Message Boards Message Boards

Miscellaneous

interesting

Toggle
interesting
Answer
5/11/15 11:08 PM
I'm not sure what to make of this video, but what he has to say is certainly intriguing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFgKi027B94

RE: interesting
Answer
5/16/15 11:53 AM as a reply to Darrell.
Darrell:
I'm not sure what to make of this video, but what he has to say is certainly intriguing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFgKi027B94

His analogy is good. IME, this is the role of jhana in awakening. I listened to a few of his other talks and also found them pretty good. Thanks for the link.

RE: interesting
Answer
5/16/15 4:57 PM as a reply to Darrell.
Darrell:
I'm not sure what to make of this video, but what he has to say is certainly intriguing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFgKi027B94
The video mentioned is titled - Sati / Samadhi. Original Buddhist methodology (jhana) explained. VERY important video
This is a short analogy of what genuine original Buddhism teaches that
sati and samadhi ARE (its methods of liberation and bliss
, as basis of Buddhahood), as completely and utterly opposed to
what is taught in modern so-called 'buddhism'.

The title of the thread is a bit vague

~D

RE: interesting
Answer
5/21/15 6:30 PM as a reply to Darrell.
Both of you are saying much the same thing, more or less. So I'll listen to more of this guy. It should prove helpful and informative.

Now I'm not sure what qualifies as, or constitutes modern so-called 'Buddhism'. I suspect I come in contact with very little or even none of it. I certainly don't read Tricycle magazine (I'm guessing this is one of the perpetrators)

So, what are the ideas promulgated by this modern Buddhism, and who are some of it's primary voices? I don't mean to encourage wrong or unskillful speech, but it would be helpful for me, and others such as myself, to know.

Thank you

RE: interesting
Answer
5/21/15 7:10 PM as a reply to Darrell.
He says that "there is absolutely nothing original in Buddhism."  This isn't true as far as I understand it.  According to Thanissaro, there are a ton of commonalities with other religions and systems of thought at the time of the Buddha, but there are also some important differences.  Most notably, the Buddha's formulation of karma included both faith and free will while previous formulations postulated one or the other.  Also, the Buddha refused to validate any definition of self whatsoever.  He specifically denied every possible classification of a self.  So, the gentleman in the video is right in saying that 'Atman deniers' aren't following original Buddhism, but he is wrong in suggesting that the pure Citta of early Buddhism is the same as defintions of Atman at the time.  I think Chris Macie (and others) could speak further on this, hoping they jump in... Any thoughts?  

Also, the Yoga Sutras don't have two separate qualities of meditation like early Buddhism has (Vipassana and Samatha).  Instead, they just have deeper and deeper levels of absorption (which I think is equivalent, but I'm just pointing out that there are some awesome subtleties in early Buddhism that other systems didn't contain).  

I love that he talks about Jhana as a purifying agent.  This is what I have found when I have experienced hard jhanas and it isn't talked about very much on pragmatic dharma forums.  Hard jhanas do do awesome things to the mind that last long after they end.  I don't know how much direct correlation this has with path attainments but I think its significant.  

RE: interesting
Answer
5/21/15 10:15 PM as a reply to Noah.
I'll keep that in mind as I continue to listen to this persons videos.

Unfortunately, my ignorance of these subjects is vast, and could fill libraries. I have yet to jump into the suttas and other Buddhist literature, being overwhelmed and unsure where to start. But that is why I posted it here, to get input from those who know.

As a serious tangent to this subject, I'd like to ask you a question. There doesn't appear to be a way to send a private message, so I'll ask here. I see you have experience with the Jhanas. How were you able to learn to access those states? Did you manage this on your own, or did you have a teacher? Also, what did you have to learn/practice, etc in order to be able to learn those techniques?

Thanks

RE: interesting
Answer
5/22/15 2:53 AM as a reply to Darrell.
I'm actually really unqualified to talk about the jhanas personally, but I think I can tell you what others might say.  I would say that there are levels of the human mind that we all share and that one can either be embedded/absorbed (jhana) into a given level, or disembedded and having knowledge of a given level (nana).  Here are some very brief summaries of resources that have helped me understand and conceptualize jhana.  I am not trying to represent them in any integral way. 

In MCTB, Daniel Ingram says that to get jhana, one must see things as continuous and solid.

In his "All Purpose Jhana Thread", Ian And stresses the importance of feeling and remembering the qualities of the jhana state so that one can later guide the mind back.

Thanissaro Bhikku advises people to feel the breath energy in an obvious area (i.e. the nostrils) and then guide this energy into different parts of the body.

Shinzen Young outlines a technique which he calls "Focus Positive", in which he guides people to still practice Mahasi noting (a nana technique), but to cherry pick only the favorable sensations.

So, it seems to have something to do with relaxing and letting go, and balancing that with the effort to hold the mind in one place.  Try thinking of it as a quality of the energy of the mind but also a side effect of the effort of the mind.  Try listening to binaural beats while relaxing your body completely and sinking into the moment more and more.  This might be considered some corrupt form of jhana that isn't helpful, but I would say that it would be a good start.
-----------

I haven't talked that much about jhana with my teacher, Ron Crouch, but I'm pretty sure he sees them as highly correlated with the nanas... Meaning, someone who is in the 11th nana (equanimity), will have access to the 4th jhana, but probably not before that point.  

My personal experience is that I can get 'soft jhanas' by asking my mind for them.  This happened after stream entry and has been strengthened with each path.  In terms of the real thing, (what I would call 'hard jhanas'), they have only happened after super-long meditations and extreme efforts and seem fairly unpredictable.  When they do happen, it feels like I'm being swept totally out of body and super-energetically-concentrated in an effortless way.  Needless to say, this doesn't happen often.

I have a plan to get 4th path, then try for AF, then try to master jhanas, then try to master the Brahma Viharas... So I may not have relevant experience on the subject for another few years.

RE: interesting
Answer
5/22/15 5:05 PM as a reply to Darrell.
Darrell:
So, what are the ideas promulgated by this modern Buddhism, and who are some of it's primary voices? I don't mean to encourage wrong or unskillful speech, but it would be helpful for me, and others such as myself, to know.


The term modern buddhism is a sweeping generality - which ultimately would take in his own views I suppose. The points he makes about the role of jhana and references to atman and such leads me to think he wants to show differences between what you find in the early suttas and what is found in contemporary Theravada teachings (that separate out vipassana and samatha as separate practices - which includes MCTB ) as well as common interpretations of Buddhist teachings like ‘there is no self’ - a topic dealt with quite well by Than. Bhikkhu in his article The Not-Self Strategy.

Lastly, at several points he talks about how nothing in Buddhism was new - I think such statements are too simplistic.