Author: chrisb483
Forum: Practical Dharma

Most of these discussions are pointless and a distraction to practice. Chakras, fears, kundalini, and any other sensations, are they important enough to validate talking about? They are just aggregates and clingable phenomena. Why try to understand them? It just opens the sense doors and leaves them unguarded. This talk to me is not the Dhamma and there are great drawbacks to focusing on them.

Every moment you spend trying to understand these things is time you are not developing mindfulness.

@chrisb483:

You're entitled to your opinions in regards to thread conversations about the maps and models of awakening, and your statement carries a certain degree of truth. Surely, if all one did was think about maps and models, significant progress in insight is highly unlikely. I think you'll notice from reading the threads that many of us spend a significant amount of time in practice, and that we use the maps and models as a language by which we can communicate our progress to others, as well as give pragmatic advice for those who are seeking advice for a particular stage on the path. I see the maps and models as enhancements to the practice, not as hindrances. Saying that these aspects of the practice are 'not dhamma' is too limited a view, in my opinion.

Also, the DhO is a kind of 'niche site' for this sort of approach to the dharma, which is more-or-less stated on the home page (full disclosure).

Author: chrisb483

Am I as entitled to my own opinion as I am entitled to my own delusion? :^) I am hoping to get beyond opinions and score at the truth, so please, I am utterly against having an opinion.

I am not speaking of the maps and models of awakening, they are useful. I was speaking of conversations like in the threads below.

http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/2571536/flowing+like+a+sine+wave
http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/1192961/%22Nada%22+sound
http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/2490311/Fear+of+the+White+Open+Space

Look how much energy was given to these topics and how they branch out like a monkey mind. As you said, If ALL one did was think about maps and models attainment would be unlikely. So if they thought about it sometimes it would more likely, yes? And if they never thought about maps and models, attainment would be known! Do you see where I am going with this?

I just see thought as a limit of a function, which can never span the infinitesimally smaller gap between duality and enlightenment.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. Opinions can be very useful to practice, as long as they are not mistaken for being separate, isolated "things" with an inherent existence. As Hokai pointed out in a Buddhist Geeks interview, people tend to get hung up on the idea that concepts (to which I would also include "opinions" and "thoughts") are bad, "as if space and objects in space are in collision somehow." It's the misperception of thoughts that makes them in to a problem.

Feel free to skip over any of the threads that aren't useful to you. What is useful to your practice will at times be at odds with what is helpful to someone else. I appreciate your comments on this matter, because it is a reminder to all of us to check our intentions and re-focus where necessary. But, I would encourage you to be careful of what you label as a waste of energy. Sorting out issues of theory and making sense of unusual experiences can be very helpful to one's practice, even if it appears to be irrelevant to others.

I'm behind a desk about twelve hours a day, and while i'd like to practice formally in that time, it's good to have clicking and typing noises coming from my direction during five hour hurry-up-and-wait intervals.

Now, I will admit a great deal of frustration with the models, save to say that they can be quite helpful for letting us realize that our practice can have a powerful developmental component.

More relevantly, I believe Kenneth has suggested that "enlightenment" has a correspondence with kundalini, so quite arguably discussing chakras or stele-like practices etc. is warranted. Likewise, shamatha is tremendously helpful in seeing through illusions and shamatha tends to give rise to weird-ass shit that may to be dealt with lest it give rise to too much "observer-bias". So again, discussion is warranted and not unwholesome.

What I suspect, however, is that you are giving the old Turn Off Your Mind / Stop Thinking line. To paraphrase a teacher, "The brain and the mind are an organ. Organs like the stomach secrete things. The mind secretes thoughts." In fact, the mind even secretes thoughts in my experience even in a hard fourth jhana. Oddly enough, despite the "thinking," investigation is still quite possible and insight arises. The suggestion elsewhere, I believe, is that even in the "no-dog," which I understand as the mahamudra (?), there's thinking. Fancy that.

So, I'd kindly suggest, turning the thoughts off is not what the practice is about. If you want to turn off your mind, that's fine. There are even some instructions on doing that here.

two of the "pointless" threads that were pointed out were mine. ah well. i would respond to this thread in detail, but i think it would be futile, because this thread contradicts itself, and in itself is not directly related to practice.

~C

Author: chrisb483

The conversations I have pointed to are idle chatter. On the Eightfold Path, one is Right Speech, and the Buddha did not call them the FOur Noble Opinions. :^) There was a purpose for the Buddha noting that:

"If someone were to address me with idle chatter, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to address another with idle chatter, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?' Reflecting in this way, he refrains from idle chatter, gets others to refrain from idle chatter, and speaks in praise of refraining from idle chatter. In this way his verbal behavior is pure in three ways."

Do you see where I fit in?

Maybe you have been in the university too long.

I can see where you think you fit in. Hope you can get yourself out of there before long.:-)

You seem to have a dogmatic, inflexible view of constitutes 'idle chatter', which fits neatly in to your idea of what the dharma should be. I prefer a more pragmatic approach. Both approaches have their pros and cons.

IMO, if talking about kundalini energy and chakra models helps one to make progress, than it's worth it whether someone else finds it displeasing, disagreeable, or otherwise. Let's not dismiss the various skillful means that are expounded in the DhO as meaningless drivel. The practice unfolds in many ways, so it is wise to have an open mind.

Author: chrisb483

Nathan, what is my attainment?

maybe you aren't giving that line, i had thought i had removed that piece since i thought better of it. oh well.

i don't know your attainment. i don't care, really, courtesy of my hinayanism. I'm just saying. "Stop Thinking" isn't particularly useful practice advice compared to, say, "take an object and as thought arises investigate that as the object (via the Aggregates or elements or whatever you chose) or return to the original object".

How many meditation groups have you sat in where people complain about "thinking too much"? My answer is, "all of them." Thinking isn't the problem, not approaching it right is.

Author: chrisb483

There is a reason for dogmatism that is hard for the still clinging mind to see. You can dilly dally in these ideas as much as you want, but as someone who encourages others to reach nibbana I advise against idle chatter. I morphed the precepts and eighfold path to my own liking for a long time, thinking that no matter what I did was helping me progress to nibbana. It is hard to be dogmatic so I understand the aversion. And I understand that it might be more difficult for someone immersed in the academics.

"There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, contentment, seclusion, non-entanglement, arousing persistence, virtue, concentration, discernment, release, and the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful — to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects."

Open minds are like garbage dumps, I would advise that instead one should have a discerning mind.

From Wikipedia:

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

On the other hand:

"Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent.

Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning: 'Please do not feed the trolls'."

I suppose the moral is that it's good for us to examine our motives for posting.

Best,

Kenneth

actually i think our troll kind of has a point. i've been pretty sick recently and have an excuse for not contributing much, but even if i haven't been im not sure what to write, as i haven't been fond of some of the threads here lately, particularly either theory-heavy ones or ones that are concerned with interpretation of meditation experiences. it's not like it's out of hand though, and others may find them interesting and useful in ways that i don't, so who cares what i think? not even me for now. then again, an overabundance of these topics can give new visitors the wrong impression that this community is solely for those purposes (theorising and mapping) and that would be a shame if that looked to be the extent of it, especially if it leads them to flame the board with such complaints *cough cough*, or even worse, to start more threads along those lines themselves! god forbid that should happen. but ultimately whatever helps people get along in their practice, fine, cos the more they do the more they'll know and that will enrich us all. positivity, rarr!

Author: GhostLLP

Well played, sir, well played.

My name is also nathan but don't ask me. I major in self destruction and temporal statecraft. Dude carry on, go find noble silence. Oppressing the speech of others isn't my conception of noble silence. Peace out.

Author: chrisb483

Here is an interesting piece I read this morning. Maybe it can shed some light on this subject:
http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/old-snow-lions-sharp-vision/

Author: chrisb483

Was that my motivation?

Hi Chris,

What you're pointing out is a real concern. I fall into the trap of overconceptualizing and overestimating of personal experience again and again. Thanks for the heads-up - much appreciated.

But really, playing guessing games about your personal motivation or your attainments, even if used as a retorical device, is quite silly in the context of a discussion about attention seeking. I'll paraphrase your initial post in this thread:

"Is [your motivation for posting here] important enough to validate talking about?"

Cheers,
Florian

Author: chrisb483

"Is [your motivation for posting here] important enough to validate talking about?"

Is [helping noble friends stay on the path to enlightenment] important enough to validate talking about?

Yes.

Who knows? It doesn't matter.

Suggesting that free speech and open discussion should be prevented for any idealistic reason In the context of net forums that are designed to enhance the ease of discussion in the group is always the road to hell. It doesn't matter what kind of intentions are paving it.

What good is an enlightenment that can't be brought to bear on all things just as they are? How are you? Only you know. How am I, I try to speak for my experience, that is all that it is. How does silence communicate that experience, be it ignorant or awake? I am willing to be transparent and vulnerable. It is more valuable to me ongoing always. I have to be cautious not to blow minds in the supermarket line up, that's all.

Who can type days and years and decades of direct observations into 2000 character word strings without cutting a lot of corners or without artificially narrowing the field of conditions and considerations, attending to this and then that. None of that is actually happening in the artificial isolation of a given discussion.

In experience it is all part of a tapestry of awakening that is not necessarily a willed thing at all so much as a necessary journey. I can chew gum and walk and slip through states and have it all spinning through non-dualistic modes no problem. Presenting myself as an ordinary and non-threateningly ignorant and mundane being, day in and day out, is what I should get the oscar for. You don't need to kick my ass to get enlightened. Enlightenment is kicking my ass for you already plenty.

Author: chrisb483

Do you think maybe you do not understand what I am talking about?

Author: garyrh

There was bomb made from the abstract idea of an atom while others were making bombs from the processes taught to them by those that went before. Some people just do while others explore. If they explorer were told to just do something he would say "why?". If the doer were ask to explorer (neccesarily requiring the conceptualisation of abstract ideas) he would say it is "not practical".

It is ignorance to judge another by the way your own pysche functions and it is your ego that imagines it functions better than another. There is majesty in diversity.

What you say does not seem difficult to grasp. Why be elusive? Why not address whatever concerns have arisen in the context of those discussions where they can be appropriately addressed?

I don't see mindfulness in a restrictive way. Mindfulness of this but not mindfulness of that. Mindfulness of a big mug of coffee but no mindfulness of urination. None of it is pointless imho. Why should mindfulness hide?

Why is mundane phenomena so worthless? My seat belt is clingable phenomena. I want to validate it every time I engage the engine of my car. Sensations are ongoing. Why try to maintain ignorance of the ongoing fabrications. How does that protect the sense gates? Where is this other dhamma that is not this?

Why do I strive to understand? Because ever deepening understanding has proven possible. You can live quite conventionally and meditate simultaneously. Occasionally something remarkable may change and then life goes on.

Author: garyrh

This forum does not have a problem (at the moment ) there is too much respect between the members for this to be an issue. Though the statement is true - in this threads context my concern is that members who will benefit will be second guessing whether their post is practical.

Author: chrisb483

You consider a judgement what I know is the path the Buddha prescribes and what I know is a pitfall of the path. I am not angry about any of this but I have great compassion for you. You will listen to some because they soften you by massaging your ego.

The talk is of clingable phenomena and it is a distraction to enlightenment. Once you know how your mind works you know how everyones mind works. Ignorance or illumination?

I had thought this was a place I could speak clearly but now I see it is not. Which is told by this whole "So many people found this useful" thing on the bottom of the posts. How do you know if it a boat was useful until you have reached the other shore?

You said the explorer just explores. How foolish if you are trying to get to a place that has already been discovered! Yes, this is telling that you are more interested in the trip then the destination.

Author: chrisb483

I thought my first post was clear, in that I said talk of clingable phenomena is a waste of time if one is investigating the true nature of things.

When you are talking about and analyzing clingable phenomena you are not being mindful.

It is mindfulness that fosters enlightement.

This post explained it well:
http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/old-snow-lions-sharp-vision/

I am not talking about ignoring clingable phenomena, I am saying note it and let it go, because it is impermanent like everything else.

Author: garyrh

You have asked the question, here is the answer. Your belief that everyones mind works and functions like your own is based in ignorance.
If everyones mind was the same we would all have the same mode of communication. Quite clearly some communicate more in the abstract ideas and others by what is doing.
Do not assume that those communicating in abstract ideas are not being mindful.
They are operationing with the information in a manner you do not "dig". The reason for this is they are different, now celebrate it!

Author: chrisb483

I said our minds work the same, I did not say our delusions are the same.

Great, now we are all up to speed about the clingons. So we can let this go too.

Author: garyrh

So let us conclude; you believe everybodys mind works the same as yours and therefore you are capable of judging when they are delusional.

Maybe we could use your skill to screen all threads for deluded content so the community will not be presented with this information.

enough's enough. bicker over private message please. thread locked.