Dodging another question about craving and clinging, eh?

You are indeed the man, Mike. I love what you posted there.
Religiosity sometimes seems like this hindrance that is holding people back, but as you point out, it's the lack of doing the technique that is holding them back. People can be logical positivist/atheists, agnostics, or extremely devout Buddhists, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether they're doing the technique.
I do think the mushroom culture is important, because if part of religiosity involves a belief that you can't actually attain enlightenment, that it's beyond your capacity, you might get caught up in rites and rituals rather than doing the practice. This is why the Mahasi Sayadaw lineage is so effective--it empowers people by telling them, "Yes, you can do it." And it gives them an awesome, straightforward technique. It has some traditional, religious aspects, but when you're sitting and walking for 13 hours a day rather than chanting, praying, etc., you make progress.

"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."

Daniel, you have never been anything BUT clear about this stuff. It is your clarity that launched my early vipassana practice. So clear, so well documented. There is just no doubt about that.

"
"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."

Daniel, you have never been anything BUT clear about this stuff. It is your clarity that launched my early vipassana practice. So clear, so well documented. There is just no doubt about that.

"

Long live 'relentless clarification'!

"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."

Yeah, this is a very important point. If we eradicate our feelings and emotions we eradicate our humanity. It's just that simple. So what we are aiming for isn't some mythical emotionless state. We are aiming at enjoying the fullness and beauty of human existence, the whole thing, but with the ability to KNOW how it is constructed so that we can minimize the mental anguish (suffering) that naturally comes with.

Last comment this morning:

In order to really get there (you know what I mean) you will have to rip out, examine and be ready to destroy pretty much every bias you hold. Every bias you hold. This applies to the ones you know about and the ones you have yet to uncover. So let's get real -- Buddhist theory, philosophy and psychology, whatever we decide to name all the fifty kajillion words about Buddhism ever written, is bias. Theravada orthodoxy is a bias. The belief that attaining any kind of awakening is nigh on to impossible is a bias. You gotta do this by yourself, good friends, so every minute you spend obsessing over your biases is a minute you cannot spend investigating them and waking up.

I'm not a Buddhist but I am often accused of being so. I come from a very heavy intellectual background and being that way was quite a burden. I didn't want to become a Buddhist because I very quietly refuted the notion that lay-people just can't get liberated....we don't spend enough time in caves!! Also, I didn't want to have to 'memorize' another truck load of jargon and argument. It takes enormous energy to keep stuff in your head. So, imagine my delight to discover pure practice? Consciousness expands all by itself, mental anguish burns off, constant ongoing spaciousness is present day to day, little threat is percieved in events and people and the way they talk and most wonderful of all, now when I read the conceptual stuff, and the arguments, I actually understand them, without having to memorize them. It's so easy to understand intellectuality now it is of no consequence. Every day I am further and further into the ease of living. I love that kind of voice!! And I love Daniel and Kenneth for pointing out the Avocado grove....just over yonder hill!!

"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.

"

I drew a sloppy distinction between mental and physical sensations. It's a trend I notice, but it's definitely not black and white as I suggested. Notice with something like hunger, the feeling goes away as soon as the immediate conditions cease. As soon as you eat, you are no longer hungry. In this way it is not sticky.

"Notice with something like hunger, the feeling goes away as soon as the immediate conditions cease. As soon as you eat, you are no longer hungry. In this way it is not sticky."


True. And I appreciate the earnestness of your contribution. But I also notice another way in which things are not sticky.

When things are not sticky, in my experience, I can know a sensation as it arises and passes away, without concocting progression into further sensations, especially mind-states, thoughts and actions. For example, an itch is arising and passing away at this moment in the middle of my left ear, but this can merely be known, without any need to grasp it as my itch in need of scratching. Or, alternatively, there could be sensations of itch and unpleasantness and irritation and "hmm, i could scratch this itch," going all the way to the action of scratching, but - any of those links in the chain being known - no need to proliferate further. (i.e. "Oh, damn it, I shouldn't have scratched that itch. I'm such a careless person.") Or, with the arising of "oh, damn it" there's no need for more thoughts on the matter. Or, with the arising of, "I resolve to refrain from scratching itches in the future," I could then drop the matter. As someone who deals with eczema, such resolutions are sometimes necessary. ; )

Stickiness is an inability to drop the matter, whatever it is. Non-stickiness, an ability to drop it. Or, actually, an ability to let it drop of it's own accord.

Does that make sense?

I was thinking about this on my last retreat. Goenka is always saying "without a trace of craving and aversion" it was disturbing. When I have craving I note craving and watch it through the lense of the the 3 characteristics, when I have aversion I note it doing the same thing. If you just see ow craving I better drop it---- MUST---HAVE---EQUANIMITY then you repress your emotions instead of deconstructing them. What does that do? Massive shadow sides lurk in that sort of endeavor. If I want to completely eradicate craving and aversion it is really easy. I don't need to meditate, I don't need to be a buddhist. All I need to do is have a lobotomy. But I have no interest in vegetable enlightenment that most Buddhist seem to be after. What I seek is boisterous, vibrant, and awake. To whatever arises. Thanks for your opening post Kenneth its solid stuff...

" 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 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, overmyhead. Reading your full earlier post, rather than the excerpt, I can see you're well aware of this other kind of non-stickiness. Sorry if my comments came across as condescending.

Totally agree with you about the "extermination of feeling" thing.

Also, I'm curious: when you say, "the difference between before and after," are you referring to specific shifts in your perceptual framework? Attainments of insight knowledge? Effects of cumulative years of practice?

Thanks!

- Ryan

"If you just see ow craving I better drop it---- MUST---HAVE---EQUANIMITY then you repress your emotions instead of deconstructing them. What does that do? Massive shadow sides lurk in that sort of endeavor."


Thanks for your post, Clayton. I'm not sure whether or not you were replying to my comments, specifically, but striving for equanimity through repression definitely wasn't what I was intending to advocate. An ability to be free from (as in, not identified with) all types of sensations is how I understand the meaning of freedom from craving.

Maybe the place where we're diverging is that I don't understand craving as something I see, but rather something I do. It's not an unpleasant sensation to which I'm averse; it's a mental action that reinforces the three illusions, the stickiness of all phenomena.

That traditionally worded statement of Goenka's might refer to how meditation begins to wear away the habit of one's mind to "do" craving and aversion, to stick to phenomena. I sincerely hope he's not advertising a lobotomized existence (which, I agree, would be disturbing). "Boisterous, vibrant, awake to whatever" sounds pretty good, IMHO.

Hey Ryan. Nah I wasn't replying to anything you said. I just wanted to get that comment out there. Well having just been on retreat, I dunno. He advises his students at the begining of the sits not to develop a trace of craving and aversion. It is just a personal belief of mine--but I believe this causes a lot of repression within the Goenka community. His vauge instructions like this are very easily misinterpreted. (I believe) He would of course never say he wants his students to act lobotomized... however his insistence on perfect conduct of the arhat is unrealistic. He even said during a discourse that to encounter a stream enterer is to encounter a saintly person... whatever that means... I think I am going to start another thread sometime about the Goenka teachings... I didn't mean to get the discussion too off track...

"Also, I'm curious: when you say, "the difference between before and after," are you referring to specific shifts in your perceptual framework? Attainments of insight knowledge? Effects of cumulative years of practice?

Thanks!

- Ryan"

I was referring to specific perceptual shifts. I'm sure it happens in a continuous manner over the years as well, but it's hard to do a before/after comparison. I'm guessing that the perceptual shifts line up with the attainment of paths.