|
Deleting kamma belief is hard
|
|
I stopped meditation early to write this blogentry, and it took me an hour and a half before I started writing. This is hard.
The logic is very clear. Nibbana means no concepts, no beliefs. Over the years I have constructed my kamma and reincarnation ideology based on readings that have resonated with me, note I do not say internalised. Because of its cohesiveness it makes sense to me that samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth, is the way of the universe but there is no proof. And that is inconsistent with the way I understand the Buddha's teachings, that it has to be proved by the scientific empiricism of meditation. For me that poses a very interesting question, do Tibetan Buddhists get affirmation about their samsara system during meditation? Quite rightly HHDL says meditation is an empirical scientific methodology and that through meditation our Paths are all the same, but is an understanding of samsara part of that?
Previously when I have considered affirmation of samsara, I have received the notion that if I was a Buddha I would understand. This type of affirmation to me is completely inconsistent with the rest of the way Buddhism is approached. The Buddha gave us the 4NT but nowhere does it say to believe these because the Buddha thought of them under his Bodhi tree. They are to be understood and experienced through meditation and practice. If kamma is to be believed because a Buddha can know it this is dogma and not understanding.
Even before I was a Buddhist searching vague esoteric Paths eclectically I believed in reincarnation. It appealed to me. It made no sense for us to be born, learn and hopefully gain some wisdom, and then die. It made sense that somehow this wisdom passed on and perfection could be achieved in future lives. Kamma explains why we start at different positions on the Path, but there could be ego attached to that understanding; the ego that if I am somewhere along the Path I am better than someone else because I have worked on it in previous lives.
I have even in these blogs developed a terminology, BillNext. Whilst BillNext did not have the ego attached to such an extent that BillNext remembered BillThis, there is still a notional Bill. Ego. I intend to go back and put a warning wherever I have discussed a belief in samsara. But I can't yet because I am not totally comfortable. It is hard to eschew the belief.
Perhaps the most important aspect of this reincarnation belief is in terms of Nibbana. I always say I have too much to do in this life, I'll do my best but I know I can't do it all. Maybe next time round BillNext will, or future reincarnations. This is a deferment of responsibility, a deferment of determination. It is my responsibility to be determined to achieve Nibbana in this life, and act accordingly, with detachment - gently without dukkha.
So what about wisdom? What about different people starting different places on the Path of life? Do these questions matter as they create a belief system as answers? Somewhere I read of questions the Buddha never answered. I partially understood why - they created belief systems. A soul, what is it? No answer, to get an answer you must believe something. Is there a life after death? No answer, to get an answer you must have a belief system.
However I never eschewed kamma and reincarnation from Buddhism as Buddhdhasa has - as far as I know. The Buddha justs didn't answer and I left it at that. Very slack. Why didn't my mind attempt to pierce that lack of response? Because I had a belief system that was under threat from the answer. It took a long time for me to eschew the reason I had picked up from the Church of Reason, how long will it take me to eschew other belief systems that have become attached to my mind?
|
|
Is it Buddhism or is it ideology?
|
Buddhadasa's Heartwood continues to throw a spanner in all my work. By this question I am not asking whether Buddhism is an ideology because what I want to call Buddhism is provable - explained in a bit. For me with Buddhism there is no faith, no belief - just proof.
In this blog on Santikaro, I discussed a quote (I believe it was from Tan Ajaan that Santikaro was translating) on Spiritual Empirical Science. In other words what we all experience spiritually is repeated and repeatable, hence a good definition of a scientific methodology. In this blog I discussed how the movie about Vedanta bent over backwards to appear as if it is the same as science. As science, the way it is practised now is fundamentally flawed, even Tan Ajaan using such scientific technology risks the appearance of using language to appease fools. His approach is a genuine scientific method - a method of determining knowledge, not science that has eschewed all but the rational. Here is the quote - see for yourself:-
“When we speak of spiritual science, we mean that we must study and learn through our own spiritual experience rather than from scriptures and texts. In Buddhism, we practice spiritual science by observing and investigating dukkha as it actually occurs in our hearts and minds (citta). We search out the causes and conditions of that suffering and learn how to remove them in order to be free of all suffering, misery, and distress. In this way, there is direct spiritual experience of these matters, not mere hypotheses and theories. When we approach Buddhism as spiritual science, we will not have any problems regarding the accuracy of the scriptures, worries about mistakes and inaccuracies that may have crept in over the centuries, or whatever other doubts might arise. These will not trouble us, because we will be able to verify Buddha-Dhamma for ourselves, in our inner spiritual experience.”
This is also in line with what the Buddha said. I take what the Buddha said as meanning:-
there is no faith all is provable.
There is a sutta, the Kalama Sutta that discusses this, but I would prefer to direct you to what Tan Ajaan said. I will go into that article further but for the moment I take as some kind of affirmation of my statement:-
there is no faith all is provable.
I intend to take as Buddhism exactly what the Buddha taught as far as I can know it What Tan Ajaan does is confront this issue head on, I greatly enjoy that. Thailand has a monk-devotion culture, if you are a monk they are generally devoted to you. To me this goes against what the Buddha taught, but let me leave that aside. There is great devotion for Tan Ajaan here, but I heard Santikaro say somewhere that the Thai Buddhist establishment does not accept him in places. Santikaro mooted that it was because Tan Ajaan said that the Buddha did not believe in reincarnation. Because I take that the Buddha did not teach reincarnation then to me reincarnation is an ideology. Further it is an unprovable ideology however intellectually pleasing it is.
The next quote from Heartwood begins to deeply throw the cat amongst the pigeons:-
"And if one understands to the extent of being able to extinguish Dukkha, then that is the ultimate understanding. One knows that, even at this moment, there is no person living; one sees without doubt that there is no self or anything belonging to a self. There is just a feeling of "I" and "mine" arising due to the foolishness whereby one is deluded by the beguiling nature of sense - experience.
"Therefore, there being no one born here, there is no one who dies and is reborn. So, the whole Question of rebirth is utterly foolish and nothing to do with Buddhism at all. "
No self, no time, no kamma, no ideology.
Somewhere Thay has said Nirvana has no concepts, isn't this the same?
Quench dukkha only, no intellectualising or theorising, no ideologies, only a spiritual science.
What this quote implies for me is mind-blowing. It is not rational, no structure of reason that can make sense of this, yet the more I think about it the more it brings understanding. I need to use Tan Ajaan's benchmark - quench dukkha, I am beginning to examine it intellectually through the same glasses I thought of kamma. But I don't think that is what he meant.
And remember Thay said that nirvana had no concepts.
Here is a page discussing the Buddha's failure to answer certain questions. Look at the compromises the paper is forced to make:-
It is important to note however that the Buddha did give answers to some of these questions to His most intellectually developed disciples after the questioner had left. And in many cases, His explanations are contained in other discourses which show us, who live in an age of greater scientific knowledge, why these questions were not answered by the Buddha just to satisfy the inquisitive minds of the questioners.
"contained in other discourses" - where? I am no scholar, Ajaan Buddhadasa was - he was a slave to the Buddha (literal translation of his name). It is my understanding he didn't find them. "most intellectually developed" opens the door to esoteric knowledge allowing people to move from the provable spiritual science, you must be special to understand. And the word intellectual creeps in. Is this about intellect? If this is true are you going to understand it through intellect?
"And if one understands to the extent of being able to extinguish Dukkha, then that is the ultimate understanding. One knows that, even at this moment, there is no person living; one sees without doubt that there is no self or anything belonging to a self. There is just a feeling of "I" and "mine" arising due to the foolishness whereby one is deluded by the beguiling nature of sense - experience. "
|
|
Change to a study
|
This started as a bookblog but then I got sucked into different aspects of Tan Ajaan's teachings so this has become the Buddhadasa blog. Starting with Heartwood I realised that I was using mental constructs - concepts. Is that wrong? Well it is if there is no verification in meditation, this led me to his discussion on the Kalama sutta. In Heartwood the main construct that has benn slashed was that of reincarnation. This slashing depends on Tan Ajaan's interpretation of the birth moment discussed throughout the suttas as being Dhamma language as opposed to conventional language (birth from the mother's womb) - discussed here. To begin to understand these births or mental events I am led to consider Tan Ajaan's discussion on Dependent Arising (Paticcasamuppada).
Tan Ajaan's interpretation of the Buddha's teaching is that we learn to quench suffering, and the danger to suffering is I so I study "danger of I". And finally there is a document "Essential Points of Ajaan Buddhadasa's teachings".
More Buddhadasa stuff here - scroll down to his name Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu.
|
|
Rambling
|
What does all this change mean?
This is so hard. I now find myself entering a real battle with I. I have just looked at that crazy sentence and it just reads lunacy. But it is so fundamental "entering a battle with I". Sometimes in meditation there is a clarity that there is no I - hence this is the truth, but then when I get involved with daily life there is all the I - including the anger that is contact with the Walking Disaster Area. However real that I feels it is not real, and in the same way as I know there is chi I know that statement is true. However at the moment the I is still string so it keeps giving me doubts. But they are doubts and not the truth - this is the battle with I.
I, as a mental constructor or as I use more disparagingly intellectual, built up a whole construct about reincarnation including my own language of BillThis and BillNext. What was Tan Ajaan's benchmark? Of course I mean the Buddha's benchmark that Tan Ajaan used - did it quench suffering? (Thay also uses this benchmark). And the answer to this is that having a construct concerning reincarnation does create suffering because it allows for deferment - I will achieve Nibbana in the next life. Therefore I do not make sufficient effort to achieve Nibbana NOW - I was never good with NOW because of too much intellect. In many places in my blogs there are references to this faith - for that is what it is. The Buddha talked about Right View - 8-fold Path, and this is an article of faith not a right view.
But this brings me in conflict with so many Buddhists. Tibetan is out the window because so much of it is about reincarnation and preparing for death and this meeting - even the religious leader, HHDL, is found by people going round questioning prospective candidates - an entertainment movie about this story for the current HHDL is called "Kundun" - here is a torrent. Brad has never accepted reincarnation, in fact I had marked Zen with a negative because of this. Apparently Tan Ajaan was blackballed by the dogmatoxics of Thailand's Theravada Buddhism. I am sure a while back if I had known he rejected reincarnation I would have rejected him - despite how much studying him helped me early in retirement.
It must be verifiable. To me this is now so obvious, it was what drew me to Buddhism. I remember Qasim fondly and enjoyed his proselytising conversations, but when he told me he just followed his Sheikh's rules - no disrepect at all to his Sheikh - I was driven to Buddhism. It is not a set of rules - a dogma, it is all about what you can confirm in meditation - or your equivalent. Let me think about that equivalent. When I was young I would have bells and banjoes occasionally, and these would be moments of proof - of truth. Insights. At that time Tan Ajaan's Dhamma language for me was "I know", the word know said in a "knowing way" was a recognition that truth was known. Truth had been verified by insight, by these wierd moments of truth. I have always worked on verification but my intellect has always battled away creating mental constructs. Even back in my "raising from bottom" days in South London there was growing this construct of reincarnation - as if preparing the intellect to divert me when I started meditation and Buddhism seriously. Back in those days my friends, the people who were teaching me, were trying to get me out of the intellectual right and wrong that had been my maths. Intellectually there is no right or wrong, but truth-wise there absolutely is, there is absolute truth. Insight. What they should have been telling me is to get rid of the right and wrong that came with me as baggage of the education system and accept the right and wrong that comes from insight. It must be verifiable.
This battle with I is what Tan Ajaan calls the danger of I. I drew 2 distinctions:- "I want" is a diversion - desire, "the body needs" is life. If I give in to what I wants then I am creating I - the self - atta. The battle with I is atta trying to survive. I remember that for a long time I have personalised intellect as if intellect is fighting insight, but that seemed strange to some. The language of personalisation for intellect? But it is not strange because it is the same as the personalisation of atta. Atta, intellect. sex, they all personalise they are all distractions - lobha, dosa and moha. They want to survive but in doing so they create suffering.
This brings me to the Paticcasamuppada - I don't get this. I get that desire can create clinging if we attach to it. If I accept getting angry with WDA then I always get angry. Despite the justifications concerning the lies the anger is not good to arise, how do I stop it arising? I cannot stop the lieing so I have to stop the lieing affecting me. Remember she wanted me to be angry with her, and I am letting it happen. She is a particularly nasty piece of work but that is no excuse. This fits somewhere within Paticcasammupada but where I don't know. MMore importantly how important are all the steps. I seem to remember Dharma Dan thinking the steps are important.
Tired and time to cook lunch.
It was a late lunch - a big lunch (luntea?) and then with the garden it is now early evening. Meditation is difficult as atta is agitated. In fact maintaining a constant discipline of meditation since starting this Buddhadasa study has been difficult. The atta is agitated, very agitated - I hope it's death throes.
Kamma is difficult. I had seen kamma as part of the mental construct of reincarnation, basically kamma dictates that you have jobs to do in this life and if they aren't done you do them next time. So where does kamma come in when there is no next life? And what is now difficult to determine with kamma is that all of the monks writing about it will be writing about reincarnation and kamma in connection with it.
Tan Ajaan accepts kamma but I haven't seen how he justifies it, or rather how he verifies it? Kamma is defined as action but I am not sure what that means. Actions are caused by conditions, I accept that. I'm groping.
We reap what we sow. Now that is kamma that I consider real, life is evidence of that. The anger surrounding WDA is an example of kamma. I am nowhere near what it means, and I do not understand how Tan Ajaan verifies it. Enough rambling.
|
|
NOT moved & moved to Dharma Dan
|
My study of Dharma Dan is here.
I decided today that I would re-engage with Dharma Dan - Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha. The book has moved so I am going to store it as well, I hope Dan doesn't mind and a simple request will remove my link. I am not sure the reasons for my decision are the best as my atta is fighting hard. Tan Ajaan has sent my atta fighting for survival but I find Tan Ajaan is also quite close to the teachings. Whilst I attack dogmatoxia, I shamefully do not know enough of the dogma and as such I am unable to interpret the dogma. This of course is laziness - shamefully I must admit that, but the proliferation of dogmatoxism is so tedious. Defintiely a weakness on my part, but I do have an avenue to progress - Dharma Dan, and maybe when my atta is not struggling so much I wiull have the clarity to look at Tan Ajaan more.
6/3/13 NOT moved to Dharma Dan
[p17] The gold standard for reality when doing insight practices is the sensations that make up your reality in that instant.
[p18] I will use this dangerous phrase "the mind" often, or even worse "our mind," but think to yourself when you read it, "He's just using conventional language, but really there are just utterly transient mental sensations. Truly, there is no stable entity called "the mind",
[p19] Given that you know sensations are vibrating, pulsing in and out of reality, and that, for the sake of practice, every sensation is followed directly by a mental impression, you now know exactly what you are looking for.
At the beach I noted these quotes. I also remember a meditation exercise in which you press the two index fingers at once, then you separate the sensations so that you realise that you are not pressing both at once but that the pressing is consecutive instances. I haven't done this and I have no reason to refute it but this morning in meditation I began thinking why. The following might be unfair as I haven't finished the book, but he begins with morality but then focuses on meditation and concentration especially emphasising what might be considered as meditation tricks above. This smacks of glamour. With the description of himself as an arahat on his cover there could be arrogance, he notes possible arrogance in his foreword. I need to be more certain of where I am going if I am going to see through these issues. I have learnt to take care, so I am disengaging until I am better equipped.
|
|
Needs and Wants
|
|
The Buddha describes his approach as a means of quenching suffering, key to understanding that is the 4NT, and within the 4NT is an understanding of desire and craving. Seeing these for what they are is very difficult. Studying Tan Ajaan and his no self approach has helped this be clearer to me. If there is no self then there is no "I want". A standard riposte might well be "I want a drink".
Let's examine "I want a drink". To claim this statement is a craving is plain stupid. So let's break it down. The body needs water, this is not a desire it is a necessity. But do we just drink water? No we drink coke? Why do we drink what is not good for us? Because "I like the taste". The body needs water but I like the taste of coke. Even worse, the body needs water but I like the taste of alcohol. In the case of drinks it is very easy to see the difference between what the body needs and what I want. If we stick with what the body needs and not what I want there is no self.
"I want to eat" is similar. The body needs food, but I want a steak. A plant-based diet is healthy but we prefer to eat meat because we like it. Or further we prefer food with sugar or MSG in it, both of which damage our health. If we eat what the body needs and not what we want, we are healthier and there is no-self.
"I want sex". This is also a natural function, and the body has its sexual needs. But is our sexual activity limited to the needs of the body? How often especially as we get older do we want sex but the body cannot function? In men there is a whole viagra industry surrounding this, what damage does viagra do to the body? It makes sense to think that if the body wants to satiate its needs it will function that way. Look at how many social problems are caused by wanting sex. The desire for the neighbour or promiscuity, are they the needs of the body or are they needs of the self? No-self solves so many problems.
But our needs are not limited to the body, so some would then claim I have intellectual needs - needs of my mind - self. There is consciousness, being of which we are all part. We have sensory experience, what is seen, heard etc.and thoughts. Consciousness processes these experiences as they arise. But there is still no I. I see or is it the body sees. Consciousness contacts these experiences and acts accordingly - no self. The body senses thoughts and acts accordingly. Again a self is not necessary.
But consciousness has its own needs to learn and to do good. These are not choices that I make but are needs that consciousness imposes. Whilst these have been my Path and therefore not self, it might be hard for some to see them as the needs of consciousness. If they are not needs of consciousnessas you perceive then what are the needs of consciousness? Not self but consciousness. Answer this without making it personal.
In this way there is no self.
|
|
No Self
|
I have just listened on the bus (to Pattaya to collect the bike) to two talks from Tan Ajaan taken from Liberation Park:-
Everything is anatta
Elements Senses and Aggregates
(Go down the page and click on the link - an audio download will start).
Throughout both these talks Tan Ajaan is trying to establish that the concept of I/atta/self is an illusion. Firstly there are the corporeal elements, he desrcibes 6 of them - earth, air, fire, water, ether and consciousness. Now I have to be careful with this word consciousness as it appears in different places with apparently different meanings.
I don't actually know what it means here. I tend to think of this consciousness as overaraching everything but then maybe not. No here is a different meaning - I must listen again.
Then we have the senses, and these are significant when thinking about self - hear, see, touch, taste, smell, and a mental sense. I note here that the consciousness and mental sense are perhaps the easiest aspects that allow for the illusion of atta. This mental sense greatly appeals to me. Thoughts come and go, they aren't mine they are there as part of Nature. This is why I experience thoughts that have nothing to do with me although there are other thoughts that I don't like but I attract because they are like thoughts that I don't detach from. But it is the attachment that is giving the sense of self, so experience don't attach - don't internalise.
And then he described dependent arising. This is what he listed in Everything is anatta:-
1) Senses
2) Sense object
3) Sense consciousness
4) Contact - sense experience
5) Feeling (mental - vedana) - not emotion
6) Recognition - recognising the feeling and proceed.
7) Volition - intention and motivation
8) Desire
9) Thought - desire leads to thinking about how to get what is wanted.
10) Discursive thought - examination and discernment
This is very different to the steps listed below from the Buddhist dictionary.
In terms of the illusion of atta it is the thinking aspects of this dependent arising that again gives rise to the illusion of self. What we consider as thinking - "I think" - is a natural process of the mental sense, the last two parts of dependent arising are the ones that cause that confusion. He described the processes of analysis, consideration etc as natural processes which arise as a result of the mental sense haveing an event. That makes sense because I don't really think about the events, the thinking happens so much and I appear not to want them to happen - just mental proliferations that I don't control. I don't control them because they are natural rabbiting on and on naturally.
Previously I have accepted the body as not self. For me this has meant that when seeing occurs, it is basically the eye that sees and processes what is being seen, and then at some stage consciousness comes in and attaches to the event of seeing. These stages lead to what is conventionally termed "I see", but I have perceived it as a process of attachment of consciousness. This then is a hazy land as to the meaning of this attachment. Once attached it is self, therefore let it go. So what is this attachment of consciousness and how does it relate to the experience of the event? There has to be a consciousness of "I see" but when does that consciousness become attachment and therefore self. These are the questions about self that concern me.
Recently in meditation I have been doing the wave stuff seeing the body as an extension of the sea of consciousness. Watch waves disappear back into the sea, there is no self - only the appearance of self - the separate waves. So how does this relate to what Tan Ajaan is saying? I've lost the connection. The wave experiences the senses, there appears to be a separate self but there isn't - it disappears back into the sea where it always was.
So we have the consciousness as one of the corporeal elements, we have mental events occurring as the result of a sense experience, and we have thinking processes arising naturally as part of the event as opposed to them being connected with the self as "I think". If I can somehow answer these questions I can better see anatta, of course it is hard to see when atta is struggling for you not to see.
One question that arises is these mental proliferations that arise naturally. This means there will always be this mental cacophony, and yet in meditation there is stillness. Now Tan Ajaan says that anapanasati - mindfulness of breathing is the process that will give that control. So I have to go there to see what he says. But I have to listen to those tapes again (and theye were dreary and repetitive in places - sorry TA)to clarify what these consciousness things are, when I listened they made sense as not self but now atta won't let that through. And I am tired - it is the middle of the night after the stressful but successful bike-collecting day.
|
|
Paticcasamuppada
|
I have often heard in macrobiotics that food can raise consciousness. Is it so? Can food lower consciousness as well? If we are to say yes or no, should we also not have a clear understanding of what consciousness is? How would we do that?
This is actually a fascinating question that appeared on Facebook macrobiotic questions but unfortunately the discussion was way too antagonistic so the answer is just for my blog.
On this whole question of consciousness Tan Ajaan has thrown me up in the air. I am still coming to terms with it so I am going to have to resort to Pali - sadly partly in a dogmatic way. To understand consciousness it is necessary to understand that all is subject to Natural Law. Consciousness has nothing to do with self (atta) because there is no atta. Consciousness does not enter atta which is a misconception that I previously had and I suspect a misconception of the asker of the above question.
How do we understand Natural Law in relation to the question of consciousness and then relating to this question?
Well the dogma does clearly describe consciousness and how it arises? Before I describe the arising of paticcasamuppada I want to consider self. All is impermanent and therefore there is no self (anicca therefore anatta). Being no self there is no I, and the use of I is just a convention. I am only beginning to understand this better, but the problem is that it cannot be understood through intellect. Wow intellect has just zapped back at me. I have always been critical of intellect because there is so much intellectual egotism or "selfs" in academia, but intellect has its place in Nature - paticcasamuppada. Can intellect understand? NO but it can help with understanding if we keep self out of it. In fact the intellect is part of the process of understanding, the problem is that the intellect has its own ego process - its own clinging and once self enters the fray there is misunderstanding and ultimately dukkha - the dukkha of ignorance caused by misdirected understanding.
There is no self there is only Natural Law, consciousness does not arise in self (atta) but arises out of causes and conditions that follow Natural Law. Consciousness is not a spirit that comes in and activates the human being as a self, the human being is simply part of unity and appears to arise as a separate entity or self as a result of Nature. But there is no separate self, but there is "mind-body" that arises out of causes and conditions. This sounds semantic or dogma, so the question is not the framework of the dogma but why is it better to see it in this way? And the answer is that self causes dukkha. When we attach to self I, atta, matters. Taking on a life of self self wants to survive and therefore does things to survive. I want. Because the I wants dukkha is created to satisfy that want - desire causes dukkha. But there are the natural needs of the mind-body that arise out of causes and conditions, and this arising being natural does not cause suffering.
For Paticcasamuppada I was going to copy the definition from the Buddhist dictionary, but I felt the definition looked at the Pali and interpreted it in "kamma and reincarnation" terms; I have included the definition at the end because it has the Pali (I have removed some of the English interpretations as I consider them misdirected). Tan Ajaan's interpretations are so different because he considers the "birth" the Buddha was talking about as temporary events in this life - not reincarnation which is an unverifiable interpretation or set of concepts. I have to listen again and write here how Tan Ajaan describes the stages of dependent arising in this audio - click "everything is anatta" on this page.
1) Senses
2) Sense object
3) Sense consciousness
4) Contact - sense experience
5) Feeling (mental - vedana) - not emotion
6) Recognition - recognising the feeling and proceed.
7) Volition - intention and motivation
8) Desire
9) Thought - desire leads to thinking about how to get what is wanted.
10) Discursive thought - examination and discernment
This is very different to the steps listed below from the Buddhist dictionary.
As part of the Natural process of dependent arising consciousness arises developing other mental attributes including intellectual analysis and understanding. These are natural processes that do not require "I", this is consciousness - a natural arising.
So to the above question that started this blogentry. Consciousness arises out of contact with the senses - with the body, the causes and conditions of consciousness are the body. Because the quality of food affects the quality of the body there can be no doubt that the quality of food must affect the relationship between the sense and the consciousness. Of course how it does so has to remain a matter of personal introspection. If you are capable of separating the consciousness from the event such as hearing, then it could be argued that consciousness is not affected, but in reality few are able to make that separation. Therefore as an answer to the above question would be that "consciousness as it is experienced would be affected", clumsy because of the language of the question because it is phrased from a viewpoint of self.
The teachings of Tan Ajaan are wonderful, he is so insightful and incisive. Teachings, dhamma, are not esoteric, they are in plain sight for all to see, the esotericism comes from the interpretation. There are so many interpretations that misdirect we need teachers who redirect on the Path - Tan Ajaan. Tan Ajaan is a slave to the Buddha, he is talking about what the Buddha meant. Somewhere I read that the Buddha predicted that his teachings would die after 5000 years. I suspect what will happen is not that the suttas will disappear but that after 5000 years the interpretations of the suttas will have become so diverse the Buddha's understanding will have been lost. First we have arguments in Theravada about what the Buddha actually said because there were no recordings. Then we have the arguments concerning the oral testimony, and which oral testimony and council, Tipitaka, Abbhidhamma and so on. So from there we have new sutras that give rise to the division of Theravada and Mahayana, and from within Mahayana we have the diversity of Tibetan and Zen. Thay is Mahayanan yet he seems to have found his roots in Nature. Tan Ajaan says the teachings follow Natural Law, this can be the only benchmark.
Pali terms:-
1. Avijiá-paccayá sankhárá: "Through ignorance are conditioned the sankháras,"
2. Sankhára-paccayá viññánam: "Through the karma-formations is conditioned consciousness ."
3. Viññána-paccayá náma-rúpam: "Through consciousness are conditioned the mental and physical phenomena (náma-rúpa),"
4. Náma-rúpa-paccayá saláyatanam: "Through the mental and physical phenomena are conditioned the 6 bases," i.e. the 5 physical sense-organs, and consciousness as the sixth.
5. Saláyatana-paccayá phasso: "Through the six bases is conditioned the (sensorial mental) impression."
6. Phassa-paccayá vedaná: "Through the impression is conditioned feeling."
7. Vedaná-paccayá tanhá: "Through feeling is conditioned craving."
8. Tanhá-paccayá upádánam: "Through craving is conditioned clinging."
9. Upádána-paccayá bhavo:
10. Bhava-paccayá játi:
11. Játi-paccayá jarámaranam, etc.:
|
|
Nature, One Planet and Path
|
I need to get a more complete picture of the way that Tan Ajaan describes the Dhamma. To begin this I went to his teachings on the 4 Noble Truths. As an introduction to the 4 Noble Truths he described Nature. Go here, scroll down to The 4 Noble Truths and download the audios (Part 1 and part 2) from "1. Introduction to Understanding the Ariya-Sacca (part 1 | part 2)".
It is quite clear that for him Nature is so important, as that is also true for me then this helps. He spoke of 4 aspects of Nature:-
 Nature herself.
Natural Law
Our Duty in Nature
Results of Our Duty
This is how I feel after listening to the talks. We must fit in with Nature, not at all difficult for someone who talks of One Planet. Until recently (Paticcasamuppada) I never really spoke of Natural Law but it is something I have tried to follow to a greater or lesser extent. When I first started - after hitting bottom, I followed my Path. This Path was given to me by Nature, it was never something I decided on. Before hitting bottom education and upbringing were fashioning me into the system model. Without realising what was happening I was rejecting this model - I often spoke politically about being against society at the time (society is the wrong word it is the system people in society don't choose what they do), but the rejection was much more. It was Nature, and I was lucky enough to be open to that Nature and reject the path the system was forcing me on. Many will laugh at my interpretation as after learning a little for 3 years after hitting bottom I became a teacher. And sadly I became part of that system even though I personally knew it was wrong and tried to fight it where I could - see Matriellez for a lo....ng discussion on this. For me the Path was Natural law, and my duty was to follow the Path. Throughout life I have tried to do so and have always measured the quality of my adherence by how happy I was - the results.
So when I am talking about One Planet and Path, Tan Ajaan is talking of Nature - although his understanding is far more.
|
|
Nibbana
|
9/4/13 Amusing eh? Sitting in Siam Paragon waiting for an Indian meal, and I am writing about Nibbana. Last night was the first time I have ever thought Nibbana was possible, thanks to Tan Ajaan. So where did that come from?
Well it begins with anatta, and an attempt brought on by Tan Ajaan to actually come to terms with non-self. It starts with Nature, there is only Nature and no self. When the mind deduces and all that - a certain amount of analysis not proliferation, it is a natural consequence of sense experience - nothing more. It is just how nama-chi-rupa is supposed to respond according to the rules of Nature - paticcasammupada.
Ideation about kamma had got in the way. Kamma was some cosmic force that led to reincarnation through some arbitrary process that I had no proof of. Of course this doesn't make sense. If it isn't experience what is it? Kamma is a consequence of a desire to do deeds, it is part of cause and effect. It is a result of desire and action. No desire no result no kamma. And no kamma, no rebirth. This is the crunch because it is this esoteric understanding of rebirth that matters. Rebirth means ego, self. No kamma no self. If somehow actions follow natural law then there is no self desiring, no kammic result, and no rebirth of ego.
All of this is just another way of saying no self leads to Nibbana, sunnata. Nibbana is not some big far off bells and banjoes it is just no self, no suffering, complete compassion Nibbana.
So how do you live? Sila and no kilesa, kilesa comes from desire. Just live morally by following the 8-fold Path, don't allow the self to create kilesa, and just live naturally. Nothing else. Sila, no self - no kilesa. This is the objective but then how do you get to no self all the time. Determination.
17/4/13
I woke up this morning feeling snug and warm. Recently I had been waking up about 4 or 5 o ?lock, and wanting to think about no-self. I have been listening to Buddhadasa's audio at that time, and he says it is good time for the mind to be empty and good for learning. I am too tired to learn fully then - even though I can't go back to sleep, and usually fall asleep listening to an audio. Last night I watched TV rubbish very late, and so slept through the 4-5.00 wake-up and learn, and woke later in the morning snug and warm. Not only this I felt a feeling where this snugness reminded me of the drinking days. There were times when the hangover wasn't too bad, when I woke up, snug and warm, wrapped in the duvet - long before Thailand, and didn't want to move. Complete apathy. And this morning I knew this was kilesa. Not only had self wasted last night with TV but self had also enjoyed defilement, and the result this morning snugness, warmness, no thinking about non-self - it was all complete atta. This is important. Maybe it doesn't mean anything to anyone else, but it shows me what kilesa does. I am snug and warm, and am not following the Path. This is kilesa. Sunnata or atta? This is 100% atta.
I remember a conversation with a monk in which he described the desire for nibbana as aspiration. At the time I thought it was semantics but this particular monk knows his dogma so I should have thought. The desire for Nibbana is natural, it is non-self, anatta. If the word to be used is aspire as opposed to desire, I have no problem with that. Continuing the theme of this blogentry I have at last recognised an aspiration for Nibbana, but I am a long way from it especially judging by the last couple of days - as to be expected; recognising it is possible is not a statement by me that I am near it. What is disappointing is that I appear to be fighting the same battles. I have no doubts that my "right view" has improved, but there needs to be change in my lifestyle. That monk did have me right on one thing, my spirituality is also about being comfortable with myself - snugness and maybe smugness. In a way I have no problem with that. Whilst there needs to be continual aspiration, it can't drive you insane with determination. There needs to be balance. I have seen that balance in the past as a balance between the Path - anatta, and comfort which I now see as self - atta. I resisted asceticism but accepted comfort too much. I have always thought I have not indulged comfort but maybe I have. Now that my "right view" is improving, I need to examine some of these lifestyles that I have accepted.
Top priority I think is changing my day. I live in the country, it should be natural that I go to bed at 9.00pm, getup with a clear mind to meditate, ready for the new day at 6.00am.
Aspire!!
18/4/13
Nature woke me early today - at 5.30, it's good. it is now 8.40, and the chores have been done including checking email and facebook! Getting up early is good. Let's hope I keep it up.
The snugness (kilesa) had waned a bit this morning but I still saw it. No doubt it stops clarity. It led me to consider sunnata and atta, Tan Ajaan says it is one or the other. What happens during the day? Response to daily life fills up the mind. In my case this means that by the end of the day I just flake out in front of the TV. This is the start of the problem as the self attaches and I can sometimes get sucked in - staying up later. Now in truth the TV is not good, not worthwhile, and even the stuff I get sucked into is not good. It is upadana - clinging. So what is to be done? Sunnata, and where do I get the sunnata from - meditation? My target that I don't even get near at the moment is 1 hour in the morning and 40 minutes in the evening, I have not sat in the evening in a long time. The evening thing has to be routined, forced. Typically I come in unpack and water the pak (veg/plants). I must force myself to sit after finishing these chores (seriously force as I am physically tired then); then eat - or if I have eaten already sit anyway. When I have forced in the evening it has not felt good then, but it improves the day. So what's your excuse?
None!
|
|
