Thanks Sonam Norbu

 


 




  • Soh Wei Yu
    John Tan: "What is important to know in bahiya, Buddha actually included the path, experience and the realization in such a short teaching."
    3

    • Reply
    • 15h

    William Lim
    But sometimes I find the teachings too short, and too clever. Very few people can get it just reading the sutta as it is. One word can itself be a 2 hour lecture! But then again, maybe it's due to the fact that it was done at a time of oral history. Gotta keep it short for people to remember and pass it down.

    • Reply
    • 14h
    • Edited

  • Tan Jui Horng
    William Lim The thing was the historical Buddha saw that Bahiya only needed this much to awaken. For those who required elaboration, he did so.
    2

    • Reply
    • 14h

  • William Lim
    84,000 flavours to choose from 🙂

    • Reply
    • 14h

  • Tan Jui Horng
    Especially at times when your mind is relatively settled, just keep chipping away at the sutta. Try to feel what the Buddha was pointing to. Whatever comes up, don't just reject it but look even closer at it.
    2

    • Reply
    • 14h
    • Edited

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Bahiya Sutta triggered my anatta realisation. But without undergoing my previous stages of insights into I AM and nondual and also years of being instilled right view by John Tan, it probably wouldn’t have had that triggering effect as I wouldn’t have been ready.
    1

    • Reply
    • 12h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    My guess is that Bahiya was at least at the I AM stage when Buddha gave him this teaching:

    • Reply
    • 12h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Notes from Leigh Brasington
    1. The bark cloth clothing would most likely mean that Bahiya was a follower of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad makes a big deal about trees (personal communication from John Peacock).
    2. Why did the Buddha give this particular instruction to Bahiya? The bark cloth clothing marked him as a serious student of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad; thus he would be familiar with the teaching found there: "The unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the uncognized cognizer... There is no other seer but he, no other hearer, no other thinker, no other cognizer. This is thy self, the inner controller, the immortal...." Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.7.23.
    Bahiya would also be familiar with "... that imperishable is the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unthought thinker, the ununderstood understander. Other than it there is naught that sees. Other than it there is naught that hears. Other than it there is naught that thinks. Other than it there is naught that understands...." Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8.11.
    The Buddha, as he often does, takes something his questioner is familiar with and gives it a subtle but profound twist: there's no Atman, there's just seeing, just hearing, etc.
    Udana 1.10 - Bahiya Sutta
    LEIGHB.COM
    Udana 1.10 - Bahiya Sutta
    Udana 1.10 - Bahiya Sutta
    1

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 12h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Likewise when I translated this into Chinese and gave the person in China it had the similar triggering effect of anatta realisation. He was also at I AM stage
    1

    • Reply
    • 12h

  • Liu Zhi Guan
    One interesting thing I'd notice from this sutta is that,while Buddha confirmed that Bahiya had reached arhatship upon his death,he never really become Buddhist in the sense of taking refuge in Three Jewels

    • Reply
    • 3h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Kyle Dixon's post from years ago: "The true meaning of refuge is recognizing the nature of mind [cittatā]."

  • Reply
  • 1m

    • Soh Wei Yu
      (Although, unless we are someone like Bahiya who can get into the essence of refuge in the most direct manner, I still recommend people start by going for refuge in a proper ceremony with a proper dharma teacher or monk or nun giving the refuge vows, just as John Tan and I did (received refuge vows) multiple times. For those who wish to follow the Buddha's teachings, of course. I generally avoid trying to convert or convince people 'into my religion'. There is no need to hard sell something valuable like true diamond. You can share about it (after all the Buddha did tell his awakened students to go in different directions to spread the dharma), and those with clear eyes and good karma will be able to see it for themselves, but it is up to each individual to choose their own path.

      Acarya Malcolm Smith just posted recently:
      Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:50 pm
      Anyone who has has Mahayana refuge vows, and understands the procedure for bestowing refuge vows, can bestow refuge vows. There is no special qualification needed other than that one’s own refuge is intact.
      The question is, does one really wish to be granting such vows?
      .....
      One has to know how to properly conduct the rite. If one bestows refuge vows and bodhisattva vows there is no particular responsibility, but I think it can become kind of an ego trip. Even some Tibetan Lamas will incorrectly claim that having bestowed refuge, now the student has samaya with that teacher and so on. I just think it is better to encourage people to receive refuge and bodhisattva vows from qualified lamas, preferably lineage heads, and among those, bhikṣus like HH Dalai Lama are preferable to upasākas. One should recall that among vajramasters, a bhiḳsu with intact vows is supreme, according to Kalacakra. On the other hand, though this is ideal, life is short, and if one does not want to use the rite of administering refuge and bodhisattva vows to oneself, then any qualified teacher who is willing to give them will do.")

    • Reply
    • 1m



      • Soh Wei Yu
        问:什么叫做皈依?
        慧律法师答:皈依分两个角度:一是事相皈依;二是理体皈依。
        首先讲事相皈依:皈依释迦牟尼佛还有十方三世佛叫做皈依佛;皈依三藏十二部经典,依法不依人,叫做皈依法;皈依受过三坛大戒正规的僧,叫做皈依僧。
        其次是理体皈依:就是回归到清净的自性。我们内在的觉性、自性就是佛;开采了内在的觉性和智慧以后,所反射出来的全部都是无上的真理,心中本来就具足三藏十二部经典的法;我们内心里面具大慈悲、和合,人与人之间相处和睦、和谐,内心里面没有情绪、没有乱、没有生灭,完全是和谐,这个叫做自性的僧。自性的觉悟叫做皈依佛宝;自性的真理就是皈依法宝;自性的和谐无争就是皈依僧宝。理三宝和事三宝两种统统要具足。
        。。。。
        皈依三宝的利益
          慧律法师
          皈依三宝的功德利益,可以说在人生中,所得利益总加起来,也不及皈依三宝的功德之大之多。《佛说希有校量功德经》说:皈依三宝所得的功德之大,若具足四事供养,乃至建七宝塔供养舍利的功德,尚不及皈依三宝所获得的功德之百分之一。 “夫三宝者,千生难遇,万劫难逢,皈依者,福增无量;礼念者,罪灭河沙。譬如灵丹之妙药,疗百病而蠲除。冥冥黑夜中,三宝为灯烛;滔滔苦海内,三宝为舟航;焰焰火宅中,三宝为雨泽。”由此可知三宝的功德。
          没有皈依三宝,即使拜佛烧香,也只能算是佛教的尊敬者,不能算做佛教徒,如果是佛教徒,第一具备的条件就是皈依三宝。
          皈依三宝究竟有什么功德利益呢?总结经典中的功德利益有下列十点:
          第一、找到了宇宙间第一伟大的圣者释迦牟尼佛作为老师,成为正式的佛弟子。
          第二、经云: “皈依佛,不堕地狱;皈依法,不堕畜生;皈依僧,不堕饿鬼。”故一旦皈依三宝以后,立刻可以恶道除名,人天有份。
          第三、如顶戴宝冠,身著华服,人身立刻庄严;而皈依三宝,则道德、人格、信仰因而提升。
          第四、能积集广大福德,得大富贵,如为人生前途造了平坦的道路,如苦海茫茫中有了舟航。
          第五、佛陀指示护法龙天、一切善神,在末法时代,要保护、加被所有皈依的三宝弟子。
          第六、能够获得世间大众的尊敬,并以为模范。
          第七、消灾免难,平安吉祥,一切好事,都会成就。
          第八、减少烦恼,得遇善人为友,到处都能得方便。
          第九、有受戒的资格。皈依三宝的人可以受持五戒,参加八关斋戒等。
          第十、终有一天,必定得度。即使没有修行,只要皈依三宝,将来弥勒菩萨龙华三会的时候,也能得度。

      • Reply
      • 1m
      •  
      •  
      • Soh Wei Yu
        — as he gave an example, Buddha taught that an arahant does not need to take bhikshu vows, he is a bhikshu [by definition].
        Same principle applies for refuge vows
        • Like
        • Reply
        • 2m
        • Edited
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  
        •  

    Liu Zhi Guan
    Soh Wei Yu For refuge vows for laypersons,Theravada tradition tends to be less ritualistic compared to,say,Chinese Mahayana or Tibetan tradition.
    Afaik Chinese refuge ceremony is quite elaborate,with the layperson wearing haiqing robe. Tibetan one does it in different fashion with cutting a few strands of hair from the head.
    Whereas in Theravada,it is merely recitation of refuge vows and precepts in Pali. Also no dharma name.Needless to say,no bodhisattva vows in Theravada.
    One exception is late ChNNR,with his interesting take on refuge.

    • Reply
    • 12h
    • Edited

  • Liu Zhi Guan
    "— as he gave an example, Buddha taught that an arahant does not need to take bhikshu vows, he is a bhikshu [by definition].
    Same principle applies for refuge vows"
    Don't think that applies to Theravada,once one becomes an arhat,one needs to be a bhikshu or bhishukni or else he or she will die in seven days. Strictly speaking,a bhikshu is a man who takes the full pratimokha vows.
    Also even if one enters monkhood as arhat,one still begins as junior monk.

    • Reply
    • 12h

  • Liu Zhi Guan
    Anyway my point regarding Bahiya is that he got enlightened even before becoming a Buddhist,albeit with Buddha's pithy instructions

    • Reply
    • 12h

  • Nads Ross Jones
    Interesting thoughts on the Refuge Vows. What do you think about the Bodhisattva Vows?

    • Reply
    • 2h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    I believe, but cannot confirm, that Ven Hui Lu is referring to this young person who became arahat:
    In the final analysis, it is vital to remember that every monastic and saint was a lay person before. The Buddha himself never once said that arhathood could be attained only by the renunciant. On the contrary, the Kathā,vatthu, for example, dealing with the question on whether a layperson may become an arhat, states that the Uttarā,pathakas (―Northerners‖)136 answer affirmatively, mentioning Yasa the layman,
    Uttiya the houselord and Setu the brahmin youth as examples of lay arhats (Kvu 1:268), and its Commen-
    tary (KvuA 4.1/73) quotes the Buddha Word in the Dhammapada:
    Though well adorned [finely clad], if he fares in calmness, At peace, tamed, self-controlled, living the holy life, Having put down the rod towards all beings—
    He is a brahmin, he is a recluse, he is a monk.137
    ——— Bibliography
    Bodhi, Bhikkhu
    2001 ―The Jhānas and the Lay Disciple.‖ In Buddhist Studies in honour of Professor Lily de
    Silva. Ed PD Premasiri. Peradeniya: University of Peradeniya, 2001:36-64. Chakravarti, Uma
    1983 ̳Renouncer and householder in early Buddhism.‘ Social Analysis vol 13, May 1983:70-83.
    1987 The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1987. Chit Tin, Sayagyi U
    2000
    Gethin, Rupert 2001
    ―Being assured of attaining Nibbana‖ in Buddhism As a Way of Life and Other Essays. Online ed. Sayagyi U Ba Khin Memorial Trust, IMC-UK, Splatts House, Hedding, Calne, Wiltshire SN11 0PE, England. http://imc.uk@virgin.net.
    The Buddhist Path to Awakening. [Leiden: E J Brill, 1992.] 2nd ed sb Oxford: Oneworld,
    (Dh 142; Kvu:SR 157 f)
    Imc.uk may be for sale - PerfectDomain.com
    PERFECTDOMAIN.COM
    Imc.uk may be for sale - PerfectDomain.com
    Imc.uk may be for sale - PerfectDomain.com

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1h


    • Reply
    • 1h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Also from that pdf:
    19 Destiny of the lay arhat
    In the Tevijja Vaccha,gotta Sutta (M 71), when Vaccha,gotta asks, ―Master Gotama, is there any
    householder who, without abandoning the householder‘s fetters,130 when the body has broken up, makes
    128 Gihino vā’ha bhikkhave pabbajito vā sammā,paipada vaṇṇemi. Gihi vā bhikkhave pabbajito vā sammā,- paipanno sammā,paipattdhikaraṇa,hetu ārādhako hoti āya dhamma kusala. Katamā ca bhikkhave sammā,- paipadā, seyyāthda sammā,dihi,,,sammā.samādhi. Aya vuccati bhikkhave sammā,paipadā. Gihino vā’ha bhikkhave pabbajitassa vā sammā,paipada vaṇṇemi.Gihi vā bhikkhave pabbajito vā sammā,paipanno sammā,- paipattdhikaraṇa,hetu ārādhako hoti āya dhamma kusala. S:B omits the second last sentence. Also A 2.4.10/1:69.
    129 (S 12.42,5/2:70), SD 3.3.3(2).
    130 The Kathā,vatthu says that the householder‘s fetters are such that one ―would indulge in sexual relations, cause sexual relations to arise, indulge in a house crowded with children, seek to enjoy sandalwood from Kās, wear garlands, use perfumes and unguents, accept gold and silver [money], acquire goats and sheep, poultry and pigs,
    Piya Tan SD 8.6 Layman Saints
    an end of suffering?‖ the Buddha answers that there is none (M 71.11/1:483). Here, ―householder‘s fet- ters‖ (gihi,sayojana) refers to attachment to the requisites of a householder (such as land, ornaments, wealth, grain, etc, says the Mahā kā).
    The Majjhima Commentary says that even laymen, on becoming arhats, have destroyed all attach- ment to worldly things and thus either went forth as monks or passed away immediately after their attain- ment and also mentions Santati the privy councillor, Ugga,sena the treasurer‘s son, and the boy Vta,soka as examples of layman arhats (MA 3:196). This point about the lay arhat‘s destiny was first discussed in the Milinda,paha:
    There are two destinies for a householder who has attained arhathood: either, that very day, he goes forth or he attains final nirvana. (Miln 264; cf 164)
    The Milinda,paha explains that the lay disciple, upon attaining to arhathood, either ordains that very day or will enter final nirvana. This, Nāgasena argues, is not the defect of arhathood but the defect of being a layperson, just as in the case of someone who has a stomach disorder, ―it is not the defect in the food, but the defect of the stomach‖ (Miln 265). Two famous canonical examples of lay arhats are Yasa and Bāhiya Dārucriya. Yasa joined the order (V 1:17) but Bāhiya died shortly.131
    My own understanding of this interesting situation—that layman arhats must join the order or die within a day—is a dramatic way of saying that on ordaining, they are bound by the Vinaya, so that they have to go on almsround, keep healthy, teach the others and be an example to them. In other words, one of the purposes of the Vinaya is that the monastics live on for the sake of the teaching. The point remains, however, that this well known view (that a layman arhat must ordain the same day or dies then) is only found in the Milinda,pañha (Miln 164) and the Commentaries (eg MA 3:196) but without any aupport in the Canon.132
    The Dharmafarers | Suttas with commentaries (Early Buddhism)
    THEMINDINGCENTRE.ORG
    The Dharmafarers | Suttas with commentaries (Early Buddhism)
    The Dharmafarers | Suttas with commentaries (Early Buddhism)
    1

    • Reply
    • Remove Preview
    • 1h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Nads Ross JonesAnyone who wishes to follow Buddha’s path and teachings, or even if one is lazy in practice but has faith in Buddha, then such a person should take refuge vows.
    Anyone who wishes to practice the Mahayana or Vajrayana path, aspires to Buddhahood, and has faith in these teachings, then such a person should take bodhisattva vows.

    • Reply
    • 1h
    • Edited

  • Nads Ross Jones
    Soh Wei Yu interesting. Thanks

    • Reply
    • 1h

  • Soh Wei Yu
    I am not sure if Sim Pern Chong formally took refuge vows before realising anatta.
    2007:
    (12:13 PM) Thusness: That is just the first step.
    (12:13 PM) Thusness: this is a form of practice like vipassana
    (12:13 PM) Thusness: however the true insight does not arise yet.
    (12:14 PM) Thusness: it is just like practicing insight meditation does not equal the arising of non-dual insight.
    (12:14 PM) AEN: icc..
    (12:14 PM) Thusness: but once u r truly non-dual, then u know it is like that. 🙂
    (12:14 PM) Thusness: just like longchen (sim pern chong), given enough time, whatever he said will be like Buddha.
    (12:14 PM) Thusness: but he need not read what that is taught by Buddha.
    (12:15 PM) AEN: oic..
    (12:15 PM) Thusness: however by reading it, it may help him and speed up his progress.
    (12:15 PM) AEN: icic
    (12:15 PM) AEN: u got ask him to read the sutras? 😛
    (12:15 PM) Thusness: the difference is he does not like to be labelled.
    (12:15 PM) Thusness: nope
    (12:15 PM) AEN: oic
    (12:15 PM) AEN: labelled as a buddhist?
    (12:15 PM) Thusness: anything
    (12:16 PM) Thusness: as for me, i don't mind...ehehe
    (12:16 PM) AEN: lol
    (12:17 PM) AEN: btw u read jean klein b4?
    (12:17 PM) Thusness: no
    (12:17 PM) Thusness: but i think someone posted some posts b4
    (12:17 PM) AEN: oic where
    (12:17 PM) Thusness: dunno...i thought it is in ur forum?
    (12:17 PM) Thusness: if it is not in ur forum, then i don't know..
    (12:17 PM) Thusness: maybe not.
    (12:17 PM) Thusness: lol
    1

    • Reply
    • 1h
    • Edited

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Session Start: Tuesday, 10 July, 2007
    (11:35 AM) Thusness: x last time used to say something like we should rely on awareness and not rely on thoughts bcos awareness is everlasting, thoughts are impermanent... something like that
    (11:35 AM) Thusness: this is not right.
    (11:35 AM) Thusness: this is advaita teaching.
    (11:35 AM) AEN: oic
    (11:36 AM) Thusness: now what is most difficult to understand in buddhism is this.
    (11:36 AM) Thusness: to experience the unchanging is not difficult.
    (11:36 AM) AEN: icic..
    (11:38 AM) Thusness: but to experience impermanence yet know the unborn nature is prajna wisdom.
    (11:38 AM) AEN: oic
    (11:38 AM) Thusness: it would be a misconception to think that Buddha do not know the state of unchanging.
    (11:38 AM) Thusness: or when Buddha tok about unchanging it is referring to an unchanging background.
    (11:39 AM) AEN: icic..
    (11:39 AM) Thusness: otherwise why would i have stressed so much about the misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
    (11:39 AM) Thusness: And of course, it is a misunderstanding that I have not experienced the unchanging. 🙂
    (11:39 AM) AEN: oic
    (11:42 AM) Thusness: what u must know is to develop the insight into impermanence and yet realised the unborn.
    (11:42 AM) Thusness: this then is prajna wisdom.
    (11:42 AM) Thusness: to 'see' permanence and say it is unborn is momentum.
    (11:42 AM) Thusness: when buddha say permanence it is not referring to that.
    (11:42 AM) AEN: icic..
    (11:43 AM) Thusness: to go beyond the momentum u must be able to be naked for a prolong period of time.
    (11:44 AM) Thusness: then experience impermanence itself, not labelling anything.
    (11:44 AM) Thusness: the seals is even more important than the buddha in person.
    (11:44 AM) Thusness: even buddha when misunderstood it becomes sentient. 🙂
    (11:47 AM) Thusness: longchen (sim pern chong) wrote an interesting passage
    (11:47 AM) Thusness: on closinggap
    (11:47 AM) AEN: which one
    (11:47 AM) Thusness: reincarnation.
    (11:47 AM) AEN: oh ya i read it
    (11:48 AM) Thusness: the one he clarify kyo's reply?
    (11:50 AM) AEN: ya
    (11:50 AM) Thusness: that reply is a very important reply
    (11:50 AM) Thusness: and it also proves that longchen has realised the importance of transients
    (11:50 AM) AEN: oic..
    (11:50 AM) Thusness: and the five aggregates as buddha nature
    (11:50 AM) Thusness: time for unborn nature
    (11:51 AM) AEN: icic
    (11:51 AM) Thusness: u c, it takes one to go through such phases, from "I AM" to Non-dual to isness then to the very very basic of what buddha taught...
    (11:51 AM) Thusness: can u see that?
    (11:52 AM) AEN: yea
    (11:52 AM) Thusness: the more one experience, the more truth one sees in what buddha taught in the most basic teaching.
    (11:53 AM) Thusness: whatever longchen experience is not because he read what buddha taught, but because he really experience it.
    (11:54 AM) AEN: icic..

    • Reply
    • 1h
    • Edited

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Clearly Buddha had the wisdom and omniscience to discern that Bahiya had the capacity and potential to wake up right there to be giving such a short and pithy instruction to him. And also Bahiya basically requested for such a short pithy teaching.
    Instead of a gradual path from formally taking refuge to developing sila, samadhi and prajna step by step. Which is the path most people take.
    But those who have capacity to take the Bahiya instructions to heart, will automatically develop all the eightfold path from just practicing the essence. They are also practicing the essence of refuge if they can realise and actualise the cittata or nature of mind or non-arising nature of mind aka the anatman realisation. Many people have formally taken refuge vows but their everyday behaviour shows they are always “taking refuge” in their delusion and kleshas rather than wisdom or jnana. Even then, the formal act of taking refuge has planted very important seeds that ripens into awakening in time.
    Those who cannot grasp the essence may have to take a more gradual approach. Which means generally all of us. Because as Kyle Dixon said in 2013, “99% of individuals require integration and familiarization. The non-gradual individuals [cig car ba's] are said to be as rare as stars in the day time, and the Dalai Lama attests that there hasn't been a cig car ba for centuries.”
    1

    • Reply
    • 1h
    • Edited

  • Soh Wei Yu
    Updated my reply above

  • Reply
  • 13m




    • Liu Zhi Guan
      Soh Wei Yu Should have laid out the context of my answer earlier for clarity.
      As Buddhist meditation of various forms has reached the world populace at large,there is a trend of a more secular form of 'Buddhist' meditation,and it also attracts a crowd that is purportedly non-Buddhist(or claim to be so).
      Most salient example would be Zen meditation,but also most Theravada meditation schools(Goenka's 10-days retreat comes to mind). Even Sam Harris had had experienced in Dzogchen.
      So upon reading Bahiya Sutta,what piques my curiosity is if there is any so-called non-Buddhist/ practitioner has attained any level of awakening,from anatta onwards. Considering Bahiya had attained full arhatship despite while technically not being a Buddhist.
      And if Pern Chong had attained anatta despite not having taken refuge.
      Funnily ChNNR's exposition of refuge is close to Pern Chong' and Kyle Dixon's,so initially I was fumbling over where was "Namo Buddhya,Namo Dharmaya,Namo Sanghaya" in ChNNR's practice lol. I recall Theravada sutta mentioned smth similar but can't remember the name of the said sutta.
      The other thought is if non-Buddhist meditation would be beneficial as precursor to Buddhist meditation. Inferring from your 7 Stages of Enlightenment and Bahiya's speculated background as follower of Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. So the corollary is that it does,depending on stage of awakening.
      Hence I agree that "Buddha had the wisdom and omniscience to discern that Bahiya had the capacity and potential to wake up right there to be giving such a short and pithy instruction to him",Bahiya was not attaining arhatship via sudden path as he likely had extensive ascetic training beforehand. As were the first five Buddha's disciples in Sarnath.
      And yes,taking refuge without understanding does not clear one of delusion and kleshas,though it doesnt plant a seed for the future.

      • Reply
      • 28m

    • Liu Zhi Guan
      Cant go wrong with Piya Tan's scholarship.👍
      Arhatship(or stages of awakening for that matter) was disputed even in the early Buddhism schools,such as if arhats could regress. And some schools even mentioned layman arhats(also quoted in sutta according to Piya Tan's work).
      So the one-day ultimatum for layperson to be a monk/nun upon reaching arhatship is likely modern Theravada's(actually descended from Vibhājyavāda,an offshoot of original Theravada school) interpretation based on Nagasena's work.

      • Reply
      • 27m
      • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
      The intention is more important than the formality or ceremony.
      Bahiya had very strong intention to rely on Buddha’s teachings to attain liberation. In a sense that is the key of refuge. It is not just a formality but a very strong genuine intention to rely on the triple gems to attain liberation. That is the kind of “taking refuge” one must awaken in oneself. That paves the way to liberation. If one simply attends a refuge ceremony half heartedly, like going through the motions, it is still a positive act that creates a good karmic connection with the triple gems for this life and the next, but may not be as effective as the earnest desire of Bahiya to take refuge in Buddha and his instructions to attain liberation as soon as possible.

      • Reply
      • 16m
      • Edited

    • Soh Wei Yu
      "The other thought is if non-Buddhist meditation would be beneficial as precursor to Buddhist meditation. Inferring from your 7 Stages of Enlightenment and Bahiya's speculated background as follower of Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. So the corollary is that it does,depending on stage of awakening."
      Non-Buddhist traditions can lead to shamatha and awakening the clarity aspect of mind/consciousness. But all these still belong to the shamatha aspect, not Buddhist vipashyana which concerns the insight into cittata (non-arising, anatman, shunyata nature of consciousness/mind):
      Kyle: "We don’t have any misunderstanding. Again this is rhetoric versus reality, up until the third vision, “emptiness” is obscured and therefore at the time of direct introduction it is merely rhetorical. The nature of mind, as non-dual clarity and emptiness is not truly known until the third vision, again per Longchenpa, per Khenpo Ngachung, etc., not something I have made up. What do we generally recognize in direct introduction? We recognize clarity [gsal ba], and the aspect of vidyā that is concomitant with that clarity. Vidyā is then what carries our practice, but vidyā is not the citta dharmatā, the nature of mind.
      This is why the first two visions are likened to śamatha, and the last two are likened to vipaśyanā."
      The Degrees of Rigpa
      AWAKENINGTOREALITY.COM
      The Degrees of Rigpa
      The Degrees of Rigpa

      • Reply
      • Remove Preview
      • 7m
      • Edited

    • Liu Zhi Guan
      Soh Wei Yu Yes,this explanation wrt Triple Gem refuge makes sense,and amen that vipassana/vipashyana is unique to Buddhism.

    • Reply
    • 1m

Also See: The Trouble With Agency (Newer Version)

It Was Inevitable That Science Would Declare We Have No Free Will
Great Responsiveness Explains How Recognition Of Our Acts Come Only After Our Desire To Do Something Has Already Commenced The Action Desired
StillJustJames
StillJustJames
Nov 11·17 min read
Book Contents 📖 TOC | PROEM | TRADITIONS | PRACTICES | INSIGHTS | DISCUSSION | BACK MATTER
Scientists have grown increasingly bolder in their claim that all human behavior can be explained through the mechanistic laws of strict cause-and-effect.
What this means is that scientists develop their theories, and confirm those theories, only through this single structural understanding. So when scientists observe their experiments, while their observations are facts, how those facts are interpreted is strictly through a deterministic lens.
That being so, given a focus on our daily experiences of free will, it was inevitable that Science would declare that we, in fact, do not have free will, because the mechanistic laws of strict cause-and-effect (determinism) have no room for the kind of indeterminacy that free will implies.
“Unmasked” by Autumn Skye (with permission)
Until the 1980’s the belief that we have free will was a fundamental personal and social assumption in our systems of Ethics, Morals, and Law, but it started to change when Benjamin Libet, a researcher in the physiology department of the University of California, San Francisco USA, did an experiment that, he claimed, showed that our assumption that we freely will our actions was false. A short video explaining his experiment can be seen here. In 2003, Libet was the first recipient of the Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology from the University of Klagenfurt, “for his pioneering achievements in the experimental investigation of consciousness, initiation of action, and free will.”
Apparently, his research showing that we do not scientifically have free will, was something to cheer about, even though it reduced us all to deterministic mechanisms being entertained by baseless fantasies of our own moral and ethical agency. The phenomenon that his experiment exposed is now called “Libet’s Delay” in honor of the man’s research findings.
The delay in question in these experiments is the difference in the onset of a skin sensation and the reported consciousness of that sensation, or, as in the video linked above, in the initiation of a movement and the consciousness of the decision to make the movement. In both these cases, there is a delay between the brain responding and consciousness of that response arising, either as a decision, or merely an impression. The important point to remember here, is that, Science has not been able to establish what consciousness is, nor how it works; but Libet interpreted the reported delay as evidence that our conscious activity is not involved in the initiation of our physical activity or sensations — and it was inevitable that he would do so, given the strictly causal mechanistic understanding within which he worked. I will explain below how the delay is not unexpected, nor exclusionary to our having free will.
I witnessed an event some years ago at my university that sent chills down my spine. This event was similar to the Libet story in being that of a well-known scientist presenting a dénouement of our moral and ethical agency. It was during a talk by Patricia Churchland, a “neuro-philosopher” as she calls herself, that she gave at Stony Brook University (State University of New York) in February 2008. Her argument was to the effect that individuals with a body-chemistry associated — by neuroscientists — with violent or destructive behavior should be separated from the rest of society before they harmed themselves or others, or gave any indication that they were inclined to do so, since their body-chemistry effectively determined that they would do so at some point.
This included, she said, infants at birth who tested positive for the “violent or destructive behavior body-chemistry,” who should be separated from their parents and raised institutionally, because they were destined to be violent or destructive!
What was on display in her talk was the mereological reduction of the potential actions of a class of human beings to the chemical “makeup” of their bodies.
And she wasn’t laughed out of the auditorium! She received a standing ovation from many of the scholars in the audience.
According to a mainstream article in Psychology Today magazine:
The denial of free will is one of the major principles of the materialist worldview that dominates secular western culture. Materialism is the view that only the physical stuff of the world — atoms and molecules and the objects and beings that they constitute — are real. Consciousness and mental phenomena can be explained in terms of neurological processes.
Materialism developed as a philosophy in the second half of the nineteenth century, as the influence of religion waned. And right from the start, materialists realised the denial of free will was inherent in their philosophy. As one of the most fervent early materialists, T.H. Huxley, stated in 1874, “Volitions do not enter into the chain of causation…The feeling that we call volition is not the cause of a voluntary act, but the symbol of that state of the brain which is the immediate cause.”⁠¹
Modern Science opens up many technological avenues, which importantly, have quickly brought us to the ruination of society, culture, and our planet, after little more than 150 years. In general, scientists disavow any moral considerations upon their pursuit of knowledge, claiming that knowledge isn’t the problem, instead it is how that knowledge is sometimes used that is at fault, and scientists don’t determine the uses, they say.
Ok, but it’s a bit disingenuous given where a significant part of their funding comes from, and their acquiescence to find useful knowledge for their benefactors to use in pursuit of their oftentimes troubling goals, but let’s skip the interminable debate and respond to their defense: We are better off without the kind of knowledge you look for. Unfortunately, consideration of our concerns does not enter into the ruminations of the Scientific Workshop, or if it does, it is a private matter of some concerned scientists only, and not a collective concern.
Given the mounting evidence that consciousness of our actions follows the commencement of our actions, which are already in motion before we decide to do them, and the positive and negative determinacy of our body chemistries, it was inevitable that scientists would declare we have no free will, no matter the moral consequences of convincing society at large that they were deterministic zombies completely driven by mechanisms in their body to do the things they did.
And the result of that? According to ​Stephen Cave, PhD, a philosopher, diplomat, and writer, who earned his PhD in philosophy from the University of Cambridge:
This research and its implications are not new. What is new, though, is the spread of free-will skepticism beyond the laboratories and into the mainstream. The number of court cases, for example, that use evidence from neuroscience has more than doubled in the past decade — mostly in the context of defendants arguing that their brain made them do it. And many people are absorbing this message in other contexts, too, at least judging by the number of books and articles purporting to explain “your brain on” everything from music to magic. Determinism, to one degree or another, is gaining popular currency. The skeptics are in ascendance.
This development raises uncomfortable — and increasingly non-theoretical — questions: If moral responsibility depends on faith in our own agency, then as belief in determinism spreads, will we become morally irresponsible? And if we increasingly see belief in free will as a delusion, what will happen to all those institutions that are based on it?⁠²
I wonder, do scientists themselves accept the implications of this paradigm of determinacy that they impose on all of us? The title I chose for this article makes clear the implication for scientists as well — they have no choice in what they do, so, given the structural limitations of their working paradigm, they had to come to the conclusion that we do not have free will. It was the inevitable conclusion — and its inevitable result is the reduction of humans to no better than zombies, and the ruination of the world. QED, Modern Science will be the end of us all.
Obviously, that cannot be the complete truth, and so, the assumptions that scientists work under must be wrong.
But scientists do not apply the same reductive outlook upon the practice of modern science, instead they hedge the application of strict cause and effect by introducing complexity and happenstance (“Chaotic Determinism”), which are the fundamental constituents of the ‘randomness’ that they assert — when it is useful to escape strict determinism — underlies the evolution of forms of life, for example, or the behavior of quantum waves/particles.
Yet, when scientists design their experiments, it is necessarily with the goal of observing strictly causal mechanisms. Why is that? Because there is no useful knowledge to be had of a phenomenon that is not strictly determinate, and thus, no predictions can be made with any assurance of the future manifestations of such a phenomenon. In short, it is a waste of time.
This was the reason that the idea of God had to die — having an intentional agent with unlimited powers behind every and any phenomenon undermined the ability of scientists to forecast anything at all, even if it seemed as if God wasn’t interested in manipulating a wide collection of phenomena that always seemed to operate in a law-like way. The point was: God could change it. And this insight adds a nuance to the rebuke by Albert Einstein that “God does not play dice!” in response to the apparent indeterminacy of quantum-level events.
You can’t calculate indeterminacy, so if physical reality is indeterminate, it is not ruled by mathematics, even if some phenomena can be statistically modeled. Therefore, the tension between classical physics and quantum physics is one between two irreconcilable models of reality, which explains the lack of movement over the past century in the endeavor to find a single comprehensive theory. It also explains the turn towards fanciful theories for which there is no evidence, but simply engender an aesthetic appreciation of their elegance; and, as well, the inevitable anathematization of any scientist, such as David Bohm, who presents a logically coherent theory that makes room for mind-like explanations for the indeterminacy. Desperation is in the air in the Scientific Workshop today — or should be.
Stephen Cave makes the point though, that quantum-level indeterminacy does not liberate anything from the laws of nature as promulgated by modern science. In other words, the evidence does not imply a mind that stands above or outside of these laws. But doesn’t that make these laws the inevitable conclusion of the paradigm scientists work under, and not the evidence?
…some other commentators point out that quantum mechanics demonstrates that the world is not straightforwardly deterministic. In this, they are right: quantum indeterminacy implies that physical reality has an irreducibly probabilistic nature. Other readers have pointed out that even classical physics does not always allow us to accurately predict what will happen: According to chaos theory, any of an incalculably huge number of tiny differences in initial conditions can lead to radically different outcomes. (At least, that’s the excuse weather forecasters use for getting it wrong.) This too is a fair point.
But neither quantum indeterminacy nor chaos theory give us free will in the sense of a special power to transcend the laws of nature. They introduce respectively randomness and unpredictability, but not free-floating minds that cause atoms to swerve, or neurons to fire, or people to act. So you could read instances of the term “determinism” in my article as meaning roughly “the belief that human action is the product of physical laws” and all the points would remain the same.⁠³
It is only when the results, confirmed over-and-over again, show that the mechanism believed to be behind the phenomenon being studied does not match the facts, that problems of misinterpretation occur. And to be completely accurate, many times there is ‘play’ on the part of scientists in which facts will be considered to be verification that the expected mechanism has been correctly hypothesized, so to be confronted with facts that absolutely go against the assumed mechanism should immediately cause a reconsideration of the initial hypothesis of how the phenomenon works, and new ideas, no matter how outlandish should be considered. In technical fields this process is called brainstorming — and it works well.
But the one ‘outlandish’ idea that few scientists seem able to entertain, is that the laws of nature only seem to work, but in reality, there is a different process in play. This is to say, any solution that lies outside of the paradigmatic understanding that undergirds modern science will simply not be entertained.
While the experimental facts don’t lie, their interpretation by scientists can be completely wrong. Whether the facts and theory can align is a matter of the paradigmatic understanding being used to interpret those facts. Modern Science works under a paradigmatic understanding that increasingly cannot encompass the experimental facts being generated, and not just in Quantum Mechanics. For example, the reason why computers have a ‘clock speed’, for example, is because the operation of electronic chips of silicon, no matter how careful the design, are not deterministic in the duration necessary to perform an operation, although they show a ‘preference’, and thus computers need a ‘clock’ that signals the longest designed possible duration for any operation to complete, so that the operations of all the components of the device can be synchronized at the beginning of each cycle — very much like the hortator that gave a rowing drumbeat on the ancient Roman triremes (rowed ships) to synchronize the rowers.
This idea of a paradigmatic understanding in modern science was first suggested by Thomas Kuhn, an American philosopher of Science, in his influential 1962 book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Kuhn argued that, rather than progressing through a linear and cumulative process, fields and subfields of science are typically dominated by widely accepted or dominant paradigms that define essential questions until anomalous research evidence leads to a scientific revolution and the emergence of new paradigms. This revolutionary process was put another way by the German theoretical physicist Max Planck in 1950:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.⁠⁴
This provocative quote from Planck underscores that even the most celebrated scientist of his era understood that the pragmatic success of a scientific theory does not entirely determine how quickly it gains adherents, or its longevity.
An excellent example of this today, which is still ongoing after more than thirty years, is the controversy over the theory that an asteroid impact killed off the dinosaurs, in which an academic, Greta Keller, a professor of Geosciences, who counters the majority opinion with her factual evidence and logical arguments, is vilified, denigrated, slandered, and laughed at by her colleagues, rather than listened to.
In case you feel that Planck was not being fair to scientists and Science in general, whatever his standing in the scientific community may have been, you should know that his statement, and its shorter version: “Science advances one funeral at a time,” were scientifically proven to be true based upon the sudden uptick in papers presenting alternative viewpoints being submitted and accepted for publication — a yardstick for measuring the opening up of discussion of alternative ideas after the literal death of a promenant researcher who had been using their position to squelch those alternative views.
Paradigms are not value free, but incorporate values which work to structure the very foundation of the scientific enterprise. Whether or not these values include something equivalent to “Do no harm” is basically meaningless, much as Google’s corporate slogan of “Do no evil” once was, before being unceremoniously dropped; but Fritjof Capra, an Austrian-born American physicist, systems theorist and deep ecologist, in his review of Kuhn’s work, insists that moral responsibility is an incontestable part of doing scientific research, and presumably whatever paradigm Science adopts should include moral responsibility as a necessary value — although it is missing from the current paradigm.
In any case, there is no independent ‘medical board’ equivalent for scientific research currently, and thus no mechanism to ensure that moral issues have not been overlooked, or ignored, in the pursuit of scientific research and funding. Capra writes:
Kuhn argued that, while continuous progress is indeed characteristic of long periods of “normal science,” these periods are interrupted by periods of “revolutionary science” in which not only a scientific theory but also the entire conceptual framework in which it is embedded undergoes radical change. To describe this underlying framework, Kuhn introduced the concept of a scientific “paradigm,” which he defined as a constellation of achievements — concepts, values, techniques, etc. — shared by a scientific community and used by that community to define legitimate problems and solutions. Changes of paradigms, according to Kuhn, occur in discontinuous, revolutionary breaks called “paradigm shifts.”
Kuhn’s work has had an enormous impact on the philosophy of science, as well as on the social sciences. Perhaps the most important aspect of his definition of a scientific paradigm is the fact that it includes not only concepts and techniques but also values. According to Kuhn, values are not peripheral to science, nor to its applications to technology, but constitute their very basis and driving force.
During the Scientific Revolution in the seventeenth century, values were separated from facts (as we discuss in Chapter 1), and ever since that time scientists have tended to believe that scientific facts are independent of what we do and are therefore independent of our values. Kuhn exposed the fallacy of that belief by showing that scientific facts emerge out of an entire constellation of human perceptions, values, and actions — out of a paradigm — from which they cannot be separated. Although much of our detailed research may not depend explicitly on our value system, the larger paradigm within which this research is pursued will never be value-free. As scientists, therefore, we are responsible for our research not only intellectually but also morally.⁵
But there is another way of interpreting the facts Libet and others have obtained through their experiments, when seen through a different paradigm. Having spoken about the Buddhist idea of Great Responsiveness in my earlier “Axiom of Great Responsiveness” article, I now want to show how Free Will works in this responsive reality — our reality in fact — and in such a way that our ‘consciousness’ of a decision is neither the driver of the action, nor an illusory belief in our own agency.
Because we have let go of the idea of a causal determinism in which things happen because something makes it happen, and have replaced it with the idea that the activity that fills our universe is, in fact, a coherent response to extant conditions within each context and the possibilities they engender. So we mustn’t focus upon what our recognition of our acts seem to indicate we did, but rather upon what our desires and focus of attention — preceding the activity — have added to the contextual conditions which define the possibilities in each moment.
This is our free will in action. It is not some mental decision-making before an action, but rather our desire and focus of attention that is what opens the immediate possibility of an action being manifested by the naturing that is called Great Responsiveness.
So it is through our desires and what we pay attention to that our freedom to choose becomes operative before any actual brain activity occurs. The brain activity that arises in the case of sense perceptions, as described in the previous article, “Why Do We Have A Brain If We Also Have A Mind?”, as well as action decisions, whether ‘chosen’ or ‘instinctive’, are recognized as they are being done, so a slight delay for the apperception of the recognition is totally expected, as was explained in the article “Why Awareness Will Never Be Found.”
We have already made our decision by desiring a particular outcome, while focusing our attention on that outcome. Our recognition of the action being performed has nothing to do with decision-making — and we all know this to be true in our lives. We recognize the coherent continuity of our body’s biological activity which is what gives rise to our actions, while our recognition of what is done is our acknowledgement of our ‘decision’, when seen from the perspective of the paradigm of Great Responsiveness.
Thus, scientific observations of nervous system readiness potential already occurring prior to a ‘conscious decision’ are true. But scientists are misled in their interpretation of the meaning of this sequence when they declare ‘free will’ to be false because of their paradigmatic understanding of what ‘should’ be happening.
And this understanding of Free Will is literally ancient, so it’s disconcerting that modern scientists haven’t already given it some credence. As Saint Augustine put it:
… there is nothing that I feel so deeply and strongly as that I have a will, through which I move to enjoy something. I find nothing which I can call my own if the will by which I accept or reject objects of choice is not my own will. Therefore, if I do any wrong through it, to whom but to myself can the wrongdoing be ascribed? Since, indeed, a good God made me, I cannot do any good except by my will. It is quite clear that a good God gave me the will for this purpose. If the movement by which the will is turned this way and that were not voluntary and within our power, we could not be praised when we turn toward higher things, or blamed when, as if on a pivot, we turn toward lower ones…⁠⁶
It was Science that decided that our Free Will had to be something that made things happen in their deterministic mold. And thus it was Science that setup the fall from grace of us all, by trying to convince us that our free will did not exist, once it failed to operate as they had decided it must.
We have a choice between adopting the worldview imposed by the modern scientific community, while trying to fit new phenomena into it that is challenging that worldview, or accept the phenomena as facts, which they are, and adapt a worldview that best supports the facts. And where better to start, than the hard-won wisdom of our ancestors, who, not to make too fine a point here, thrived for untold millennia, while the advent of modern scientific practice has coincided with a rapid descent into impending ruination.
It was an epiphany to realize that there was another starting point; that I didn’t have to wrangle with modern constrained and malformed ideas, just because new phenomena were being documented by adherents to those ideas. The choice is to adopt the worldview and try to explain the facts challenging it, or accept the facts and adapt the worldview to fit the facts. My preference was to stop trying to correct modern scientific misunderstandings, and go back to the great minds and their discoveries with respect and a yearning to understand what they went to such great pains to describe. That was my free will in action.
This is how humanity seems to have always worked in the past — before the institution of the modern Scientific Workshop. Maybe it’s not to late to change.
ཨེ་མ་ཧོ། ཕན་ནོ་ཕན་ནོ་སྭཱཧཱ།
Page Navigation 📖 👈Prior Page | Table of Contents | Next Page👉
Your membership fee directly supports James and other writers you read here on Medium. You get full access to every story on Medium, including all of Tranquillity’s Secret from James. Click here to sign up!
Footnotes:
¹ “Benjamin Libet and the Denial of Free Will,” Steve Taylor Ph.D., Psychology Today, Posted September 5, 2017
² “There’s No Such Thing As Free Will — But We’re Better Off Believing In It Anyway,” Stephen Cave, The Atlantic, June 2016
³ “Free Will Exists and Is Measurable,” Stephen Cave, The Atlantic, June 2016
⁴ “Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers,” Max Planck, 1949, Philosophical Library
⁵ “The Systems View of Life — A Unifying Vision,” Fritjof Capra & Pier Luigi Luisi, Cambridge Press, 2016
⁶ “On Free Choice And The Will,” Saint Augustine, 1964, pg 88, Bobbs-Merrill The Library of Liberal Arts

 From https://tranquilitysecret.com/the-trouble-with-agency-df45932c9d8c

StillJustJames
Book Contents 📖 TOC | PROEM | TRADITIONS | PRACTICES | INSIGHTS | DISCUSSION | BACK MATTER

Agency implies an agent that is doing something. If there is no agent, there can be no agency.

Original art showing THE SELF-OPERATING NAPKIN by Rube Goldberg from the regular series The Inventions of Professor Lucifer G. Butts, A.K. (Courtesy of Heritage Auctions. Originally published in Collier’s Weekly, September 26 1931)

Agency, of course, is the action or intervention of a thing, or person, to produce an effect. But what happens if there is nothing that has an inherent self-existence? For some reason, although this is a normal and fairly early meditative insight that comes as a result of a direct meditative experience, it is often overlooked that if there is nothing with an inherent self-existence, then there is nothing that can be the cause, or agent, of any change.⁠¹

To say that language can’t capture the truth is even more true when silly things are being stated. So when someone talks about “causes and conditions” in the same breath, they are being silly because these are not the same, and do not operate in the same way.

A cause is that which makes a thing happen. It implies an agent and its agency. The agent is the cause, and its agency is the action or intervention that it performs to effectuate something in, or to, something else.

But if there is nothing that has an inherent self-existence there can be no agents, and thus no agency.

A condition, on the other hand, is that which only opens the possibility of something happening. But conditions can never cause anything to happen, therefore, they are neither an agent nor have agency, and in fact, are never directly anything at all (because, as I mentioned, this is a rather early meditative insight that comes as a result of a direct meditative experience of the lack of an inherent self-existence — thus no “self” — in anything).

So try to make sense of conditions, not as any kind of interaction between entities, not even in a metaphorical sense. Instead, think of how a seed grows. The sun doesn’t cause the seed to grow, any more than rain does, or the soil, or all the bacteria, nutrients, animals, and other plants do. Yet, for the seed to grow, all of those conditions need to be right, including the condition of the seed being present.

As to what causes the seed to grow, well, just let the idea of causes go because there is nothing to be the cause. Understand instead that when the right conditions needed for the seed to germinate are present, the possibility of genesis is present, but what actually happens is uncaused by any, or even all, of the contributing factors that open up the possibility of it happening.

If you divest your life of any sense of “things” inherent in it, you will find yourself at a loss as to how what does happen arises. In fact, it is not always the case that people think that they are responsible for what arises in their lives. Some think it is God doing it, in which case it is either God’s grace or God’s punishment. Others think it is random chance doing it. There is even a mental illness that is specifically diagnosed for the presence of a belief that everything that happens is being caused by one’s self. However, there is another way to account for what happens, a way that doesn’t require God, or Random Chance, or even an omnific self doing it.

But the real issue here is not how to account for why what happens occurs, but rather to account for spontaneity — for when things just happen, and can’t happen in any causal way. Because if you settle on the idea that all things are caused, and there is something that is not caused, and in fact, cannot be caused, then you have a problem in your understanding.

On the other hand, if you settle on the understanding that everything that occurs, does so spontaneously based upon the possibilities that current conditions open up, then even if the same thing happens in every case, it can still be spontaneous, i.e., uncaused. It could be happening spontaneously in a reflexive response to those conditions, and not in a creatively spontaneous way. These are both spontaneous and, thus, uncaused, even though something particular happens every time.

Perhaps this surprises you. But think about all the things you thought were going to happen in your life that didn’t, and all the things that did happen that you never saw coming! When we think we are doing something, what we are doing is conflating the opening of possibilities in our life with one’s directly causing whatever does show up in our life to happen.

For example, you may pursue a college degree, but that doesn’t cause you to get a better paying job, it only makes it possible. Getting a better paying job may happen as a result of the preparations that you focused on, hoping for happy results — and the possibilities those preparations opened up — but you don’t get a better paying job because of your actions, or your hopes.

However, it’s not the case that our efforts are useless or inconsequential. Instead, this is about our confusion regarding what requires our effort — and that is specifically our decision to turn our concerted attention towards something, or to turn away from it. We may want a better paying job, but unless we turn our attention towards opening the possibility of that happening, it will most likely not happen. I would not go so far as to say it won’t happen because what does arise is often surprising, and is limited only by what is possible — and it’s always possible that you might get a better paying job, although that is normally not assured.

Scientists call this spontaneity, stochastic behavior — it extends all the way down to the quantum level of reality, where it is most obvious. It’s the reason why, for example, a computer needs a “clock,” that coordinates all the stochastic behavior of its electronic components so that the device can actually accomplish the tasks it has been engineered to allow to happen. Notice I didn’t say “make happen,” because sometimes things don’t. And we’ve probably all experienced that — and not just with computers.

Often, in our attempts to make sense of reality, we fall into old habits of thought that arise from an understanding in our heads that “things do stuff.” Exorcising that understanding happens naturally when a certain point in mind-training is reached, but without that direct experience, silliness abounds.

Parmenides, an Ancient “Pre-Socratic” Greek philosopher and shaman, who is sometimes credited with the label of “father of logic” in the West, once wrote a poem about his insights into reality. He didn’t use any pronouns in it, and few, if any, nouns. Smart people, thinking they knew what he meant, supplied a lot of additional wording in the form of pronouns and nouns that made the poem easier to read once it was translated, but also emptied it of the truth Parmenides had gone to great pains to express, because they didn’t understand that his words were an apophatic performance.

Then, once that was done, they realized that Parmenides hadn’t said the “right” thing in the “right” way, so they fixed that too. When Parmenides said: “the same is to perceive as well as wherefore is the perceived” (“ταὐτὸν δ᾽ ἐστὶ νοεῖν τε καὶ οὓνεκέν ἐστι νόημα”), equating the source (or the “wherefore”) of manifest appearances of the world with the faculty of perceiving them, which we call “awareness” today, they clarified it, equating “perceiving” with “thinking,” turning it into a kind of “I think, therefore I am” statement instead: “the same is to think as well as wherefore is the thought upon.” Which was silliness, of course — neither the Greek word for thought, nor for thinking, appears anywhere in Parmenides’ statement.

Parmenides seemed to be saying that it was what we today call awareness, and its focus of attention, which was the condition for that which was known, to be, and his interpreters didn’t like that because they knew that it was our actions, rather than our focused awareness, that makes things happen. So they ignored what Parmenides said, and put their own understanding into his translated words. Treason!

So let’s take the treason of Parmenides’ translators and commentators over two millennia as a suggestion and let’s see if their correction to Parmenide’s statement could even possibly be true. Is it possible to think our thoughts? What do you think?

ཨེ་མ་ཧོ། ཕན་ནོ་ཕན་ནོ་སྭཱཧཱ།
Page Navigation 📖 👈Prior Page | Table of Contents | Next Page👉

Footnotes:

¹ We live in an age today where “facetalking,” i.e., talking at someone, and only listening to ourselves, is so rampant it is assumed to be normal, so I feel it necessary to point out that although I have said there is nothing that can be the “cause, or agent, of any change,” it will be taken by some that I have just said there is “no change.” That is facilely untrue — both that I said it and that it could be the case.

 

Friends

I like this article. Going to compile all writings by this author into a PDF and upload to AtR blog. 无心如来
If anyone saw any articles by him that dwells more into Mahayana and emptiness teachings let me know.
让正观从现在开始
Original 之觉 觉世间 5/28
点击上方【 觉世间 】,关注更多内容
尔时,世尊告诸比丘:“当观色无常;如是观者,则为正观,正观者,则生厌离,厌离者,喜贪尽,喜贪尽者,说心解脱;如是观受、想、行、识无常;如是观者,则为正观,正观者,则生厌离,厌离者,喜贪尽,喜贪尽者,说心解脱。如是,比丘,心解脱者,若欲自证,则能自证:我生已尽,梵行已立,所作已作,自知不受后有。” 如观无常,苦、空、非我亦复如是。
时,诸比丘闻佛所说,欢喜奉行。
——《杂阿含经》
我们遇到状况时,常会生起“这是我喜欢、想要的”、“这是我不喜欢、不想要的”、“能不这样该多好,应该那样才更好”之类的想法。
我们也总以为自己有“自由”选择性或一定程度的“自由”选择度,对发生的状况是有挑剔的资格和达到如己所愿的能力的。于是,便“理所当然”的对生活中的种种身心内外,遭遇的变化挑剔起来,如前面提到的喜欢、不喜欢的评判,欲望即不满自然也生出来了。
当我们认为事物是独立实存并实有对错、好坏、成败……之分时,加上前面提到的自己的“自由”选择能力,必然会产生执取合理、善好、成功的欲求,随后寻求条件(攀缘)以期达成所愿。可说,人类主流都是依这种思路在生活中追求着,不断提高身心能力,发明、创造种种工具,欲把身心内外改造成“认可”的有利有益的那方面去。当然这就包括各类以身或心为改造对象的修行者,以及各类为死后做善好去向准备的宗教。
如今,人类诸多领域都远远超越了过去,各种改造能力大大提升,现状的变化明显是大为改“善”……但好坏、成败在心中依旧纠结,只好无坏、只成不败、只生不死的“圆满”根本无法实现,不满始终徘徊不去,似乎一点儿不比过去有所减轻,这和发达甚至神奇般的改造能力及其“非凡”成果完全不成正比,这里同样包括种种追求神通、境界(各种空间体验)的修行,更象拼力奔跑却原地未动。为何会出现这种结果?难道是不满的产生及消除另有原因、方法?
早在2500多年前的佛陀也是在怀疑并放弃了通过改造身心内外及不断提高改造能力、毅力等来灭苦的思路、方法后,才找到了“不满”产生的真正原因,同时也找到了令不满永不再生的方法,并真正实现了这“圆满”。
这个方法就是“八正道”,或说“四念处”(可说是八正道的另一种角度的表述)——对待身心的变化依止于觉知(念)而非有着对错好坏标准的思维判断。
原来灭苦终极答案就在这个纯然觉知下,无须任何的成见标准指导其方向、评判其真伪!佛陀在开示这段觉悟经历时,就特别提到过一个细节:回忆起自己儿时一次在树下坐着,单纯地觉知着呼吸,那种没有任何贪嗔的初禅心态体验。
为什么说没有贪嗔?因为他没有生起任何期望达到的目标,没有如调整呼吸到怎样、看看呼吸背后是什么、什么影响着它运动……等等欲望,只是觉知着呼吸,它怎样动就是怎样,没有思想干预,不预设任何结果的出现……觉知本身是没有关于对错标准的指导属性的,也就没有欲贪,而产生对错成败式欲求的,是思维运作中依种种错误成见标准,去评判的先行生起。一个儿童,思想中本就没有成人才有的那么多且复杂的是非善恶、利弊成败标准,贪好嗔坏的欲望、纠结自然也少。
佛陀正是总结了形成那次体验的关键条件——只是觉知,便很快再次生起初禅,直至第四禅心态(舍念清静)的生起,随后洞见苦与集,灭与道,彻底圆满结束了人生唯一奋斗的事业——灭苦……
其实,烦忧悲恐等一切不满的产生与事物及其变化丝毫无关,只与我们对事物及变化产生之因不如实知(实相——缘生)有关。比如,健康与疾病的转化、年轻与衰老的转化、感受变化、钱多钱少、知多知少甚至种种负面心理变化(注:后面还有解释)……总之,生理及心理及种种能力变化、乃至生与死的转化、社会及自然环境变化等,它们其实并没有让我们为之烦恼的因素,只是由于对事物及其变化产生的原因误判后才导致了贪嗔不满、一切负面情绪的不断生起。
“事情为什么会这样?某人这么好,却为啥这般倒霉?这人做多了坏事,咋没受恶报?我好委屈,为何对别人好却不被理解、接受?”……未见缘生法的人常会这样疑问,甚至纠结于该做好人还是坏人。事情之所以这样发生,没那样发生,只是条件相互作用后的“综合”结果,而条件从时空纵向、横向看可说是无量的,从未间断的。
所谓好人有时遭苦受,恶人做恶产生着福报(乐受)之果,从缘生法则看再正常不过,正说明了条件的无量、复杂、多样性,其果必然体现的是综合作用后的结果,没有所谓“不公平”,皆是遵循自然法则、规律运化着,毫无“失误”可言(我们本就是条件产物,成为怎样就必然该成为怎样),不会打丝毫“折扣”(超出条件的发生现象不存在)。
我们之所以心理不平衡、不满意,正是对因果缘生法则的不如实知造成的。对乐受(福报)、苦受(恶报)的贪嗔执取,正是世人普遍采用的灭苦方式,可这恰恰是让不满之欲无休止的动力。
不满的产生和消除,根本与感受及对象的变化无关。
解脱于不满的佛陀及阿罗汉依然会遭遇各种苦受便是证明,生也非“福”报,死亦非“恶”报,乐受如此,苦受如此,都是众缘之果报,何时何地何种方式发生皆是自然条件运作产物。
见证者可说是释然再无纠结,安然再无挣扎,寂然再无挂碍。
心里产生动力、积极努力、犹豫决断现象一样是条件产物,整体无量自然条件下的必然。生命中遭遇的所有一切状态都是如此——无量条件相互依规律运作下的必然现象,古今之种种事件已注定如此变化(故可一定程度的知过去、预未来),不是不变(被动式有我宿命论),也不是无规律、无迹可循而变(纯偶然不可知论),也不是有“全能”的上帝、“任性”的独立灵魂参与而变或令保持不变(主动式有我改命论)。
世间没有绝对独立、不变的事物,有生必有灭,且必然是依众条件而生、住、坏、灭,而非有条件之外的事物(独立的灵魂、自我)参与。无论正感受着普通还是进入了某特殊、以前从未有过的“境界”,此状态的从生到变、从无到生……每一个环节一定是丝丝相续并不停变异着的,一定是众条件相互影响后的结果。前一环可说是因,在从未隔离开内外条件的众缘(决非只有一缘或数缘)作用下,形成新的果,这果又可说是下一环节的因,这里的因果同时也必然是其他事物状态的缘。所谓的个体式内外,不过是诸条件形成的样式之一,实无独存个体、绝对内外……
这因缘而果的缘生现象是自然法则,内外并无独立有限、不变的个体(上帝、神灵)掌控、参与,觉者见证了世间生命现象的“无我”性,独立式个体存在及参与(造作)的妄想及欲望(渴爱)自然破除了,个体式生老病死等八苦亦荡然无存。这就是“觉悟”了生命真相那一刻,渴爱灭(心不再对事物、各个状态因片面而集结为孤立个体,即集断),一切心苦现象灭……
如果没有不满,怎会在乎苦多苦少呢,佛陀(古今觉者)教法或者说人类唯一目的,只在如何让不满之欲不生。诸如追求幸福、快乐、有意义、有价值等种种表述,无不体现着对生活中没达成或达成而期留住的欲望、不满心态。觉者找到了正确方法并如期达到这不满心态的永尽,更多人们或说人类主流还在摸索或走在以为正确实则错误的道路上。
生老病死等种种不如意苦“相”,是从彻底觉悟(佛陀、阿罗汉……)就已完全不存在了,此时、以后的生活觉知依在,种种感受依然变化不止,与常人“无异”,唯因有曾圆满实践了正确灭苦法这“经历”,才必然有了与常人不同的再无贪嗔痴的心态。
我们之所以还“认为”有生老病死等绝对事物状态及相伴而生的种种不如意,只因我们还有渴爱(执取之集)之心态,我们无法理解觉者心态下的不生无灭、无来无去(偏见式个体性消失)……的表述,所以,这跟凡夫认为实有个体,故有生理死后这个条件下才会彻底涅槃的“推理”相悖。无贪无嗔无痴的涅槃是非缘生的,不会依赖于任何条件、状态,更不会不满于活着时的各种遭遇感受的恶劣而“忍”着,或大公无私式的奉献着。因为自我及外在对象本非实有,再也不须大公无私式的情怀(善式心灵鸡汤)满足。无贪无嗔的见法解脱心可说才是终极之善,从此对待生活中的一切只剩唯善、相容,一视同仁,不二分别(不是不分别,而是再无引生贪嗔的妄想分别)。
还是反复提到过的,生命中种种遭遇感受的所谓“好坏”变化根本不是产生哪怕一丝不满的原因,又何须它们彻底消失与否呢。
许多信佛者、修行者的思维始终落在有好坏、福祸上,认为世间是不完美的、有祸的,所以才心生不满,也把对无常的理解等同于祸厄、不如意事物的出现,而误认为(无余)涅槃就是彻底摆脱了所谓世间而只福无祸,“感受”变还是不变都只好无坏,……即把不满的产生仍归结于了事物的不同变化上,这还是原来的趋利避害、趋吉避凶的错误的灭苦逻揖,不去反思的话,在修行过程中又怎能真正理解并实践正确的解脱之法——佛法呢。
这也是佛陀教法中唯观无常而非观善恶或说观无常中的谁善谁恶、是利是害、哪吉哪凶……也是三法印中,只字不提吉凶、善恶等字眼的原因所在。
让我们再来回顾一段经文,便见分晓:“……当观若所有诸色,若过去、若未来、若现在,若内、若外,若粗、若细,若好、若丑,若远、若近,彼一切悉皆非我、不异我、不相在,如是平等慧正观;如是受、想、行、识,若过去、若未来、若现在,若内、若外,若粗、若细,若好、若丑,若远、若近,彼一切非我、不异我、不相在,如是平等慧如实观。……”(节选自《杂阿含经》)
所以,如何消除这渴爱,破除“我”见,唯有放下造作意识(刻意性的寻找目标时,好坏式评判成见已生,欲贪已生),依觉知自然“流向”(没有评判意识参与,没有贪嗔欲求),可说这样既让觉知本身“客观”了,觉知对象也同时在客观下了。生命、身心本来面目(客观性)才会呈现在此觉之下,故名觉悟。之所以对觉知本身也提客观,是因为由此才能最终见证它也是“无我”的,与觉知对象不是对立式的,而是一体式的,本是众缘合和的表现状态。即见法者表述的能所双亡,或者有说观者与被观对象相容、同时消失等。
这自然需要一个条件运作的过程,当粗的欲贪不生时,会生起初禅状态的心——因离欲界粗贪的是非评判意识而轻松得喜乐感,是非评判意识出现得越少越轻,生起的心也就越轻松而会达到第三禅的“妙乐”,当达到暂时彻底不生是非意识而唯剩觉知时,就会生起那种轻松、清静的四禅心态——舍念(是非)清静。这时的心态因不带任何后天成见评判标准,才会“客观”到随后生起的状态的真相……
这里可看出,禅定的心态与是非评判意识多少、有无有直接关系,而与身体状况是无关的,无论身体强弱,健康还是疾病,是僵硬是柔软,是痛是麻,经脉通否,坐着躺着还是站着走着……都无碍心不生是非标准而得轻安、柔顺、稳定的禅那,比如有的禅修者就依专注腿疼麻的感受入定,只要对疼麻逐渐不生评判,(注:凡夫生起的往往是错误的是非评判,就会引生贪嗔情绪。觉者也有是非评判,但因知评判本身的缘生性而无贪嗔。)就会不生情绪而入轻安、祥和、稳定的心理状态。
也有些人禅修时,心好象也很平静了,但会因感受到某些状态的出现生起恐惧或高兴的“情绪”,这说明心还有错误的是非成见标准生起,并且还“相信”了这评判,就会起贪嗔大波动,这也一定还没有进入初禅,最多也还在欲界定阶段。
不少打坐者,入静后因感觉到或听到、“看”到某些境界、事物而生起了评判意识,又不能“自拔”地欣赏或恐惧起来,无论那些事物是真是假,都无需评判它们而进入连续的贪嗔情绪中的,否则心上升不到初禅……
佛法中的禅定是观照身心无常(苦、非我)时的次第心态,目的是依止于觉知,平等觉照身心出现的各状态。而非为了获得清静、舒适或神通,如预知未来吉凶,能见听到神仙、美景而喜,学些奇功异能为高……所以,无论出现何状况,都是“如如不动”其思判,唯放舍之,即不迎不拒,当然这就自然是佛法中的正观(注:参看杂阿含经首篇)了。
另外,前面曾提到事物及其变化并不是产生不满的原因,当然也包括各种负面情绪,即已生起的烦恼、贪嗔不满本身,它们同样不是后续不满生起的因,如果发现它们生起而不生起评判其“不好”的思维判断,即“只是知道”(觉照),就不会生不喜欢。
对事物“好坏对错”的评判下去,永远无法令不满不生。
这点对禅修实证者可说很重要。
很多修行者的掉举、后悔心就跟这点有关,修行人往往不喜贪嗔(因闻法后思想评判而不喜之),于是在修止观时,它们一出来(身心状态一出,好坏评判的念头后起,就产生贪嗔了),就往往影响着修行者开始了连锁反应,即当发现它们时随后又生起对它们的不喜的心态,即嗔心再起(其实凡夫都是有好必贪,有坏必嗔的,因为错误知见存在,又相信这知见的结论使然。)……频繁、不停地好坏成败地评判起来,止(不起是非念)也失了,观(如实觉当下)也停了。这也是没真正理解或说没体会到只有依止、回归到“只是觉知”上来,才能让这贪嗔现象停止。已经发生的,不论什么,都放舍(不再继续让思判的结论为主导),终极判官唯觉知,即无所判。
所有“不满”(注:属名法类,亦属五蕴)除了我们给它们定的善恶等各种标准、标签外,它们更是缘生而无常、无我的,只停留在前者好坏上便不满常生,而见证后者缘生实相者自然便无不满。
要想贪嗔不生,不是继续嗔恨它们,继续生起对其好坏评判,而是发现后“如理作意——只观其变,不评不判”,对所有状态“一视同仁”,唯觉观其变,不要期待看清它怎样变、实相又是怎样,那是思想生欲贪,产生的想法一概不信,只知其产生过就够了,这是回归信任觉知、唯依觉知的关键。这点至关重要。
经有云:没证得阿罗汉前,不要相信自己的判断。也就是“打七”——打掉第七判断识。
觉知本身才是至柔至善的真正中道所在,依它最终必会见证生命缘生无常、无我的属性,心灵不满状态也会在这儿彻底止息。
再也没有了对过去的种种所谓无法挽回的遗憾,再也没有了对未来要求更好的期盼,总之再也没有了当下的任何不满,无论当下正回忆起过去还是正思考着未来,还是正做着什么。这才是最实实在在的毫无“水份”的解脱于苦(不满)。
“人生本就不完美”的无奈哀叹,“活着就要奋斗”的豪言壮志,或把圆满寄托于他人他物,寄托于未来乃至死后、来生、天堂,无不证明着那些灭苦方法于当下的失效。
人类一直不满着,所以就一直在奋斗、发展着,只为好些或更好些……
当下真的有哪怕一丝“欠缺”吗?唯有不带成见的觉知能给自己一个答案,还活着中的一切状态一个“公道”。
说了这么多,不为让友们思考的更复杂,也非得出个合情合理的结论,甚至奇思妙想,只为回归一个简单、平常,即依觉观变。
朋友,看过了,也想过了,也必然都觉知到了,无须要求觉知成怎样才行,那是思想的“要求”,变只是变,知变足矣,若没觉到“变”呢,亦足矣,是啥样就啥样吧,不思判时必无欲贪。
正观就从现在开始……
请点击右上角分享给朋友吧
推荐: