Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Do one's “thoughts” hold one's Buddha~Nature to ransom ?
Yeah I agree. A thought does not exist as a self..
"All appearances have the nature of a magic illusion
I will not make an imprint in my mind
with the habit of thinking things are real"
.....
"the variety of appearances are shining outside
you teach me they are not real and are illusory
and awareness meets its mother.. pure reality
the movement of the mind... it's natural display
Like waves in the ocean dissolve in their own place
like waves in the ocean
dissolve in their own place
@Daveadams said:
Earthninja i don't have to try to stop a thought, because i don't think unless i want to think..I don't give my self any negative thoughts whatsoever, & never feel unexpected unwanted negative emotions or feelings..No one can possibly affect me emotionally by their words or actions, because i did the training & have realised how to control my self & realised my real self..Now you've never met me or done the training, but can say for sure it's not possible to do..You will never ever realise it is possible until you do what your supposed to do, which is to take the middle way with any advice & look into it yourself..Now as the training is to help a person gain full control of their mind, their not supposed to use their mind whilst training..So like Dakini says you learn how to mindfully see, which should progress into being able to mindfully do everyday stuff.
That sounds pretty great, the only thing that doesn't sound like some of the teachers I've listened to is the part where you choose what thoughts/emotions arise,
You say you have realised your true self, so the one that can control their thoughts. Who is that?
What is your real self at this stage?
Interestingly, Aldris, the wiki article says that the eightfold path is described in the Pali Canon and the Agamas (which are from chinese Buddhism). The wiki doesn't mention Tibetan or Japanese Buddhism
According to discourses found in both the Theravada school's Pali canon, and some of the Āgamas in the Chinese Buddhist canon, the Noble Eightfold Path was rediscovered by Gautama Buddha during his quest for enlightenment. The scriptures describe an ancient path which has been followed and practiced by all the previous Buddhas. The Noble Eightfold Path is a practice said to lead its practitioner toward self-awakening and liberation. The path was taught by the Buddha to his disciples so that they, too, could follow it.
I've already asked my Tibetan Buddhist teacher and she says that in her teachings she hits on the material in the eightfold path even though she introduces it differently. My teacher also points out that Buddha's first sermon (about the 4NT and 8FP) was given to advanced aesetics who had studied meditation and renunciation for years. She (teacher) points out that it is the 'noble' path and not just an ordinary system of psychology.
@Earthninja said:
Those who feel they can control their thoughts, it is an illusion. Where do the thoughts come from?
arising the thought can not be controlled
but
if one knows that 'such a thought' is an illusion, one can control arising of new thoughts regarding 'such a thought'
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
In a way we can control thoughts. When we feel a familiar pattern coming on we can change direction and stop feeding the thoughts so they don't lead to a tangent of other related thoughts.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
One part interfering with another...
neither one
nor two
nor me
nor you.
The second thought is no different to the first thought. The second thought thinks the first one was "unskillful"
Both are just a stream of thoughts. That second thought is exactly what the ego is. The inherent idea there is an entity with control over things.
How can a second thought be different from the first? You are in effect arguing subvocully.
Aren't they both thoughts? Try this, observe the second thought arise. Then you have a division.
You can't be both the possessor and the possessed.
It feels so strongly that we control our thoughts. But you will find there is no controller aside from the thoughts themselves.
I put it that thoughts arise and we claim them as our own. We don't choose them.
What helped me see this was I observed the first thought. Eg that guy is nasty". Then a second thought, "don't think that, he has his own conditioning"
I never chose either of those. I chose to be aware only. When I witnessed this I was sure I am no thought.
3
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@Earthninja said:
I never chose either of those. I chose to be aware only.
I'd go a step further and say you didn't actually choose that either (pure awareness isn't choice; choice is still empty/selfless conditioned mind-stuff), but others would probably misunderstand and think that means they can't improve their lives or something. The old free will debate.
Hilariously, the thought just came to me that the expression "If there's no free will then what's the point?" is remarkably similar in tone to "If God doesn't exist how can we have purpose?". The eye trying to see itself is looking beyond its own nature for something else to define it.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I think the point is that we can decide what to do with the thoughts which really does affect the chain.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
Who decides? That is of course a little deeper, but on the conventional level it certainly seems like "I" am making decisions. That dissolves over time, the sense that "I" am precisely the empty mind-stuff (thoughts, feelings, memories, likes and dislikes, etc.), and it's primarily because that recognition of emptiness deepens. It's all hand-in-hand.
Any discussion that includes a someone who is witnessing the thoughts can include the possibility that that someone can control or alter those thoughts. Because it is a discussion of the mundane view.
The greater view of emptiness can't really be discussed coherently at all.
At that point @lobster 's gibberish (which has been lacking, and I find myself missing it, strangely), is most appropriate.
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@robot Spot on, though some of us have been stupidly trying to explain what can't be coherently explained.
I would say you can speak of it. The thoughts are no different from the awareness. That is what I would say. But that's in part to be a devil's advocate ;0)
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@Jeffrey "The thoughts are no different from the awareness."
Hmm? It could be said that awareness encompasses the world, that all experience is one with awareness and so they're two sides of the coin, and in that sense I'd agree. Generally though I'd say differentiating mind-stuff from awareness is the very point. It's to know the nature of fire intimately instead of mixing it with all that's being burned. To know water apart from its contents (usually visualized as stirred-up dirt, making it cloudy).
@upekka the "one who knows" is you so as long as you (and me) can figure out how to come too see every(thing) as Annica AND Anatta we are on smooth seas. But how to see this... Back to the mat.
@robot correct, it's even harder when the someone is no-thing.
But I like to try anyway. What's the point of having a discussion forum without trying right?
I heard a quote I liked, it reminds me of this forum.
One person wearing green sunglasses argued with another person wearing red sunglasses over what colour a white page was.
Everybody has their own truths, the important thing I guess is to stop believing and start seeing. Belief doesn't wake you up.
With metta
Chris
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited September 2014
@Jeffrey said:
I don't know. My teacher says that awareness is the same as that which is the object of awareness. I think that's the whole point of 'non-dual'
Non-dual is really the same as emptiness, but emptiness doesn't discount that there are two sides of the coin (awareness and content). They are together a non-duality, but it's in recognizing the difference (that all content is not-self) that we become free of that whirlpool of Samsaric activity (powered by continued ignorance and craving).
That's an interesting question. Sex appeal is used in so many industries but I have never seen girls in bikinis handing out campaign literature hanging out at the voting stations.
@Earthninja said:
Those who feel they can control their thoughts, it is an illusion. Where do the thoughts come from?
You can't control your heart, your stomach, your liver, your hormones, your bone growth, your hair. You can't even control your senses.
Actually, you can control some of your hormones, and you can learn to control aspects of your autonomic nervous system. That's what yogis do. They can control their pulse rate, for example. And when we meditate, we're consciously switching off stress hormones, and turning on the parasympathetic nervous system. This is why Tibetan doctors and monks say meditation can lengthen your lifespan. By choosing to interrupt ruminations about things that make us angry or sad, we're choosing to to turn off the stress hormones again, in favor of healthy hormones and calming neurotransmitters.
We can choose to physically alter our brain, which is what years of steady meditation practice does, just like we can choose to physically alter our bodies by going to the gym, and developing a discipline, following a physical regime and a healthy diet. We're potentially in the driver's seat of our body-mind more than we realize. Practicing the dharma is a conscious choice we make to realize that potential, and learn to skillfully drive the vehicle of our body-mind.
@Earthninja said:
The second thought is no different to the first thought. The second thought thinks the first one was "unskillful"
Both are just a stream of thoughts. That second thought is exactly what the ego is. The inherent idea there is an entity with control over things.
How can a second thought be different from the first? You are in effect arguing subvocully.
Aren't they both thoughts? Try this, observe the second thought arise. Then you have a >division.
You can't be both the possessor and the possessed.
It feels so strongly that we control our thoughts. But you will find there is no controller >aside from the thoughts themselves.
I put it that thoughts arise and we claim them as our own. We don't choose them.
What helped me see this was I observed the first thought. Eg that guy is nasty". Then a >second thought, "don't think that, he has his own conditioning"
I never chose either of those. I chose to be aware only. When I witnessed this I was sure I am >no thought.
You guys, when the Buddha taught to put away thoughts of greed, clinging, and despair, he didn't get all tangled up in Emptiness theory, saying there is no "I" to make a choice between samsaric thoughts and compassionate thoughts. That would have made many of his teachings pointless. If we develop a steady "observer" function, which is something meditation helps us do, we can make choices to abandon negative thoughts as they arise. We can gradually replace negative mental habits with positive ones, leaving self-imposed suffering behind, little by little. This is the purpose of dharma practice.
For example, meditating on compassion does, over time, make people more compassionate, and it results in physical changes to the brain, scientific testing has shown. After months of meditation on compassion, compassionate thoughts spontaneously arise much more frequently. We forge new neural pathways in the brain, and de-activate old, dysfunctional ones. Buddhist practice is, in part, about using our free will to literally "change our minds", and give rise to Enlightened consciousness. As human beings, we're capable of that. This is what the Buddha demonstrated with his own life and practice.
Trying to control ones thoughts is just a mugs game. It is really just us
deifying our thoughts over our other sense gates and regardless of the content of those thoughts, is all just the running of an Ego program.
Not only will an Ego dressed up in spiritual clothing keep you just as firmly ensconced within it's dream, as an ego dressed up in worldly clothing but it will also make the source of that resulting suffering almost impossible to identify.
If you can meditatively treat your thoughts as you would any other arising phenomena, allowing them their own unmolested passage by your sense gates, then the ego's ability to usurp them for it's own agendas is dissipated.
Our identity with our thoughts, is really only the inertia of a hostile take over (called the Ego) of a potentially collegial sense gate coalition that can actually quite capably run itself, without a godhead or the dream agenda required to support it.
To be able to allow** all** of your sense gate data (including thoughts) to arise, live and fade away, without them becoming subject to our skandhic manipulations** is** the awakening from the dream that the Buddha exhorted everyone to find.
I don't think the Buddha would have recommended a strategy if it only strengthened attachment to ego and the self. If mindfulness is just a function of ego, we might as well just hang up Buddhism and go home. Who are we to say the Buddha was wrong?
@Dakini I think not having too high expectations helps us actually. So we don't expect all of our stress hormones to go away for example. That is fortunate because for some of us we don't get as positive results as our friends in the dharma. So just being wherever we are becomes the most important thing. We accept whatever is here.
They arise. I cant control that...but I can determine if they are skilfull thoughts that lead to skilfull things/actions. I learn not to attach to them...so I can change them for the better.
What you focus on expands. Good or bad. Some people say...well, there is not supposed to be a good or bad....that's BS. Like Dakini said....then whats the point of your practice?...what would be the point in opening your heart and purifying/taming the mind? For what?
Why would you need/want liberation if it wasn't 'good' for you in the long run/rebirth?
I bow at the feet of my teacher Marpa.
And sing this song in response to you.
Listen, pay heed to what I say,
forget your critique for a while.
The best seeing is the way of "nonseeing" --
the radiance of the mind itself.
The best prize is what cannot be looked for --
the priceless treasure of the mind itself.
The most nourishing food is "noneating" --
the transcendent food of samadhi.
The most thirst-quenching drink is "nondrinking" --
the nectar of heartfelt compassion.
Oh, this self-realizing awareness
is beyond words and description!
The mind is not the world of children,
nor is it that of logicians.
Attaining the truth of "nonattainment,"
you receive the highest initiation.
Perceiving the void of high and low,
you reach the sublime stage.
Approaching the truth of "nonmovement,"
you follow the supreme path.
Knowing the end of birth and death,
the ultimate purpose is fulfilled.
Seeing the emptiness of reason,
supreme logic is perfected.
When you know that great and small are groundless,
you have entered the highest gateway.
Comprehending beyond good and evil
opens the way to perfect skill.
Experiencing the dissolution of duality,
you embrace the highest view.
Observing the truth of "nonobservation"
opens the way to meditating.
Comprehending beyond "ought" and "oughtn't"
opens the way to perfect action.
When you realize the truth of "noneffort,"
you are approaching the highest fruition.
Ignorant are those who lack this truth:
arrogant teachers inflated by learning,
scholars bewitched by mere words,
and yogis seduced by prejudice.
For though they yearn for freedom,
they find only enslavement.
@Jeffrey said:
Dakini I think not having too high expectations helps us actually. So we don't expect all of our stress hormones to go away for example. That is fortunate because for some of us we don't get as positive results as our friends in the dharma. So just being wherever we are becomes the most important thing. We accept whatever is here.
Definitely. We each do what's doable for us. Putting too high demands can cause more stress! The great thing about dharma practice is that we can each go at our own pace. Every step forward counts. :clap: .
@Dakini said:
I don't think the Buddha would have recommended a strategy if it only strengthened attachment to ego and the self. If mindfulness is just a function of ego, we might as well just hang up Buddhism and go home. Who are we to say the Buddha was wrong?
I see Mindfulness as the objective observation of all sense data so as not to allow a dominance,suppression or manipulation of one phenomena over the other.
If that is not possible for someone to do, then there are graduated stages of concentration & focus exercises that can eventually take you there.
Some folks, bundle up all forms of directed concentration and label them in what I consider is a more limitless exercise called mindfulness
I guess the real question is about language and whether one sees a difference between the various focused exercises in concentration..... and......a more limitless mindfulness, and is not about saying the Buddha was wrong.
I see Mindfulness as the objective observation of all sense data so as not to allow a dominance,suppression or manipulation of one phenomena over the other.
Sure, but it's difficult to observe objectively while unskillful mental states are present. So allowing unskillful mental states / thoughts to continue unchecked could well be an obstacle.
It's one way of explaining what happens in meditation.
@SpinyNorman said:
So when unskillful mental states are dominant you would just let them be dominant?
What do you think allows them to be dominant?
In your own meditation, if an unskillful mental state arises and is unfed..what happens to it.
Some might advocate for a directed suppression of such thoughts but in my experience that just invites other unskillful mental states to arise.
To enter into contest to win against the ego is to already lose.
You are either a player, or not, in the Ego's dream.
Being a good player is just another way to remain trapped in the game.
The only way to succeed is to stop playing the game of identity response to whatever is arising.
Some might advocate for a directed suppression of such thoughts but in my experience that just invites other unskillful mental states to arise.
I don't think it's about suppression, it's more like a decision not to indulge unskillful thoughts. In the suttas it's referred to as inappropriate attention, ie dwelling on and "feeding" the unskillful thoughts. So there is a choice based on clear comprehension. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn09/sn09.011.than.html
@SpinyNorman said:
I think we're just mulling over different approaches. Also there may be a different approach on the cushion as compared to off the cushion, and so on.
To me your last post is just saying the same thing that I was saying, just from a slightly different angle. Where you wish not to indulge in unskillfull thoughts, I wish to neither cling to or push them away (which is what I call indulging and is the cause of suffering).
As for "on" verses "off" the cushion differences..I think that the worth of a formal practice is best measured by how closely it manifests itself in daily life.
Zmell is a word sometime used in zen circles to describe when a Zenner seems to be "pushing the river" instead of just surrendering to it's flow. My apologies if my zmell is being detected here.
@SpinyNorman said:
I think we're just mulling over different approaches. Also there may be a different approach on the cushion as compared to off the cushion, and so on.
This was acknowledged on the first page. While meditation is more about observing thoughts arising and passing, then returning focus to the breath (or whatever object one chooses), dealing with thought patterns in daily life where we feel "stuck", or that aren't conducive to developing compassion, right motive, and liberation from samsara, is a different matter. Though I'm told that applying a "letting go" strategy to thoughts that arise in meditation, is also one way to practice non-attachment and develop one-pointedness of mind. There's more than one approach to meditation.
As acknowledged, we move to the same understanding from different karma or initial egoic karma. It is the narrowing of the path that gives a wider perspective.
Meditation is our narrowing and its result is a widening mindfulness. :wave: .
@Dakini said:
You guys, when the Buddha taught to put away thoughts of greed, clinging, and despair, he didn't get all tangled up in Emptiness theory, saying there is no "I" to make a choice between samsaric thoughts and compassionate thoughts. That would have made many of his teachings pointless. If we develop a steady "observer" function, which is something meditation helps us do, we can make choices to abandon negative thoughts as they arise. We can gradually replace negative mental habits with positive ones, leaving self-imposed suffering behind, little by little. This is the purpose of dharma practice.
Actually he did. The Buddha was not tangled up in "emptiness". He saw with absolute clarity the nature of the world/samsara.
But the training is gradual. Right effort = raise and maintain wholesome thoughts and the opposite for unwholesome ones. That is part of the 8 FP but not yet the end.
"[Mental] fabrications are not self...
"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
Anattalakkhana Sutta
But the training is gradual. Right effort = raise and maintain wholesome thoughts and the opposite for unwholesome ones. That is part of the 8 FP but not yet the end.
Yes, for Theravada, but clearly not everyone approaches it like that.
Comments
Those who feel they can control their thoughts, it is an illusion. Where do the thoughts come from?
You can't control your heart, your stomach, your liver, your hormones, your bone growth, your hair. You can't even control your senses.
Their is a feeling we control movement, or even some thought?
What is the difference between awareness of thought or being the thought?
Either way we are never the thought, How can you observe a thought and think it is "yours" ?
Can you see a wave and say that wave is mine?
Everything you can observe can not be you. Because there is an observance of that which arises. The arising is due to it's own conditioning.
Feeling this is going to be hard!
Do you guys agree with this ? I am not saying the thought is someone else's. But it's not ourself.
@Earthninja "The Knowing."
Yeah I agree. A thought does not exist as a self..
.....
......
That sounds pretty great, the only thing that doesn't sound like some of the teachers I've listened to is the part where you choose what thoughts/emotions arise,
You say you have realised your true self, so the one that can control their thoughts. Who is that?
What is your real self at this stage?
Interestingly, Aldris, the wiki article says that the eightfold path is described in the Pali Canon and the Agamas (which are from chinese Buddhism). The wiki doesn't mention Tibetan or Japanese Buddhism
I've already asked my Tibetan Buddhist teacher and she says that in her teachings she hits on the material in the eightfold path even though she introduces it differently. My teacher also points out that Buddha's first sermon (about the 4NT and 8FP) was given to advanced aesetics who had studied meditation and renunciation for years. She (teacher) points out that it is the 'noble' path and not just an ordinary system of psychology.
arising the thought can not be controlled
but
if one knows that 'such a thought' is an illusion, one can control arising of new thoughts regarding 'such a thought'
In a way we can control thoughts. When we feel a familiar pattern coming on we can change direction and stop feeding the thoughts so they don't lead to a tangent of other related thoughts.
One part interfering with another...
neither one
nor two
nor me
nor you.
What do you think?
@pegembara What's that about, Scottish independence?
The second thought is no different to the first thought. The second thought thinks the first one was "unskillful"
Both are just a stream of thoughts. That second thought is exactly what the ego is. The inherent idea there is an entity with control over things.
How can a second thought be different from the first? You are in effect arguing subvocully.
Aren't they both thoughts? Try this, observe the second thought arise. Then you have a division.
You can't be both the possessor and the possessed.
It feels so strongly that we control our thoughts. But you will find there is no controller aside from the thoughts themselves.
I put it that thoughts arise and we claim them as our own. We don't choose them.
What helped me see this was I observed the first thought. Eg that guy is nasty". Then a second thought, "don't think that, he has his own conditioning"
I never chose either of those. I chose to be aware only. When I witnessed this I was sure I am no thought.
I'd go a step further and say you didn't actually choose that either (pure awareness isn't choice; choice is still empty/selfless conditioned mind-stuff), but others would probably misunderstand and think that means they can't improve their lives or something. The old free will debate.
Hilariously, the thought just came to me that the expression "If there's no free will then what's the point?" is remarkably similar in tone to "If God doesn't exist how can we have purpose?". The eye trying to see itself is looking beyond its own nature for something else to define it.
I think the point is that we can decide what to do with the thoughts which really does affect the chain.
Who decides? That is of course a little deeper, but on the conventional level it certainly seems like "I" am making decisions. That dissolves over time, the sense that "I" am precisely the empty mind-stuff (thoughts, feelings, memories, likes and dislikes, etc.), and it's primarily because that recognition of emptiness deepens. It's all hand-in-hand.
true, this is because we still are practising
but
the 'one who knows' knows that 'guy' means nothing, because 'guy' is changing (anicca),
so 'one who knows' does not hold to the thought 'guy' (let go of 'guy'), so no more thoughts because of 'guy'
so there is no suffering (dukka)
Any discussion that includes a someone who is witnessing the thoughts can include the possibility that that someone can control or alter those thoughts. Because it is a discussion of the mundane view.
The greater view of emptiness can't really be discussed coherently at all.
At that point @lobster 's gibberish (which has been lacking, and I find myself missing it, strangely), is most appropriate.
@robot Spot on, though some of us have been stupidly trying to explain what can't be coherently explained.
Ballot stuffing by the YES side.
I would say you can speak of it. The thoughts are no different from the awareness. That is what I would say. But that's in part to be a devil's advocate ;0)
Hmm? It could be said that awareness encompasses the world, that all experience is one with awareness and so they're two sides of the coin, and in that sense I'd agree. Generally though I'd say differentiating mind-stuff from awareness is the very point. It's to know the nature of fire intimately instead of mixing it with all that's being burned. To know water apart from its contents (usually visualized as stirred-up dirt, making it cloudy).
I don't know. My teacher says that awareness is the same as that which is the object of awareness. I think that's the whole point of 'non-dual'
@upekka the "one who knows" is you
so as long as you (and me) can figure out how to come too see every(thing) as Annica AND Anatta we are on smooth seas. But how to see this... Back to the mat.
@robot correct, it's even harder when the someone is no-thing.
But I like to try anyway. What's the point of having a discussion forum without trying right?
I heard a quote I liked, it reminds me of this forum.
One person wearing green sunglasses argued with another person wearing red sunglasses over what colour a white page was.
Everybody has their own truths, the important thing I guess is to stop believing and start seeing. Belief doesn't wake you up.
With metta
Chris
Non-dual is really the same as emptiness, but emptiness doesn't discount that there are two sides of the coin (awareness and content). They are together a non-duality, but it's in recognizing the difference (that all content is not-self) that we become free of that whirlpool of Samsaric activity (powered by continued ignorance and craving).
I would say that all content was awareness.
I think we've stepped in it now, I'm gonna wash my boots and call it a day, want a beer?
I'm all for a beer
I haven't had one since last Saturday watching the football game!
I like redheads too, but the blond is closer to my age.
That's an interesting question. Sex appeal is used in so many industries but I have never seen girls in bikinis handing out campaign literature hanging out at the voting stations.
Any thought can arise and 'it is what it is'.
But presumably you wouldn't necessarily act on everything that you think?
Actually, you can control some of your hormones, and you can learn to control aspects of your autonomic nervous system. That's what yogis do. They can control their pulse rate, for example. And when we meditate, we're consciously switching off stress hormones, and turning on the parasympathetic nervous system. This is why Tibetan doctors and monks say meditation can lengthen your lifespan. By choosing to interrupt ruminations about things that make us angry or sad, we're choosing to to turn off the stress hormones again, in favor of healthy hormones and calming neurotransmitters.
We can choose to physically alter our brain, which is what years of steady meditation practice does, just like we can choose to physically alter our bodies by going to the gym, and developing a discipline, following a physical regime and a healthy diet. We're potentially in the driver's seat of our body-mind more than we realize. Practicing the dharma is a conscious choice we make to realize that potential, and learn to skillfully drive the vehicle of our body-mind.
You guys, when the Buddha taught to put away thoughts of greed, clinging, and despair, he didn't get all tangled up in Emptiness theory, saying there is no "I" to make a choice between samsaric thoughts and compassionate thoughts. That would have made many of his teachings pointless. If we develop a steady "observer" function, which is something meditation helps us do, we can make choices to abandon negative thoughts as they arise. We can gradually replace negative mental habits with positive ones, leaving self-imposed suffering behind, little by little. This is the purpose of dharma practice.
For example, meditating on compassion does, over time, make people more compassionate, and it results in physical changes to the brain, scientific testing has shown. After months of meditation on compassion, compassionate thoughts spontaneously arise much more frequently. We forge new neural pathways in the brain, and de-activate old, dysfunctional ones. Buddhist practice is, in part, about using our free will to literally "change our minds", and give rise to Enlightened consciousness. As human beings, we're capable of that. This is what the Buddha demonstrated with his own life and practice.
Mentat alert.
Trying to control ones thoughts is just a mugs game. It is really just us
deifying our thoughts over our other sense gates and regardless of the content of those thoughts, is all just the running of an Ego program.
Not only will an Ego dressed up in spiritual clothing keep you just as firmly ensconced within it's dream, as an ego dressed up in worldly clothing but it will also make the source of that resulting suffering almost impossible to identify.
If you can meditatively treat your thoughts as you would any other arising phenomena, allowing them their own unmolested passage by your sense gates, then the ego's ability to usurp them for it's own agendas is dissipated.
Our identity with our thoughts, is really only the inertia of a hostile take over (called the Ego) of a potentially collegial sense gate coalition that can actually quite capably run itself, without a godhead or the dream agenda required to support it.
To be able to allow** all** of your sense gate data (including thoughts) to arise, live and fade away, without them becoming subject to our skandhic manipulations** is** the awakening from the dream that the Buddha exhorted everyone to find.
I don't think the Buddha would have recommended a strategy if it only strengthened attachment to ego and the self. If mindfulness is just a function of ego, we might as well just hang up Buddhism and go home. Who are we to say the Buddha was wrong?
@Dakini I think not having too high expectations helps us actually. So we don't expect all of our stress hormones to go away for example. That is fortunate because for some of us we don't get as positive results as our friends in the dharma. So just being wherever we are becomes the most important thing. We accept whatever is here.
They arise. I cant control that...but I can determine if they are skilfull thoughts that lead to skilfull things/actions. I learn not to attach to them...so I can change them for the better.
What you focus on expands. Good or bad. Some people say...well, there is not supposed to be a good or bad....that's BS. Like Dakini said....then whats the point of your practice?...what would be the point in opening your heart and purifying/taming the mind? For what?
Why would you need/want liberation if it wasn't 'good' for you in the long run/rebirth?
I bow at the feet of my teacher Marpa.
And sing this song in response to you.
Listen, pay heed to what I say,
forget your critique for a while.
The best seeing is the way of "nonseeing" --
the radiance of the mind itself.
The best prize is what cannot be looked for --
the priceless treasure of the mind itself.
The most nourishing food is "noneating" --
the transcendent food of samadhi.
The most thirst-quenching drink is "nondrinking" --
the nectar of heartfelt compassion.
Oh, this self-realizing awareness
is beyond words and description!
The mind is not the world of children,
nor is it that of logicians.
Attaining the truth of "nonattainment,"
you receive the highest initiation.
Perceiving the void of high and low,
you reach the sublime stage.
Approaching the truth of "nonmovement,"
you follow the supreme path.
Knowing the end of birth and death,
the ultimate purpose is fulfilled.
Seeing the emptiness of reason,
supreme logic is perfected.
When you know that great and small are groundless,
you have entered the highest gateway.
Comprehending beyond good and evil
opens the way to perfect skill.
Experiencing the dissolution of duality,
you embrace the highest view.
Observing the truth of "nonobservation"
opens the way to meditating.
Comprehending beyond "ought" and "oughtn't"
opens the way to perfect action.
When you realize the truth of "noneffort,"
you are approaching the highest fruition.
Ignorant are those who lack this truth:
arrogant teachers inflated by learning,
scholars bewitched by mere words,
and yogis seduced by prejudice.
For though they yearn for freedom,
they find only enslavement.
~Milarepa
Didn't Milarepa (Fortuitous) have thoughts of revenge and acts of black magic, which is what made him seek out a Lama in the first place?
He must of concluded those thoughts needed 'controlling' and were'nt good.
Otherwise, he would have just carried on as life was taking him...
He knew that he had created bad karma.
Definitely. We each do what's doable for us. Putting too high demands can cause more stress! The great thing about dharma practice is that we can each go at our own pace. Every step forward counts. :clap: .
I see Mindfulness as the objective observation of all sense data so as not to allow a dominance,suppression or manipulation of one phenomena over the other.
If that is not possible for someone to do, then there are graduated stages of concentration & focus exercises that can eventually take you there.
Some folks, bundle up all forms of directed concentration and label them in what I consider is a more limitless exercise called mindfulness
I guess the real question is about language and whether one sees a difference between the various focused exercises in concentration..... and......a more limitless mindfulness, and is not about saying the Buddha was wrong.
I see Mindfulness as the objective observation of all sense data so as not to allow a dominance,suppression or manipulation of one phenomena over the other.
Sure, but it's difficult to observe objectively while unskillful mental states are present. So allowing unskillful mental states / thoughts to continue unchecked could well be an obstacle.
It's one way of explaining what happens in meditation.
What do you think allows them to be dominant?
In your own meditation, if an unskillful mental state arises and is unfed..what happens to it.
Some might advocate for a directed suppression of such thoughts but in my experience that just invites other unskillful mental states to arise.
To enter into contest to win against the ego is to already lose.
You are either a player, or not, in the Ego's dream.
Being a good player is just another way to remain trapped in the game.
The only way to succeed is to stop playing the game of identity response to whatever is arising.
Some might advocate for a directed suppression of such thoughts but in my experience that just invites other unskillful mental states to arise.
I don't think it's about suppression, it's more like a decision not to indulge unskillful thoughts. In the suttas it's referred to as inappropriate attention, ie dwelling on and "feeding" the unskillful thoughts. So there is a choice based on clear comprehension.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn09/sn09.011.than.html
true
mind is the lab
six sense bases are the tools
form, sound, taste, smell, feel and thoughts are the material
we can start our experiment now
No hypothesis please, do not try to prove or refute anything
just see what is the outcome
Clues:
form, sound etc. are only the mixture of four elements namely earth, fire, water and air
check what is perception? where is perception?
Happy experiments!
No hypothesis please, do not try to prove or refute anything.
I think we're just mulling over different approaches. Also there may be a different approach on the cushion as compared to off the cushion, and so on.
To me your last post is just saying the same thing that I was saying, just from a slightly different angle. Where you wish not to indulge in unskillfull thoughts, I wish to neither cling to or push them away (which is what I call indulging and is the cause of suffering).
As for "on" verses "off" the cushion differences..I think that the worth of a formal practice is best measured by how closely it manifests itself in daily life.
Zmell is a word sometime used in zen circles to describe when a Zenner seems to be "pushing the river" instead of just surrendering to it's flow. My apologies if my zmell is being detected here.
This was acknowledged on the first page. While meditation is more about observing thoughts arising and passing, then returning focus to the breath (or whatever object one chooses), dealing with thought patterns in daily life where we feel "stuck", or that aren't conducive to developing compassion, right motive, and liberation from samsara, is a different matter. Though I'm told that applying a "letting go" strategy to thoughts that arise in meditation, is also one way to practice non-attachment and develop one-pointedness of mind. There's more than one approach to meditation.
As acknowledged, we move to the same understanding from different karma or initial egoic karma. It is the narrowing of the path that gives a wider perspective.
Meditation is our narrowing and its result is a widening mindfulness. :wave: .
Actually he did. The Buddha was not tangled up in "emptiness". He saw with absolute clarity the nature of the world/samsara.
But the training is gradual. Right effort = raise and maintain wholesome thoughts and the opposite for unwholesome ones. That is part of the 8 FP but not yet the end.
With metta
But the training is gradual. Right effort = raise and maintain wholesome thoughts and the opposite for unwholesome ones. That is part of the 8 FP but not yet the end.
Yes, for Theravada, but clearly not everyone approaches it like that.