Opening the Door to the Dhamma
Respect in Buddhist Thought & Practice
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Copyright © 2001 Thanissaro Bhikkhu
For free distribution only.
You may reprint this work for free distribution.
You may re-format and redistribute this work for use on computers and computer networks
provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use.
Otherwise, all rights reserved.

If you're born into an Asian Buddhist family, the first thing your parents will teach you about Buddhism is not a philosophical tenet but a gesture of respect: how to place your hands in añjali, palm-to-palm over your heart, when you encounter a Buddha image, a monk, or a nun. Obviously, the gesture will be mechanical at first. Over time, though, you'll learn the respectful attitude that goes with it. If you're quick to pick it up, your parents will consider it a sign of intelligence, for respect is basic to any ability to learn.
As you get older, they may teach you the symbolism of the gesture: that your hands form a lotus bud, representing your heart, which you are holding out to be trained in how to become wise. Ultimately, as you grow more familiar with the fruits of Buddhist practice, your parents hope that your respect will turn into reverence and veneration. In this way, they give a quick answer to the old Western question of which side of Buddhism -- the philosophy or the religion -- comes first. In their eyes, the religious attitude of respect is needed for any philosophical understanding to grow. And as far as they're concerned, there's no conflict between the two. In fact, they're mutually reinforcing.
This stands in marked contrast to the typical Western attitude, which sees an essential discrepancy between Buddhism's religious and philosophical sides. The philosophy seems so rational, placing such a high value on self-reliance. The insight at the heart of the Buddha's awakening was so abstract -- a principle of causality. There seems no inherent reason for a philosophy with such an abstract beginning to have produced a devotionalism intense enough to rival anything found in the theistic religions.
Yet if we look at what the Pali canon has to say about devotionalism -- the attitude it expresses with the cluster of words, respect, deference, reverence, homage, and veneration -- we find not only that its theory of respect is rooted in the central insight of the Buddha's awakening -- the causal principle called this/that conditionality (idappaccayata) -- but also that respect is required to learn and master this causal principle in the first place.
On the surface it may seem strange to relate a theory of causality to the issue of respect, but the two are intimately entwined. Respect is the attitude you develop toward the things that matter in life. Theories of causality tell you if anything really matters, and if so, what matters and how. If you believe that a supreme being will grant you happiness, you'll naturally show respect and reverence for that being. If you assume happiness to be entirely self-willed, your greatest respect will be reserved for your own willfulness. As for the how: If you view true happiness as totally impossible, totally pre-determined, or totally random, respect is unnecessary, for it makes no difference in the outcome of your life. But if you see true happiness as possible, and its causes as precarious, contingent, and dependent on your attitude, you'll naturally show them the care and respect needed to keep them healthy and strong.
This is reflected in the way the canon treats the issue of respect. It details the varied ways in which lay people of the Buddha's time showed respect to the Buddha and the monastic Sangha, and the more standardized ways in which the members of the Sangha showed respect to the Buddha and to one another. Especially interesting is the protocol of respect for the Dhamma. Buddhist monks and nuns are forbidden from teaching the Dhamma to anyone who shows disrespect, and the Buddha himself is said to have refused to teach his first sermon to the five brethren until they stopped treating him as a mere equal.
This protocol, of course, may have been a cultural accident, something picked up willy-nilly from the society of the Buddha's time, but there are passages in the canon suggesting otherwise. Buddhism was one of the samana (contemplative) movements in ancient India, which claimed to follow truths of nature rather than mainstream cultural norms. These movements were very free in choosing what to adopt from prevailing customs. Buddhist descriptions of other samana movements often criticized them for being disrespectful not only to outsiders but also among themselves. Students are shown being disrespectful to their teachers -- their group meetings raucous, noisy, and out of control. All of this is then contrasted with the way Buddhists conduct their meetings in mutual courtesy and respect. This suggests that the Buddhists were free to reject the common customs of respect but made a conscious choice not to.
This choice is based on their insight into respect as a prerequisite for learning. It's easier to learn from someone you respect than from someone you don't. Respect opens the mind and loosens preconceived opinions to make room for new knowledge and skills. At the same time, people who value their knowledge feel more inclined to teach it to someone who shows respect than to someone who doesn't.
However, the type of learning the Buddha emphasizes is not simply the acquisition of information. It's a skill leading to total release from suffering and stress. And this is where the issue of respect connects with causality, for the Buddhist theory of causality centers on the question of how it's possible to learn a skill.
As cybernetics theory shows, learning in general is possible only where there is feedback; learning a skill requires the further ability to monitor feedback and choose how to use it to modify behavior. The Buddha's discoveries in causality explain the how and the what that allow for these factors. The how he expressed as a causal formula; the what, as an analysis of action: the factors that shape it, together with the range of results it can give.
The causal formula, simply put, states that each moment is composed of three things: results from past actions, present actions, and the immediate results of present actions. Although this principle seems simple, its consequences are very complex. Every act you perform has repercussions in the present moment that also reverberate into the future. Depending on the intensity of the act, those reverberations can last for a very short or a very long time. Thus every conditioned experience is shaped by the combined effects of past actions coming from a wide range over time, together with the effects of present acts.
Causality over time places certain limitations on each moment. The present is not a clean slate, for it's partially shaped by influences from the past. Immediate causality in the present, however, makes room for free will. Not everything is determined by the past. At any moment, you can insert new input into the process and nudge your life in a new direction. Still, there's not so much room for free will that causality becomes arbitrary. Every this put into the system produces a particular type of that. Events follow discernible patterns that can be mastered.
The what that keeps this process in motion is the factor allowing for feedback and the monitoring of feedback. The central element in that what is intention, which the Buddha identified as the essence of action, or kamma. Intention, in turn, is shaped by acts of attention, which ask questions about perceptions and create views from those questions. Because you can attend to the results of your intentions, there is an internal feedback loop allowing you to learn. Because attention can ask questions, it can monitor that feedback to determine how best to put it to use. And because your intentions -- guided by views and offering new input into the present -- can then reshape your experience, your ability to learn can make a difference: you can change your behavior and reap the results of your improved skills in terms of greater and greater happiness.
How far can that happiness go? In the course of his Awakening, the Buddha discovered that the pursuit of skillfulness can ultimately lead beyond time and space, beyond the realm of conditionality and rebirth. From this discovery he identified four types of kamma: the first three giving pleasant, painful, or mixed results in the round of rebirth, and the fourth leading beyond all kamma to the end of rebirth. In other words, the principle of causality works so that actions can either continue the round or bring it to an end. Because even the highest pleasure within the round is inconstant and undependable, he taught that the most worthy course of action is the fourth kind of kamma -- the type that led to his Awakening -- to put an end to kamma once and for all.
The skill needed for this form of kamma comes from coordinating the factors of attention and intention so that they lead first to pleasant results within the round of rebirth, and then -- on the transcendent level -- to total release from suffering and stress. This, in turn, requires certain attitudes toward the principle of causality operating in human life. And this is where the quality of respect becomes essential, for without the proper respect for three things -- yourself, the principle of causality operating in your life, and other people's insights into that principle -- you won't be able to muster the resolve needed to master that principle and to see how far your potential for skillfulness can go.
Respect for yourself, in the context of this/that conditionality, means two things:
1) Because the fourth kind of kamma is possible, you can respect your desire for unconditional happiness, and don't have to regard it as an unrealistic ideal.
2) Because of the importance of intention and attention in shaping your experience, you can respect your ability to develop the skills needed to understand and master causal reality to the point of attaining true happiness.
But respect for yourself goes even further than that. Not only can you respect your desire for true happiness and your ability to attain it, you must respect these things if you don't want to fall under the sway of the many religious and secular forces within society and yourself that would pull you in other directions.
Although most religious cultures assume true happiness to be possible, they don't see human skillfulness as capable of bringing it about. By and large, they place their hopes for happiness in higher powers. As for secular cultures, they don't believe that unconditional happiness is possible at all. They teach us to strive for happiness dependent on conditions, and to turn a blind eye to the limitations inherent in any happiness coming from money, power, relationships, possessions, or a sentimental sense of community. They often scoff at higher values and smile when religious idols fall or religious aspirants show feet of clay.
These secular attitudes foster our own unskillful qualities, our desire to take whatever pleasures come easily, and our impatience with anyone who would tell us that we're capable of better and more. But both the secular and the common religious attitudes teach us to underestimate the powers of our own skillful mind states. Qualities like mindfulness, concentration, and discernment, when they first arise in the mind, seem unremarkable -- small and tender, like maple seedlings growing in the midst of weeds. If we don't watch for them or accord them any special respect, the weeds will strangle them or we ourselves will tread them underfoot. As a result, we'll never get to know how much shade they can provide.
If, however, we develop strong respect for our own ability to attain true happiness, two important moral qualities take charge of our minds and watch out for our good qualities: concern for the suffering we'll experience if we don't try our best to develop skillfulness, and shame at the thought of aiming lower than at the highest possible happiness. Shame may seem a strange adjunct to self-respect, but when both are healthy they go together. You need self-respect to recognize when a course of action is beneath you, and that you'd be ashamed to follow it. You need to feel shame for your mistakes in order to keep your self-respect from turning into stubborn pride.
This is where the second aspect of respect -- respect for the principle of causality -- comes in. This/that conditionality is not a free-form process. Each unskillful this is connected to an unpleasant that. You can't twist the connection to lead to pleasant results, or use your own preferences to design a customized path to release from causal experience. Self-respect thus has to accommodate a respect for the way causes actually produce effects. Traditionally, this respect is expressed in terms of the quality the Buddha stressed in his very last words: heedfulness. To be heedful means having a strong sense that if you're careless in your intentions, you'll suffer. If you truly love yourself, you have to pay close attention to the way reality really works, and act accordingly. Not everything you think or feel is worthy of respect. Even the Buddha himself didn't design Buddhism or the principle of this/that conditionality. He discovered them. Instead of viewing reality in line with his preferences, he reordered his preferences to make the most of what he learned by watching -- with scrupulous care and honesty -- his actions and their actual effects.
This point is reflected in his discourse to the Kalamas (AN III.65). Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following your own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something very different: Don't simply follow traditions, but don't simply follow your own preferences, either. If you see, through watching your own actions and their results, that following a certain mental state leads to harm and suffering, you should abandon it and resolve never to follow it again. This is a rigorous standard, which requires putting the Dhamma ahead of your own preconceived preferences. And it requires that you be very heedful of any tendency to reverse that priority and put your preferences first.
In other words, you can't simply indulge in the pleasure or resist the pain coming from your own actions. You have to learn from both pleasure and pain, to show them respect as events in a causal chain, to see what they have to teach you. This is why the Buddha called dukkha -- pain, stress, and suffering -- a noble truth; and why he termed the pleasure arising from the concentrated mind a noble truth as well. These aspects of immediate experience contain lessons that can take the mind to the noble attainments.
The discourse to the Kalamas, however, doesn't stop with immediate experience. It goes further and states that, when observing the processes of cause and effect in your actions, you should also confirm your observations with the teachings of the wise. This third aspect of respect -- respect for the insights of others -- is also based on the pattern of this/that conditionality. Because causes are sometimes separated from their effects by great expanses of time, it's easy to lose sight of some important connections. At the same time, your chief obstacle to discernment -- delusion -- is the mental quality you have the hardest time detecting in yourself. When you're deluded, you don't know you're deluded. So the wise approach is to show respect to the insights of others, in the event that their insights may help you see through your own ignorance. After all, intention and attention are immediately present to their awareness as well. Their insights may be just what you need to cut through the obstacles you've created for yourself through your own acts of ignorance.
The Buddhist teachings on respect for other people point in two directions. First, the obvious one: respect for those ahead of you on the path. As the Buddha once said, friendship with admirable people is the whole of the holy life, for their words and examples will help get you on the path to release. This doesn't mean that you need to obey their teachings or accept them unthinkingly. You simply owe it to yourself to give them a respectful hearing and their teachings an honest try. Even -- especially -- when their advice is unpleasant, you should treat it with respect. As Dhammapada 76 states,
Regard him as one who
points out
treasure,
the wise one who
seeing your faults
rebukes you.
Stay with this sort of sage.
For the one who stays
with a sage of this sort,
things get better,
not worse.
At the same time, when you show respect for those who have mastered the path, you're also showing respect for qualities you want to develop in yourself. And when such people see that you respect the good qualities both in them and in yourself, they'll feel more inclined to share their wisdom with you, and more careful about sharing only their best. This is why the Buddhist tradition places such an emphasis on not only feeling respect but also showing it. If you can't force yourself to show respect to others in ways they'll recognize, there's a resistance in your mind. They, in turn, will doubt your willingness to learn. This is why the monastic discipline places so much emphasis on the etiquette of respect to be shown to teachers and senior monastics.
The teachings on respect, however, go in another direction as well. Buddhist monks and nuns are not allowed to show disrespect for anyone who criticizes them, regardless of whether or not that person is awakened or the criticism well-founded. Critics of this sort may not deserve the level of respect due to teachers, but they do deserve common courtesy. Even unawakened people may have observed valuable bits and pieces of the truth. If you open yourself to criticism, you may get to hear worthwhile insights that a wall of disrespect would have repelled. Buddhist literature -- from the earliest days up to the present -- abounds with stories of people who gained Awakening after hearing a chance word or song from an unlikely source. A person with the proper attitude of respect can learn from anything -- and the ability to put anything to a good use is the mark of true discernment.
Perhaps the most delicate skill with regard to respect is learning how to balance all three aspects of respect: for yourself, for the truth of causality, and for the insight of others. This balance is essential to any skill. If you want to become a potter, for example, you have to learn not only from your teacher, but also from your own actions and powers of observation, and from the clay itself. Then you have to weigh all of these factors together to achieve mastery on your own. If, in your pursuit of the Buddhist path, your self-respect outweighs your respect for the truth of causality or the insights of others, you'll find it hard to take criticism or to laugh at your own foolishness. This will make it impossible for you to learn. If, on the other hand, your respect for your teachers outweighs your self-respect or your respect for the truth, you can open yourself to charlatans and close yourself to the truth that the canon says "is to be seen by the wise for themselves."
The parallels between the role of respect in Buddhist practice and in manual skills explains why many Buddhist teachers require their students to master a manual skill as a prerequisite or a part of their meditation. A person with no manual skills will have little intuitive understanding of how to balance respect. What sets the Buddha's apart from other skills, though, is the level of total freedom it produces. And the difference between that freedom and its alternative -- endless rounds of suffering through birth after birth, death after death -- is so extreme that we can easily understand why people committed to the pursuit of that freedom show it a level of respect that's also extreme. Even more understandable is the absolute level of respect for that freedom shown by those who have attained it. They bow down to all their inner and outer teachers with the sincerest, most heart-felt gratitude. To see them bow down in this way is an inspiring sight.
So when Buddhist parents teach their children to show respect for the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, they aren't teaching them a habit that will later have to be unlearned. Of course, the child will need to discover how best to understand and make use of that respect, but at least the parents have helped open the door for the child to learn from its own powers of observation, to learn from the truth, and to learn from the insights of others. And when that door -- when the mind -- is opened to what truly deserves respect, all things noble and good can come in.

Revised: Wed 4 December 2002
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/respect5.html

*********************

One Tool Among Many
The Place of Vipassana in Buddhist Practice
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Copyright © 1997 Thanissaro Bhikkhu
For free distribution only.
You may reprint this work for free distribution.
You may re-format and redistribute this work for use on computers and computer networks
provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use.
Otherwise, all rights reserved.

What exactly is vipassana?
Almost any book on early Buddhist meditation will tell you that the Buddha taught two types of meditation: samatha and vipassana. Samatha, which means tranquillity, is said to be a method fostering strong states of mental absorption, called jhana. Vipassana -- literally "clear-seeing," but more often translated as insight meditation -- is said to be a method using a modicum of tranquillity to foster moment-to-moment mindfulness of the inconstancy of events as they are directly experienced in the present. This mindfulness creates a sense of dispassion toward all events, thus leading the mind to release from suffering. These two methods are quite separate, we're told, and of the two, vipassana is the distinctive Buddhist contribution to meditative science. Other systems of practice pre-dating the Buddha also taught samatha, but the Buddha was the first to discover and teach vipassana. Although some Buddhist meditators may practice samatha meditation before turning to vipassana, samatha practice is not really necessary for the pursuit of Awakening. As a meditative tool, the vipassana method is sufficient for attaining the goal. Or so we're told.
But if you look directly at the Pali discourses -- the earliest extant sources for our knowledge of the Buddha's teachings -- you'll find that although they do use the word samatha to mean tranquillity, and vipassana to mean clear-seeing, they otherwise confirm none of the received wisdom about these terms. Only rarely do they make use of the word vipassana -- a sharp contrast to their frequent use of the word jhana. When they depict the Buddha telling his disciples to go meditate, they never quote him as saying "go do vipassana," but always "go do jhana." And they never equate the word vipassana with any mindfulness techniques. In the few instances where they do mention vipassana, they almost always pair it with samatha -- not as two alternative methods, but as two qualities of mind that a person may "gain" or "be endowed with," and that should be developed together. One simile, for instance (SN XXXV.204), compares samatha and vipassana to a swift pair of messengers who enter the citadel of the body via the noble eightfold path and present their accurate report -- Unbinding, or nibbana -- to the consciousness acting as the citadel's commander. Another passage (AN X.71) recommends that anyone who wishes to put an end to mental defilement should -- in addition to perfecting the principles of moral behavior and cultivating seclusion -- be committed to samatha and endowed with vipassana. This last statement is unremarkable in itself, but the same discourse also gives the same advice to anyone who wants to master the jhanas: be committed to samatha and endowed with vipassana. This suggests that, in the eyes of those who assembled the Pali discourses, samatha, jhana, and vipassana were all part of a single path. Samatha and vipassana were used together to master jhana and then -- based on jhana -- were developed even further to give rise to the end of mental defilement and to bring release from suffering. This is a reading that finds support in other discourses as well.
There's a passage, for instance, describing three ways in which samatha and vipassana can work together to lead to the knowledge of Awakening: either samatha precedes vipassana, vipassana precedes samatha, or they develop in tandem (AN IV.170). The wording suggests an image of two oxen pulling a cart: one is placed before the other or they are yoked side-by-side. Another passage (AN IV.94) indicates that if samatha precedes vipassana -- or vipassana, samatha -- one's practice is in a state of imbalance and needs to be rectified. A meditator who has attained a measure of samatha, but no "vipassana into events based on heightened discernment (adhipañña-dhamma-vipassana)," should question a fellow meditator who has attained vipassana: "How should fabrications (sankhara) be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be viewed with insight?" and then develop vipassana in line with that person's instructions. The verbs in these questions -- "regarding," "investigating," "seeing" -- indicate that there's more to the process of developing vipassana than a simple mindfulness technique. In fact, as we will see below, these verbs apply instead to a process of skillful questioning called "appropriate attention."
The opposite case -- a meditator endowed with a measure of vipassana into events based on heightened discernment, but no samatha -- should question someone who has attained samatha: "How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated?" and then follow that person's instructions so as to develop samatha. The verbs used here give the impression that "samatha" in this context means jhana, for they correspond to the verbal formula -- "the mind becomes steady, settles down, grows unified and concentrated" -- that the Pali discourses use repeatedly to describe the attainment of jhana. This impression is reinforced when we note that in every case where the discourses are explicit about the levels of concentration needed for insight to be liberating, those levels are the jhanas.
Once the meditator is endowed with both samatha and vipassana, he/she should "make an effort to establish those very same skillful qualities to a higher degree for the ending of the mental fermentations (asava -- sensual passion, states of being, views, and ignorance)." This corresponds to the path of samatha and vipassana developing in tandem. A passage in MN 149 describes how this can happen. One knows and sees, as they actually are, the six sense media (the five senses plus the intellect), their objects, consciousness at each medium, contact at each medium, and whatever is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain based on that contact. One maintains this awareness in such a way as to stay uninfatuated by any of these things, unattached, unconfused, focused on their drawbacks, abandoning any craving for them: this would count as vipassana. At the same time -- abandoning physical and mental disturbances, torments, and distresses -- one experiences ease in body and mind: this would count as samatha. This practice not only develops samatha and vipassana in tandem, but also brings the 37 Wings to Awakening -- which include the attainment of jhana -- to the culmination of their development.
So the proper path is one in which vipassana and samatha are brought into balance, each supporting and acting as a check on the other. Vipassana helps keep tranquillity from becoming stagnant and dull. Samatha helps prevent the manifestations of aversion -- such as nausea, dizziness, disorientation, and even total blanking out -- that can occur when the mind is trapped against its will in the present moment.
From this description it's obvious that samatha and vipassana are not separate paths of practice, but instead are complementary ways of relating to the present moment: samatha provides a sense of ease in the present; vipassana, a clear-eyed view of events as they actually occur, in and of themselves. It's also obvious why the two qualities need to function together in mastering jhana. As the standard instructions on breath meditation indicate (MN 118), such a mastery involves three things: gladdening, concentrating, and liberating the mind. Gladdening means finding a sense of refreshment and satisfaction in the present. Concentrating means keeping the mind focused on its object, while liberating means freeing the mind from the grosser factors making up a lower stage of concentration so as to attain a higher stage. The first two activities are functions of samatha, while the last is a function of vipassana. All three must function together. If, for example, there is concentration and gladdening, with no letting go, the mind wouldn't be able to refine its concentration at all. The factors that have to be abandoned in raising the mind from stage x to stage y belong to the set of factors that got the mind to x in the first place (AN IX.34). Without the ability clearly to see mental events in the present, there would be no way skillfully to release the mind from precisely the right factors that tie it to a lower state of concentration and act as disturbances to a higher one. If, on the other hand, there is simply a letting go of those factors, without an appreciation of or steadiness in the stillness that remains, the mind would drop out of jhana altogether. Thus samatha and vipassana must work together to bring the mind to right concentration in a masterful way.
The question arises: if vipassana functions in the mastery of jhana, and jhana is not exclusive to Buddhists, then what is Buddhist about vipassana? The answer is that vipassana per se is not exclusively Buddhist. What is distinctly Buddhist is (1) the extent to which both samatha and vipassana are developed; and (2) the way they are developed -- i.e., the line of questioning used to foster them; and (3) the way they are combined with an arsenal of meditative tools to bring the mind to total release.
In MN 73, the Buddha advises a monk who has mastered jhana to further develop samatha and vipassana so as to master six cognitive skills, the most important of them being that "through the ending of the mental fermentations, one remains in the fermentation-free release of awareness and release of discernment, having known and made them manifest for oneself right in the here and now." This is a description of the Buddhist goal. Some commentators have asserted that this release is totally a function of vipassana, but there are discourses that indicate otherwise.
Note that release is twofold: release of awareness and release of discernment. Release of awareness occurs when a meditator becomes totally dispassionate toward passion: this is the ultimate function of samatha. Release of discernment occurs when there is dispassion for ignorance: this is the ultimate function of vipassana (AN II.29-30). Thus both samatha and vipassana are involved in the twofold nature of this release.
The Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2) states that one's release can be "fermentation-free" only if one knows and sees in terms of "appropriate attention" (yoniso manasikara). As the discourse shows, appropriate attention means asking the proper questions about phenomena, regarding them not in terms of self/other or being/non-being, but in terms of the four noble truths. In other words, instead of asking "Do I exist? Don't I exist? What am I?" one asks about an experience, "Is this stress? The origination of stress? The cessation of stress? The path leading to the cessation of stress?" Because each of these categories entails a duty, the answer to these questions determines a course of action: stress should be comprehended, its origination abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed.
Samatha and vipassana belong to the category of the path and so should be developed. To develop them, one must apply appropriate attention to the task of comprehending stress, which is comprised of the five clinging-aggregates -- clinging to physical form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and consciousness. Applying appropriate attention to these aggregates means viewing them in terms of their drawbacks, as "inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self" (SN XXII.122). A list of questions, distinctive to the Buddha, aids in this approach: "Is this aggregate constant or inconstant?" "And is anything inconstant easeful or stressful?" "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'?" (SN XXII.59). These questions are applied to every instance of the five aggregates, whether "past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle, common or sublime, far or near." In other words, the meditator asks these questions of all experiences in the cosmos of the six sense media.
This line of questioning is part of a strategy leading to a level of knowledge called "knowing and seeing things as they actually are (yatha-bhuta-ñana-dassana)," where things are understood in terms of a fivefold perspective: their arising, their passing away, their drawbacks, their allure, and the escape from them -- the escape, here, lying in dispassion.
Some commentators have suggested that, in practice, this fivefold perspective can be gained simply by focusing on the arising and passing away of these aggregates in the present moment; if one's focus is relentless enough, it will lead naturally to a knowledge of drawbacks, allure, and escape, sufficient for total release. The texts, however, don't support this reading, and practical experience would seem to back them up. As MN 101 points out, individual meditators will discover that, in some cases, they can develop dispassion for a particular cause of stress simply by watching it with equanimity; but in other cases, they will need to make a conscious exertion to develop the dispassion that will provide an escape. The discourse is vague -- perhaps deliberately so -- as to which approach will work where. This is something each meditator must test for him or herself in practice.
The Sabbasava Sutta expands on this point by listing seven approaches to take in developing dispassion. Vipassana, as a quality of mind, is related to all seven, but most directly with the first: "seeing," i.e., seeing events in terms of the four noble truths and the duties appropriate to them. The remaining six approaches cover ways of carrying out those duties: restraining the mind from focusing on sense data that would provoke unskillful states of mind; reflecting on the appropriate reasons for using the requisites of food, clothing, shelter, and medicine; tolerating painful sensations; avoiding obvious dangers and inappropriate companions; destroying thoughts of sensual desire, ill will, harmfulness, and other unskillful states; and developing the seven factors for Awakening: mindfulness, analysis of qualities, persistence, rapture, serenity, concentration, and equanimity.
Each of these approaches covers a wide subset of approaches. Under "destroying," for instance, one may eliminate an unskillful mental state by replacing it with a skillful one, focusing on its drawbacks, turning one's attention away from it, relaxing the process of thought-fabrication that formed it, or suppressing it with the brute power of one's will (MN 20). Many similar examples could be drawn from other discourses as well. The overall point is that the ways of the mind are varied and complex. Different fermentations can come bubbling up in different guises and respond to different approaches. One's skill as a meditator lies in mastering a variety of approaches and developing the sensitivity to know which approach will work best in which situation.
On a more basic level, however, one needs strong motivation to master these skills in the first place. Because appropriate attention requires abandoning dichotomies that are so basic to the thought patterns of all people -- "being/not being" and "me/not me" -- meditators need strong reasons for adopting it. This is why the Sabbasava Sutta insists that anyone developing appropriate attention must first must hold the noble ones (here meaning the Buddha and his awakened disciples) in high regard. In other words, one must see that those who have followed the path are truly exemplary. One must also be well-versed in their teaching and discipline. According to MN 117, "being well-versed in their teaching" begins with having conviction in their teachings about karma and rebirth, which provide intellectual and emotional context for adopting the four noble truths as the basic categories of experience. Being well-versed in the discipline of the noble ones would include, in addition to observing the precepts, having some skill in the seven approaches mentioned above for abandoning the fermentations.
Without this sort of background, meditators might bring the wrong attitudes and questions to the practice of watching arising and passing away in the present moment. For instance, they might be looking for a "true self" and end up identifying -- consciously or unconsciously -- with the vast, open sense of awareness that embraces all change, from which it all seems to come and to which it all seems to return. Or they might long for a sense of connectedness with the vast interplay of the universe, convinced that -- as all things are changing -- any desire for changelessness is neurotic and life-denying. For people with agendas like these, the simple experience of events arising and passing away in the present won't lead to fivefold knowledge of things as they are. They'll resist recognizing that the ideas they hold to are a fermentation of views, or that the experiences of calm that seem to verify those ideas are simply a fermentation in the form of a state of being. As a result, they won't be willing to apply the four noble truths to those ideas and experiences. Only a person willing to see those fermentations as such, and convinced of the need to transcend them, will be in a position to apply the principles of appropriate attention to them and thus get beyond them.
So, to answer the question with which we began: Vipassana is not a meditation technique. It's a quality of mind -- the ability to see events clearly in the present moment. Although mindfulness is helpful in fostering vipassana, it's not enough for developing vipassana to the point of total release. Other techniques and approaches are needed as well. In particular, vipassana needs to be teamed with samatha -- the ability to settle the mind comfortably in the present -- so as to master the attainment of strong states of absorption, or jhana. Based on this mastery, samatha and vipassana are then applied to a skillful program of questioning, called appropriate attention, directed at all experience: exploring events not in terms of me/not me, or being/not being, but in terms of the four noble truths. The meditator pursues this program until it leads to a fivefold understanding of all events: in terms of their arising, their passing away, their drawbacks, their allure, and the escape from them. Only then can the mind taste release.
This program for developing vipassana and samatha, in turn, needs the support of many other attitudes, mental qualities, and techniques of practice. This was why the Buddha taught it as part of a still larger program, including respect for the noble ones, mastery of all seven approaches for abandoning the mental fermentations, and all eight factors of the noble path. To take a reductionist approach to the practice can produce only reduced results, for meditation is a skill like carpentry, requiring a mastery of many tools in response to many different needs. To limit oneself to only one approach in meditation would be like trying to build a house when one's motivation is uncertain and one's tool box contains nothing but hammers.

Abbreviations: A = Anguttara Nikaya; M = Majjhima Nikaya; S = Samyutta Nikaya

Revised: Wed 6 February 2002
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/onetool.html

*********************

Questions of Skill
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Copyright © 2001 Thanissaro Bhikkhu
For free distribution only.
You may reprint this work for free distribution.
You may re-format and redistribute this work for use on computers and computer networks
provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use.
Otherwise, all rights reserved.

The Buddha wasn't the sort of teacher who simply answered questions. He also taught which questions to ask. He understood the power of questions: that they give shape to the holes in your knowledge and force that shape -- valid or not -- onto the answers you hope will fill up those holes. Even if you use right information to answer a wrong question, it can take on the wrong shape. If you then use that answer as a tool, you're sure to apply it to the wrong situations and end up with the wrong results.
That's why the Buddha was careful to map out a science of questions, showing which questions -- in what order -- lead to freedom, and which ones don't. At the same time, he gave his talks in a question-and-answer format, to make perfectly clear the shape of the questions he was answering.
So if you're looking to his teaching for answers and want to get the most out of them, you should first be clear about what questions you're bringing to it, and check to see if they're in line with the questions the teachings were meant to address. That way your answers won't lead you astray.
A case in point is the teaching on not-self. Many students interpret this as the Buddha's answer to two of the most frequently-asked questions in the history of serious thought: "Who am I?" and "Do I have a true self?" In the light of these questions, the teaching seems to be a no-self teaching, saying either an unqualified No: There is no self; or a qualified No: no separate self. But the one time the Buddha was asked point-blank if there is a self, he refused to answer, on the grounds that either a Yes or a No to the question would lead to extreme forms of wrong view that block the path to awakening. A Yes or a qualified No would lead to attachment: you'd keep clinging to a sense of self however you defined it. An unqualified No would lead to bewilderment and alienation, for you'd feel that your innermost sense of intrinsic worth had been denied.
As for the question, "Who am I?" the Buddha included it in a list of dead-end questions that lead to "a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion, a writhing, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, [you] don't gain freedom from birth, aging, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair." In other words, any attempt to answer either of these questions is unskillful karma, blocking the path to true freedom.
So if the not-self teaching isn't meant to answer these questions, what question does it answer? A basic one: "What is skillful?" In fact, all of the Buddha's teachings are direct or indirect answers to this question. His great insight was that all our knowledge and ignorance, all our pleasure and pain, come from our actions, our karma, so the quest for true knowledge and true happiness comes down to a question of skill. In this case, the precise question is: "Is self-identification skillful?" And the answer is: "Only up to a point." In the areas where you need a healthy sense of self to act skillfully, it's wise to maintain that sense of self. But eventually, as skillful behavior becomes second nature and you develop more sensitivity, you see that self-identification, even of the most refined sort, is harmful and stressful. You have to let it go.
So, as with any skill, there are definite steps along the road to mastery. And because the asking of a question is a type of karma, the questions you ask not only have to start with the issue of skill, they also have to be skillful -- to approach the issue skillfully -- themselves. Each step in the Buddha's skill is thus defined by a set of questions that focus your attention and shape your thinking in the most strategic direction. In fact, the questions he recommends can be taken as a map to the practice: you start out with questions that assume a self and use that assumption to motivate yourself to act more and more skillfully. Only when you reach an appropriate level of skill do the questions turn to deconstruct your sense of self, pinpointing the things you identify as your self and showing that they're not really you. When the act of self-identification runs out of options, it stops in mid-air -- and the mind opens to freedom. So if you put the not-self teaching in its proper context -- this regimen of questions -- you'll see that it's not a dead-end answer to a dead-end question. Instead, it's a cutting-edge tool for bringing about liberation.
To begin this regimen, the Buddha recommends that when you visit a teacher, the first questions to ask are these: "What is skillful? What is unskillful? What, if I do it, will be for my long-term harm and suffering? Or what, if I do it, will be for my long-term well-being and happiness?" Although these last two questions bring in the concepts of "I" and "my," they aren't the focus of the inquiry. The focus is on doing, on developing skill, on using your concern for "me" and "my well-being" to train your actions toward true happiness.
The Buddha's answers to these preliminary questions read like a course in wilderness survival. First come the do's and don'ts. A wilderness instructor will tell you: "If a moose charges you, run. If a bear charges you, don't." The Buddha's corresponding do's and don'ts are ten guidelines dealing with body, speech, and mind. The guidelines for the body are: don't kill, don't steal, don't engage in illicit sex. For speech: don't tell lies, don't speak divisively, don't speak abusively, don't engage in idle chatter. And for the mind: abandon greed, abandon ill will, cultivate right views. These are the Buddha's basic ground rules for the survival of your happiness, and many of his teachings simply elaborate on these ten points.
But as any wilderness instructor will tell you, survival requires more than simple rules of thumb. You have to be alert to the gaps not covered by the rules. You need to learn to use your powers of observation, imagination, and ingenuity to dig out unskillful habits and develop new habits to fill in the gaps. That way you can live comfortably in the wilderness, respectful of the bears and moose and other dangers around you without being overwhelmed by them.
The same holds true with the Buddha's skill: in addition to following the do's and don'ts, you have to learn how to dig out the roots of unskillful behavior so that you can become adept in all areas of your life, including the areas where the do's and don'ts don't apply. The roots of unskillful behavior are three: greed, anger, and delusion. Of the three, delusion is the most insidious, for it blinds you to its very existence. The only way to overcome it is to be relentlessly observant, looking at your actions in terms of cause and effect, gauging their short- and long-term consequences for yourself and others.
Again, this involves learning to ask the right questions. Each time you're about to act, ask yourself: "This action that I want to do: would it lead to self-harm, to the harm of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful action, with painful consequences, painful results?" If you foresee harm, don't follow through with it. If not, go ahead and act. While acting, ask yourself if there are any unexpected bad consequences arising. If there are, stop. If there aren't, continue with what you're doing. When the action is done, look into its actual short- and long-term consequences. If an action in word or deed has ended up causing harm, inform an experienced fellow-practitioner on the path (this is why the Buddha established the Sangha) and listen to that person's advice. If the mistaken action was purely an act of the mind, try to develop distaste for that kind of thinking. In both cases, resolve never to make the same mistake again, and use your ingenuity to make the resolve stick. If, however, the long-term consequences of the original action were harmless, take joy and satisfaction in being on the right path and continue your training.
As you stay with this line of questioning, it fosters two major results. To begin with, you become more sensitive to your actions and respectful of their effects, both in the present and over time. Unlike the child who says, "It was already broken when I stepped on it," you're aware of when you break things -- physical or mental -- and when you don't. At the same time, you gain mastery over the patterns of action and effect. You get better and better at handling things without their getting broken. This in turn fosters a healthy sense of "self" and "I" based on competence and skill. Your sense of self becomes good-humored enough to freely admit mistakes, mature enough to learn from them, quick enough to notice the immediate effects of your actions, while patient enough to strive for long-term goals. Confident in its own powers of observation, this "I" also has the humility needed to learn from the experience and advice of others.
These two results -- sensitivity to the effects of your own actions and a competent sense of self -- enable you to settle into a level of mental concentration that's solid and nourishing. You overcome the hindrance of uncertainty as to what's skillful and unskillful, and are able to develop the skillful qualities needed to center the mind. As this centered focus develops, an interesting thing happens: your sensitivity to actions and your sense of self come face to face. You begin to see that self not as a thing but as an activity, a process of "I-making" and "my-making" in which you repeatedly create and re-create your sense of who you are. You also begin to notice that this I-making, even when it produces the most skillful self possible, inevitably results in stress.
Why? Because any sense of "I" or "mine" involves clinging -- even when your concentration tunes into a sense of universal self -- and all clinging is stressful. So to take the development of skillfulness to its ultimate degree, you have to unlearn the habit of I-making and my-making. And to do this, another set of questions is required.
These are the questions that introduce the strategy of not-self. The Buddha recommends that you focus on any phenomenon around which you might sense an "I" or a "mine," and ask a series of questions, starting with: "Is this constant or inconstant?" If you identify with your body, look at it. You'll see that it grows hungry and thirsty, that it's aging, destined to grow ill and die. "And is anything inconstant easeful or stressful?" Look at any attempt to find a stable happiness based on the body, and you'll see how stressful it is. "And is it fitting to regard what's inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
Pursue this line of inquiry inward, through layer after layer of physical and mental events, until you can zero in on the high command: the self that's managing not only the stability of your concentration but also your internal dialogue of questions and answers. Fortified with the sense of stability and calm that come with strong concentration, you can start deconstructing that self with no anxiety over what will happen when it's gone. And when the intentions making up that self are deconstructed, a strange thing happens. It's as if you had pulled out a strategic thread holding a tapestry together, and now the whole thing unravels on its own. Everything that could possibly be clung to falls away. What remains is total, absolute freedom -- free from time and space, from both self and not-self, for both "self" and "not-self" are perceptions, which that freedom transcends.
Even when you've had only a first, humbling taste of this freedom, you appreciate how adroitly the teaching on not-self answers the question of "What is skillful?" And you understand why the Buddha recommends putting the question of "Who am I?" aside. To begin with, it wouldn't have taken you to this freedom, and could well have stood in freedom's way. Because your "I" is an activity, any attempt to pin it down before you had mastered the processes of activity would have left you pouncing on shadows, distracted from the real work at hand. Any attempt to deconstruct your "I" before it had become healthy and mature would have led to a release neurotic and insecure: you'd simply be running away from the messy, mismanaged parts of your life. In addition, any answer to the question "Who am I?" would be totally inappropriate to describe your new-found freedom, for it's a dimension apart, where the concepts of "I," "not-I," "am," "am not" do not apply.
The only question still concerning you is how to dig out the remaining roots of unskillfulness still latent in the mind. Once they're dug up, the Buddha promises, nothing stands in the way to full and final freedom. And in that freedom, the mind lacks nothing, has nothing in excess. There's none of the delusion that would shape the hole of a burning question, and none of the greed or aversion that would give it teeth. The only remaining questions are bonus ones: how best to take whatever skills you've developed along the way and use them purely for the benefit of the world.
And what more could you possibly ask?

Revised: Wed 4 December 2002
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/questions.html

*********************

Radical Forgiveness
by Alex Paterson

In June 2000 I attended a Radical Forgiveness workshop conducted by Colin Tipping at the Relaxation Centre in Brisbane. The workshop was based Tipping's book, Radical Forgiveness. Below are a few random notes I made at the time about the workshop. Although these notes were made for myself, I have decided to post them online unedited as an introduction for others into Radical Forgiveness.
Tipping's Radical Forgiveness techniques had a powerful (and positive) effect on me personally and I recommend the technique to anyone seeking to heal the shadow aspects of their psyche and rebuild their relationships with others. For a thorough understanding of the technique it is recommended you obtain and read a copy of Tipping's book 'Radical Forgiveness'.
Radical Forgiveness
Radical Forgiveness is an extension of the primary truth underlying all reality, namely that everything in the Universe is an expression of a singularity which I choose to call Source and most others call God, and as such everything in the Universe is interconnected.
Radical Forgiveness is based upon the simple premise that the 'dark' or shadow aspects of our psyche which we need to acknowledge and heal are reflected for us in those who have significant impact on our lives - be they lovers, spouse, work colleagues, children, parents, friends, mentors or so called enemies. As Tipping quite rightly pointed out: "if you spot it (a behaviour trait) in others, then you have got it. (yourself)."
The key word in the above statement is 'acknowledge'. Whenever we try to deny something we don't like by pretending it does not exist in us, we invalidate it. To invalidate means "to render having no effect", but the great irony is that as soon as we attempt to invalidate something it immediately demands attention to be validated. The reason for this is simple. Invalidation by definition is an attempt to separate out that which one wishes to invalidate from those aspects we choose to acknowledge. From the perspective of the essential 'ONENESS' pervading the Universe, separation is an illusory 'artificial' state requiring a huge amount of energy to maintain. When we suppress something by invalidating it, we think the issue has gone away, but this is a delusion because the issue will inevitably reappear at some stage to be acknowledged and validated and this process cannot be avoided. Invalidation is a bit like trying to stop the flow of a stream; it can be achieved for a little while, but eventually the weight of water builds up and overwhelms us and continues to flow in accordance with the natural law of balance.
Definitions
The following definitions are important and need to be clearly understood.
" Invalidate: Definition: To render invalid which means to render something "having no effect". (Source: Websters Dictionary 1898)
" Judgement: Definition: The act of judging involving the comparison and merit of a thing or question. Source: Oxford Dictionary
" Discernment: Definition: The act of discerning which is to perceive clearly with the mind or the senses. Source: Oxford Dictionary
Note: There is no value judgement associated with the act of 'Discernment', as opposed to 'Judgement'. Alex Paterson 2000
Relationships
At our essence we are energy expressed as LOVE and love expresses itself as an urge towards Unity.
When two people meet and are attracted to each other, energy (which is love) begins to flow between them and they experience the emotion of fraternity and in some cases, falling in love. Initially, this flow is unrestricted because the people involved do not judge each other, but with the passage of time one or both of them invariably begin to apply judgement about the other person. As defined above, judgement is a form of discernment in which our Ego consciousness applies 'value' or 'merit' to the different aspects of the thing we are discerning. However, this thinking is fatally flawed as everything in the Universe is a manifestation of SOURCE and despite the perception of separation that is fundamental to experience in this realm (i.e. the Physical Universe ), nothing is ever really separate from anything else and as such everything is of equal validity and value. The moment the Ego assigns value to something over and above something else by judging it, it invalidates all the aspects of so called 'lesser' value which creates disharmony (dis-harmony) resulting in an energy blockage. Thus, instead of the energy flowing freely between two people in a relationship, it begins to spiral back in on itself in order to heal the disharmony. This process manifests itself as emotions of fear, distrust and separation. It is from the perception of separation that we then create our victim stories in which we allege the other person or persons "did something to us". The truth of course, is that we manifested the whole process in co-operation with the soul (or souls) of the other people involved in the drama for the purpose of healing the shadow aspects of our psyche, which have been mirrored by the others involved in the drama for us. (more on this later)
At its essence, Radical Forgiveness is about reminding ourselves that we are not really separate from our Source (God), and that we are entirely responsible for the circumstances we find ourselves in. It is from the perspective of this universal truth that our ego 'victim stories' are revealed to be the nonsense that they really are, and once reminded of this 'truth', the victim story then collapses.
Radical Forgiveness healing technique
Colin Tipping's Radical Forgiveness healing technique is elegantly simple.
1. Tell the story. The story is the Ego's perception of the situation. The story is the energy associated with the blockage. The story needs to be witnessed by someone without interruption in order to validate it. Validation is at the crux of the issue. By definition, invalidation is an attempt by the Ego to create a form of separation, which in reality is an impossible task because absolutely nothing can possibly be separated from its SOURCE, that being God. It is because of this that anything that has been invalidated by the Ego (which is part and parcel of the illusory perception of Separation) requires an inordinate amount of energy to maintain that state of affairs because it is an artificial, illusory state of Being.
NOTE: Judgement, and the invalidation that goes with it, is the main reason most humans die of degenerative diseases (dis-ease) at the present 'time', but I digress .... (AP)
2. Feel the Feelings (emotions) associated with the story, be they anger, hurt, rage, etc. This is very important because this is the point of power. Then...
3. Collapse the story using the Radical Forgiveness worksheet or some other technique. The Radical Forgiveness worksheet is but just one technique in which one applies effort and intent towards honestly addressing the situation at hand through the auspices of writing about it. The worksheet leads one to acknowledge and 'own' the situation - to recognise that one is entirely responsible for the situation at hand.
Note: As one becomes more adept in 'owning' the situations confronting us (by accepting our responsibility for them), one can dispense with tools like the Radical Forgiveness worksheet and just cut to the essence of the process by simply giving thought to the situation in an honest manner .
4. Perform a Radical Forgiveness reframe of the situation. This shifts the perception from one of Ego separation (victim story) to a recognition as to the essential Oneness of all reality and a recognition of the perfection associated with the event. At the heart of Radical Forgiveness is the recognition (and acceptance) that we are all entirely responsible for the situations we find ourselves in - that we have undoubtedly 'created' the experiences (good or bad) confronting us for a reason. (that reason is always associated with the Soul's inexorable drive for self realisation) In other words, we don't change the event itself, we just change our perception and beliefs around it.
5. Integrate it. We hold our story in every aspect of our bodies, so we must integrate our new story into our whole Being.
NOTE 1: One does not need to believe in 'Radical Forgiveness' for the technique to work. As Tipping quite rightly advises "just fake it till you make it."

NOTE 2: The effect of performing a Radical Forgiveness reframe of a situation is often immediate. Tipping related an anecdote that illustrates this point. A client of his was still bitter years after the event about being out negotiated by a business associate of hers over some intellectual property she had created. As the business associate said to her when she complained about the poor nature of the deal to her, "business is business and as a businessman I'm ruthless". Tipping suggested they perform a Radical Forgiveness reframe of the situation to which she readily agreed. After performing the reframe she drove back to her hotel, only to find a message on her answering machine from the very same former business partner wishing to renew the contract pertaining to the intellectual property in question. (she had forgotten that the original deal had a sunset clause in it) A check of the date/time stamp on the answering machine revealed that he had made his call to her literally one minute after the Radical Forgiveness reframe had been completed! Needless to say she drove a very hard bargain this time around which more than compensated for her 'losses' associated with the original deal. As she said to him when it came time to sign the new deal "business is business", something he quite happily agreed with. (presumably, he had some respect for her this time around)

NOTE 3: Once we begin to heal and process the shadow aspects of ourselves reflected by the other person, the state of the relationship between those involved has served its purpose and the relationship can either move on to a new level, or end.

NOTE 4: As we heal shadow bits of our psyche, more suppressed shadow bits begin to rise up from our subconscious in order to be processed. In other words, the road actually gets harder commensurate with our capacity to handle it. Fortunately, we find that with practice we start to get good at dealing with the issues rising up before us and then the 'Game' starts to become fun. Just like a good baseball player, we start to look forward to confronting the pitcher and dealing with whatever he or she serves up to us.
Miscellaneous Points
o The Universe is a manifestation of the consciousness of a single infinite entity we call God. The scientific evidence in support of this concept is actually overwhelming at a Quantum Physics level. In fact, at a Quantum Physics level there is no evidence in support of the Universe comprising separate 'bits' of matter - all the evidence to date points to the Universe comprising a unified field of energy. The manifestation of God in the Physical Universe is consciousness in the form of energy. Physical matter is just 'slowed down' energy. Emotions are a form of Energy we store in our bodies. (We have many 'bodies' or levels of being, the densest being our physical body)
o We are spiritual beings having a physical incarnation in this realm for the purpose of experiencing emotions, especially those emotions associated with the perception of separation and re-connection. Apparently, the emotions we experience in this realm have no real counterpart anywhere else in creation and as such souls are queuing up to experience this realm, despite the misery, pain and heaviness that is part and parcel of experience in this realm at the present 'time'.

NOTE: There is no such thing as 'time'. (a paradox)
o We come into this realm forgetting who we really are (i.e. that we are an individualised aspect of Source) to add realism and excitement to the perception of separation associated with this realm. It would appear that unfortunately the 'virtual reality' that is this realm is so 'real' that most humans have become stuck in it. Thus, most humans no longer have any clue as to their true nature - that they are an inseparable aspects of Source - and perceive themselves to be truly separate and cast out by God. (e.g. Christianity) Many humans are so lost in the 'game' that they no longer even believe in the existence of the Creator. (e.g. Western culture)
NOTE 1: Apparently most souls incarnating here for the first time don't really believe it is possible to lose sight of their real identity in this realm (i.e. that they are an inseparable aspect of God) as there is no real counterpart to the perception of separation anywhere else in the Universe.

NOTE 2: Colin Tipping told an anecdote about a discarnate entity who entered the physical body of a compliant human for the purpose of healing work and was heard by those witnessing the healing session (which included Colin) to exclaim in a rather shocked tone "how real it all seemed" and that it (the entity) now understood why humans have become "stuck in this realm".

NOTE 3: Colin Tipping recounted the story where some clients of his brought home their new born baby from hospital and their three (3) year old daughter insisted on being allowed to spend some time alone with the new born baby. They agreed to this request because they were able to monitor the event using a baby monitor. The three (3) year old child was heard to approach the baby and say. "Please baby, remind me about God because I'm beginning to forget"
o We invoke everything that happens to us in this realm. There are always reasons for the circumstances we find ourselves in, meaning there are no such things as 'accidents', and those reasons are associated with our spiritual growth. We do not need to consciously know exactly why we have invoked the circumstances we find ourselves in - the reasons will reveal themselves at the proper time - we just need to remember and accept that we are the authors of our story and get on with it. Most humans don't understand or accept any of these truths, which why there is so much pain and suffering in the world at the moment.
Pain is not really an emotion - it is a resistance to feeling associated with fear. The fear is associated with our failure to understand that we create our circumstances (in conjunction with others in our 'play') for the purpose of spiritual growth and as such we are entirely responsible for the same. Ironically, most humans spend an inordinate amount of time ranting and raving against circumstances they themselves have created, instead of seeking to understand why they created the circumstances in the first place.

Tipping recounted a story where he was conducting a workshop for people with life threatening diseases. One of the attendees was a woman in her early forties who had breast cancer. The woman was seething with anger about her circumstances. Apart from the breast cancer, a significant 'irritant' in her life was the behaviour of her twenty something year old daughter, who was in the eyes of this woman "hanging around with unsuitable men and not staying at home helping me defeat my disease". At the end of the workshop Tipping had the attendees carry out a breath meditation and then discuss what happened during the meditation. As Tipping recounted "I could tell the angry woman had gone deep because she went very quiet, so I left her till last." When it came time for the woman to recount what had happened to her the class fell silent. The woman said in a very quiet voice "I don't know what happened, but I found myself out in 'there' in Universe with my daughter. We performed a beautiful dance around each other looking into each other's eyes and there was tremendous love between us - it was a beautiful experience. Then we suddenly sat down and my daughter said "look we have got to resolve this thing once and for all - who is going to be mother this time?". It would appear it didn't matter who played mother. The woman then said "I can't explain it, but I have a completely different feeling towards my daughter now - my anger towards her has completely gone." Tipping advised the woman to say nothing about what had occured during the meditation when she got home and "just see what happens". Two days after the woman returned home, the daughter arrived unannounced at her mother's doorstep with her bags. The daughter had 'sacked' all the boyfriends and moved in with her mother. The woman and her daughter then proceeded to have an extraordinarily rich relationship over the next five years, at the end of which the mother experienced a painless death. (presumably because the issues underlying the incarnation had been resolved and there was no purpose to the woman's 'life' continuing)
o This realm would appear to be very rare in that those souls partaking of it have free will, and that within the rules of the 'game', anything goes. Souls in this realm are the 'thrill seekers' of creation so to speak who have volunteered to experience this realm for that reason. By definition GOD is perfection and as such the Universe always remains in a perfect state of 'balance'. One of the immutable rules of the game in this realm is that any imbalance we create associated with our perception of separation must be re-balanced, via a process known as 'Karma'.
NOTE: I sense that Karma is a very sophisticated process and the notion that we simply incarnate to experience what we inflicted upon others in an earlier incarnation is an overly simplistic and naive interpretation of the process. I also suspect the concept of 'Grace' can somehow fast track the Karmic realignment process, but that could be wishful thinking on my behalf. (AP)
o Our EGO is the everyday consciousness we are aware of within this realm associated with our 'present' incarnation. As mentioned earlier, our Ego consciousness is by necessity of limited awareness as to its real identity (i.e. that it is an inseparable aspect of God) for the purpose of adding realism and a sense of adventure to those partaking of experience in this realm. Our Ego would appear to be an amalgam of some aspects of other incarnations we have chosen to bring with us into our 'current' incarnation, characteristics of the genetics (DNA) associated with the body we have chosen to incarnate in, and our experiences within this realm (i.e. our upbringing and life experiences in the present incarnation). On the other hand the psyche (soul) of most humans remains relatively unconscious to our waking 'ego' consciousness in this realm, but whispers to us through our emotions, gut feelings and our conscience. (e.g. the Soul is the 'voice' that whispers to us "I shouldn't have done that") Spiritual awakening is all about getting in touch with our soul from within this realm and allowing it into our waking everyday consciousness. Whilst the physical brain is the store house of information for our ego to operate with in this realm, that information (and our ego consciousness) survives physical death as anyone who has had a near death experience can attest.
NOTE 1: As Colin Tipping quite rightly noted, our Ego holds a huge sway of votes as to how we think and act in this realm, but its perception of reality is dangerously flawed. (It should be remembered that it is only 500 years (or eight lifetimes) since most humans believed the Earth was flat and anyone who had the temerity to think otherwise was invariably burnt at the stake!)

NOTE 2: Our ego consciousness does not emanate from our physical brain, as evidenced by those who can go Out of Body (OBE) or who have experienced a Near Death Experience (NDE). The brain is just an organ, like any other organ in the human body used by a soul to 'filter' our awareness down to within the confines and 'rules' of this realm. When we think about it, this is logical as all reality is simply a manifestation of consciousness anyway.
o Because we have free will, our Soul (the God essence of our Being that always remains consciously connected to SOURCE) does not have direct control over our Ego consciousness. Because of this 'rule' the GAME is structured such that we attract into our physical lives those who display (mirror) the 'shadow' aspects of ourselves we wish to heal (transmute). As Colin Tipping quite rightly quipped; "if you spot it (in others) you've got it" (meaning if we become upset by something another human being does or displays, then we can rest assured that that is a shadow aspect of our psyche we have come into this realm to heal)
o This realm is really just a dream so to speak. (the ultimate virtual reality) From time to time we are given glimpses of our true essence via spiritual experiences from within this realm for the purpose of keeping us going. In other words, the veil is pulled aside slightly from time to time so we don't completely lose sight of our essence. (I consider my experiences of the Void and NDE as examples of this sort of thing. AP)
o We are all co-creating the virtual reality that is the physical Universe. Spirit has designed the Game to be so realistic that we must experience what we have put in place. The 'Game' itself never stops, (time itself is an illusion) but once we understand the game and the rules (which we are all co-creating) we can move through it with levity and fun.
o Because human souls have free will, here is no compulsion on humans to wake up as to their true identity and move on. However, it would appear that the souls involved in this realm eventually get sick and tired of the pain, suffering and heaviness associated with the karmic debt incurred whilst playing the 'game' and then experience an urge to progress beyond this realm towards a conscious reconnection with their essence (GOD). (I consider myself in this category. Alex Paterson 2000)
o From the human perspective within this realm practically everything is wrong in the world at the moment, with evil occurring everywhere. (e.g. there are at least 40 wars occurring at this very moment, along with a level of environmental degradation that threatens our very existence on Earth etc.) However, from the perspective of spirit everything is perfect and nothing 'bad' is really happening; just the unfolding of a divine plan (game) in which each and everyone of us are part architect. (It defies 'logic' and I can't really explain it, but I have a sense all is well. Alex Paterson 2000)
o I suspect the main purpose of many of us in this realm at the present 'time' is to seek a re-connection with our essence from within this realm. (i.e. bring "heaven to earth" so to speak)
o A couple of weeks after this workshop I met a man in a bookshop. He made two (2) statements which cut to the essence of 'Radical Forgiveness'.
1. Everything we experience in our lives is entirely about us and no one else.
2. The people we meet in life who have some effect on us mirror for us aspects of our souls we need to address and heal.
Copyright © 1999 Alex Paterson

*********************

Religious Bribing Attempt Exposed
by Bodu Pubudu Foundation, Panadura
Mr Ananda Fernando, an ex-Police officer, is residing at 8/4, Samudra Mawatha, Panadura. He is 54 years old, married, and living with his wife and two sons.
Ananda hails from a respectable family from Moratuwa, and the former MP for Nuwara Eliya, Mr T William Fernando was his uncle. Ananda's caring wife, Asoka, is the daughter of a well respected educationist, the retired Principal Mr M M M Fernando of Panadura, and a Grand Daughter of the legendary K T Cornalis Peiris Loku Iskole Mahattaya, one of the Head Masters of Upadhyaya Vidyalaya, the first ever Sinhala Buddhist School in the country to be registered with the Government.
With the above family background, both Ananda and Asoka had naturally been brought up in a strong Sinhala Buddhist environment. They are very good Buddhists and maintain a very close rapport with the temple of the area, Abhaya Karunaratne Mudalindaaraamaya of Welipitiya, Panadura.
Ananda developed a cancer a few years ago, and has been undergoing treatment for some time. His condition had been particularly bad towards end 1999. He later switched over to Ayurvedic medical treatment, which he says, has helped him to significantly improve his conditions.
Ananda was a train traveller during his working days. As it is quite natural, there have been many who had befriended with him during his daily train rides to and from Colombo. One such friend was a lady called Kumudini, whom Ananda knew as a Buddhist. It was this lady who called upon at Ananda's residence in the first half of 2000, having heard of Ananda's illness.
Being a very charming and friendly family, Ananda and Asoka received Kumudini, and discussed with her his illness and also the progress Ananda has been making since switching over to Ayurvedic medical treatment. It was at that time, the offer came up from this friend that God would be willing to cure Ananda's cancer. It was further pointed out by Kumudini that there was no point in obtaining medicine without developing the "right belief in God" !
Ananda could not understand this because he had known this lady as a good Buddhist a few years before. He asked, in return, from Kumudini as to what happened to her, and what made her follow God and the Bible, as she used to be a Buddhist ! Then came the reply that she also went through a difficult period in her life, and a group of Christian friends managed to convert her to Christian belief, which gave her relief ! She offered her services to Ananda also, saying that the family would not have to worry about anything, including resources, and that God will look after all such needs. She only wanted Ananda's consent !
By this time, the financial situation of Ananda's family had been badly eroded. The illness had already dried off the only spring of family income, which was Ananda's job. Even the donation amounting to Rs 150000 raised by relatives, villagers and friends to meet Ananda's medical expenses, for which both Ananda and Asoka are still very grateful, also had been spent.
When this "God sent friend" left promising to return, Ananda and Asoka had a detailed discussion. The Sinhalese Buddhist philosophical foundation laid in them by their parents had been too strong to be broken by the hammers of this "newly converted servant of God". But, on the other hand, they found no reason to refuse the offer to cure by this evangelical missionary, if such is without any obligation by Ananda's part, as stated by Kumudini. Buddhist philosophy had provided them an extensive margin of freedom to decide what was correct and incorrect, and they finally decided to let their "friend" to continue, but with no obligation whatsoever from their part.
Kumudini, visiting them once more, had agreed to proceed. She had come with another companion, who knew more details of what was to be done. They prayed at Ananda's residence for his recovery. Ananda was given a Bible to be kept with him continuously, when the next visit was made in a few days, this time accompanied by a Pastor as well. Ananda was requested to read the Bible in Sinhala when he had time. The Bible was to be kept at his bedside. Ananda found nothing wrong in any of those, as reading any material would only enhance one's knowledge. He wondered, though, in his mind that the freedom he enjoys being a Buddhist, as for a follower of another religion this would have been a "sin" and also a possible reason for punishment by "the almighty", and sufficient grounds for excommunication by the fellow followers !
A group of five, including two leading and experienced Pastors, visited them a few days later. They started praying aloud. They called upon the God to look at his "creation" and "cure his son". They claimed that the blood circulating in this poor son is the same as that of the God. They appealed to the God that Ananda be cured. After praying, they said they were happy with the progress, and went away promising that they would come back to start the healing process. In the meantime, Ananda was to do nothing other than keeping the Bible and reading it at his wish.
The day arrived, when a van stopped in front of Ananda's residence. Two Pastors with a group of people, together with Kumudini, were there. They were ready to start the process of curing. They told Ananda and Asoka that Ananda would be definitely cured if they act as advised by the God. Ananda was a bit concerned hearing this, as he had been told earlier that there would be no obligation by his part, and wondered what they would ask him to do next, but decided to observe further. The person who appeared to be the leader of the group told Ananda that he need not worry any longer about financial problems of the family, as God will take care of all their needs. Almost at the same time, a member of the visiting group came into the house with a big bundle wrapped in brown paper and tied with rubber bands, appearing to anyone as a bundle of currency notes. The bundle was kept on the main table of the house. Ananda and Asoka, quite naturally, had a look at this apparently sizable "gift of God", and it was only they who would know what went in their minds.
Having placed the "bundle" on the table, the group started praying. They prayed looking up and raising their hands towards the sky. They called upon the God to grace his "human son" with good health, and with prosperity. After prayers of about half an hour, the leader turned to Ananda and said that the God had heard the prayers, and was willing to cure him. He said, though, that the God wanted Ananda and his family to follow him, and act as he said.
Ananda's house has a main living room. A statue and a picture of Lord Buddha are placed at a prominent place in this living room. The family lights a coconut oil lamp in front of this Buddha Statue every day. By the time of this latest round of prayers of the "God's agents", this oil lamp was already brightly lit. The leader of the evangelists turned to this statue and lamp, and Ananda was asked to go and put off the flame of this lamp, "Budu Pahana", before they proceed with any further curing effort !!!
Guess what would have happened next. Here was an offer for a "guaranteed cure" of Ananda's cancer. The possibility was that the entire expenditure on medicine would be saved from that point onwards, even if the family could still be suspicious about the "promised cure". In any case, there was not even a "promise for such a cure" outside the framework of these evangelists. Moreover, a big bundle of "appearing to be" currency notes was placed in front of the eyes of the family, amidst their already poor family economics. Even if no more monies would be given, this much alone would be more than something. Materials for religious bribes of all kinds were there. Would any lay human being resist such a possibility ?
These are the "bribes" the evangelists offer to prevent, as best as they could, any "resistance" by the Buddhists when they are asked to perform acts breaking emotional attachments towards Buddha. In this case, they attempted to get Ananda to put off the Budu Pahana, in another place it would be getting the Buddhist to break the head of a Buddha statue, or to stand on a picture/statue of Buddha and jump over it. Possible bribes include bundles appearing as huge sums of money, promises to cure illnesses, jobs for youth, marriage proposals for unmarried in their late 30s or 40s, babies for married couples who have been unable to conceive so far, good Christian schools for children, etc. Such are offered to Buddhists, particularly to those who are badly in need. When they succeed in getting the Buddhist to jump over the Buddha statue, brake its head or put off Budu Pahana, they believe that the "psychological bond" the Buddhist had towards Buddha and Buddhism would be lost for ever, and that such people would never go back to Buddhist way of thinking. This was exactly what they tried with Ananda, by asking him to put off the Budu Pahana, while ensuring that the material required for "religious bribing" were made available.
Well, how did Ananda react ? There may be lay Buddhists who are the poorest of the poor in this society and left in isolation, who would fall pray, willingly or unwillingly, to such unethical "religious bribery". But, the true Sinhala Buddhists would not sacrifice their most venerated Buddhist philosophy, way of life and patriotism, even for their lives. Ananda and Asoka are living examples for such calibre. Having realised that the evangelists were trying to get over the most difficult hurdle in their process of conversion, Ananda asked the leader of the group of evangelists why cannot the process of curing continue without putting off the Budu Pahana ? Answer was that " God could not cure in the presence of Budu Pahana".
Ananda's moral strength being a Buddhist, which all our Buddhists have in us though we do not realise, came into surface. He was quite determined in his reply: "There cannot be any reason why your God could not cure me in the presence of Budu Pahana, if he is all powerful and ready to help the mankind without expecting anything in return". "I can only think of two possibilities", Ananda said, in front of all. "One is that our Budu Pahana is more powerful than your God so that his forces are unable to enter our house in the presence of Budu Pahana. If so, I better seek cure from our Budu Pahana, which then logically becomes more capable than your God". Ananda continued : "The other possibility is that your God is so unkind to demand as a bribe that the people should do exactly what he wants them to do if he is to help them in return. How can such a God be good and loving ? Our Buddha did not expect anything in return when he realised someone was in need of something. He helped, cared for and treated both enemies and friends. I better seek relief from such a kind heart than a bribe-seeking selfish and cruel heart". Everyone appeared stunned. None of the evangelists had any answer. Ananda proclaimed : "If your God is capable and willing, let him cure me, but I am not going to put off our Budu Pahana" !
Saadhu .. Saadhu.. Saadhu !!!
Defeated evangelists did not stay there a minute longer. They vanished together with Kumudini, who never returned. By the way, they had taken with them the "bundle" also, may be to offer as potential "bribing material" for another similar attempt !
What about Ananda and family ? Yes, Ananda is still battling with his malady, but says he is much better now since he started obtaining Sinhala medicine from a Veda Mahaththaya. Ananda and Asoka did not expect anything from anyone when they resisted the attempted conversion quite bravely, even ignoring the promises to cure Ananda's cancer, and to financially assist them. There may be thousands of other strong and brave Sinhala-Buddhists who resist such unethical evangelical activities. Such people are our assets. We need to take care of them, and promote them. We also need to inculcate such values in our present and future generations. We need to educate our Buddhist youth. We need to develop Buddhist brotherhood networks to financially, morally, medically, socially and professionally support our fellow Buddhists. We have to take action to establish Buddhist social development funds, and a possible source of money may be a certain percentage of collections received at Buddhist Temples and Sacred places. We have to teach correct history to our future generations. We have to re-establish Buddhist education in Sri Lanka, as those Buddhist schools taken over by the Government have now become breeding grounds for generations without Sinhalese-Buddhist roots or values. We have to strengthen the village-temple relationship. Relevance of Buddhist teachings to meet the needs of today's society, not fairy tales, should be taught through Buddhist sermons. Then only can we ensure that there will be more and more Buddhists of Ananda's calibre in our future generations !
It is time for action. The story of Ananda and Asoka further highlights the urgency.

********************

Right Attitude
by
Phra Ajaan Suwat Suvaco
August 1, 1991
Translated from the Thai by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Copyright © 2001 Thanissaro Bhikkhu
For free distribution only.
You may reprint this work for free distribution.
You may re-format and redistribute this work for use on computers and computer networks
provided that you charge no fees for its distribution or use.
Otherwise, all rights reserved.

When we meditate, we let go of our present preoccupations. Normally the mind is always preoccupied with the various objects that the eye sees, the ear hears, the nose smells, the tongue tastes, and the body comes into contact with. But when we want peace of mind, we have to see these objects as coarse and gross. We try to let go of things that are gross, things that are sensual. We focus instead on things that are more refined and of more lasting value, step by step.
We keep on getting the mind to gather in stillness, keep on letting go of everything else. It's like when we go to sleep: we have to let go of distracting thoughts, we have to stop thinking, have to cut those things away if we're going to sleep in comfort. As long as the mind is in a turmoil over those things and can't let them go, it won't be able to fall asleep. It'll have no sense of ease, won't gain any strength. Even more so when we meditate: we have to cut away all our other preoccupations, let them all go, leaving only buddho.
Adjust your attitude so that you can find a sense of ease at the same time you're repeating buddho to yourself. Don't let yourself get bored or tired of the meditation. How do you develop a sense of ease? Through your conviction in what you're doing. No matter what the job, if you can do it with a sense of conviction, a sense of respect for your work, you can keep at it continuously. Even if the sun is beating down and you're all tired and worn out, you can keep on doing it. If you do it with a sense of desire (chanda) for the results, a sense of persistence (viriya), intentness (citta), and circumspection (vimansa), you can keep on doing it without getting tired. When you do your work with this attitude, you can keep at it always.
This is why our teachers were able to live with a sense of contentment even when they were out in the mountain wilds. They put effort into their meditation with a sense of ease and wellbeing in the peace of mind they were able to maintain through restraining the mind with mindfulness. If their hearts were already inclined to stillness and seclusion, then as soon as the mind had developed its foundation, they were able to keep it going without any difficulties. It became automatic, and they were able to experience a sense of wellbeing -- the stillness, the fullness, the brightness of the mind.
So adjusting the mind properly in this way is something very important for anyone who wants peace of mind. Keep reminding yourself to develop an attitude of conviction, and this will give energy and encouragement to your efforts. If your conviction, persistence, and mindfulness are strong, you'll be able to win out over any restless, anxious, sleepy, or lazy states of mind. You'll be able to win out over these things through the qualities of mind you develop.
The qualities of mind we're developing are like strategic weapons. We develop mindfulness. We develop alertness. We pick out our one object of meditation -- "This is what I'm going to fasten on" -- and then we both keep it in mind and stay aware of it. When we refuse to let go of it, when we hold on tight to a single object, it becomes the quality called singleness of preoccupation. When this singleness of mind arises, it can cut through restlessness, cut through anxiety. It includes both mindfulness and persistence, and can keep the mind firmly gathered in one place.
When this singleness of mind arises, it turns into firm concentration. The mind gets more refined and can let go of everything else, step by step. This singleness is the refined part that holds through all the levels of right concentration. In the first level you have to have singleness of preoccupation in charge. Even though there's also directed thought, evaluation, rapture, and pleasure, singleness of preoccupation has to be there. Directed thought and evaluation are the coarser parts of the concentration. You'll know as the mind gets more refined because it lets go of them, leaving just singleness of preoccupation, rapture, and pleasure. Rapture is the coarsest of these three, so you let go of it, leaving just pleasure and singleness of preoccupation. Pleasure is the coarser of these two, so you let go of it, leaving just singleness of preoccupation and equanimity.
When the mind has a sense of steady equanimity, firm and unwavering ... If you want to call it tender, it's tender in that it doesn't put up any resistance to the Dhamma, doesn't resist the truth of things as they are. It doesn't dispute. It's willing to accept that truth. But if you want to call it tough, it's tough in that it's firm and unwavering. Normally, when things are soft and tender they waver and move when they're struck by anything. But when the mind is tender in this way, it becomes tough instead. No one can fool it. It doesn't waver, it's not affected by anything. This is the nature of the mind in concentration. Why doesn't it waver? Because it's seen the truth. It's full. It's not hungry in any way that could make it waver, that could let it get tempted. It doesn't want anything else. We human beings: when we have a sense of enough, we're free.
For this reason, meditators need a solid theme that they can hold to. If you don't know or haven't studied much Dhamma, you can simply remember in brief that this body of ours is Dhamma. Every part of it is Dhamma. Conventional Dhammas, formulated Dhammas, all the way up to absolute Dhammas all can be found in this body. So we should pay attention to the body as it's actually present right here. When we know our own body, we won't have any doubts about other people, other bodies. So to give strength to the mind, we should repeat to ourselves any of the meditation themes dealing with the body so that the mind will settle down and come to rest.
If repeating buddho, buddho is too refined for you -- if you can't find anything to hold to, or don't know where to focus -- you can focus on the breath. It's blatant enough for you to fix your attention on it -- when it comes in, you know it's coming in; when it goes out, you know it's going out. Or if that's too refined, you can focus on the 32 parts of the body. If you want to focus on hair of the head, repeat kesa, kesa (hair of the head, hair of the head) to yourself. You've seen head hairs, you can remember them, so fix the memory in your mind and then repeat kesa, kesa. For hair of the body, you can repeat loma, loma, and so on. Repeat the names of any of the 32 parts until your awareness gathers in with the repetition and settles down into stillness.
If you want, you can focus on any one of the bones. Repeat atthi, atthi. Where is the bone you're focusing on? It's really right there. What kinds of features does it have? It really has them -- after all, you've seen bones before. You can remember what the big bones and little bones are like. So call them to mind, focus on them, and repeat their names so as to build a firm foundation for concentration and mindfulness in the mind.
Once your foundation is firm and steady from the practice of repetition, you move on to investigation, to insight meditation. You analyze these things to see them as aniccam, or inconstant. Why does the Buddha say they're inconstant? We want them to be constant. We don't want them to change. The Buddha teaches us to let go of them, but we can't let them go -- because our views run contrary to the Dhamma. That's why we can't let go.
The word "let go" here means that we don't hold onto them. Even though we still live with them, we just live with them, nothing more. Even though we make use of these things, we simply use them, nothing more. Even though we make the body move, it's just movement. You have to keep this understanding in mind so that wrong views don't overwhelm you. So that delusion doesn't overwhelm you. As long as these things exist, we make use of them. After all, they're here to use. The Buddha and his noble disciples all made use of these things without any thought of their being anything other than what they are -- that they might be constant, that they might give rise to true pleasure, that they might be "us" or "ours." We use these things in line with our duties as long as they're here for us to use. When they change into something else, they change in line with their duties, in line with the laws of the Dhamma.
The Buddha thus taught us to familiarize ourselves with what's normal in life: aging is normal, illness is normal, death is normal, separation from the people and things we love is normal. When we analyze them, we realize that they're all going to have to leave us. They won't stay with us forever. When even these five khandhas that we're looking after all the time aren't really ours, how can our children really be ours? How can our parents really be ours? How can our possessions really be ours? They're all anatta: not-self.
We train and exercise our minds in this way until they're adept in the same way that we memorize our lessons in school. Once they're firmly imbedded in the mind, the mind won't go against the truth of the Dhamma. It will believe the truth of the Dhamma, be inclined to follow the truth of the Dhamma. It won't suffer, for it follows in line with the laws of truth. When we don't struggle against the truth of the Dhamma, there won't be any sorrow or distress when things change, for we've come to know and accept the truth.
So all we have to do is come and know the truth. It doesn't lie far away. The things that will cure our sufferings, the most important things that will help us cross over birth and becoming, all come simply from making our knowledge of what's truly here firm and unwavering so that it can push the mind, lift the mind, over and above any influences that might come to make an impact on it -- so that it will gain release from defilement, release from sorrow, release from distress. The meditation we're practicing here is simply for the purpose of knowing the truth as it actually is. As long as we haven't yet reached it, we won't see it. When we don't see it, all we know about it is news: what we've read in books or heard on tapes or heard our teachers describe. That's simply news. The mind hasn't seen it. The ears have simply received it, the eyes have simply taken it in from books, but they're simply passive receptors, holding it as labels and memories, that's all.
The "reaching" has to be done by the heart. The heart is what reaches the truth. And once the heart has reached it, you don't have to worry. It'll be the heart's own treasure. So we have to train the heart to be intelligent, so that it will gain true happiness, true release from danger, from suffering and stress. Practice so that your mind reaches it, so that it will see it. At the moment, it hasn't gotten there yet. So far, it's all only in your ears and eyes.
So we all have to put our hearts into the meditation. Focus on what's truly here so that the heart will reach the truth -- the noble truths. Whatever suffering or stress is here in your body and mind is all part of the dukkha sacca, the noble truth of stress. Whatever delusion, passion, or delight that depends on delusion -- however much, whatever the object, within or without -- is all samudaya sacca, the noble truth of the origination of stress. All the things that we like, that give rise to desire to the point of clinging: when we get them, we latch onto them. When we lose them, we look for them again. When we don't have them, we suffer. This is what makes the mind travel through all the levels of being, great and small.
In the teaching on dependent co-arising, the Buddha said that it all comes from not knowing. We don't discern contact, don't discern feeling, don't discern craving, don't discern clinging, don't discern becoming, don't discern birth: all of this is called avijja, or unawareness. So do you discern these things yet, or not? When sights strike the eye, day in and day out: is your mindfulness ready to handle them or not? Is your discernment up on the tricks of the defilements or not? If not, you have to be observant, to gather and restrict all your attention to what's right here, for when defilements arise, they arise right here. If discernment is to see the defilements to the point of giving rise to right view, it'll have to see and know right here.
If we gather and restrict our attention to what's right here, we're sure to know and see. If we want to be mindful and alert, we can't do it anywhere else. Remember this point well, and put it into practice. When these words are spoken you hear them, but when you get up you forget them. Then when the time comes to meditate again, you don't know what to pick as your theme of practice. You forget everything, throw it all away. So there's nothing but "you" -- no Dhamma to know, no Dhamma to see, no Dhamma to put into practice. It's all "you" and "yours": your body, and when the body is yours, feelings are yours, perceptions are yours, thought constructs are yours, consciousness is yours. So you get possessive of what's yours, and there's nothing left to be Dhamma. That's why your practice doesn't progress.
All progress has to come from a point of "one." Once "one" is firmly established, then there can be "two" and "three." If "one" is lacking, everything else will be lacking. Actually, when we separate things out, there is no "two" or "three." When we don't lump things together, there's only "one." Even groups of ten or twenty people are all made up of one person -- that one person, this one person, that one person over there.
So in our practice we first have to establish "one" -- this body of ours. What's here in the body? We have mental events and physical phenomena: that's two. Then there's feeling: pleasure, pain, neither pleasure nor pain: that's three. When we separate things out, there's lots of them, but it's all this one person, this one lump sitting here encased in skin. But when you analyze things out, you have hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin ... Here it's already a lot. Then you can analyze the eye, consciousness, forms. It's a lot of things, but all one thing: one mass of suffering and stress. Nothing else. Just know this one thing until it's all clear. You don't have to know a lot of things, just this one body. Once you really see the truth, the mind will let go of its burdens. We suffer because we keep piling things on -- "That's us, that's ours, that's them, that's theirs" -- through the power of attachment, clinging to things, not wanting them to change. When the mind starts meditating by mentally repeating its theme, it can let things go for a while. You hold onto buddho or any of the other themes. You don't take refuge in the body. You take refuge in buddho, buddho, until the mind settles down. That gives you a greater sense of wellbeing than you could get from these other things.
When you can let go even of this level of wellbeing, you'll reach the real buddha. That's where there's purity, that's where there's true wellbeing, with no more need to go swimming through birth and death, no more need to torment yourself by having to sit and meditate like this again -- because there will be nothing to torment, nothing to meditate on any more. When you let go of everything, there are no more issues.
So we meditate to give rise to the discernment that sees the drawbacks of things and lets go of them all. That's when there are no more burdens, no more kamma. It sounds easy, but you have to let go of everything. If you haven't let go of everything, there's more kamma to do, more work to do. So we're taught cago -- renunciation; patinissaggo -- relinquishment; mutti -- release; analayo -- no place for the defilements to dwell.
So. Keep on meditating.

Revised: Mon 20 May 2002
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/suwat/attitude.html

*********************

Ringu Tulku
Compassion and Wisdom
Transcription of a teaching given in Helsinki 31.6.2004


Compassion and wisdom is actually the main thing of all Buddhist teachings. In Buddhism in a way there is nothing else, it's all about compassion and wisdom. Basically I think it is very important to go to the basics like compassion and wisdom, the main theme of Buddhism. Why is it necessary to develop compassion and wisdom?

The basic understanding is like this: why do we do anything? What is the real purpose of life, of doing anything? From the Buddhist point of view we don't see the purpose of life as if there was already a purpose given to us, allotted to us, which we have to find out and then follow. What we mean by purpose of life is that which is important. What is it that people really deeply want? What do we wish in our life?

When we look at that, this is the understanding, that if I really look deep into my heart, what is it that I am striving and aspiring for, why I am busy, why I am doing anything, we can almost surely say that I am doing it because I want to be - you can say happy - I want to be free from all the problems. I don't want to suffer, I don't want to have pain and problems, I don't want to be unhappy but I want to be satisfied and joyful. In a way you can say I want to be happy and have no problems and this is not just my wish. Everybody has that as their main wish, whether we express it that way or not. Sometimes we don't. If you ask yourselves, your child or other people, "What do you want to become? - Maybe I want to become a doctor, you know, a very important person, this and that, but why? Why do you want to become that?

Then you will slowly find out: because according to me that is something that will solve all my problems and give me real satisfaction and it is the best situation which will make us very happy. Therefore the main motivation for most of us, all of us actually, is that I want to be free from suffering and pain and I want to be very satisfied and happy. Then is it that I want good things and happiness and satisfaction for myself, I want to be free from my own problems and suffering, is that the only thing I want? Usually no. If I am a kind of religious [person], then maybe okay, but if my family, friends and relatives are not happy, then I am not happy either. It's because usually I am only happy if people like me, love me and appreciate me. My happiness is very much wound together with other people. Maybe not with everybody, but with some people, and generally most people don't want to see other people suffering.

Not only that I want to be without suffering and problems, but if I see somebody with lots of problems and trouble, I don't feel good. I feel bad about it. Whether I actually do something for this person or not, maybe not, but I wish that this person could be without suffering. Therefore you can say there is in all of us, in all human beings, a natural kind of compassion and concern for others. And not only concern for others but there are many people in my life and in all your lives; if they were not in good shape, I could not be happy myself. I can't be happy without them being in a satisfactory situation.

Therefore it's a very basic human experience that we want to be happy ourselves but ourselves not alone. We want others to be happy, too. Some of them, actually, and this is not just my and your feeling. This way of feeling is in everybody. I want to be free from suffering and unhappiness. All of you want that. There is almost nobody in the whole universe, who wouldn't want to be free from problems and the very best situation and experience for themselves and for some others.

This is the main understanding, if that is like that: if we all wish it, then that should be the main purpose of our lives; to be free from all suffering, and to be free from all of the others' sufferings, too, who equally wish that. Therefore, if we ask ourselves: what is that you really want, we can almost say: "I wish to be free from suffering for myself and I wish the same thing for others also, whoever wishes that. And I wish that I be free from - not only suffering and pain, but I wish to have the best, highest and lasting happiness and joy."

This is not something that is taught in certain philosophy or way of thinking, but a basic human way of action. But then, we don't say this, most of us don't even express it. If you ask a young person or an elder one, what you want, they will say "I want to be rich, handsome, somebody like a doctor, president, businessman or sportsperson." They say that, but they don't have the understanding what is behind it.

Why do I want to become rich or famous? They think that to be rich, famous, this and that is the way to be free from our problems. But is it so? This is the main question from the Buddhist point of view. We have to see what we want and then, in order to get that, in order to arrive at that, the way we think to get it - is it the real way to attain it, to accomplish that?

If I say I want to be very rich, okay, there is nothing wrong in being rich; lots of provisions and money is very good. But is it able to solve all my problems, really give me completely satisfactory experience, that alone? Or if you say I want to be famous or powerful, okay, there is nothing wrong in being famous or powerful, but does each of those or even all of them together get rid of our problems? Will it really make us totally satisfied? That is the main question, the main understanding.

There are plenty of very rich people, famous and popular people - are they extremely happy and fully satisfied or not? That you have those things is really good - better that you have money and power than not, better to have lots of people liking you and to be famous than not, but you can have all those things and still be very unhappy. Therefore there must be something else. Those things alone cannot bring you to complete satisfaction. That is why we do spiritual practice, understanding what we all need.

The main thing is to understand how we can solve our problems. Riches, fame etc. do not determine whether we are happy or not. The main thing is inside: how we react. The thing here is important, but how we react is more important. Therefore it's not about having or not having something, whether there is something or not, but how we react to that. Our way of perceiving and reacting is most important. Because if we react in a certain way, then whatever we have is a problem, anything can be a problem if we react in a negative way. If we have different way of seeing and reacting, then sometimes even that thing can be experienced differently.

So the way I experience certain situation is more important, and also there are many things we cannot change. Perhaps if there is not enough heating or light, we can change it or do away with, but there are many things in life we cannot change even if we wished. All those things - is there a way to do something, or what can we do, except for keeping on suffering? We can do one thing only, we can try to change our own way of reacting to that situation, how we take it. If you can do that then we can change the situation - not the situation itself, but our own experience in that situation. That is what we call spiritual transformation, transforming our experience, by changing our way of seeing things we can change our experience.

If we are thinking badly about something, we shift the way of seeing it a bit and then we see good. That is how we work on our mind. That is very important from spiritual point of view. It's all about working on our reactions, emotions and habitual tendencies. Because our reacting changes, the situation changes and if we are in a very difficult situation, we don't feel the difficulty. That's the transformation and that's coming from working on our mind; not the thinking mind but from the experiential level, that's what we call spiritual practice.

To work on this wisdom and compassion are the two main points. What is wisdom? Wisdom is actually nothing but seeing the things as they really are. Understanding, experiencing or seeing things as it really is. And that seeing is not just intellectual, that's the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is that we have information, we read about something, we are told about something, we have a conference about something and we understand: that is like this, this is like that. That is knowledge. Wisdom is more experiential, we understand it deep from the heart. Not just outwardly this is like that, but we understand ourselves: what am I, what is it really that is me. One sees deeply and experiences oneself. To know in an experiential way is wisdom.

By deeply understanding and experiencing what I am, we understand in a way everything else. Everything else is in the way I see. From the experiential point of view this wisdom is extremely important, because through knowing one, in a way you know everything. By understanding myself in a way I understand everything because everything is in the way I understand it. Therefore wisdom is all about experientially (not intellectually) understanding myself. It includes learning about myself, my emotions and thoughts, my habitual tendencies, everything.

Therefore this wisdom is something really important. It's really difficult to explain, because it is experiential, understanding within. It is not necessary a rich, learned person, a professor, someone who studied a lot, who would have more wisdom. Sometimes people study a lot but have no wisdom, even if they are very learned. Sometimes people who know nothing have wisdom. There are many stories about this. There is a story by Tolstoy.

Three fathers lived on an island . An archbishop, priest of the church was travelling on the sea in America. The ship stopped on this small island to get water and he was told that there is a church and three fathers. He went to visit them and found a tiny church and the three monks. They were very happy since they had never seen an archbishop, and the archbishop asked, "How do you pray?" They didn't know. They said, "We just say we three, you three, save us." "No, that's not the way, you must learn." So he taught them a simple prayer, but they did not learn because they were aged. He was teaching them again and again the whole day. At the end of the day they learned and were very happy. "At last we learned how to say our prayer." The archbishop went away with his ship. Next morning he saw something approaching quite far a way. Once they came nearer he saw they were these three fathers running on the water on the sea. They shouted: "Please, stop! We have to see the archbishop, we forgot the prayer! Please tell it to us again." The archbishop answered, "You do as you have been doing, it's all right."

When they could walk on the water like a miracle, what more they needed to learn. This is the understanding. Wisdom is not learning like knowledge, it is deep understanding of yourself. You can be very learned but no wisdom. You can have no learning but have lots of wisdom. Real wisdom is something inner and that is why wisdom liberates us. That is how you liberate yourself from fear, pain and suffering. Main thing is fear. The more wisdom, the less fear; therefore then there is no more anger, craving and ignorance. Ignorance is the direct result. The more wisdom, the less ignorance. Because we are afraid of ourselves, confused, therefore wisdom is said to be the main thing.

Why do we have problems in the world? - Because we have no wisdom. When we get wisdom, we are free. But wisdom is not about getting something that we don't have now. It's about seeing things as they are, knowing what actually is, what you actually are, the way it is directly experiencing. Therefore it is not about a theory, concept or philosophy, it's about experience, directly experientially understanding what is, what you are, that's what wisdom is all about. Therefore wisdom is not necessarily something that can be easily talked about, because it's not a concept. And also no particular doctrine has monopoly of wisdom. You can experience it when you get it, but you can't talk too much about it, it's a direct experience of seeing what you are. It's very difficult to communicate. If you taste chocolate how would you talk about this experience to someone, who has never experienced chocolate? Whatever you say people cannot understand it.

There is a story, maybe coming from the Christian tradition. Maybe not true but a symbolic story. The devil and his assistant were watching a very important person walking up and down. Suddenly there was a shiny burst of light. The devil's assistant asked, "What is that?" The devil casually answered, "Oh, he knows the truth." The assistant said, "That must be dangerous for us. If he gives the truth for everybody, then it's very bad for us." The devil said, "No, it doesn't happen at all, because the moment he talks about it to anybody, they will make it into a dogma." So the truth, wisdom you experience, but it's extremely difficult to talk about, because the moment you talk about it, it is no longer wisdom.

Therefore from the Buddhist point of view meditation is a simple beginning for that, very elementary way of wisdom. It's not about conceptualising, it's not about having lots of information. It's about learning how to be, how to be natural, learning to relax, learning to be in the present moment. This learning is understanding what you are, and it is not intellectual. That's why it's so difficult to teach, it cannot be taught, because it's experiential. It's like learning to ride bicycle. You can teach riding bicycle, but not really teach. One has to do it oneself. You can give a basic idea that anybody can see, anybody knows, but when one does it, one has to learn it by doing it. Doing it, falling down, and sometimes feeling you can't learn. When you feel you will never ever be able to learn this, then you are about to learn it. It's little bit like that. It's learning how to be natural, completely yourself, ordinarily.

When you say "wisdom, enlightenment", it sounds very far a way, very deep. In a way it is not like that, we are not talking about something different, we are talking about me as I am now. It's not about becoming something, it's about learning experientially how to be totally there. Most of our problems, anxieties, emotions come from our way of grasping. When we grasp: this is good, this is bad, that brings lots of emotions and we become sad, because I don't have this and that. That way of experiencing whatever there is becomes a problem.

Even something nice is a problem. If I see something nice, very important, then I say, "Oh, I want it." Now I made something little bit difficult, because I want something. It's very nice, I want it and then it means I don't have something that I should have. I already made up something, desiring things, and now I'm making up that I don't have. I desire something I don't have. Not having something that I want is already dissatisfaction. I already created dissatisfaction because of wanting something. Now I do something and try to get it, I do many things subtly or coarsely and then I get it. I have it. Am I satisfied? Not necessarily, because many times I don't like it anymore when I have it. Only the other side is greener. When I don't have it, I like it very much, but when I have it, nothing special.

Even if I like it, even when I feel satisfied I get the thought, "This is very nice, I shouldn't lose it." We get fear. I shouldn't lose it, I might lose it. If I like it so much, then other people might like it also. The fear comes and as long as the fear is there I'm not satisfied and happy, because I have fear of losing it. I have this fear of losing until I lose it, I can't get rid of the fear. Either I don't want it anymore or I have the fear of losing it and if I lose it, then I have another form of problem: the problem of having lost something, grief. Even something is very nice, wonderful, if my way of seeing, reacting and grasping is like that, it can be a problem, not to mention something not nice. Therefore it's not about having but about the way I grasp. Meditation is a way to kind of learn how to let that way of grasping change.

Usually we grasp: this is nice, this is not nice. But even the good, pleasurable experience is not really making me satisfied, because as soon as it goes we feel: "How can I get another one?" That's addiction. What meditation does, is learning how to let many kind of experiences come, and how to let them go. If one can do that, when experiences come, it doesn't matter, good or bad experience, they are all coming and going anyway. If I can let them go also as they come and go anyway, if I can totally accept it, then I learn about myself more.

The experience comes and goes. If it's nice, nice. If it's not nice, it's very nice that I can make it go. Then I learn how to deal with that and how to free myself from problems I created with grasping. Whatever I experience, whatever emotion comes, it doesn't totally overcome me. To do that, learning how to do that is the main thing in meditation; to be relaxed.

To learn how to relax and be in this moment is important, because if I'm only in the past and future, I'm reacting. If I'm totally now - now is moving and changing. Now never stays. Now - gone. Kick, klick, klick. It's not noooow. After one moment that now is