TBnRB's Meditation POWWOW

[TB]

I've mentioned the Brahma Viharas in brief, but maybe I'll make a little more detailed post about it.

 

Also known as the Divine Abodes or The Four Immeasurables, they are qualities of mind that you can cultivate for the benefit of yourself and all beings. Daniel Ingram considers it one of the highest form of white or skillful magick (good, selfless magick. Also magick with a k to separate from show magic illusions).

 

The first one is metta, or loving kindness (also known as loving friendliness). My first post in this thread is about that. It is about a wishing for happiness and wellness for beings. Each Brahma Vihara has a far enemy and a near enemy. This means qualities of mind that opposes it, and qualities of mind that is a problematic facsimile of it, respectively. The far enemy of metta is hatred. The near enemy of metta is grasping desire, attachment, and lust. For this reason, it is recommended to not do metta for someone you have a sexual attraction towards, though if you can manage to handle it without feeling lust or desire for the person during it, you can do it.

 

The second one is karuna, or compassion. This is a wish for the suffering of others to cease. My metta instructions in the beginning also including this, and at the time I did not know that was karuna, but it is in Culadasa's metta instructions. The far enemy of karuna is cruelty. The near enemy of karuna is pity.

 

The third one is mudita, or sympathetic joy. This is a joy for the success and happiness of others. The far enemy of mudita is jealousy and envy. The near enemy of mudita is also desire.

 

The fourth one is upekkha, or equanimity. This is the feeling of peace that comes from realizing that all beings are the true heirs of their karma and that their well being depends on their actions, and not on our wishes for them; it also entails a lack of attachment or aversion to any classes of beings and any individual beings. It helps balance out the other three Immeasurables. Note there is multiple different uses of the word upekkha or equanimity in the writings, so this is just one specific use in this context.

 

First you want to reflect on the the dangers the quality of mind that the Brahma Vihara opposes, then you want to repeat the below phrases.

 

I'll quote Daniel Ingram's book on phrases you can use for each to do the practice with. His metta phrases are different from mine. You can tweak the phrases to your own liking, as well.

 

For loving kindness:

May _____ be happy. May ____ be peaceful. May _____ be safe. May _____ live with ease.

 

For compassion:

May _____ be free from suffering. May their suffering finally cease.

 

For sympathetic joy:

May the happiness and good fortune of _____ always increase.

 

For equanimity:

____ is/are the true heirs of their karma. ____’s happiness depends upon their actions and not upon my wishes for them.

 

Fill blank in with the person of your choosing, which would be one of these following classes of beings, in order from how you should generally do them.

 

For yourself (equanimity is the exception for this one)

 

For a friend (maybe your tulpa? Also a meditation teacher I recently spoke to said you could even use a fictional character if you want to, so if you want to give pikachu metta, if it works for you, go ahead)

 

For someone neutral (like the janitor to your college assuming you've never talked to them, or only in brief, or someone you passed by on the street, or an acquaintance)

 

For someone hostile or that you bear ill will against

 

For all beings everywhere

 

It is recommended to practice the Four Immeasurables in order, but if it feels right you can do them out of order. According to Daniel Ingram, you want to balance them and try not to just do only one (oops, I've only done metta my whole life, lol, but my metta seems to involve karuna as well).

 

You repeat the phrases until you start to feel the emotion it indicates (also try to just imagine what it would feel like to feel these things). Then you send the feeling to your targets, maintaining it. Visualize your target and how they may react to suddenly being filled with these feelings. You try to maintain it for all targets, but it will probably get harder as you go through.

 

You can then also send the feelings out in the six directions, that being front, back, sides, up and down, then pervading everywhere at once. You can imagine it as beams of light going in those ways. You can also try to imagine covering your neighborhood, then town, then state or country, then the whole world, and perhaps the universe. If you believe in it, you can send it to bleeding through to all the realms of existence (like Heaven and Hell and others).

 

As the feeling grows, you can also take the feeling as a shamatha (shaw maw taw) practice (concentration, so focus on the feeling and nurture it). Focusing on the good feeling is a positive feedback loop, and can lead into jhana. "As the feeling of the brahma vihara grows, we turn that feeling into an object of shamatha practice, such that we take that feeling and develop it directly, working with it, expanding it, gently coaxing it through any blockages or sticking points we find, extending it through our body until it pervades our whole body, and finally expanding the feeling everywhere. This is good advice for any jhana practice."

 

Hope this is useful to someone, if not at least interesting.

Edited December 26, 2023 by TB

[Ashley]

In appreciate you putting this together. So don't take our take as anything but an expression of our interpretation and don't take this as an argument against what you wrote or your interpretation of it, rather as an alternative that has worked for us.

 

...

 

All this seems forced to me. Excuse me for not following Daniel Ingram, we're naturally wary of celebrities of any form. In the simplest distillation we can utter, when you fill yourself with these qualities, they will overflow onto those around you. Your own wellbeing becomes a beaming light, and your nature will always reflect on those around you.

 

It can't be forced like a Tulpa in our reckoning, you must place yourself first and foremost, love yourself, have kindness toward yourself, happiness and wellbeing within yourself, compassion for yourself and an ease of your own suffering first: the abandonment of attachments, and in doing these all that will be left within you is joy. Joy in the face of adversity, joy in the face of betrayal and loss, joy despite tragedy.

 

"For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away." - Matthew 25:29 

 

To us this applies to everything, not just work, not just material possession. Contentment is it's own reward, and there is no greater reward, the result is joy in everything and abundance of what matters most.

 

This doesn't mean you can't express all these toward others but some may not appreciate or need that, some may benefit simply from your presence and example, some may benefit from constructive criticism in a way, you can never know what is in someone else's heart. So first and foremost all these qualities need to be solidly mastered within you before you can hope to overflow any onto others, and that aura should be natural and available to those who need it and not given to those who don't need it or can't receive it. 

 

"'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.'...  they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit" - Mathew 15:8-20 

 

To us this also applies here, it doesn't matter what words go in, all well formed and repeated until memorized, it is what words come out when you are at your lowest, when you have nothing to lose and nothing to gain. Keeping up appearances when it is not in your heart helps no one, and it is clear to everyone who sees.

 

A great sage compiled these words as they were in his heart, and others think that if they know the words, the heart will follow, but it is strictly the other way around. Once it's in your heart, the words are arbitrary.

[TB]

13 hours ago, Ashley said:

In appreciate you putting this together. So don't take our take as anything but an expression of our interpretation and don't take this as an argument against what you wrote or your interpretation of it, rather as an alternative that has worked for us.

I appreciate your perspective

 

13 hours ago, Ashley said:

Excuse me for not following Daniel Ingram, we're naturally wary of celebrities of any form

I wouldn't really call him a celebrity. He just gets interviewed a lot by obscure channels interested in awakening and these videos generally have a couple thousand views or so, give or take. And he wrote a book and runs a forum. You did say any form, maybe this counts for you

 

13 hours ago, Ashley said:

In the simplest distillation we can utter, when you fill yourself with these qualities, they will overflow onto those around you. Your own wellbeing becomes a beaming light, and your nature will always reflect on those around you.

I agree. These sorts of people are said to usually have a felt aura that just raises the mood of the room of wherever they go. That's why it is important to start with giving the quality to yourself and feeling it yourself. I didn't mention it in this one but in the metta one that was the first post, but yourself is the first and last person you do this towards

 

13 hours ago, Ashley said:

It can't be forced like a Tulpa in our reckoning, you must place yourself first and foremost, love yourself, have kindness toward yourself, happiness and wellbeing within yourself, compassion for yourself and an ease of your own suffering first: the abandonment of attachments, and in doing these all that will be left within you is joy. Joy in the face of adversity, joy in the face of betrayal and loss, joy despite tragedy.

It does make you much more resilient to these things. It is often recommended to people struggling with trauma, which makes it pretty good for me if I can get it working. Some people are like a dead switch that won't light up though, but there are ways to try and get it going with persistence, it seems... I think it is good for tulpa forcing as it eventually involves focusing on others and if the other is your tulpa, well you are giving them attention so I think that's forcing, and you are giving them positive emotional bleed so you both are enjoying your time and improving mental state

 

13 hours ago, Ashley said:

This doesn't mean you can't express all these toward others but some may not appreciate or need that, some may benefit simply from your presence and example, some may benefit from constructive criticism in a way, you can never know what is in someone else's heart. So first and foremost all these qualities need to be solidly mastered within you before you can hope to overflow any onto others, and that aura should be natural and available to those who need it and not given to those who don't need it or can't receive it. 

It is a thing that requires practice so you can master generating the feelings for yourself. After that, sending it to other people does one or both of two things. If you are a materialist, it at least softens your heart and makes you care for others more, I suppose. Joseph Goldstein once recounted him doing this for a farmer he would see daily while passing by them on the bus or train, and after a while, anytime he saw that farmer he would be filled with joy to see him, so that's a positive effect and would probably make interactions with that farmer better if he were to have any. The second thing is if you believe in magick, it actually is improving someone else's day, if even a little, which increasing the happiness of the world is generally a good thing. Some would say the barriers between our minds is shallower than you'd think, and one's mind could affect another's. Even if not, the change in yourself it causes would probably still make interactions with them better, making them happier.

 

I reckon you might be saying you aren't sure it is worth doing for the enemy or person you have ill will against, since they may be seen as someone who won't receive it. Generally it is painful to have ill will or hatred to someone, and this will lessen that and make you feel less of the pain of that. That's one of the main things. I used to do it to my dad's old gf who was the narcissist I talked about living with long ago. I still hated her, and didn't really go out of my way to make her day or anything, but it probably helped keep me a little more sane, as I was really about to go off the deep end. She was impossible to deal with, but whatever made the internal experience of facing her a little more bearable and counteracted the... opposite of metta I'd unconsciously do.

 

13 hours ago, Ashley said:

To us this also applies here, it doesn't matter what words go in, all well formed and repeated until memorized, it is what words come out when you are at your lowest, when you have nothing to lose and nothing to gain. Keeping up appearances when it is not in your heart helps no one, and it is clear to everyone who sees.

 

A great sage compiled these words as they were in his heart, and others think that if they know the words, the heart will follow, but it is strictly the other way around. Once it's in your heart, the words are arbitrary.

Maybe kinda, but I'm not sure. If my only experience with these techniques was my recent attempts I might agree, but long ago it seemed to really do something. Well, I would also try to imagine what it would feel like to not suffer, so that helps. I guess you kind of tackle the issue of generating these feelings from multiple fronts, from phrases, imagining visual imagery that is pleasant to you, and conceptual imagination. And as much as I use to cringe at it, cognitive behavioral therapy would say changing your thoughts repeatedly enough will eventually change your emotions and then your behaviors. I would be on your side and say that if I don't believe my thoughts, how could it possibly do these things, but maybe it does afterall. I'm still finding out for myself

 

Thanks so much for your thoughts! I appreciate people's feedback and opinions on my posts

It's not mastered within myself yet though so it could have gone better if it was, but I still think it helped a little.

Something weird happened and I don't know if it messed up my message somewhere... I don't have time to reread it again to see, so I hope it is comprehensible, lol

[Ashley]

5 hours ago, TB said:

You did say any form, maybe this counts for you

 

If he seeks celebrity, that's enough.

 

5 hours ago, TB said:

yourself is the first and last person you do this towards

 

1st, last and only. Why would you direct energy or "wishes" toward anyone or anything else? This is admitting you are judging them as incomplete in some way. Acceptance is the only way, and again, this is all you. Unless they ask you for help. 

 

5 hours ago, TB said:

tulpa forcing as it eventually involves focusing on others

 

I'm saying no. You can't know anyone beyond what they show you, and that's a miniscule fraction of them. You could be far off target. The point is, you're setting yourself up for dissapointment by the very nature of focusing on others. Think of it like this: there's nothing at all wrong with a tree, you're only seeing yourself knarled and cracked in it. The tree is perfect already, a billion years of evolution made it so. Accept the supposed flaws as beauty marks.

 

For a tulpa, all's fair buy don't conflate the two.

 

5 hours ago, TB said:

I reckon you might be saying you aren't sure it is worth doing for the enemy or person you have ill will against

 

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. Helping yourself helps everyone. Who needs enemies or ill will? Those shouldn't enter your mind. Would you hate a puppy that bit you? Better yet, would you hate the alligator that bit you? It takes two to be bitten by an alligator, the alligator has biting in its nature and you knew that before you were bitten. There's no sense in hating or having ill will towards an alligator but don't turn the other cheek either. Instead respect the nature of them and accept it, defend against it if necessary. Pacifism is a whole other thing and not required here.

 

5 hours ago, TB said:

it seemed to really do something

 

To me the work on yourself would really do something. The self conditioning someone would impose on someone else is fantasy from a materialist/psychological perspective. Magik is thus your own self-hypnosis.

 

Don't take me for a materialist though, there's a lot to be said about self-fulfilling prophecies and so I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but take this along with my prior points above. We aren't materialists or wizards here. Whatever we are, we are, that's all.

 

All of it "in our opinion" obviously.  Certainly some people, celebrities or not, have good interpretations and some don't.

 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Ashley

[TB]

3 hours ago, Ashley said:

If he seeks celebrity, that's enough.

I'm not sure what that means, but I don't think he does that. He just seeks to spread information he feels is helpful, that he wish he had when he was going through this, and to hear what others go through on this path and give advice (usually one off because he doesn't like teacher student dynamics and hates people idolizing him or transferrence/countertransferrence)

 

3 hours ago, Ashley said:

1st, last and only. Why would you direct energy or "wishes" toward anyone or anything else? This is admitting you are judging them as incomplete in some way. Acceptance is the only way, and again, this is all you. Unless they ask you for help. 

Not sure it is judging them as incomplete more so than recognizing that if you were born into this world you are suffering, and wishing for the suffering to be less. This is counterbalanced by the last one that says they are in charge of themselves, and to not be attached to outcomes

 

4 hours ago, Ashley said:

you're setting yourself up for dissapointment by the very nature of focusing on others

I think that's what the fourth one, upekkha or equanimity is for. Also I don't think it is saying there is something wrong or imperfect about them, it's just a spirit of wanting the best for the people around you

 

4 hours ago, Ashley said:

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. Helping yourself helps everyone.

That's true, I agree, and so does daniel

 

4 hours ago, Ashley said:

Who needs enemies or ill will? Those shouldn't enter your mind.

It's not good to enter your mind but it happens to people, so I think it is good to wish for it to stop arising in ourselves and others if it does, and work towards that reality. I think these practices are basically the practice of the opposite of ill will

 

4 hours ago, Ashley said:

To me the work on yourself would really do something.

I guess we disagree that this would count as work on yourself

 

4 hours ago, Ashley said:

The self conditioning someone would impose on someone else is fantasy from a materialist/psychological perspective. Magik is thus your own self-hypnosis.

I have yet to experience a genuine instance of magick, so I'm agnostic to it at this point, but magick or no magick, it does have a casual effect on the world outside of yourself because of how it would affect your behavior. I think we may disagree if there is a positive effect or not. I'm not sure if you think there is a negative one or not. Maybe you just think it is a waste of time? I guess you say it could work in your next line

 

4 hours ago, Ashley said:

Don't take me for a materialist though, there's a lot to be said about self-fulfilling prophecies and so I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but take this along with my prior points above. We aren't materialists or wizards here. Whatever we are, we are, that's all.

I may have gathered some from your posts in the past, but I am curious to what you would consider yourself ontologically or however you want to say it. As you imply it isn't just a dichotomy of magick or materialist, there are a lot of worldviews. I guess we are always learning new things with quantum physics and many other things, so maybe even materialist isn't the most logical belief out there (though not going to say I understand quantum physics, but from what I have heard it sounds pretty spooky and far out)

 

Thanks for the continued discussion! I shouldn't expect everyone would always only agree with each other in this thread

 

[Ashley]

3 hours ago, TB said:

hates people idolizing him or transferrence/countertransferrence

 

At least

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

wishing for the suffering to be less

 

No action is without reaction. Bear's suffering was severe enough to bring him to a catharsis after only a year. If it had been lessened enough he would have been trapped in it much longer, never needed us, and we wouldn't be discussing this now. There's a chance he'd be miserable even today.

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

wanting the best for the people around you

 

What happens when you wish for the best for someone, they improve and then become a serial killer or worse? Could you live with the fact that your intervention caused harm to others through the one you "helped"? Sometimes it's better not to interfere at all, and how do you know what times they are? Neutrality, and simple acceptance isn't cruel, it isn't kind, but it's fair where so little else in this world is. That doesn't mean you can't help others indirectly, and you should only feel bad for the intent of your choices when you made them, not their outcome, but to interfere with someone else, in our opinion, leads to obligation and attachment. Sympathy, empathy, understanding, mercy, these are all important when they're required of you. As you posted before, they all have compliments, such as pity which should be avoided.

 

You are following doctrine from well vetted sources with large followings, but they're still just interpretations and profitable ones at that. That brings about incentives that can taint the message. Sometimes it's just good business to lead people to decisions that feel good and right but end up entrapping them in a cycle. If you don't follow this, don't mind us.

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

[harboring ill will] happens to people

 

Everything you can think of happens, more than half of them shouldn't.

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

so I think it is good to wish for it to stop arising in ourselves

 

Good so far

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

and others

 

We can't begin to know why they appear to act this way. We can't know if we're interpreting their actions correctly, we can't know what's in their heart. You are presuming ill of them, that's a judgement, that's considering them lesser in some way. You shouldn't think lesser of others. You have an obligation to protect yourself and others from danger if you can, but no right to presume you understand them. 

 

The opposite of liberty is oppression. If you really had the power to change them, but they didn't need changing, that's oppression.

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

I guess we disagree that this would count as work on yourself

 

Your point isn't lost on me, but it's an attachment and attachments lead only to suffering. Acceptance is neutral. Complacency isn't neutral however. 

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

Maybe you just think it is a waste of time?

 

It's an attachment, you could even begin to think you need others to fulfill your needs. What if everyone you met needed nothing, then would you start considering ticks and blemishes something that needed changing? Again, would you be so inclined to call a tree ugly for having a knot when you couldn't think of anything else to "help" it with? After Bear's awakening, he stopped considering others as lesser or needing help, but he didn't lose his understanding of safety. Some people are verifiably dangerous, that doesn't mean they need his help or his pity or his judgement. He wouldn't invite them into his home however. You don't turn the other cheek to a crocodile.

 

4 hours ago, TB said:

what you would consider yourself ontologically

 

Bear had identified with many different things before he could accept himself for whatever he is. After many years we finally convinced him he didn't need to be perfect, that he can have knots, even if they serve no purpose. Ontologically speaking, we don't subscribe to non-duality at the material level, we see clear boundaries in many things, and it makes the most sense for us to accept and even appreciate the boundaries. What Bear is, is different then what I am in subtle ways but if you're asking what we are in general then let's choose from these:

 

realism, empiricism, positivism and post-modernism

 

Well it's not realism because we don't rely on or believe in "objective reality".

It's not empiricism because experience is arbitrarily based on past experience and interpretation among other things.

It's not positivism because we're not materialists.

So that leaves us with post-modernism, and specifically relativism. It's a good match but we wouldn't say we are that with certainty.

 

"relativist ontology is based on the philosophy that reality is constructed within the human mind, such that no one 'true' reality exists"

This fits well with Zen, enlightenment and awakening principals.

 

We are anti-doctrinal, we are anti-religious, and anti-statism. This isn't a popular stance obviously and therefore we don't fit will in nearly any group. We're not antinomianist, atheist, or anarchist either. We're not even agnostic, we have chosen beliefs, but these beliefs are capable of changing at our whim.

 

We are safely called syncretic, we believe that reality is subjective at every level, we also appreciate law and order for a level of morality that doesn't exist in reality but ideally it works fine. If everything is subjective, then this gives you the freedom to believe in whatever you want, and even have conflicting or paradoxical beliefs and morals. It's not random, it's situational. Our beliefs are strong, but not solidified because once you strongly believe in something, that's an attachment and you're setting yourself up for suffering. We don't suffer.

[Tomochan]

How do you feel about mantra type meditation and hows it different from the type where you don't think about anything

 

I haven't done much meditation. I'm lazy

[TB]

10 hours ago, Tomochan said:

How do you feel about mantra type meditation and hows it different from the type where you don't think about anything

Welcome!! Unfortunately I don't have much experience in mantra type meditation, but I think it can be cool. Especially when you have a nice mantra that sounds musically pleasant. I'm not good at singing a mantra like that even in my head. Maybe if I listened to more examples, if I could find them. Well, here's one. When I found it long ago the words were in a comment, but seems there's no comments now for some reason. Maybe this is a different one

Spoiler

 

How's it different from the meditation where you don't think about anything? Well, as far as I've studied, there isn't really a meditation where you deliberately try to not think about anything, that would be repression, which you don't want to do. Not thinking about anything else is a side effect of higher states of concentration. You want to focus on something like the breath, and when you get distracted, congratulate yourself for realizing you're distracted and return to the breath. Eventually (kind of a big eventually) thoughts will become more and more in the background, and eventually stop. Mantra meditation is just choosing to have a mantra as your meditation object, so you are repeating it in your head over and over again (or out loud if you want) and putting all your attention on doing that and listening to it. In higher states of concentration the mantra will start to morph and do strange things, of which I forget the details of right now, but it sounded pretty cool. You can have just about anything as a meditation object. If you are doing a noting practice, even distractions become fuel for your noting practice.

10 hours ago, Tomochan said:

I haven't done much meditation. I'm lazy

I'm lazy too but meditation becomes a lot easier once you start entering flow when you do it. At that point it naturally becomes fun. I hope you can enter flow sometime.

 

The rest of this post is directed to Ashley

 

11 hours ago, Ashley said:

No action is without reaction. Bear's suffering was severe enough to bring him to a catharsis after only a year. If it had been lessened enough he would have been trapped in it much longer, never needed us, and we wouldn't be discussing this now. There's a chance he'd be miserable even today.

It's how to predict how things could have been if things were different, but perhaps. It's nice to look back at bad times and see how something good came from it. There's a word for it that I forget what it is. Though in the compassion vihara you are wishing for the suffering to totally cease, how much it decreases from the practice is unclear and hard to predict. I don't think it would be good to increase someone's suffering because you think it will give them an eventual catharsis. You could just as easily drive someone to suicide from that, or prevent a suicide from decreasing it even a little (not saying you are saying to increase people's suffering for catharsis)

 

11 hours ago, Ashley said:

What happens when you wish for the best for someone, they improve and then become a serial killer or worse?

That's a very strange scenario. I don't know why someone improving would make them a serial killer, especially if you were wishing they become free from ill will. If you helped someone and then they became a serial killer, that's not your fault and totally unpredictable, and probably would have happened anyway. I think you'd be more likely to stop a serial killer, like showing a bullied potential school shooter kindness and making them change their mind since they finally get a friend.

 

11 hours ago, Ashley said:

Neutrality, and simple acceptance isn't cruel, it isn't kind, but it's fair where so little else in this world is.

I think if you can easily help someone and don't, that's kind of cruel. Not as bad as harming someone, but if a blind man was walking towards a cliff, would you not stop them or at least warn them?

 

11 hours ago, Ashley said:

That doesn't mean you can't help others indirectly, and you should only feel bad for the intent of your choices when you made them, not their outcome, but to interfere with someone else, in our opinion, leads to obligation and attachment

I agree with the only feel bad for the intent of your choice, not their outcome. That applies to the helping someone and them becoming a serial killer, too. You can't feel bad for that other than the badness you might feel if anyone became a serial killer. As for helping someone else directly leading to obligation and attachment, that's what equanimity is for. I think you can help people without becoming attached. Awakened people do it all the time

 

11 hours ago, Ashley said:

You are following doctrine from well vetted sources with large followings, but they're still just interpretations and profitable ones at that. That brings about incentives that can taint the message. Sometimes it's just good business to lead people to decisions that feel good and right but end up entrapping them in a cycle. If you don't follow this, don't mind us.

I try to avoid harmful or seemingly incorrect doctrine, but I don't think the brahma viharas are that. They are just advice, and I don't see how they are profitable. Buddhism is the opposite of evangelical christianity. You don't see billion dollar monasteries with mega rich sayadaws or abbots. Monks deliberately live in poverty and survive off donations, often just food and supplies donations, and teach the dharma for free. (I'm sure there are exceptions as there are to everything, but in general I believe this is how it is). Compared to religions like christianity, the buddhist texts are basically in their original form. There's no 17th century king james revision of the pali canon. The only downside is the buddha's words were written down one or two hundred years after his death, so it was in the memory of his followers, which may not be perfect (but I think people had better memory back then). They are apparently good enough his instructions still get people enlightenment to this day.

 

I disagree practicing the brahma viharas would trap you in some sort of cycle, or that helping others directly could be harmful to them or others. I guess we'd have to agree to disagree

 

11 hours ago, Ashley said:

You are presuming ill of them, that's a judgement, that's considering them lesser in some way. You shouldn't think lesser of others.

I think you can acknowledge others may have ill will inside them and still not think of them as lesser. We're all human, they are as susceptible to ill will as we are. And finding an individual who has literally none would be so rare if possible at all. I think one can have very very little, but none is quite an achievement. Someone who says they don't have negative emotions is likely just repressing them in themselves.

 

11 hours ago, Ashley said:

The opposite of liberty is oppression. If you really had the power to change them, but they didn't need changing, that's oppression.

I mean... it's not like you are trying to dictate their life, or something. If you wish someone is safe and happy, and they are already safe and happy, they could likely be even safer and even happier, and if not, well it's kind of a wash and nothing happens. Being the light of someone's day that is already happy isn't oppression, it's just being a kind and bright person. You don't have to treat everyone with a cold neutrality because you are afraid doing otherwise might cause some negative chain of events for themselves or others. Good moods can be infectious, and treating someone kindly will make it more likely they treat someone else kindly, and I think that's a good thing, not a danger. I really disagree with your perceived danger of doing good things. Do you think charity or volunteering is bad? Are the people at a soup kitchen doing harm to the hungry by feeding them? Are they judging them as lesser because they think people need the help? I've had to eat at a soup kitchen many times, I don't think I'm worse off because of it, and I think the others who ate with me would agree. Sorry if I misunderstand something

 

11 hours ago, Ashley said:

Your point isn't lost on me, but it's an attachment and attachments lead only to suffering. Acceptance is neutral. Complacency isn't neutral however. 

Equanimity, the fourth one. You can accept how things are and still try to help or at least make others happy in other ways. I understand it can sometimes be bad to help someone who didn't ask for it, but just be available to help if they need it, and just be bright and infectious with your good mood and basic courtesies

 

12 hours ago, Ashley said:

It's an attachment, you could even begin to think you need others to fulfill your needs. What if everyone you met needed nothing, then would you start considering ticks and blemishes something that needed changing? Again, would you be so inclined to call a tree ugly for having a knot when you couldn't think of anything else to "help" it with?

Like I said above I guess. Just be available if the need arises, and be bright, kind, and courtesy. And I don't think wishing for someone's well being if they are already doing well is the same as trying to change them. It's just wishing they continue to do well, and also the sympathetic joy, the third one, taking delight in their success and doing well. In Buddhism there is a concept called skillful means. It's knowing how best to help, which would include knowing when you don't need to do anything, and avoiding helping that accidentally causes harm. Meditation helps with this because you can see things more objectively after a while, and come to new insights about a situation that you might not have thought of before.

 

12 hours ago, Ashley said:

After Bear's awakening, he stopped considering others as lesser or needing help, but he didn't lose his understanding of safety.

Seeing someone need help isn't seeing them as lesser. We all need help at some point. I'm not sure why you think needing help is a flaw of being (unless if you have insane perfect standards). And again also, skillful means. I'm not advocated for forcing help on people who don't want it. Also unlike christianity, buddhists don't preach to people who don't want to hear it. They only teach those that come to them wanting advice (of course there is some buddhist out there preaching to people who don't want it, I'm sure, but it isn't apart of their doctrine and not how they usually function. In fact when the buddha first became enlightened he originally decided to not tell or teach anyone about it because he felt what he realized is too subtle and hard to comprehend for a world filled with greed and hatred. he only started teaching others to attain what he attained after a god manifested himself in front of the buddha and begged him to teach for the benefit of others, saying there are at least some people out there that want to hear it, and thus he went to other people seeking what he found)

 

12 hours ago, Ashley said:

Bear had identified with many different things before he could accept himself for whatever he is.

Interesting. Thanks for telling me

 

12 hours ago, Ashley said:

We don't suffer.

Everyone is subject to some basic sufferings from having been born. Sickness, aging, and death (of ourself and seeing it happen to others) to name a few. An awakened person doesn't really have craving or aversion so they accept it a lot better, but it still sucks. There was a buddha, channa I think (idr names), who killed themselves because the suffering from their illness was too painful to bear. hehe bear. or is it bare? am I retarded?

[Ashley]

2 hours ago, TB said:

how much it decreases from the practice is unclear and hard to predict. I don't think it would be good to increase someone's suffering because you think it will give them an eventual catharsis. You could just as easily drive someone to suicide

 

That's why you don't meddle. There must be a philosophy we're describing here.

 

Maybe Mahayana arrogance or Buddhist non-attachment but we could be cherry picking some slice through philosophy.

 

"Arrogance (nga-rgyal, pride) is a puffed-up mind (khengs-pa) based on a deluded outlook toward a transitory network (‘jig-lta). [...] It functions to make us not appreciate others or respect the good qualities of others (mi-gus-pa) and to prevent us from learning anything."

 

"Non-attachment emphasizes the importance of letting go of attachment to material possessions, relationships, and thoughts and emotions to cultivate inner peace and contentment."

 

And why not throw in the prime directive? 

 

"History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."

 

Kinda this but on a personal level.

 

2 hours ago, TB said:

that's not your fault and totally unpredictable, and probably would have happened anyway

 

The example was internally rediculous to illustrate the fact that we can't know how interfering with others will end up. You're playing whack-a-mole with my statements but the statements aren't the issue, the issue is my inability to convey a philosophy that might be unique to us but probably exists. Think of this scenario: you are rich and feel bad for a poor person and out of the kindness of your heart give them million dollars. They consider it an endless sum and quickly spend it, then go into further debt to sustain a frivolous lifestyle. Now they're destitute. The million dollars had an altruistic basis but ultimately harmed them. (See lottery winners.) 

 

2 hours ago, TB said:

I think if you can easily help someone and don't, that's kind of cruel.

 

Nothing you do, good, bad, kind or cruel can be qualified purely in one category by all possible perspectives. You save a tribe from disaster and they turn around and kill or subjugat a neighboring tribe. You provide clean water to a community to help their heath and welfare and in doing so cut them off from their tainted sources. But a local militia comes and ransomes the new water (or a multi-national corporation does). What's crueler, letting them live with tainted water that shortens their life or putting them in indentured servitude as a price for clean water?

 

2 hours ago, TB said:

I think you can help people without becoming attached. Awakened people do it all the time

 

We're just stating our opinion. And that opinion is that this is one possibility, but other unpredictable ones exist. Ultimately if you do what you feel is right, rest soundly. But what we feel is right is not to interfere with the affairs of others. You don't know the circumstances that led the blind man toward the cliff. You simply prevented them from falling. Put in another way, out of the kindness of your heart you enacted a law making it illegal to participate in assisted suicide or euthanasia. Now those people must suffer to their last breath.

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

I disagree practicing the brahma viharas would trap you in some sort of cycle, or that helping others directly could be harmful to them or others.

 

Daniel Ingram has surely profited from his book. The guy has a lot going on, he didn't need to charge for it. He certainly didn't need to charge $33 for it. 

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

And finding an individual who has literally none would be so rare if possible at all.

 

You have so little faith in individuals that they all must be suffering and need your help? That sounds like arrogance, but you would need to look at why you are choosing to spend your energy towards others and not yourself, unless you're perfect of course.

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

You don't have to treat everyone with a cold neutrality because you are afraid

 

I knew you'd bring that up. There is no fear, there is, in our opinion, a higher form of kindness in letting others be with the caveat that you are certainly able to help someone who clearly has need and asks for help or to prevent crime. A parent can hover over their child and prevent every possible injury and there's merit to that but the child is missing out on learning important life lessons when they could easily recover from them. Once the parent is gone they'll make these mistakes when the stakes are much higher. A toddler learns to walk and run with a lot of falling down but they don't have far to fall.

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

Do you think charity or volunteering is bad? Are the people at a soup kitchen doing harm to the hungry by feeding them? Are they judging them as lesser because they think people need the help?

 

Do you think feeding squirrels in the park is bad? If not why do they have signs preventing it? Do you think supplying needles is bad? How about supplying needles near a school? Do you think allowing unhoused to sleep anywhere they like on public land is bad? What about inside a schoolyard? Do you think giving money to people is bad? What about rampant inflation? These are all extreme examples of supposedly good deeds. From an arbitrary perspective they're good, and from another they're awful. Some are easier then others.

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

And I don't think wishing for someone's well being if they are already doing well is the same as trying to change them.

 

It only matters what your intent is, not on the surface, deep down.

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

In Buddhism there is a concept called skillful means. It's knowing how best to help, which would include knowing when you don't need to do anything, and avoiding helping that accidentally causes harm.

 

There you go, finally there is a an interpretation of a philosophy to back our understanding. This but we're not using it to help ourselves reach further enlightenment, we're only following a few principles:

 

1. Nothing can be known with certainty 

2. Action and inaction are both equally valid based on circumstances 

3. Be mindful or the consequences of your actions.

4. Heal yourself first, last, and always and you will be better able to help society as a whole.

 

3 hours ago, TB said:

Everyone is subject to some basic sufferings from having been born. Sickness, aging, and death (of ourself and seeing it happen to others) to name a few.

 

Obviously physical pain and sickness exist, that's not the suffering I am referring to.

 

When Bear stubs his toe, you better believe it hurts, but he's not going to suffer anger at the offending object or himself. He won't have mental anguish over it. Ultimately he has only himself to blame, but he won't blame himself either. It happened, do what you can to avoid it happening again, and move on.

 

[TB]

1 hour ago, Ashley said:

Daniel Ingram has surely profited from his book. The guy has a lot going on, he didn't need to charge for it. He certainly didn't need to charge $33 for it. 

His book is free on his website mctb.org. If his book is ever mentioned he refers people to go read it that way. Buying a hard copy of it is optional if you want to support him, but he just sends the money to his organization that wants to get meditation/awakening related experiences to be known to the medical world so when someone experiences a kundalini awakening or something they aren't harmfully put on bipolar meds and instead are directed to something that would be helpful for their situation, and that involves getting a lot of studies done so it can be done. He doesn't accept money otherwise cause he says he's well off enough, having been an emergency room doctor, and doesn't need any

 

1 hour ago, Ashley said:

You have so little faith in individuals that they all must be suffering and need your help? That sounds like arrogance, but you would need to look at why you are choosing to spend your energy towards others and not yourself, unless you're perfect of course.

I don't think it is having little faith, it is just expected as it is a fact of life. Also not everyone needs my help, I can only help in the ways that I can, which for me is honestly not very many. I spend most of my time on myself, so I honestly feel kind of selfish for it, but it's the best I can do right now and I agree working on myself helps the world indirectly

 

1 hour ago, Ashley said:

I knew you'd bring that up. There is no fear, there is, in our opinion, a higher form of kindness in letting others be with the caveat that you are certainly able to help someone who clearly has need and asks for help or to prevent crime.

I see. So you would help people, they just have to ask? I think you said that already but the way the conversation was going for a while it didn't feel like the case. I basically agree. I don't want to force help on people who don't want it, unless it is some particular circumstance that it makes sense to (idk what that situation would be, I just like to have the caveat because having a hardline philosophy for acting like that could lead to bad actions if something isn't taken into account

 

1 hour ago, Ashley said:

We're just stating our opinion. And that opinion is that this is one possibility, but other unpredictable ones exist. Ultimately if you do what you feel is right, rest soundly. But what we feel is right is not to interfere with the affairs of others. You don't know the circumstances that led the blind man toward the cliff. You simply prevented them from falling. Put in another way, out of the kindness of your heart you enacted a law making it illegal to participate in assisted suicide or euthanasia. Now those people must suffer to their last breath.

That's why I also said at least warn them, since you don't know if they are trying to walk off a cliff intentionally or not. In case they are just lost, I think it would be helpful to say something

 

In general I think the crux of the disagreement is whether or not practicing the brahma viharas is unwanted help to someone. I don't think it is. The thing about it is it doesn't say how they will be helped, and it is assumed it would be the best possible way, including them helping themselves. You're not necessarily practicing metta to get a poor person to receive a million dollars. It could as easily be they figure out they want to learn the trade they were thinking about learning and get a better job, or something else. But even then, not really that. The main goal is for as many people to reach awakening as possible, so ideally they find peace and happiness because they search for and find awakening, which requires their own effort primarily, which they can get help with if they ask a monastery or online community or even an awakened friend if they have one, perhaps some combination of these things. Also wishing for safety so they can do this without dying, lol. And the equanimity one so you aren't attached to outcomes and realize their happiness depends ultimately on their own thoughts and actions. So maybe we kind of can agree afterall, at least on some level, if not completely? Unless you still disagree about the brahma viharas, if so I'm not sure if we'll come to an agreement

Edited December 28, 2023 by TB