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.
Letting go
DairyLama
Veteran Veteran
This seems to be a central theme in contemporary Buddhism, but how do you actually do it, practically speaking? Clearly it isn't an intellectual exercise, so how do we practice letting go?
0
Comments
When I have success at this; and I don't always do, I find I am setting things down, letting it be, rather than letting go. "Let it Be," I believe an English gentleman wrote a rather famous song about that ;-)
From what I read ( Korean book called "Gautama Siddhartha's Treatment for Life" ( or cure of life?)- if you practice the Correct Law practice of the corresponding time, 4 evil realms (hell, asura, animal, preta) out of 10 worlds which making up your life (spiritual) realm falls off and other good realms such as human, heavenly, voice-hearer, pratyeka-buddha, boddhisattva, Buddha will fill that space instead. so without trying to let go, you will naturally let go of unnecessary attachments. That is the merit of practicing.
Non clinging or non attachment makes much more sense.
sorry 'bout the lol - I thought it was page 2 of some thread, I got mixed up.
It's hell getting old.
No luxury in that - sometimes.
I'm an expert on the Notion of 'Letting Go' having been given countless experiences and opportunities, in ten years or so, to do just that.
The Notion of letting go, is something I am a skilled master at expanding on. Oh-aye, I'm bleedin' brilliant, I am....
Letting go itself, is a damn bitch, and I still feel a high degree of resistance.
That resistance is called 'resentment', because while 'letting go' I also have to embrace the notion that by letting go, those who may be culpable will be under the impression they got away scott-free.
And to an extent, they have.
They have avoided and evaded the 'Justice' element of my clinging.
I've mentioned it before (it's now my desktop screen) but this quotation resonated with me:
"Forgive others. Not because they DESERVE Forgiveness, but because YOU Deserve Peace."
Each time I look at that, I breathe deep, and let go a little more.
It's long, arduous and may well go against the grain.
But it's a process. And not an overnight one.
And you must be kind to yourself while you go through it.
I found the Tapussa Sutta to be very insightful.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.041.than.html
For me it is by attending to the tightening. Initially this is most easily sensed in the body. So the breath becomes shallow. Tightening of the chest or knots in the stomach. The speech getting shrill and stressed. Hence deep breathing, relaxation, physical exercise, chanting etc.
If we just observe the sensations, it can amplify our dukkha, which explains much initial aversion to formal meditation.
This is why physical equinimity, allowing the body to settle, is usually the first regular meditation gain.
Not being drawn into our pain is a skill. Have to practice ...
another way to say 'let go' is make no response
My understanding is that letting go happens when truth is observed consciously.
Nobody chooses to let go, a true letting go happens spontaneously.
Like when you see the rope is not a snake. You don't have to let go of the fear. You've observed it's not actually a snake.
If letting go comes from thoughtful intention, it will be superficial. We have deep unconscious beliefs and so when these beliefs clash with our intentions. We are thoroughly confused.
Like trying to love everybody, you unconsciously don't. Yet you try consciously. Which leaves you all messed up.
When you consciously AND unconsciously love everyone. That's true.
When you perceive the world as emptiness, you will let go. When you try to let go before perceiving the world as emptiness. You will be tying more knots.
Something I often tell myself when I start feeling anxious or afraid is "I don't know what will happen, and that's okay." Once I calm down, I try to detect and cultivate the curiousity that lies deep within the fear/anxiety, and have an open heart/mind towards the situation. It's kind of like metta bhavana in that you feel that openness in your heart and expanding of loving-kindness, but more generally than directed at specific types of people (family, neutral, disliked, etc).
@SpinyNorman please, check it out. It helps a lot to clarify what letting go means and how to live with positivity. Preferably watch with an open mind/heart, I'm wishing you all the best!
Also, even though as @federica said it's a slow procceess, you do acquire some joy throughout.
We are all learners. We are all together in this path of letting go, be it pain, thoughts, emotions, etc. You can do it!
Sometimes I need to meet the thing/problem, and do something with it, before I can let it go.
For example paying one bill, and be finnish with it. Or meet the person and speak with he or she about what ever it is. Then I can feel relace.
It also boils down to the pricepts...I belive it will be harder to let go if we break the pricepts, or continue to do so.
So be in harmony with the world is important.
Yes, I think "real" letting go results from insight.
Responding seems to be habitual, so how do we break the habit?
@SpinyNorman
Letting go???
Letting go is not so much a thing, as something's absence.
How does one describe not grasping onto, not pushing away or not ignoring ?
Does it not just describe that which no longer supports one's sense of identity?
Sure, insight or truth or whatever you want to call it. Once you see it, you can't be fooled anymore.
Letting go happens by itself.
I feel @uppeka and @how have provided an insight that many of us struggle with.
We do Buddhism, meditation and practice. We sit and do. Just sitting that @genkaku mentioned in another thread is well ... does not seem to be getting anywhere ...
We need to chant, count breaths, worry about doing it right, struggle ... you know something to hold on to ... etc.
The idea of just walking, just being, just sitting, just actively attending is simply too easy to work and consequently too hard to benefit the active Buddhist Monkey Mind ...
I luvs my cushion ... it is grey ...
Interesting comment - could you give some examples?
I'm not sure what you mean. Doesn't mindfulness include the pain?
It does. However the mind is easily distracted by glamour, ice cream dreams, pain, dukkha and so on.
What if we did prostrations to say Tara and offered her the pain to feed hell dwellers (Buddhas and Boddhisatvas have strange duties)? Remarkably we would be mindful, practicing, distracted and to a degree with perseverence and practice - eased ...
This is why the 'Buddhist toolkit' of skilfull means uses the very tendencies of the mind, body, speech etc. as a way to move away from secondary and eventually even primary dukkha ...
When Letting go, Iam also using the 3 charecteristics of the world, not self, impermanence, and suffering/unsatisfactionary
I try not to take everything personaly, a object is not the problem, its the ego mind that calls it a problem. So trying to see things in a postive way or at least from a neutral angel helps a lot.
And see things as unsertain, like in 300 years know one will remember this anyway. There is nothing to hold on to.
Well, only if you don't become attached to them.
Any phenomena left unmolested by our identity's conditioned impulses
to do otherwise, could be an example of "letting go".
or
the only steps that point directly towards suffering's cessation.
or
Selflessness.
Letting go means freedom from grasping and eventually from suffering. Currently It's always a work in progress for me.
practice to be mindful
mindful of what?
everything (colour, sound, smell, taste, feeling of hardness, softness, warmness, coldness, and thought comes into mind) confronts 'me' is happened for a reason (effect)
that reason is created by 'me' before because of my ignorance (cause)
**apart from cause and effect there is nothing else
everything is impermanent(not as like as we want), therefor we suffer and there is no inherent quality to grasp**
make and effort (viriya) to be mindful like above as possible as 'we' can
then 'we' get a new habit, a better habit
@SpinyNorman What is letting go? For me just sitting with whatever is and letting it just be without getting caught up in grasping at it or pushing it sway.
It's an illusion to cling, and an illusion to let go of...( this illusion ) .....go figure......
While illusion pertains to unreal vision, delusion can be said to be a false belief.
I think of clinging as much more of a delusion being an actual activity of a false belief, rather than just pertaining to unreal vision.......
and "letting go" leaves little for delusion or illusion to be.
The essential point is to really understand why we let go and also the outcome when we are unable to. This can only truly be incorporated into our lives when one directly experience the result of letting go. As Ajahn Chah said "If you let go a little, you have a little more peace. If you let go completely, you will experience total peace and happiness."
Sometimes it's easy, sometimes hard.
Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it makes things worse.
Sometimes it's about non-attachment, sometimes it's about non-aversion.
Sometimes we get so caught up in letting go that we abandon the so called "other"...
When we get too caught up in what it means to let go or exactly how we go about doing it, sometimes we need to let go of letting go.
Sometimes the path is the obstacle and the obstacle the path.
Well said @ourself we need to hold on at times. For example hold on to humanity rather than transcendence. Sometimes the reverse. Depends where we are ...
Total peace and happiness can be let go of too ...
RELAX!
Just remember the water. Flowing water,upon encountering a rock, just keeps flowing. Eventually, it is the rock that yields or is worn away by the flowing water.
No need to hold on; no need to let go. Just flow.
Simple. No one said anything about easy.
By the way, @lobster, great cushion.
I'd throw my picture up there, but we don't want to frighten the children.)
Peace to all
What is left when you let go of that or rather let things be as they are?
Good question.
In one sense everything is left and Nothing is present.
On a personal level transcendence and being human are maleable, interwoven and not really of anything but temporary and hence imaginary import.
Perhaps in the sense of your question, we might say even a clear answer is questionable. In other words knowing what things are, in order to let them 'just be' is closer to not-understanding or not-knowing. It is sometimes difficult for the wandering mara mind (samsara) to be at peace with whatever comes or goes. I luvs peace. Real Peace however, is independent of circumstances ... a presence without being ...
How would you answer that question?
There is a dream
and there is an awakening from that dream.
All that is left is the lack of a perceived separation between subject and object.
I read something ever so similar on another forum today - I still have trouble with understanding it...yeah I know - when it happens, it will happen - unless it doesn't.
Hey silver, try this. All subject/object division is a made up concept. In reality it is already this way.
Don't be sad! You don't have to wait! It's already this way.
Ok so right now, looking is happening right?
Pick anything, a chair or a table. Ok now forget everything you've every been taught, all beliefs, and logic.
Right now, there is no division between "you" and the "chair" the boundaries are conceptual. There is only seeing! Look!
Your body and the chair are both perceived in consciousness. One boundary less field of vision. You don't have to wait for it. It is already so. You just have to drop the belief you are Only the body.
If you can suspend all beliefs, there is just this.
Easier said than done though, I've been trying to find a way into this for some time. I've been working with the elements again recently, and find it interesting in this regard. The suttas do make the distinction between "internal" and "external" elements, but emphasise that it's the same elements, so our bodies are made of the same stuff as everything else. It might be an approach to reducing the sense of separateness that we feel. I find the 6-fold formulation of the elements particularly interesting, it adds space and consciousness to the usual 4 elements of form. The element of space is present both internally and externally, but consciousness is trickier to pin down. Consciousness appears to be localised in ( around? ) the body, which suggests that these boundaries aren't just conceptual because we are seeing things from our own particular point of view.
Clearly consciousness can be directed both internally and externally, we can look at our thoughts or we can look at the sky, suggesting that consciousness itself is the boundary between internal and external. It's interesting to note that most Buddhist practice seems to be internally directed, presumably redressing the balance.
So I wonder whether the problem is not the idea of internal and external, which seems experientially valid, but that we fail to see the transience and insubstantiality of both these aspects of experience. Internally we grasp at "me", externally we grasp at people and things.
Anyway, I need to ponder this stuff some more.
Does consciousness/space have a boundary? What's internal and external as far as they're concerned? Where do they begin or end physically? Is consciousness personal, granted the objects of consciousness may differ?
No.
The answer's out there somewhere....
.......* here * and * there *......
Absolutely.
Not.
Maybe.
Lot's of questions - do you have any answers?! I'm using "internal" and "external" as described by the suttas, which in simple terms refers to inside and outside the body. This distinction can also be applied to space, so there is space internally and externally. If you look carefully there is infinite space with a sprinkling of form, though our attention is mostly drawn to the form.
I'm suggesting that consciousness is the boundary between the internal and the external, since it can be directed in both directions. I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about consciousness having a boundary, but you could talk about the range of each of the traditional 6 aspects of consciousness, for example with eye-consciousness it would be as far as the eye can see.
When you look at consciousness as an element it appears to be universal in nature - it's states of mind which are personal.
Inside and outside the body.
There in lies the answer.
If one assumes the body to be the self or belonging to the self, there is the internal and external. The so called self is bounded by the body. Eg. I see the external world through my eyes which is internal but actually everything is dependently coarisen. Light enters the eye and the world is created. External and internal sense bases make contact. That is why movies can be larger than life.
Consciousness has no personal characteristics. Only its objects can be given attributes eg. male, female, mine, yours, John, UK, London, cat etc.
No, the distinction here between internal and external doesn't rely on the assumption of a self, just the presence of a body. The presence of a body is why we talk about internal and external sense bases.
The problem is not the distinction between internal and external, it's regarding properties of form as me or mine, whether they are internal or external.
"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external.... Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html
I'm still not getting it...I think the 'trick' is to stop thinking altogether - which has been claimed as a sort of answer on another forum I visit regularly. I-I-I- don't think I can do it...I can recognize it for short bits of time, but my thoughts (which I'm not supposed to have) are saying I (separate object) sit in a chair, read at the table, turn on the light and so on. I don't know what difference it makes how we look at things.
You sit in your chair but you are not attached to it. Body is a far stronger attachment. Mind more so? If parts of the body wither and fall away, we exist without them. How much of the brain/mind can close before we dissapear, as we do in sleep ...
The self is the point of consciousness but not in chair, limb or mind observing.
Is Self dependent on focus or is the real being empty of these secondary arising attentions?
Much meditation practice is examining wether the thought, sensations, attentions are independent of some object. The attention may become more subtle as the objects are recognised as empty of Self.
@lobster said, "Is Self dependent on focus or is the real being empty of these secondary arising attentions?
Much meditation practice is examining wether the thought, sensations, attentions are independent of some object. The attention may become more subtle as the objects are recognised as empty of Self.
~~
This is funny because all these types of notions to me are like a neon sign - sometimes they buzz, sometimes they flicker or some of the letters are burned out. I sometimes 'see' and sometimes I wonder where that 'seeing' went.
Okay, but a chair or table or lamp I/we easily see they are 'empty' but each person seems not to be 'empty'. It still puzzles me and I suppose that my being able to see is somewhat dependent on purpose.
I stand corrected.
You don't have to stop thinking, you can't stop thinking. It's only the belief in them that causes the grief. There was never someone who could control thoughts.
if you were your thoughts you could control them. Stop them at will. But you can't, see? So knowing this we don't have to give importance to them.
Trying to only makes it worse.
It really doesn't matter what your thoughts think.
the "universe" looking out at itself. You don't have to cultivate it!! Yay!
There is no separation between you and the chair. In seeing an object, there is no person who sees a chair. Just the seeing. Thoughts suggest a subject/object split. Which is fine, until you actually believe in it.
The vision you have right now, IS IT.
It's not easier said than done, it's actually easy as it is already the case. We just fail to see it!
I see what you are saying with the turning of conscious attention but there is another unmoving conscious awareness that is aware of looking at the sky. I try drop all labels where I can and focus on what's here. There is looking, there is awareness of looking. They are not separate.
When you say you are trying to find a way into this, you've already suggested you are not this. For me it was helpful to drop ALL concepts of anything. Like I was born right now with no language or memory.
And then just look, is there a boundary between "you" and "object?" Can you find it?
If you hold your hand up next to a flower. In that vision, your hand and the flower are both observed. Both images in this field. Both fabrications. There are no boundaries.
It goes back to the duality which is not a duality. The 'Self' perceives a duality - 'Self' and 'Not Self'. However, one can not find where 'Self' ends and 'Not Self' begins. Another way to put it is that one perceives a separation between him/herself ('Self) and the environment ('Non-Self) when in reality, there is no separation. We can say that any individual's life (Self, Conscience, however you wan to label it) permeates the Universe and vice versa.
As @Earthninja put it: "There are no boundaries".
Confused yet? Good!
Now let's all go on over to Spiney's for cake and ice cream.
Peace to all