go for the pleasant and sometimes failing to see where the pleasant is also likely to become the painful. 

So training in the sensation "bucket" of satipatthana is to train the mind to understand more clearly its impulses and motivations, to learn restraint, investigation and a reliable means of action. And that's where universals like the Pali-called brahmaviharas and paramitas come in.


What do you think ;)

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 9:09 AM as a reply to Pål.
Pål:


(The same formula is repeated for the remaining sense media: ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.)


But where does mantra japa fit in?

Mantra japa would fit in the tongue part.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 9:43 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Reply to Katy, Pal, Mark, Everyone

Well, Katy, synchronicity, I ate a whole pizza last night, so as for the pizza eating contest....

Warning get on your boot waders, Katy jiggled the Toilet lever and there is alot of Dhamma in there, ewwww...emoticon

So, yeah it may get deep, but here is some flushable thoughts anyway.

First, I guess I am looking at the Four Foundations as a Physics kind of thing, Sensations, Body Sensation, Mind Sensations, Physical formations, Mental Formations, all ghere and all contacted by Mindfulness, and it seems it is all there when not contacted by mindfulness. Yet, when we contact phenomenon with our mind, it is then included within the Four Foundations.  Even discussing phenomenon of the Unconscious, Dark Energy, Electrons, bacteria in our guts, all these things seen and unseen, become part of the Four Foundations when discussed, as they are then Mental Formations.

Secondly, I think I see the point Mark may be alluding to, Shadow Work, Integral Theory is not part of the Four Foundations. Well, yes , on one level, one could say that, Like also training to play the piano, ride a bike, karate, mathematics etc. could also be said to not be part of the Four Foundations.  But, from a universal view , they all are, Body, Mind, Sensations, Formations.  So, there is always that Conventional vs. Universal view thingy going on.


Psi, do you agree that the four foundations are also mental phenomena (I think you do when i read your sentence)? That even these are just deemed skillful mental pheonomena (like the super-skillful mental phenomena of kindness, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity-- the "brahmanviharas"), but that nibbana is the result of all release? So what is releasing the four foundations into another expression, like, pointing at the moon is not the moon and having a zen practice?* Or that all is God?* Or that all is non-dual/oneness?* What is there if four foundations is released? *
Editx5 guh.. new foto, psi! nice rafters?

Edit * So I'm not actually smushing all these things together, Señor Psi. I am jiggling the handle on the four foundations model (yes, commode analogy of the tank not quite releasing --- not because there's anything wrong with the four foundations, the eight-fold.. the six-part.. the 32 bits (body and old kernel!).. but because I do feel like once someone has trained in this for a long time there can be a mind-meld with it, repeating, "This (view) is reliable, this (school) is reliable, this (text is reliable)?" But if the Pali canon notes wholesomes conduct is smart/wise/benefical, yet release is the end of dukkha, what does release look like without holding any of this? (I'm not challenging from on high --- unless this is a pizza eating contest --- just looking at what is reliable? and your thoughts. But may not be answerable in writing/concepts/words/werd.)
Whew!!!  That is some deep thinking.....   Maybe there are the two levels there , again.  

One , the training, the entire Buddhist path of training, on the conventional level, where one continually applies effort to train and purify, train and purify.

Second, the Universal level, where the reality of it all being impersonal, where the mind and body is trained, so that there is no wavering, no intentional effort involved, the Path unfolds before one naturally due to laws of impersonal processes, like ball rolling down smooth hill, it just keeps rolling, the work of getting it to the top of the hill in the first place being previously completed.  I am sure there are better metaphors.

Third,  I did forewarn everyone to have your boots and hipwaders on !   emoticon

Fourth, foto, not rafters, just an angled wood paneling in the room, it was this way when we bought it, makes me feel like I am in one of the old Batman T.V. shows, where the camera angle is at 45 degrees....

Nananananananana

Batman


RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 10:53 AM as a reply to Psi.
Secondly, I think I see the point Mark may be alluding to, Shadow Work, Integral Theory is not part of the Four Foundations. Well, yes , on one level, one could say that, Like also training to play the piano, ride a bike, karate, mathematics etc. could also be said to not be part of the Four Foundations.  But, from a universal view , they all are, Body, Mind, Sensations, Formations.  So, there is always that Conventional vs. Universal view thingy going on.

Well, life systems like philosophy and religions do to contain the entirety of life experiences and thought (how successful are they if they don't?); part of their service/durability is to help us live our conditions well (including some horrid action taken in defense of those systems), I think. So too Intregal Theory: an inclusive system.

So I like Buddhist systems (and others), but it's still human systems' hub-bub. If we GMO'd ourselves to no longer feel unpleasant sensations and with a blissful neurochemistry (how far off is that?) where would systems that deal with human misery go (I am not at all saying this would be wise..there are some gross consequences)? 

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 11:04 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
HI Katy,

katy steger:
Hi Mark, 

I appreciate what you wrote and I had a look at the wikipedia entry on this field.

While I don't need everything to be fit into a Giant Buddhist Burrito that contatains everything, my own caveat is that Integral Theory also can look like an Everthing Burrito -- not that it is trying to do that. But a lot of systems are offended by being swept into other systems' burritos, and a lot of systems feel that their burrito is the Everthing Burrito---> poof: strife and conflict.

What to do?



There is some risk of that and someone who is attached to their model being the only one true way will struggle.

Integral Theory does not claim to be the one and only, there are other theories out there. Being a meta theory it is really in "competition" with other meta theories. For example Integral Theory will tell you meditation is a very good idea but it will not tell you how to meditate.



When I look at sentient conditions, like birds swimming 100 miles to find food and bringing back just plastic bottle caps to feed their young,
a) this depresses me(2), and b)  it's clear my own species creating/allowing the same suffering for itself

So I wonder if we'll be able to abide the Golden Rule as pressures mount and keep developing altruistic skills. I hope so.*


You might like the Platinum Rule.

 

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 11:20 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
So... All mindfullness is dhammanupassa. The 6 senses = everything. That must mean, unless I'm very confused, that w/o right effort to eradicate the hindrances (which should also = without samadhi), mindfullness alone is from a transforming insight point of view, useless. If mindfullness while the hindrances are still present, without trying to make them go away, would be considered skillfull then I guess I could say I'm meditating well while I'm lost in telling myself stories. And meditation that makes the hindrances fade should, according to the suttas (sorry, can't bring any personal experience of this yet), lead to Jhanas, or at least the pleasant state before Jhanas (which I think is the same as what the commentaries call upacara samadhi).

I don't get dry vipassana practices. Honest questions: How can they bring insight if the hindrances don't fade? If they do, how can they remain dry (=without the Jhana factors)? Is the dryness only a starting point?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.051.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 11:25 AM as a reply to Change A..
I should try investigating how the mantras taste! I meant silent mantra japa though, where one just repeats it mentally.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 11:49 AM as a reply to Pål.
Honest questions: How can they bring insight if the hindrances don't fade?

Well, just seeing things as they are is insight; so seeing a hindrance is essential and worth really appreciating, not berating oneself for.

On retreat with the monk Analyo once, and he has helpfully self-identified to students as dealing with angry personality, he noted (this is my paraphrasing) that practitioners should really express good feelings, welcoming feelings, with the mind when mind sees its own hindering conduct (aka: when I see myself doing something that will cause dukkha).

Because if we remain in shaming/embarassed reaction, the mind will just never let itself see itself and how it is creating stressful (hindrance) conduct.

So Analayo made sure people learned a positive response (welcome the seeing, welcome the mental objects) to their awareness of their hindrances so that own hindrances surface and can been seen...

...and treated with training, with proper non-abusive effort.

Because, like you say, it's also true, that one does need to make effort to change own stressful habits and therefore re-wire the mind and sometimes work against pleasurable sensations, or excessive pleasureable sensations, that are harmful/ that become harmful in some excess.

If there's no effort to apply a countermeasure to a self-made stressor (say, eating so much sugar as to rot the teeth, or murder, or abuse), then one can at least have cause-and-effect insight: "when I do this, I can expect this (rotten teeth, prison, friend-lessness, etc)".

And there's always compassion: We're doing our best in an inherently challenge situation. 

Does that make sense?

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 12:01 PM as a reply to Mark.
Hi Mark, 
There is some risk of that and someone who is attached to their model being the only one true way will struggle.


Yeah, totally agree.

Or as Yogi Berra could say it (anything) better: 

You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going, because you might not get there.

Thanks for the Platinum Rule. I like it. It seems like systems arise often by compensating for an over-use, or a zealousness, appliied to some preceding system; platinum rule compensates for any hubris in golden rule.  And so, too, again, to your point of non-stagnation.

Tchüss and thanks
_________________
Edit:
Integral Theory does not claim to be the one and only, there are other theories out there. Being a meta theory it is really in "competition" with other meta theories.
Yes, I got that; I thought I was clear there, but it's good to reiterate. Thanks. I also feel like buddhism doesn't compete with anything, but if I look at some of the silly chants and some suttas, bletch! superiority has certainly come down through history's pipelines and printers.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 12:31 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
katy steger:
Hi Mark, 
There is some risk of that and someone who is attached to their model being the only one true way will struggle.
Chase two rabbits , catch none.   emoticon

Psi

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 3:17 PM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Yes I can see that we need to start where we are, but not how dry insight practice, mindfullness that doesn't make the hindrances fade and be replaced by pitisukha and the Jhanas, can lead to enlightenment if the suttas I posted are right about how the hindrances affect the mind (which makes sense to me). We can't really see things as they are if we are overcome by the hindrances is the message. But I might have misunderstood the "dry insight" methods. Maybe one is supposed to attain Jhanas through them. And if they make you let go, how can they not lead to samadhi?

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 8:01 PM as a reply to Pål.
You know, the meditative high points, like jhana and samadhi, these are not the end-all-be-all in buddhism.

Both wet and dry insight, so to speak, are used to see conditions and trigger conduct (release, non-greed, non-hate) based on that reliable understanding, if one does find it reliable.

These mental states are used
a) it's speculated that these practices were extant at the time of the buddha and he had to work with them culturally, too; maybe students would come to him asking, "If your path is beyond these celebrated states of mind, are these states of mind even useful? How do these relate to the nibbana of which you speak?" and

b) it's speculated that Gotama studied with his contemporary meditative masters like Ulara Kalama (sp?) --- so Gotama could see for himself how one like himself, with training in jhana, would have insight and he might also see how one does not at all need jhanic training to have insight into conditions, and

c) the two ways are equivalent. Jhana is not special, except to the person it has served well. And then jhana can be source of stressful clinging, too. 

The insights of buddhism in the Pali canon are rather plain, easy to see (not per se an easy practice/digestion): if something is conditioned to arise, it's conditioned to pass; it's futile to try to build a constant happiness on the bases on such inconstant phenomena. Rather, to develop a mind on what is reliable: all things changing, coming-going, including self; that clinging to unreliable phenomena is stressful, release ends the stress.

Wet and dry insight are equal means to see the nature of anicca/annata (impermanence) and wet and dry insight each support a person in re-developing their conduct (non-greed, non-hatred), towards release.

Maybe a dry insight could be like watching someone hand-plane wood and you realize: Oh, one could get a splinter doing that, be careful. And the wet insight could be like hand-planing the wood and getting quite focused in it also knowing, be careful not to get a splinter.
And both would realize, hand-planing wood is conditioned by certain things, like getting splinters.

So, again, both wet and dry insight, so to speak, are used to see conditions and trigger conduct (release, non-greed, non-hate) based on that reliable understanding, if one does find it reliable.

helpful?


Myself, I also like, from the Mahayana perspective,Seung Sahn's "Don't know" in the mix. Because that "Don't know" is also reliable to me and reflects accurately my conditions: I'm not omniscient, so I also don't know anything absolutely. So Pali perspective is one study of seeing iterative patterns, say, and Zen "Don't know" is recognizing: yeah, really don't know anything absolutely. 

editx4?
editx5: removed pascal's wager; it seems like the wager may have been cynical and I just don't see it that way...

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/28/15 10:02 PM as a reply to Pål.
By tongue, I meant speech. Even if it is silent mantra, see how it relates to speech, what aspects of it are similar and what are not.

How does thinking relate to listening? Are thoughts like listening to oneself in the head? So mantra japa would relate to ears as well.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/29/15 9:37 AM as a reply to katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks.
Since we're talking about the buddhist path and my practical experience is limited, there will probably be some dogma or exoterism in this, sorry, but:

This really makes me think that either the Buddha (the way his words are documentet in the suttas at least) didn't know about the dry insight path to awakening, or that he showed the way to another kind of awakening. The later alternative seems even more likely when I think about how few outspoken dry insight Arahants there are who say they have cut the ten fetters, something that according to the suttas is crucial to the path he taught. This sutta clearly states that practice wothout at least access concentration can't bring enlightening insight: 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.051.than.html

do you agree with it's arguments? Some suttas go even further and explain that the noble eightfold path is incomplete w/o the four Jhanas. 

Wait, dry insight maybe has access concentration as a preliminary step? If so, I've probably misunderstood the term. But then I still wonder, if dry insight leads to the cutting of the fetters, why Samma Samadhi=4 Jhanas according to the suttas.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/29/15 9:41 AM as a reply to Change A..
Do you mean doing that like an analytical meditation? I sometimes note between breaths, and I prefer "hearing" for verbal thoughts and "seeing" for mental images.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/29/15 9:59 AM as a reply to Pål.
Analyse the experience of it. When you recite silent mantra, analyse how you experience it.

RE: What is not contained in the four foundations?
Answer
4/29/15 12:26 PM as a reply to Change A..
Ok, If there is any space of awareness left I'll try emoticon