Actual Freedom ~ Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Difference between Actualism and Vipassana?
RESPONDENT: ‘I
was thinking about ‘spiritualism versus actualism’. I think the reason why I still can’t differentiate between these two is perhaps a
lack of PCE. To me both Satori and PCE look same. I have no experience of either. I practiced Vipassana irregularly and found that it made
difference in my ordinary life. It did help to make me reasonably happy. I don’t care about what is the exact philosophy behind it. I
don’t think that the spiritual practices are useless’.
RICHARD: It is this simple: the English translation of the Pali ‘Vipassana Bhavana’
is ‘Insight Meditation’. ‘Bhavana’ means ‘to cultivate’, and, as the word is always used in reference to the mind, ‘Bhavana’
means ‘mental cultivation’. ‘Vipassana’ means ‘seeing’ or ‘perceiving’ something with meticulousness discernment,
seeing each component as distinct and separate, and piercing all the way through so as to perceive the most fundamental reality of that thing
and which leads to intuition into the basic reality of whatever is being inspected. Thus ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ means the cultivation
of the mind, aimed at seeing in a special way that leads to intuitive discernment and to full understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s basic
precepts. In ‘Vipassana Bhavana’, Buddhists cultivate this special way of seeing life. They train themselves to see reality exactly
as it is described by Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, and in the English-speaking world they call this practice ‘Vipassana Meditation’.
Consequently, when a person who ‘doesn’t care about what is the exact philosophy behind
it’ blindly practices ‘Vipassana’ it is a further withdrawal from this actual world than what ‘normal’ people currently
experience in the illusionary ‘reality’ of their ‘real world’. All Buddhists (just like Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) do not want to be here
at this place in space – now at this moment in time – as this flesh and blood form, walking and talking and eating and drinking and
urinating and defecating and being the universes’ experience of its own infinitude as a reflective and sensate human being. They put immense
effort into bringing ‘samsara’ (the Hindu and/or Buddhist belief in the endless round of birth and death and rebirth) to an end ...
if they liked being here now they would welcome their rebirth and delight in being able to be here now again and again as a human being. They
just don’t wanna be here (not only not being here now but never, ever again). Is it not so blatantly obvious that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan just
did not like being here? Does one wonder why one never saw his anti-life stance before? How on earth can someone who dislikes being here so
much ever be interested in bringing about peace-on-earth? In this respect he was just like all the Gurus and God-Men down through the ages ...
the whole lot of them were/are anti-life to the core. For example:
• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘If there is someone who is unaware of the Tathagata’s most
profound viewpoint of the eternally abiding, unchanging, fine and mysterious essential body (dharmakaya), that it is said that the body that
eats is not the essential body, and who is unaware of the Tathagata’s path to the power of virtue and majesty; then, this is called
suffering. (...) you should know that this person necessarily shall fall into the evil destinies and his circulation through birth and death
(samsara) will increase greatly, the bonds becoming numerous, and he will undergo afflictions. If there is someone who is able to know that
the Tathagata is eternally abiding without any change, or hears that he is eternally abiding, or if [this] Sutra meets his ear, then he shall
be born into the Heavens above. And after his liberation, he will be able to realize and know that the Tathagata eternally abides without any
change. Once he has realized this, he then says, ‘Formerly, I had heard this truth, but now I have attained liberation through realizing and
knowing it. Because I have been entirely unaware of this since the beginning, I have cycled through birth and death, going round and round
endlessly. Now on this day I have for the first time arrived at the true knowledge’. [endquote]. (Chapter
10: The Four Truths; [647b]; ‘The Great Parinirvana Sutra’; (T375.12.647a-c); Redacted from the Chinese of Dharmakshema by Huiyan, Huiguan,
and Xie Lingyun (T375); Translated into English by Charles Patton).
It can be seen that he clearly and unambiguously states that he (Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) is ‘the
eternally abiding, unchanging, fine and mysterious essential body’ even to the point of repeating it twice (‘the Tathagata is
eternally abiding without any change’) and (‘the Tathagata eternally abides without any change’) so as to emphasise that ‘someone
who is able to know that the Tathagata is eternally abiding without any change ... shall be born into the Heavens above’. And to drive
the point home as to just what he means he emphasises that ‘the body that eats is not the essential body’ ... which ‘essential
body’ can only be a dissociated state by any description and by any definition.
RESPONDENT: What appealed me most about actualism
is that I don’t have to believe in it (the same thing I liked about Vipassana).
RICHARD: If you did ‘care about what is the exact philosophy behind it’ you would
find that you do indeed have to believe in ‘Vipassana’ ... but do not take my word for it; instead, shall we see what Mr. Ba Khin (Mr.
Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) had to say in 1981? Vis.:
• [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘Anicca, dukkha, anattā – Impermanence, Suffering
and Egolessness – are the three essential characteristics of things in the Teaching of the Buddha. If you know anicca correctly, you will
know dukkha as its corollary and anattā as ultimate truth. (...) It is only through experiential understanding of the nature of anicca as
an ever-changing process within you that you can understand anicca in the way the Buddha would like you to understand it. (...) It is by the
development of the power inherent in the understanding of anicca, dukkha and anattā, that one is able to rid oneself of the saṅkhāra accumulated in one’s own personal account. (...) He who has rid himself of all saṅkhāra comes to the end of suffering, for then no saṅkhāra
remains to give the necessary energy to sustain him in any form of life. On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the
Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering. For us today who take to vipassanā meditation, it
would suffice if we can understand anicca well enough to reach the first stage (...) The fact of anicca, which opens the door to the
understanding of dukkha and anattā and eventually to the end of suffering, can be encountered in its full significance only through the
Teachings of a Buddha (...) For progress in vipassanā meditation, a student must keep knowing anicca as continuously as possible. (...)
The last words of the Buddha just before He breathed His last and passed away into Maha-parinibbāna were: ‘Decay (or anicca) is
inherent in all component things. Work out your own salvation with diligence.’ This is in fact the essence of all His teachings during the
forty-five years of His ministry. If you will keep up the awareness of the anicca that is inherent in all component things, you are sure to
reach the goal in the course of time. (...) It is only when you experience impermanence (anicca) as suffering (dukkha) that you come to the
realization of the truth of suffering, the first of the Four Noble Truths basic to the doctrine of the Buddha. Why? Because when you realize
the subtle nature of dukkha from which you cannot escape for a moment, you become truly afraid of, disgusted with, and disinclined towards
your very existence as mentality-materiality (namarupa), and look for a way of escape to a state beyond dukkha, and so to Nibbāna, the
end of suffering. (...) Before entering upon the practice of vipassanā meditation, that is, after samādhi has been developed to a
proper level, a student should acquaint himself with the theoretical knowledge of material and mental properties, i.e., of rūpa and nāma.
For in vipassanā meditation one contemplates not only the changing nature of matter, but also the changing nature of mentality, of the
thought-elements of attention directed towards the process of change going on within matter. At times attention will be focused on the
impermanence of the material side of existence, i.e. upon anicca in regard to rūpa, and at other times on the impermanence of the
thought-elements or mental side, i.e., upon anicca in regard to nāma. (... ...) The world is now facing serious problems which threaten
all mankind. It is just the right time for everyone to take to vipassanā meditation and learn how to find a deep pool of quiet in the
midst of all that is happening today. Anicca is inside of everybody. It is within reach of everybody. Just a look into oneself and there it is
– anicca to be experienced. When one can feel anicca, when one can experience anicca, and when one can become engrossed in anicca, one can
at will cut oneself off from the world of ideation outside. (... ...) The time-clock of vipassanā has now struck – that is, for the
revival of Buddha-Dhamma vipassanā in practice. (U Ba Khin, The Essentials of Buddha Dhamma in
Meditative Practice http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh231-u.html).
This is what Mr. Eric Lerner had to say about Mr. Ba Khin:
• [Mr. Eric Lerner]: ‘In the past few decades in Theravada Buddhist countries
there has been a general revival of interest in insight meditation among the robed Sangha, and with it a spreading of the practice outside the
monastery walls. (...) one of the most important meditation masters of modern day Burma, Thray Sithu U Ba Khin (...) [taught] meditation at
the International Meditation Centre in Rangoon, which was established under his guidance in the early 1950s. The unique characteristics of his
spiritual teaching stem from his situation as a lay meditation master in an orthodox Buddhist country (...) all of his practice was geared
specifically to lay people. He developed a powerfully direct approach to vipassanā meditation that could be undertaken in a short period
of intensive practice and continued as part of householding life. His method has been of great importance in the transmission of the Dhamma to
the West, because in his twenty five years at the Center he instructed scores of foreign visitors who needed no closer acquaintance with
Buddhism per se to quickly grasp this practice of insight. Since U Ba Khin’s demise in 1971 several of his commissioned disciples
have carried on his work, both within and outside of Burma. Hundreds of Westerners have received the instruction from S.N. Goenka in India,
Robert Hover and Ruth Denison in America and John Coleman in England. In addition, several of U Ba Khin’s closest disciples still teach at
the Centre in Rangoon’. (Eric Lerner, U Ba Khin: An Appreciation http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh231-u.html).
Just in case this precis of Mr. Ba Khin’s teaching was too much for you to take in, may I leave
you with just one sentence of his (copied from above) to leave you with? Vis.: [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘On the termination of their lives the
perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering’ [dukkha]. [endquote].
And just in case you miss the point, he is clearly saying that the end of suffering lies in ‘parinirvana’ (an after-death state) and is
the sole goal of ‘Vipassana Bhavana’.
So, can you now start to ‘differentiate between spiritualism versus actualism’ ?
RESPONDENT: Richard – you may also want to look
at this and explain how you can still assert the 180 degree different-ness of actualism and what you call spirituality. Sure, you don’t have
to know everything about all the different sects and such, but you better know enough to be able to assert how what you say and what others
say is actually 180 deg. opposite.
[Richard]: ‘Actual freedom: This physical universe is beginningless and
endless (unborn and undying). Spiritual freedom: God (by whatever name) is beginningless and endless (unborn and undying)’.
No God in Vipassana., this becomes clear after practice.
RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘The law of nature is such that when you stop creating new sankharas
[mental formations] you are on the path of liberation, nirodha-gamini patipada. The Buddha called it dukkha-nirodha-gamini patipada,
the path to eradicate all miseries; and he has also called it vedana-nirodha-gamini patipada, the path to eradicate all vedana
[sensation]. In other words, by walking on the path one reaches the stage where there is no more vedana because *one experiences something
beyond mind and matter*. Within the field of mind and matter there is constant contact, because of which there is vedana, whether
pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. To come out of vedana is to come out of misery’. [italics in original, emphasis added]. (‘The Snare Of Mara’; www.vri.dhamma.org/newsletters/nl0002.html).
Just as a matter of interest ... were you ever to ‘come out of misery’ (as also expressed in
the ‘freedom from all suffering’ phrasing below) just what is your plan for informing this mailing list of your success? And here is why I
ask:
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘When one experiences the truth of nibbana – a stage beyond the entire
sensorium – all the six sense organs stop working. *There can’t be any contact with objects outside*, so sensation ceases. At this
stage there is freedom from all suffering’. [emphasis added]. (‘Buddha’s Path Is to Experience
Reality’; www.vri.dhamma.org/newsletters/nl9510.html).
Here is some more on that ‘something’ referred to in the first quote which is beyond mind and
matter:
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘... transcending the field of mind and matter, one comes to *the
ultimate truth* which is beyond all sensory experience, beyond the phenomenal world. In this transcendent reality there is no more anicca
[impermanence]: nothing arises, and therefore nothing passes away. It is a stage without birth or becoming: the deathless. While the meditator
experiences this reality, the senses do not function and therefore sensations cease. This is the experience of nirodha, the cessation of
sensations and of suffering’. [emphasis added]. (‘Sensation – The Key to Satipattana’;
www.vri.dhamma.org/archives/ddsensation.html).
RESPONDENT: From what I have been taught, the
teaching of Vipassana is to go beyond both body AND consciousness, or mind.
RICHARD: Indeed ... here is but one instance (among many) where Mr. Gotama the Sakyan makes
it abundantly clear that full release is beyond both body and consciousness:
• [Richard]: ‘(...) Lastly, the discourse drives the point home by explaining that the
instructed disciple is
• [quote] ‘Disenchanted with the *body*, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with *consciousness*. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released’. He discerns that ‘Birth is depleted, the
holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world’. SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66;
‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic).
Note well it says ‘there is nothing further for this world’ ... if that is not a clear
indication of a withdrawal from this sensate material world I would like to know what is. [emphasises added].
RESPONDENT: (...) Are you sure actualism is 180 degrees opposite?
RICHARD: Ha ... as I am this flesh and blood body only, and as this flesh and blood body
being conscious – as in being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, being sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is what consciousness
is (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition), I am most assuredly not disenchanted with the body/disenchanted with
consciousness ... let alone fully released from same (and thus) discerning there is nothing further for this world.
RESPONDENT: Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks.
RICHARD: As the only occasion I am cognisant of, wherein you have read anything of what I
have written about the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west, is the e-mail I wrote to
you on Tuesday 26/10/2004 AEST – wherein I quoted from
what Mr. Ba Khin had to say – I can only assume that you are characterising him (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) as being a quack.
Especially so as you specifically say that you [quote] ‘do not buy much of the theory handed down
from tradition’ [endquote].
RESPONDENT: Ok –
RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you saying ‘Ok’ (as in an assent or acquiescence in
response to a question or statement) to my assumption that it is Mr. Ba Khin – Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master – whom you are
characterising as being a quack?
RESPONDENT: Actually I was referring to your general description of
Vipassana and the SC body from Vineeto.
RICHARD: If you could provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you
are referring to where you think Richard [quote] ‘perhaps’ [endquote] does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond
constructively to your thought.
Furthermore, as you do not provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you
are referring to, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a
way which is [quote] ‘not at all’ [endquote] what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to.
RESPONDENT: I just figured you guys agree on most of the things you
say about actualism.
RICHARD: Indeed we do ... however, as the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’)
Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west is not, and never will be, actualism there is no reason to suppose that such concordance would
extend to each and every detail of one of the multitudinous sub-sects of the multiplicity of sects which subsist in the religious denomination
known as ‘Buddhism’.
Speaking personally, I always leave sectarian disputes to the sectarians to deal with. (...)
RESPONDENT: If you refuse to defend Vineeto’s understanding of
Vipassana your responses are not flawed one bit.
RICHARD: This is what I was referring to when I said what I did in regards sectarian
disputes (from the same e-mail I responded to at the top of this page):
• [Respondent]: ‘... her [Vineeto’s] understanding of Vipassana is in err. It must be
Osho’s understanding, which also was in err’. (Thursday 28/10/2004 AEST).
There is no way you are going to inveigle me into a dispute about the errancy/ inerrancy of Mr.
Satya Goenka’s certified teachers’ understanding of Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the
Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded vis-à-vis the errancy/ inerrancy of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s certified teachers’
understanding of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s understanding of Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr.
Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded – nor into any dispute about the errancy/ inerrancy of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s
certified teachers’ understanding of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded
for that matter – let alone into defending Vineeto’s understanding of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s certified teachers’
understanding of either Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming
deluded or Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s understanding of Mr. Satya Goenka’s understanding of Mr. Ba Khin’s understanding of Mr.
Gotama the Sakyan’s method of becoming deluded.
No way at all.
VINEETO: As you say you quite enjoy the practice of
‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ then clearly actualism is not for you because, as the very term expressively states, actualism is all about
what is actual whereas vibes, being feelings, are not actual.
RESPONDENT: Sorry I’m not hip to your lingo ...
RICHARD: It is quite commonplace ‘lingo’ actually. Vis.:
• ecstatic: of the nature of, characterized by, or producing ecstasy [the state of being
distracted by some emotion; a frenzy, a stupor; (now the usual sense) an exalted state of feeling]. (Oxford
Dictionary).
• ecstatic: of, relating to, or marked by ecstasy [a state of being beyond reason and self-control; a state of overwhelming emotion; trance,
especially: a mystic or prophetic trance]. (Merriam Webster Dictionary).
• ecstatic: feeling or characterized by ecstasy [an overwhelming feeling of great happiness or joyful excitement; an emotional or religious
frenzy or trancelike state]. (Compact Oxford English Dictionary).
• ecstatic: showing or feeling great pleasure or delight; completely dominated by an intense emotion; (plural) somebody who undergoes spells
of intense emotion. (Encarta® World English Dictionary).
• ecstatic: enraptured, rapturous, rhapsodic; feeling great rapture or delight. (WordNet® 2.0).
• ecstatic: marked by or expressing ecstasy [a state of emotion so intense that one is carried beyond rational thought and self-control]. (American Heritage® Dictionary).
And:
• vibes: a distinctive emotional atmosphere; sensed intuitively; synonym: vibration. (WordNet® 2.0).
• vibe: (slang) an emotional quality believed to be detectable in a person or thing by intuition; vibration; often plural; related word:
intuition. (Wordsmyth Dictionary).
• vibe: (slang) a vibration; often used in the plural; short for vibration [a distinctive emotional aura or atmosphere regarded as being
instinctively sensed or experienced; often used in the plural]. (American Heritage® Dictionary).
• vibes: (slang) the feeling you get from being in a particular place or situation or from being with a particular person. (Cambridge Dictionary of American English).
• vibe: (informal) the atmosphere or aura of a person or place as communicated to and felt by others. (Compact
Oxford English Dictionary).
• vibes: (slang) atmosphere or feeling: a particular kind of atmosphere, feeling, or ambience; plural: vibes. (Encarta® World English Dictionary).
• vibe: mood or atmosphere; feeling; (plural) signals or messages sent out to someone. (Macquarie
Dictionary).
• vibe: (slang) transmit in the form of vibrations [characteristic signals or impressions about a person or thing, regarded as communicable
to others; (an) atmosphere: also, a mental (esp. occult) influence]; affect in a specified way by means of vibrations. (Oxford Dictionary).
• vibe: a characteristic emanation, aura, or spirit that infuses or vitalizes someone or something and that can be instinctively sensed or
experienced – often used in plural; a distinctive usually emotional atmosphere capable of being sensed – usually used in plural. (Merriam Webster Dictionary).
RESPONDENT: (...) I was not referring to ‘Psychic Vibes’ or
vibes as ‘feelings’, sorry.
RICHARD: That being the case then, for the sake of clarity in communication, it would be
handy to use some other expression than ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ as that phraseology does not convey what you explain it to
mean in this e-mail (more on this below).
RESPONDENT: As you continue to put (unintended) meaning into my
words you will continue to misunderstand me, making effective communication impossible. This has happened countless times now.
RICHARD: As I also took your ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ as to be conveying that
you were intensely enjoying (as in ‘grooving’) exalted (as in ‘ecstatic’) feelings (as in ‘vibes’) I checked with a wide range of
dictionaries to see why I too had taken it that way ... given the (further above) definitions it is a quite understandable take and thus your
remonstrations (above) are most definitely uncalled for.
Here is what you say, in this e-mail, that you were conveying (from the parenthesised snip above):
• [Respondent]: ‘What I am referring to is the utter delight in experiencing the universe as it
actually is’.
And the following is how the universe ‘actually is’ (also from the parenthesised snip)
according to you:
• [Respondent]: ‘... as I recall, the whole universe is vibrating. Atoms are themselves
harmonic oscillators, same for molecules, etc. Molecules are constantly vibrating in your body, and effective chemical signalling between
neurons would be impossible with out vibration (diatomic, etc.). So, when you are sensately experiencing the universe, this input can only
come in the form of vibration (sensation, sight, sound, even taste and smell)’.
Thus ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ is your way of conveying that you are utterly
delighting (as in ‘grooving’) in experiencing exalted (as in ‘ecstatic’) vibrations (as in ‘vibes’) of the nature proposed by
theoretical physicists ... which, being but a mathematical model of the universe, cannot be experienced sensately.
Here is what you go on to say:
• [Respondent]: ‘If you insist that vibrations are feelings and you have no part of them I
wonder in what realm your experience happens’.
Going by what your co-respondent has written it is most certainly not the realm where the following
occurs (from the web site you provided a link to previously):
• [Question]: What are vibrations? How do they affect us?
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: Everything in the Universe is vibrating. This is no theory, it is a fact. The entire Universe is nothing but
vibrations. The good vibrations make us happy, the unwholesome vibrations cause misery. Vipassana will help you come out of effect of bad
vibrations – the vibrations caused by a mind full of craving and aversion. When the mind is perfectly balanced, the vibrations become good.
And these good or bad vibrations you generate start influencing the atmosphere all around you. Vipassana helps you generate vibrations of
purity, compassion and goodwill – beneficial for yourself and all others’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#vibrations).
As compassion is unambiguously a passion it would appear that the [quote] ‘good vibrations’
[endquote] of the entire universe are affective in character ... as is evidenced by the following:
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘... at the end of a 10-day Vipassana course, you are taught how to send
metta, the vibrations of love and compassion. He or she [the deceased person being referred to in the question being answered] will be happy.
Wherever you are, your metta vibrations will touch this person’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#emotion).
Thus the [quote] ‘metta vibrations’ [endquote] are indeed the ‘good vibrations’ being
referred to and, furthermore, like all such vibes, are both transmittable and receivable. Vis.:
• [Question]: ‘Are there Dhamma forces that support us as we develop on the Path?
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘Certainly – visible as well as invisible ones. (...) If we develop love, compassion and goodwill, we will get
tuned up with all beings, visible or invisible, that have these positive vibrations, and we will start getting support from them. It is like
tuning a radio to receive waves of a certain meter band from a distant broadcasting station. Similarly, we tune ourselves to vibrations of the
type we generate; and so we receive the benefit of those vibrations’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#dhammaforces).
And:
• [Question]: ‘What is the value of attending group sittings?
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘Whenever a few people sit together, whatever they generate in their minds permeates the atmosphere. If five, ten,
twenty, or fifty people meditate together, the vibrations of one or two among them might be good vibrations and this may help the others
meditate better in that atmosphere’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/newsletters/nl9906.html).
And:
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘... at the end of every Vipassana course, or a 1-hour sitting, a
meditator is asked to practice metta [loving-kindness], to share the merits gained with all beings. Metta vibrations are tangible vibrations
whose beneficial power increases as the purity of the mind increases. (...) Without samadhi, the metta is really no metta [selfless love].
When samadhi is weak, the mind is very agitated, and it is agitated only when it is generating some impurity, some type of craving or
aversion. With these impurities, you cannot expect to generate good qualities, vibrations of metta, or karuna (compassion)’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#metta).
And:
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘... people who don’t practice Vipassana can practice Metta Bhavana. In
such countries as Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand, Metta Bhavana is very common in every household. However, the practice is usually confined to
mentally reciting ‘May all beings be happy, be peaceful’. This certainly gives some peace of mind to the person who is practicing it. To
some extent good vibrations enter the atmosphere, but they are not strong. However, when you practice Vipassana, purification starts. With
this base of purity, your practice of Metta naturally becomes stronger. Then you won’t need to repeat these good wishes aloud. A stage will
come when every fiber of the body keeps on feeling compassion for others, generating goodwill for others’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#metta).
(...) Needless is it to add there there are no such vibrations, be they either ‘good’ or
‘bad’ vibrations, here in the actual world (the world of the senses)?
I have provided those detailed quotes because the problem with the peoples who discard the
Christian/Judaic/Islamic god is they do not realise that by turning to the eastern spiritual philosophy they have effectively jumped out of
the frying pan into the fire. Eastern spirituality is religion ... merely in a different form to what people in the west have been raised to
believe in. Eastern spiritual philosophy sounds so convincing to the western mind which is desperately looking for answers. The
Christian/Judaic/Islamic conditioning actually sets up the situation for a thinking person to be susceptible to the esoteric doctrines of the
east. It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the west are eagerly following the east down the slippery slope of striving to
attain to a self-seeking divine immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. At the end of the line there is always a god/goddess/truth,
of some description, lurking in disguise wreaking its havoc with its ‘ancient wisdom’.
Have you ever been to India to see for yourself the results of what they claim are tens of
thousands of years of devotional spiritual living?
I did, back when there was a full suite of affections in this body, and it was hideous.
RESPONDENT: Good Morning Richard, I now agree that my beliefs about my
vipassana practice do not stand up to hard scrutiny in terms of being pragmatic or non-dogmatic.
RICHARD: G’day № 48,
Good ... and do you simultaneously see, albeit conversely, that my reports/ descriptions/ explanations on The Actual
Freedom Trust website – regarding how the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago lived that/ was that which “Richard’s
schematic points to”, night and day, for eleven years (1981-1992) – do indeed “stand up to hard scrutiny in terms of being
pragmatic or non-dogmatic”?
The reason why I am looking for a specific answer to this question is because the main purpose in responding to your
evidentially ill-considered one-liner (at the top of this page) was to publicly draw attention to the quite non-pragmatic way in which more
than just a few of those persons of a ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore Dharma’ persuasion, in general, and those of a ‘DhO/ KFD’ persuasion, in
particular, have sought to dismiss that which I have an intimate acquaintance with – a lived understanding from which to speak; a
‘hands-on’ comprehension thereof spanning nigh-on 35 years (i.e., dating from before many of those pretermitting persons were even born); a pragmatic/ hardcore expertise all of my own, as it were, comprising of experiential knowledge from
which to draw forth any requisite expertise-based authority in these matters – in a manner which belies the very basis, the raison d’être
itself, of their much-trumpeted ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore’ stance.
And in failing to recognise (let alone acknowledge) the quintessential eschewer of the traditional – there is simply
no-one on this planet, either currently alive or long-ago dead, who has eschewed the traditional, the doctrinal, the dogmatic, more
thoroughly, more profoundly, more radically, more completely, more totally, than the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those
years ago – they nakedly expose themselves, through that hypocritical pretermission of theirs, to be not all that different after all, in effect, to those traditionalists, those dogmatists, of whom they are so
critically condemnatory.
RESPONDENT: Meaning, I can see there are beliefs and views in my decision to do it in the
first place, in the actual act of doing it, in the results that I expect, and in the results that I achieve; furthermore, these results are
actually related to “the absolute”, as it occurs in Buddhism ...
RICHARD: Yes ... although, in regards to no longer having your goal float nebulously in a vacuum, the secret to
success lies in determining the nature of that absolute as it occurs in the buddhavacana – rather than “as it occurs in Buddhism” (the “Buddhism” you refer to
would be more honestly termed ‘Buddhaghosa-ism’) – because Mr. Gotama the Sakyan experientially rediscovered ‘the ancient way’ (Pāli
“purāṇaṃ maggaṃ”) to that absolute whilst seated under an assattha/ pippal tree
(a.k.a. “Ficus religiosa”), around two and a half millennia ago, which he metaphorically likened, in the Nagara Sutta, to finding an
ancient road leading to a fabulous lost city hidden deep in an antediluvian forest due to it having been immortalised by the Ṛishis of
old as leading to the Vedic amṛta-loka (‘the realm of the immortals’).
Thus, as it is “the (alterity) absolute” of the Vedic period being referenced all throughout the buddhavacana, as
distinct from “the (immanent) absolute” of the Vedantic period (the word Vedanta = lit. “end of the Veda”) which came into being after the Vedic period, then anyone actively promoting
“non-duality” (Sanskrit ‘advaita’) – stemming as it does from the sublative ‘no-genesis’ Vedantic doctrine (i.e., ajātivāda)
that Mr. Gauda the anchorite recovered, around one and a half millennia ago at Gowda Desha circa the 6th century CE, from the Māṇḍukya,
Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya Upaniṣads and which Mr. Adi Sankara of Kaladi (nowadays called Kerala)
subsequently consolidated a century or so later – as being the only model of awakening holding up in “the dharma world” without apology,
qualification or exception, plus speaking in glowing terms about “ditching the split”, has quite obviously taken no notice whatsoever of
what has been sitting there in plain view in the buddhavacana for over two millennia.
Viz.:
• [Daniel]: “In short, the non-duality models are the only models of awakening that hold up without apology,
qualification or exception. The rest of the models have serious problems, though each may contain some amount of truth in it, however poorly
conveyed. [...]. There is only one thing worse in my mind than students getting caught up in the dogma of the worst of the models, and that is
realized teachers getting caught by them. [...] I dream of a day when such things never happen. The dharma world would be so much better off
if teachers were honest about what realization is and ain’t, both with their students and also with themselves. Don’t think this sort of
dishonesty doesn’t occur. I have seen some of my very best and most realized teachers fall into this trap and have also done so myself more
times than I can count. Learn from those who have had to learn the hard way and are willing to admit this.
Ditching our “Stuff” vs. Ditching the Split
While these two models are stated implicitly above, I thought I would summarize them again to make sure that I have made this important point
clear. There are models of awakening that involve getting rid of all of our “stuff”, i.e. our issues, flaws, quirks, pains, negative
emotions, traumas, personalities, cultural baggage, childhood scars, relationship difficulties, insecurities, fears, strange notions, etc.
Such models underlie most of the mainstream visions of spiritual attainment.
What is funny is that lots of people spend so much time working so hard to get rid of all their stuff but think that enlightenment, i.e.
ditching the illusion of the dualistic split, is largely unattainable. I have exactly the opposite view, that ditching the split is very
attainable but getting rid of all of our stuff is completely impossible. When I hear about those who wish to attain a type of Buddhahood that
is defined by not having any stuff, I usually think to myself that the countless eons they usually claim are necessary to accomplish this are
a gross underestimation. The real world is about stuff, and enlightenment is about the real world.
What is very nice about ditching the split, aside from the fact that it can be done, is that now we can be friends with our stuff naturally,
even if it sucks ...”. ~ (pp. 322-323, “Mastering the Core Teachings of The Buddha
Buddhaghosa”; Third Edition Copyright ©April, 2007, by Daniel M. Ingram).
RESPONDENT: ... “the absolute”, as it occurs in Buddhism (namely, in the ambiguous
form of the “not this/ not that” that [No. 42] pointed out).
RICHARD: Hmm ... what you refer to there as “the ambiguous form of the ‘not this/ not that’” (i.e.,
“neti, neti”; lit. ‘not that, not that’), being sourced as it is in the third brahmana of the second chapter of that Bṛhadāraṇyaka
Upaniṣad already mentioned, further above, is quite unambiguous, really, as it refers to (the Vedantic) Atman-Brahman which, whilst
metempirically existent and inherently blissful, is yet unknowable in the normal way of knowing due to having no qualities, characteristics,
attributes, and etcetera, which are regularly recognisable (hence the “neti, neti”, or ‘via negativa’ approach).
It is important to comprehend the distinction between what could be called ‘Vedism’ (the 3-Veda period), where the
ṚgVeda was predominant up until at least a millennia before Mr. Gotama the Sakyan seated himself unbudgingly under a certain tree, and
what could be called ‘Vedantism’ – the period of Vedanta; lit. ‘end of the Veda’ as already observed – whereafter the Upaniṣads (wherein ‘Atman=Brahman’
features) became the dominant scriptures.
It is pertinent to note that nowhere in the Pāli Canon does that “Atman=Brahman” teaching feature despite the
fact the sammāsambuddha has numerous dialogues with many brahmanā (i.e., ‘Brahmans’).
It is also noteworthy that nowhere in the Pāli Canon does he refer to the 4th Veda despite drawing attention to the
3-Veda practice (i.e., rituals, rites, sacraments, and etcetera).
Plus it is undisputable that the absolute of the Vedantic scriptures is an immanent absolute whereas the absolute of the
buddhavacana is something else entirely: an acausal, atemporal, aspatial, aphenomenal alterity of an ‘utterly other’ nature.
I drew attention to this salient fact via the second footnote of my first email to you (Message № 20114).
Indeed, a major feature of the buddhavacana – as enunciated upfront and unequivocally throughout the second discourse
in the first Khandhaka (chapter) of the Mahāvagga (division) in the Vinaya Piṭaka whereby the pañcavaggiya-bhikkhū (i.e., a
group of five brahmana religieux) became arahants – is how the Pāli atta/ the Vedic ātma is not to be found in the phenomenal world (whereas the Vedantic ātman,
being an advaita (i.e., non-dual) absolute, is the phenomenal world/ is everything).
NB: in this context the words atta/ attan and ātma/ ātman = the absolute; they do *not* refer to the egoic self (‘I’ as ego) or the personal/ reflexive self (oneself/ myself; himself /
herself; yourself; themself/ themselves) except of course, in the latter case, where the personal/ reflexive usage references an avatar/ a
buddha (i.e., an embodiment of brahma, an embodiment of dhamma).
Thus in this discourse, which was entitled the “Pañcavaggiya Suttaṃ” (SN
22.59; PTS: SN iii.66) when it was duplicated in the Sinhalese Saṃyutta Nikāya and “Anatta-Lakkhana Suttaṃ” in
the Burmese version, where the sammāsambuddha reports/ describes/ explains how the five components of personage (i.e., the “panc’upādāna-kkhandhā”) are anattā – that is, they are not the self (as per, ‘an-’, a
privative prefix, + attā, ‘the absolute’) – then what he is saying, in effect, is that (1) rūpaṃ is not the absolute ...
and (2); vedanā is not the absolute ... and (3); saññā is not the absolute ... and (4); saṅkāra is not the absolute ...
and (5); viññāṇaṃ is not the absolute.
This is so far removed from those “non-duality models” (wherein the panc’upādāna-kkhandhā, the five
components of personage, are ātman, are ‘the absolute’) it must be asked just whom it might be who is “ditching the split”.
More to this salient point: in the Mūlaka/ Mula Sutta (AN 10.58; PTS: A v 106)
the sammāsambuddha – upon having been specifically asked by some unidentified “bhikkhave” (i.e., mendicant renunciates of his own
order) to expound on ten questions which “aññatitthiyā paribbājakā” (i.e., wandering religieux of another faith) might
ask them – reveals the illuminative gnostic wisdom (i.e., intuitive/ metempirical wisdom as contrasted to dianoetic/ empirical knowledge)
that nibbāna is the complete end (as in, “pariyosānā”) of “sabbe dhammā” [viz.: “nibbāna pariyosānā sabbe dhammā”].
In other words, the complete end of all things, both mental and material, means nothing exists for any such
subjective-objective “split” to obtain.
And, by way of clarification as to what “all things” entails, in the Sabba Sutta (SN
35.23; PTS: SN iv 15) the sammāsambuddha details what he is referring to when he uses the Pāli word sabbaṃ (which
is the neuter case of the adjective ‘sabba’). The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary (a.k.a.
PTS-PED) defines ‘sabbaṃ’ as “the (whole) world of sense-experience” and ‘sabba’ as “whole, entire; all,
every” (‘sabbe’ is the nominative plural of ‘sabba’). Also, the Pāli ‘sabba’ is identical to the Sanskrit/ Vedic adjective
‘sarva’ which also means, according to the Monier Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary (a.k.a.
MMW-SED), “whole, entire, all, every”.
Vis.:
• Sāvatthinidānaṃ. “Sabbaṃ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi. Taṃ
suṇātha. Kiñca, bhikkhave, sabbaṃ? Cakkhuñceva rūpā ca, sotañca saddā ca, ghānañca gandhā ca,
jivhā ca rasā ca, kāyo ca phoṭṭhabbā ca, mano ca dhammā ca – idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave,
sabbaṃ. Yo, bhikkhave, evaṃ vadeyya: ‘ahametaṃ sabbaṃ paccakkhāya aññaṃ sabbaṃ paññāpessāmī’ti,
tassa vācāvatthukamevassa; puṭṭho ca na sampāyeyya, uttariñca vighātaṃ āpajjeyya. Taṃ kissa
hetu? Yathā taṃ, bhikkhave, avisayasmin”ti.
[source: http://suttacentral.net/pi/sn35.23].
In the above “Sabba Sutta” the sammāsambuddha specifies that when he uses the term ‘sabbaṃ’ he is
referring to the eye [cakkhu] and whatsoever it sees [rūpā]; the ear [sota] and all of its sounds [saddā]; the nose [ghāna]
and everything it smells [gandhā]; the tongue [jivhā] and all of its
tastes [rasā]; the body [kāyo] and its every aesthesis [phoṭṭhabbā]; plus the mind [mano] and all its
mental phenomena [dhammā]; and he accentuates this specification of his by then stating: “This is to be
called sabbaṃ” [vis.: “idaṃ vuccati sabbaṃ”].
Furthermore, he emphasises the totally comprehensive and utterly inclusive material-mental nature of the term by then
declaring that anyone, having rejected/ disavowed [paccakkhāya] this “sabbaṃ” as he depicts it,
could not make known [paññāpessi] another one [aññaṃ sabbaṃ] as
any such a one would be beyond scope, range or reach [avisaya].
Thus the term ‘sabbe’ (in that frequently flogged phrase “sabbe dhamme anattā” a.k.a. “sabbe dhammā
anattā”), whilst denotational of absolutely everything whichsoever and everybody whomsoever, without exception, of each and every
material or mental nature possible – taking place anywhere and everywhere wheresoever in the boundlessness of space and occurring anywhen
and everywhen whensoever in the limitlessness of time plus happening anyhow and everyway howsoever in which anything and everything whatsoever
can eventuate whencesoever at anyplace and everyplace whithersoever – specifically excludes that which, being beyond the scope, range or
reach (of eyes, ears, mind, &c.), is ineffable/ indefinable ... namely: nibbāna.
Obviously, then, what the sammāsambuddha is conveying in the further above Mūlaka/ Mula Sutta is how the
attainment of nibbāna is the complete end [pariyosānā] of absolutely all [sabbe]
causal-temporal-spatial phenomena [dhammā].
Put differently: nibbāna is the complete end [pariyosānā] of all space, all
time, and all matter (both as mass and as energy) both animate and inanimate [viz.: “sabbe dhammā”].
Hence the absolute of the buddhavacana being something else entirely (i.e., an acausal, atemporal, aspatial, aphenomenal alterity of an
‘utterly other’ nature).
Incidentally, if (note ‘if’) the phrase “sabbe dhammā” were to have been inclusive of nibbāna, and
given that nibbāna is the complete end of ‘sabbe dhammā’, then it would mean that nibbāna would be the complete end of ...
(wait for it) ... the complete end of nibbāna!
(As an aside: it would appear that whatever it takes to qualify for a “PhD.” in Pāli scholarship these days –
to qualify as a Pāli scholar, a Pāli translator, that is – it does not include much in the way of critical thinking skills because
the above absurdity is quite readily apparent).
Moreover, this revelation that nibbāna is the complete end of ‘sabbe dhammā’ has an earlier advent, by the
sammāsambuddha, in the 3rd & 4th pada, of the last stanza in Dialogue 6 of the Pārāyanavagga, in the Suttanipāta,
titled “Upasiva-manava-puccha” (Sn 5.6; PTS: Sn 1076).
Vis.:
• “Sabbesu dhammesu samohatesu,
Samūhatā vādapathāpi sabbe”ti.
[source: http://suttacentral.net/pi/snp5.7]
As “sabbesu dhammesu” = ‘sabbe dhammā’ – (and as “samohatesu”, repeated at the beginning of the second
line as “samūhata” and, from alternate manuscripts, transcribed as “samuhatesu” elsewhere, being the past participle of ‘samūhanati’
(“to remove, to abolish” ~ PTS-PED), translates as ‘removed, abolished’) – then what the sammāsambuddha is advising there is
how, with all phenomena abolished, removed, then all ways of speaking about nibbāna are also removed, abolished (vādapatha means:
“way of speech”, i.e.: “signs of recognition, attribute, definition” ~ PTS-PED).
By being thus beyond the scope, range or reach (of eyes, ears, mind, &c.) nibbāna is ineffable/ indefinable.
And because the Pārāyanavagga is amongst the earliest recorded portions of the buddhavacana – if not the
earliest – then it is demonstrably evident that any notion about ‘sabbe dhammā’ being inclusive of nibbāna can only be a much
later addition (as in, a latter-day Abhidhamma & Commentarial artefact, for instance) to the Pāli Canon.
Besides which, as nowhere in the buddhavacana is it recorded that nibbāna is anattā (i.e. ‘not-self’,
‘not the self’), then the abject craftiness of such a convoluted way of thinking – setting out to conceive of a diṭṭhi/
dṛṣti about the ineffable/ indefinable nature of nibbāna in spite of the silence of the sammāsambuddha on the topic, via
sneaking it into “sabbe dhammā” – should in itself trigger-off flashing red-light warnings to both the instigators and the
perpetuators.
RESPONDENT: I would not have necessarily seen these things before, as I was so committed
to being a true believer in this practice.
RICHARD: In which case, and again in regards to your goal no longer having to float nebulously in a vacuum, this
is an apposite place to utilise those URLs, now further above, for confirmation that the nature of the absolute, as it occurs in the
buddhavacana, is indeed commensurable with the Vedic amṛta-loka (‘the realm of the immortals’). According to what transpires on page
eight, of that 1962 English translation of the first Khandhaka (chapter) of the Mahāvagga (division), the sammāsambuddha, shortly
after his awakenment/ enlightenment and while staying at the foot of the “Goatherd’s Banyan Tree” for the nonce, is approached by the
otherworldly “Brahmā Sahampati”, fresh from Brahma-Loka, who exhorts him to teach dhamma because those with “little dust in their
eyes” will be receptive. Then the following exchange takes place (edited to its essentials, from pp 8-9, with its operative words
highlighted).
[Brahmā Sahampati]:
“pāturahosi magadhesu pubbe,
dhammo asuddho samalehi cintito;
avāpuretaṃ *amatassa dvāraṃ*,
suṇantu dhammaṃ vimalenānubuddhaṃ”.
[Sammāsambuddha]:
“apārutā tesaṃ *amatassa dvārā*,
ye sotavante pamuñcantu saddhaṃ”.
[source: https://suttacentral.net/pi/pi-tv-kd1#5-brahmayacanakatha].
Thus, after observing how an impure dhamma, devised by stained minds, had made an appearance before in the region (Magadha),
this Great Deva of Brahma-Loka (representing, in the buddhistic metaphysics, the creator god of the brahmanā) then urges the sammāsambuddha
to: “open this door [dvāraṃ] to immortality [amatassa]; let them hear
dhamma awakened to by the stainless one”; and then that ‘stainless one’ answers: “opened for those who hear are the doors [dvārā] of immortality [amatassa]”.
From this passage, and the overall context of the narrative itself, several pertinent factors emerge:
1. Previous expositions of dhamma, in the Magadha region, were impure [asuddho], unclean,
tainted [samalehi] due to having been thought out, invented, devised [cintito]
rather than being experiential, a living experience, as in having become dhamma [dhamma-bhūto] as per one of
the many epithets ascribed to the sammāsambuddha.
2. The (masculine case) Brahmā is clearly inferior to the sammāsambuddha (as are all the buddhistic deities
who, even though they may endure for many kappa (Sanskrit ‘kalpa’) in the unworldly/ unearthly and/or otherworldly/ heavenly realms, are
also mortal) thus demonstrating that whatever else “brahma-bhūto” may refer to it cannot possibly mean Mr. Gotama the Sakyan has
either *become* the (masculine case) Brahmā – as is claimed, under the head-word “dhamma”, in the Pali Text Society’s
Pali-English Dictionary (re-presented, much further below, in the inline ‘dhammavicaya’ footnote) – or is *like* the (masculine
case) Brahmā, as is bruited abroad by many a buddhistic translator, scholiast, scholar-practician and, thus, practitioners in general, as
doing so reduces the qualities of that highly-prized/ greatly-revered immortal status of his to those qualities attributable to a mortal
deity.
3. Attaining immortality is the crux of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment and the very purpose of the
brahmacariya lifestyle (i.e., living an austere and celibate religious/ holy life) – else why, in this instance, the plea from Brahmā
Sahampati to open the door to immortality and/or else why the assurance from the sammāsambuddha that the doors to immortality were open
– and it is noteworthy that the accented Pāli nibbāna (Vedic/ Sanskrit nirvāṇa) does not feature in this narrative, and other early suttas of similar ilk, unlike the
main focus which that now-ubiquitous word takes on in later suttas.
For instance, according to the Sahampatibrahmā Sutta (SN 48.57; PTS: SN v 232),
and again whilst residing at the foot of that “Goatherds’ Banyan Tree” [ajapālanigrodhe] shortly after
his attainment, the sammāsambuddha meditates upon how five particular controlling principals – namely (1) the faculty of faith [saddhindriya], (2) the faculty of vigour/ exertion [vīriyindriya], (3) the faculty of
rememoration [satindriya], (4) the faculty of (introversive) self-absorption/ of mystical trance [samādhindriya] and (5) the faculty of intuitive/ otherworldly reasoning [paññindriya]
– when taken-up seriously and cultivated [bhāvitāni bahulīkatāni], had immortality as their
fordable footing [amatogadhaṃ], immortality as their principal aim [amataparāyaṇaṃ],
and immortality as their ultimate ending [amatapariyosānaṃ].
Vis.:
• “ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā uruvelāyaṃ viharati najjā nerañjarāya
tīre ajapālanigrodhe paṭhamābhisambuddho. Atha kho bhagavato rahogatassa paṭisallīnassa evaṃ cetaso
parivitakko udapādi: “pañcindriyāni bhāvitāni bahulīkatāni amatogadhāni(1) honti amataparāyaṇāni(2)
amatapariyosānāni(3). Katamāni pañca? Saddhindriyaṃ bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ amatogadhāni(4)
honti amataparāyaṇāni(5) amatapariyosānāni(6). Vīriyindriyaṃ bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ
amatogadhāni(7) honti amataparāyaṇāni(8) amatapariyosānāni(9). Satindriyaṃ bhāvitaṃ
bahulīkataṃ amatogadhāni(10) honti amataparāyaṇāni(11) amatapariyosānāni(12).
Samādhindriyaṃ bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ amatogadhāni(13) honti amataparāyaṇāni(13)
amatapariyosānāni(15). Paññindriyaṃ bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ amatogadhāni(16) honti amataparāyaṇāni(17)
amatapariyosānāni(18). Imāni pañcindriyāni bhāvitāni bahulīkatāni amatogadhāni(19)
honti amataparāyaṇāni(20) amatapariyosānāni(21)”ti. [emphases and
numbering added].
[source: http://suttacentral.net/sn48.57/pi].
I have numbered each incidence where the (compounded) word amata appears so as to emphasise how it can impressively embed
itself, by its sheer dominance of topic (there are 21 instances in a 71-word paragraph), into the minds of the bhikkhu/ bhikkhuni chanting
such a sutta, over and again, all dutifully learnt memoriter as prescribed in the Vinaya
Piṭaka (with communal testing, each fortnight, for accuracy).
Furthermore, in the paragraph which follows the above paragraph, the (masculine case) Brahmā, in confirming his
agreement with those meditations, repeats all those 21 incidences back to the sammāsambuddha and then, in the last and concluding
paragraph (about half the size) yet another 3 times ... making a total of 45 instances in a very short sutta.
Presented below are a couple of regular, online translations of that opening paragraph wherein the first translator has
whittled the 21 instances down to 6, and the second translator down to 4, both thereby soundly defeating the main function of the way in which
the buddhavacana (i.e., “the words/ teachings of a buddha”) is structured ... to wit: as a memorable impressment into memory, via constant
repetition, for those oh-so-essential rememoration-presentiation purposes – in these specialised contexts the Pāli “sati”/ Vedic
“smṛ́ti” (often misleadingly translated with a ‘passive-witnessing’ meaning ascribed to ‘mindfulness’ such as
“choiceless awareness”, “bare attention”, “lucid awareness”, and etcetera) has an exclusive relationship with the Pāli
“suti”/ Vedic “śruti” (i.e., the sacred gnosis/ divine wisdom of immediate/ intuitive and/or unworldly/ otherworldly revelation
as epitomised by the ancient Ṛishis of Vedic lore and legend) and nothing else – the fruitfulness of which is prominently demonstrated
in the Pāli Canon by those numerous bhikkhū/ bhikkhunī of yore having thereby become arahants.
Viz.:
• [Mr. Jeffery Block:]: “On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Uruvelā on the bank of the river Nerañjarā
at the foot of the Goatherd’s Banyan Tree just after he had become fully enlightened. Then, while the Blessed One was alone in seclusion, a
reflection arose in his mind thus: ‘The five faculties, when developed and cultivated, have the Deathless as their ground, the Deathless as
their destination, the Deathless as their final goal. What five? The faculty of faith, the faculty of energy, the faculty of mindfulness, the
faculty of concentration, the faculty of wisdom. These five faculties, when developed and cultivated, have the Deathless as their ground, the
Deathless as their destination, the Deathless as their final goal’”. ~ (p.1699; The Great Book (Mahāvagga),
V; “The Connected Discourses of the Buddha”; trans. by Bhikkhu Bhodhi; 2000, Wisdom Publications, Somerville MA).
• [Mr. Frank Woodward]: “Thus have I heard: On a certain occasion the Exalted One was staying at Uruvela, on the bank
of the river Neranjara, under the Goatherds’ Banyan, just after his attainment of perfect enlightenment. Now in the Exalted One, when he had
retired to his solitary communing, there arose this mental reflection: There are five controlling faculties which, cultivated and made much,
of, plunge into the Deathless, have their end and goal in the Deathless. What five? The controlling faculty of faith, energy, mindfulness,
concentration and insight. These five, if cultivated and made much of, plunge into the Deathless, have their end and goal in the Deathless”.
~ (pp.207-8; The Great Chapter; “The Book of Kindred Sayings”, Vol V; trans. by F. L. Woodward; 1929,
Pali Text Society).
This is an apposite juncture, then, to further explain that oh-so-essential rememoration-presentiation process. To rememorate, in the sense which the Pāli “sati/ satimā”
conveys itself linguistically, in the Pāli sentences themselves and contextually in the buddhavacana as a whole, is to not only be
memorative but is to be so with an instinctual, intuitive apprehension of the exclusive relationship the Pāli ‘sati’ (=Vedic ‘smṛti’)
has with the Pāli ‘suti’ (=Vedic ‘śruti’) in its special-usage revelatory sense.
Viz.:
• suti (f.) cf. śruti *revelation* as opp. to smṛti *tradition*. [emphases
added]. ~ (PTS-PED).
Thus the Pāli suti (=Vedic śruti) refers to revelation as opposed to the Pāli sati (=Vedic smṛti)
which refers to tradition. That comparison can be seen here (bear in mind that the Vedic śruti = the Pāli suti whilst reading):
• śruti (f.): that which has been heard or communicated from the beginning; sacred eternal sounds or words as
eternally heard by certain holy sages called Ṛishis, and so differing from smṛ́ti [= Pāli sati] or what is only
remembered and handed down in writing by human authors [i.e., tradition]. [square-bracketed insertions added]. ~ (MMW-SED).
And this exclusive relationship also rates a special mention in that Monier Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary
entry for smṛti (= Pāli sati) where, it may be profitably noted, the word ‘mindful’/ ‘mindfulness’ is quite conspicuous by
its absence (the first edition of that dictionary was published in 1872; Mr. Thomas Rhys Davids first translated ‘sati’ as
“mindfulness” in 1881).
Viz.:
• smṛ́ti (f.): remembrance, reminiscence, thinking of or upon (loc. or comp.), calling to mind, memory; the
whole body of sacred tradition or what is remembered by human teachers, in contradistinction to śruti [= Pāli suti], or what is
directly heard or revealed to the Ṛishis; in its widest acceptation this use of the term Smṛti includes the 6 Vedāṅgas,
the Sūtras both śrauta, and gṛhya, the law-books of Manu &c.; the whole body of codes of law as handed down memoriter or
by tradition (esp. the codes of Manu Yājñavalkya and the 16 succeeding inspired lawgivers, viz. [...]; all these lawgivers being held to
be inspired and to have based their precepts on the Veda. [square-bracketed insertion added]. ~ (MWW-SED).
Thus the Pāli sati (=Vedic smṛti) refers, then, to not only “remembrance, reminiscence, thinking of or upon;
calling to mind, memory” but to “the whole body of sacred tradition” (e.g., in the buddhistic context, to the entire Suttanta &
Vinaya) as well. That is, the term “sati/ satimā” refers to “what is remembered by human teachers, in contradistinction to śruti
[= Pāli suti]” which, in the buddhistic context, is in contradistinction to what is directly known or apprehended by the sammāsambuddha
(i.e., a ‘Ṛishi’ par excellence, and then some, so to speak).
Put simply, the English word ‘mindful’/ ‘mindfulness’ cannot even begin to convey what the Pāli “sati/
satimā” refers to.
Furthermore, to be rememorative in the sense which the Pāli sati (= Vedic smṛti) conveys its meaning – a
meaning conveyed both contextually and linguistically in the Pāli sentences themselves – is to be comprehensive, in a similarly
visceral-intuitive manner, of the relationship the revelatory Pāli ‘suti’ (=Vedic śruti) has with the equally-special usage of
the Pāli ‘suta’ (= Vedic ‘śruta’) as well.
Viz.:
• śruta (mfn.): heard, listened to, heard about or of, taught, mentioned, orally transmitted or communicated from
age to age; śrutam (n.): that which has been heard (esp. from the beginning), knowledge as heard by holy men and transmitted from
generation to generation, oral tradition or revelation, sacred knowledge; śrutavat: possessing (sacred) knowledge, learned, pious; śrutavid:
knowing sacred revelation; śrutamaya (& śrutamayī): consisting of knowledge; śrutasád: abiding in what is heard (i.e.
in transmitted knowledge or tradition). ~ (MMW-SED).
• suta (pp. of suṇāti): heard; in special sense ‘received through inspiration or revelation’; freq. in phrase ‘iti me
sutaṃ’: thus have I heard, I have received this on (religious) authority; (nt.) sacred lore, inspired tradition, revelation; learning,
religious knowledge; sutadhana: the treasure of revelation; sutadhara: remembering what has been heard (or taught in the Scriptures); sutamaya
(& sutamayī): consisting in learning (or resting on sacred tradition), one of the 3 kinds of knowledge (paññā), viz. cintāmayā,
sutamayā, bhāvanāmayā paññā; sutādhāra: holding (i.e. keeping in mind, preserving) the sacred learning. ~ (PTS-PED).
Hence, instead of mindlessly continuing to translate the Pāli ‘sati’ with a late-19th century-voguish,
western-acculturated and everyday-usage word it is more explanatorily helpful to resurrect an antiquated term (that Shakespearean-Era
“rememoration” was already ‘not in use’ in 1828, ‘obsolete’ by 1913 and ‘archaic’ come 2008 according to the various
“Webster’s Dictionaries” available), unto which restored word that special-usage meaning of an instinctually-intuitive type of
memoration – essentially, then, in this context a rememoration of the gnostic knowledge/ metempirical wisdom itself, revivified feelingly
with luminous vibrancy, in the memorative faculty – can thus be readily ascribed and hypostatised.
*
Moving on to page 11 of that 1962 English translation (now much further above): after his exchange with Brahmā Sahampati the sammāsambuddha,
having resolved to teach dhamma to the pañcavaggiya-bhikkhū (i.e., that group of five brahmana religieux already mentioned further
above), sets out on tour for Isipatana, a deer-park near Benares, and along the way a religieux of the ājivika sect greets him in a
complimentary manner, regarding his disposition and demeanour, and enquires as to his mentor or whose dhamma he professes. The last lines of
his reply to this religieux, on page 12, are as follows (with the word ‘amata’ highlighted for easy reference).
“dhammacakkaṃ pavattetuṃ,
gacchāmi kāsinaṃ puraṃ;
andhībhūtasmiṃ lokasmiṃ,
āhañchaṃ amatadundubhin”.
[source: https://suttacentral.net/pi/pi-tv-kd1#6-pancavaggiyakatha].
Thus, after having declared there is no teacher [ācariyo] for him – as none like he
is exists inasmuch he is unequalled [natthi te paṭipuggala] in the world of humans and gods [sadevakasmiṃ lokasmiṃ], that he alone is the consummately self-awakened one [sammāsambuddho],
and how all-conquering [sabbābhibhū] and all-knowing [sabbavidhūhamasmi]
he is – he advises how he is going to [gacchāmi] the main city of the Kāsi County [kāsinaṃ puraṃ] to turn the dhamma-wheel (= the brahma-wheel; i.e., dhammacakkaṃ
= brahmacakkaṃ) and beat the drum of immortality [amatadundubhin] in a world
become blind [andhībhūtasmiṃ lokasmiṃ].
After arriving at the deer-park, and some discussion about an appropriate name, the following line is worth considering
(again with the word ‘amata’ highlighted for easy reference).
• “Arahaṃ, bhikkhave, tathāgato sammāsambuddho, odahatha, bhikkhave,
sotaṃ, amatamadhigataṃ, ahamanusāsāmi, ahaṃ dhammaṃ desemi”.
[source: https://suttacentral.net/pi/pi-tv-kd1#5-brahmayacanakatha].
On page 13, of that 1962 English translation, Ms. Isaline Horner renders that line as follows.
• “A Truthfinder, monks, is a perfect one, a fully awakened one. Give
ear, monks, the deathless has been found; I instruct, I teach dhamma”.
[https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/13/mode/1up].
And on page 92 of the 1881 English translation Mr. Thomas Rhys Davids & Mr. Hermann Oldenberg render it thisaway:
• “Give ear, O Bhikkhus! The immortal (Amata) has been won (by me);
I will teach you, to you I will preach the doctrine”.
[https://archive.org/stream/vinayatexts01davi#page/92/mode/1up].
(This is repeated three more times before the sammāsambuddha begins his first discourse, the celebrated
‘wheel-turning’ discourse, which is venerated as being the advent of the buddhavacana, albeit known as ‘Buddhism’ for the last 150+
years, into the world of humans and gods). What is more than passing strange is how, since the 1880s or thereabouts, there is a noticeable
tendency, on the part of translators/ scholars/ etcetera, to dilute or attenuate, rather than duly emphasise, just what certain words denote
and/or connote, both etymologically and contextually (contextually, that is, in both a linguistical and environmental manner) despite the vast
array of antiquarian scriptural texts and oral tradition from sub-continental India which clearly delineate the age-old quest for immortality
– as per the Sanskrit word amṛta and/or the Pāli word amata – as being the sole purpose of the brahmacariya modus vivendi
(i.e., living an austere and celibate religious/ holy life), which strictly chaste way of life is scripturally incumbent upon any
conscientious ordination as a bhikkhu/ bhikkhuni, as well as being the long-term aim of lay-persons, via an auspicious rebirth enabling
committed ordination, per favour virtuous merit-accruing generosity in feeding or otherwise supporting and/or providing for those living that
rigorous brahmacariya lifestyle (i.e., “dānamaya puññaṃ” where dāna
= alms-giving and puñña = virtue, merit).
By and large the clearly defined/ readily describable goal of the buddhavacana – immortality in the current lifetime
– has been obscured by an ineffable/ indefinable and faraway aspiration called nibbāna/ nirvāṇa. Hence “floating
nebulously in a vacuum”. Hence, also, modern-day buddhistic aspirations being more of a therapeutic nature than salvational.
And it is more than but passing strange because, just as the English word immortal (‘im-’ + ‘mortal’) means
not-mortal so too does the Pāli word amata (‘a-’ + ‘mata’) mean not-mortal. The Pāli “mata” refers to death, as does the
Pāli “mara” and “maccu” for that matter, in the same way as the Latin “mort-” does (“mort”, the singular of “mors”,
is what the English “mortal” is based upon) and as does the Greek “-brotos” as well (from which the English word ambrosia is derived,
via “ambrotos”, the Greek word for immortal). The privative Pāli prefix ‘a-’ negates ‘mata’ just like the prefix ‘im-’
negates ‘mortal’ (thereby conveying not-mortal). Most translators, however, translating “mata” as “death” then negate it with the
suffix “-less” (i.e., “deathless”) in the same way that the suffix “-less” of “timeless” means “no time” or
“penniless” conveys “without money”. As the English word deathless is defined, for example, as “not subject to death; immortal” ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary) or as “not subject to termination or death; immortal” ~ (American Heritage Dictionary) or as, quite singularly, “immortal”
~ (Oxford English Dictionary), anyway, it is quite odd they would do so.
And particularly so, as amongst the many epithets ascribed to the sammāsambuddha, one in particular stands out: “amatassa dātā dhammassāmī”. Those first two words – amatassa dātā
(“dispenser of immortality”) – are the crux of the epithet (the word which follows them, dhammassāmī,
as in “master of dhamma”, is quite straightforward) as both the Pāli word amata and the Vedic/ Sanskrit word amṛta refer to
precisely what the whole point of becoming mystically awakened/ spiritually enlightened really is.
Namely: to attain immortality [amata-patta], to dwell in the realm of the immortals [amata-pada], to rest in peace, forevermore, in the tranquillity of immortality [amataṃ-santiṃ],
to enjoy the fruit of immortality [amata-phala], to be beating the drum of immortality [amata-dundubhi],
to be bringing immortality [amatandada] to those with “little dust in their eyes” – having become the
dispenser of immortality [amatassa dātā], having opened the doors to immortality [amata-dvārā],
having revealed the way going or leading to immortality [amata-gāmin], along the path to immortality [amata-magga], for the benefit of all those seeking the medicine of immortality [amata-osadha]
– so that whosoever is sprinkled with the ambrosia of immortality [amatena-abhisitta], who sees immortality [amata-dasa], who is tasting immortality [amata-rasā], is a drinker of immortality’s
nectar [amatapo], is drenched by the rain of immortality [amata-vutthi;
amṛta-varṣa], will be inclining to immortality [amata-pabbhāra], will be having
immortality as their principal aim [amata-parāyaṇa] and, with immortality as their fordable footing [amata-gadha], will be diving into immortality [amata-ogadha], will be ending in
immortality [amata-pariyosāna] and dwelling forevermore thereafter in the immortal state [amataṃ dhātuṃ] totally unaffected by death [anāmata].
And this, all of this and more, has been sitting there in plain view (albeit with ‘nibbāna’/ ‘nirvāṇa’
distracting attention away) for more than two millennia.
Speaking from personal experience: in September 1981 when the then-resident identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body
became awakened/ enlightened ‘he’ was immediately aware – due to its marked absence – that ‘his’ ego/ ego-self (i.e., ‘the
thinker’/ ‘the doer’) had most certainly died and ‘he’ would remark to those interested how ironic it was that ‘he’ only knew
for sure now (now that it had vanished completely) how there had indeed been an operant ego all the while leading up to that moment. This
absence of ego/ ego-self was so remarkably obvious ‘he’ would flesh-out ‘his’ description by pointing both forefingers directly to
either temple so as to pinpoint its exact location via where an interior place immediately behind the mid-point of the eyebrows was
intersected by that line-of-pointing. And, speaking even more experientially, a distinct vacancy, a clear emptiness, at that precise location
was an on-going and compelling experience. So compelling, in fact, and so devoid of having ever even been existent this on-going reality was,
then, that upon being asked, on occasion over the following years, as to what would happen at physical death ‘he’ would speak assuredly of
being “already-dead” (meaning that only an end to embodiment could occur); of how there was “no such thing as death”; of how being
immortal was what being awakened/ enlightened is (as “The Absolute”, as ‘he’ called it, that is); of how anything other than that was
but a dream, an illusion, an appearance.
I drew attention to this salient feature in the first footnote of my first email to you (Message № 20114).
RESPONDENT: So where should I go from here, if you don’t mind me asking? What is the
next step, assuming I have taken one in a positive direction by realizing these things?
RICHARD: No, I do not mind you asking at all – and I appreciate your courtesy – as spiritual awakenment/
mystical enlightenment is, after all, my forté due to having gone beyond it, to the other side of that institutionalised insanity (in fact to
where the entire sanity-insanity spectrum, which encapsulates the human condition, has no footing whatsoever), after having lived that/ been
that highly revered and/or greatly venerated state of being night and day for eleven years.
Quite frankly, the first step regarding where to go from here stands out like the proverbial outhouse in a desert ... to
wit: utilising that canonical bojjhaṅga known as “dhammavicaya”[*], the second of the seven factors or constituents of buddhistic
knowledge or wisdom, so as to investigate and research the provenance of this “vipassanā” practice you are engaged in – (you advised DhO participants, on Jan 03, 2014, how you
had “begun Mahasi noting in both formal meditation sittings and daily life” around six months after your first post in which you
described having “tried a variety of techniques” but always returning to “the breath counting/ belly breathing of rinzai zen”)
– in order to determine whether or not that heterodox practice has both the generative potential for fulfilling your [quote] “basic
trust that there is a level of mind that can be penetrated” [endquote], and the transformative capacity to [quote] “cause
permanent, irreversible change” [endquote], given that after eighteen months or so of [quote] “trying to change my psyche as
opposed to dropping it or escaping it or ending it entirely” [endquote] you still do not really know if you are capable of providing a
description of a non-dogmatic spiritual awakenment/ mystical enlightenment inasmuch that very goal of yours is floating nebulously in a
vacuum.
[*]Dhammavicaya (m.): investigation of doctrine, religious research; [fr. dhamma + vicaya
q.v.]. ~ (PTS-PED).
*
However, in case you do not utilise dhammavicaya in regards to the provenance of this “vipassanā” practice you are engaged in – which is the most likely course of events going by your
replies, so far, to all other responses to your requests for assistance – I am nevertheless only too happy to make public knowledge of what
has been sitting there in plain view in the buddhavacana, for over two millennia (and thus why there have been no arahants for more than two
thousand years), the obtention of which knowledge is a direct result of the unique advantage obtaining from having lived life in three majorly
different ways – a normal egocentric feeling-being, an abnormal egoless feeling-being, and an actually selfless and thus literally apathetic
human being – and thereby being well-placed to know what nobody else can know.
It is advisable to first read-through Message № 16259 (and
especially the footnotes), where I refer to that presently-popular but nevertheless controversial sukkhavipassaka practice – what is known
colloquially as the “Dry Burmese Vipassanā”, as in “Mahāsī-style noting” and “Goenka Vipassanā”, for instance
– in the body of the text, because what follows hereon will be a ‘joining the dots’ in practical terms so as to have a standalone
version available, once and for all, rather than paragraphs scattered here and there throughout many emails.
Viz.:
January 25 2014
Re: Emptiness
JONATHAN: From what I can recall, Richard’s view of the buddha is not in the
mainstream. As I understand it, the view that Gautama believed in a universal self is held by a significant minority of scholars. But the
mainstream believes that Gautama and the bhagavad gita were on to two different points of views. Because Richard is with the minority, he
doesn’t speak of emptiness ever. ( I found a definition of it in the AFT and I found a page referencing Zen but I haven’t found anything
on emptiness as the pragmatic dharma crowd speaks of it.) My question is. Is emptiness as the dho and kfd folks talk of it a feeling? When
those folks speak of emptiness and r. speaks of Being with a captial B, are they talking of the same thing? (Message 162xx , 19 Jan 2014, Subject: Emptiness)
RICHARD: First and foremost, it is not [quote] ‘Richard’s *view* of the buddha’ [emphasis
added] which you recall reading, on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website, as I make it unambiguously clear that I lived that/was
that, night and day for eleven years, which Mr.
Gotama the Sakyan rediscovered whilst sitting under an assattha/ pippal tree (‘Ficus religiosa’) around two and a half millennia ago.
Second, and also because Mr. Gotama the Sakyan lived that/was that which he rediscovered, albeit night and day for 45 years, neither is it recorded
anywhere canonical that [quote] ‘Gautama *believed* in a universal self’ [emphasis added] either.
Third, what you are comparing his experiential state to, by referencing [quote] ‘the bhagavad gita’ [endquote],
stems from the sublative ‘no-genesis’ vedantic doctrine (i.e., ajativada) which Mr. Gauda the anchorite recovered, at Gowda Desha circa the 6th century CE, from the Upanisads – principally the Mandukya, Brhadaranyaka and
Chandogya Upanisads – which was subsequently consolidated by Mr. Adi Sankara of Kaladi (nowadays called
Kerala) and which serves to epitomise what is more generally referred to as Hinduism.
Fourth, what you twice characterise as [quote] ‘the mainstream’ [endquote] is, given the context, presumably
the *sectarian* Theravadin lineage, of a broader religio-spiritual/ mystico-metaphysical tradition generally referred to as Buddhism
(as contrasted to what is generally referred to as Hinduism), and, as such, is comprised of the many and various practitioners, commentators,
translators, scholars/ pundits, and so on, who have successively contributed to and/or perpetuated the prevailing ‘ditthi’/ ‘drsti’
(i.e., ‘wrong view; theory, doctrine, system’) about what anatta/ anatma refers to – especially obvious as it is the word niratta/
niratma which means soulless (‘soullessness or unsubstantiality’) – for at least the last two millennia.
(And I say ‘for at least the last two millennia’ advisedly because it is duly recorded, in Pali text in the Mahavamsa
(abbrev. Mhv. or Mhvs.), that the last Sinhalese Arahant, Maliya Deva Thero, lived during the time of King Dutugamunu (101-77 BCE), a period which is something
like 500 or so years before the reformist pundit Mr. Budhaghosa penned his highly influential ‘Visuddhimagga’ and commentaries).
*
Now, I mention these four points because where you then say [quote] ‘Because Richard is with the minority’
[endquote] – after having just designated that ‘minority’ as being [quote] ‘a significant minority of *scholars*’
[emphasis added] – your conclusion that this is why [quote] ‘he doesn’t speak of emptiness ever’ [endquote] is thus a non
sequitur ... and actually erroneous as well.
For example (regarding ‘erroneous’) from the year 2000:
• [Richard]: (...) when you use such a phrase as ‘the empty nature of ...’ it invokes the Buddhist understanding
that the physical world, as seen through their ‘sense-doors’, is impermanent, lacking in substance, having no inherent existence ...
whereas this actual world of direct sensate experiencing – this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe – is already always here being
substantial, enduring, and having nothing but inherent existence.
• [Co-Respondent]: That simply means that for you, the state of emptiness is just an idea.
• [Richard]: No, *I lived that ‘state of emptiness’ night and day for eleven years* ... I am well aware of what the physical
world is seen as when seen through their ‘sense-doors’ (it is seen as impermanent, lacking in substance, having no inherent existence and
so on). [emphasis added]. (List B, 12i, 27 December 2000).
Moreover, a computer search through all my publicly-available correspondence – freely available on-line 24/7 for anyone
with internet access – for the word emptiness returned 118 hits.
Similarly, the Sanskrit word sunyata (=the Pali sunnata, abstracted from sunna, and said to mean ‘emptiness, void,
unsubstantiality’ and so on) returned 42 hits.
For instance (from 1999):
• [Co-Respondent]: Dualistic approach is effort to bring about a desired result of freedom for me. It starts with
belief that I know what is and I know what I want, what should be, so I will work to get there. But that is like a fish trying to become
water. Fish or form is the time aspect and water or emptiness is the timeless aspect.
• [Richard]: (...). The word ‘emptiness’ as you use it is the Buddhist ‘Sunyata’ ... which is a ‘timeless and spaceless and
formless absolute’. (List B, 12d, 1July 1999).
More specifically, though, I explain that the word empty usually means ‘without self’.
Vis. (from 2001):
• [Richard]: This is an intriguing translation ... usually ‘empty’ means without self (the self is not to be found
in the material world) ... (List B, 12o, 14 November 2001).
And again (also from 2001):
• [Richard]: The religio-spiritual meaning of the word ‘emptiness’ is that the material world is empty of
‘self’. (List B, 12o, 21 November 2001).
*
Fifth, the reason why you did not find anything in my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust website on [quote] ‘emptiness
as the pragmatic dharma crowd speaks of it’ [endquote] is because what they speak of is the result of the presently-popular but
controversial sukkhavipassaka practice (what is known colloquially as the ‘Dry Burmese Vipassana’, as in ‘Noting/ Mahasi Style’ and
‘Goenka Vipassana’, for instance) and which is more akin to the much-diluted modern-day ‘Neo-Advaita’ form of secularised/ westernised
nondualism than anything else.
I have written about my degree of interest in that practice on this very forum.
Vis. (emphasis in the original):
#12054
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:47:49 -0000
From: Richard
Subject: Re: it is impossible to marry Actualism and Buddhism
• [Richard]: [...snip...].
• [Respondent No. 32]: This is why I wish there can be a direct dialogue between you and some of the accomplished Buddhist teachers..
• [Richard]: I have no interest whatsoever in a dialogue with accomplished *sectarian* Buddhist teachers – and especially not any
such teachers of sukkhavipassaka – as the buddhaghosavacana [‘the word/ teaching of Buddhaghosa’] is too far removed from the
buddhavacana [‘the word/ teaching of Buddha’] for any meaningful discussion. [...].
To explain: that sectarian ‘ditthi’/ ‘drsti’ (i.e., ‘wrong view; theory, doctrine, system’) already mentioned
– institutionalised by all those unawakened/ unenlightened practitioners, commentators, translators, scholars/ pundits, and so on, as the
anatta/ anatma doctrine – has reified (reify = ‘to consider an abstract concept to be real’) and/or hypostatised (hypostatise = ‘to
construe as a real existence, of a conceptual entity’) an otherwise simple expression which essentially means what the English word devoid
conveys (devoid = without, sans, free from, completely lacking or wanting in, bereft of, empty of, deficient in, denuded of, barren of;
destitute or void of) into being an (affectively) subjective ‘thing-in-itself’, so to speak, as in some kind of a metaphysical
‘emptiness’ and/or a timeless-spaceless-formless ‘void’ beyond all reckoning.
*
Having attended to all the points in your preamble your question can now be addressed as-is.
Vis.:
• [Jonathan]: ‘My question is. Is emptiness as the dho and kfd folks talk of it a
feeling?’ [endquote].
As all subjective experiences within the human condition – taking place as they do in the human psyche – are
essentially affective/ pathematic in nature (including any psychic noumena) it is all-too-easy to just say their emptiness is ‘a feeling’.
(Generally speaking, ‘a feeling’ is an emotion or a passion – love/ hate, anger/ amity, sadness/ gladness, and so
on, for instance – whereas a reified/ hypostatised entity such as an ‘emptiness’ and/or a ‘void’ is more a product of the affective
faculty’s imaginative/ hallucinatory facility).
Besides which, even a genuine awakenment/ full enlightenment is essentially affective in nature.
*
Lastly, your query as to whether that ‘emptiness’ the pragmatic/ hardcore dharma folk speak of is the same thing as
what I refer to when speaking of [quote] ‘Being with a captial B’ [endquote] can be answered quite simply:
Nothing they speak of is the same thing as what I have to report/ describe/ explain, about those eleven years (1981-1992)
of awakenment/ enlightenment, as none of them experientially know what it is to be awakened/ enlightened.
(See my Footnote No. 2, for example, where I have deliberately gone into a
particularly pertinent aspect of what constitutes awakenment/ enlightenment, in some detail, for this very purpose).
This is all such fun! (Richard, List D, Jonathan, 25 January 2014)
*
First of all, when that “A Long-Awaited Public Announcement”, prominently linked-to on the homepage of The Actual
Freedom Trust website, was first published there were two major reactions to that ‘good news’ about how not only had Richard’s condition
been replicated, and by a female as well as by a male, but that a ‘direct-route’ to what lies on the other side of insanity had also been
established, per favour an epoch-changing opening in human consciousness, thus obviating the need to otherwise make one’s personal contribution to
global peace-on-earth dangerously, via spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment, as the trail-blazer had done ... namely:
(1.) a subversive attempt to maintain the status-quo vis-á-vis the human condition via confecting and popularising a
much watered-down and bastardised facsimile of actualism (known as ‘affism’ due to its confectioners referring to ‘aff’ when
communicating with other ‘affers’), via a meditative detachment-dissociative technique and/or a meditational affective-repression
procedure, in which ‘I’ as ego/ ‘me’ as soul survive to wreak ‘my’ malicious-sorrowful and, antidotally, loving-compassionate
damage as beforehand (i.e., affectively/ psychically) ... and:
(2.) a seditious attempt to stop the global spread of peace-on-earth dead in its tracks via disseminating all manner of
made-up stuff, both clandestinely (surreptitious private emails) and unaccountably (anonymous public emails), about “Richard &
Associates” until the outright ridiculousness their salacious fabulations – known to all in the post-modernist world and its ilk (a
creative mind-space where ‘truths’ not only trump facts but where facts are ‘truths’ to be dissed at will, or even whim, at times) as
“narratives” rather than the ‘lies’, the ‘bull’ or, even, the ‘spin’ they are – brought about its ignominious melt-down.
Needless to add, of course, is how actualism/ actual freedom sailed-on serenely throughout – being actual, unlike
materialists’ ego-centric philosophies and spiritualists’ soul-centric religiosities, it is invisible to all and every auto-centric
‘being’ (whose automorphic missiles, being thus of the ‘heat’-seeking variety, can never, ever reach their mark) – completely unscathed, utterly unsullied and totally unaffected.
The reason as to why ‘self’ in its entirety remained intact for the ‘affers’ throws considerable light onto
‘samatha-vipassanā’ practice, in general, and “‘Mahāsī’-style noting”, in particular, because the anatta aspect, of
its integral anicca-anatta-dukkha ‘three marks of the phenomenal world’ weltanschauung (Pali: tilakkhaṇa;
Sanskrit: trilakṣaṇa), has been blown all out of proportion by the many and various practitioners, commentators, translators, scholiasts/ pundits,
and so on, who successively contributed to and/or perpetuated the presently prevailing ‘diṭṭhi’/‘dṛṣṭi’
(i.e., “wrong view; theory, doctrine, system”) about what anatta/ anātma
refers to, despite it having been sitting there in plain view in the buddhavacana, all along, that the anatta aspect of attavāda –
(i.e., “theory of (a persistent) soul” ~ (PTS-PED) – applies specifically to the phenomenal
world.
In other words, through holding fast to that particular ‘diṭṭhi’/‘dṛṣṭi’ –
popularly known by one and all as “the no-self doctrine” and/or “the anatta doctrine” (as if some-such term as ‘an-attavāda’
might be tucked-away in the more obscure recesses of either the Suttanta or the Vinaya) – and believing it applicable to both the phenomenal
world and the noumenal realm, they fervently maintain no ego-death/ egoic dissolution is required (due to that pre-supposed non-existence of
‘self’, in its entirety, in the first place).
Further compounding this mischief-making doctrine, this daemonic dogma, is its corresponding view that the lower yoke
(a.k.a. “fetter”) known in Pāli by the term sakkāyadiṭṭhi – (from sakkāya + diṭṭhi, wherein sakkāya = “lit. ‘the existing body’ [from sat+kāya] or ‘the body in being’” ~ PTS-PED) – can be adequately translated by an anaemic term such as “personality-view” insofar
as its eradication can thenceforth be effected via an intellectual/ ideational comprehension and/or a cerebrational/ mentational
understanding.
Howsoever, by virtue of one’s goal no longer floating nebulously in a vacuum, per favour having seen for oneself what
has been sitting there in plain view for more than two millennia, a truly critical examination of the Pāli Canon’s Suttanta &
Vinaya can take place wherein it demonstrably evidences, both coherently and rather consistently for such ages-old and handed-down scriptures,
that there is more to what the term sakkāyadiṭṭhi refers to than “personality-view”. In the Cūḷavedalla Sutta (MN 44; PTS: M i 299), for instance, a questioner enquires as to what ‘sakkāya’ is,
according to the sammāsambuddha, and is told that sakkāya = panc’upādāna-kkhandhā – that is, the five (i.e., “pañca”) fuelled (i.e., “upādāna”) components (i.e., “khandhā”) constituting personage – namely:
(1.): rūpūpādānakkhandho;
(2.): vedanūpādānakkhandho;
(3.): saññūpādānakkhandho;
(4.): saṅkhārūpādānakkhandho;
(5.): viññāṇūpādānakkhandho.
[Source: https://suttacentral.net/pi/mn44].
I have added those emphases because “upādāna”, which means ‘fuelled’, distinguishes their stark
difference to the five components of the awakened/ enlightened being (viz.: panc’anupādāna-kkhandhā) where “anupādāna”
means “without fuel”.
Viz.:
• upādāna (nt.): (lit. that (material) substratum by means of which an active process is kept alive or
going), fuel, supply, provision; (adj., ‘-upādāna’): supported by, drawing one’s existence from (e.g.: ‘aggikkhandho upādāna-assa
pariyādānā’ [S I.69; II.85] = “by means of taking up fuel”); sa-upādāna
(adj.): provided with fuel; *anupādāna: without fuel*. [emphasis added]. ~ (PTS-PED).
Just to emphasise this salient point: similar to that definition of anupādāna – i.e., “without fuel” ~ PTS-PED – is anupādā/ anupādāya.
Viz.:
• anupādā (for anupādāya) in meaning “not taking up any more (fuel, so as to keep the fire of
rebirth alive)”, not clinging to love of the world, or the kilesas q.v., having no more tendency to becoming; in phrases anupādā
parinibbānaṃ, “unsupported emancipation”; anupādā vimokkho, “mental release”; anupādā vimutto. ~ (PTS-PED).
Thus the five unfuelled (i.e., anupādāna) components which constitute a
spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened being – a being in whom all āsavā, or (worldly) intoxications, are extinguished –
are known as panc’anupādāna-kkhandhā (as distinct from the five fuelled (i.e., upādāna)
components which constitute an unenlightened/ unawakened being ... to wit: panc’upādāna-kkhandhā).
Therefore, contrary to the impression conveyed by a cursory reading of the Cūḷavedalla Sutta the word ‘sakkāya’
does not refer to the five components constituting personage, per se, but refers instead to their fuelled nature (and obviously so, otherwise
sakkāya would remain intact, after awakenment/ enlightenment). And, as it is ego-death/ egoic dissolution which distinguishes the
awakened/ enlightened one from the unawakened/ unenlightened ones, then what the Pāli word ‘sakkāya’ refers to is none other
than the ego/ ego-self.
Hence that lower yoke (a.k.a. “fetter”) known in Pāli by the term sakkāya-diṭṭhi – far from
being adequately translated by that anaemic term “personality-view” – is better rendered as “egoistic-diṭṭhi/dṛṣṭi”
or “egoity-diṭṭhi/dṛṣṭi” (as in, and staying true to what the buddhavacana conveys, an
instinctively-visceral intuition of being present-to-oneself as the egoic locus-of-observation and agent-of-agency; the egoic
thinker-of-thoughts and feeler-of-feelings; the egoic willer-of-deeds and initiator-of-actions; the egoic receiver-of-benefit/ deficit and
recipient-of-praise/ blame; the egoic seeker-of-pleasure and avoider-of-pain or, in a nutshell, the egoic experiencer-of-experiences) and
which egocentric diṭṭhi/dṛṣṭi cannot, of course, be eradicated via intellectual/ ideational comprehension and/or
cerebrational/ mentational understanding.
In fact, the only successful eradication of such an egoistical diṭṭhi/dṛṣṭi is an
experiential eradication and another critical examination of the Pāli Suttanta & Vinaya evidences how that is indeed the case.
Turning again to that 1962 translation, of the first Khandhaka (chapter) of the Mahāvagga (division) in the Vinaya
Piṭaka, on page 54 a description can be read as to how the eradication of sakkāyadiṭṭhi takes place.
Moreover, upon doing so it will also become apparent that the Pāli word ‘saddhā’ refers to a distinctive
faith, a buddhistic type of faith, that is, which accrues contingent upon sammādiṭṭhika – upon having a consummate
epiphanic/ revelatory vision of amata-pada (i.e., the region or place of immortality a.k.a. the “deathless” realm) as depicted on page 54
– whereupon the octadic patrician way [viz.: “ariya aṭṭhangika magga”], albeit popularly known
in a rather pedestrian manner as “The Noble Eightfold Path” (wherein the word ‘Noble’ really refers to the French ‘Noblesse’, as
in the English ‘Aristocrat’, hence the Latin ‘Patrician’), unfolds of its own accord for the thenceforth faithful wayfarer to traverse
unto deliverance.
In other words, sammā-diṭṭhi (as in, this intuitive ‘consummate vision’ as opposed to the cognitive
“right view” of popular dissemination), the 1st stage of the 8-stage path, not only opens up the way of the ancient path [viz.: “purāṇaṃ maggaṃ”] – rediscovered by the sammāsambuddha whilst immersed in introspective
self-absorption [Pāli: jhāyanasīla; Skt.: dhyānayoga] under a
certain assattha/ pippal tree (a.k.a. “Ficus religiosa”) around two and a half millennia ago – it also bestows the requisite buddhistic
faith in the “paṭiccasamuppāda dhamma“” (i.e., the truth of ‘contingent-geniture’) as
detailed, in extenso, by its illustrious discoverer.
What follows, then, is the original Pāli which contains that critical depiction of the consummate epiphanic/
revelatory vision of amata-pada which not only ensures the eradication of sakkāyadiṭṭhi – (the eradication of the
diṭṭhi, that is, not of sakkāya itself (i.e., the ego/ ego-self) as that persists up until the last of the upper yokes
(a.k.a. “fetters”) are eradicated) – but also elevates the wayfarer unto the status of a patrician traversing the octadic patrician way
(the ancient way, the ancient path, immortalised by the Ṛishis of yore).
Viz.:
• “addasā kho moggallāno paribbājako sāriputtaṃ paribbājakaṃ
dūratova āgacchantaṃ, disvāna sāriputtaṃ paribbājakaṃ etadavoca – “vippasannāni kho te,
āvuso, indriyāni, parisuddho chavivaṇṇo pariyodāto. Kacci no tvaṃ, āvuso, amataṃ
adhigato”ti? “Āmāvuso, amataṃ adhigato”ti. “Yathākathaṃ pana tvaṃ, āvuso, amataṃ
adhigato”ti? “Idhāhaṃ, āvuso, addasaṃ assajiṃ bhikkhuṃ rājagahe piṇḍāya ...”. [emphases added].
[source: https://suttacentral.net/pi/pi-tv-kd1#14-sariputtamoggallanapabbajjakatha].
And here is the English translation by Ms. Isaline Horner in 1962:
“Then the wanderer Moggallāna saw the wanderer Sāriputta coming in the distance, and seeing the wanderer Sāriputta
he spoke thus: “Friend, your faculties are quite pure, your complexion very bright, very clear. Can it be that you, friend, have attained
the deathless [amataṃ]?”
“Yes, friend, I have attained the deathless [amataṃ]”.
“But how did you, friend, attain the deathless [amataṃ]?”
“Now, I, friend, saw the venerable Assaji walking for almsfood in Rājagaha ...”. [square-bracketed insertions
added].
[https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/54/mode/1up].
Mr. Thomas Rhys Davids & Mr. Hermann Oldenberg rendered the same text thisaway in 1881:
“And the paribbâgaka Moggallâna saw the paribbâgaka Sâriputta coming from afar; seeing him he said to
the paribbâgaka Sâriputta: “Your countenance, friend, is serene; your complexion is pure and bright. Have you then really reached
the immortal [amataṃ], friend?”
“Yes, friend I have attained to the immortal [amataṃ]”.
“And how, friend, have you done so?”
“I saw, friend, the Bhikkhu Assaji who went through Râgagaha for alms ...”. [square-bracketed insertions
added].
[https://archive.org/stream/vinayatexts01davi#page/147/mode/1up].
Now, having comprehended what needs to ensue in order to (1) eradicate the “egoistic-diṭṭhi/dṛṣṭi”
or “egoity-diṭṭhi/dṛṣṭi” and (2) thus set foot on the “ariya aṭṭhangika magga”, the octadic
patrician way, as (3) a patrician wayfarer (i.e., one of the “ariya”, one of the buddhistic noblesse, aristocrats or patricians) it will
be handy to see how that entree into the buddhistic nobility is usually depicted elsewhere in the text. Again on page 54 of the 1962
translation is the following line (with a square-bracketed insertion of the key Pāli words for the highlighted section).
Viz.:
“When the wanderer Sāriputta had heard this terse expression of dhamma, *there arose dhamma-vision,
dustless, stainless* [viz.: ‘virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi’]
...”. [emphasis added].
[https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/54/mode/1up].
And on page 146 of the 1881 translation it is rendered thisaway:
“And the paribbâgaka Sâriputta after having heard this text *obtained the pure and spotless Eye of the
Truth* [viz.: ‘virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi’] ...”. [emphasis added].
[https://archive.org/stream/vinayatexts01davi#page/146/mode/1up].
Returning, now, to pages 17-19 of the 1962 translation the following words will make a lot more sense.
“Moreover, while this discourse was being uttered, *dhamma-vision, dustless, stainless, arose* to the
venerable Aññāta Koṇḍañña that “whatever is of the nature to arise, all that is of the nature to stop”. [...]. Then
the venerable Aññāta Koṇḍañña, having seen dhamma, attained dhamma, known dhamma, plunged into dhamma,
having crossed over doubt, having put away uncertainty, having attained without another’s help to full confidence in the teacher’s
instruction, spoke thus to the Lord: “May I, Lord, receive the going forth in the Lord’s presence, may I receive ordination?” “Come,
monk”, the Lord said, “well taught is dhamma, fare the Brahma-faring for making an utter end of ill [i.e., dukkha]”. So this came
to be this venerable one’s ordination. Then the Lord exhorted, instructed those remaining monks with dhamma-talk. Then while they
were being exhorted, instructed by the Lord with dhamma-talk, *dhamma-vision, dustless, stainless, arose* to the
venerable Vappa and to the venerable Bhaddiya, that “whatever is of the nature to arise, all that is of the nature to stop”. These, having
seen dhamma, attained dhamma, known dhamma, plunged into dhamma [...]. Then the Lord exhorted, instructed those
remaining monks with dhamma-talk. Then while they were being exhorted, instructed by the Lord with dhamma-talk, *dhamma-vision,
dustless, stainless, arose* to the venerable Mahānāma and to the venerable Assaji [...]. These, having seen dhamma,
attained dhamma, known dhamma, plunged into dhamma ...”. [viz.: ‘virajaṃ vītamalaṃ
dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi’]. [emphases added].
[https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/18/mode/1up].
As will pages 97-100 of the 1881 translation:
“And when this exposition was propounded, the venerable Kondañña *obtained the the pure and spotless
Eye of the Truth* (that is to say the following knowledge): “Whatever is subject to the condition of origination, is subject also to the
condition of cessation”. [...]. And the venerable Aññâtakondañña, having seen the Truth, having mastered the
Truth, having understood the Truth, having penetrated the Truth, having overcome uncertainty, having dispelled all doubts, having gained full
knowledge, dependent on nobody else for knowledge of the doctrine of the Teacher, thus spoke to the Blessed One: “Lord, let me receive the
pabbaggâ and upasampadâ ordinations from the Blessed One”. “Come, O Bhikkhu”, said the Blessed One, “well taught is the
doctrine; lead a holy life for the sake of the complete extinction of suffering [i.e., dukkha]”. Thus this venerable person received the
upasampadâ ordination. And the Blessed One administered to the other Bhikkhus exhortation and instruction by discourses relating to the
Dhamma. And the venerable Vappa, and the venerable Bhaddiya, when they received from the Blessed One such exhortation and instruction by
discourses relating to the Dhamma, *obtained the the pure and spotless Eye of the Truth* (that is to say the following knowledge):
“Whatever is subject to the condition of origination, is subject also to the condition of cessation”. And having seen the Truth, having
mastered the Truth, having understood the Truth, having penetrated the Truth [...]. And the venerable Mahânâna and the venerable Assagi,
when they received from the Blessed One such exhortation and instruction by discourses relating to the Dhamma, *obtained the pure and
spotless Eye of the Truth* [...]. And having seen the Truth, having mastered the Truth, having understood the Truth, having penetrated the
Truth ...”. [viz.: ‘virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi’]. [emphases added].
[https://archive.org/stream/vinayatexts01davi#page/98/mode/1up].
Plus these words on page 23 of the 1962 translation:
“When the Lord knew that the mind of Yassa, the young man of the family, was ready, malleable, devoid of hindrances,
uplifted and pleased, then he explained to him the teaching on dhamma which the awakened ones have themselves discovered: ill [i.e.,
dukkha], uprising, stopping, the Way. And just as a clean cloth without black specks will take a dye easily, even so (as he was sitting) on
that very seat, *dhamma-vision, dustless, stainless, arose* to Yassa ...”. [viz.: ‘virajaṃ vītamalaṃ
dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi’]. [emphasis added].
[https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/23/mode/1up].
And the same on pages 104-105 of the 1881 translation:
“When the Blessed One saw that the mind of Yasa, the noble youth, was prepared, impressionable, free from obstacles (to
understanding the Truth), elated, and believing, then he preached what is the principle doctrine of the Buddhas, namely, Suffering [i.e.,
dukkha], the Cause of suffering [dukkha], the Cessation of suffering [dukkha], the Path. Just as a clean cloth free from black specks properly
takes the dye, thus Yassa, the noble youth, even while sitting there, *obtained the pure and spotless Eye of Truth* ...”. [viz.: ‘virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ udapādi’]. [emphasis added].
[https://archive.org/stream/vinayatexts01davi#page/104/mode/1up].
And the same on page 27 and again on page 28 of the 1962 translation (and on page 111 and again on page 112 of the 1881
translation). An internet-based search with the search-string <dhammacakkhuṃ site:suttacentral.net> will bring forth many
instances of “virajaṃ vītamalaṃ dhammacakkhuṃ” (i.e., ‘dustless, stainless dhamma-vision’/ ‘pure, spotless
Eye-of-Truth’) to examine at leisure.
Speaking personally, soon after I began my Pāli studies a few years ago (in order to suss out how come so many
practitioners go astray and why the Pāli-to-English translators render certain key-words the way they do) passages such as the above
reminded me of the impactive event which was the turning-point for the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, all those years ago,
inasmuch instead of proceeding felicitously and innocuously towards becoming actually free, via an out-from-control/ different-way-of-being
virtual freedom, ‘he’ went on to become mystically awakened/ spiritually enlightened instead. I referred to that impactive
‘stream-entry’ event thisaway about a decade ago (years before commencing my Pali studies):
• [Richard]: “(...). Furthermore, that way of living was so successful, for the first three months or so of that year
[1981], that ‘he’ was wont to exclaim, to all and sundry, that ‘he’ had discovered the secret to life (for that is how far beyond
normal human expectations the felicitous/ innocuous state which has nowadays become known as being virtually free truly is) and ‘he’ was
perplexed as to why, it being such a simple thing to do, no-one had ever done it before.
Then an event occurred of such impact as to be the turning-point, in regards no longer going directly to what numerous PCE’s evidenced
(namely that what is now known as an actual freedom from the human condition was possible here on earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and
blood body), and relates back to the initial PCE which set in motion the whole process wherein, unbeknownst to the experiencing due to a total
lack of any precedent, it had devolved into an altered state of consciousness (ASC) when a new identity had all-of-a-sudden come into
existence ... a grand ‘Me’, a glorious ‘Me’, a fulfilled ‘Me’ who was none other than the long-awaited Saviour Of Humankind!
That impactive event took place whilst keenly watching the sunrise casting its brilliant rays earthward, one otherwise experienced-as-perfect
morning in mid-autumn [1981], upon seeing an ornamental bush thus lit, in the garden alongside the ex-farmhouse, luminously aglow, fiercely
afire from within as it were, wherefrom it was revealed to ‘Me’ that there was to be a death and a rebirth and, consequently, a catatonic
state ensued that resulted in ‘Me’ being carted off to hospital, and kept under intensive care for four hours, until coming out of it in a
state of Radiant Bliss (which quite overwhelmed the duty-nurse by the way). ‘He’ was never to be the same again, as Divinity had been
working on ‘him’ whilst catatonic, and from that date forward ‘he’ was permanently in a state of human bliss and love ... ‘he’
could do no wrong”. (Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 60f, 29
September 2005).
Thus the eradication of sakkāyadiṭṭhi (of that “egoistic-diṭṭhi/dṛṣṭi”
or “egoity-diṭṭhi/dṛṣṭi” that is), upon having a consummate epiphanic/ revelatory vision of amata-pada – a
“dhamma-vision”/ “Eye of Truth” also referred to as ‘sammā-diṭṭhi’ in the Pāli Canon, the 1st
stage of the 8-stage path, and yet translated with the cognitive term “right view” by scholars/ pundits and the ilk – is where ‘I’
as ego (i.e., the ego/ ego-self) temporarily transmogrify into a grandiose, vainglorious ‘Me’ as soul/ spirit (‘me’ at the core of
‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself; usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon awakenment/ enlightenment, when personalised, or as ‘That’
by whatever name, e.g., ‘The Absolute’, ‘The Deathless’, ‘Nibbāṇa’/ ‘Nirvāṇa’, ‘Dhamma’/
‘Brahma’, and etcetera, when impersonalised) and thus, upon returning to normal, ‘I’, as ego, readily abandon any egoistic/
egotistical functions or pretensions in day-to-day life whilst traversing the ancient way, the ancient path, immortalised by the Ṛishis
of yore.
Moreover, around two-and-a-half millennia or so ago, when this “dustless, stainless dhamma-vision”/ “pure
and spotless Eye of Truth” occurred as an immediate result of hearing “dhamma-talk”/ “discourses relating to the Dhamma”
first-hand, any-such ‘I’, as ego, was thus in utter awe of the sammāsambuddha precisely for being the very embodiment of
‘That’ – as in “who sees me sees dhamma; who sees dhamma sees me” [yo kho dhammaṃ passati so mam passati;
yo mam passati so dhammaṃ passati] – and which numinous
experience leaves ‘me’, as soul/ spirit, in a state of ‘mysterium tremendum et fascinans’ whereby that distinctive faith, that particularly buddhistic type of faith [saddhā], which accrues contingent upon sammādiṭṭhika, is indelibly impressed into the very core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself).
Four years later (2009) I wrote about that impactive event on this ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum (Message No. 7731) with some added detail (take particular note of the terms “over-whelmed”,
“in awe”, “absorption into” and “an awesomely manifest presence” in parenthesis).
Viz.:
November 22 2009
Subject: Re: Debunking Buddhism and Neo-Buddhism
RESPONDENT No. 37: [...] I guess this [“samadhi suicide”] is what happened with you
also.
RICHARD: No, what happened on quite a few occasions during the eleven years of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment
was the very same summum bonum of the buddhistic meditation practice ... to wit: a motorless (no motoric function), senseless (no sensation,
insensate), thoughtless (no cognition at all), affectless (no emotion/ passion), unconscious (devoid of consciousness) state best described as
cataleptic in western terms.
The first time such catalepsy occurred my then-wife panicked and called an ambulance to take me to an intensive care unit at the nearest
hospital; after being examined by the resident doctor for all vital signs then all the whilst that state persisted a duty nurse would test for
consciousness (holding open eyelids and shining an intense light for signs of pupil contraction, pinching an earlobe as tightly as possible
for any sign of sensation, and so on) every 15 minutes to no avail. (Upon eventually coming out of that state so much bliss was radiating,
spilling over into the ICU, that she became over-whelmed, in awe, with ruddy features and shining eyes testifying to her absorption into such
an awesomely manifest presence).
One other instance (too many to relate) occurred when sitting cross-legged upon a hillside overlooking the valley below and across to the
mountain range opposite; there was incredible blissfulness just prior to that ultimate state roiling waves of almost indescribable bliss –
and ecstatic bliss immediately after yet for the event itself there was nothing, zero, zilch (hence ‘ineffable’, ‘unspeakable’, and so
on) as the ultimate, the supreme by whatever name, is truly void.
TARIN: [...] for people who didn’t pick up this part, what Richard just described was two experiences of
cessation (nibbana), not samatha-jhana (like the 4th jhana, or 5th jhana, etc). That is to say, he was not, as
[No. 5] insinuates, being a bliss-junkie. This man hit nibbana, the real deal.
RICHARD: G’day Tarin, A technical point, just in case you were to ever refer to this elsewhere, for the sake of
consistency in terminology: as nibbana was the ongoing state night and day for eleven years then, on quite a few occasions, what this man hit (to use your
phraseology) was nirodh
... the real deal beyond nibbana.
(The nomenclature depends, of course, upon which form of Buddhism it is and whatever word is apt, other than nibbana/ nirvana, is fine). (Richard, List D, Tarin, 22 November 2009)
All of which brings this exposition back to its starting-point ... to wit: why ‘self’ in its entirety remained intact
for the ‘affers’ (and the considerable light it throws onto ‘samatha-vipassanā’ practice, in general, and “‘Mahāsī’-style
noting”, in particular, because of the misconstrued/ misrepresented/ misused anatta aspect (i.e., the ‘no-self-at-all’ aspect) of its
integral anicca-anatta-dukkha ‘three marks of the phenomenal world’ weltanschauung). The following email exchange between
‘Arahant-Tarin’ and a then-prolific poster to this ‘Yahoo-Groups’ forum, in January 2010, is very informative regarding this aspect
insofar as the inner workings of that much-touted noting practice are revealed to be a matter of disidentification stemming from a fundamental
realisation when first experiencing “the supramundane”.
For ease of reference I have numbered them, as follows, in the email itself further below:
(1) an identity’s *disidentification* from ‘ego/self’ [quote]: “could be considered ego/self
dissolution” [end quote].
(2) that now-disidentified identity’s fundamental *realisation* about the observer and the observed (that they
are not separate) is also applied to the subject/ object duality and [quote]: “that’s full enlightenment right there” [end quote].
(3) this now fully-disidentified identity’s *disidentification* from the “coagulating and reifying process”
– in which process “the illusory passions” were, however, mistakenly taken by this particular fully-disidentified identity to be “a
solid and substantive entity (an ego)” when in reality it is a soul/ spirit they form (and are affectively felt/ psychically intuited
to be solid and substantive) – is evidently such an extreme disidentification that ‘he’ can blindly take it for granted that ‘he’ is
[quote]: “now unencumbered by an ego” [end quote].
(4) that fully-disidentified identity’s *disidentification* from “the more subtle and more varied psychic
phenomena”, which the above “coagulating and reifying process” throws up, marks not only that fully-disidentified identity’s “end of
identification with their forms” (in the same vein as what occurred at № 1 above) but also that fully-disidentified identity’s
[quote]: “end of identification with their nature” [end quote] as well.
(5) yet despite all the above *disidentification* and *full-disidentification*, stemming from that
fundamental *realisation* upon first experiencing “the supramundane”, there is also “an aspect of what the ego really is”
remaining after becoming a ‘Pragmatic Dharma/ Hardcore’ arahant as well ... namely: that fully-disidentified identity’s feeling-being
aspect which, this particular fully-disidentified identity myopically asserts, is [quote]: “what the ego really was to begin with” [end quote].
In summary, the reason why ‘self’ in its entirety remained intact for the ‘affers’ stems from the obvious fact
that disidentification from the ego/ ego-self does not bring about an end to the ego/ ego-self (i.e., an ego-death/ an egoic dissolution).
And especially so when that disidentification process stems from the realisation that, in the ‘supramundane’ world,
subject-and-object are one and the same thing (i.e., the Vedantic Advaita; e.g., the ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore Dharma’s non-duality).
Viz.:
# 8965
From: Tarin
Date: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:40 pm
Subject: virtual freedom versus Arahantship deathmatch
To: [Respondent No. 12]
|
|
• [Respondent No. 12]: Hi Tarin, [...] I would like to ask this: are you saying the self/ego does not
fully disappear in the Zen, Tibetan, Hindu, non-dualist, non Jhana Theravaden Arahants? Or are you saying that Arahantship is something
beyound “mere” ego/self dissolution? |
|
|
• [Tarin]: stream-entry (the 1st path of enlightenment in the theravadan buddhist model) marks the first
time someone experiences the supramundane, after |
№ 1 |
{ |
which point *he or she no longer identifies as a ‘little self’; as such, this could be considered
ego/self dissolution*. |
|
|
however, beyond this, there is still more that occurs that, in a nutshell, may be described as a deepening in
experience of the ‘true self’. it is only such deepening (as in, going deeper into the enlightened state) that clears up more refined,
and previously imperceptible, layers of ego residue (bestowing the capacity to dissociate further and further) and leads the way to further
path development (and eventually to access to nirodha, after which the void is apparent in real-time like never before). |
№ 2 |
{
{
{ |
then, *that something fundamental which was realised, at stream-entry, about the observer and the observed
(that they are not separate), also gets applied to what seems to be left of the split (the subject/ object duality – the very
sense of split itself – and the split is a split no longer* (‘birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done, there is
nothing further for this world’ – dissociation complete). *that’s full enlightenment right there*. |
|
|
• [Respondent No. 12]: Ego residue with no ego? While I think I understand what you mean, it also seems
like there is *a small aspect of ego left(the residue)* before Arahantship. Though it is *so smashed/exploded that it no longer
qualifies as “ego”?* It is a vivid metaphor for sure. So, now that you’re completly dissociated(full enlightenment) you are
moving toward an actual freedom, which ends the dissociation. |
|
|
• [Tarin]: the same coagulating and reifying process in which the illusory passions are taken to be a solid
and substantive entity (an ego) is still active post-stream entry, but the nature of the process (by which passions are taken to be solid
and substantive) has been seen through once already |
№ 3 |
{
{ |
and, as such, *there is no longer identification with it* (such identification which buddhists term
‘self-belief’). subsequently, the illusory passions, *now unencumbered by an ego*, |
|
|
continue to form in a variety of ways, leading to more subtle and more varied psychic phenomena (than the
phenomenon of the thinker), all of which, in continuing on the path of enlightenment, get seen through as well. when the last of these gets
thrown up, and when these last ones thrown up are seen through, |
№ 4 |
{
{ |
then there is *the end of identification with them*, which marks not only *the end of
identification with their forms* (in the same vein as what occurred at stream-entry) but also *the end of identification with their
nature* (the end of what is termed ‘conceit’). |
|
|
what then remains is the view of the passions as they are (or 'being’ as it is), which view reflects
one’s ‘original face’ ... and this is where the path is regarded to end, as all that can be done more in this way is to die (and in
doing so, freeing the soul from its mortal bond/re-uniting what remains of oneself with the cosmos/ vanishing into the peace of oblivion -
what is purported to result varies on the doctrinal perspective/belief). |
№ 5 |
{
{ |
i should add that there is, practically speaking, also *an aspect of what the ego really is* that
remains after arahatship as well.. that is, the feeling being aspect (as *that is what the ego really was* to begin with). [...]. [emphases and numbering added]. |
|
|
(https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/actualfreedom/conversations/messages/8965). |
So as to situate those particular events in a readily recognisable time-line: although the above was written on Jan 06,
2010, it was not posted on the ‘Yahoo Groups’ forum until Jan 20, 2010, eight days before ‘Arahant-Tarin’ arrived in Australia (and
thus twelve days before declaring himself actually free, on Feb 01, 2010, whereupon ‘Arahant-Tarin’ transmogrified into ‘Affer-Tarin’).
Thus I knew before he even arrived that ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore Dharma’ arahants – not to mention those among them who declare themselves a
sotāpatti, a sakadāgāmi, or an anāgāmi – were all befooling themselves mightily (and subsequent verbal
conversations with ‘Arahant-Tarin’ and, later, with ‘Affer-Tarin’ served only to confirm this to be the case).
Incidentally, it stands to reason those befooling themselves when claiming a spiritual freedom are likely to be befooling
themselves, thereafter, when claiming an actual freedom.
Needless is it to add that the same detachment-disidentification-dissociation process which served those detached-disidentified-dissociated
identities ill in regards the ego/ ego-self (‘I’ as ego) served them equally unwell, when applied to the affective feelings (‘me’ as
soul/ spirit), because an identity – essentially a feeling-being at root – fully-detached and/or disidentified and/or dissociated, from
both its egoic aspect and its affections, is a pathematic
‘being’ in clinical denial of its own affective-cognitive existence.
*
What remains now is to establish the provenance of that particular aspect of modern-day ‘samatha-vipassanā’
practice known in ‘Pragmatic Dharma/ Hardcore’ circles as “‘Mahāsī’-style noting” (due to the technique first gaining
its popularity when made available to lay peoples at the Mahāsī Monastery, at Seikkhun, in Upper Burma) so as to determine whether
or not that heterodox practice has both the generative potential for fulfilling your [quote] “basic trust that there is a level of mind
that can be penetrated” [endquote] and the transformative capacity to [quote] “cause permanent, irreversible change”
[endquote].
According to Mr. Siegmund Feniger (1901-1994), in his 1954 handbook breathlessly entitled “The Heart of Buddhist
Meditation”, it has its origins in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. An online article explains that handbook’s genesis quite
succinctly:
• “Ven. Nyanaponika Thera stayed in Burma {1952-1954} for a period of training in Insight Meditation (Vipassanā)
under the renowned meditation teacher Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw Thera. The experience he gathered motivated him to write his best known work, ‘The
Heart of Buddhist Meditation’ published by Buddhist Publication Society with many editions and translated into more than seven
languages. This is a prescribed text in universities in the Study of Buddhism”.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyanaponika_Thera].
And here is how he depicts the origin, of what has become known as “‘Mahāsī’-style noting”, in that
best-known handbook/ that university text-book of his:
• “It was at the beginning of this century that a Burmese monk, U Nārada by name, bent on actual realization of
the teachings he had learnt, was eagerly searching for a system of meditation offering a direct access to the Highest Goal, without
encumbrance by accessories. [...]. Studying again the [satipaṭṭhāna] text and its *traditional exposition*, reflecting
deeply on it, and entering energetically upon its practice, he finally came to understand its salient features. The results achieved in his
own practice convinced him that he had found what he was searching for: a clear-cut and effective method of training the mind for highest
realization. From *his own experience* he developed *the principles* and *the details* of the practice which formed the
basis for those who followed him as his direct or indirect disciples. In order to give a name to the Venerable U Narada’s method of training
in which the principles of Satipaṭṭhāna are applied in such a definite and *radical* way, we propose to call it here
the Burmese Satipaṭṭhāna Method ...”. [emphases added]. ~ (pp. 95-96, “The Heart
of Buddhist Meditation” by Nyanaponika Thera; 1962, Buddhist Publication Society; Kandy, Sri Lanka).
[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UaIuXnKzCrUC&q=%22salient+features].
As nothing other than a few scanty allusions, as above, are to be found regarding the originator of “‘Mahāsī’-style
noting” then the import of Mr. Siegmund Feniger’s depiction is that both “the principles” and “the details” of
“‘Mahāsī’-style noting” were the “radical” brain-child of an unawakened/ unenlightened 19th-20th century bhikkhu
– still in his early-to-mid-thirties and of a cultural lineage (Burmese) notorious for its abject absence of any tradition of sammā-samādhi
(the 8th, and final stage of the octadic patrician way, epitomised by introversive self-absorption/ mystical trance-states) – and not
“dhamma virtuous in its beginning, in its middle and in its ending” [viz.: “dhammaṃ deseti ādikalyāṇaṃ
majjhekalyāṇaṃ pariyosānakalyāṇaṃ”], in “both its spirit and its letter” [viz.: sātthaṃ savyañjanaṃ], as expounded by the sammāsambuddha of yore. (source:
https://suttacentral.net/pi/pi-tv-kd1#8-marakatha).
Therefore, as the word “principles” refers to a fundamental or general truth or law (as in, “first
principles”, for instance) and the word “radical” (which stems from the Latin rādīx, rādīc-, meaning
‘root’) indicates a primary modification, a root change, to the “traditional exposition” – that is, as expounded by the sammāsambuddha
(i.e., the “master of dhamma”, the “dispenser of immortality”; viz.: “amatassa dātā dhammassāmī”)
– then that is petty well the end of the matter, there and then, regarding its provenance (and, thereby, the likelihood of both its
generative and transformative capacity being anything other than null and void in regards the complete and utter end of dukkha, in any
lifetime let alone the current one, and thus the attainment of amata, a.k.a. nibbāna).
Thus, whatever else which follows hereafter is but a cobbling-together of a few scattered details as a matter of related
interest. For example: in an article published last year in the “Tricycle Magazine” (Spring Edition, 2014; Vol. 23, No. 3), Mr. Erik Braun
sketches out a basic historical timeline for this pseudo-buddhistic scandal-of-a-century.
Viz.:
• “These days many assume that Buddhism and meditation go hand in hand – sometimes they are even considered to be
one and the same. But even counting Theravadins, progenitors of the massively popular insight meditation (Vipassanā) movement,
relatively few Buddhists historically have ever understood meditation to be essential. On the contrary, instead of meditating, the majority of
Theravadins and dedicated Buddhists of other traditions, including monks and nuns, have focused on cultivating moral behaviour, preserving the
Buddha’s teachings (dharma), and acquiring the good karma that comes from generous giving. [...]. One must look instead to Burma to
account for the ascendance of meditation to a popular practice – specifically, that of insight meditation. The Vipassanā view
understood meditation as the logical and even necessary application of a Buddhist perspective to one’s life, whether lay or monastic. The
rise of this practice, however, was not strictly an indigenous development. It came into being specifically through colonial influence. (In
fact, *no current tradition of insight practice can reliably trace its history back further than the late 19th or early 20th century*).
Though now a global movement, insight practice had its start in a moment of interaction between a Western empire and an Eastern dynasty.
Indeed, one could go so far as to pinpoint its origins to a particular day: November 28, 1885, when the British Imperial Army conquered the
Buddhist kingdom of Burma. [...]. Key figures harnessed the volatile energy of laypeople’s worry, empowerment, and knowledge – all sparked
and shaped by colonial policy and missionary attacks – to drive them towards practice.
“Foremost among these teachers was a monk named Ledi Sayadaw (1846-1923), the earliest among those calling for a revamped life that included
meditative practice. In the first years of the 20th-century, he explained meditation in simple terms that could be incorporated into a busy
life in the mundane world. Famous for his “fan-down” teaching {i.e., lowering the fans which had traditionally covered monks’ faces
during dhamma talks}, Ledi Sayadaw was perhaps even more renowned for the many accessible yet sophisticated works he wrote on Buddhist
doctrine; as one Burmese writer put it, he was able to *“spread the Abhidhamma like falling rain”*. Furthermore, he *linked
Abhidhamma study to meditative practice*, making one’s learning the basis for an everyday observation of the world that could lead to
liberative insight. Although he urged advanced study, he also stressed that even the layperson who only studied the ceaselessly changing
natures of the four seasons (dhatus) of earth, wind, fire, and water reaps great spiritual benefit. As Ledi Sayadaw put it, “To those
whose knowledge is developed, everything within and without oneself, within and without one’s house, and within and without one’s village
and town, is an object at the sight of which the insight of impermanence may spring up and develop”.
“Prior to this time, the common belief was that anyone who wanted to practice insight meditation had to first enter into the deep states of
concentration (samadhi) called the jhanas. But attaining those sublime modes of concentration required long periods spent
removed from the world in intensive meditation, deep in the proverbial jungle or mountain cave. Now, however, Ledi Sayadaw argued that *one
did not need to enter into such states* in order to gain the mental stability for insight practice. It was excellent if they could (and
Ledi Sayadaw claimed that he himself had done so), but really all one required was a minimal level of concentration that would enable the
meditator to continually return, moment after moment, to the subject of contemplation.
“This state of mind was thus called “momentary concentration” (khanika-samadhi), and it formed the basis of “pure” or
“dry” insight meditation (suddha-vipassana or sukkha-vipassana), which did not include deep concentration. While this
approach to practice was discussed in authoritative texts {i.e., the “Visuddhimagga” & “Abhidhamma”}, never before had anyone
promoted it on a widespread basis: Ledi Sayadaw was the first to put it at the centre of his teachings. The message spread far and wide:
forget the jungle or the cave. Meditation is possible in the city.
Some years after Ledi Sayadaw had become popular, another monastic teacher, Mingun Sayadaw {a.k.a. “U Nārada”; 1868-1955}, also
promoted insight meditation on the basis of momentary concentration, probably to some degree in debt to Ledi Sayadaw’s teachings. Mingun
Sayadaw taught meditators *to inventory every moment of perception as it arose at a sense door, in order to break down all experience into
an ever-changing flow of impressions*. This emphasis on *noting sensory impressions* would lead, much later, to an understanding of
mindfulness (sati) as what the German-born monk Nyanaponika {a.k.a. Mr. Siegmund Feniger; 1901-1994} would famously call “bare
attention”. (Eventually, focus on the process of experience would lend itself to *a secular interpretation* of sati in the
West that *removed it from its Buddhist context*). Mingun Sayadaw is notable, too, as the first teacher to hold group meditation for
laypeople in 1911. Almost all lineages of practice that have emerged from Burma trace themselves back to either him {i.e., “U Nārada”}
or Ledi Sayadaw.
Actual practice among laypeople began to spread throughout Burma thanks to the effort of these teachers. But *they did not consider their
techniques to be innovations*. Like most modern-day meditators, they looked to the Buddha as their model and to some of the earliest
Buddhist texts as their guides. Compiled in the centuries after the Buddha’s death, Pali language suttas like the Satipatthana
Sutta (“Discourse on the Foundations of Mindfulness of Breathing”) and the Anapanasati Sutta (“Discourse on the Mindfulness
of Breathing”) were crucial to their formulations of practice, just as they are today. But these texts had not been used widely in lay life
before this time, and, as current meditation teachers in America and Asia readily admit, the *interpretation of these texts can vary*
widely. Some Sri Lankan monks, for instance, have criticised the method of Mingun Sayadaw (as taught by his student Mahasi Sayadaw (1904-1982)
as *without canonical sanction* – in other words, *to be a fabrication* ... ”. [emphases added]. ~ (pp. 56-60, “Meditation En Masse” by Erik Braun; 2014, Tricycle; Spring Edition, Vol. 23, No. 3). [http://cheetahhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Meditation-En-Masse_Erik-Braun.pdf].
To summarise thus far: what has become known as “‘Mahāsī’-style noting” is an arguably non-canonical
technique devised (circa 1900) to inventory all sensibilia presenting in the sentiency-field at every moment of percipience – in order for
it all to instead be apprehended, by the affective-cognitive identity within a flesh-and-blood body, as an ever-changing flow of sensorial
impressions – which later became categorised as “bare attention” by Mr. Siegmund Feniger.
Viz.:
• “Bare attention is the clear and single-minded awareness of what actually happens to us and in us, at the
successive moments of perception. It is called ‘bare’ because it attends just to the bare facts of a perception as presented either
through the five physical senses or through the mind which, for Buddhist thought, constitutes the sixth sense. When attending to that sixfold
sense impression, attention or mindfulness is kept to *a bare registering of the facts observed, without reacting to them by deed, speech,
or by mental comment, which may be one of self-reference (like, dislike, etc.), judgement or reflection*. If during the time, short or
long, given to the practice of Bare Attention, any such comments arise in one’s mind, they themselves are made objects of bare attention,
and are neither repudiated nor pursued, but are dismissed, after a brief mental note has been made of them. This may suffice here for
indicating the general principle underlying the practice of Bare Attention. Detailed information on the methodical practice will be given in
Chapters Four and Five...”. [emphasis added]. ~ (pp. 32-33, “The Heart of Buddhist Meditation”
by Nyanaponika Thera; 1962, Buddhist Publication Society; Kandy, Sri Lanka).
[https://books.google.com.au/books?id=UaIuXnKzCrUC&q=%22bare+registering].
‘Tis just as well he explains the technique known as “‘Mahāsī’-style noting” as being, basically, a
passive witnessing of all sensibilia presenting in the sentiency-field at every moment of percipience, via a bare registering of all such
sensorial impressions, because the distinction being drawn betwixt the regular experiencing of all sensibilia and this (supposedly) liberative
experiencing of all sensibilia as “an ever-changing flow of sensorial impressions” simply by means of conducting an inventory of the
regular experiencing of all sensibilia rather eluded me at first sight.
Essentially, then, “‘Mahāsī’-style noting” is predicated on the affective-cognitive identity within not
being at all responsive – let alone reactive – to each and every instance of visual-aesthesis, audile-aesthesis, olfactorial-aesthesis,
gustatorial-aesthesis, somataesthesis, and mentational-aesthesis.
I am reminded of an auspicious moment in my mid-twenties when attending an end-of-semester faculty-party, in my
art-college days, whilst mooching around amongst the milling crowds of college-students and having my attention drawn to a particularly
raucous conversation over in one corner wherein the quite-inebriated participants were discussing the pros and cons of decision-making. The
general consensus of opinion was that having to be responsible all the time – i.e., making decisions and being accountable for same –
sucked big-time (I was what was called a “mature-age student” and the vast majority of the art-students, being in their late teens and
having never left school before entering tertiary-level education, were having to fend for themselves for the first time in their lives).
I had happened to stroll on by just as the oldest of the group, a lad of twenty years or thereabouts, was recounting an
episode where he and his equally-intoxicated friends had resolved, late one Saturday night at a particularly dissolute party, to declare the
next day – a Sunday and thus an obligation-free day – to be a decision-free day as well (and this resolution was to be binding upon all
the resolvers). The humorous part of the tale he was recounting – and that auspicious moment signalled earlier – was when, upon awakening
nigh-on noontime the next morning, and lazily luxuriating in lying abed at that late hour, it soon became obvious to him that if he were to
get up, to get out of bed to answer the ‘calls of nature’ even, it would require a decision being made. So, he lay back abed once more,
luxuriating again in lazing the day away (all the while trying to ignore the mounting pressure in his bladder from the indulgences of the
night before) until it dawned upon him that he had, albeit inadvertently, just made a decision!
Yes, indeed, by virtue of staying abed, instead of getting up, he had broken the basic rule of their decision-free day
inasmuch he had *decided* not to get up and, in fact when looked at more closely, had *decided* to lay back upon the pillows
again. And with that he got up in the regular way, and went about his normal daily affairs, along with the sobering realisation that being
alive, being here on this planet, meant decisions were, necessarily, part-and-parcel of life itself.
*
There has been many an occasion, throughout my life, wherein I have recalled overhearing that snippet of a raucous
conversation as it is a fact of life that, each moment again, there is a mostly-automatic appraisal of the situation and circumstances such as
to determine beneficial outcomes to the current course-of-events whether at leisure or when active. And, as the very word ‘appraisal’
implies judgement, it is actually impossible to be “without ... judgement“ .
Here are Mr. Siegmund Feniger’s words-of-wisdom once again:
• “(...) attention or mindfulness is kept to a bare registering of the facts observed, *without* reacting to
them by deed, speech, or by mental comment, which may be one of self-reference (like, dislike, etc.), *judgement* or reflection...”.
[emphases added].
The adage “full of pith and wind” cometh to mind, eh?
RESPONDENT: Also, I don’t know how this comes into play, but the results of the
vipassana, really are helping me deal with bipolar-nos symptoms (in a remarkably better way than other types of meditation, positive thinking,
self-help methods, psychotherapy, medication-regimens, etc).
RICHARD: As the criteria for “Bipolar Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified” (BP-NOS), as classified in DSM-IV
(Text-Revision Edition), was readjusted in DSM-V so as to classify a large percentage of the sub-threshold cases under a different disorder,
called Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD), it may very well be that, however it is you are experiencing yourself on a day-to-day
basis, it need not necessarily be a clinical disorder.
(Then again, of course, it may very well be that it is indeed a clinical disorder, after all, once a revised edition of
‘DSM-V’ is foist upon an unwitting public).
You are aware, are you not, that the world-wide therapeutical business is a multi-trillion dollar industry?
If not, then a brief article published online in May, 2014, entitled “Which Mindfulness?” – in which authors Mr.
Robert Buswell and Mr. Donald Lopez. make the point that “the modern understanding of mindfulness differs significantly from what the term
has historically meant in Buddhism” – may very well be elucidative in this regard.
Viz.:
• “(...). Mindfulness mania is sweeping the land, with mindfulness being prescribed for high blood pressure,
obesity, substance abuse, relationship problems, and depression, to name just a few examples. While some mindfulness teachers maintain that
what they are teaching is a distinctly secular pursuit, many others claim it is the very essence of Buddhist practice. Regardless, in the
current media, mindfulness is strongly associated with Buddhism. “Moment-to-moment, non-judgmental awareness”, however, is not what
mindfulness has historically meant in Buddhism. Indeed, whatever relationship this interpretation of mindfulness has to Buddhist thought can
be traced back no earlier than the last century. The Sanskrit term smṛti (Pali, sati) was first translated as “mindfulness” in 1881
by Thomas W. Rhys Davids (1843-1922), a former British colonial officer in Sri Lanka who went on to become the most celebrated Victorian
scholar of Buddhism. [...].
“Mindfulness of the body is intended to result in the understanding that the body is a collection of impure elements that incessantly arise
and cease, utterly lacking any semblance of a permanent self. That is, the body, like all conditioned things, is marked by three
characteristics (trilakṣaṇa): impermanence, suffering, and non-self. Clearly, mindfulness here is hardly “non-judgmental
awareness”. The story of how the popular understanding of mindfulness derived from modern Vipassanā meditation and how Vipassanā
first came to be taught to laypeople in Burma in the early decades of the 20th century is told in Erik Braun’s article “Meditation en
Masse” in the Spring 2014 issue of Tricycle. There is thus no need to retell that story here. Armed with this knowledge, Buddhists of the
world can unite in the fight against high blood pressure, but need not concede that the mindfulness taught by various medical professionals
today was somehow taught by the Buddha”. (www.tricycle.com/blog/which-mindfulness).
That last line of theirs could be paraphrased as – “Armed with this knowledge, Buddhists of the world can unite in
the fight against either ‘Bipolar Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (BP-NOS)’ or ‘Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD)’ but
need not concede that the mindfulness taught by various medical professionals today was somehow taught by the Buddha” – without even
missing a beat.
RESPONDENT: This would be okay/ acceptable to me, even if the results were completely
explainable as placebo or scripting. Does this sort of, legitimize my beliefs, in any way?
Thanks again, Richard.
RICHARD: As the very definition of the placebo-effect specifically excludes the subject knowing it to be a
placebo (an inert substance or form of therapy which nevertheless psychosomatically generates beneficial outcomes) – as is the case for the
nocebo-effect to work its detrimental outcomes as well – then what you are saying, in effect, is you are gunna keep on believing in it no
matter what facts you might be presented with (such as all of the above).
Now, I doubt that there be a official disorder of that nature, tucked-away somewhere in the ever-voluminous DSM
(‘twas notebook-sized in the 1950s before pharmaceutical companies began to seriously grease the palms of some of its highly-influential
authors), as it would mean something like 99% of the population could be diagnosable under the DSM’s multitudinous categories – instead of
the current 50% (half the population) being classifiable – but perhaps you might be inclined to lobby for its inclusion as you do come
across as being intent on receiving some kind of pay-off for all the effort you expend on ...um... on disorder maintenance.
Whatever you do, though, one thing is for sure: actualism practice is contraindicated in your case.
Viz.:
January 21 2006
RICHARD: (...) I distinctly recall the identity in residence all those years ago informing ‘his’ wife at the time that ‘he’ had
been doing it the following-the-herd way for 30+ years, but to no avail, and that it was high-time ‘he’ set about doing it ‘his’ way
(and when she asked what way that was ‘he’ said ‘he’ did not know but it would become progressively apparent, provided ‘he’ took
the first step, with each successive step ‘he’ took). So ‘he’ set about imitating the actual – as evidenced in a pure consciousness
experience (PCE) in late July 1980 – on the first of January 1981 simply by each moment again being relentlessly attentive to, and *scrupulously
honest* about, how that only moment of ever being alive was experienced so as to feel as happy and as harmless (as free of malice and
sorrow) as was humanly possible inasmuch any deviation from such felicity/ innocuity was attended to with the utmost dispatch in order to live
as peacefully and as harmoniously as ‘he’ could with ‘his’ wife and children, in particular, and with anyone and everyone, in general,
who came into ‘his’ presence. And that way of living was so successful, compared to the norm, that in a very short time ‘he’ was wont
to exclaim to all and sundry that ‘he’ had discovered the secret to life (for that is how far beyond normal human expectations the
felicitous/ innocuous state which has nowadays become known as a virtual freedom truly is) and ‘he’ was perplexed as to why, it being such
a simple thing to do, no-one had ever done it before. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, Rick-a, 21 January 2006).
*
March 23 2006
CO-RESPONDENT: In other words how do you avoid self deception?
RICHARD: By being *scrupulously honest with oneself*. [emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 105a, 23 March 2006).
*
September 08 2005
CO-RESPONDENT: Well, I guess it’s impossible to avoid.
RICHARD: Your guess is, not all that surprisingly by now, grossly incorrect; hypocrisy is remarkably easy to avoid (provided there be
pure intent of course).
CO-RESPONDENT: Caveat emptor.
RICHARD: As the honesty referred to on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is self-honesty (being *scrupulously honest with oneself*)
perhaps ‘caveat venditor’ might have been a more applicable finale to your dismissive summary of what you have made of actualism and
actualists during your 25-day perusal. And I mention this because, in the final analysis, the only person one ever ends up fooling is oneself.
[emphasis added]. (Richard, Actual Freedom Mailing List, No. 97c, 8 September 2005).
*
November 09 1998
CO-RESPONDENT: Please let me know if I’m being uncooperative. (Ha. Ha. As if you wouldn’t).
RICHARD: Au contraire ... it is your life you are living and it is you who reaps the rewards or pays the consequences for any action or
inaction you may or may not do. One has to be *scrupulously honest with oneself* if one is to go all the way. I have arrived at my
destiny and am already always here so I have nothing to prove and nothing to achieve. I am retired and on a pension and instead of pottering
around the garden I am currently pottering around the Internet. I only write as the whim takes me and easily sit with my feet up on the coffee
table watching television. I eliminated any necessity for having a conscience and I am not about to take on being a probity policeman for
anyone. I may be a lot of things ... but I am not silly. [emphasis added]. (Richard,
List B, No. 26, 9 November 1998).
What you may be right at home with, however, is affism practice as to be a successful affer is to have turned
‘self’-deceit into a high art-form.
Viz.:
June 1 2013
RICHARD: (...) it would not be possible, surely, to consistently fake a total absence of ego-centricity/ self-centricity/ auto-centricity
(i.e.: no ego/no self; no soul/no spirit; no guardian/no social identity) – let alone a total absence of affective feelings (no emotions/
passions/ affections at all), of pathetic temperament (no moods/ humors/ sentiments whatsoever), of hedonic-tone (no hedonistic pleasure or
displeasure) and of flattened affect even – and yet also present complete contentment/ absolute fulfilment/ total satisfaction along with an
utterly intimate disposition showing a generally cheerful character readily displaying a keen sense of humour, about life itself, twenty-four
hours a day, day in and day out, for the remainder of one’s life.
(No need to mention being purity personified, of course, as all of the aforementioned are already of sufficient impossibility for a
feeling-being to fake). (Richard, List D, No. 15, 1 June 2013).
‘Tis only a suggestion, though, as most DhO/ KFD practitioners appear to more at home with the level of
‘self’-deceit required to be a ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore Dharma’ arahant.
Actual Freedom
Homepage
Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless
Design,
Richard's & Vineeto’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity |