Dodging another question about craving and clinging, eh?

Nathan (triplethink) asked me a very reasonable question about my interpretation of a Buddhist teaching. Here is Nathan's question:

"It comes down to how teachers like you and Daniel view the trad. teachings on craving and clinging. I think everyone would benefit from a more complete explanation of how people like you and Daniel understand this. It's not enough to dismiss it as mushroom thinking. It is deeply embedded in the traditional teachings and not merely a cultural accretion as typically suggested.

"I would like to think one can be free from clinging to and craving for compounded conditions, states of consciousness, concepts, compounded feelings, et al, and still be aware that all of these things are continuing to happen in ways not unlike they did before they could be seen for what they are. However, the traditional teachings are very strict in terms of how the fully awakened respond to these conditions. I tend to agree with your and Daniel's more rational views about the real state of affairs for the awakened but I am less comfortable with the suggestion that one can be free of the illusions bound up with the fabricated conditions and still get caught up in them in any way. I understand how tiresome and frustrating it must be to have to contend with the allegations that are typically made, that you guys and others in the same position are simply deluded and I am very disheartened about how mainstream dharma students and teachers approach these issues. I think that if you were willing to treat the subject with all the real care and attention that it is crying out for it would be of real and lasting benefit to everyone."-triplethink

My response to Nathan's question:

I'm not a very good Buddhist, Nathan. I don't believe things just because the Buddha supposedly said them. Everything I teach is based on my own experience. To the extent that I quote the Buddha, or Ramana Maharshi, or St. John of the Cross, or any other teacher, it is because they have (allegedly) said something that reinforces what I was going to say anyway, or provided maps that help me understand my own experience and that of my students. It's not that I'm so smart, or that I know everything; it's just that I only have my own experience to go by. To repeat something just because I read it somewhere would seem inauthentic to me.

So it doesn't make sense for me to specifically address every point at which my own teaching diverges from someone else's teaching; I'm not attempting to reinterpret the Buddha, I'm just telling you what I think. If I use a lot of Buddhist terminology, it's because that's the terminology I know. If I were trained as a Christian mystic, I would probably be using Christian terminology. It just so happens that my training is Buddhist. Whatever has changed in my mind as a result of contemplative practice has very little to do with the ideas I use to try to understand or to share it. 'Things are as they are' is no longer just a catch phrase to me.

(cont below)

(cont from above)

I care about you and therefore I care about your question: What do I think about the traditional teachings about craving and clinging? If I seem to be dodging it, it's because I see no value in getting into an intellectual debate about interpretations of what the (now long-dead) Buddha (may have) said. Enlightenment happens to people who cultivate it. I'm dedicated to teaching people how to cultivate it so that they can find out what it is for themselves. When they find out, they won't care what I think anyway; they'll be looking at it all day long. And in the meantime, every moment they spend making love to ideas is a moment they could have spent practicing. And every moment I spend being drawn into internecine disputes is a moment I could have been sharing the practices that lead to awakening and supporting the yogis who do those practices.

It's a matter of priorities. It's a matter of pragmatism. The people you mention, those who scoff at the idea that regular people like us can be enlightened... they are not my students. I can't help them. I can't convince them. It makes no sense for me to put my time into such a bottomless pit. I can only help those who are willing to do the work and are willing to suspend disbelief long enough to find out for themselves. The fact that you are willing to put your preconceptions on hold until you find out for yourself bodes well for you own eventual enlightenment. You don't have to convince anyone that your way is better; it's just your way. Traveling, as you do, in both conservative Theravada and pragmatic dharma circles, it is inevitable that you will encounter fundamentalists who will try to bring you into the fundy camp and 'educate' you to the 'right' way of thinking. As my late brother used to say to me, 'You think what you want to think. And you let them think what they want to think.' Thank you, brother. That is sound advice.

(cont below)

(cont from above)

I'll wrap this up with a metaphor:

If someone has never tasted avocados, you don't try to explain what avocados taste like, or even go so far as to get into arguments about the best way to describe the taste. You just point to the avocado grove. That's what I do, Nathan. I'm not a good arguer. I'm a good pointer.

May you awaken in this lifetime,

Kenneth

Kenneth: your basic reply here should be kept in order to be integrated into any future books or articles or workshop/retreat brochures you put out. It is a very succint explanation of how you diverge from a lot the other teachers out there and I think it would inspire the kinds of people you'd do well with as students.

"Kenneth: your basic reply here should be kept in order to be integrated into any future books or articles or workshop/retreat brochures you put out. It is a very succint explanation of how you diverge from a lot the other teachers out there and I think it would inspire the kinds of people you'd do well with as students. "

Totally. Long live relentless clarification!

I am quite ignorant on the finer points of Buddhist belief, so I am hoping Nathan or someone can inform me here, because there seems to be an aparent contradiction

Earlier it was said about being " free from clinging to and craving for compounded conditions, states of consciousness, concepts, compounded feelings, ..." . I would think maybe such statements originally said by someone Enlightened would be opened to such varied interpretation by those not Enlightened that any commentaries would be worthless. Being free seems very (maybe only) subjective. Also how can one "be free" while trying to "be free"? Would not the act of trying preclude one from being free, like talking about going somewhere while all the time walking in the opposite direction.

Thank you for taking the time to respond Kenneth. I asked that question in the context of orthodox thinking because of what is typical of discussion forums is that people post the question, 'is person X an Arahant?' Following this the only approach given credence is to post comments like yours or Daniels and references in the orthodox literature and then obviously, by those standards, people like you and Daniel are dismissed. In that context, it is futile to argue otherwise, as you know. I have tried to argue for simply considering what you and Daniel actually do have to share, quite apart from these differences of thought on what an Arahant is and that has proven futile as well. So my conclusion is that there really is no basis for wider discussion of any kind and I accept this now as a given.

I observe similar boundaries with yours and Daniels forums in relation to traditional teachings. The givens being that the source of authority is personal experience and traditional teachings have no significant role to play. I can similarly accept the given terms and conditions in these forums.

I thought these important differences in approach and orientation should be entirely explicit and transparent in the context of a student teacher relationship. That was the subject of the earlier thread and that is why I posed the question in the way I did and why it seemed reasonable for a someone considering becoming a student to ask that sort of question.

I think your answer is sufficient in terms of pointing out the differences in terms of traditional thinking and your own. For a full answer to the question it would be important for me to recast it now slightly as, 'What do you know about craving and clinging in relation to your experience and what can you teach me about it?'

I leave it to you to answer or not, as you see fit.

" 'I observe similar boundaries with yours and Daniels forums in relation to traditional teachings. The givens being that the source of authority is personal experience and traditional teachings have no significant role to play. I can similarly accept the given terms and conditions in these forums.'"

I can realate, I bet there are others here and on Daniel's forum who can relate too.

I am always, having to resist the urge to ask questions about the Buddhas teachings here. After the first few questions I asked Kenneth just basically said "you don't have to worry about it" and my instincts said that he was right about that. I must say though, on the level of "craving and clinging" I sure have a lot of each when it comes to wanting to ask questions about Buddha's teachings.

Ever read the "Foundation Trilogy" by Isaac Asimov? I read it when I was a teenager. If you don't know it, these three science fiction books are about a galactic civilization, The Empire, with a capitol located in the exact center of the galaxy. It is slowly crumbling. The crumbling is not evident as the series starts. Think ancient Rome. A person by the name of Hari Seldon, a "psycho-historian," learns how to accurately predict the future using econometric and statistical models of human psychology and sets about creating a second, new civilization at the periphery of the galaxy. This "Foundation" is engineered to emerge just as the first falls apart, thus saving human beings eons of galactic barbarism (think Dark Ages).

In the second or third volume Asimov introduces a character, a historian, who comes from The Empire, the crumbling galactic civilization. This character studies history by reading what other historians wrote, even if they wrote it centuries earlier, and compares and contrasts each historian's version of history to arrive at what he calls the truth. This historian never, ever, looks to examine an original source, visit a historical site, talk to witnesses, archeologists... none of that. He believes doing those things is a waste of time. After all, he's standing on the shoulders of giants. Who is he to question these other historians and not just take their words at face value? And so on.

Who among us here wants to be a "Buddhist" in the vein of Asimov's "historian?" This is all about experience.YOUR experience of this world. It's great to read the Middle Length Discourse and all the other things we have access to. We need to recognize these things for what they are... and for what they are not. Every time we try to squeeze cultural norms from 1,500 BC into 21st century reality we are going to struggle.

JMHO and YMMV

And... Kenneth is the best pointer you will ever find!

"Following this the only approach given credence is to post comments like yours or Daniels and references in the orthodox literature and then obviously, by those standards, people like you and Daniel are dismissed.
"

Could you give an example of what's being dismissed and how?

I'm pretty well steeped in theravdan orthodoxy, and I'm not sure I get how the argument is deeper than

daniel: I'm an arahant
others: no you're not

I don't see how the approach advocated within these virtual walls is in conflict with the four noble truths.

Yeah. Awakening has to be considered a mythical thing, virtually unattainable by modern human beings, or some folks are in danger of being.... well, you get the drift.

I feel like Buddhism is this wonderful thing -- a beautiful religion that is varied from sect to sect and place to place, a source of great literature and philosophy and thought, cuturally and historically significant. It is rich with detail and beauty -- there is so much there to appreciate and learn.
And, I can really see why people get really into it.
But, being really into Buddhism is a related but different thing from pracaticing a Buddhist technique like vipassana. It's taking something derived from Buddhism and doing a specific practice in order to really touch reality with massive insight into ourselves.
I think one can be a vipassana practicioner and just love and be really into Buddhism, and I also think one can be a vipassana practicioner and know just a few basics of Buddhism. One's success at vipassana will only depend upon how well one does the practice and not on their knowledge of Buddhism.
I think while Kenneth and Daniel know a lot about Buddhism (I get the impression that maybe Daniel knows some of the texts really really well), their "dharma" is a very stripped down secular version. And I think it is pretty rare and possibly the wave of the future for this kind of endeavor and it may be threatening to some of the more religious pracitioners.
this is my prejudice of course but I really don't think the Buddha would be all that into "Buddhism."
It's been a while since I've gone, but my impression from the IMS/Spirit Rock people is that they are still relatively invested in being Buddhists in a more religious way but with hugely open minds about how anyone believes or practices.

Mike Monson, you are the man!

Thanks Chris.
More - when we do this practice what we get just isn't philosophy or concepts or dogma or ANY of the content of "Buddhism" -- it's a touching, isn't it? Of something completely non-verbal, non-intellectual, non-conceptual. And this touching through awareness has to be done by awareness and once done it cannot be codified and turned into a dogma that we can carry around in our briefcase and take out every once in a while a look at the show to other people.
Kenneth says that (correct me if I'm wrong Kenneth) while one or more of the "three characteristics" is the door to path and fruition, one can get path and fruition and not intellectually "know" any of the three characteristics. And that is powerful proof to me of the completely non-conceptual (or philosophical or religious or dogmatic) nature of development enlightenment.

"
Kenneth says that (correct me if I'm wrong Kenneth) while one or more of the "three characteristics" is the door to path and fruition, one can get path and fruition and not intellectually "know" any of the three characteristics. And that is powerful proof to me of the completely non-conceptual (or philosophical or religious or dogmatic) nature of development enlightenment.
"


I use to consider there are two groups the conceptual and non-conceptual, however in the last few days there is an understanding that the conceptual is of the non-conceptual. With this there is a change of focus like the background matters, conceptual stuff arises from it. Concepts cannot get to it, so when what this sentence about it is conceptualised, what the sentence is about cannot be reached. The conceptual cannot be conceptualised out of. So strangely Mike if I had read your post before a few days ago it would have had a different meaning. Content does not get it, but while ever content is all that can be reached, this is the tool that must be used to move beyond. Right now I feel humbled (and a little stupid) by all my conceptualising before those who trying to point me beyond it.

"
I use to consider there are two groups the conceptual and non-conceptual, however in the last few days there is an understanding that the conceptual is of the non-conceptual. With this there is a change of focus like the background matters, conceptual stuff arises from it. Concepts cannot get to it, so when what this sentence about it is conceptualised, what the sentence is about cannot be reached. The conceptual cannot be conceptualised out of. So strangely Mike if I had read your post before a few days ago it would have had a different meaning. Content does not get it, but while ever content is all that can be reached, this is the tool that must be used to move beyond. Right now I feel humbled (and a little stupid) by all my conceptualising before those who trying to point me beyond it.
"

While I'm pretty sure I'm right from a practice standpoint (in terms of what is important to develop insight) this certainly comes from some experience and lot of just instinctual hunches (does that make sense?) and then a conversation with Kenneth in which he addressed my confusion about "investigating the three characteristics," and my subsequent taking of Kenneth's view on faith until I could test it myself. You know what I mean?
What I said is really just my best guess right now, NOT an authoratative opinion at all. (I guess I still want to hold out for the need for concepts!)
But, clear perception can only occur with a momentarily completely empty mind, right? Even clearly seeing oneself struggle with concepts can only be done with that empty mind awareness.

"While I'm pretty sure I'm right from a practice standpoint (in terms of what is important to develop insight) this certainly comes from some experience and lot of just instinctual hunches (does that make sense?) and then a conversation with Kenneth in which he addressed my confusion about "investigating the three characteristics," and my subsequent taking of Kenneth's view on faith until I could test it myself. You know what I mean?
What I said is really just my best guess right now, NOT an authoratative opinion at all. (I guess I still want to hold out for the need for concepts!)
But, clear perception can only occur with a momentarily completely empty mind, right? Even clearly seeing oneself struggle with concepts can only be done with that empty mind awareness. "

You mentioned your talk with Kenneth; while as far as I know the change in my view is not directly related to talking to Kenneth, but then what do I know. So I want to mention my last talk with Kenneth even though it seems unrelated. Kenneth and I talked about a number of things in our last conversation the one that I want to mention is mind states. I just don't get them, so the change in practice has been trying to "get them".
I sense from your post that I may have prompted you to look for something. I do not think I know what "clear perception" is, so it is best to not label what I am conveying. The shift I am describing I do not think is related an empty mind but then that is just another label. It is just a knowing that a concept comes from something more fundamental. This knowing is no big deal, except the conceptual mind in trying to grasp it will make it something to strive for or make it a big deal. And there is no point in saying to the conceptual mind "don't think", "do not make this a big deal", so if I were to give advice I would say let everything be but don't try to let everything be.
cont.

I am only describing something very basic. Listen to sound before the words are interpreted or the music causes you to feel. Look through your eyes at the light patterns before they become objects. See a thought arise from somewhere, without any trying that somewhere just shows itself. Feel a sensation as a sensation before it is hot or cold. All these perceptions arise from a source that is just there, no need to search for it.

A concept is just a thought. Hope this helps.

"I am only describing something very basic. Listen to sound before the words are interpreted or the music causes you to feel. Look through your eyes at the light patterns before they become objects. See a thought arise from somewhere, without any trying that somewhere just shows itself. Feel a sensation as a sensation before it is hot or cold. All these perceptions arise from a source that is just there, no need to search for it.

A concept is just a thought. Hope this helps.

"

sometimes it can be so weird posting here.
i thought i was being illuminating and I get back to find a reply hoping that it is helpful to me.
what a blow to my wonderful ego

Hi Mike,
Sorry to do that!

You had quoted my post in your post and I hook onto part of your question that didn't resonant with what I was attempting to describe. "But, clear perception can only occur with a momentarily completely empty mind, right? Even clearly seeing oneself struggle with concepts can only be done with that empty mind awareness." The empty mind bit was what I was primarly responding to.

I did not want to leave a thing like "Gary can achieve empty mind" or "if I can achieve empty mind then ..." ; it is not the case... Hope it helps in the sense my position is known better and the simplicity of the recognition seen.

So now maybe you are wanting to say something about empty mind.

Returning to the thread topic,

One day, after a lot of hard work, something marvelous happens. The mind learns to automatically counter-balance its reaction to sensations. No more lunging towards pleasant sensations and away from negative sensations. Sensations happen, linger for a second, and then fall away like sand. To a degree, anyway. It's not perfect. Not even close. Things still stick. Just less persistently. Some kinds of sensation don't stick at all. Some kinds of sensation still stick a lot.

Where there is life, there is craving and clinging. Where there is feeling, there is craving and clinging. The difference between before and after is that after, craving and clinging are relevant to this very moment, whereas before, craving and clinging are relevant to past and future moments.

It is possible to cultivate the mind in such a way as to ignore sticky sensations, thereby attaining something like the mythical Theravada ideal of enlightenment. I suppose that focusing only on physical sensations (non-sticky) to the exclusion of mental sensations (sticky) can accomplish this. I emphatically reject this type of cultivation as "carrying the boat" after one has finished, or maybe just trying to fulfill some nihilistic ideal. Obsessing about dukkha is a good way to get enlightened, but once it is understood that dukkha is harmless... *shrug*. To me, it's such a shame that some people push for the extermination of feeling, just as they are finally equipped with the safety gear to really explore life's ups and downs.

Hey, I realize that I don't post here much, but I saw this thread and saw I was mentioned a lot, and so thought I would add something about this.

I am sorry if anywhere I have given the impression that I wished to be vague or dodge any questions about this stuff. I thought I was very technical, clear and as specific about how I see this craving and clinging thing working in practice at the stage I call arahatship.

I realize this doesn't fit with the standard texts as nicely as some might like, but this is an old discussion.

Nathan, specifically, what questions did you have about anything I wrote about how I feel this works?

I'll summarize:

As it see it, at the level I call arahatship:
1) Sensations arise, are perceived where they are, as they are, by themselves, and this includes, pain, pleasure, all thoughts, images, memories, and all other categories of sensations, including all sensations that one might label craving or clinging, whatever those are.
2) As such, this gives a curiously direct and immediate freedom in how the mind perceives things and how emotions and thoughts and all that work, it being a perceptually centerless and natural field of manifestation.
3) Given the directness of clarity that this change in perception bestows, the natural processes of this body and mind doing what they do are greatly lubricated, enhanced and clarified, such that things simply don't stick the way that they did before and there is some natural intelligence in the system that can function.
4) This is highly qualified by some things listed on page 320-321 of the book: too long to list here.

Without a center, there technically can't be clinging in the ordinary sense. Craving must be defined better to be answered perfectly, but when hungry there are the empty sensations of hunger, etc. The relationship to them feels different, however.

"I suppose that focusing only on physical sensations (non-sticky) to the exclusion of mental sensations (sticky) can accomplish this. "

Hi overmyhead,
It not not clear from your post whether you are posting a view you have formed or your experience.

Can you say more about why physical sensations are non-sticky and mental sensations are sticky. My first reaction was physical hunger pain and pleasure etc can be pretty intensed and get very sticky, while some mental stuff is just fluff coming and going.