in a samadhi or satori-tank (sensory deprivation tank) it is possible to exclude most sensorial experiences. Yet the brain being the sixth sense, it will remain active although no longer bothered by the gravitional pull.
What is the aim of meditating?
Is it not : Programming and metaprogramming the human bio-computer?
For more info search : Dr. John C. Lilly and/or samadhitank
Thanks for your comment. My understanding of the experience of sensory deprivation is that it leads to hallucinations. My limited reading on the subject suggests that they were anything but satori. This might be the subject of a subsequent rave - I've written a book chapter on the subject.
The aim of meditating? To change!
I don't believe that the human as a computer metaphor works very well. It is far to materialistic. I certainly don't feel like a computer. You see I can create something never seen before and that is something that no computer can do with panache - I have an aesthetic sense, an imagination, and a way of communicating these through metaphor. This goes beyond mere computation if you ask me. I don't buy into reductionist arguements about mind and body. The fact is that no-one understands them really. We can describe the phenomenology, the experience, but we can't explain them, we don't know how consciousness arises and passes away, or even what consciousness is. To pretend otherwise is deceptive.
Part of the aim of meditation is to rid of these views which seek to explain who or what we are in simplistic terms. "I am some kind of computer" (which is essentially what you want us to believe in your statement) is definitely a wrong view, because it starts with the words "I am". It fits the classic pattern of statements which are described as sakkayaditthi (personality views) which the Buddha attacked with vigour - a thicket of views he called it. This is far more definite than the idea that the Buddha attacked the idea of a self per se - which I have seen academics arguing over.
For more information search: views and/or wrong views
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Cris said...
Hi Jayarava,
Thanks for your reply.
I have not said I was a computer, but the idea that the brain works on inputs-(stimuli) processing them and afterwards delivering an output ( behaviour, words, feelings, attitude...) does have some similarity with how a computer works.
The output will be determined by the kind of ‘program’ (=conditioning) that processes the data.
This is exactly what our brain does,isn't it?
So if we transform (program and/or metaprogram) this processor- consequently our output will be a different one.
Normally there's a lot of 'noise', interference (caused by our senses, thoughts, experiences linked to feelings and elements...) to dispose of before we actually can get a glimpse of the ‘DNA&RNA -master’ in charge and in action.
Meditation is a way of programming and metaprogramming.
1. programming : when we start to learn to meditate, we instruct ourselves through words, chanting, postures, aromas, visual input...we even copy/imitate behaviour from the ‘teacher/leader’ 2. metaprogramming : as soon as the first layers of conditioning are recognised and eliminated, the programmed/reconditioned brain will once again program itself to get rid of programming ; it transcends programming (=leaving the Dharma-raft behind when arrived at the so called ‘other’ (?) side of the river, when duality is no longer)
Justa as in NLP ( neurolinguistic progamming) an experience is analysed into its components and associations to afterwards reprogram the experience by modifying/reassociateing some or all of the factors, buddhism through recognising the elements contained in the stupa-image (-cfr. meme –scheme) does insist on recognising the unsubstantiality (= sum of separate elements; not just one element) of what we believe to be true or as having essence.
Now again, I do not say buddhism is just NLP because the goal is different.
Before ever having heard of the buddhas’s teachings (I refer to yearas and years ago) I used to use the image of a vehicle to compare ’ body and mind’-unit:
the body = the car, the driver=the mind, the road & landscapes=life, fuel=inspiration/beliefs
and I would say I was all of them (indeed even sitting still I still ‘travel’)
and of course I’m not any of them;
but where, how, when and why a certain action is performed depends on how I’ve programmed, reprogrammed or meta-programmed my brain and trained my body.
I definitely recognised in Bhante’s words regarding higher evolution this kind of metaprogramming : once overcome down-to-earth worries and politics (see any newspaper to see what troubles this earth and mankind, or just check so called ‘innate’ and considered ‘unskilfull’ reactions to certain stimuli) there is no longer room for them (=the programming has been erased or overwritten).
Another example of programming is labelling: all OM carry a new name meant to re-mind them of certain qualities/aspects of something much bigger (=enlightenment)
Please do not feel offended if it sounds to you like that, there’s no offence meant at all. I’m not attacking anyone’s ‘territory’ (personality) nor need do so (I perceive absolutely nothing to be won or lost). Territorial behaviour is on a low scale of evolution.
To go forth means seeing through dukkha. Your name suggests this kind of victory. Victory over what? Who’s the enemy? What, where’s the trophy? The battle? Or is it all just another illusion ? Where do we arrive when ‘labelling’ is overcome?
Or is this all -as maybe you perceive it- wrong view on my behalf?
Does it fit or not with the fwbo’s teaching? Is it in conflict with the Buddha’s teaching?
Looking forward to your reply,
Metta and a smile,
Cris
Because I thoroughly agree with Lilly’s words, once more I ‘meme’ them :
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are no limits. (Lilly, 1972).
Hi Jayarava,
Thanks for your reply.
I have not said I was a computer, but the idea that the brain works on inputs-(stimuli) processing them and afterwards delivering an output ( behaviour, words, feelings, attitude...) does have some similarity with how a computer works.
The output will be determined by the kind of ‘program’ (=conditioning) that processes the data.
This is exactly what our brain does,isn't it?
So if we transform (program and/or metaprogram) this processor- consequently our output will be a different one.
Normally there's a lot of 'noise', interference (caused by our senses, thoughts, experiences linked to feelings and elements...) to dispose of before we actually can get a glimpse of the ‘DNA&RNA -master’ in charge and in action.
Meditation is a way of programming and metaprogramming.
1. programming : when we start to learn to meditate, we instruct ourselves through words, chanting, postures, aromas, visual input...we even copy/imitate behaviour from the ‘teacher/leader’ 2. metaprogramming : as soon as the first layers of conditioning are recognised and eliminated, the programmed/reconditioned brain will once again program itself to get rid of programming ; it transcends programming (=leaving the Dharma-raft behind when arrived at the so called ‘other’ (?) side of the river, when duality is no longer)
Justa as in NLP ( neurolinguistic progamming) an experience is analysed into its components and associations to afterwards reprogram the experience by modifying/reassociateing some or all of the factors, buddhism through recognising the elements contained in the stupa-image (-cfr. meme –scheme) does insist on recognising the unsubstantiality (= sum of separate elements; not just one element) of what we believe to be true or as having essence.
Now again, I do not say buddhism is just NLP because the goal is different.
Before ever having heard of the buddhas’s teachings (I refer to yearas and years ago) I used to use the image of a vehicle to compare ’ body and mind’-unit:
the body = the car, the driver=the mind, the road & landscapes=life, fuel=inspiration/beliefs
and I would say I was all of them (indeed even sitting still I still ‘travel’)
and of course I’m not any of them;
but where, how, when and why a certain action is performed depends on how I’ve programmed, reprogrammed or meta-programmed my brain and trained my body.
I definitely recognised in Bhante’s words regarding higher evolution this kind of metaprogramming : once overcome down-to-earth worries and politics (see any newspaper to see what troubles this earth and mankind, or just check so called ‘innate’ and considered ‘unskilfull’ reactions to certain stimuli) there is no longer room for them (=the programming has been erased or overwritten).
Another example of programming is labelling: all OM carry a new name meant to re-mind them of certain qualities/aspects of something much bigger (=enlightenment)
Please do not feel offended if it sounds to you like that, there’s no offence meant at all. I’m not attacking anyone’s ‘territory’ (personality) nor need do so (I perceive absolutely nothing to be won or lost). Territorial behaviour is on a low scale of evolution.
To go forth means seeing through dukkha. Your name suggests this kind of victory. Victory over what? Who’s the enemy? What, where’s the trophy? The battle? Or is it all just another illusion ? Where do we arrive when ‘labelling’ is overcome?
Or is this all -as maybe you perceive it- wrong view on my behalf?
Does it fit or not with the fwbo’s teaching? Is it in conflict with the Buddha’s teaching?
Looking forward to your reply,
Metta and a smile,
Cris
Because I thoroughly agree with Lilly’s words, once more I ‘meme’ them :
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are no limits. (Lilly, 1972).
Hi Jayarava,
Thanks for your reply.
I have not said I was a computer, but the idea that the brain works on inputs-(stimuli) processing them and afterwards delivering an output ( behaviour, words, feelings, attitude...) does have some similarity with how a computer works.
The output will be determined by the kind of ‘program’ (=conditioning) that processes the data.
This is exactly what our brain does,isn't it?
So if we transform (program and/or metaprogram) this processor- consequently our output will be a different one.
Normally there's a lot of 'noise', interference (caused by our senses, thoughts, experiences linked to feelings and elements...) to dispose of before we actually can get a glimpse of the ‘DNA&RNA -master’ in charge and in action.
Meditation is a way of programming and metaprogramming.
1. programming : when we start to learn to meditate, we instruct ourselves through words, chanting, postures, aromas, visual input...we even copy/imitate behaviour from the ‘teacher/leader’ 2. metaprogramming : as soon as the first layers of conditioning are recognised and eliminated, the programmed/reconditioned brain will once again program itself to get rid of programming ; it transcends programming (=leaving the Dharma-raft behind when arrived at the so called ‘other’ (?) side of the river, when duality is no longer)
Justa as in NLP ( neurolinguistic progamming) an experience is analysed into its components and associations to afterwards reprogram the experience by modifying/reassociateing some or all of the factors, buddhism through recognising the elements contained in the stupa-image (-cfr. meme –scheme) does insist on recognising the unsubstantiality (= sum of separate elements; not just one element) of what we believe to be true or as having essence.
Now again, I do not say buddhism is just NLP because the goal is different.
Before ever having heard of the buddhas’s teachings (I refer to yearas and years ago) I used to use the image of a vehicle to compare ’ body and mind’-unit:
the body = the car, the driver=the mind, the road & landscapes=life, fuel=inspiration/beliefs
and I would say I was all of them (indeed even sitting still I still ‘travel’)
and of course I’m not any of them;
but where, how, when and why a certain action is performed depends on how I’ve programmed, reprogrammed or meta-programmed my brain and trained my body.
I definitely recognised in Bhante’s words regarding higher evolution this kind of metaprogramming : once overcome down-to-earth worries and politics (see any newspaper to see what troubles this earth and mankind, or just check so called ‘innate’ and considered ‘unskilfull’ reactions to certain stimuli) there is no longer room for them (=the programming has been erased or overwritten).
Another example of programming is labelling: all OM carry a new name meant to re-mind them of certain qualities/aspects of something much bigger (=enlightenment)
Please do not feel offended if it sounds to you like that, there’s no offence meant at all. I’m not attacking anyone’s ‘territory’ (personality) nor need do so (I perceive absolutely nothing to be won or lost). Territorial behaviour is on a low scale of evolution.
To go forth means seeing through dukkha. Your name suggests this kind of victory. Victory over what? Who’s the enemy? What, where’s the trophy? The battle? Or is it all just another illusion ? Where do we arrive when ‘labelling’ is overcome?
Or is this all -as maybe you perceive it- wrong view on my behalf?
Does it fit or not with the fwbo’s teaching? Is it in conflict with the Buddha’s teaching?
Looking forward to your reply,
Metta and a smile,
Cris
Because I thoroughly agree with Lilly’s words, once more I ‘meme’ them :
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are no limits. (Lilly, 1972).
Blogger for some reason has posted your reply to me three times. This has not aided my comprehension of what you are talking about - I find I am confused.
You say: "This is exactly what our brain does,isn't it?"
Is it? Exactly? I think we are not in agreement on this. Firstly I think you are conflating brain with consciousness. Which suggests confusion on your part as well as mine.
You seem to be assuming that consciousness is a function of the brain. That is a very western materialist view of consciousness. It's not one I find very beautiful or useful. At the moment I'm more into exploring the idea that the physical brain emerges out of consciousness rather than the other way around. It's also more consistent with the Buddhist tradition.
The other problem I have with what I understand of what you've written is that you seem to think you understand what is happening in the human mind/brain. I don't think that what you're writing suggests understanding - it suggests speculation. A theory is not reality and what you have is a self-consistent theory that might tell you a lot about theories but might have nothing at all to do with what you are observing.
I'm looking for the Pali version of this sutra, particularly this line (ie not translated into English or pheonetically). Ideally I'd like to find an image of one of the older copies. Do you have any suggestions?
This site has the text in Pāli in 11 different scripts including Roman.
However don't be fooled. Pāli is a language of Northwest India - and the scripts mainly used in Theravada Buddhism are all derived from South India. So there's nothing very original about Sinhalese, Burmese or Thai (the 3 main scripts used).
Images of palm leaf or birch bark manuscripts which are the oldest media can sometimes be found online, but I don't recall ever seeing the Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta. They are fragile and precious, and most people don't share them it seems. Some old texts can be seen at Bajaur Collection (not Pāli) Dunhuang Project (variety of languages and scripts) Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project
Many thanks for exploring the last words of the Buddha. I think you show well how reflecting on the last exhortation to his disciples can be very fruitful.
I'm particularly interested to see how you moved from the impersonal objective, 'all things are subject to decay' to the personal subjective/cognitive, 'all things are disappointing'.
For myself I read it cyclically and hopefully each time I can (in theory at least) see more nuances.
These last words also remind me of the oft-used phrase, "Done is what had to be done." So perhaps in that style, one could say: "Do what has to be done by means of heedfulness!"
It's also good that you can promote Pali study. I'm just a beginner myself: is sampādetha an optative ('should' ...)?
Thanks for your comments. I think making the Dharma personal is important so that we see that it applies to us!
sampādetha is the second person plural of sampādeti: 'to procure, to obtain'; and secondly 'to strive, to try to accomplish ones aim'. Sampādeti is the causative of sampajjati: "to come to, to fall to, to succeed, to prosper".
- you could also try my longer commentary on the Buddha's last words which includes more analysis of the Pāli.
"In meditation we can take two basic approaches to the senses."
I couldn't tell if you were trying to say something about these two basic techniques. I couldn't tell if you were using the Buddha's last words to differentiate these two. Were you?
I see both methods practiced within Buddhism. I am not sure how to use which one. I have heard some say to only ever follow breath and others to say, use an object (like breath) to get strong and then watch thought itself.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
[Image]
This blog post summarises a longer essay on the Buddha's Last Words.Last week we celebrated the Buddha's Parinibbana - his final death. The tradition tells us that nothing can be said about the existence or non-existence of the Blessed One after death. The cycle of birth and death, of suffering, has stopped for him. An account of the last days of the Buddha is contained in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. Towards the end of the sutta the Buddha brings together any disciples in the area, and asks them if they have any doubts. None do. Then the Buddha gives them, and us, a final message:
vayadhammā sankhārā appamādena sampādethā all things are perishable, through vigilance Awaken! The full explanation of my translation is too long for this article, but I would like to look at one part of it: the word 'appamaadena'. This word is in the instrumental case so indicates the means by which an action is to be accomplished. It is by appamāda that sampādethā (from a verb, sampādeti, meaning firstly ‘to procure, to obtain’, and secondarily 'to strive'). Appamāda is translated in various ways but 'vigilance' seems to have become standard. However vigilance is not a perfect fit.
Appamāda has three parts: a + (p)p + mada.
The Pali English Dictionary gives two senses for mada: 1. intoxication, sensual excess; 2. pride, conceit. I'm going to focus on the first sense in this article.
Pa is a prefix which indicates forward motion in applied sense often emphasising the action as carried on to a marked degree or even beyond it’s mark. So if mada is drunk, then pamāda is blind-drunk! (the extra p is a common artefact in Pali compound words)
A is a prefix which makes a word mean the opposite.
So appamāda is not-blind-drunk. If you look through the Pali suttas you will see that appamada is used in connection with the objects of the senses: sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, and thoughts. So in practice appamāda means not-blind-drunk on the objects of the senses. Isn't it true that we are easily intoxicated by the objects of our experience? Aren't we in fact mostly caught up in this world of our senses? Or a lot of the time aren't we caught up in the world of our thoughts? So the Buddha's final message was, sober up with regard to the senses and thoughts - don't let yourself get carried away. That's the way to strive, to obtain the goal, to Awaken!
Before we have much familiarity with spiritual practice it can hard to grasp that there is experience which is not centred on the senses. If we eliminate the five physical senses, and the mental sense which comprehends thoughts: then what is left? Nothing? We live in hedonistic times when it can seem that the pleasures of the senses is what makes life meaningful. Or we might spend our time avoiding sensations which we don't enjoy. The Buddha's final message is pointing away from the senses, but towards what?
In meditation we can take two basic approaches to the senses. We can just sit and watch the play of experience, and try not to get get caught up in it. This approach is sometimes likened to watching clouds drifting about the sky. One just sits and watches them coming and going, and doesn't invest any energy in them. Another approach is to actively withdraw from sensual experience through concentration on an object - frequently the breath. Doing this we find that in withdrawing from sense data our experience is blissful, and more satisfying. We may lose the sense of having a body, even lose the sense of having thoughts. The experience of meditation shows us that there is an alternative to being drunk on sensual data.
Both of these approaches to the senses open up all kinds of new possibilities to us. This is not easy to put into words, especially in English because we simply don't have the vocabulary. Pali and Sanskrit terms can help, but they are unfamiliar to people outside Buddhist circles. The Pali word jhana (sanskrit dhyana), for instance, is one that has been used for these states which go beyond the world of the senses. There are texts which describe the experience - often using similes. But the experiences are quite accessible, to some extent at least, for most people who are willing to meditate regularly.
So there is experience which is not mediated by our senses. But why does the Buddha use his last words to direct our attention towards this experience? Bliss is all very well, but is that really all that spiritual practice is about? The answer comes from the first part of his statement. It is because the nature of all things perceived by the senses (sankhārā) is to perish (vaya). Another possible translation of vayadhamma might be 'guaranteed to disappoint'. The objects of the senses as fascinating as they are, do not satisfy us. They are transient. By being focused on them we are constantly being disappointed, constantly let down, and it's a real drag isn't it?
So to sum up: if we want happiness (and we all do), then we need to free ourselves of addiction to intoxication with the objects of the senses, including thoughts, which are guaranteed to disappoint us. The reality of spiritual practice for most of us is that we can only slowly untangle ourselves from the senses, from thoughts. It's not easy because from the first we are totally immersed in this experience. But it is possible, and definitely worth it.
10 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formHi Jayarava,
in a samadhi or satori-tank (sensory deprivation tank) it is possible to exclude most sensorial experiences. Yet the brain being the sixth sense, it will remain active although no longer bothered by the gravitional pull.
What is the aim of meditating?
Is it not : Programming and metaprogramming the human bio-computer?
For more info search : Dr. John C. Lilly and/or samadhitank
Greetings, Cris
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Hi Cris,
Thanks for your comment. My understanding of the experience of sensory deprivation is that it leads to hallucinations. My limited reading on the subject suggests that they were anything but satori. This might be the subject of a subsequent rave - I've written a book chapter on the subject.
The aim of meditating? To change!
I don't believe that the human as a computer metaphor works very well. It is far to materialistic. I certainly don't feel like a computer. You see I can create something never seen before and that is something that no computer can do with panache - I have an aesthetic sense, an imagination, and a way of communicating these through metaphor. This goes beyond mere computation if you ask me. I don't buy into reductionist arguements about mind and body. The fact is that no-one understands them really. We can describe the phenomenology, the experience, but we can't explain them, we don't know how consciousness arises and passes away, or even what consciousness is. To pretend otherwise is deceptive.
Part of the aim of meditation is to rid of these views which seek to explain who or what we are in simplistic terms. "I am some kind of computer" (which is essentially what you want us to believe in your statement) is definitely a wrong view, because it starts with the words "I am". It fits the classic pattern of statements which are described as sakkayaditthi (personality views) which the Buddha attacked with vigour - a thicket of views he called it. This is far more definite than the idea that the Buddha attacked the idea of a self per se - which I have seen academics arguing over.
For more information search: views and/or wrong views
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Hi Jayarava,
Thanks for your reply.
I have not said I was a computer, but the idea that the brain works on inputs-(stimuli) processing them and afterwards delivering an output ( behaviour, words, feelings, attitude...) does have some similarity with how a computer works.
The output will be determined by the kind of ‘program’ (=conditioning) that processes the data.
This is exactly what our brain does,isn't it?
So if we transform (program and/or metaprogram) this processor- consequently our output will be a different one.
Normally there's a lot of 'noise', interference (caused by our senses, thoughts, experiences linked to feelings and elements...) to dispose of before we actually can get a glimpse of the ‘DNA&RNA -master’ in charge and in action.
Meditation is a way of programming and metaprogramming.
1. programming : when we start to learn to meditate, we instruct ourselves through words, chanting, postures, aromas, visual input...we even copy/imitate behaviour from the ‘teacher/leader’
2. metaprogramming : as soon as the first layers of conditioning are recognised and eliminated, the programmed/reconditioned brain will once again program itself to get rid of programming ; it transcends programming (=leaving the Dharma-raft behind when arrived at the so called ‘other’ (?) side of the river, when duality is no longer)
Justa as in NLP ( neurolinguistic progamming) an experience is analysed into its components and associations to afterwards reprogram the experience by modifying/reassociateing some or all of the factors, buddhism through recognising the elements contained in the stupa-image (-cfr. meme –scheme) does insist on recognising the unsubstantiality (= sum of separate elements; not just one element) of what we believe to be true or as having essence.
Now again, I do not say buddhism is just NLP because the goal is different.
Before ever having heard of the buddhas’s teachings (I refer to yearas and years ago) I used to use the image of a vehicle to compare ’ body and mind’-unit:
the body = the car, the driver=the mind, the road & landscapes=life, fuel=inspiration/beliefs
and I would say I was all of them (indeed even sitting still I still ‘travel’)
and of course I’m not any of them;
but where, how, when and why a certain action is performed depends on how I’ve programmed, reprogrammed or meta-programmed my brain and trained my body.
I definitely recognised in Bhante’s words regarding higher evolution this kind of metaprogramming : once overcome down-to-earth worries and politics (see any newspaper to see what troubles this earth and mankind, or just check so called ‘innate’ and considered ‘unskilfull’ reactions to certain stimuli) there is no longer room for them (=the programming has been erased or overwritten).
Another example of programming is labelling: all OM carry a new name meant to re-mind them of certain qualities/aspects of something much bigger (=enlightenment)
Please do not feel offended if it sounds to you like that, there’s no offence meant at all. I’m not attacking anyone’s ‘territory’ (personality) nor need do so (I perceive absolutely nothing to be won or lost). Territorial behaviour is on a low scale of evolution.
To go forth means seeing through dukkha. Your name suggests this kind of victory.
Victory over what? Who’s the enemy? What, where’s the trophy? The battle?
Or is it all just another illusion ?
Where do we arrive when ‘labelling’ is overcome?
Or is this all -as maybe you perceive it- wrong view on my behalf?
Does it fit or not with the fwbo’s teaching?
Is it in conflict with the Buddha’s teaching?
Looking forward to your reply,
Metta and a smile,
Cris
Because I thoroughly agree with Lilly’s words, once more I ‘meme’ them :
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or
becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and
experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended.
In the mind, there are no limits. (Lilly, 1972).
Hi Jayarava,
Thanks for your reply.
I have not said I was a computer, but the idea that the brain works on inputs-(stimuli) processing them and afterwards delivering an output ( behaviour, words, feelings, attitude...) does have some similarity with how a computer works.
The output will be determined by the kind of ‘program’ (=conditioning) that processes the data.
This is exactly what our brain does,isn't it?
So if we transform (program and/or metaprogram) this processor- consequently our output will be a different one.
Normally there's a lot of 'noise', interference (caused by our senses, thoughts, experiences linked to feelings and elements...) to dispose of before we actually can get a glimpse of the ‘DNA&RNA -master’ in charge and in action.
Meditation is a way of programming and metaprogramming.
1. programming : when we start to learn to meditate, we instruct ourselves through words, chanting, postures, aromas, visual input...we even copy/imitate behaviour from the ‘teacher/leader’
2. metaprogramming : as soon as the first layers of conditioning are recognised and eliminated, the programmed/reconditioned brain will once again program itself to get rid of programming ; it transcends programming (=leaving the Dharma-raft behind when arrived at the so called ‘other’ (?) side of the river, when duality is no longer)
Justa as in NLP ( neurolinguistic progamming) an experience is analysed into its components and associations to afterwards reprogram the experience by modifying/reassociateing some or all of the factors, buddhism through recognising the elements contained in the stupa-image (-cfr. meme –scheme) does insist on recognising the unsubstantiality (= sum of separate elements; not just one element) of what we believe to be true or as having essence.
Now again, I do not say buddhism is just NLP because the goal is different.
Before ever having heard of the buddhas’s teachings (I refer to yearas and years ago) I used to use the image of a vehicle to compare ’ body and mind’-unit:
the body = the car, the driver=the mind, the road & landscapes=life, fuel=inspiration/beliefs
and I would say I was all of them (indeed even sitting still I still ‘travel’)
and of course I’m not any of them;
but where, how, when and why a certain action is performed depends on how I’ve programmed, reprogrammed or meta-programmed my brain and trained my body.
I definitely recognised in Bhante’s words regarding higher evolution this kind of metaprogramming : once overcome down-to-earth worries and politics (see any newspaper to see what troubles this earth and mankind, or just check so called ‘innate’ and considered ‘unskilfull’ reactions to certain stimuli) there is no longer room for them (=the programming has been erased or overwritten).
Another example of programming is labelling: all OM carry a new name meant to re-mind them of certain qualities/aspects of something much bigger (=enlightenment)
Please do not feel offended if it sounds to you like that, there’s no offence meant at all. I’m not attacking anyone’s ‘territory’ (personality) nor need do so (I perceive absolutely nothing to be won or lost). Territorial behaviour is on a low scale of evolution.
To go forth means seeing through dukkha. Your name suggests this kind of victory.
Victory over what? Who’s the enemy? What, where’s the trophy? The battle?
Or is it all just another illusion ?
Where do we arrive when ‘labelling’ is overcome?
Or is this all -as maybe you perceive it- wrong view on my behalf?
Does it fit or not with the fwbo’s teaching?
Is it in conflict with the Buddha’s teaching?
Looking forward to your reply,
Metta and a smile,
Cris
Because I thoroughly agree with Lilly’s words, once more I ‘meme’ them :
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or
becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and
experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended.
In the mind, there are no limits. (Lilly, 1972).
Hi Jayarava,
Thanks for your reply.
I have not said I was a computer, but the idea that the brain works on inputs-(stimuli) processing them and afterwards delivering an output ( behaviour, words, feelings, attitude...) does have some similarity with how a computer works.
The output will be determined by the kind of ‘program’ (=conditioning) that processes the data.
This is exactly what our brain does,isn't it?
So if we transform (program and/or metaprogram) this processor- consequently our output will be a different one.
Normally there's a lot of 'noise', interference (caused by our senses, thoughts, experiences linked to feelings and elements...) to dispose of before we actually can get a glimpse of the ‘DNA&RNA -master’ in charge and in action.
Meditation is a way of programming and metaprogramming.
1. programming : when we start to learn to meditate, we instruct ourselves through words, chanting, postures, aromas, visual input...we even copy/imitate behaviour from the ‘teacher/leader’
2. metaprogramming : as soon as the first layers of conditioning are recognised and eliminated, the programmed/reconditioned brain will once again program itself to get rid of programming ; it transcends programming (=leaving the Dharma-raft behind when arrived at the so called ‘other’ (?) side of the river, when duality is no longer)
Justa as in NLP ( neurolinguistic progamming) an experience is analysed into its components and associations to afterwards reprogram the experience by modifying/reassociateing some or all of the factors, buddhism through recognising the elements contained in the stupa-image (-cfr. meme –scheme) does insist on recognising the unsubstantiality (= sum of separate elements; not just one element) of what we believe to be true or as having essence.
Now again, I do not say buddhism is just NLP because the goal is different.
Before ever having heard of the buddhas’s teachings (I refer to yearas and years ago) I used to use the image of a vehicle to compare ’ body and mind’-unit:
the body = the car, the driver=the mind, the road & landscapes=life, fuel=inspiration/beliefs
and I would say I was all of them (indeed even sitting still I still ‘travel’)
and of course I’m not any of them;
but where, how, when and why a certain action is performed depends on how I’ve programmed, reprogrammed or meta-programmed my brain and trained my body.
I definitely recognised in Bhante’s words regarding higher evolution this kind of metaprogramming : once overcome down-to-earth worries and politics (see any newspaper to see what troubles this earth and mankind, or just check so called ‘innate’ and considered ‘unskilfull’ reactions to certain stimuli) there is no longer room for them (=the programming has been erased or overwritten).
Another example of programming is labelling: all OM carry a new name meant to re-mind them of certain qualities/aspects of something much bigger (=enlightenment)
Please do not feel offended if it sounds to you like that, there’s no offence meant at all. I’m not attacking anyone’s ‘territory’ (personality) nor need do so (I perceive absolutely nothing to be won or lost). Territorial behaviour is on a low scale of evolution.
To go forth means seeing through dukkha. Your name suggests this kind of victory.
Victory over what? Who’s the enemy? What, where’s the trophy? The battle?
Or is it all just another illusion ?
Where do we arrive when ‘labelling’ is overcome?
Or is this all -as maybe you perceive it- wrong view on my behalf?
Does it fit or not with the fwbo’s teaching?
Is it in conflict with the Buddha’s teaching?
Looking forward to your reply,
Metta and a smile,
Cris
Because I thoroughly agree with Lilly’s words, once more I ‘meme’ them :
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or
becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and
experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended.
In the mind, there are no limits. (Lilly, 1972).
Friday, March 03, 2006
Hi Cris,
Blogger for some reason has posted your reply to me three times. This has not aided my comprehension of what you are talking about - I find I am confused.
You say: "This is exactly what our brain does,isn't it?"
Is it? Exactly? I think we are not in agreement on this. Firstly I think you are conflating brain with consciousness. Which suggests confusion on your part as well as mine.
You seem to be assuming that consciousness is a function of the brain. That is a very western materialist view of consciousness. It's not one I find very beautiful or useful. At the moment I'm more into exploring the idea that the physical brain emerges out of consciousness rather than the other way around. It's also more consistent with the Buddhist tradition.
The other problem I have with what I understand of what you've written is that you seem to think you understand what is happening in the human mind/brain. I don't think that what you're writing suggests understanding - it suggests speculation. A theory is not reality and what you have is a self-consistent theory that might tell you a lot about theories but might have nothing at all to do with what you are observing.
Jayarava
Friday, March 03, 2006
Hi Jayarava,
I'm looking for the Pali version of this sutra, particularly this line (ie not translated into English or pheonetically). Ideally I'd like to find an image of one of the older copies. Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks,
Elisa
Monday, January 19, 2009
Hi Elisa,
www.tipitaka.org
This site has the text in Pāli in 11 different scripts including Roman.
However don't be fooled. Pāli is a language of Northwest India - and the scripts mainly used in Theravada Buddhism are all derived from South India. So there's nothing very original about Sinhalese, Burmese or Thai (the 3 main scripts used).
Images of palm leaf or birch bark manuscripts which are the oldest media can sometimes be found online, but I don't recall ever seeing the Mahāparinibbāṇa Sutta. They are fragile and precious, and most people don't share them it seems. Some old texts can be seen at
Bajaur Collection (not Pāli)
Dunhuang Project (variety of languages and scripts)
Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project
Cheers
Jayarava
Monday, January 19, 2009
Many thanks for exploring the last words of the Buddha. I think you show well how reflecting on the last exhortation to his disciples can be very fruitful.
I'm particularly interested to see how you moved from the impersonal objective, 'all things are subject to decay' to the personal subjective/cognitive, 'all things are disappointing'.
For myself I read it cyclically and hopefully each time I can (in theory at least) see more nuances.
These last words also remind me of the oft-used phrase, "Done is what had to be done." So perhaps in that style, one could say: "Do what has to be done by means of heedfulness!"
It's also good that you can promote Pali study. I'm just a beginner myself: is sampādetha an optative ('should' ...)?
- Paul
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Hi Paul
Thanks for your comments. I think making the Dharma personal is important so that we see that it applies to us!
sampādetha is the second person plural of sampādeti: 'to procure, to obtain'; and secondly 'to strive, to try to accomplish ones aim'. Sampādeti is the causative of sampajjati: "to come to, to fall to, to succeed, to prosper".
- you could also try my longer commentary on the Buddha's last words which includes more analysis of the Pāli.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Hello Jayarava,
Thanks for your reply, particularly for explaining the Pali (evidently I need more diligence!)
Best wishes,
Paul
Friday, August 14, 2009
"In meditation we can take two basic approaches to the senses."
I couldn't tell if you were trying to say something about these two basic techniques. I couldn't tell if you were using the Buddha's last words to differentiate these two. Were you?
I see both methods practiced within Buddhism. I am not sure how to use which one. I have heard some say to only ever follow breath and others to say, use an object (like breath) to get strong and then watch thought itself.
Sunday, October 31, 2010