Vipassana retreats

[Toban]

Quinn or Solway: from reading 'Letters Betweem Enemies' it seems like you guys struggled alot with transforming consciousness.

Fellows, did you ever attend one of these free meditation boot camps to aid your progress?
http://www.dhamma.org.au

[Kelly Jones]

I've looked at this before, and was convinced by all the regulations that it was narrow-minded.

For instance:

Interviews and question times are solely for the purpose of clarifying actual practical problems concerned with the technique. They are not to be regarded as opportunities to indulge in philosophical discussions or intellectual arguments. The unique nature of Vipassana meditation can only be appreciated by putting it into practice and during the course students should concentrate exclusively on this task.

The website defines the purpose of Vipassana as "to penetrate the deepest levels of the unconscious mind and learn how to eradicate the complexes lying there". But because one has to abide by the rules for ten days, and never have enough time nor the permission to engage in open intellectualising and philosophical discussion (except with the teacher), the folly of it is never revealed.

The problem with this definition of Vipassana is that no amount of psychoanalysis and self-observation will ever reveal the nature of the ego, unless one first has intellectually grasped the emptiness of Ultimate Truth.

But just the idea of a meditation boot camp gives me the shivers. It brings to mind getting out of bed at 6am to the sound of a huge gong, crossing one's legs in lotus position, and imagining the mind to be empty of all thought. Followed by tai chi for an hour to the sound of one wooden stick beating on one wooden head. Then chanting "Om mani padme om" or other strange words.

I once went to the Taiwanese nun's monastery in Wollongong where we had to meditate on losing our karma when doing a poo. We were to wear arhat shoes with holes in the front to remind us of transiency, and to learn how to fold our robes just so. It was a total waste of time, except perhaps to learn just how eagerly misguided many people are --- so willing to find an end to suffering by becoming unconscious.

-

[Kevin Solway]

did you ever attend one of these free meditation boot camps to aid your progress?
http://www.dhamma.org.au

Years ago I attended some courses which were up to a week long, which had teachings intermingled with meditation.

I also did a personal retreat for several days where you have to carefully fill brass bowls with water to the width of one rice-grain from the top, and light candles, chant mantras, etc.

It was interesting, and didn't do me any harm.

I remember that there was one part where I was supposed to wish for the long life of one particular lama whom I'd never met and therefore I didn't know how deluded they were. So to counter that I formed the motivation that the more they were able to serve wisdom the longer I wished them to live.

No matter now silly some of the teachings are, if you work hard at it and exercise your imagination to the max you can interpret them in a way that is sensible and which serves some positive purpose.

[Kelly Jones]

I agree, Kevin, that symbolism stimulates the mind to consider that there are far deeper aspects to ordinary consciousness.

But ordinary consciousness is easily swallowed up in rituals, and in fact, that is what ordinary consciousness is. Shallow meanings, and fashionable accessories to adorn the ego.

If this idea of Vipassana - namely, dumping a load of prohibitive rules onto a person to boost the ego, so that it feels like it is entering a special ascetic domain - also had Zen-like exchanges between all levels of participants, so that they could form concepts about the nature of things, then it wouldn't be such a waste of time.

As it is, it is very weak.

-

[sschaula]

Attachments are only gotten rid of by cutting them off...by strict discipline, and then surrender. This technique does that perfectly. I consider anyone who defames something so great, as very unconscious.

Buddhist trappings have nothing to do with this technique, so I don't know why that shit is being described in this topic.
What Kevin experienced was a different thing entirely. It's very misleading for him to mention that in here, so I don't know why he's doing it.

Kelly,

The website defines the purpose of Vipassana as "to penetrate the deepest levels of the unconscious mind and learn how to eradicate the complexes lying there".

This is exactly what the technique does.

But because one has to abide by the rules for ten days, and never have enough time nor the permission to engage in open intellectualising and philosophical discussion (except with the teacher), the folly of it is never revealed.

The unconscious mind and its complexes aren't penetrated by mere philosophical discussion. This becomes apparent for the philosopher in due time. Or, maybe not, if that philosopher is stuck.

The problem with this definition of Vipassana is that no amount of psychoanalysis and self-observation will ever reveal the nature of the ego, unless one first has intellectually grasped the emptiness of Ultimate Truth.

What a horrible lie.

But just the idea of a meditation boot camp gives me the shivers. It brings to mind getting out of bed at 6am to the sound of a huge gong, crossing one's legs in lotus position, and imagining the mind to be empty of all thought. Followed by tai chi for an hour to the sound of one wooden stick beating on one wooden head. Then chanting "Om mani padme om" or other strange words.

The fact that it gives you the shivers shows that it's exactly what you need.

I once went to the Taiwanese nun's monastery in Wollongong where we had to meditate on losing our karma when doing a poo. We were to wear arhat shoes with holes in the front to remind us of transiency, and to learn how to fold our robes just so. It was a total waste of time, except perhaps to learn just how eagerly misguided many people are --- so willing to find an end to suffering by becoming unconscious.

Yeah, that has nothing to do with this.

[integral]

Interesting topic.

Years ago I attended some courses which were up to a week long, which had teachings intermingled with meditation.

Kevin: It's not clear by your reply--were these courses Vipassana?

I clicked on the Vipassana link, and there are numerous centers available to you Australians.
Kevin, would you consider doing one of the 10 day retreats?

[Kelly Jones]

Attachments are only gotten rid of by cutting them off...by strict discipline, and then surrender.

You cannot remove memories. You can only replace them with ideas you love more.

This technique does that perfectly. I consider anyone who defames something so great, as very unconscious.

Do you now believe that the perfection of wisdom is possible, Scott? That non-attachment is possible?

Buddhist trappings have nothing to do with this technique, so I don't know why that shit is being described in this topic.

The regulations described on the dhamma/Vipassana website, such as no drugs or alcohol, no ritualistic behaviour (!), no talismans, observing silence, and so on, are very much in the spirit of Buddhist trappings.

What Kevin experienced was a different thing entirely. It's very misleading for him to mention that in here, so I don't know why he's doing it.

Do you mean, observing how the crystal-clear water fills up the silver bowl, have nothing to do with sitting silently examining the workings of the mind?

Kelly: The website defines the purpose of Vipassana as "to penetrate the deepest levels of the unconscious mind and learn how to eradicate the complexes lying there".

Scott: This is exactly what the technique does.

If this technique did enable people to learn how to eradicate delusion, then there ought to be far more Buddhas around.

I would say most people come out of those experiences feeling blissful about withdrawing into silence, and that's about all. I theorise that they've rekindled the infant consciousness, as David described in the first podcast with Victor Danilchenko. That feeling of bliss means they'll start to feel powerful on withdrawing from direct experiences of Reality, into an altered mindstate. So the harm is great. They learn to hate Reality.

Thus, a fully intellectual investigation into the nature of delusion needs to be coupled with experiential exploration of the delusional mind.

Kelly: But because one has to abide by the rules for ten days, and never have enough time nor the permission to engage in open intellectualising and philosophical discussion (except with the teacher), the folly of it is never revealed.

Scott: The unconscious mind and its complexes aren't penetrated by mere philosophical discussion. This becomes apparent for the philosopher in due time. Or, maybe not, if that philosopher is stuck.

That's right, discussion is not enough: one also has to be thinking as well. And of course, to experience what the ideas are about.

Kelly: The problem with this definition of Vipassana is that no amount of psychoanalysis and self-observation will ever reveal the nature of the ego, unless one first has intellectually grasped the emptiness of Ultimate Truth.

Scott: What a horrible lie.

To understand and accept what the ego is, namely, the delusion that the self has inherent existence, it's vital to understand first why all things lack inherent existence. The logical conclusion is that the self is a thing like any other.

So, first understanding that the Ultimate Truth is emptiness, gives meaning to the nature of all things.

Kelly: But just the idea of a meditation boot camp gives me the shivers. It brings to mind getting out of bed at 6am to the sound of a huge gong, crossing one's legs in lotus position, and imagining the mind to be empty of all thought. Followed by tai chi for an hour to the sound of one wooden stick beating on one wooden head. Then chanting "Om mani padme om" or other strange words.

Scott: The fact that it gives you the shivers shows that it's exactly what you need.

True discipline is the commitment to eradicate the ego from one's thoughts, by replacing them uncompromisingly with true thoughts.

Getting the shivers about the boot camp idea, shows that I have an attachment to consciousness. I realise it's an imperfection, Scott, to be horrified at false teaching. But it would do me no good whatsoever, to be experience Buddhist rituals without the understanding that they are empty. The horror would not decrease.

I almost did go to a Buddha-bathing ritual on Sunday morning in Hobart. Complete with plenty of Asian rice-bags fitted out with yellow and red robes. I decided it would probably test me more to hang out at the backpackers, ie. to engage in some intellectual mining. It'd take more courage, because there'd be more triggers for delusion.

Buddhist monks are laughable, more than anything. Can you really do anything with a zombie?

Kelly: I once went to the Taiwanese nun's monastery in Wollongong where we had to meditate on losing our karma when doing a poo. We were to wear arhat shoes with holes in the front to remind us of transiency, and to learn how to fold our robes just so. It was a total waste of time, except perhaps to learn just how eagerly misguided many people are --- so willing to find an end to suffering by becoming unconscious.

Scott: Yeah, that has nothing to do with this.

It actually does. Engaging in rituals without intellectual understanding.

-

[sschaula]

"Mara",

You cannot remove memories. You can only replace them with ideas you love more.

You can remove your attachments.

Do you now believe that the perfection of wisdom is possible, Scott? That non-attachment is possible?

No. Yes, but imperfect non-attachment.

The regulations described on the dhamma/Vipassana website, such as no drugs or alcohol, no ritualistic behaviour (!), no talismans, observing silence, and so on, are very much in the spirit of Buddhist trappings.

They're imposed to cut the ego attachments. They are definitely not Buddhist trappings.

Would you say that sex, drugs, alcohol, ritualistic behavior, talismans, loudness, and so on, are wise things to be doing?

Do you mean, observing how the crystal-clear water fills up the silver bowl, have nothing to do with sitting silently examining the workings of the mind?

Watching crystal clear water fill up a bowl is the same as watching a movie, or any other unwise thing in the world. Those kinds of things don't bring a person closer to wisdom, no matter how perfectly symbolic they are. Observing the workings of the mind is something entirely different. It's a huge step in the correct direction.

If this technique did enable people to learn how to eradicate delusion, then there ought to be far more Buddhas around.

You try practicing this technique the necessary time it takes to become perfect, and then try to say that again.

I would say most people come out of those experiences feeling blissful about withdrawing into silence, and that's about all. I theorise that they've rekindled the infant consciousness, as David described in the first podcast with Victor Danilchenko. That feeling of bliss means they'll start to feel powerful on withdrawing from direct experiences of Reality, into an altered mindstate. So the harm is great. They learn to hate Reality.

I disagree with you entirely. ENTIRELY. Look, I'm not a proponent of this particular school of Buddhism, or any school or sect...but what you're saying is so far from the truth that it's almost evil.

Take a break, take a class, and rethink your position. If you still hold the same views, I'll only assume that you're just mimicking the QRS philosophy and that you haven't ever actually taken it on and truly thought about it.

To argue against what you just said: vipassana is about confronting attachments, and breaking those chains which bind us to deluded patterns of behavior. It isn't about destroying consciousness - it's about clarifying it. A person who uses this technique has definitely found the correct way to gain wisdom. It cannot be said that people who do this are escapists, because to practice this you have to face all of the shit of the world, and learn to deal with it. Normally, philosophers will experience some discomfort and move about...all the while those attachments to self and comfort are maintained and nothing is accomplished.

For someone to ridicule this very serious and great technique is what's disgusting.

Thus, a fully intellectual investigation into the nature of delusion needs to be coupled with experiential exploration of the delusional mind.

If you actually investigate delusion, you'll find this to be a great technique to rid yourself of it.

That's right, discussion is not enough: one also has to be thinking as well. And of course, to experience what the ideas are about.

The vipassana technique is a great way to experience it. What better way is there to be tested in your reason than to confront the things which an unreasonable person holds dearly to?

To understand and accept what the ego is, namely, the delusion that the self has inherent existence, it's vital to understand first why all things lack inherent existence. The logical conclusion is that the self is a thing like any other.

So, first understanding that the Ultimate Truth is emptiness, gives meaning to the nature of all things.

Intellectual understanding does nothing about the ego (the root of all delusion), which is only fed by that understanding.

True discipline is the commitment to eradicate the ego from one's thoughts, by replacing them uncompromisingly with true thoughts.

Who is the replacer? That's the key issue here. The purpose of vipassana is to see that there is no self which is the replacer, and thus to rid the practitioner of the core delusion. Until this is done, all true thoughts are covered in the filth of delusion. All wisdom is corrupted.

Getting the shivers about the boot camp idea, shows that I have an attachment to consciousness. I realise it's an imperfection, Scott, to be horrified at false teaching. But it would do me no good whatsoever, to be experience Buddhist rituals without the understanding that they are empty. The horror would not decrease.

If you were more wise, the horror and shivers would not be there. Those are immature reactions.

Similarly, I don't walk into a Christian church and become sickened, like some "thinkers" do. The true thinkers become serene, not knee-jerk-anti-(insert stupid beliefs here).

I almost did go to a Buddha-bathing ritual on Sunday morning in Hobart. Complete with plenty of Asian rice-bags fitted out with yellow and red robes. I decided it would probably test me more to hang out at the backpackers, ie. to engage in some intellectual mining. It'd take more courage, because there'd be more triggers for delusion.

That's just a cultural thing, and not a Buddhist thing. Similarly, going to church is a cultural thing and not an actual Christian thing.

There are many different types of Buddhists.

Buddhist monks are laughable, more than anything. Can you really do anything with a zombie?

What makes you want to do things?

It actually does. Engaging in rituals without intellectual understanding.

Meditation isn't a ritual.

[Kelly Jones]

Scott,

Please tell me how

You can remove your attachments.

but that only imperfect non-attachment is possible?

Please tell me whether you think "vipassana is about confronting attachments, and breaking those chains which bind us to deluded patterns of behavior" absolutely or only imperfectly.

And will people find vipassana as defined by S.N.Goenka to be "a great technique to rid yourself of [delusion]" completely, or only a bit?

What better way is there to be tested in your reason than to confront the things which an unreasonable person holds dearly to?

Only when the "unreasonable person" is oneself.

Intellectual understanding does nothing about the ego (the root of all delusion), which is only fed by that understanding.

You're effectively saying that the intellect cannot be used at all to rip out the root of delusion, Scott. Is that what you want everyone here to think - excluding those exceptionally nice but exceptionally stupid girls you seem to be interested in meeting..........................?

Kelly: True discipline is the commitment to eradicate the ego from one's thoughts, by replacing them uncompromisingly with true thoughts.

Scott: Who is the replacer? That's the key issue here. The purpose of vipassana is to see that there is no self which is the replacer, and thus to rid the practitioner of the core delusion. Until this is done, all true thoughts are covered in the filth of delusion. All wisdom is corrupted.

There is a self, and discipline, and vipassana, and delusion, and thoughts, and filth, and corruption. But, like everything else, these lack intrinsic existence.

If you were more wise, the horror and shivers would not be there. Those are immature reactions.

Yes, I am still immature. That's not my doing. If I'm caused to be more wise, then I'll be less attached to consciousness. That's not my doing.

Similarly, I don't walk into a Christian church and become sickened, like some "thinkers" do. The true thinkers become serene, not knee-jerk-anti-(insert stupid beliefs here).

Do knee-jerk-anti's sicken you, or have you perfected non-attachment?

Kelly: Buddhist monks are laughable, more than anything. Can you really do anything with a zombie?

Scott: What makes you want to do things?

I suppose not, then.



-

[Toban]

I think Kelly has a bias against vipassana because it's Buddhist, and thus keeps a closed mind towards it. To counter, the actual retreats don't involve any rituals or beliefs, and the rules, while strict, are there for practical reasons. The fact remains that a vipassana retreat can be quite useful to help a philosopher to shatter his delusions. Intellectual understanding doesn't get you very far unless the understanding is lived by. I think this is where a vipassana retreat could really speed the progress of a thinker: if he is weak in faith and/or discipline, this would be an excellent opportunity to challenge himself to live by his understanding and drop his comforting but delusional beliefs.

[Kelly Jones]

The fact remains that a vipassana retreat can be quite useful to help a philosopher to shatter his delusions.

What's your reasoning?

Intellectual understanding doesn't get you very far unless the understanding is lived by. I think this is where a vipassana retreat could really speed the progress of a thinker: if he is weak in faith and/or discipline, this would be an excellent opportunity to challenge himself to live by his understanding and drop his comforting but delusional beliefs.

I can see that it could help a scattered mind. A change of scenery, for those who need external reminders and visual aids to think.

But why do you suggest it to people like Kevin and David, who are not weak and lacking in faith or discipline, as far as I can tell?

-

[sschaula]

Toban,

I'm amazed at how much I agree with your post! Perfect!

Kelly,

Please tell me how

sschaula wrote:
You can remove your attachments.

but that only imperfect non-attachment is possible?

Well, if I'm addicted to looking at porn: if I remove that attachment and am no longer addicted, it can easily be said I removed an attachment. But I won't be perfectly unattached. I may still have an attachment to...lets say...being with people, and not feeling lonely.

It's up to each person to find out for themselves whether perfection is possible or not. I can say it isn't, but I have little proof, and no one should read what I say and give up the removal of attachments. It's good to free yourself of that which binds you.

Please tell me whether you think "vipassana is about confronting attachments, and breaking those chains which bind us to deluded patterns of behavior" absolutely or only imperfectly.

It absolutely does, but absolutely no one is perfect.

And will people find vipassana as defined by S.N.Goenka to be "a great technique to rid yourself of [delusion]" completely, or only a bit?

They'll find it to be among the best for getting rid of delusion. On a scale of 1-10 for the best techniques, this will be a 10, along with a few others.

Quote:
What better way is there to be tested in your reason than to confront the things which an unreasonable person holds dearly to?

Only when the "unreasonable person" is oneself.

Right, and that's exactly what everyone is. If you were to hold yourself out of that category, I'd laugh.

You're effectively saying that the intellect cannot be used at all to rip out the root of delusion, Scott. Is that what you want everyone here to think - excluding those exceptionally nice but exceptionally stupid girls you seem to be interested in meeting..........................?

What girls? That really came out of the blue.

Yes, I'm saying that a person can't see through their own ego without some external means.

There is a self, and discipline, and vipassana, and delusion, and thoughts, and filth, and corruption. But, like everything else, these lack intrinsic existence.

So then why are you doing what you do?

Hint: delusion moves you.

Yes, I am still immature. That's not my doing. If I'm caused to be more wise, then I'll be less attached to consciousness. That's not my doing.

That's a misunderstanding. You work in accord with causality. For example, if you type your misunderstanding onto the Genius Forum, that's your doing.

If you try to make yourself mature, you'll become more mature. If you try to be more wise and less attached to consciousness, then that will happen.

Do knee-jerk-anti's sicken you, or have you perfected non-attachment?

They sicken me.

I suppose not, then.

So you see your error?

[Kelly Jones]

It's up to each person to find out for themselves whether perfection is possible or not. I can say it isn't, but I have little proof, and no one should read what I say and give up the removal of attachments. It's good to free yourself of that which binds you.

Okay. You admit this. So you really ought to rephrase what you write, to show that you are not absolutely certain that complete sanity, and the perfection of wisdom, are possible or impossible.

Kelly: Please tell me whether you think "vipassana is about confronting attachments, and breaking those chains which bind us to deluded patterns of behavior" absolutely or only imperfectly.

Scott: It absolutely does, but absolutely no one is perfect.

"I am not sure whether anyone has ever become perfect in the past, or is in the present, or maybe in the future. I am not sure if it is possible or not."

Does the basic meaning of that sit right with you, even if you might use a different style to express it?

Kelly: And will people find vipassana as defined by S.N.Goenka to be "a great technique to rid yourself of [delusion]" completely, or only a bit?

Scott: They'll find it to be among the best for getting rid of delusion. On a scale of 1-10 for the best techniques, this will be a 10, along with a few others.

"I believe it is likely to be a 10, but I am not sure."

What about that, instead?

Scott: What better way is there to be tested in your reason than to confront the things which an unreasonable person holds dearly to?

Kelly: Only when the "unreasonable person" is oneself.

Scott: Right, and that's exactly what everyone is. If you were to hold yourself out of that category, I'd laugh.

"I am not sure whether all people in the history of the human species, or the future of it, are absolutely unreasonable. I cannot know for sure."

Kelly: You're effectively saying that the intellect cannot be used at all to rip out the root of delusion, Scott. Is that what you want everyone here to think - excluding those exceptionally nice but exceptionally stupid girls you seem to be interested in meeting..........................?

Scott: What girls? That really came out of the blue.

Yes, I'm saying that a person can't see through their own ego without some external means.

You mentioned there were some exceptionally nice girls in Mexico, I think it was. Funny that this slipped out without you really being conscious of it.

Can you please tell me why you believe that a person with a strong memory would need to have visual aids to think?

Kelly: There is a self, and discipline, and vipassana, and delusion, and thoughts, and filth, and corruption. But, like everything else, these lack intrinsic existence.

Scott: So then why are you doing what you do?

Hint: delusion moves you.

Yes, often. However, when it doesn't, then I make decisions about things based on the knowledge that they aren't existing intrinsically in the environment.

For instance, my purpose of being conscious and wise instructs me to look after my body, to stimulate myself out of delusion, and so on, whilst knowing that everything I do is ultimately empty. The more conscious of reality and of how things are appearing to me, the more enlightened I am, and the more appropriately I can act.

Kelly: Yes, I am still immature. That's not my doing. If I'm caused to be more wise, then I'll be less attached to consciousness. That's not my doing.

Scott: That's a misunderstanding. You work in accord with causality. For example, if you type your misunderstanding onto the Genius Forum, that's your doing.

It is ultimately Nature. I am Nature. I can't work in accord with causality, because I am causality. Nothing that I am is caused by me, ultimately.

For instance, I type into the Genius Forum because there is a keyboard, which is not my doing. Nor is the forum my doing. Nor is what I eat my doing. In fact, my doing is not something I possess. Whatever I think is really coming from everything else, though it seems as though I bring it into being, because I have a feeling of concentration and tonic muscles perhaps.

If you try to make yourself mature, you'll become more mature. If you try to be more wise and less attached to consciousness, then that will happen.

Perhaps it will. But my trying is always causal, such that other causal elements may prevent progress. That's life.

Kelly: Do knee-jerk-anti's sicken you, or have you perfected non-attachment?

Scott: They sicken me.

A moment ago you were calling me immature and inefficient for being horrified or getting the shivers at boot camp Buddhism.

We both just do what Nature causes us to.

-

[sschaula]

Kelly,

Okay. You admit this. So you really ought to rephrase what you write, to show that you are not absolutely certain that complete sanity, and the perfection of wisdom, are possible or impossible.

I'm 100% convinced, but as I've said before on these forums, not 100% certain. I'm only 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain of it.

"I am not sure whether anyone has ever become perfect in the past, or is in the present, or maybe in the future. I am not sure if it is possible or not."

Does the basic meaning of that sit right with you, even if you might use a different style to express it?

It does sit right with me. It's just that I'm absolutely convinced it's not possible.

"I believe it is likely to be a 10, but I am not sure."

What about that, instead?

Absolutely not. I'm certain it's one of the greatest techniques.

"I am not sure whether all people in the history of the human species, or the future of it, are absolutely unreasonable. I cannot know for sure."

This is getting redundant. Don't try to put words in my mouth...I say what I say. Leave it as it is.

You mentioned there were some exceptionally nice girls in Mexico, I think it was. Funny that this slipped out without you really being conscious of it.

Don't assume I was unaware of what I was saying. Yes, it's a fact that the girls were very nice in Texas. That doesn't relate at all to what you were accusing me of. A person with no attachment to the opposite sex can easily tell something like that, and it doesn't mean they're attached at all...even though I may be, a bit.

I will date a girl if I find someone I'm interested in. There's no problem with that. Your little "jab" came completely out of the blue and had nothing to do with anything.

Can you please tell me why you believe that a person with a strong memory would need to have visual aids to think?

I don't believe that at all. You missed the point entirely!

A person who is a good thinker identifies themselves with being a good thinker. It takes some sort of external means to see through that. External means like some forms of meditation, for example.

Yes, often. However, when it doesn't, then I make decisions about things based on the knowledge that they aren't existing intrinsically in the environment.

Bullshit.

For instance, my purpose of being conscious and wise instructs me to look after my body, to stimulate myself out of delusion, and so on, whilst knowing that everything I do is ultimately empty. The more conscious of reality and of how things are appearing to me, the more enlightened I am, and the more appropriately I can act.

That's not enlightenment at all, Kelly.

It is ultimately Nature. I am Nature. I can't work in accord with causality, because I am causality. Nothing that I am is caused by me, ultimately.

Lets not start confusing things. You are Kelly. Causality is causality.

For instance, I type into the Genius Forum because there is a keyboard, which is not my doing.

You bought the keyboard. You chose to type in this web address. You chose to think about these things and start writing about them here.

Nor is the forum my doing. Nor is what I eat my doing. In fact, my doing is not something I possess. Whatever I think is really coming from everything else, though it seems as though I bring it into being, because I have a feeling of concentration and tonic muscles perhaps.

I'm not falling for it, Kelly. You haven't attained enlightenment. There isn't any temporary enlightened state. What you try to impress upon your mind isn't truth, at all.

Perhaps it will. But my trying is always causal, such that other causal elements may prevent progress. That's life.

Uh huh.

A moment ago you were calling me immature and inefficient for being horrified or getting the shivers at boot camp Buddhism.

I'm not the one claiming to be wise. In fact, I've claimed the opposite. When I say "everyone is deluded and no one can attain perfection" I do include myself!

We both just do what Nature causes us to.

Yes, that's true...yet we also make choices and determine things for ourselves. The two work in accord with eachother.

[Kelly Jones]

Scott,

I think you're joking. Or your memory is not very good. See the following switchbacks:

I'm 100% convinced, but as I've said before on these forums, not 100% certain.

[snip]

I'm absolutely convinced it's not possible.

[snip]

I'm certain it's one of the greatest techniques.

[snip]

When I say "everyone is deluded and no one can attain perfection" I do include myself!

and:

K: The more conscious of reality and of how things are appearing to me, the more enlightened I am, and the more appropriately I can act.

Scott: That's not enlightenment at all, Kelly.

[snip]

Scott: I'm not falling for it, Kelly. You haven't attained enlightenment. There isn't any temporary enlightened state. What you try to impress upon your mind isn't truth, at all.

[snip]

I'm not the one claiming to be wise. In fact, I've claimed the opposite. When I say "everyone is deluded and no one can attain perfection" I do include myself!

I think your word games and switchbacks are signs of being tired and thoughtless. I don't think it's worth pursuing this conversation.


K

[sschaula]

Well I don't feel any need to convince you of anything. We were just having a discussion.

I really don't see where you found any "switchbacks". I don't even know what a switchback is. A contradiction?

About any "word games" I'm playing - it's only because you're pushing my wording, so I have to come up with a new way to describe what I'm saying. For instance, with the certainty about no one being able to attain perfect enlightenment. I can't say that because I don't know everyone all throughout history. But I am thoroughly convinced that no one is able to become perfect.

Anyway, whatever you want. Conversation done - fine. Keep it going - fine.

[Kelly Jones]

For instance, with the certainty about no one being able to attain perfect enlightenment. I can't say that because I don't know everyone all throughout history. But I am thoroughly convinced that no one is able to become perfect.

This is really the only part I've been "pushing" you to make sense:

1. you assert that it is logically possible to become free of delusional thinking
2. you assert that it is possible in real life to become free of delusional thinking - given your statements about the Goenka stuff

but

3. you also assert that it is not possible in real life to be always free of delusional thinking.

Why?

-

[Kelly Jones]

I think Kelly has a bias against vipassana because it's Buddhist, and thus keeps a closed mind towards it.

Vipassana means insight into the nature of Ultimate Reality, the nature of all things. I don't have a closed mind towards this.

What about you, Toban?


-

[sschaula]

Kelly,

This is really the only part I've been "pushing" you to make sense:

1. you assert that it is logically possible to become free of delusional thinking
2. you assert that it is possible in real life to become free of delusional thinking - given your statements about the Goenka stuff

but

3. you also assert that it is not possible in real life to be always free of delusional thinking.

Why?

Because that's the way it is.

Maybe I'm not understanding your question....

[Kelly Jones]

What is the reasoning behind your 100% convinced? or 100% certain? conclusion that it is not possible in real life to be always free of delusional thinking, Scott?

Note that experience cannot be relied on to provide 100% certainty in this question, because always is always experientially dependent on the uncertain future.

Therefore, your 100% certainty or conviction has to rely on a purely logical definition, about the perfectly enlightened mind. Are you willing to provide one?


-

[sschaula]

What is the reasoning behind your 100% convinced? or 100% certain? conclusion that it is not possible in real life to be always free of delusional thinking, Scott?

It needs no reasoning. All you have to do is look and see that no person is perfect.

Note that experience cannot be relied on to provide 100% certainty in this question, because always is always experientially dependent on the uncertain future.

It can be relied on, because it's highly unlikely that any future event would suddenly change human nature.

Therefore, your 100% certainty or conviction has to rely on a purely logical definition, about the perfectly enlightened mind. Are you willing to provide one?

No, it doesn't. I'd be willing if I understood what you were asking for.

[Kelly Jones]

So, does "human nature" negate the possibility of having no delusions, or of removing delusions, Scott?

I reckon this conversation will go on and on, first you saying, "All attachments can be removed" and then changing your mind and saying, "No one can remove all attachments".

I am starting to think you have a kind of mental disorder of some kind. There's a serious issue with your memory and thinking.

Blessed is he who is not offended.

-

[sschaula]

People don't become perfect, is all I'm saying. They can remove delusions through techniques like Vipassana.

Did I say "All attachments can be removed"? No. Why did you add that little word? To prove your point?

You might want to chill out if you want to continue a reasonable discussion.

[Kelly Jones]

I think I finally understand where you're coming from.

Do you believe that all delusions are different, that each needs a different technique, in order for them to be halted?

-

[sschaula]

Well, the ego is a bit different than other delusions. I don't think you can see through it by having a philosophical system of thought and applying it to experience. The ego is too tricky for that, and it adapts to the new way of thinking so it's never truly seen through. What's needed is some external means, like the discipline of mind and body with Vipassana.