Message Boards Message Boards

The Dharma Battleground (DhB)

Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNoting

Toggle
Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNoting Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/5/15 6:55 PM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo Psi 8/6/15 12:22 AM
Scharl sati CJMacie 8/12/15 6:14 AM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo Dmytro I 8/9/15 3:17 PM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo CJMacie 8/10/15 5:22 AM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo Small Steps 8/10/15 10:40 AM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/10/15 11:40 AM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo CJMacie 8/12/15 6:56 AM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo Dmytro I 8/13/15 3:43 PM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo Not Tao 8/13/15 2:47 AM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo Psi 8/13/15 6:17 PM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo Psi 8/13/15 9:28 PM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo Dmytro I 8/14/15 1:24 AM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo CJMacie 8/14/15 5:02 AM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo Daniel M. Ingram 8/14/15 5:23 AM
RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo Stian Gudmundsen Høiland 8/19/15 10:29 PM
For those with a more curious, thorough, and analytical bent, Richard of Actualism fame has recently written an epic post covering a wide variety of topics that may be of interest to those in pragmatic dharma circles, and particularly those interested in actualism. It’s quite a lengthy read, with many footnotes which are vital to follow and read in order to understand everything that is being said. (Hover over the yellow notes to view them, and either click on them or just wait and they will stick.) It took me a few hours to read through it all the first time over. The URL is http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listdcorrespondence/listd48a.htm#30Jul15.

Topics covered include (in post order):
  • Experiential reports of feeling-being Richard's (pragmatic/non-dogmatic) Enlightenment
  • The nature of the absolute as it occurs in the buddhavacana (“the Word of the Buddha”), complete with Pali references and detailed explications
  • The distinction between what's in the buddhavacana and non-duality models such as those espoused by Daniel Ingram
  • The goal of Buddhism as described in the buddhavacana, complete with Pali references and detailed explications
  • What sati, suti, and suta (e.g. "Evam me sutam" - "Thus have I heard") mean, and particularly how sati is not mindfulness/bare awareness/non-judgmental awareness.
  • The origin of the mistaken sati equals mindfulness translation/understanding (which arose no earlier than the late 19th/early 20th century)
  • What sakkaya-ditthi is
  • A description of feeling-being Richard's stream-entry moment (and hence elimination of that sakkaya-ditthi)
  • Why the ‘affers’ (the term Richard coined for Tarin, Trent, Nikolai, Tommy, et al.,) did not succeed in self-immolating (as they have all acknowledged by now, I think)
  • The provenance of Mahasi-style noting
  • A brief touching-upon of the subject of mental disorders
Incidentally, another source detailing how sati is not mindfulness, the origin of that mistaken translation, and the provenance of Mahasi-style noting is this video by Robert H. Sharf, also available as a (more detailed/thorough) PDF here.

RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo
Answer
8/6/15 12:22 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Thanks for the heads up on the info, that is lots and lots of wordy words.

If there is anything I have ever learned from Richard, it is these two things.

One, PCE is better than reading all of those words.

Two, Richard would beat the crap out of me in Scrabble.

Psi

Scharl sati
Answer
8/12/15 6:14 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
The 'epic post' is much too long, repetitious, etc. -- having trouble getting through it, before commenting, or not.

On the other hand, the lecture by Robert H Scharf is truly interesting. Purely academic as it is, the perspective on use / misuse of 'sati' is well-documented.

But most impressive is the historical perspective -- that the 20th-century revolution in the interpretation of Buddhist practice is nothing new, having similarily occurred previously across history.

(The post 'subject' above is sort of pun -- 'scharf' is a German word for 'sharp'; also has a usage roughly comparable to the English word 'randy', in a British sense.)

RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo
Answer
8/9/15 3:17 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
  • What sati, suti, and suta (e.g. "Evam me sutam" - "Thus have I heard") mean, and particularly how sati is not mindfulness/bare awareness/non-judgmental awareness.


Thank you! You may also find interesting the discussion:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=4299

Incidentally, another source detailing how sati is not mindfulness, the origin of that mistaken translation, and the provenance of Mahasi-style noting is this video by Robert H. Sharf, also available as a (more detailed/thorough) PDF here.


AFAIK, the interpretation of sati as 'bare attention' and 'choiceless awareness' stems from Krishnamurti, whose approach was incorporated into Western Buddhism by Ven. Nyanaponika.
Ven. Nyanaponika mentions the Krishnamurti's "Choiceless Awareness" in his book on "Achtsamkeit" (Mindfulness), and describes the similarity between his approach and Krishnamurti's:

Es besteht freilich die Gefahr, daß die Eigenart dieser Methode in allzu
einseitiger Perspektive verzeichnet wird, als ein extremer
Pendelausschlag gegen Übungswege, welche die Konzentration auf ein
einziges Objekt in den Mittelpunkt stellen. Man mag etwa meinen, daß
willentliche Konzentration auf ein einziges Objekt oder gar jede
methodische Übung wegen ihres angeblichen Zwangscharakters verwerflich
seien und es ausreichend sei, eine nicht wählende Achtsamkeit
lediglich auf das zu richten, was der Tag zuträgt. Dies ist zum
Beispiel die Ansicht Krishnamurtis. Diese Einstellung findet auch
Unterstützung durch eine vom Einfluß der Psychoanalyse genährte Furcht,
daß jeder formende, wählende und ausschließende Eingriff in das geistige
Gefüge zu Verkrampfungen, Verdrängungen und schließlich Neurosen führen
mag. In all dem liegt ein berechtigter Kern, und gerade die
Satipatthāna-Methode hat dem durch ihren «gewaltlosen», zwangfreien
Charakter Rechnung getragen, ohne jedoch in die Extreme der vorgenannten
Ansichten zu verfallen.
An approximate translation:
There is certainly a risk that the essence of this method will be seen in too one-sided perspective, as an extreme pendulum deviation from the ways of training that put the focus on a single object in the center. One may think that deliberate concentration on a single object or even any methodological exercise are objectionable because of their alleged coercive character, and it would be sufficient to direct a choiceless  awareness to what happens during the day. This is, for example, the view of Krishnamurti. This attitude also finds support in the influence of psychoanalysis fed fears that any forming, selecting and excluding intervention in the structure of the psyche can lead to suppression, repression, and eventually to neurosis. All this has a seed of rationality, and indeed the Satipatthana method takes this into account by its "non-violent", non-coercive character, but without falling into the extremes of the above views.
Ven. Analayo writes in his book on Satipatthana, page 58:
"Uninvolved and detached receptivity as one of the crucial characeristics of sati forms an important aspect in the teachings of several modern meditation teachers and scholars. They emphasize that the purpose of sati is solely to make things conscious, not to eliminate them. Sati silently observes, like a spectator at play, without in any way interfering. Some refer to this non-reactive feature of sati as "choiceless" awareness. "Choiceless" in the sense that with such  awareness one remains impartially aware, without reacting with likes and dislikes. Such silent and non-reactive observation can at times suffice to curb unwholesomeness, so that an application of sati can have quite active consequences. Yet sati's activity is confined to detached observation. That is, sati does not change experience, it deepens it."

Compare this with the words of Krishnamurti who coined the term "choiceless awareness":
"(Choiceless) Awareness is a state in which there is no condemnation, no justification or identification, and therefore there is understanding: in that state of passive, alert awareness there is neither the experiencer nor the experienced."

http://books.google.com/books?id=UxvUOPCNwhMC&pg=PT29&lpg=PT29

Krishnamurti's books were popular in Srli Lanka:
"Godwin once said to me: 'I learned to think from K.N (Jayatillake), Ven. Nyanaponika encouraged me to read the suttas, and Krishnamurti's writings made sense of it all.'"

http://www.godwin-home-page.net/Tributes/Dhammika.htm

Ven. Nyanaponika mentions the Krishnamurti's "Choiceless Awareness" in his book on "Achtsamkeit" (Mindfulness), and describes the difference between his approach and Krishnamurti's.
However the name "Choiceless Awareness" and the key features remain the same in both approaches - it's passive observation of what happens.

Ven.Nyanaponika writes:

"By bare attention we understand the clear and single-minded awareness of
what actually happens to us and in us, at the successive moments of
perception. It is called “bare” because it attends to the bare facts of a
perception without reacting to them by deed, speech or mental comment."

http://www.midamericadharma.org/gangessangha/PowerOfMindfulness.html

In contrast, Ven. Mahasi Sayado preserves the original meaning:
Wrong Mindfulness (17)

Wrong mindfulness is the recollection of worldly matters and unwholesome deeds of the past. Some remember the
unwholesome things they did when they were young, their companions, the  places they visited, their happy days, and so forth. They may be likened to cows chewing the cud at night. These recollections are wrong mindfulness. However, it is not wrong mindfulness when one recognises the mistakes of the past, repents, and resolves not to repeat them in future. Such repentance is right mindfulness. Some monks think of their parents, relatives, native places, and the companions of their childhood. They recall how they spent their days as laymen. They think of what they have to do for so-and-so. All these recollections of the past are wrong mindfulness.

Laymen need not reject thoughts about their sons, daughters, etc., for such recollections are natural.
However, while meditating, the meditator should note and reject them. As he sits in his retreat at the meditation centre, noteing the rising and falling of the abdomen or his other bodily movements, “sitting” , “touching”, etc., the meditator recalls what he did formerly, his sayings and doings in his youth, his friends, etc. These are wrong mindfulness and have to be noted and rejected. Some old men and women think of their grandchildren. While noteing their thoughts, they have mental visions of the children near them and they fancy they hear the children calling them. All these have to be noted and expelled. Some  meditators felt compelled to return home because they could not overcome these unwholesome thoughts. A meditator’s spiritual effort is often thwarted by wrong mindfulness. In the final analysis a wrong recollection is not a distinct element of consciousness. It is a collection of unwholesome elements in the form of memories concerning worldly and unwholesome things of the past.

Right Mindfulness

Opposed to wrong mindfulness is right mindfulness, or recollection of wholesome things concerning alms-giving, morality, and mental development. One recalls how one did certain skilful things at some former time — wholesome deeds such as offering kathina robes and almsfood, keeping precepts on Uposatha days, etc. This recollection of wholesome things is right mindfulness. It is the kind of mindfulness that goes along with wholesome consciousness. It is involved in every arising of wholesome consciousness such as alms-giving, devotion before the Buddha image, doing service to one’s elders, observing the moral precepts, practising mental development, etc.

No wholesome consciousness is possible without right mindfulness. However, it is not apparent in ordinary wholesome consciousness. It is evident in the practice of mental  development especially in the practice of insight meditation. Hence, in the Tipitaka the elaboration of right mindfulness is to be found in the  discourse on the four foundations of mindfulness. It is right  mindfulness to be attentive to all bodily activites and postures, to all pleasant and unpleasant feelings, to all states of consciousness and to all mental phenomena or mind-objects.

The meditators who practise insight meditation are cultivating right mindfulness. They note all psychophysical phenomena that arise from the six senses, focussing their attention on the arising and falling of the abdomen, sitting, bending, walking, and so forth. This is developing mindfulness of the body. Sometimes the meditator notes his feelings, “painful”,  “depressed”, “joyful”, “satisfying”, etc. This is to develop mindfulness of feelings. At times, attention is focused on “thinking”, “intending”, etc. This is developing mindfulness of consciousness. Then there is mindfulness in regard to “seeing”, “hearing”, “desiring”, “being angry”, “being lazy”, “being distracted”, etc. This is developing mindfulness  of mental objects. Every moment of mindfulness means developing  mindfulness for insight, which is very gratifying. When this mindfulness develops and becomes perfect, mindfulness on the noble path makes the  meditator aware of nibbāna. So you should practise until you attain this final stage of mindfulness.

http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Mahasi/Sallekha/WrongEffort/wrongeffort.html#Wrong%20Mindfulness

Dmytro I:

That link gets "404 NOT FOUND"

Got an alternative?

Chris J Macie:
How about this instead? http://www.softerviews.org/AIM/sallekha.html#WrongMindfulness_17

There's a whole slew of Mahasi Sayadaw's books here too: http://www.softerviews.org/AIM/mahasi.html

RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo
Answer
8/10/15 11:40 AM as a reply to Dmytro I.
Dmytro I:
  • What sati, suti, and suta (e.g. "Evam me sutam" - "Thus have I heard") mean, and particularly how sati is not mindfulness/bare awareness/non-judgmental awareness.
Thank you! You may also find interesting the discussion:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=4299
Very interesting indeed! I notice in particular how there is a lot of pushback against the "sati = remembrance" translation and how many of the interlocutors keep going back to tying in sati with awareness. This understanding of sati is indeed deeply ingrained in western Buddhism.

*
Dmytro I:
AFAIK, the interpretation of sati as 'bare attention' and 'choiceless awareness' stems from Krishnamurti, whose approach was incorporated into Western Buddhism by Ven. Nyanaponika.
Ven. Nyanaponika mentions the Krishnamurti's "Choiceless Awareness" in his book on "Achtsamkeit" (Mindfulness), and describes the similarity between his approach and Krishnamurti's: [... snip German ...] An approximate translation:
There is certainly a risk that the essence of this method will be seen in too one-sided perspective, as an extreme pendulum deviation from the ways of training that put the focus on a single object in the center. One may think that deliberate concentration on a single object or even any methodological exercise are objectionable because of their alleged coercive character, and it would be sufficient to direct a choiceless  awareness to what happens during the day. This is, for example, the view of Krishnamurti. This attitude also finds support in the influence of psychoanalysis fed fears that any forming, selecting and excluding intervention in the structure of the psyche can lead to suppression, repression, and eventually to neurosis. All this has a seed of rationality, and indeed the Satipatthana method takes this into account by its "non-violent", non-coercive character, but without falling into the extremes of the above views.
Ven. Analayo writes in his book on Satipatthana, page 58:
"Uninvolved and detached receptivity as one of the crucial characeristics of sati forms an important aspect in the teachings of several modern meditation teachers and scholars. They emphasize that the purpose of sati is solely to make things conscious, not to eliminate them. Sati silently observes, like a spectator at play, without in any way interfering. Some refer to this non-reactive feature of sati as "choiceless" awareness. "Choiceless" in the sense that with such  awareness one remains impartially aware, without reacting with likes and dislikes. Such silent and non-reactive observation can at times suffice to curb unwholesomeness, so that an application of sati can have quite active consequences. Yet sati's activity is confined to detached observation. That is, sati does not change experience, it deepens it."

Compare this with the words of Krishnamurti who coined the term "choiceless awareness":
"(Choiceless) Awareness is a state in which there is no condemnation, no justification or identification, and therefore there is understanding: in that state of passive, alert awareness there is neither the experiencer nor the experienced."

http://books.google.com/books?id=UxvUOPCNwhMC&pg=PT29&lpg=PT29

Hmm, interesting. These certainly seem to be pointing to the same thing. The post I linked does have the provenance as being Ven. Nyanaponika (aka Siegmund Feniger), but not that he took it from Krishnamurti. Rather, a Burmese monk, U Nārada, appears to be the source, who himself may have been influenced by Ledi Sayadaw. To wit:

According to Mr. Siegmund Feniger (1901-1994) [aka Nyanaponika Thera], in his 1954 handbook breathlessly entitled “The Heart of Buddhist Meditation”, it [what is known in 'Pragmatic Dharma/Hardcore' circles as “‘Mahāsī’-style noting”] has its origins in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. An online article explains that handbook’s genesis quite succinctly:

Ven. Nyanaponika Thera stayed in Burma {1952-1954} for a period of training in Insight Meditation (Vipassanā) under the renowned meditation teacher Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw Thera. The experience he gathered motivated him to write his best known work, ‘The Heart of Buddhist Meditation’ published by Buddhist Publication Society with many editions and translated into more than seven languages. This is a prescribed text in universities in the Study of Buddhism.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyanaponika_Thera]

And here is how he depicts the origin, of what has become known as “‘Mahāsī’-style noting”, in that best-known handbook/ that university text-book of his:

It was at the beginning of this century that a Burmese monk, U Nārada by name, bent on actual realization of the teachings he had learnt, was eagerly searching for a system of meditation offering a direct access to the Highest Goal, without encumbrance by accessories. [...]. Studying again the [satipaṭṭhāna] text and its *traditional exposition*, reflecting deeply on it, and entering energetically upon its practice, he finally came to understand its salient features. The results achieved in his own practice convinced him that he had found what he was searching for: a clear-cut and effective method of training the mind for highest realization. From *his own experience* he developed *the principles* and *the details* of the practice which formed the basis for those who followed him as his direct or indirect disciples. In order to give a name to the Venerable U Narada’s method of training in which the principles of Satipaṭṭhāna are applied in such a definite and *radical* way, we propose to call it here the Burmese Satipaṭṭhāna Method ...”. [emphases added]. ~ (pp. 95-96, “The Heart of Buddhist Meditation” by Nyanaponika Thera; 1962, Buddhist Publication Society; Kandy, Sri Lanka).
[
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UaIuXnKzCrUC&q=%22salient+features].

As nothing other than a few scanty allusions, as above, are to be found regarding the originator of “‘Mahāsī’-style noting” then the import of Mr. Siegmund Feniger’s depiction is that both “the principles” and “the details” of “‘Mahāsī’-style noting” were the “radical” brain-child of an unawakened/ unenlightened 19th-20th century bhikkhu – still in his early-to-mid-thirties and of a cultural lineage (Burmese) notorious for its abject absence of any tradition of sammā-samādhi (the 8th, and final stage of the octadic patrician way [aka "Noble Eightfold Path"], epitomised by introversive self-absorption/ mystical trance-states) – and not “dhamma virtuous in its beginning, in its middle and in its ending” [viz.: “dhammaṃ deseti ādikalyāṇaṃ majjhekalyāṇaṃ pariyosānakalyāṇaṃ”], in “both its spirit and its letter” [viz.: sātthaṃ savyañjanaṃ], as expounded by the sammāsambuddha of yore. (source: https://suttacentral.net/pi/pi-tv-kd1#8-marakatha).

Therefore, as the word “principles” refers to a fundamental or general truth or law (as in, “first principles”, for instance) and the word “radical” (which stems from the Latin rādīx, rādīc-, meaning ‘root’) indicates a primary modification, a root change, to the “traditional exposition” – that is, as expounded by the sammāsambuddha (i.e., the “master of dhamma”, the “dispenser of immortality”; viz.: “amatassa dātā dhammassāmī”) – then that is well the end of the matter, there and then, regarding its provenance (and, thereby, the likelihood of both its generative and transformative capacity being anything other than null and void in regards the complete and utter end of dukkha, in any lifetime let alone the current one, and thus the attainment of amata, a.k.a. nibbāna).

And he goes on in a bit more detail:

Thus, whatever else which follows hereafter is but a cobbling-together of a few scattered details as a matter of related interest. For example: in an article published last year in the “Tricycle Magazine” (Spring Edition, 2014; Vol. 23, No. 3), Mr. Erik Braun sketches out a basic historical timeline for this pseudo-buddhistic scandal-of-a-century.

Viz.:

“These days many assume that Buddhism and meditation go hand in hand – sometimes they are even considered to be one and the same. But even counting Theravadins, progenitors of the massively popular insight meditation (Vipassanā) movement, relatively few Buddhists historically have ever understood meditation to be essential. On the contrary, instead of meditating, the majority of Theravadins and dedicated Buddhists of other traditions, including monks and nuns, have focused on cultivating moral behaviour, preserving the Buddha’s teachings (dharma), and acquiring the good karma that comes from generous giving. [...]. One must look instead to Burma to account for the ascendance of meditation to a popular practice – specifically, that of insight meditation. The Vipassanā view understood meditation as the logical and even necessary application of a Buddhist perspective to one’s life, whether lay or monastic. The rise of this practice, however, was not strictly an indigenous development. It came into being specifically through colonial influence. (In fact, *no current tradition of insight practice can reliably trace its history back further than the late 19th or early 20th century*). Though now a global movement, insight practice had its start in a moment of interaction between a Western empire and an Eastern dynasty. Indeed, one could go so far as to pinpoint its origins to a particular day: November 28, 1885, when the British Imperial Army conquered the Buddhist kingdom of Burma. [...]. Key figures harnessed the volatile energy of laypeople’s worry, empowerment, and knowledge – all sparked and shaped by colonial policy and missionary attacks – to drive them towards practice.

“Foremost among these teachers was a monk named Ledi Sayadaw (1846-1923), the earliest among those calling for a revamped life that included meditative practice. In the first years of the 20th-century, he explained meditation in simple terms that could be incorporated into a busy life in the mundane world. Famous for his “fan-down” teaching {i.e., lowering the fans which had traditionally covered monks’ faces during dhamma talks}, Ledi Sayadaw was perhaps even more renowned for the many accessible yet sophisticated works he wrote on Buddhist doctrine; as one Burmese writer put it, he was able to *“spread the Abhidhamma like falling rain”*. Furthermore, he *linked Abhidhamma study to meditative practice*, making one’s learning the basis for an everyday observation of the world that could lead to liberative insight. Although he urged advanced study, he also stressed that even the layperson who only studied the ceaselessly changing natures of the four seasons (dhatus) of earth, wind, fire, and water reaps great spiritual benefit. As Ledi Sayadaw put it, “To those whose knowledge is developed, everything within and without oneself, within and without one’s house, and within and without one’s village and town, is an object at the sight of which the insight of impermanence may spring up and develop”.

“Prior to this time, the common belief was that anyone who wanted to practice insight meditation had to first enter into the deep states of concentration (samadhi) called the jhanas. But attaining those sublime modes of concentration required long periods spent removed from the world in intensive meditation, deep in the proverbial jungle or mountain cave. Now, however, Ledi Sayadaw argued that *one did not need to enter into such states* in order to gain the mental stability for insight practice. It was excellent if they could (and Ledi Sayadaw claimed that he himself had done so), but really all one required was a minimal level of concentration that would enable the meditator to continually return, moment after moment, to the subject of contemplation.

“This state of mind was thus called “momentary concentration” (khanika-samadhi), and it formed the basis of “pure” or “dry” insight meditation (suddha-vipassana or sukkha-vipassana), which did not include deep concentration. While this approach to practice was discussed in authoritative texts {i.e., the “Visuddhimagga” & “Abhidhamma”}, never before had anyone promoted it on a widespread basis: Ledi Sayadaw was the first to put it at the centre of his teachings. The message spread far and wide: forget the jungle or the cave. Meditation is possible in the city.

"Some years after Ledi Sayadaw had become popular, another monastic teacher, Mingun Sayadaw {a.k.a. “U Nārada”; 1868-1955}, also promoted insight meditation on the basis of momentary concentration, probably to some degree in debt to Ledi Sayadaw’s teachings. Mingun Sayadaw taught meditators *to inventory every moment of perception as it arose at a sense door, in order to break down all experience into an ever-changing flow of impressions*. This emphasis on *noting sensory impressions* would lead, much later, to an understanding of mindfulness (sati) as what the German-born monk Nyanaponika {a.k.a. Mr. Siegmund Feniger; 1901-1994} would famously call “bare attention”. (Eventually, focus on the process of experience would lend itself to *a secular interpretation* of sati in the West that *removed it from its Buddhist context*). Mingun Sayadaw is notable, too, as the first teacher to hold group meditation for laypeople in 1911. Almost all lineages of practice that have emerged from Burma trace themselves back to either him {i.e., “U Nārada”} or Ledi Sayadaw.
Actual practice among laypeople began to spread throughout Burma thanks to the effort of these teachers. But *they did not consider their techniques to be innovations*. Like most modern-day meditators, they looked to the Buddha as their model and to some of the earliest Buddhist texts as their guides. Compiled in the centuries after the Buddha’s death, Pali language suttas like the Satipatthana Sutta (“Discourse on the Foundations of Mindfulness of Breathing”) and the Anapanasati Sutta (“Discourse on the Mindfulness of Breathing”) were crucial to their formulations of practice, just as they are today. But these texts had not been used widely in lay life before this time, and, as current meditation teachers in America and Asia readily admit, the *interpretation of these texts can vary* widely. Some Sri Lankan monks, for instance, have criticised the method of Mingun Sayadaw (as taught by his student Mahasi Sayadaw (1904-1982) as *without canonical sanction* – in other words, *to be a fabrication* ... ”. [emphases added]. ~ (pp. 56-60, “Meditation En Masse” by Erik Braun; 2014, Tricycle; Spring Edition, Vol. 23, No. 3). [http://cheetahhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Meditation-En-Masse_Erik-Braun.pdf].

To summarise thus far: what has become known as “‘Mahāsī’-style noting” is an arguably non-canonical technique devised (circa 1900) to inventory all sensibilia presenting in the sentiency-field at every moment of percipience – in order for it all to instead be apprehended, by the affective-cognitive identity within a flesh-and-blood body, as an ever-changing flow of sensorial impressions – which later became categorised as “bare attention” by Mr. Siegmund Feniger.

Viz.:

• “Bare attention is the clear and single-minded awareness of what actually happens to us and in us, at the successive moments of perception. It is called ‘bare’ because it attends just to the bare facts of a perception as presented either through the five physical senses or through the mind which, for Buddhist thought, constitutes the sixth sense. When attending to that sixfold sense impression, attention or mindfulness is kept to *a bare registering of the facts observed, without reacting to them by deed, speech, or by mental comment, which may be one of self-reference (like, dislike, etc.), judgement or reflection*. If during the time, short or long, given to the practice of Bare Attention, any such comments arise in one’s mind, they themselves are made objects of bare attention, and are neither repudiated nor pursued, but are dismissed, after a brief mental note has been made of them. This may suffice here for indicating the general principle underlying the practice of Bare Attention. Detailed information on the methodical practice will be given in Chapters Four and Five...”. [emphasis added]. ~ (pp. 32-33, “The Heart of Buddhist Meditation” by Nyanaponika Thera; 1962, Buddhist Publication Society; Kandy, Sri Lanka).
[
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UaIuXnKzCrUC&q=%22bare+registering].

'Tis just as well he explains the technique known as “‘Mahāsī’-style noting” as being, basically, a passive witnessing of all sensibilia presenting in the sentiency-field at every moment of percipience, via a bare registering of all such sensorial impressions, because the distinction being drawn betwixt the regular experiencing of all sensibilia and this (supposedly) liberative experiencing of all sensibilia as “an ever-changing flow of sensorial impressions” simply by means of conducting an inventory of the regular experiencing of all sensibilia rather eluded me at first sight.

Essentially, then, “‘Mahāsī’-style noting” is predicated on the affective-cognitive identity within not being at all responsive – let alone reactive – to each and every instance of visual-aesthesis, audile-aesthesis, olfactorial-aesthesis, gustatorial-aesthesis, somataesthesis, and mentational-aesthesis [1].

[1] [Dictionary Definitions]:
• aesthesis (n.): sensuous perception. ~ (Webster’s 1913 Dictionary).
• aesthesis, esthesis (n.): an unelaborated elementary awareness of stimulation; [e.g.]: “a sensation of touch”. ~ (Princeton’s WordNet 3.0).
• aesthesia, esthesia (n.): the ability to feel or perceive sensations. [back-formation from anaesthesia]. ~ (American Heritage Dictionary).
• aesthesia, esthesia (n.): (physiology) the normal ability to experience sensation, perception, or sensitivity. [C20: back formation from anaesthesia]. ~ (Collins English Dictionary).

He goes on to comment on that non-responsive/non-reactive approach by way of a humorous anecdote:

I am reminded of an auspicious moment in my mid-twenties when attending an end-of-semester faculty-party, in my art-college days, whilst mooching around amongst the milling crowds of college-students and having my attention drawn to a particularly raucous conversation over in one corner wherein the quite-inebriated participants were discussing the pros and cons of decision-making. The general consensus of opinion was that having to be responsible all the time – i.e., making decisions and being accountable for same – sucked big-time (I was what was called a “mature-age student” and the vast majority of the art-students, being in their late teens and having never left school before entering tertiary-level education, were having to fend for themselves for the first time in their lives).

I had happened to stroll on by just as the oldest of the group, a lad of twenty years or thereabouts, was recounting an episode where he and his equally-intoxicated friends had resolved, late one Saturday night at a particularly dissolute party, to declare the next day – a Sunday and thus an obligation-free day – to be a decision-free day as well (and this resolution was to be binding upon all the resolvers). The humorous part of the tale he was recounting – and that auspicious moment signalled earlier – was when, upon awakening nigh-on noontime the next morning, and lazily luxuriating in lying abed at that late hour, it soon became obvious to him that if he were to get up, to get out of bed to answer the ‘calls of nature’ even, it would require a decision being made. So, he lay back abed once more, luxuriating again in lazing the day away (all the while trying to ignore the mounting pressure in his bladder from the indulgences of the night before) until it dawned upon him that he had, albeit inadvertently, just made a decision!

Yes, indeed, by virtue of staying abed, instead of getting up, he had broken the basic rule of their decision-free day inasmuch he had *decided* not to get up and, in fact when looked at more closely, had *decided* to lay back upon the pillows again. And with that he got up in the regular way, and went about his normal daily affairs, along with the sobering realisation that being alive, being here on this planet, meant decisions were, necessarily, part-and-parcel of life itself.

*

There has been many an occasion, throughout my life, wherein I have recalled overhearing that snippet of a raucous conversation as it is a fact of life that, each moment again, there is a mostly-automatic appraisal of the situation and circumstances such as to determine beneficial outcomes to the current course-of-events whether at leisure or when active. And, as the very word ‘appraisal’ implies judgement, it is actually impossible to be “without ... judgement“ .

Here are Mr. Siegmund Feniger’s words-of-wisdom once again:

• “(...) attention or mindfulness is kept to a bare registering of the facts observed, *without* reacting to them by deed, speech, or by mental comment, which may be one of self-reference (like, dislike, etc.), *judgement* or reflection...”. [emphases added].

The adage “full of pith and wind” cometh to mind, eh?

Dmytro I:
...
Ven. Nyanaponika mentions the Krishnamurti's "Choiceless Awareness" in his book on
"Achtsamkeit" (Mindfulness), and describes the similarity between his approach and Krishnamurti's:
...


Which book is that? (I can't find that title, in lists of his works, or at AMAZON.DE)

Two books listed are (I presume earlier and later editions / printings):
Geistestraining durch Achtsamkeit 1979 von Nyanaponika
Geistestraining durch Achtsamkeit: Die buddhistische Satipatthana-Methode 1993 von Nyanaponika

At AMAZON.COM (USA):

The Heart of Buddhist Meditation: Satipatthna: A Handbook of Mental Training Based on the Buddha's Way of Mindfulness by Nyanaponika Thera(Jun 1, 1973)

Is this the equivalent to the German book? Found no "Heart of..." / "Hertz..." (oder vielleicht 'Kern....") in German.

At: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/

The Power of Mindfulness: An Inquiry into the Scope of Bare Attention and the Principal Sources of its Strength, by Nyanaponika Thera (1994; 36pp -- actually 1st printed 1968)

This I have (PDF). No mention of "choiceless" or Krishnamurti in this book.

RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo
Answer
8/13/15 2:47 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
I have to say, a lot of what Richard is saying here is exactly the stuff I kept running across when I was reading the suttas and trying to sync it up with noting and the progress of insight in some way.  There's something fundimentally off kilter at the heart of modern Buddhist practice based on the visuddhimagga.  If you read the suttas (even the english translations) it's fairly obvious that visuddhimagga practice isn't really related to what the Buddha was teaching - and I include the burmese concept of jhanas and noting in "visuddhimagga practice" because intense concentration is never mentioned in the suttas.

While it isn't important to most of the people here what their practice is called, I think it's important to understand these kinds of distinctions in order to avoid all the conflict that arises over it.  The Visuddhimagga and the suttas aren't very compatible, and the practice that arises out of each will have a different character.

EDIT: What do you guys think of this quote from Richard:

Speaking from personal experience: in September 1981 when the then-resident identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body became awakened/ enlightened ‘he’ was immediately aware – due to its marked absence – that ‘his’ ego/ ego-self (i.e., ‘the thinker’/ ‘the doer’) had most certainly died and ‘he’ would remark to those interested how ironic it was that ‘he’ only knew for sure now (now that it had vanished completely) how there had indeed been an operant ego all the while leading up to that moment. This absence of ego/ ego-self was so remarkably obvious ‘he’ would flesh-out ‘his’ description by pointing both forefingers directly to either temple so as to pinpoint its exact location via where an interior place immediately behind the mid-point of the eyebrows was intersected by that line-of-pointing. And, speaking even more experientially, a distinct vacancy, a clear emptiness, at that precise location was an on-going and compelling experience. So compelling, in fact, and so devoid of having ever even been existent this on-going reality was, then, that upon being asked, on occasion over the following years, as to what would happen at physical death ‘he’ would speak assuredly of being “already-dead” (meaning that only an end to embodiment could occur); of how there was “no such thing as death”; of how being immortal was what being awakened/ enlightened is (as “The Absolute”, as ‘he’ called it, that is); of how anything other than that was but a dream, an illusion, an appearance.


EDIT 2: Some more interesting quotes:

Lastly, your query as to whether that ‘emptiness’ the pragmatic/ hardcore dharma folk speak of is the same thing as what I refer to when speaking of ‘Being with a captial B’ can be answered quite simply:

Nothing they speak of is the same thing as what I have to report/ describe/ explain, about those eleven years (1981-1992) of awakenment/ enlightenment, as none of them experientially know what it is to be awakened/ enlightened.

***

Fifth, the reason why you did not find anything in my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website on ‘emptiness as the pragmatic dharma crowd speaks of it’ is because what they speak of is the result of the presently-popular but controversial sukkhavipassaka practice (what is known colloquially as the ‘Dry Burmese Vipassana’, as in ‘Noting/ Mahasi Style’ and ‘Goenka Vipassana’, for instance) and which is more akin to the much-diluted modern-day ‘Neo-Advaita’ form of secularised/ westernised nondualism than anything else.

***

As all subjective experiences within the human condition – taking place as they do in the human psyche – are essentially affective/ pathematic in nature (including any psychic noumena) it is all-too-easy to just say their emptiness is ‘a feeling’.

(Generally speaking, ‘a feeling’ is an emotion or a passion – love/ hate, anger/ amity, sadness/ gladness, and so on, for instance – whereas a reified/ hypostatised entity such as an ‘emptiness’ and/or a ‘void’ is more a product of the affective faculty’s imaginative/ hallucinatory facility).

Besides which, even a genuine awakenment/ full enlightenment is essentially affective in nature.

***

The reason as to why ‘self’ in its entirety remained intact for the ‘affers’ throws considerable light onto ‘samatha-vipassanā’ practice, in general, and “‘Mahāsī’-style noting”, in particular, because the anatta aspect, of its integral anicca-anatta-dukkha ‘three marks of the phenomenal world’ weltanschauung (Pali: tilakkhaṇa; Sanskrit: trilakṣaṇa), has been blown all out of proportion by the many and various practitioners, commentators, translators, scholiasts/ pundits, and so on, who successively contributed to and/or perpetuated the presently prevailing ‘diṭṭhi’/‘dṛṣṭi’ (i.e., “wrong view; theory, doctrine, system”) about what anatta/ anātma refers to, despite it having been sitting there in plain view in the buddhavacana, all along, that the anatta aspect of attavāda – (i.e., “theory of (a persistent) soul” ~ (PTS-PED) – applies specifically to the phenomenal world.

In other words, through holding fast to that particular ‘diṭṭhi’/‘dṛṣṭi’ – popularly known by one and all as “the no-self doctrine” and/or “the anatta doctrine” (as if some-such term as ‘an-attavāda’ might be tucked-away in the more obscure recesses of either the Suttanta or the Vinaya) – and believing it applicable to both the phenomenal world and the noumenal realm, they fervently maintain no ego-death/ egoic dissolution is required (due to that pre-supposed non-existence of ‘self’, in its entirety, in the first place).


So, it seems that Richard is claiming two attainments - the dissolution of the ego, and the dissolution of the feeling-being - and judging from the various reports made by pragmatic dharma practicioners, as well as "affers", he doesn't believe 4th Path involves the accomplishment of either one.

EDIT 3: Anyone interested in the relationship between actualism and Pragmatic dharma should scroll down to the bottom half or so of the article.  He goes into depth about stream-entry, nirodha, and why he believes DHO/KFD practice doesn't match with his experiences, which is very interesting.

In summary, the reason why ‘self’ in its entirety remained intact for the ‘affers’ stems from the obvious fact that disidentification from the ego/ ego-self does not bring about an end to the ego/ ego-self (i.e., an ego-death/ an egoic dissolution).

And especially so when that disidentification process stems from the realisation that, in the ‘supramundane’ world, subject-and-object are one and the same thing (i.e., the Vedantic Advaita; e.g., the ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore Dharma’s non-duality).


From here he goes on to quote Tarin explaining this much the same way Daniel does (maybe more in the vein of explaining Daniel's idea through an "affer" lense?):

Tarin: stream-entry (the 1st path of enlightenment in the theravadan buddhist model) marks the first time someone experiences the supramundane, after which point *he or she no longer identifies as a ‘little self’; as such, this could be considered ego/self dissolution*.

however, beyond this, there is still more that occurs that, in a nutshell, may be described as a deepening in experience of the ‘true self’. it is only such deepening (as in, going deeper into the enlightened state) that clears up more refined, and previously imperceptible, layers of ego residue (bestowing the capacity to dissociate further and further) and leads the way to further path development (and eventually to access to nirodha, after which the void is apparent in real-time like never before).

then, *that something fundamental which was realised, at stream-entry, about the observer and the observed (that they are not separate), also gets applied to what seems to be left of the split (the subject/ object duality – the very sense of split itself – and the split is a split no longer* (‘birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done, there is nothing further for this world’ – dissociation complete). *that’s full enlightenment right there*.


Richard didn't seem to like this explanation:

So as to situate those particular events in a readily recognisable time-line: although the above was written on Jan 06, 2010, it was not posted on the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum until Jan 20, 2010, eight days before ‘Arahant-Tarin’ arrived in Australia (and thus twelve days before declaring himself actually free, on Feb 01, 2010, whereupon ‘Arahant-Tarin’ transmogrified into ‘Affer-Tarin’). Thus I knew before he even arrived that ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore Dharma’ arahants – not to mention those among them who declare themselves a sotāpatti, a sakadāgāmi, or an anāgāmi – were all befooling themselves mightily (and subsequent verbal conversations with ‘Arahant-Tarin’ and, later, with ‘Affer-Tarin’ served only to confirm this to be the case).

Incidentally, it stands to reason those befooling themselves when claiming a spiritual freedom are likely to be befooling themselves, thereafter, when claiming an actual freedom.

Needless is it to add that the same detachment-disidentification-dissociation process which served those detached-disidentified-dissociated identities ill in regards the ego/ ego-self (‘I’ as ego) served them equally unwell, when applied to the affective feelings (‘me’ as soul/ spirit), because an identity – essentially a feeling-being at root – fully-detached and/or disidentified and/or dissociated, from both its egoic aspect and its affections, is a pathematic ‘being’ in clinical denial of its own affective-cognitive existence.

Chris J Macie:
:
...
Ven. Nyanaponika mentions the Krishnamurti's "Choiceless Awareness" in his book on
"Achtsamkeit" (Mindfulness), and describes the similarity between his approach and Krishnamurti's:
...


Which book is that?

It is the book "Geistestraining durch Achtsamkeit "

http://www.palikanon.com/diverses/satipatthana/satipatt_05.html

Not Tao:
I have to say, a lot of what Richard is saying here is exactly the stuff I kept running across when I was reading the suttas and trying to sync it up with noting and the progress of insight in some way.  There's something fundimentally off kilter at the heart of modern Buddhist practice based on the visuddhimagga.  If you read the suttas (even the english translations) it's fairly obvious that visuddhimagga practice isn't really related to what the Buddha was teaching - and I include the burmese concept of jhanas and noting in "visuddhimagga practice" because intense concentration is never mentioned in the suttas.

While it isn't important to most of the people here what their practice is called, I think it's important to understand these kinds of distinctions in order to avoid all the conflict that arises over it.  The Visuddhimagga and the suttas aren't very compatible, and the practice that arises out of each will have a different character.
Boy, do I ever agree with you Not Tao, for instance there is alot of confusion around tranquility and the jhanas.  On the one hand we have a focused , intense suppresive effort, and on the other we have a letting go of the hindrances as they arise type of method.

While both methods seem to work, after a fashion, the second, which I believe we have both gotten mileage out of , seems to lessen the negative mind states on a more permanent type basis.  Not that anything is permanent, but you know what I mean.

Psi

Psi:
Not Tao:
I have to say, a lot of what Richard is saying here is exactly the stuff I kept running across when I was reading the suttas and trying to sync it up with noting and the progress of insight in some way.  There's something fundimentally off kilter at the heart of modern Buddhist practice based on the visuddhimagga.  If you read the suttas (even the english translations) it's fairly obvious that visuddhimagga practice isn't really related to what the Buddha was teaching - and I include the burmese concept of jhanas and noting in "visuddhimagga practice" because intense concentration is never mentioned in the suttas.

While it isn't important to most of the people here what their practice is called, I think it's important to understand these kinds of distinctions in order to avoid all the conflict that arises over it.  The Visuddhimagga and the suttas aren't very compatible, and the practice that arises out of each will have a different character.
Boy, do I ever agree with you Not Tao, for instance there is alot of confusion around tranquility and the jhanas.  On the one hand we have a focused , intense suppresive effort, and on the other we have a letting go of the hindrances as they arise type of method.

While both methods seem to work, after a fashion, the second, which I believe we have both gotten mileage out of , seems to lessen the negative mind states on a more permanent type basis.  Not that anything is permanent, but you know what I mean.

Psi
Oh wait, oops I did not see the part you wrote about noting, I was simply referring to the different approaches to jhana.  Which I think is sometimes confused with the function of Tranquility and Samadhi.

Sorry,

Psi

Not Tao:
I have to say, a lot of what Richard is saying here is exactly the stuff I kept running across when I was reading the suttas and trying to sync it up with noting and the progress of insight in some way.  There's something fundimentally off kilter at the heart of modern Buddhist practice based on the visuddhimagga.  If you read the suttas (even the english translations) it's fairly obvious that visuddhimagga practice isn't really related to what the Buddha was teaching - and I include the burmese concept of jhanas and noting in "visuddhimagga practice" because intense concentration is never mentioned in the suttas.



The Buddhist practice has been degrading slowly, century by century, and the modern Buddhist practice is generally much more degraded than the state it has been at the time of Visuddhimagga.

Visuddhimagga is rather devoted to stories and scholastic theory. As for the fine points of practice, they are presented without consistency, apparently as a collection of viewpoints.

For example, Visuddhimagga itself is rather ambivalent on the subject of presence/absence of physical perception in rupa jhanas.

Chapter X:

"17. Of course, these [perceptions of visible objects, perceptions of sounds, perceptions of odours, perceptions of flavours, perceptions of tangible objects] are not to be found in one who has entered upon the first jhana, etc., either; for consciousness at that time does not occur by way of the five doors."

However:

"19. In fact it is because they [i.e. sensory phenomena] have not been abandoned already before this that it was said by the Blessed One that sound is a thorn to one who has the first jhana (A. v, 135). And it is precisely because they are abandoned here that the imperturbability (see Vbh. 135) of the immaterial attainments and their state of peaceful liberation are mentioned (M.i,33), and that Alara Kalama neither saw the five hundred carts that passed close by him nor heard the sound of them while he was in an immaterial attainment."

Chapter IV:

98. But when pervading (rapturous) happiness arises, the whole body is completely pervaded, like a filled bladder, like a rock cavern invaded by a huge inundation.
99. Now this fivefold happiness, when conceived and matured, perfects the twofold tranquillity, that is, bodily and mental tranquillity. When tranquillity is conceived and matured, it perfects the twofold bliss, that is, bodily and mental bliss. When bliss is conceived and matured, it perfects the threefold concentration, that is, momentary concentration, access concentration, and absorption concentration.
Of these, what is intended in this context by happiness is pervading happiness, which is the root of absorption and comes by growth into association with absorption.

However:

175. Now, as to the clause he feels bliss with his body: here, although in one actually possessed of the third jhana there is no concern about feeling bliss, nevertheless he would feel the bliss associated with his mental body, and after emerging from the jhana he would also feel bliss since his material body would have been affected by the exceedingly superior matter originated by that bliss associated with the mental body. It is in order to point to this meaning that the words 'he feels bliss with his body' are said.

So, evidently, Visuddhimagga as a text represents a transition stage between the descriptions of jhana in Vimuttimagga and in medieval scholastic texts.

To understand the practice described in Visuddhimagga, it's simpler to read Vimuttimagga, which is more consistent.

Modern Buddhist practice is rather a cornucopia of various approaches presented by many enthusiasts, who refer to sources as different as Krishnamurti and medieval Abhidhamma.
anatta aspect, of its integral anicca-anatta-dukkha ‘three marks of the phenomenal world’ weltanschauung (Pali: tilakkhaṇa; Sanskrit: trilakṣaṇa), has been blown all out of proportion by the many and various practitioners, commentators, translators, scholiasts/ pundits, and so on, who successively contributed to and/or perpetuated the presently prevailing ‘diṭṭhi’/‘dṛṣṭi’


Indeed there's been a lot going on, especially the shift to theoretization from the actual practice, which is the transformation of how things are recognized:

http://measurelessmind.ca/anattasanna.html
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2834&p=217290

Dmytro I:

The Buddhist practice has been degrading slowly, century by century, and the modern Buddhist practice is generally much more degraded than the state it has been at the time of Visuddhimagga.

Visuddhimagga is rather devoted to stories and scholastic theory. As for the fine points of practice, they are presented without consistency, apparently as a collection of viewpoints.



These statements could use some justification, and probably a good deal of qualification.

For example: "The Buddhist practice" means some kind of statistical average or mean over all people doing a practice?

Certainly it's not to say that every person's practice, historically or 'modern', is 'degraded' -- or is it?

Or is it refering to some sort of analysis (likewise generalized) of the contents of texts?

How does one compare modern practice with "the state it has been at the time of Visuddhimagga"?

Then what is the point? How would it be documented (other than by yet another collection of viewpoints)?

Admittedly those statements are s/w hedged -- "is generally", "is rather", "apparently". And all are blanket generalizations.


Seems like we're being treated to some kind of lecture series (as at dhammawheel, freeSangha, and maybe more).

Well, Richard clearly is an interesting one, that is for certain, and he does enjoy a certain element of rhetorical force. He also clearly has a profound capacity for diligent argument.

I actually tried to talk with him, back in the day, before Tarin was out of his good graces, but he declined. I did have a brief but pleasant email exchange with him then about dreams and how these related to Actual Freedom.

Perhaps, one day Richard and I will find an opportunity to sit down by some pleasant Australian beach and have a good chat. Until then, it is likely we will misunderstand each other, as I feel there are filters and perspectives there that would be hard to overcome without actually meeting in person. I find that the internet is a wonderful thing, but regarding actual human-to-human understanding of the sort of depth required to sort out questions of what people have actually realized in practice, it is sometimes suboptimal.

Until then, we will have to agree to disagree.

If Richard is reading this, know that Australia is on my list of places I truly wish to visit, and, if he is interested in meeting up sometime, and should I actually get there while he still lives, let me know, and perhaps we can come to some better understanding of these things.

RE: Buddhavacana, Pragmatic Dharma, Sati != Mindfulness, Affism, OriginOfNo
Answer
8/19/15 10:29 PM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Nothing to see here. Carry on.