Don't do that

[Gem]

Just a random bit of commentary at this stage.

Firstly, the issue of aversion and desire in the English-mind are two different things, but in Buddhist thought they are one thing. Firstly because aversion is the the desire to not experience unpleasant things, and secondly, because where there is aversion toward unpleasantry there is also desire for a more pleasurable experience to replace it. In the Pali commentaries it is made clear that the word translated as 'craving' refers to this interaction of desire and aversion.

The main thing to realise about this is, it's not abstract; it's directly experiential, so even though the sutta says something like death is suffering as it is co-joined with aversion toward it, and obvious clinging, that's not the same as conceptual death these words incite in your mind, "I don't want to die," or the even worse concept, "I want to die". It really pertains to the immediacy of the experience of dying (or the immediate experience of mental fabrications of death), which is generally an unpleasant process that forces the inevitable upon you. The same regards pain and the other things that were mentioned. Everyone is going to die and we all experience pain sometimes. I train hard, so naturally feel significant pain every day of my life. Though there are a very small percentage of suicidal people, generally speaking, no one wants to die. Of course, suicidal people are suffering with extreme aversions - they desire to not experience deeply painful mental states - and they believe by dying they can avoid that angst.

'Craving', which is both desire and aversion, is the psychological reactivity that generates suffering. So let's address the desire for liberation that is supposedly noble, and in a more subtle sense it can be, but the yearning for it, the pining after it, the desperation for it, its future orientation, can be observed to be suffering in reaction to the alluring mental fabrication about it. Indeed, our aversion toward the miserable bonded condition we find ourselves in is the impetus for that desire, and these two together can be seen to be inseparable bedfellows.

It is future oriented. 'I want and do not want' pertains to something other than this becoming. This is where we harness the gravity of the words 'thorough understanding of impermanence' - the realisation that nature inevitably changes. With that understanding we can release control and enter the 'mere awareness' of 'this' as the sutta so often says. With that, as Unseekingseeker elucidated earlier in the thread, you don't mind the pain, you don't crave the future. Such thought-becoming ceases to occur, and you thereby enter immediate and pure awareness of the real-lived moment of your experience...

It's always about the truth. To stay with the truth is the 'path of truth' and the purpose of the meditation. That is where the noble desire lays. He who wants the truth will forgo personal preferences and want nothing more than to be aware of 'this', just as it is, pleasant or unpleasant, and discover deeper truths about it; and in self-awareness, be devoid of judgment regarding 'this is what I'm like'. He may then recognise with utter objectivity 'this is suffering' 'this is the negativity holding me back' and all the other things without any opinion at all about such facts and simply cease to engage in such activities, leaving them to the wayside, not because of aversion toward them, but due to the wisdom in realising such activities are futile and impelled by fabrications that're untrue.

The truth does not abide in fabrication of the mind, and you can recognise how mentalities such as aversion and desire are not only self-generated, but self generating, as these occur not in the moment of real lived experience, but as psychological reactions of the self that occur AFTER the fact.

This perpetuation toward 'afterward' is driven by reactivity arising from delusions of mental fabrication that reconstruct 'me, my, I, mine' moment after moment. That's the trap we call the kammic circle - and liberation from it is not a desire that impels you to act in order to get what you want - but the cessation of that very thing.

[Unseeking Seeker]

I’ve not studied the Buddhist scriptures but this makes sense in that as we become more aware, moment to moment, we observe the ‘coming and going’ of impulses imbibed by mind-body in an aspect of ‘embrace & release’, without clinging.

We have to factor in affinity though, as differentiated from craving. The fragrance of flowers vs say foul stench of a drain. Innate affinity, not aversion or desire. By choosing flowers over the drain it’s not that we are in bondage.

One of the factors of mindfulness if pushed too far is that it can stifle spontaneity and playfulness. So in a relaxed way being aware, yes but let’s not take it too seriously. We are, after all, in the human experience, enjoying the game of union and separation, of contraction and expansion, of concealing and revealing.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

this makes sense. in a relaxed way being aware,

You can see how earlier in the thread it just keeps repeating, 'develop (mere) awareness to such and extent that this...' just is. Earlier sections prior to the 4NTs (post #47) pertain in that way to aspects of the body/mind. The examples of mind/body aspects are by no means extensive, but we relate, like, "yea, I get that too". It is also repeated to observe in such things the phenomena of arising and passing away, which culminates in 'thorough understanding of impermanence'.

Since post #47 on the 4NT's, the teaching progresses to explaining how such body/mind content, when coupled with craving and aversion generates the clinging experienced as suffering. That's where we are up to now. The next section on The Arising of Suffering will delve a little deeper into that cause.

You can see how realising the first 1stNT "this is suffering" also reveals a glimpse of the 2ndNT "this is the cause of suffering", and realising the cause automatically reveals the 3rd and 4thNTs "Suffering can end and this is the way to end it". Again, the Buddhist mind takes one realisation that deepens as you move from the crude level into the sublime. The English-mind doesn't get it because it thinks in a linear way about 4 different truths. The Buddhist mind sees one: THE truth of suffering, and discusses it with grosser and more subtle aspects.

Hence as the philosophy is structured not as different parts of different meditations, but as a discourse starting on a crass superficial level and developing a narrative through subtler levels to discuss the same thing in more refined ways. That is because the philosophy follows the meditation, as the novice practice is crass and erratic, but he develops stability, consistency and continuity as he progresses through the layers of mind/body from the physical, noisy surface through the emotional forms, through the energetic layers, into space, and beyond that.

This is all covered in the teaching, but the order of the progress is from the solid, noisy surface of the mind/body, the way to observe and discover on the path that leads through the subtle to the sublime, purifying all the way through... we'll probably need to get into the great outpouring of metta at some later stage... I suppose.

For now it's about philosophical understanding so people can see what it says, think it through, and realise it actually makes a lot of sense with regards to their own lived experience. Then they can be inspired by their own understanding to put it into practice. It's important this is 100% self-inspired self-determination and not some petty religious following with obedient docility. Yes, you can feel it rising from in here, inspiration, the energy and will, your moxie and determination: "I will undertake this in all that I do until liberation is completed". Don't try to tell me that is not a serious undertaking.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

The fragrance of flowers vs say foul stench of a drain. Innate affinity, not aversion or desire. By choosing flowers over the drain it’s not that we are in bondage.

Unfortunately some Teachers encourage 'Spiritual Bondage', it's easier to control people....

[Unseeking Seeker]

I’m all for the Buddhist as well as Tantric schools of spirituality, which in my view are one at the juncture of recognition. The recognition requires dropping away of concepts and exhuming resistance.

I recall we had a SF member jonesboy who talked about energy in Buddhism. Why I mention him is because he was also well versed in the scriptures (both Buddhist and Kashmir Shaivism) and seemed to have had a fair degree of direct experience as well. He kind of overlapped the Buddhist emptiness concept with energisation of the kundalini as a part of both schools of spirituality. In my personal experience, it is true.

Anyway, on my part, I’d only reaffirm that as of my understanding, it is essential to be able to abide in thought rested stillness (a meditational orientation). As long as we are in lower mind, the recognitions enabled by the universe are not imbibed by the earth vessel (us) in active cognition.

The practices and teachings are useful no doubt, invaluable in fact but as a directional indicator. In any practical application of teaching, we only get to (knowing, wisdom) if we let go of (analytical mind).

I’ve encountered a dogmatic rigidity bordering fundamentalism amongst many spiritual seekers, who hold onto their scriptural understandings, disallowing or negating cursorily what others may have to offer. This, I feel is a blockage for the seeker. As such, I accept all paths as having their own validity, being the experiences of a sage around which a line of teaching is offered, hence useful, as a signpost but then water flowing downhill may take any path, all streams merging with the river and the river with the ocean.

Thank you Gem and sky, for taking the time to list out the essence of the Buddhist teachings. Much appreciated.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

I’m all for the Buddhist .

Yes, drop resistance and concepts... I guess we're in the middle of the section on suffering so probably haven't really got to the depth of its resolution.

I don't know anything about tantra or the other thing, so can't say anything reasonable.

Buddhist ontology has three parts: 1) You hear the teaching and know about it; 2) You try to understand it philosophically/intellectually and see if it actually makes sense and; 3) You put it into practice to get insight into how it might actually be true for you. The first iteration of the thread is mainly on the 2nd level, so analytical/philosophical/intellectual understanding is the main thing. The next iteration will be more in line with the 3rd level of practice and real-life insight.

Unfortunate I have to say that I'm starting to notice negative allusions creeping in about dogmatic rigidity and spiritual bondage and stuff. That makes me believe underlying vibes are disrupting the conditions that enable the calm focus required. I could be wrong, but I discern in an uncertain world, and that's why I think it's best for me to wait until it settles into a groove again before covering the next section.

[Unseeking Seeker]

@ Gem ~ no negative allusions are implied, am way past that, dear Gem, as you should be too. As a suggestion, even if negativity presents itself, what of it? An equanimous soul is unaffected, compassionate even, towards the detractor.

There are billion stars shining in the sky ~
Which one should we honour, which one decry

On my part, I approach all teachings with as much receptivity as conditioning yet resident allows, validating it with my direct experiences. It hardly matters if I accept or reject any teaching; the teaching shining in its own light, is not impacted.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

allusions

I doubt that the allusions to spiritual bondage and dogmatic whatever it was just came out of nowhere for no reason. I don't think you believe that either, but no one except you knows exactly what is true of you. We're all on our own to know of ourselves what is going on with ourselves, but to say I'm way past it is not a true statement. We're all susceptible to reactivity and the generation of ill will, and more honest in disclosing the reactivity and conditioning that remain.

I don't care about it because I'm like that as well, and so is everyone else, but from my perspective, this thread has some nuance, so some degree of focus and continuity is essential, and since the thread has become scatty it can't fulfill its own purpose, so I'm letting it all settle for now, but I'll come back eventually to cover the next section: The arising of suffering.

[Unseeking Seeker]

Gem, a thread on a public platform will invite comments and it’s best to have a dialogue, unless of course you prefer a monologue, as it appears. In fact, I don’t see why you are offended, the interpretations drawn are your own. There are many paths, beliefs and experiences, apart from what you may subscribe to.

Anyway, I’ll leave you to it then. All the best. Perhaps it’s best if I don’t contribute to this thread.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

As such, I accept all paths as having their own validity, being the experiences of a sage around which a line of teaching is offered, hence useful, as a signpost but then water flowing downhill may take any path, all streams merging with the river and the river with the ocean.

Now that's wisdom, imo....