Not an endless path

I have recently had the pleasure of engaging in first-hand reading of the suttas. I am really amazed, at how such a clear teaching can be so easily confused and perverted. The simple-to-state goal of ending suffering has been for far too long muddled in vague issues of self. The well-defined goal of ending desire has been forgotten in exchange for some sort of endless deepening (a view which I read about in this forum far too many times). The suttas make it clear, they are not ambiguous in this regard.

For your enjoyment:

"I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying in Kosambi, at Ghosita's Park. Then the Brahman Unnabha went to where Ven. Ananda was staying and on arrival greeted him courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Ananda: "Master Ananda, what is the aim of this holy life lived under Gotama the contemplative?"

"Brahman, the holy life is lived under the Blessed One with the aim of abandoning desire."

"Is there a path, is there a practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"

"Yes, there is a path, there is a practice, for the abandoning of that desire."

"What is the path, the practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"

"Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire."

"The well-defined goal of ending desire has been forgotten in exchange for some sort of endless deepening (a view which I read about in this forum far too many times)."

Is ending desire something that is quickly and easily accomplished? Is it possible that ending desire, by which I mean really and truly ending desire in a truly permanent way (assuming that's possible), might appear to be an endless pursuit? If we are to believe the Buddha (as stated in the suttas) how many lifetimes did it take for him to end all desire?

"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."

"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"

"Yes, sir."

"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"

"Yes, sir."

"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"

"Yes, sir."

"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"

"Yes, sir."

"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?"

"You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an endless one."

(SN 51.15)

So again -- how many lifetimes did the Buddha take to end all desire? A googolplex (a hugely big number) is not infinite, but it might appear to be depending on where one is in relation to the beginning or the end. I'm not inclined to argue either case but I think it's worthwhile to consider perspective here.

"Is ending desire something that is quickly and easily accomplished? Is it possible that ending desire, by which I mean really and truly ending desire in a truly permanent way (assuming that's possible), might appear to be an endless pursuit? If we are to believe the Buddha (as stated in the suttas) how many lifetimes did it take for him to end all desire?"

Apparently, Ananda compares ending desire with a walk in the park

Sorry I didn't post the rest of the sutta before your reply, but it took a while to show up. Whether it is truly possible to end it in a truly permanent way, well, I've asked Tarin, who was very unequivocal in this respect.

I see the whole reincarnation thing showing up in the suttas as a mere cultural bauble. As reported by meditators, it is possible to experience vivid imaginations of things that never happened to oneself, as if they were remembered. I see that Buddha, in his time, did not have any epistemological reasons to doubt the validity of such visions. But, of course, if you're born in india 2500 years ago, you have visions of past lives, but if you are a 14th century christion, you have visions of mother mary. A perspective which Siddharta Gotama apparently lacked. But I would suggest leaving this for another thread.

More to the point: if it is indeed possible to end desire in a truly permanent way, then why (oh why?) is there such talk of an endless path? Why not just face the possibility that all the talk of anything other than this is mere distraction from something more worthy (the complete eradication of suffering)? Why cultivate primordial awarenesses and blisses of the inside-the-spine variety? Why all this talk about surrendering? Or past lives?

Why not just the four noble truths: suffering, its origin, its cessation and how to get there?

These are my two cents.

"I see the whole reincarnation thing showing up in the suttas as a mere cultural bauble."

Bruno, how are we to decide what is "cultural bauble" and what is not? I see this as a slippery slope, and what you see as a bauble someone else might see as truth. My two cents is that such things are best taken with perspective and some reasonable amount of healthy skepticism.

"... if it is indeed possible to end desire in a truly permanent way, then why (oh why?) is there such talk of an endless path?"

I suggested a plausible explanation for this twice now. Just how many people in our time are claiming a permanent end to ALL suffering? This seems to be an endless debate that we've had here over and over and over again. I happen to think compassion and a willingness to keep an open mind and a non-absolutist attitude toward the issues involved is the prudent way to think about it.

"Why cultivate primordial awarenesses and blisses of the inside-the-spine variety? Why all this talk about surrendering? Or past lives?

Why not just the four noble truths: suffering, its origin, its cessation and how to get there?"

IMO, the exercise of the "how to get there", that is the noble eightfold path, is done through abiding in primordial awareness. If one is not abiding in primordial awareness (rigpa, vidya, nirvana, etc., etc. etc.), right action is not right action, right view is not right view, right effort is not right effort, etc. To abide in primordial awareness, one learns to surrender in order to weaken dualistic fixation and, at the same time, cultivate the eightfold path. Surrendering is giving up desire, grasping and clinging. Why is surrendering contrary to giving up desire?

As to the endless aspect of the path, I don't know. If the goal is to end suffering, then, perhaps yes, there is a discernible end. After all, that's what the Pali Canon offers. But the tradition here at KFD is based upon several traditions and not just the Theravada tradition, so, even if the mission here would be to reach "the hapiness that does not depend on conditions", the consequences of following the view of Dzogchen masters or Mahamudra masters, might go beyond the end of individual suffering (i.e. become a bodhisattva, reaching full buddhahood, emptying samsara or perhaps achieving the so called rainbow body). Can I say that those three goals are the only goals, or that they are impossible? No. Why? Because, just as you don't have evidence of past lives, I dont have evidence that would prove those assertions.

What if there are endless goals derived from such views (tibetan, or similar)?, if so, then perhaps the path is in fact endless. What if the finitude or infinity of the path depends on setting (or not) a goal? Of course all this is speculation, but I think we can explore the questions at least.

My understanding of the mahayana view on this is that indeed ending suffering is a finite path which terminates somewhere before buddhahood, hence the diference in mahayana between arhats and buddhas-- the former have conquered the defilements which no longer arise for them, the latter have also gone completely beyond "stiff ideas" as one of my teachers put it-- a subtle point. I don't know of anyone on the fora who has gone beyond stiff ideas, so maybe there's something to this. In other words, maybe a finite path of ending one's own suffering via transforming the function of the mind-stream via discernment is potentially couched in other sorts of open ended development. Worth considering is whether attaining the end of one's own suffering may be done in different ways resulting in either the possibility of further developments or not depending on how arhatship (of the traditional kind) is achieved.

Also possible are paths that branch out from say ten fetters sakadagami and go in different directions of cultivation leading to end of personal suffering AND further development, without hitting 10-F Arhat on the way. Many many things are possible.

However, I think every one of us may freely pursue the practice goals which make the most sense to us personally and ought to be able to do so without needing to convince others or without being shot down either.

" I think every one of us may freely pursue the practice goals which make the most sense to us personally and ought to be able to do so without needing to convince others or without being shot down either."


Ding ding ding ding! Give that man a cigar!

"So again -- how many lifetimes did the Buddha take to end all desire? A googolplex (a hugely big number) is not infinite, but it might appear to be depending on where one is in relation to the beginning or the end. I'm not inclined to argue either case but I think it's worthwhile to consider perspective here. "

In terms of this issue, framed in the context of traditional Buddhist theory...becoming a Buddha is orders of magnitude more involved than becoming a non-Buddha arahant.

"However, I think every one of us may freely pursue the practice goals which make the most sense to us personally and ought to be able to do so without needing to convince others or without being shot down either. "

Courteous greetings

The practices that make sense to me nowadays are the result of having been convinced of their worth. As for being shot down, I have shot down numerous ideas of mine, and I do it still whenever I discover new information (or lack of sincerity or thoroughness towards old information).

To me, personally, it makes sense to transverse a clearly-defined path with a very precisely delineated goal. I dislike the vagueness, for instance, in the sentence "going completely beyond stiff ideas;" if one is to pick a single sentence to summarize the ultimate change in perception of some path, and should that be the sentence one picks, it just doesn't interest me. "Putting an end to all psychological suffering," for instance, seems much more clear and worthwhile to me. And I do not write this to "shoot you down," you have no reason to take it personally.

What motivated me to post this thread was two-fold:

(1) I have been delighting in reading the suttas. They are extremely clear & precise, nothing like vague teachings I have found elsewhere. They are written in a very funny style, which can become an acquired taste, like a strange cheese.

(2) I was always perplexed by the whole "endless path" thing; that it had an end was one of the things that attracted me about MCTB, pragmatic dharma, and nowadays AF and the pali cannon (the last two are quite similar in many respects).

I don't care to shoot down anyone, just to mention a verifiable fact: that the path the pali cannon points to is unequivocally "not an endless one".

I think some people are attracted to and benefit from very clearly defined and delineated goals, the achievement of which requires following a very specific set of instructions. Others find that there is magic in the mystery and uncertainty of things, even things in practice. Experimenting with many techniques is not a bad idea. That way we can find the path that suits us best.

For myself, I find that life contains few, if any, definites or absolutes. I find that my desire to control and to predetermine outcomes leads to some pain. I find that to be counter-intuitive but a realization of great value.

I suspect there is more than one way to get "there," assuming there is one "there" to get to. I'm not sure there is. So I remain open to all the possibilities.

And to paraphrase Jake, to each his own

con't


Lately I've tried looking at this starkly in terms of neurophenomenal plasticity: the brain's capacity to change itself via the medium of conscious attentional training, leading to very different modes of baseline neurophenomenal function. Anyone post-SE can confirm that such shifts are possible, and having occurred, include elements that are no longer dependent on continued practice, which is a very inspiring (and intimidating) thing.

I think it's worth considering the vast possibilities of neurophenomenal plasticity, AND I think it's totally valid for given practitioners to choose a finite goal oriented path and pursue that, sharing everything they learn along the way, as long as the "this is the one true path" attiutude is avoided (and I'm not accusing you of it... just trying to insure this doesn't turn into another flame war between two valid perspectives).

"Courteous greetings
"

Hey Bruno, courteous greetings returned!

I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were shooting anyone down. If anything I detect more of the 'convincing' coming from you which is neither here nor there and as you say, being convinced can be an important part of choosing a path and in fact being shot down can be an important learning experience setting us straight. So there's certainly a place for sharing our perspective and so forth.

Also I hear you about endless vs finite paths, and appreciate that your preference is for the former. I confess if anything my comment was more aimed at dissuading other posters from jumping on you for advocating a finite path (shooting you down) and also as an attempt to diffuse any intent you or others who share the finite path view *may* have had to convince others that it is *true* in an exclusive way, as these two modes of group dynamics seem to have characterized a lot of pointless flame wars on the boards. Again to be clear: convincing and critiquing are OK in my view, but they can become problematic when engaged in a "too solid" or stiff way. Nothing abstract about stiff ideas, a little honest reflection will show where they exist in us.

More than anything I wanted to indicate that there may be radically different sorts of paths and sub paths, different aspects of development, and different motivations for practice, as well as different conceptual frames for practice (views, i.e.) which then condition the interpretation of the result.

"(a) I think some people are attracted to and benefit from very clearly defined and delineated goals, the achievement of which requires following a very specific set of instructions. Others find that there is magic in the mystery and uncertainty of things, even things in practice. Experimenting with many techniques is not a bad idea. That way we can find the path that suits us best.

(b) For myself, I find that life contains few, if any, definites or absolutes. I find that my desire to control and to predetermine outcomes leads to some pain. I find that to be counter-intuitive but a realization of great value.

(c) (...) And to paraphrase Jake, to each his own

"

Dear Chris,

(a) I really find no magic in the uncertainty of things. To wit: I find knowing with certainty far better (and more magical), and knowing for certain when I don't know something much more useful (and less mystifying), than suffering from uncertainty. Surely it is better to know rather than not? How could it be otherwise, really?!

Your (b) suggests that you do see the advantage of putting an end to desire. This is non-ambiguously mentioned in the sutta quoted above as the goal of buddhism. It is not just the desire to control outcomes that leads to pain, it is any desire whatsoever. In the suttas this ("desire is the origin of suffering") is called the second noble truth, and through introspection I have verified it personally on numerous situations, over many time-scales, manifesting both in gross and subtle ways.

(c) As for "to each is own," I think we can have a civil conversation. If this friendly exchange should degenerate, then I agree with (what I think is) your implied suggestion that we should stop. But really there is no reason, we are all together in the endeavor to end human suffering, it would be foolish to quarrel

Kind regards from Amsterdam,
Bruno

"I see the whole reincarnation thing showing up in the suttas as a mere cultural bauble."

Why? If Siddharta Gotama was describing the same attainment as Tarin and others have described, he would have dispensed with the notion of rebirth on the grounds that there is nothing to be reborn.

Moreover, along with the realization that the 'self' is not actual comes the realization that the 'self' *never was* actual. Therefore, not only is there no rebirth for an arahat but no rebirth for anyone.

So why wouldn't he just say so?

What basis have you for picking and choosing which parts of the suttas to take literally?

Alex

""I see the whole reincarnation thing showing up in the suttas as a mere cultural bauble."

Why? (...) What basis have you for picking and choosing which parts of the suttas to take literally?"

Hello Alex,

I already answered your question:

(Bruno) " As reported by meditators, it is possible to experience vivid imaginations of things that never happened to oneself, as if they were remembered. I see that Buddha, in his time, did not have any epistemological reasons to doubt the validity of such visions."

So let me expand on that. In the suttas, buddha explains how he got the notion that reincarnation works.

""Thus with the mind composed, quite purified ... I directed my mind to the knowledge and recollection of former habitations. I remembered a variety of former habitations, thus: one birth, two births, three . . . four ... a hundred thousand births, and many an aeon of integration and many an aeon of disintegration and many an aeon of integration-disintegration; such a one was I by name, having such and such a clan, such and such a colour, so was I nourished, such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine, so did the span of life end. Passing from this, I came to be in another state where such a one was I by name . . . Passing from this, I arose here. Thus I remember divers former habitations in all their modes and detail."

And there is a method for recollecting such past lives, which basically involves setting up a state of strong concentration ("thus with the mind composed, quite purified"), and inclining the mind a certain way (I directed my mind to the knowledge and recollection of former habitations).

(contd)

Now, a dude before the time of science might find no reason to suspect the validity of such visions. In particular, that I know of, Buddha did not carry out any experience to verify, physically, systematically and scientifically his claims of former lives: the fact that he saw them while concentrated was enough. The same approach is taken towards visions of various entities, hellish and heavenly realms, and so on. And that is why he "just wouldn't say that there is no rebirth".

Given that this approach fails to satisfy several scientific principles, on that basis, I don't consider such parts of the suttas as relevant information. Which is not to say that I don't take them literally: my analysis of the above excerpt, for instance, is quite literal.

Other parts of the suttas I find much more relevant. Namely, the four noble truths, and in particular the verifiable fact that passion is the source of all suffering. That passion is the root of suffering is repeated over and over again in the suttas, it is the foundation of the whole teaching to erradicate suffering, and, scholars say, it is the only new thing in buddhism when compared to other doctrines and disciplines of its time (cf. www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/index.html ).

Have you noticed that this is also the basis of actual freedom?

Bruno

Hi Bruno,

Your reasoning makes sense as far as it goes, but I think you may be overlooking one aspect of what I raised. It's true that meditation can produce experiences suggestive of previous lives, but (and this is the crucial point) those experiences (and any beliefs based on them) would vanish into nothing on attainment of arahatship (if indeed the Buddha's arahatship is the same as what Tarin & co report).

At that point, those past-life experiences would be seen as illusions, phantoms, not because they cannot be scientifically verified but because their entire foundation (the imaginative faculty) evaporates into nothing -- as does any 'being' who could be capable of rebirth.

This would not be a matter of deduction, nor a matter for scientific investigation; it would be immediately, experientially obvious that both the illusion of previous lives, and the 'being' who is subject to rebirth, have simply disappeared and are known to have never existed.

I can't help thinking that if the Buddha knew this (and such knowledge would *necessarily* arise from the experience you (seemingly) attribute to him), he would have said so.

Alex

"At that point, those past-life experiences would be seen as illusions, phantoms, not because they cannot be scientifically verified but because their entire foundation (the imaginative faculty) evaporates into nothing -- as does any 'being' who could be capable of rebirth. "

Have you considered that, with *very* strong concentration, much much more than what is typically here considered to be strong concentration, that whatever strange experience may arise in relation to these claims by the Buddha might not be produced by the imaginative faculty, but by some other faculty?

In particular (just for illustration), consider: if you have a dream, are the experiences in it more like sense-experiences during waking life, or more like imagination?

It seems rather silly to assume that meditators in the past did not consider that experiences that came through the faculty of imagination might not be real.

I would say that this speaks to the issue of why the Buddha might have continued to believe his experiences after enlightenment, as well as why the Buddha and has disciples believed that siddhis were possible for enlightened people.

"I can't help thinking that if the Buddha knew this (and such knowledge would *necessarily* arise from the experience you (seemingly) attribute to him), he would have said so."

Hey Alex

Maybe you are right, I don't know! The buddha has always refused to give answer to issues related to self (does it exist? doesn't it exist? does it still exist after unbinding? has it ever existed?), maybe due to his particular historical context, India at the time was fermenting with doctrines of self. I really should refrain from any further low-quality speculation

Richard still repeats things he saw during highly concentrated psychic experiences, such as:

"Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ... furthermore, in the ensuing years, as I proceeded to penetrate deeper and deeper into the state of being known as spiritual enlightenment, the psychic footprints, as it were, of those who had explored some of the further reaches of '˜Being' itself gradually became less and less in number and finally petered out altogether leaving only virgin territory wherever the (psychic) eye would look."

As if the psychic footsteps he "saw" had some existence besides whatever little story was running through his imagination. I haven't an established opinion on this matter, as I am certain I don't have enough information to incline either way.

All of this seems somewhat unimportant when faced with the possibility of eradicating suffering. The wide and wondrous path (Richard's method) is in many respects different than the 8-fold noble path, but both are targeted at ending personal suffering. And it is clear & unambiguous that former does this by eliminating "being," and the latter by eliminating passion.

I suspect this means the same thing (that being equals passion).

Bruno

"If this friendly exchange should degenerate, then I agree with (what I think is) your implied suggestion that we should stop. But really there is no reason, we are all together in the endeavor to end human suffering, it would be foolish to quarrel "

First, just to be clear and set expectations, if a conversation gets out of control then I'll stop it. I won't be shy about that, so no, I was not implying that you stop, Bruno. I was actually asking you some questions that I find interesting to think about. I have no stake whatsoever in the outcome of this discussion (and it's certainly not new here) as I've personally been on one side, them the other, then both. This is something we all have to face on our personal path. And I believe strongly that we all have a very personal path to take, and wherever it may take us we need to go there. We cannot follow the path of another. That is inauthentic and leads not to awakening but somewhere else.

Second, suffering from uncertainty? How do you live without accepting it? Or do you know exactly what will happen to you, and when? When I watch experience it never plays out like mind wants, expects or tries to predict it to play out. So... are we talking about the same thing here? The stark difference in our view makes me think not. So what do you mean by uncertainty?

Third, (echoing Alex) it's interesting to me that the Buddha is found to be both a genius and a fool. By that I mean folks tend to pick and choose the Buddha's teachings that suit their views and claim those to be Truth, but other teachings they don't accept or agree with are cultural baggage or ignored. So I have to ask you again, which is which and how do we decide?

Thoughts?

"Moreover, along with the realization that the 'self' is not actual comes the realization that the 'self' *never was* actual. Therefore, not only is there no rebirth for an arahat but no rebirth for anyone."

The Buddha never claims that a self (or anything at all) is reborn, merely that there is rebirth.

Later Buddhist writings offer the metaphor of e.g. a procession of candles lighting each other, with nothing being passed between them, despite the fact that one candle lights the next.

"I suspect this means the same thing (that being equals passion)."

What if sankhara is being? If we take Sankhara as "that which has been put together", perhaps in a very subtle way, one would be prefering certain aspects of phenomena to put together something so it becomes a being. If that's the case, then "prefering" might be a subtle version of desiring, or a connected mental factor to desiring. If that's the case, then being would be in fact a way of desiring.