In the seeing just the seeing… Immediate, an invitation to come and see… Not a matter of time.
The following is a statement about the consequence of: in the seeing just the seeing… in the hearing just the hearing… in the thinking just the thinking.
If there is no trace of you, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two, how are you going to ‘do’ anything? How are you going to engage in an exercise if there is no ‘you’ there?
Have you ever engaged in an exercise somewhere where you were not present, here, there or neither here nor there? If so, when did you ‘do’ this exactly when you weren’t there?
Do you get it?
If so, when did you ‘do’ this exactly - when you weren’t there? Where were you exactly - when you weren’t there - in your yard or hallway? Somewhere else? Just curious!
Its a common ‘belief’ that, in order to perform an exercise 3 conditions need to be present? Time, place and a ‘doer’ - a participant. So much for commonplace beliefs like: personality belief - for instance.
That’s not true, you see?
2 Likes
Yes I see, let me clarify, that was sloppy! The difficulty I am having here is with the notion of an exercise in contrast to spontaneous activity. Do you see the difference?
Whether there is volition or, no volition both are ‘anatta’.
When intention/volition is integral to the process an exercise can take place. This is not identical to spontaneous activity such as: just seeing, just hearing, just allowing thoughts to unfold without guiding them, directing them, restraining them etc.
In the thinking just the thinking, no judging, assessing, measuring, analysing anything at all. Just, arising and ceasing, let it settle itself. This is bare awareness!
I didn’t mean to give the impression that the Buddha’s words are problematic or, something to be avoided.
I love the Buddha’s teachings. As we know, what we find in the teachings is a consequence of various factors. The teachings and what we bring to them, our varying abilities to understand the meaning and, our latent tendencies, preferences and, prejudices.
We also face the problem of finding English equivalents to the Pali. It seems that subtleties can be lost in translation.
I hope I didn’t give the impression that I have a problem with the teachings on restraint. Restraint is often necessary particularly if we have problems with substance abuse, or addictions in every shape and form.
I do think it’s important to understand what we are doing when we practice restraint. We also need to be aware of the different kinds of restraint and know when one kind is appropriate and, other kinds are not.
Of the 3 kinds I could think of, simply avoiding inappropriate, unskilful behaviour. We can think about and, do something else that is skilful and wholesome. This works well!
Sublimation can be helpful as well and, repression as a a last resort, until the tendency to behave in an unwholesome way subsides.
Best of all is to simply understand the danger and then it should become clear what is appropriate and inappropriate behaviour.
2 Likes
It did take me a while to understand our apparent disagreement. Then I realized that you were talking about the end goal of non-restraint and I was talking about the practice of getting there requiring restraint. I’m very prone to distraction, so a little restraint works really well. That is the “placing the mind and keeping it connected.”
At some point, flow starts and effortlessness happens. I.e., “not placing the mind and keeping it connected”. At that point we join the Gods of Streaming Radiance. 
1 Like
Directing the monkey-mind back to the breath is not what I meant by restraint. I would call that guidance or advertance. When it comes to restraint I had Sila in mind - as in moral restraint. Appropriate and skillful behaviour that is enacted through conformity to ethical guidelines or precepts. The observance of a norm.
2 Likes
Interesting distinction!
For me they are the same. One of the most significant phrases in the canon is this one from MN1:
Nandī dukkhassa mūlan
This has been translated as “Delight is the root of suffering” by Ven. Bodhi.
It is significant in that delight is monkey-food. Delight is also that which Sila restrains. The significance of this phrase is that one must be wary of ALL delight. Coveting a neighbor’s wife and chocolate cake are both delights to be restrained.
I have found that by restraining delight, Sila just happens. Effortlessly.
1 Like
Maybe you can give me an idea of how this may play out in the real world. I understand how to much cake is a bad idea but it’s still something pleasant occasionally, and, if I find it nice talking to my neighbours wife coz she’s a nice sensitive being should I feel I am being immoral?
I also don’t understand the connection to a wandering mind in meditation? I assume you like meditating and that’s connected to why you do it? Is there something unethical about enjoying meditation? Do you understand what this teaching in the Sutta means?
I understand how attachment is related to suffering. I understand how appropriate care is a good thing. I understand how pleasant and unpleasant happenings come and go. What does not delighting actually mean to you. Can you give a practical example. If, we don’t enjoy being with the breath - if there is no interest - the mind may wander off. What is the difference between enjoying being with the breath and delighting in it?
Something that helps me to understand ethical restraint is vegetarian practice. Somebody who practices vegetarianism may feel attracted to eat meat but they refrain as they don’t feel it’s the right thing to do. They practice restraint when an attraction may arise. Does something similar take place with you in relation to a wandering mind and, does this help you to settle on the breath?
FYI. This is an excellent and very clear teaching covering this discussion.
3 Likes
If we choose to favor the company of pleasant people…
or we choose to avoid the company of unpleasant people,
we might just be (just a wee tiny bit) just be:
making decisions prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice.
Gently relinquishing small prejudices with each passing moment helps us deal with large prejudices.
That’s really all I meant by the practice of restraint.
By all means talk with your nice neighbor…
…and also talk to your not-so-nice neighbor.
With the same open heart, restraining the prejudice.
3 Likes
Just a level of degree I think. Are you suggesting that they are qualitively different states?
Yes, they are different! Pleasant, painful and, neutral experiences happen to Arahants - as well - but, there’s no delighting in the pleasant, no aversion with regard to pain. No adding to the hedonic-tone of experience. An Arahant is fearless in pain and, equanimious in pleasure. ‘They are not bewildered by such a change’ - Krishna
I have trouble understanding how that answers my question about the difference between enjoyment and delight. … Or did I inadvertently quote you out of context? Apologies if I did.
2 Likes