Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT No. 00: ‘Mindfulness of Feeling’. (By Bhanthe Henepola Gunaratana). <ARTICLE SNIPPED FOR SPACE>

RICHARD: I read the article you posted through twice and I am referring to it again as I write. As you were interested enough in the subject of feelings to post the article, what was it that you wished to discuss? There are several issues I could raise, but of course I cannot have a dialogue with Mr. Bhanthe Henepola Gunaratana on this List.

1. He does not differentiate between affective feelings and sensate feelings – and states this fact clearly – so I was wondering if you have anything to say on the importance of separating out the two for clarity.
2. He talks of people ‘clinging to the pleasant feeling and rejecting the unpleasant’ in contrast to the more enlightened one ‘neither clinging to the pleasant nor rejecting the unpleasant’ ... do you consider this approach valid?
3. He says: ‘We defend ourselves saying, ‘I have every right to defend my feelings when somebody hurts my feelings’. When you universalise your feelings you become more mindful about not saying anything to hurt anybody’. Is this a healthy approach?
4. He teaches: ‘Pay total attention to your own feeling and begin to notice the pleasant feeling behind your unpleasant feeling’. This is in contradiction to No. 2 above.
5. He finishes with: ‘If you mindfully watch your own mind and feelings, you can see very clearly and unequivocally that what you feel is your own creation and that you are totally responsible for it’. As all sentient beings are born with the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire – bestowed by blind nature – how do you think he could say that ‘what you feel is your own creation and that you are totally responsible for it’?
6. He finishes with: ‘Mindfully watching the continuous change of your own feelings can make you abstain from emotional reactions and make you see the truth of your own feelings. Mindfulness of feelings will not cause you to think obsessive thoughts or abusive thoughts or harmful thoughts. By unmindful thinking you abuse your mind. The abused mind always generates abusive feelings, which always is painful’. Do you think that it is the mind that generates feelings – be they pleasant or unpleasant – as he says?

RESPONDENT: Emotions seem to be reactions involving sensations but they are immediately evaluative.

RICHARD: They are reactions, yes. Are all affective feelings reactive? Are sensate feelings – void of the affective reaction – at all reactionary? Which of the two is the peaceful way to operate and function in the world of people, things and events?

RESPONDENT: In a way, they are another feedback loop. The two emotional extremes of distress or flat affect are usually symptomatic of disorder. Krishnamurti spoke of dying to one’s emotions but that does not in my opinion mean that emotions (or thoughts) are avoided.

RICHARD: One would not want to avoid anything whatsoever ... one is scrupulously honest with oneself because, after all is said and done, it is one who has to live this life. Dishonesty is not ‘bad’ ... it is silly.

RESPONDENT: Only what is allowed to flower can die away.

RICHARD: Do you mean by this that the affective feelings can end completely? That is: no affective faculties for the remainder of one’s life? If not, then what does ‘flower and die away’ mean?

RESPONDENT: The emotional ‘body’ moves between the poles of like and dislike and when there is a free movement without inhibition or direction, there is great energy.

RICHARD: Is this ‘great energy’ affective in origin?

*

RICHARD: [Point No. 2.]: ‘He talks of people ‘clinging to the pleasant feeling and rejecting the unpleasant’ in contrast to the more enlightened one ‘neither clinging to the pleasant nor rejecting the unpleasant’ ... do you consider this approach valid?’

RESPONDENT: If there is no identification with thought or feeling or any function, there is no clinging or grasping. So it is a matter of being free to observe, i.e.: no identification.

RICHARD: What if there were no one to identify with ‘thought or feeling or any function’ in the first place? Would this not eliminate the on-going necessity to be ‘non-clinging’ and ‘non-grasping’ ? That sounds like hard work to me ... always having to be alert because clinging and grasping will always come sweeping back in when vigilance is inevitably relaxed. Besides, what does ‘flower and die away’ mean, anyway, if it comes back again?

You see, because Mr. Bhanthe Henepola Gunaratana does not differentiate between affective feelings and sensate feelings, he has to ‘neither cling to the pleasant nor reject the unpleasant’ . Thus, with this grab-bag of sensate and affective feelings undifferentiated, one would have to allow the whole dang lot to ‘flower and die away’ ... and one would be simply numb. One would be able to sit upon a hot stove and not know that one’s bum was on fire until one saw the smoke rising!

Also, one misses out on the sheer delight of the eyes resting upon colour and shape; one misses out on the joy of the nose inhaling aromas; one misses out on the lusciousness of the tongue tasting food; one misses out on pleasure of the ears hearing sound; one misses out on the felicity of the skin touching and being touched. All this is because people like Mr. Bhanthe Henepola Gunaratana (presumably of the Buddhist Tradition) cannot be bothered differentiating between the affective feelings and the sensate feelings. What manner of wisdom is this?

*

RICHARD: [Point No. 3.]: ‘He says: ‘We defend ourselves saying, ‘I have every right to defend my feelings when somebody hurts my feelings’. When you universalise your feelings you become more mindful about not saying anything to hurt anybody’. Is this a healthy approach?’

RESPONDENT: It is not clear what he meant by universalising feelings.

RICHARD: He meant that scriptural adage about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you ... thus the affective feelings rule the world.

RESPONDENT: Feelings or reactions are factual and have an effect and as such are treated with due respect.

RICHARD: Yea verily ... and therein lies the problem. This ‘respect’ ultimately means respect for physical force, for if one upsets another’s feelings sufficiently, they will become violent. Thus, through violence, people’s precious feelings rule the world ... and look at the mess it is in.

*

RICHARD: [Point No. 4.]: ‘He teaches: ‘Pay total attention to your own feeling and begin to notice the pleasant feeling behind your unpleasant feeling’. This is in contradiction to No. 2 above’.

RESPONDENT: Paying full attention is not grasping after. There is a difference between trying to avoid or alter the unpleasant, and seeing what is pleasant, interesting, or instructive in what is superficially an unpleasant feeling.

RICHARD: But ... do you not see that his advice about ‘neither clinging to the pleasant nor rejecting the unpleasant’ is only skin-deep? He actually wants to get past the superficial and cling to the deeper feelings (affective feelings). In fact, if he were to go all the way, he would become those deepest (affective) feelings ... he would ‘be’ them’ (and we all know what they are ... Love and Compassion). He would ‘be’ Love. He would ‘be’ Compassion. Then he would say that Love and Compassion are not feelings at all ... he would say that they are a state of being.

Golly gosh ... he would be a Buddha!

*

RICHARD: [Point No. 5.]: ‘He finishes with: ‘If you mindfully watch your own mind and feelings, you can see very clearly and unequivocally that what you feel is your own creation and that you are totally responsible for it’. As all sentient beings are born with the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire – bestowed by blind nature – how do you think he could say that ‘what you feel is your own creation and that you are totally responsible for it’?’

RESPONDENT: What is brought about mechanically or blindly continues unless there is awareness and understanding of how it is these energies, compulsions, habits, etc are actually operating. They operate through identifications and attachments. It is our responsibility to bring about a natural order which means to understand what is disordered.

RICHARD: But the ‘natural order’ is these instinctive passions ... or do you say that what blind nature endows all sentient beings with at birth is un-natural? Is this understanding of yours not back-to-front? Why not do something un-natural? Why not dispense with what is the ‘natural order’? After all, it has bought nothing but mayhem and misery thus far in human history.

*

RICHARD: [Point No. 6.]: ‘He finishes with: ‘Mindfully watching the continuous change of your own feelings can make you abstain from emotional reactions and make you see the truth of your own feelings. Mindfulness of feelings will not cause you to think obsessive thoughts or abusive thoughts or harmful thoughts. By unmindful thinking you abuse your mind. The abused mind always generates abusive feelings, which always is painful’. Do you think that it is the mind that generates feelings – be they pleasant or unpleasant – as he says?’

RESPONDENT: Yes, it seems that egoistic feelings stem from what he calls an abused mind.

RICHARD: You say ‘it seems’ ... do feelings, in fact, originate in the mind?

(Bearing in mind that he means, by the term ‘mind’, thought and thinking ... and not the physical brain).

It has been demonstrated that the basic passions originate in the brain-stem (popularly called the ‘reptilian brain’) of all sentient beings ... even those without a cerebral cortex. As thinking and thought exist only in the human cerebral cortex, how can he say that ‘emotional reactions’ (which all animals have) are generated by the mind? Does he know what he is talking about?

Is his wisdom, in fact, nothing but psittacisms?

Did Mr. Buddha (if there ever was such a flesh and blood person anyway) know about the ‘reptilian brain’ being the seat of passion?

Is this why Buddhism has been ineffective in bringing about Peace On Earth despite two and a half thousand years in which to do so?

There is as much suffering now as back then.

RESPONDENT: The more mind is identified, not aware, not free to observe, the greater the suffering. The mind that is boundless, not entangled with transient thoughts, feelings and sensations is ecstatic.

RICHARD: Yeah ... and therein lies the enticement of those deeper feelings: ‘ecstatic’, eh? Ecstasy is affective.

Self-aggrandisement once again.

RICHARD: Do you practice detachment (you are twice-removed from actuality)?

RESPONDENT No. 25: Alas, I do not practice much (please define detachment). Do you have a method which you endorse?

RICHARD: I am using ‘detachment’ in the Buddhist meaning of ‘withdrawal from the world of the senses’. I would never endorse any such method.

RESPONDENT: While there may indeed be some who proclaim to be Buddhist who hold to this definition of detachment it is by no means ‘the Buddhist meaning’ as Richard would have us believe.

RICHARD: Methinks upon closer examination you will find that it is indeed ‘the Buddhist meaning’ of the word. Contrary to popular belief, Buddhists are not actively pursuing peace-on-earth per se. Mr. Buddha’s ‘Ultimate Reality’ is called ‘The Parinirvana’ (Complete Nirvana) or the freedom of spirit (by whatever name) brought about by release from the body. According to Mr. Buddha’s assessment of the human condition, delusions of egocentricity and their resultant desires bind humans to a continuous round of rebirths and its consequent ‘dukkha’ (unsatisfactoriness; suffering). It is release from these bonds that constitutes ‘Nirvana’, or the experience of ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’. However, ‘Nirvana’ – according to Mr. Buddha – is but the initial goal of the mindfulness disciplines and practice in that it signifies the transcendent state of freedom achieved by the extinction (‘nirodha’) of ‘tanha’ (craving for existence; desire) and of ‘atta’ (individual consciousness). That this is only the inaugural objective is very clear to the discerning eye because – while liberation from rebirth does not imply immediate death and thus release into the ‘Deathless’ – the physical death of a ‘Perfect One’ (an Arhat or a Buddha) does. Thus while the immediate aim of the Buddhist path is release from the round of phenomenal existence with its inherent suffering by attaining ‘Nirvana’ (the enlightened state in which the fires of greed, hatred, and ignorance have been quenched), ‘Nirvana’ is not to be confused with total annihilation because, after attaining ‘Nirvana’, the enlightened individual will continue to live, burning off any remaining karma until the state of ‘Final Nirvana’ (‘Parinirvana’) is attained at the moment of physical death.

It may be noted that, during the early centuries of Buddhist history, not only were there the three major pilgrimage centres – the place of Mr. Buddha’s birth at Lumbini, the place of his Enlightenment at Bodh Gaya, the Deer Park in Varanasi where he preached his first sermon – but particularly the village of Kusinara, (or Kushinagara) located in the eastern district of Deoria, which is the place of his ‘Parinirvana’.

Quite obviously, this is a very self-seeking approach to life on earth ... something that all metaphysical peoples are guilty of. The quest to secure one’s immortality (by whatever name) in some spurious ‘After-Life’ (by whatever name) is unambiguously selfish ... peace-on-earth is readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagined spirit (by whatever name) after physical death. So much for their humanitarian ideals of peace, goodness, altruism, philanthropy and humaneness. All religious and spiritual and mystical quests amount to nothing more than a self-centred urge to perpetuate oneself for ever and a day. All metaphysicists fall foul of this existential dilemma. They pay lip-service to the notion of self-sacrifice – weeping crocodile tears at noble martyrdom – whilst selfishly pursuing the timeless ‘State of Being’ ... the ‘Deathless State’. The root cause of all the ills of humankind can be sheeted home to this single, basic fact: the overriding importance of the survival of ‘self’ by whatever name.

RESPONDENT: Rather, detachment (properly understood in the context of the teachings of Buddha) is regarded on one level as an ending of the identification process; identifying with possessions, beliefs, titles, jobs, status, etc.

RICHARD: The word ‘detachment’ is a common English rendering of the mental absorption deemed necessary for the removal of what the Buddhists conceive of as being the cause of birth in the first place (in Pali ‘nirodha’ more properly means ‘cessation’). It refers to the ‘mindfulness’ that leads to the cessation of ‘dukkha’ (‘unsatisfactoriness’ or ‘suffering’) through the cessation of craving. In Buddhism, ‘craving’ (Pali ‘tanha’ or Sanskrit ‘trsna’) is said to draw creatures on through greed – and drives them on through hate – while ignorance prevents their seeing the truth of how things are or where they are going (ignorance is regarded as a basic factor in the continuity of existence). Therefore the Buddhist ‘detachment’ (‘nirodha’) is seen as the removal of a poison, the curing of a disease, not as the mere denial of it (opposed to the assertion of it) or the obstruction of it (in conflict with the favouring of it) since both assertion and denial confirm and maintain alike the basic idea or state that is required to be cured ... which state is known as ‘clinging’ (Pali ‘upadana’). The word ‘upadana’ means literally ‘taking up’ (‘upa’ plus ‘adana’) and is used for what the Buddhists maintain is the assumption and consumption that satisfies craving and produces existence. As craving pre-dates birth, such upadana is the condition sine qua non for ‘being’. And, as clinging’s ending is Nirvana, the Buddhist detachment (as ‘cessation’) is not to be confounded with mere negativism or nihilism ... it is a total disassociation of self from the world of people, things and events. Mr. Buddha expressly states that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the Samyutta Nikaya XXII. 59 ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic). <snipped>

Hence my use of ‘detachment’ in the post quoted (at the top of this post) was indeed in the full Buddhist meaning of ‘withdrawal from the world of the senses’ and, as I further wrote, I would never, ever endorse any such method because it promotes the fantasy that the ‘Real Self’ (by whatever name) is to be found in the ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’ dimension that is not of this temporal and spatial world of matter ... this physical world of the senses.

RESPONDENT: We depend on these things to define who we are, to give substance to our self image. Therefore we are attached to them, because to lose them is to lose a part of our ‘self’. The practice of detachment in this context would be to pay attention to these ‘things’ and the fact of the identification process. Detachment itself (not its practice) arises from an awareness of the truth of the matter; the confusion, conflict and harm inherent in the identification process. With awareness of the truth comes an end to the matter; one is no longer attached by identification. One is now ‘detached’ (so to speak).

RICHARD: The ‘end to the matter’ only comes with the psychological and psychic extinction of self in any way, shape or form. One’s very identity is felt and thought to be a ‘being’ inside this flesh and blood body ... busily identifying with people, things and events ‘outside’ the body. To become detached from the superficial ‘outer’ identification (self-image as presented to self and others) only endorses and perpetuates the delusion that who ‘I’ feel and think ‘I’ am is a psychological and psychic entity inhabiting this body.

RESPONDENT: On another level detachment is regarded as an end to the bias and prejudice of past conditioning. It is freedom from partiality. It is seeing clearly. The practice of detachment in this context is to be attentive to the process of bias and prejudice as they manifest. Once again, it is awareness of the truth of the matter that ends the matter and detachment is then actualised, not practiced. In all matters it is this way. To practice is to be attentive to what is happening now. Attention is the seed. Returning again and again to attentiveness is caring for the seed. Awareness is the flowering plant that naturally arises from the seed of its own accord.

RICHARD: May I ask? What is the constitution of this ‘seed’ that you are letting flower into awareness? To say that the seed is ‘attention’ (and say nothing else) does not convey that this seed is, in itself, innocent.

RESPONDENT: To return to the ‘Buddhist meaning’ of detachment. I have never come across a ‘Buddhist’ definition as presented by Richard.

RICHARD: I beg to differ. Mr. Gunaratana Mahathera (the ‘Venerable H. Gunaratana Mahathera’ of the Bhavana Society; Rt. 1 Box 218-3 High View, WV 26808. USA.), for just one example, said on December 7, 1990:

• ‘Vipassana is the oldest of Buddhist meditation practices. The method comes directly from the Sitipatthana Sutta, a discourse attributed to Buddha himself. Vipassana is a direct and gradual cultivation of mindfulness or awareness. It proceeds piece by piece over a period of years (...) this Sutta offers comprehensive practical instructions on the practice of mindfulness meditation’.

An examination of this core Sutta shows a pronounced and deliberate withdrawal from the world of the senses and this flesh and blood body itself. Vis.:

• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the disappearance of pain and distress, for the attainment of the right method, and for the realisation of Unbinding – in other words, the four frames of reference ... remain focused on the body in and of itself – ardent, alert, and mindful – putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world (...) remain focused on feelings (...) mind (...) mental qualities in and of themselves – ardent, alert, and mindful – putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world’.

A. (Body) [Mr. Buddha]:

1.‘There is the case where a monk – having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building – sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out (...) He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. (...) He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or externally on the body in and of itself, or both internally and externally on the body in and of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that ‘There is a body’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself.

2. ‘Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns that he is walking. When standing, he discerns that he is standing. When sitting, he discerns that he is sitting. When lying down, he discerns that he is lying down. Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or focused externally (...) unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself.

3. ‘Furthermore, when going forward and returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward and looking away (...) when bending and extending his limbs (...) when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe and his bowl (...) when eating, drinking, chewing, and savouring (...) when urinating and defecating (...) when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, and remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or focused externally (...) unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself.

4. ‘Furthermore (...) a monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: ‘In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, faeces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine’. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or focused externally ... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself.

5. ‘Furthermore (...) the monk contemplates this very body – however it stands, however it is disposed – in terms of properties: ‘In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property’. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or focused externally (...) unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself.

6. ‘Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground – one day, two days, three days dead – bloated, livid, and festering, he applies it to this very body, ‘This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate’. Or again, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground, picked at by crows, vultures, and hawks, by dogs, hyenas, and various other creatures (...) a skeleton smeared with flesh and blood, connected with tendons (...) a fleshless skeleton smeared with blood, connected with tendons (...) a skeleton without flesh or blood, connected with tendons (...) bones detached from their tendons, scattered in all directions – here a hand bone, there a foot bone, here a shin bone, there a thigh bone, here a hip bone, there a back bone, here a rib, there a chest bone, here a shoulder bone, there a neck bone, here a jaw bone, there a tooth, here a skull (...) the bones whitened, somewhat like the colour of shells (...) piled up, more than a year old (...) decomposed into a powder: He applies it to this very body, ‘This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate’. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or externally on the body in and of itself, or both internally and externally on the body in and of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that ‘There is a body’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by not clinging to anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself’.

B. (Feelings) [Mr. Buddha]:

1. ‘There is the case where a monk, when feeling a painful feeling, discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling. When feeling a pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling. When feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. When feeling a painful feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling of the flesh. When feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh. When feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh. When feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh. When feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of the flesh. When feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling not of the flesh. In this way he remains focused internally on feelings in and of themselves, or externally on feelings in and of themselves, or both internally and externally on feelings in and of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to feelings, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to feelings, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to feelings. Or his mindfulness that ‘There are feelings’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by not clinging to anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on feelings in and of themselves’.

C. (Mind) [Mr. Buddha]:

1. ‘There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion. When the mind is restricted, he discerns that the mind is restricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns that the mind is not released. In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in and of itself, or externally on the mind in and of itself, or both internally and externally on the mind in and of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to the mind. Or his mindfulness that ‘There is a mind’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by not clinging to anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the mind in and of itself’.

D. (Mental Qualities) [Mr. Buddha]:

1. ‘There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five hindrances? There is the case where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that ‘There is sensual desire present within me’. Or, there being no sensual desire present within, he discerns that ‘There is no sensual desire present within me’. He discerns how there is the arising of unrisen sensual desire. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of sensual desire that has been abandoned. A monk discerns that (...) ill will (...) sloth (...) drowsiness (...) restlessness (...) anxiety (...) and uncertainty. In this way he remains focused internally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or externally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or both internally and externally on mental qualities in and of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to mental qualities, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to mental qualities. Or his mindfulness that ‘There are mental qualities’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five hindrances.

2. ‘Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five aggregates for clinging/sustenance. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five aggregates for clinging/sustenance? There is the case where a monk discerns: ‘Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling (...) Such is perception (...) Such are fabrications (...) Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance’. In this way he remains focused internally on the mental qualities in and of themselves, or focused externally (...) unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five aggregates for clinging/sustenance.

3. ‘Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal and external sense media. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal and external sense media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unrisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. There is the case where he discerns the (...) ear (...) nose (...) tongue (...) body (...) and intellect. In this way he remains focused internally on the mental qualities in and of themselves, or focused externally (...) unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal and external sense media.

4. ‘Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the seven factors of awakening. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the seven factors of awakening? There is the case where, there being mindfulness as a factor of awakening present within, he discerns that ‘Mindfulness as a factor of awakening is present within me’. Or, there being no mindfulness as a factor of awakening present within, he discerns that ‘Mindfulness as a factor of awakening is not present within me’. He discerns how there is the arising of unrisen mindfulness as a factor of awakening. And he discerns how there is the culmination of the development of mindfulness as a factor of awakening once it has arisen. He discerns how there is the arising of unrisen analysis of qualities (...) persistence (...) rapture (...) serenity (...) concentration (...) and equanimity. In this way he remains focused internally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or externally ... unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the seven factors of awakening.

5. ‘Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the four noble truths. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the four noble truths? There is the case where he discerns, as it is actually present, that ‘This is stress ... This is the origination of stress ... This is the cessation of stress ... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress’. In this way he remains focused internally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or externally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or both internally and externally on mental qualities in and of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to mental qualities, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to mental qualities. Or his mindfulness that ‘There are mental qualities’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the four noble truths’. (http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/majjhima/mn10.html).

The ‘Mahasatipatthana Sutta (The Great Frames of Reference) Digha Nikaya 22, elaborates on the practice of mindfulness meditation with a more detailed exposition of [D. Mental Qualities 5] in the Satipatthana Sutta above). Vis:

• (D. Mental Qualities): [Mr. Buddha]:

5. ‘Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the four noble truths. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the four noble truths? There is the case where he discerns, as it is actually present, that ‘This is stress (...) This is the origination of stress (...) This is the cessation of stress (...) This is the way leading to the cessation of stress’.

(a.) ‘Now what is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stress, aging is stress, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair are stress; association with the unbeloved is stress; separation from the loved is stress; not getting what is wanted is stress; not getting what is wanted is stress. In short, the five aggregates for clinging/sustenance are stress. And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, and acquisition of sense spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. And what is aging? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, greying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. And what is death? Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death. And what is sorrow? Whatever sorrow, sorrowing, sadness, inward sorrow, inward sadness of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called sorrow. And what is lamentation? Whatever crying, grieving, lamenting, weeping, wailing, lamentation of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called lamentation. And what is pain? Whatever is experienced as bodily pain, bodily discomfort, pain or discomfort born of bodily contact, that is called pain. And what is distress? Whatever is experienced as mental pain, mental discomfort, pain or discomfort born of mental contact, that is called distress. And what is despair? Whatever despair, despondency, desperation of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called despair. And what is the stress of not getting what one wants? In beings subject to birth, the wish arises, ‘O, may we not be subject to birth, and may birth not come to us’. But this is not be achieved by wishing. This is the stress of not getting what one wants. In beings subject to aging (...) illness (...) death (...) sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair, the wish arises, ‘O, may we not be subject to aging (...) illness (...) death (...) sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair, and may aging (...) illness (...) death (...) sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair not come to us’. But this is not be achieved by wishing. This is the stress of not getting what one wants. And what is the stress of association with the unbeloved? There is the case where undesirable, unpleasing, unattractive sights, sounds, aromas, flavours, or tactile sensations occur to one; or one has connection, contact, relationship, interaction with those who wish one ill, who wish for one’s harm, who wish for one’s discomfort, who wish one no security from the yoke. This is called the stress of association with the unbeloved. And what is the stress of separation from the loved? There is the case where desirable, pleasing, attractive sights, sounds, aromas, flavours, or tactile sensations do not occur to one; or one has no connection, no contact, no relationship, no interaction with those who wish one well, who wish for one’s benefit, who wish for one’s comfort, who wish one security from the yoke, nor with one’s mother, father, brother, sister, friends, companions, or relatives. This is called the stress of separation from the loved. And what is the stress of not getting what is wanted? In beings subject to birth, the wish arises, ‘O, may we not be subject to birth, and may birth not come to us’. But this is not be achieved by wishing. This is the stress of not getting what one wants. In beings subject to aging (...) illness (...) death (...) sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair, the wish arises, ‘O, may we not be subject to aging (...) illness (...) death (...) sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair, and may aging (...) illness (...) death (...) sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair not come to us’. But this is not be achieved by wishing. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted. And what are the five aggregates for clinging/sustenance that, in short, are stress? Form as an aggregate for clinging/sustenance, feeling as an aggregate for clinging/sustenance, perception as an aggregate for clinging/sustenance, fabrications as an aggregate for clinging/sustenance, consciousness as an aggregate for clinging/ sustenance: These are called the five aggregates for clinging/sustenance that, in short, are stress. This is called the noble truth of stress.

(b.) ‘And what is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming – accompanied by passion and delight, relishing now here and now there – i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. And where does this craving, when arising, arise? And where, when dwelling, does it dwell? Whatever is endearing and alluring in terms of the world: that is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells. And what is endearing and alluring in terms of the world? The eye is endearing and alluring in terms of the world. That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells. The ear (...) The nose (...) The tongue (...) The body (...) The intellect (...) Forms (...) Sounds (...) Smells (...) Tastes (...) Tactile sensations (...) Ideas (...) Eye-consciousness (...) Ear-consciousness (...) Nose-consciousness (...) Tongue-consciousness (...) Body-consciousness (...) Intellect-consciousness (...) Eye-contact (...) Ear-contact (...) Nose-contact (...) Tongue-contact (...) Body-contact (...) Intellect-contact (...) Feeling born of eye-contact (...) Feeling born of ear-contact (...) Feeling born of nose-contact (...) Feeling born of tongue-contact (...) Feeling born of body-contact (...) Feeling born of intellect-contact (...) Perception of forms (...) Perception of sounds (...) Perception of smells (...) Perception of tastes (...) Perception of tactile sensations (...) Perception of ideas (...) Intention for forms (...) Intention for sounds (...) Intention for smells (...) Intention for tastes (...) Intention for tactile sensations (...) Intention for ideas (...) Craving for forms (...) Craving for sounds (...) Craving for smells (...) Craving for tastes (...) Craving for tactile sensations (...) Craving for ideas (...) Thought directed at forms (...) Thought directed at sounds (...) Thought directed at smells (...) Thought directed at tastes (...) Thought directed at tactile sensations (...) Thought directed at ideas (...) ‘Evaluation of forms (...) Evaluation of sounds (...) Evaluation of smells (...) Evaluation of tastes (...) Evaluation of tactile sensations (...) Evaluation of ideas is endearing and alluring in terms of the world. That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells. This is called the noble truth of the origination of stress.

(c.) ‘And what is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The remainder-less fading and cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, and letting go of that very craving. And where, when being abandoned, is this craving abandoned? And where, when ceasing, does it cease? Whatever is endearing and alluring in terms of the world: that is where, when being abandoned, this craving is abandoned. That is where, when ceasing, it ceases. And what is endearing and alluring in terms of the world? The eye is endearing and alluring in terms of the world. That is where, when being abandoned, this craving is abandoned. That is where, when ceasing, it ceases. The ear (...) The nose (...) The tongue (...) The body (...) The intellect (...) Forms (...) Sounds (...) Smells (...) Tastes (...) Tactile sensations (...) Ideas (...) Eye-consciousness (...) Ear-consciousness (...) Nose-consciousness (...) Tongue-consciousness (...) Body-consciousness (...) Intellect-consciousness (...) Eye-contact (...) Ear-contact (...) Nose-contact (...) Tongue-contact (...) Body-contact (...) Intellect-contact (...) Feeling born of eye-contact (...) Feeling born of ear-contact (...) Feeling born of nose-contact (...) Feeling born of tongue-contact (...) Feeling born of body-contact (...) Feeling born of intellect-contact (...) Perception of forms (...) Perception of sounds (...) Perception of smells (...) Perception of tastes (...) Perception of tactile sensations (...) Perception of ideas (...) Intention for forms (...) Intention for sounds (...) Intention for smells (...) Intention for tastes (...) Intention for tactile sensations (...) Intention for ideas (...) Craving for forms (...) Craving for sounds (...) Craving for smells (...) Craving for tastes (...) Craving for tactile sensations (...) Craving for ideas (...) Thought directed at forms (...) Thought directed at sounds (...) Thought directed at smells (...) Thought directed at tastes (...) Thought directed at tactile sensations (...) Thought directed at ideas (...) Evaluation of forms (...) Evaluation of sounds (...) Evaluation of smells (...) Evaluation of tastes (...) Evaluation of tactile sensations (...) Evaluation of ideas is endearing and alluring in terms of the world. That is where, when being abandoned, this craving is abandoned. That is where, when ceasing, it ceases. This is called the noble truth of the cessation of stress.

(d.) ‘And what is the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress? Just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view. And what is right resolve? Aspiring to renunciation, to freedom from ill will, to harmlessness: This is called right resolve. And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter: This is called right speech. And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from stealing, and from sexual intercourse. This is called right action. And what is right livelihood? There is the case where a noble disciple, having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood: This is called right livelihood. And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavours, arouses persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskilful qualities that have not yet arisen (...) for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskilful qualities that have arisen (...) for the sake of the arising of skilful qualities that have not yet arisen (...) (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, and culmination of skilful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort. And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself – ardent, alert, and mindful – putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in and of themselves (...) the mind in and of itself (...) mental qualities in and of themselves – ardent, alert, and mindful – putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness. And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk – quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskilful (mental) qualities – enters and remains in the first Jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought and evaluation, he enters and remains in the second Jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation – internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful and alert, physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters and remains in the third Jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding’. With the abandoning of pleasure and pain – as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress – he enters and remains in the fourth Jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration. This is called the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress. In this way he remains focused internally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or externally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or both internally and externally on mental qualities in and of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to mental qualities, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to mental qualities. Or his mindfulness that ‘There are mental qualities’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the four noble truths’.

E. (Conclusion): [Mr. Buddha]:

‘Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here and now, or – if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance – non-return. Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years (...) five (...) four (...) three (...) two years (...) one year (...) seven months (...) six months (...) five (...) four (...) three (...) two months (...) one month (...) half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here and now, or – if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance – non-return. Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here and now, or – if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance – non-return. This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the disappearance of pain and distress, for the attainment of the right method, and for the realisation of Unbinding – in other words, the four frames of reference’. (http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/digha/dn22.html).

RESPONDENT: Nor is detachment (in the context of the teachings of Buddha) ever presented as a ‘non-feeling’ state; indifferent, not caring, or without compassion.

RICHARD: I have no notion of who you are talking to here as I have never said that Mr. Buddha or Buddhists are ‘non-feeling’ . Indeed, I ask people to examine their feelings (instead of examining only thought) so as to ascertain that thought alone is not the source of all the ills of humankind. Thought is a very useful tool in undoing the well-meant but uninformed peer-group conditioning, parental conditioning and social conditioning that one receives from the moment one first emerges as a baby into the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. To be at all effectual one must dig deep into one’s affective feelings, deep down past the superficial emotions into the depths of one’s being and see that malice and sorrow antidotally generates love and compassion. Because if one does not, one may find oneself as malice and sorrow sublimating oneself into Love and Compassion – one will cease having one’s feelings happen to oneself and instead became those sublimated feelings as an on-going transcendent State Of Being – one will be Love Agapé and Divine Compassion. In other words: an infinitely expanded identity that is ‘Timeless’ and ‘Spaceless’ and ‘Formless’. To become free of the human condition requires the elimination of the instinctual passions ... not merely a transcendence of malice and sorrow.

It does mean the end of ‘me’, however, as an identity in ‘my’ totality ... and not just ‘I’ as ego.

RESPONDENT: On the contrary, the capacity to feel is enhanced and is able to convey meaningful and valuable information when it is not obscured by our personal, emotional attachments.

RICHARD: And therein lies the nub of the problem that is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides being perpetuated for ever and a day: the ‘capacity to feel is enhanced’ .

Thus feelings rule the world.

RICHARD: The latter development of the Hindu viewpoint (Advaita Vedanta, which matured long after Mr. Buddha) goes some way to accommodating Buddhism. But if I were a Buddhist I would not cite Vedanta to substantiate my argument as Buddhism abolishes the need for not only all creator gods but even what is sometimes referred to as ‘The Ground Of Being’ behind the gods (which ‘ground’ is what the words ‘The Brahmin’ indicates). The Buddhist’s ultimate reality, ‘The Deathless’ (accessible only at ‘Parinirvana’ for a person who has attained ‘Nirvana’), has nothing to do with time and space and form whatsoever, whereas ‘The Brahmin’, whilst not being a god as such (let alone a creator god), does have some relationship (which connection varies between different schools). Mr. Buddha declined to supply any answers for what created and/or creates and/or is a cause of this physical universe ... his equivalent of ‘The Absolute’ (‘The Deathless’) is something else entirely.

RESPONDENT: What is the Absolute for Buddha?

RICHARD: The same-same ‘Timelessness and Spacelessness and Formlessness’ of Hinduism ... he just did not posit it as having anything to do with bringing the universe into being or sustaining it or whatever. There is no relationship betwixt Mr. Buddha’s ‘Absolute’ (‘The Deathless’) and this universe, whereas Advaita Vedanta allows that it’s ‘Absolute’ (‘The Brahmin’) does.

‘Brahma’, whilst having become more or less synonymous with ‘The Brahmin’ these days, does have lingering attributes of earlier Hinduism wherein ‘Brahma’ was (popularly at least) seen to be god asleep and dreaming the universe into being complete with stars and planets and people and, becoming ‘lost’ in its dream, takes the dream to be reality. Thus the name of the game (as a human being) is to wake up in your dream and realise that you are ‘Brahma’ dreaming all this time and space and form. One then spends the remainder of one’s bodily existence in a lucid dream, as it were, and physical death (Mahasamadhi) is the end of the dream completely.

Mr. Buddha discarded this fantasy. Vis.:

• ‘No God, no Brahma can be found; no matter of this wheel of life; just bare phenomena roll; depend on conditions all’ (Visuddhi Magga).

*

RICHARD: Mr. Buddha maintained that there were countless numbers of universes coming into being, countless numbers of universes existing for aeons, and countless numbers of universes going out of existence at any one time ... and discouraged speculation as to why because of the infinite regression of cause and effect. Mr. Buddha spoke instead of ‘dependent origination’, based upon multiple interrelated causes and effects contained within ‘samsara’ (the beginningless and endless round of birth and death), as being the cause of suffering (along with ignorance and craving) and, by positing no discernable cause for the universe, insisted that there be no source for salvation (god or gods) other than the individual’s own application of the tenets he espoused. He expressly stated that he offered the solution for sorrow (‘dukkha’) only and had no interest in supplying useless solutions to cosmogonical questions ... he said that such questions were futile and would even hinder ‘Unbinding’ (release).

RESPONDENT: Thanks for explaining. Didn’t Buddha talk of a Void (‘sunyat’)? If he did, that might be the Absolute in his scheme of things.

RICHARD: Yes. The main attribute of ‘Sunyata’ is that it is not ‘The Ground Of Being’ ... Mr. Buddha had no explanation for the origin of this universe (or any of the multitudinous universes that he posited in the same way that some of the bright boys at Quantumville similarly posit today).

Human intelligence, being currently circumscribed by self-centredness, cannot comprehend this universe’s infinite space and eternal time. Infinitude can only be understood apperceptively (a ‘centre’ necessarily creates a ‘circumference’ in awareness).

RICHARD: As feelings lie all around the root cause of suffering (thus protecting and concealing it) then to give feelings the power to be the ultimate adjudicator means never finding the root cause.

RESPONDENT: The root cause is ignorance Richard. Ignorance means not knowing that we are spirit beings seemingly trapped in this veil of tears material world, which in fact we are not. Only until we truly awaken.

RICHARD: To awaken in a dream is to be ‘lucidly dreaming’ ... but one is still dreaming, nevertheless. Virtually all disciplines – if not all – acknowledge ‘truly awakening’ as happening after physical death ... the Buddhist ‘Parinirvana’ and the Hindu ‘Mahasamadhi’ are but two of the most obvious examples. Mr. Buddha, for instance, could not definitively answer several fundamental ‘before birth/after death’ questions ... he observed that such questions were speculative.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to believe, eh?

*

RESPONDENT: Few feel they can even begin to fathom the depths of realizations of those two towering figures.

RICHARD: Speaking personally, I always let the facts speak for themselves ... and the facts are very simple in regards to the ‘realisations’ of Mr. Buddha and Mr. Jesus: neither offered peace-on-earth and both proposed non-earthly salvation (‘Deathless’ and ‘Heaven’) after physical death. It does not take a genius to suss out that they were both anti-life to the core.

RESPONDENT: Not anti-life, but a higher life. Life doesn’t require the material world, it is a level of life, like kindergarten, very much like it in fact.

RICHARD: Okay ... I am only too happy to re-phrase it: it does not take a genius to suss out that they were both anti-life-on-earth to the core. Neither Mr. Buddha and Mr. Jesus offered peace-on-earth and both proposed non-earthly salvation (‘Deathless’ and ‘Heaven’) after physical death. Thus they both had nothing of substance to offer but instead some spurious immortality in some specious after-life. How on earth is this ‘wisdom’ going to bring to an end all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like on this otherwise fair earth we all inhabit?

*

RICHARD: Mr. Buddha’s paramount ‘realisation’ was that everything material (physical) – which includes the entire universe – being transitory, impermanent, was unsatisfactory: therefore cease craving physical existence (do not even bother looking for peace-on-earth).

RESPONDENT: He had peace, he just knew it isn’t too peaceful here in the material world, and that it will be ‘more’ peaceful beyond it. Like going to the country.

RICHARD: Is this response not just another way of saying the same as what I wrote? What you are saying, in effect, is that Mr. Buddha’s paramount ‘realisation’ meant do not even bother looking for peace-on-earth ... peace comes at physical death (‘Parinirvana’) and not before? Because when you speak of the ‘peace he had’ (knowing that it will be ‘more peaceful’ beyond life-on-earth) you are discussing the difference between ‘Nirvana’ and ‘Parinirvana’. Mr. Buddha’s ‘Ultimate Reality’ is called ‘The Parinirvana’ (Complete Nirvana) or the freedom of spirit (by whatever name) brought about by release from the body. According to Mr. Buddha’s assessment of the human condition, delusions of egocentricity and their resultant desires bind humans to a continuous round of rebirths and its consequent ‘dukkha’ (unsatisfactoriness; suffering). It is release from these bonds that constitutes ‘Nirvana’, or the experience of ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’. However, ‘Nirvana’ – according to Mr. Buddha – is but the initial goal of the mindfulness disciplines and practice in that it signifies the transcendent state of freedom achieved by the extinction (‘nirodha’) of ‘tanha’ (craving for existence; desire) and of ‘atta’ (individual consciousness). That this is only the inaugural objective is very clear to the discerning eye because – while liberation from rebirth does not imply immediate death and thus release into the ‘Deathless’ – the physical death of a ‘Perfect One’ (an Arhat or a Buddha) does. Thus while the immediate aim of the Buddhist path is release from the round of phenomenal existence with its inherent suffering by attaining ‘Nirvana’ (the enlightened state in which the fires of greed, hatred, and ignorance have been quenched), ‘Nirvana’ is not to be confused with total annihilation because, after attaining ‘Nirvana’, the enlightened individual will continue to live, burning off any remaining karma until the state of ‘Final Nirvana’ (‘Parinirvana’) is attained at the moment of physical death.

It may be noted that, during the early centuries of Buddhist history, not only were there the three major pilgrimage centres – the place of Mr. Buddha’s birth at Lumbini, the place of his Enlightenment at Bodh Gaya, the Deer Park in Varanasi where he preached his first sermon – but particularly the village of Kusinara, (or Kushinagara) located in the eastern district of Deoria, which is the place of his ‘Parinirvana’.

Quite obviously, this is a very self-seeking approach to life on earth ... something that all metaphysical peoples are guilty of. The quest to secure one’s immortality (by whatever name) in some spurious ‘After-Life’ (by whatever name) is unambiguously selfish ... peace-on-earth is readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagined spirit (by whatever name) after physical death. So much for their humanitarian ideals of peace, goodness, altruism, philanthropy and humaneness. All religious and spiritual and mystical quests amount to nothing more than a self-centred urge to perpetuate oneself for ever and a day. All metaphysicists fall foul of this existential dilemma. They pay lip-service to the notion of self-sacrifice – weeping crocodile tears at noble martyrdom – whilst selfishly pursuing the timeless ‘State of Being’ ... the ‘Deathless State’. The root cause of all the ills of humankind can be sheeted home to this single, basic fact:

The overriding importance of the survival of ‘self’ by whatever name (the ‘non-self’).

RESPONDENT: I’m not stuck on this whole ‘Illusion’ thing and in fact I don’t think I’ve ever heard John de Ruiter use the word ‘illusion’ or deny the existence of this reality (that’s just stuff I’ve picked up from Advaita teachers – who I’m not really into).

RICHARD: Okay ... are you saying, then, that the eastern mystics have got it wrong? Generally speaking, most eastern religions deny objective reality ... the world of this body and that body and the mountains and the streams; the trees and the flowers; the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. Hence ‘maya’ (which translates as ‘only apparently real’) is the manifestation of ‘samsara’ (which translates as ‘the running around’) which metempsychosis is the result of ‘karma’ (which translates as ‘act’ or ‘deed’). In Hinduism and Jainism, samsara describes the vocation of the soul which – once it has fallen from its original state of ‘Self-Consciousness’ – is born as a creature and continues through transmigration until ‘moksa’ (which translates as ‘release’). Buddhism regards all existence as being samsara – and therefore suffering (‘dukkha’) because it is but transitory existence born out of craving – and teaches that salvation is to be found in the place where the sun don’t shine. Vis.:

• Mr. Buddha: ‘There is that sphere where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither the sphere of the infinitude of space ... neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha ’. (Nibana Sutta; Udana VIII.1).

You would have to be on a hiding to nowhere to try to make out that mystics fully acknowledge objective reality (if they do at all): the apotheosised field of consciousness – an altered state of consciousness – is mysticism’s ultimate goal and gift to humankind. Mysticism is seen as the transcendence of the anguish of earthly existence (‘samsara’) into the realisation of the bliss of essence (‘nirvana’) ... which is divinity by whatever name and is, of course, bodiless. When the arhat’s (the realised one) experience of the cosmos resumes after attaining nirvana they experience that it is composed entirely of the results of old karma; with no new karma being added to the process all experience of the cosmos will eventually run out ... ‘will grow cold right here’. This means that even the limiting factors that such a one encounters in terms of sights and sounds and so on are actually the fruit of past karma in thought, word and deed ... committed not only in this, but also in many preceding lifetimes.

The multitudinous scriptures consistently point to a total withdrawal from this sensate physical world. Mr. Buddha’s advice, for an example, is for a total disassociation of self from the world of people, things and events. Mr. Buddha expressly states that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the Samyutta Nikaya XXII. 59 ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic). Vis.:

• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease (...) But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease (...) ‘Feeling is not self (...) ‘Perception is not self (...) ‘Mental fabrications are not self (...) ‘Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease (...) ‘What do you think, monks: Is form constant or inconstant?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’.
• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Stressful, Lord’.
• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘No, Lord’.
• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘Is feeling constant or inconstant (...)?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant Lord’.
• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘Is perception constant or inconstant (...)?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’.
• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘Are fabrications constant or inconstant(...)?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’.
• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘What do you think, monks: Is consciousness constant or inconstant (...)?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’.
• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Stressful, Lord’.
• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘No, Lord’.
• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘Thus, monks, any body whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am’. Any feeling whatsoever (...) Any perception whatsoever (...) Any fabrications whatsoever (...) Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am’.’ (...) Seeing thus, the instructed noble disciple grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released’. He discerns that ‘Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world’. (http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/samyutta/sn22-59.html).

Note well he says ‘there is nothing further for this world’: the trouble with people who discard the god of Christianity and/or Judaism and/or Islam is that they do not realise that by turning to the eastern spirituality they have effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Eastern spirituality is religion ... merely in a different form to what people in the West have been raised to believe in. Eastern philosophy sounds so convincing to the jaded Western mind which is desperately looking for answers that abstract logical speculation and analytic deduction just cannot provide. The Christian and/or Judaic and/or Islamic conditioning actually sets up the situation for a thinking person to be susceptible to the esoteric doctrines of the East. It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the East down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking divine immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (‘Thou Art That’), for example, is simply another way of saying ‘I am The Truth’ (aka ‘I am God’). At the end of the line there is always a god of some description, lurking in disguise, wreaking its havoc with its ‘Teachings’.

I have been to India to see for myself the results of what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living ... and it is hideous. If it were not for the appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amusing ... but it is practically and demonstrably deleterious to both individual and communal well-being. That is why one only needs to look at where this devotional spiritual living has been practiced for thousands of years to see how badly it has failed to live up to its implied promise of peace and harmony and prosperity for all. Thus both the spiritual and the secular methods of producing peace on earth have each failed miserably ... it is high time for a third alternative to hove into view; something new that has never been lived before in human history.

Why repeat the mistakes of the past when the results of doing so are plain to view in all cultures?

RICHARD: (...) Put succinctly: an enlightened/ awakened/ transformed identity is still an identity, nevertheless.

RESPONDENT: As I suspected, you are using the term ‘enlightenment’ in a much different fashion than I ...

RICHARD: As you are on record as stating there is no difference between an altered state of consciousness (ASC) and a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is not at all surprising. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I really really tried to understand the purported difference between an ASC and a PCE, but guess what, dey’s da same’. (Sunday, 25/12/2005 3:00 AM AEDST).

Which could be why you snipped-off that which was being put succinctly. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I have been reading your webpage and correspondence which is a lot to read.
• [Richard]: ‘The simplest way to comprehend it all is that, just as the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) has to die, for spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment (aka transformation) to occur, so too does the spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) in order for the flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition.
Put succinctly: an enlightened/ awakened/ transformed identity is still an identity, nevertheless’.

But, then again, it could also be because you say you have never understood the distinction between ego-self/ the thinker and spirit-self/ the feeler (aka soul-self). Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘I have never understood the distinction between ego and soul, as presented in the AF glossary. Soul is apparently the spiritual-seeking part of the makeup ... I don’t see how it is distinguished from ego, at least in my case. Really’. (Friday, 19/03/2004 1:56 PM AEDST).

RESPONDENT: ... [As I suspected, you are using the term ‘enlightenment’ in a much different fashion than I], Buddha, Huang Po, Wei Wu Wei, et al.

RICHARD: As Mr. Terence Gray, who published his scholarly works under the pseudonym ‘Wei Wu Wei’, was not free of the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) then his usage of such terminology is also quite rightly suspect.

RESPONDENT: They stipulate unequivocally that there is no identity to become enlightened.

RICHARD: Nowhere in the Pali Canon does Mr. Buddha deny the existence of self: what he expressly states is that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the Samyutta Nikaya XXII. 59 ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic). Vis.:

• [Mr. Buddha]: ‘Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease (...) But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease (...) Seeing thus, the instructed noble disciple grows disenchanted with the body (...) Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released’. He discerns that ‘Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world’. (www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-59.html).

As for Mr. Huang-po ... here is what he had to say (from a translation found in Mr. Stephen Mitchell’s ‘The Enlightened Mind – An Anthology of Sacred Prose’, Harper Perennial, 1991):

• ‘All Buddhas and all ordinary beings are nothing but the one mind. This mind is beginningless and endless, unborn and indestructible. It has no colour or shape, neither exists nor doesn’t exist, isn’t old or new, long or short, large or small, since it transcends all measures, limits, names, and comparisons. (...) This pure mind, which is the source of all things, shines forever with the radiance of its own perfection. (...) Above, below, and all around you, all things spontaneously exist, because there is nowhere outside the Buddha mind’. [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Perhaps you mean that the identity is extant ‘after’ enlightenment?

RICHARD: Aye, the spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) must also cease to exist in order for the flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition.

RESPONDENT: No argument there ... first there is a mountain etc.

RICHARD: What you are referring to is from a discourse attributed to Mr. Ch’ing yuan Wei-hsin. Vis.:

• ‘Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it’s just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters (...)’. [endquote].

He then goes on to ask:

• ‘(...) Are the three understandings the same or different?’ [endquote].

Here is a clue: the second understanding is per favour the comprehension of buddhistic emptiness (that phenomenal existence is void of self).