- This topic has 12 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Right effort means one is active in abandoning unwholesome states and active in preventing them to arise, AND active in producing wholesome states and maintaining them.
On the other hand, we have to see all formations like this: ‘this is not mine, not who i am, not myself’ AND all formations and states are impermanent, cannot be kept to ones satisfaction, are unsatisfactory, and without essence or self.
There seems to be some contrast. Why should we invest in states which are impermanent and cannot be maintained as we wish? Why should we invest in the conditioned while the characteristics of the conditioned is that it cannot me maintained, and it is dukkha. It cannot even function as a refuge.
How can investing in conditioned states of phenomena, which must be seen as anicca, dukkha and anatta, really be right effort?
For me it feels like the practise shift due to growing wisdom towards non-investment. How do you see or experience this?
-
The following is my understanding:
-“Why should we invest in states which are impermanent and cannot be maintained as we wish? Why should we invest in the conditioned while the characteristics of the conditioned is that it cannot me maintained, and it is dukkha. It cannot even function as a refuge.”-
Precisely because we see them as permanent and that they can be maintained to our satisfaction (a more common term to use would be ‘that they live up to our expectations, AND that those expectations do not eventually turn into disapojntments)
And the answer is right there in the question too; “How can investing in conditioned states of phenomena, which M U S T be seen as anicca, dukkha and anatta, really be right effort?” We invest there because we are convinced that they in fact are nicca, sukkha and atta, and indeed the whole effort must go into seeing them as anicca, dukkha, anatta.
And there are some (perhaps I should say ‘most’ here) who invest even when they know full well that the satisfaction will be short-lived, the attitude being ‘What the hell! I enjoy now, that is the one thing I know I will get for sure. Tomorrow we’ll see”
Metta to all
-
Right VISION (Samma Ditthi) is achieved first that it is NOT FRUITFUL to take, “this is not mine, not who i am, not myself’ AND all formations and states are impermanent, cannot be kept to ones satisfaction, are unsatisfactory, and without essence or self”.
I have explained this many times before. But here is another way to say that.
One who has SEEN the truth of that is a Sotapanna. That is called getting rid of wrong views about this world or “ditthi vipallāsa”.
But that person still have two more stages to overcome: Saññā vipallāsa (wrong perceptions) and Citta vipāllasa (wrong way of thinking based on such perceptions which continue as “habits”). That is why a Sotapanna may still enjoy sense pleasures.
It is sort of like someone being able to convince for oneself that smoking is bad for one’s health. But that person may still continue smoking (with less and less frequency) until he gets rid of that habit one day.
See: “Is It Necessary for a Buddhist to Eliminate Sensual Desires?“.
A Sotapanna not only has NOT gotten rid of the sense of “me” (which happens at the Arahant stage), but still likes to enjoy sense pleasures (which goes away at the Anāgami stage).
-
@Siebe07
“For me it feels like the practise shift due to growing wisdom towards non-investment” – in this you seem right. Or at least to shift towards selected investment…? On the other hand: one often attaches to much importance to the (im)permanence concept and “polemics”.
Better to reason in terms of “inconsistency” – ultimately what really counts is that which (behavior,attitude,decision) effectively meets the 4 Noble Truths.
The perception of a “I” / “me” (ego) that is, of a psychic entity associated to our body (and vice-versa) it’s not a catastrophe, the problem is when such perception degenerates into egocentric behavior – then soon or later one becomes …helpless… -
Thanks for your answers. I wanted to share the following with you:
Some schools, like dzogchen, a tibetan buddhist school, teach to change nothing in the mind. Why invest? States and phenomena arising are all impermanent and cannot be maintained.
The one thing needed is to deeply observe the arising and ceasing of states and phenomena. Seeing the movement without wanting to change anything. The nature of a bad thought or tendency arising, is no different from the nature of a good thought or tendency arsising.
It is only movement arising, empty phenomena, like a castle in the air, like foam without any substance. That’s the nature of all phenomena, good or bad.They teach just to sharply, but loosely, observe this movement. It will cease in itself when it is only observed. Active involvement in mind processes, they find, is of no use if one can see or sense that all mind processes or of the same nature.
Just let go. Relax. Do not get worried or anxious when there are unwholesome thoughts or tendencies or delighted when there are wholesome thoughts or tendencies. Just rest in non-movement and observe movement. Do not follow movement.
The short-cut is just to see any formation, wholesome or not wholesome, just as formations, movement, arising and ceasing. It is only movement arising, nothing special, not worth following, or worth changing, worth investing in. It is worth knowing and that’s all.
Personally i think this is the most consequent application of “this is not mine, not me, not who i am”. It is applied to all formations, and does not discriminatie in wholesome or unwholesome ones, or pleasant or unpleasant ones, beneficial ones or unbeneficial ones.
I think this is part of the teachings of the Buddha. Do you see any trouble or any great problems?
-
“I think this is part of the teachings of the Buddha.Do you see any trouble or any great problems?”
Yes it is mentioned in some Suttas i.e. the Sutta Piṭaka (subject to confirmation).But not exactly with the same language.
A relatively known example is when The Gotama says that one shouldn’t become obsessed by formal practice/thoughts about it if for a reason or another one can’t practice that very day. Then one should let go. Otherwise the wholesome (practice and thinking about the practice) will become unwholesome…Your post it’s about thoughts-observation but thinking it’s one thing and acting is another…
-
-
-
Hi lal, formation refers to any mental formation. It refers to vitakka, vicara, lobha, dosa, metta, vedana, tanha, whatever that arises conditionally in the mind.
I belief the sutta’s teach to see all those formations as they are; ‘this is not mine, not who i am, not myself’. This apllication of insight does not discriminate in the wholesome and unwholesome.
Siebe
-
Hi Siebe: My suggestion is to use the sankhara instead of “formations”: “Sankhāra – What It Really Means“.
Pali words are complex and it is impossible to translate with a single English word. So, for most people it would be better to just understand what is meant by such words, and just use the Pali word.
But of course it is up to each person.
-
-
-
“Some schools, like dzogchen, a tibetan buddhist school, teach to change nothing in the mind. Why invest? States and phenomena arising are all impermanent and cannot be maintained.”
You are a missing point that those people indulge in sexuality, alcoholic drinks and does not even understand Dhamma. Dzgochen teaching makes no sense so the tibetan buddhist which worships hindu gods. You just seeing one small part of them which have no relation to Buddha Dhamma but it only seems like that.
-
In some cases it seems that it’s true what you are saying about their behavior however one shouldn’t generalize.
This said what has “indulging in sexuality etc” to do with “Some schools , like Dzogchen etc” ?!
I hope that you succeed in dissolving your own whole mass (and mess) of craving because if you didn’t not indulging will be of no-service for you .
-
I’m not generalizing as most of my life I practiced Mahāyāna teachings. They teach you how to eat and have sex to have insight into rigpa. Almost all Mahāyāna teachings especially dzogchen are nonsense and they are no different from hindu teachings at all but they use different names for the same things.
It’s better to not compare and to not bring any outside schools here and trying to fit them here in terms of anything right as they are not right at all in most cases.
-
-
-
Chrisitian said: It’s better to not compare and to not bring any outside schools here and trying to fit them here in terms of anything right as they are not right at all in most cases.”
I agree. Trying to address concepts in other schools will only lead to confusion. I have mentioned this several times. Please keep that mind when you post.
We have enough difficulties with dealing with “bad or useless translations” in Theravada itself.
That is why I asked Siebe to clarify what he meant by “formations” (I think he meant sankhara).
– It is better to use key Pali words like sankhara instead of using “formations” which does not convey any meaning. It is better to try to learn the meanings of key Pali words and then use those Pali words.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.