Where is this quote from exactly and what was the context 
4 Likes
Yes, that sounds ok I guess. You let go - what does that mean? Does that mean you ‘do’ letting go??? Or, is there a letting go, a release that takes place and the assumption that a ‘somebody’ is the ‘doer’? Something arises that takes credit for a simple happening - cause and effect.
In the case of the marble example that ‘seems’ obvious - I guess? The hand opens and bingo!
There ‘appears’ to be a somebody you call ‘myself’ who releases their grip and the marble drops. An interesting perception but it ain’t necessarily so - correct? There may be more going on than meets the eye and, is contained in the description provided???
You could call it a cognitive-shortcut for the sake of convenience - is that possible? Or, is all this an irrefutable ‘given’ for you? My apologies, I am questioning your perception of what takes place when a seeming ‘somebody’ does this, that, you name it!
I seem to remember something about causes and supportive conditions and, empty phenomena rolling on? How does that factor into this?
I remember ‘Ayya Khema’ wrote a book called: Being Nobody going Nowhere - had she lost touch with reality?
‘Who’ is letting your marble fall - exactly??? ‘Who’ is doing jhanas - exactly??? ‘Who’ is entering and emerging - exactly??? I take these questions seriously - can you provide answers?
It doesn’t happen that way when it comes to letting go - letting things be - without interference, in natural stillness.
We don’t ‘do’ letting go, we don’t ‘do’ natural stillness. We don’t enter the building and then exit again. We don’t drop marbles down any tube.
The metaphor is bewitching! We can confuse the idea conveyed in the metaphor for what it is attempting to point to and, they aren’t the same thing - plain and simple.
Truth is not a metaphor - the jhanas are not metaphors. I hope this is not confusing - is it?
I tried to do the link thing but on my phone things prove tricky. I could be wrong about what the Ajahn was trying to convey. I would like to ask him directly if he feels I am confused about the relativity of language and, it’s inadequacy when getting at what the Aryans attempt to share with us. I thought this was ‘basic’ Dhamma - I could be wrong?
We all know about the underlying assumption - we may feel it - that is, there is a ‘somebody’ going ‘somewhere’. This entity is said to be the doer, the one who experiences - correct?
I think this is related to the teaching on ‘sakaya ditti’ (personality belief), I-making? Is it the person who is the ‘doer’? Is it the person that is said to be doing things?
Who is this joker who is dropping marbles, entering and emerging from jhanas etc - exactly? Who is doing this - in reality? Or, is it just more empty phenomena rolling on - cause and effect?
Lord Buddha said, ‘for one who indulges in Jhana, four results are to be expected: Stream-Winner,
Once-Returner, NonReturner or Arahant’ (Pasadika Sutta, Digha Nikaya).” - Ajahn Brahm
"For those who are misled to conceive of all this as ‘just Samatha practice’ without regard
to Insight (Vipassana), please know that this is neither Vipassana nor Samatha. It is called’
Bhavana “the method taught by the Lord Buddha …” - Ajahn Brahm
1 Like
“Mendicants, there are these four meditators. What four? One meditator is skilled in immersion but not in practicing persistently for it. …” SN34.9
“Mendicants, there are these four meditators. What four? One meditator is skilled in entering immersion but not in remaining in it. …” SN34.11
“Mendicants, there are these four meditators. What four? One meditator is skilled in entering immersion but not in emerging from it. …” SN34.12
Its a bit like learning to and mastering riding a bicycle!
2 Likes
Yet all (I) did was, as you say, “let go”, does not follow - in anyway - from the fact that there can be the writing of: equations that specify the time of entry and emergence - does it?
Again, we are in metaphorical overdrive! I have learned to ride a bicycle and it ain’t like riding a bicycle - it’s more like letting go.
In learning to ride a bike there is a keen sense of doing something difficult, extremely challenging and, potentially dangerous - is this a mistaken understanding of what it’s like?
People often fall-off don’t they? They may get abrasions etc. There is tribulation and tight concentration on what we are doing, a need to keep the attention on a complex task and, then it becomes easier - when we learn to ride a bike.
None of these types of experiences are there in the basic method - from beginning to end. There is the abandoning of complexity, the abandoning of diversity, a movement towards a calm unity of perception. An increased simplicity and ease, particularly, in the last stages.
Tribulation, tight concentration, complexity, risk of injury, are not the ‘factors’ present in natural stillness - just let go. 
Thanks for the clarification 
It was just such a short and general fragment…
metta
1 Like
Pleased to assist in any way I can, best wishes, Laurence 
1 Like
I’m sure the sutta quotations speak for themselves. A Self that isn’t felt in some situations and is felt again afterwards won’t convince me that there is no being.
1 Like
Can you clarify what you have in mind?
Re the jhana see my post here:
In Jhana the sense of Self is lost.
2 Likes
I thought there is a teaching on dependent origination. When you say there is a ‘being’ what exactly are you referring to, the sense of self or, something else? With D.O. is there a teaching about a ‘being’ who meditates, reflects on the Dhamma etc. or, is there a ‘becoming’. Is there a traveller on the path? You know the relevant verse from the Visudhimagga that comes to mind? It’s OK if we don’t see things the same way. I do appreciate your Dhamma offerings based on a good working knowledge of the EBT’s. I am not sure just what it is that is problematic but there appears to be something that some Mitta’s find disquieting.
That doesn’t lead to insight…
Insight.
is unlikely
Yes - the turning on of the senses happens after jhana stops - is this what you are saying?
Did I say this, just samatha leads to insight?
Insight may arise anywhere at anytime in any situation.
Ajahn Chah said: everything is teaching us!
Samatha doesn’t doesn’t lead to insight. Ajhan Brahm is denying there is such thing as samatha and insight (while you don’t seem to be), at least in the portions you are quoting.
Going deeper into jhana isn’t going to lead to deeper insight. Insight is about the 5 aggregates, 6 senses, the DO, etc. Insight doesn’t just arise without right view understanding at the very least.
What have I said about samatha as distinct from insight - you may need to grab a quote. I am not sure just what it is you believe I have said in this connection.
I thought I just asked you a question about D.O.? With regard to insight into the sense consciousnesses, and not-self, the period directly after jhana sheds light on these Dhamma teachings. There is the loss of subjectivity in jhana and, afterwards, the sense of self returns. This gives rise to insight into not-self. Just ask Ajahn Brahm and he will concur. Don’t take my word for it - find out for yourself.