Okay.
1 Like
A useful analogy I heard was of focusing a torch beam in tighter on a particular spot - a spot that one is interested in seeing more clearly.
1 Like
I agree. This thread will work best when focused on personal shifts in practice rather than general advice or suggestions, or theory.
2 Likes
I’ve removed my post.
Sorry.
Could you please clarify some of your interesting remarks? Sorry, it was too concise for me…
So do you see work on hindrances now as work on sati /dhammavicaya?
That one I didn’t understand at all. How do you connect practice with “gratification - drawback - escape”? Is it dispassion-practice?
Could you refer to a text or passage?
Thx
Excellent! Thanks for your insights and looking forward to your individual treatments of the matter.
I wonder if Bhantes @sujato and @Brahmali can comment on this?
specifically, from the sanskrit and english translation of that above, it seems to confirm @crizna assertion that in northern EBT schools, there is no controversy for V&V (vitakka & vicara).
vitarka = thinking ( state of enquiry of mind)
vicāra = evaluation (A mental murmur of judgment (pratyavekṣako manojalpas) )
- do you agree with that? (in northern EBT schools there would be no way to translate V&V as "placing the mind & keeping it connected)
- as leaders of the EBT movement, how do you weigh the northern EBT schools vs. Theravada EBT and consider that in your English translations?
The definitions given here are actually quite broad. As far as I can see, they do not preclude vitakka and vicāra from being very refined, even pre-verbal movements of the mind.
The quote given here is not from the EBTs, but from commentaries. But in general an EBT is an EBT, regardless of school affiliation. It’s precisely for this reason that comparative study can be so illuminating.
5 Likes
I used to reject the notion of gradual training. If the aim of the practice is to awaken from the dream of existence, then whatever i do through the gradual training has to be an expression of my own deluded state of mind ensuring its continuation. Then i began to notice that denying my existence does not make it magically disappear, and this is when the idea of gradual training began to make sense. I can use my time in this world learning to act more sanely/less harmfully and things do not have to be either white or black.
7 Likes
Hi all
Not sure how much longer I’ll be on this site, as I seem to have a conflicting definition of Right Speech and not sure if I should put my new views all in one post or in individual ones. Generally I find, there are many quotes for the common understanding and few quotes for a different understanding and the different one leads to ending of suffering, when the common ones don’t, or only seem to on the surface.
So I’ll start with Right Speech. I used to agree that Right Speech had to be kind/pleasant, but now I understand and allow it to have three qualities: true, beneficial and either pleasant/kind or not pleasant/kind.
(note: I am using the common use of ‘kind’ in this paragraph, which seems to be identified by pleasantness, not intention.)
I used to believe the Buddha taught to take the Triple Refuge, now I believe he taught to take only one refuge: one’s Dhamma practice, which includes developing faith in the Triple Gem.
I used to believe the path was not step by step, now I believe it is gradual, step by step.
I used to believe the Noble Eightfold Path was the only path, but now I believe, as the tradition teaches, the Buddha taught the path in many ways:
1 step: strive on with diligence (his last words)
2 steps: develop calm and insight
3 steps: develop ethics, meditation and wisdom
…
12 steps: Transcendent Dependent Origination
…
I used to believe the Buddha taught ‘there is no self’ now I believe this is based on:
- taking the quote sabbe dhammaa anattaa out of context to be: there is no attaa
- interpreting attaa as self
I found out that obliterating concepts of self, is a core Hindu philosophy.
I’ve tried to present all my old and new views in my more recent book: 20090407 The Broken Dhamma or the Karma that Kills the Dogma of Buddhism | Brother Joe Smith - Academia.edu
best wishes
2 Likes
Hi all again
re the Four Noble Truths:
past common view I held:
- life is suffering
- it’s caused by desire
- to end the result, end the cause
- the Noble Eightfold Path is the only path to end the cause (this one is already dealt with above)
My new view, also found in EBTs, but not as a single teaching on the 4 Noble Truths:
- Life with clinging is suffering (summary sentence of the definition of the First Noble Truth)
- ignorance is the cause
- to end the result, end the cause
- the path was taught in many ways, but has the same structure or spirit or training
I present five major teachings that I believe have been Hinduised and have become common/popular and what I believe were their originals here: The Hinduisation of the Buddha's Teaching | Brother Joe Smith - Academia.edu
best wishes
2 Likes
I used to believe the Three Marks were universal. Now to me, they would not be universal, if one’s definition of suffering is mental, including all psychosomatic illness, which I think is the majority if physical suffering.
For me the Buddha ended all suffering under the Bodhi tree (and any arahant has ended all suffering), and there is no suffering inherent in the Five Aggregates. It is the Five clung-to Aggregates that are suffering (vis the summary sentence of the First Noble Truth), which are taken as permanent (and one’s essence/soul/spirit) in some way. These are mind made aggregates, made due to clinging, not the Five Aggregates, as they truly are.
Therefore the Five Aggregates of an Arahant are only impermanent and not soul/essence spirit and only the Five clung-to Aggregates are impermanent, suffering and not soul.
1 Like
My understanding of the Buddha’s teachings has changed, matured, and deepened over the past years—and continues to change, week by week. I’m still a beginner though.
When I first came to Buddhism, I thought Buddhist ethics were deontological. There is some flexibility, I thought, but basically, a Buddhist should live in accordance with the ethical rules laid down by the Buddha. I understood this “should” as a deontological obligation that came with the Buddhist path. Doing good and avoiding harm could be achieved by adhering to those obligations.
At that time, the only things I knew about Buddhism were the EBTs translated on Access to Insight. I didn’t know how Buddhism was practiced. One day I was reading Wikipedia’s article on the five hindrances. I noticed that Ajahn Brahm was often mentioned, which got me curious: who is Ajahn Brahm? Needless to say, one thing led to another, and now I’m here, on Discuss & Discover.
Anyway, from there my understanding of early Buddhist ethics shifted to something closer to virtue ethics, with an important role for intention. A Buddhist should develop and cultivate Buddhist virtues, like generosity and harmlessness, which, if properly developed, open up possibilities for reaching immersion. These virtues form the core of sīla.
Recently, however, I listened to the lectures of the 2013 early Buddhism course, in which Venerable Sujato made the case for understanding Buddhist ethics as utilitarian, an approach explicated in Ven Sujato’s 2011 blog post Vardy vs. the Buddha. It made sense to me after some reflection. The importance of virtues and intentions is ultimately derived from their consequences: do they lead to more happiness and peace, or less? It’s hard to judge without sufficient wisdom, hence teachings like the five precepts, which can help us find our way to peace and happiness.
My two cents. 
4 Likes
are you suggesting practitioners can be jhana adepts and still engage with the hindrances?
I used to think it was only possible to progress on the path but I now see that it’s possible to digress or regress on the path. Used to think a robe might mean more virtue or wisdom however this doesn’t seem to be true sometimes.
7 Likes
This is something I’ve experienced, too. In my case, as a former Catholic, I think it’s a holdover from pre-Vatican II ideas that the ordained are Holy by virtue of their ordination. In both, the reality is that the ordained are human and potentially subject to all that human-ness entails. It can be tough, though, when we feel a deep need for an inspirational example of living dhamma, to accept that.
3 Likes
I am reading Analayos book on craving :
‘Such happiness is a “divine happiness”,dibba sukha, with which all interest in the vulgar happiness of sensuality ceases (MN I 504).’
Proficiency jhana does not necessarily mean peoples interest in sensual pleasure decreases based on my observation and this is at odds with the above. I guess that’s what I was getting at.
Again, please use other topics to discuss each others’ views. Here I envision people describing their personal shifts. If we don’t understand what they mean it’s okay to ask of course, but I’d like to encourage expressing views that others don’t agree with. Discussions would sidetrack the topic into specifics…
1 Like
A lot of ‘religion’ including Buddhism as a religion do think in those terms - but in reality it is a gradual progression from having defilements to removal of them.
I thought that the texts described the full practice, however suttas like the Anapanasati sutta seems to describe states after the five hindrances have been reduced or removed, or doesn’t feel it is the appropriate place to deal with the issue. No one has sat down and not had hindrances arising as emotions or hindrances giving rise to random thoughts, in the mind. Preliminary practices are sometimes not included.