How to be a Buddhist

[sky]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

Took me a while to figure that one out.
The teaching says it is impossible to experience 2 things at the same time. Subjectively though when I start my walking meditation apart from the experience of my feet lifting, moving and placing there are all these other little experiences. Over time my concentration increases to a point where my mind can stay with the motions of my feet. Only then does the teaching come true and I see the begin and end points of the movements and get a choice to follow other sensations as they arise.Or nip them in the but so to speak.

Only when I get to the sitting part of my meditation (until now anyway) after a few minutes I experience a definite shift where the rising and falling of my stomach becomes so clear that it feels there is nothing else happening. The rise and fall happen on their own and my mind can just perceive it at it is..

I should state probably that I am practicing a form of vipassana meditation as though by Ajaan Tong Sirimagolo centers.

With Love

No we can't experience two things at the same time even though we think we do, we are constantly switching from one thing to another which takes more effort I think.

The rise and fall of the stomach is something we cannot stop ( while alive ) no effort is needed, it just comes naturally so there are no distractions there. I find breathing from the stomach rather than the chest helps, sometimes I use reverse breathing, I find it keeps the ' Monkey Mind ' under control.
I have heard Vipassana means ' Come and see ' makes sense... come inside and see.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Imzadi

That is also an excellent point! I think the Buddha did not intend to mean that the pointers and sign posts in the making of the raft are meant to be simply forgotten or unlearned. However, gripping them tightly in a rigid manner may not be advisable otherwise instead of making across the river, one might sink to the bottom with the heavy load. The pointers and sign posts are always available to us whenever we need them to use as a flotation device in the cosmic river, but it may be best not to obsessively cling to them with a vice grip.

I think it means there are clear and undeniable instructions on how to ride a bike; the manual is right, it works, it's helpful to remember the instructions, but of course one day, after a lot of practice, some falling over and getting up again, you are riding, wee and zip. Do you keep reading the instructions to ride? By this time, you've internalized them, they are natural and intrinsic to you. A bow and a smile, and a long ride ahead - the journey never ends.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

I think what ruffles my feathers a bit in this whole discussion is that In many places including this forum. Buddhism is regarded as just another spiritual path.

I think this Buddhist forum of the spiritual forum is mainly composed of nice people but not much of a formal practice variety/experience. Which is why I mentioned that there are other forums such as Dharmawheel, NewBuddhist, etc where you will find more experienced practitioners (and a whole lotta variety too of course)

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Gem

I learned the philosophy orally during my long retreats, and the lessons on anatta aren't really delivered upon 'what Buddha says' per se.

Yes, agree - I suspect that it's actually a misunderstanding on your part though, as opposed to your teachers as these are easy, subtle errors to make for self-learned practitioners.

Originally Posted by Gem

After a novice has attuned the mind sufficiently to notice a subtler presence of body after several days of continuous meditation, a lesson is given that encourages the practitioner to 'find themself'. In such observation one can see that all sensation is arising passing at an incredible rate, and in fact, no perception has any duration. The meditator may attempt, then, to locate themselves, but to no avail, as every sense perception vanishes momentatily, 'I' can not be found therein. I'm pretty sure there is a text recording how Gotama gave the same sort of teaching to his disciples, which is why it is taught in this way at the ashram.

Yes, ironically, you like to posit that you don't exist many times:

Originally Posted by Gem

I see the ridiculous character, 'Gem', who does all these things flailing about in desperation at having been 'caught out'. That's the imminent end of the thing called 'Gem'.

Originally Posted by Gem

As there is no 'me' in the past or the future, there is no time in which I exist. That is an illusion created by reactions to avoid the pain and pursue the pleasure. That brings about the illusion of a 'me' who comes from the past and goes into the future.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...67#post1673867

But not sure you actually subscribe to this - as you seem to be pretty consistent on this forum!

Here is the Buddha's Sutta by the way: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....059.than.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/.../notself2.html

For your information, your assertion that "you and others don't exist" is discussed by the Buddha:

§10. "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — doesn't discern what ideas are fit for attention or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he doesn't attend to ideas fit for attention and attends (instead) to ideas unfit for attention...

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....002.than.html

Originally Posted by Gem

I just want to let you know, I won't be responding to any more posts that include personal assertions and insinuations. I hope you understand.

I understand you prefer avoidance measures and appear unable to admit where-ever it's pointed out that what you're saying is not quite as the Buddha taught - all the whilst you casting negative insinuations but wholly in a passive aggressive manner ("power games" "haters" "defence") - in order to justify and avoid the fact that you are upset.

It's actually really simple, Gem: you avoid the topic at hand (it's never you that's wrong, it's just others or Buddhism not understanding your depth of experience), and then go complain on other threads. It's a nice little game but really, Gem, despite the esteem within which you hold yourself, it would be nice to see some self-honesty and less passive aggression on your part.

Running away is actually very congruent with how you've addressed many posts in the last weeks so I do understand - as I said before, mindfulness is not robotic-ism, maybe it would be easier and simpler if you were just honest instead of so passive aggressive and thinking that your beliefs/experience is more real than what the Buddha taught. I reckon you are kind of limiting others in setting your personal boundaries as "Buddhism".

I don't mind if you continue avoiding discussions, but I won't avoid pointing out blatant contradictions as well.

Thanks,

BT

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

Thank you,

I agree that identifying as a Buddhist isn't necessary. Maybe a better title for this thread would have been what is a Buddhist instead of how to be one.

Semantics. My name is John - a flower by any other name and all, there is nothing wrong with a word or title; use it as you see fit. If you are a father or son, would you be arguing about not using that word? Of course you're more than that but yes, you're probably also a father or son if you hold that function. Does the Dalai Lama or Rinzai or Ajahn Chah or Thich Nhat Hanh or Sheng-Yen or Gautama or Sariputra argue about whether they should call themself Buddhist? This forum has a strong anti-formality bent - but that's nothing to do with Buddhism. Just focus on the practice and the goal - that's what's important, IMHO.

The term Buddhist however is used a lot. From that I'd like to have a working definition on how incorporated with (non)sense I'd like to use that word. In that regard this thread has helped to make it clearer for me.

It's simple - if you follow (more or less) & subscribe to the Buddha's teachings, you're probably Buddhist. If you take refuge in Buddha/Dharma/Sangha, meditate, attend centres, you're probably more formally a Buddhist.

Yes I am trying to find out if such a thread would have a place here.
I realize how difficult it can be to put such experiences into words. Just the other day I was discussing what happens during acces concentration on another forum, which I'll copy paste here Just to get a grasp of what I'm talking about.

Thai Forest and Zen schools are strong on meditation - you may want to look there.

Not exactly. It seems like it, but there is some sort of shift in awareness where at first the effort needed is to stay on the object, but is easily distracted by the background noises, phenomena.. At some point these background noises seem to fall away where the meditation object is clearly percieved. The effort level to stay on the object is the same, but feels less because of the lack of background noises.

That is samadhi but you will find much better instruction on this from advanced meditators - monasteries and the Thai Forest school would be a good credible resource for you IMO. I do believe precision and actual in depth experience is important in this regard.

BT

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

I think this Buddhist forum of the spiritual forum is mainly composed of nice people but not much of a formal practice variety/experience. Which is why I mentioned that there are other forums such as Dharmawheel, NewBuddhist, etc where you will find more experienced practitioners (and a whole lotta variety too of course)

Thank You, I have seen a few of them. Decided to get to know one of them for now. Can't wait to learn there..

[Gem]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

Thank you,

I agree that identifying as a Buddhist isn't necessary.

Of course, Dhamma is universal, so it's for all people regardless of individuals' identity.

The term Buddhist however is used a lot. From that I'd like to have a working definition on how incorporated with (non)sense I'd like to use that word. In that regard this thread has helped to make it clearer for me.

Yes, 'Buddhist' alters in meaning in different contextual uses.

Another thread I am pondering would dive more into the practices themselves. Not necessarily the how to or structure, But what happens to your perception and experience when you practice. What exactly do you perceive and how do those perceptions relate to the stages of insight and or the Jhana's.

In terms of practice I can engage in the subtlties of its implications, but I can't really talk about it in terms of stages per se - as that will depend on what the person I discuss with raises.

It's something I hoped your foundations of mindfulness thread would emerge into, but that one took a slightly different discussion.

Hence the 'Fundamentals of Mindful Practice' dialectic wasn't preorganised into a discursive structure. It doesn't serve as textual knowledge at all. It's on the feel level, and as I say, to know that feeling of the belly rising is known consciously, but not acquired as knowledge.

Yes I am trying to find out if such a thread would have a place here.

It would.

I realize how difficult it can be to put such experiences into words. Just the other day I was discussing what happens during acces concentration on another forum, which I'll copy paste here Just to get a grasp of what I'm talking about.

In my limited experience,

When settling in meditation there comes a point where the gaps between the rising and falling of the belly becomes a place where there isn't a distraction.I sort of happen to find myself there. From there my mind seems to become more focussed in the here and now experiencing one thing after another. A feeling of effort is present to continue, but it seems more clear than the initial stages of meditation where the mind is settling down. The effort required to sttle is more like work. Using the movement of the breath or the feet to latch on to, instead of using my effort to not get distracted and stay with the phenomena as they arise...

Yes. I approach breath meditation a little differently, but it is the same basic awareness of breath's sensation. I just feel the air moving across the cleft of the upper lip, and feel that in the subtlest detail as I possibly can.

Does that make sense?
In my mind the criteria would be a sense effortlessness in observing the phenomena, but effort expended to stay with the phenomena as they arise, are present and pass.

I think the main meaning of 'effortless' is, without any effort to make it other than it is. We can notice in the meditation that the reactions are adverse to this sensation and craving for that, so we notice how we can be in a constant state of striving to make it as we want to be, and hence the difficulty of vipassana, to see it as it is.

the question that emerged from this was whether more effort was used to settle the mind.
to which I responded.




Not exactly. It seems like it, but there is some sort of shift in awareness where at first the effort needed is to stay on the object, but is easily distracted by the background noises, phenomena.. At some point these background noises seem to fall away where the meditation object is clearly percieved. The effort level to stay on the object is the same, but feels less because of the lack of background noises.

I think the endeavour to feel subtler and subtler sensations, as subtle as is possible, is different to trying to hold the attention of an object of focus. On careful observation, what object is there? The whole feeling is an infinitude myriad in the minutiae of changing sensation. This isn't anything which lasts a split second within it on which to focus, just an even subtler aspect of that changing which is barely perceptible - and my attention turns to the very subtlest degree, at the very limits of my perceptive sensitivity.

That's what I regard as 'right effort'.

These background phenomena seem less present or even diminished in quantity, but also from an awareness point of view it is more clear where one ends and another starts. This clarity provides a sense of easy in staying with what is present. Maybe due to lack of having to discern which of all phenomena is the one you are perciebing right now?
Hope this clarifies my experience of it a bit, But I find I am struggling to write it as clear as I perceive it when It happens..

Something like that.

WIth Love
Eelco

Cheers Eelco. It's very interesting.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

Thank You, I have seen a few of them. Decided to get to know one of them for now. Can't wait to learn there..

You are very welcome, catsquotl. I've seen a few of the forums and been in many many practice centers around the world. There will be diverse people on those forums also but at least I suspect you will find much more experiential depth there, which is what Buddhism is all about at the end of the day - realization, manifestation and life. Theravada can be a bit more rigid but it teaches the same as Mahayana in many ways (in terms of realization) -

Here's a little on jhanas since you mentioned it:

That which can be most harmful to the meditator is absorption samādhi (jhāna), the samādhi with deep, sustained calm. This samādhi brings great peace. Where there is peace, there is happiness. When there is happiness, attachment and clinging to that happiness arise. The meditator doesn’t want to contemplate anything else, he just wants to indulge in that pleasant feeling. When we have been practising for a long time we may become adept at entering this samādhi very quickly. As soon as we start to note our meditation object, the mind enters calm, and we don’t want to come out to investigate anything. We just get stuck on that happiness. This is a danger to one who is practising meditation.

~ Ajahn Chah, from A Taste of Freedom

I personally find and found great utility and respect for the Thai Forest teachers because what they have learnt and bring through is from "practice" (the actions, practices and habits used to cultivate a knowing of what the Buddha taught, as opposed to theoretical application) - there is tremendous depth there and Access to Insight is a useful reference.

My last comment would be use the Buddha's teachings as a guide (high level compass) - not by being rigid in it, but by knowing that there is a lot more to it and Nibbana, dependent origination, cessation of dukka are the standards.

Everything else is possible (there is always progress, insights, realizations and experiences) but these are not yet the full goal.

Many blessings and best wishes to your path in Dhamma.

Anjali.

Originally Posted by Shaunc

Buddhism of Wisdom and Faith
Key Conditions with respect to the Bodhi Mind
12) The Path of Birth and Death is Full of Danger

There are many gates to the garden of Enlightenment. As long as the practitioner takes the great Bodhi Mind as his correct starting point, whatever Dharma door he chooses, in accordance with his capacities and preferences, will bring results.

If we consider "capacity," Pure Land embraces persons of all levels. Not only ordinary people but also Bodhisattvas (Manjusri, Samantabhadra) and Patriarchs (Asvaghosha, Nagarjuna) have all vowed to be reborn in the Pure Land. If we take "timing" into consideration, we should realize that in this Dharma-Ending Age when sentient beings in general have scattered minds and heavy obstructions, Buddha Recitation is easy to practice and can help the practitioner achieve rebirth in the Pure Land in just one lifetime. However, if we discuss "individual preferences," the Pure Land method alone cannot satisfy everyone; hence the need for many schools and methods.

In general, cultivators endowed with a sharp mind, seeking a direct, simple and clear approach, prefer Zen. Those who are attracted to supernatural power, the mystical and the mysterious prefer the Esoteric School. Those who like reasoning and require a clear, genuine analysis of everything before they can believe and act, prefer the Mind-Only School... Each school has further subdivisions, so that adherents of the same school may have differing practices.

The cultivator who has developed the Bodhi Mind, vowing to save himself and others, may follow any of the schools mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, in this Dharma-Ending Age, he should, at the same time, practice Buddha Recitation seeking rebirth in the Pure Land -- thus ensuring success without retrogression. Why is this so? There are three cardinal points:

In the wasteland of Birth and Death, there are many dangers and obstacles to cultivation. In order to escape the dangerous cycle of Birth and Death and ensure that there is no retreat or loss of the Bodhi Mind, we should seek rebirth in the Pure Land. This is the first cardinal point the practitioner should keep in mind.

The ancients often reminded us:

If we cultivate without striving for liberation, then our cultivation in this life is in fact an enemy during our third rebirth.

This is because in the first lifetime, we endure suffering and bitterness in our practice and therefore, in the next life we enjoy wealth, intelligence and authority. In this second lifetime, it is easy to be deluded by power and wealth, "charming spouses and cute children," and other such worldly pleasures. Having tasted lust and passion, it is easy to become attached, and the deeper the attachments, the closer we are to the dark place of perdition, as we resort to numerous evil deeds to strengthen our power, authority and ambitions. Having generated such causes in our second lifetime, how can we fail to descend upon the three Evil Paths in our third lifetime?

Some would ask: "If we have expended efforts to cultivate and sow good seeds in our previous life, how can we lose all our good roots and wisdom in the second lifetime, to the point of descending upon the Evil Paths in the third lifetime?"

Answer: Although good roots exist, the bad karma accumulated for eons past is not necessarily wiped out. Furthermore, on this earth, good actions are as difficult to perform as climbing a high tree, while bad deeds are as easy to commit as sliding down a slope. As the sages of old have said:

The good deeds performed all of one's life are still not enough; the bad deeds performed in just one day are already too many.

For example, people in positions of power and authority whom we meet today have all, to a greater or lesser extent, practiced charity and cultivated blessings and good karma in their previous lives. However, few among them now lean toward the path of virtue, while those who are mired in fame and profit constitute the majority. Let us ask ourselves, how many persons of high academic achievement, power and fame would agree to leave the secular life, opting for a frugal, austere existence directed toward the goal of lofty and pure liberation? Monks and nuns, too, may patiently cultivate when they have not yet reached high positions. However, with power and fame, and many disciples bowing to and serving them, even they may become easy prey to the trappings of the vain world. Nowadays, how many individuals, clergy or laymen, who were practicing vigorously in the past, have gradually grown lax and lazy, abandoning cultivation or leaving the Order entirely, retreating from the Way -- why even mention the next lifetime?

If such is the case in the human realm, how much more difficult it is to cultivate in the celestial realms, where the Five Pleasures are so much more subtle!

We have been talking about those who enjoy blessings. Those lacking in blessings and leading a life of deprivation also find it difficult to cultivate. Even if they are middle class, in this life full of heterodox ways, they may find it difficult to meet true Dharma teachers or to discover the path to liberation. Let us not even mention those treading the three Evil Paths, where cultivation is tens of thousands times more difficult, because they are deluded and suffering both in mind and body.

The cycle of Birth and Death is filled with such dangers and calamities. Thus, if we do not seek rebirth in the Pure Land, it is difficult to ensure non-retrogression of the Bodhi Mind.

Just thought that I'd add this that sort of explains the reasoning behind different schools of buddhism.

Having had my horizons re-expanded.
I owe you an apology Shaunc.


Thank you for explaining this wider view.


With Love
Eelco

[Samana]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes indeed, what they call a 'Buddha nature' is accepted in every school, so at least they agree on that!

No it isn't. The Theravada tradition doesn't accept the concept of "Buddha Nature".

Have a look at this article "Freedom from Buddha Nature" by the well known monk and Pali Sutta translator Bhikkhu Thanissaro:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/...dhanature.html


_/|\_

.