- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I thought it would be more appropriate to share this under the Meditation forum. Anyway, I have been thinking about this topic lately and finally had the time to pen down some thoughts.
Both money and self are just concepts.
Why do I say that? Let us first take a look at money. In the olden days when money in the form of cash was not yet invented, people did barter trade to acquire goods and services. Physical cash, coins, cheques and digital cash are just physical manifestations of money. The truth is we do not like cash and its equivalents. We like money. Money is a means for us to acquire goods and services. Cash and its equivalents are insignia to front our spending power – money
Our physical and mental bodies are no different from cash and its equivalent. They are just collaterals for our desires. In other words, we are pawning our physical and mental bodies in exchange for sensual gratifications (via the 5 aggregates) and our cold hard cash in exchange for goods and services. Similar to the above case of money, we do not like our physical and mental bodies. We like gratifying our senses. We like indulging in our feelings, so much so that we associate our feelings as our self.
The problem is we are conditioned to think that cash is money, and feelings, our self. Cash and feelings are real things that we can feel and cognised. We do not deny their existence. Whereas money and self are concepts that are never found. They are just represented by other objects. Money and self being concepts, are also subject to Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. For instance, we will not wield the same spending power to buy a gift for a normal friend as compared to someone who is very dear to us. The same concept of money is used here. But the strength is dependent on conditions. Likewise for the concept of our self. We hardly take a second look at something that is of no interest to us in our everyday life. But when a very strong sense object enters our vision, our heart might even skip a beat. Again, the feelings that arise upon the seeing event are dependent on conditions. If we equate our feelings to our self, then clearly this self is also changing in accordance to conditions.
-
Hello
I’m surprised that you posted what you posted under the meditation label. Unless this school here equates bhavana (contemplation) to meditation. Personally i equate Dhyana/Jhana to meditative absorption through singlepointed focus on a concept (arya jhana) or through a kasina object which understands breathing too, and then it’s called anarya jhana because it doesn’t implie (apparently at least) objective insight. This said it’s an interesting contemplation yours.
-
Hi Yeos,
I have my reason for posting this under Meditation forum.
I notice there is a trend in recent years for Chinese Mahāyāna Buddhists to pursue the original teachings of the Buddha. Hence the name ‘Original Buddhism’ is frequently mentioned within the Buddhist community especially in countries like Taiwan, China, Malaysia, and some western countries. Many Venerables are racing against the clock to spread the original teachings to their followers. I thought it is very heartening to see such great effort being fostered in the Buddhist community. Incidentally, I am very keen to find out what this Original Buddhism is all about. Is it yet another snazzy name belonging to a certain sect of Buddhism?
Nowadays there are so many forms of meditation taught by many meditation gurus out there. From the most common breath meditation to visual meditation. Many buddhists must be wondering what is the original meditation as taught by the Buddha. Before discussing further, some background info I have gathered so far.
“The Upanishads are a collection of texts of religious and philosophical nature, written in India probably between c. 800 BCE and c. 500 BCE, during a time when Indian society started to question the traditional Vedic religious order.”
I learned somewhere that the Upanishads were written to refute Brahmanism. Final liberation in Upanishads is termed as Moksha. Authors of Upanishads had conceptualised the existence of an universal soul a.k.a atman and Brahman (the absolute reality).
“The Upanishads tell us that the core of our own self is not the body, or the mind, but atman or “Self”. Atman is the core of all creatures, their innermost essence. It can only be perceived by direct experience through meditation.”
Upanishads place very strong emphasis on meditation. Followers of Upanishads practised so hard to stilling their minds because they believe that is the only way to reunite with atman. Hence, yogis who had attained even the highest immaterial meditative absorptions mistakenly thought they had attained liberation.
Unfortunately, Upanishads have creeped into Buddhism.
“Upanishads are to some degree shared by most Indian religions, including Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism….despite the fact that the Buddha originally remained indifferent to metaphysical speculations, many Buddhist schools have adopted this scheme as part of their metaphysics.”
Much scholarly works had been done to validate the true teachings and life accounts of the Buddha. After the Parinibbana of the Buddha, there was a schism that split Buddhism into many sects. Each has their own sacred texts, proclaiming the true words of the Buddha. No wonder it is never an easy task to encounter original Buddhism. Nevertheless, scholars and researchers found a common ground across different sects that seem to agree that the original meditation taught by the Buddha is the contemplation on causation and conditionality that give rise to all phenomena. This is particularly evident in the Āgama Sutras (Saṃyukta Āgama) and the Pali Suttas (Saṃyutta Nikāya). They cross-referenced to each other and arrived at a conclusion that in order to break through in one’s spiritual practice, one must contemplate the 5 aggregates arise due to causation and conditions. Those who study the suttas long enough will be very familiar with something like this…when the eye and form meet, seeing consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. Contact conditions feeling, feeling conditions craving and so on…In the seeing, there is just only the seen. In the hearing, there is just only the heard….in the cognising, there is just only the cognised. Consciousness cannot arise on its own. If seeing consciousness is found in the eye, then without relying on other conditions, the eye on its own would be able to see. The same applies to form. It is not the eye nor the form that gives rise to the seeing consciousness. Seeing consciousness arises due to intermingling conditions! Thinking there is a real self behind all our six consciousness is upside down thinking. There is definitely seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, cognising. But it is only under the influence of these intermingling conditions that these consciousness arise. We have to remember that all these experience happen within our own sense spheres and not in another person. Which implies denying the existence of a self is also not a view to adopt.
-
“It is not the eye nor the form that gives rise to…etc” Indeed that which gives rise to the seeing consciousness (as per pure dhamma logic) would be the gandhaba which includes the aggregates…
Hi Johnny
However you seem to equate :
– a) getting an high degree of absorption ( 4the Jhana, 5tha Jhana and above ?) through singlepointed focus on a support like breathing (or other) to
b) “to believe” in a self …but in fact a) and b) doesn’t have to be connected.
Why would the attaining of the Jhanas through focusing on a concept be incompatible with attaining the Jhanas through breathing or any other kasina ? Both can be practiced and are complementary, now the only question remaining unanswered might be : which of the two is more effective in terms of “triggering” abhinna powers? Or putting it differently : how can “mere” contemplation/bhavana trigger “paranormal”/abhinna powers as the ones of the Buddha ? -
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.