Gautama Siddhartha

[BigJohn]

Excellent point!

[pixiedust]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Moderators have been encouraging us to only quote up to two sentences. Just trying to do my part.

Hopefully, moderators here also encourage honesty and not taking another's statements out of context to send a different message.

If a quoted statement does that, it would be more prudent and forthright of you to not quote, or speak in context, rather than skew Still_Water's message.

[pixiedust]

Originally Posted by sky123

That's just your opinion to which you are entitled

I think I recall that I once saw an article which said that the Buddha did allow monastics to eat meat, so long as that was not specifically prepared for them. In the Vinaya, they are dependent entirely on alms and dana (generosity) and so they cannot specify or request which food they receive. However, most monasteries generally eat vegetarian food, but eating meat is not a precursor or indicator of enlightenment, in and of itself.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by pixiedust

Hopefully, moderators here also encourage honesty and not taking another's statements out of context to send a different message.

If a quoted statement does that, it would be more prudent and forthright of you to not quote, or speak in context, rather than skew Still_Water's message.

Some people never change do they?

Reminds me of when you were peeking thru the Castle window......... LOL!
Did you think I would forget?

Originally Posted by sky123

That's just your opinion to which you are entitled

i'd weigh it as more than an opinion because it is based on my knowledge, understanding, perception and experience but yea, to anybody besides me it would just be an opinion.

Originally Posted by pixiedust

but eating meat is not a precursor or indicator of enlightenment, in and of itself.

very true.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by pixiedust

Hopefully, moderators here also encourage honesty and not taking another's statements out of context to send a different message.

If a quoted statement does that, it would be more prudent and forthright of you to not quote, or speak in context, rather than skew Still_Water's message.

If any skewing is going on ..I'll be the one doin' it!
It better not be happening intentionally! Grrrrr.

Oh, and eating meat or not has it's own section in the Vegan and Vegetarian section...it can get heated,
so you can start a thread in Strong Opinons, too.

Originally Posted by pixiedust

not taking another's statements out of context to send a different message.

that happens a lot, probably not intentionally. it's happened to me a lot. people just read into words differently. it would be sad if it was done intentionally but i feel it has been sometimes. but then it can also be done due to unconscious emotions so even there it was not consciously intentional. like i had two people read one post of mine and post i said "i had a distain for all the schools of buddhism" i never posted i had a distain for anything. in fact, i love the buddhist chan school and many buddhist schools, some "schools" not so much because of their historic immoral practices. pointing out historic facts about the history of a religion is not distain. so to me claiming" distain" was there was taking my post's remarks out of context. not done intentionally i would say, more about one's subconscious "rules" about stating something negative, even if historically true.

[Miss Hepburn]

Ok, I can't keep up! I didn't realize there were so many posts
regarding eating meat!
Just knock it off!

And say "Excerpt" when you quote to let people know you shortened
it from a longer post.
Behave for a few hours while I'm gone, please.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

The second and third jhanas (as I understand them) are temporary and short lived with the "Joy" of the 2nd jhana (being akin to an "AHA MOMENT") and the happiness in the 3rd jhana associated with the discovery lasting a tad longer. However, after reading your post, I can see how people can indeed get "stuck" in the 2nd and 3rd jhanas and never get to the 4th jhana.

Yeah, I remember looking at this meditator and thinking:” You need to come down from there mate”.
But here I understand why Leigh Brasington (in regards to Jhanas) has a problem using words like “up” or “down” – because coming down actually means going up (in Jhanas).
i.e. Here language starts to fail and the saying about losing one’s mind and gaining one’s sanity starts to make a senseless sense. And what Ajahn Brahm had said: "Always meditate to let go. Not to attain things."

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

My understanding once again is that the 4th jhana is the EQUANIMITY stage where one can look back and say,"Of course. Why didn't I see this before?" (I am obviously oversimplifying this reaction with the second part, but the "of course" part is really the stabilizing equanimity mood in the 4th jhana.) The 4th jhana allows one to move on to the next discovery and not get "stuck".

But the word “EQUANIMITY” can mean two things.
1) Attainment by continuous mindful vigilance and great effort or ...
2) Utter effortlessness of not-doing – brought on by letting go.
(Besides, one cannot pin a “morality” word on the second definition anymore, because that word belongs to the ‘doing effort world’.
No “credential” for the 'small' self, ego or self-image can be pinned on the 4th Jhana.)

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Nice post but why did you stop short of the last two of the supra-mundane jhanas?

We have all got our ‘corrals’ where we go round and round and round until there is trust in the next depth – trust in the ground of groundlessness or in the leap into the uncharted seas.

*

The only thing I definitely did not agree with Leigh Brasington’s description was his image of hunter-gatherers not being in Jhanas - when actually just the very opposite was/is the case.

*

P.S.
Just speculating …
Perhaps getting stuck in the 2nd and 3rd Jhanas can also mean, that a well-meaning “guru” “helped” them suddenly *shift* there. i.e. They did not enter into Jhanas by their own effort. (?)
Because there is wisdom and a place for ”effort” in entering “effortlessness".
Here “morality” would still apply – the “guru” not to *shift* people into the “guru’s corral”, even though this “guru” might be convinced he or she has already “arrived” and wants to share the joy.

*