Attachment/Non-Attachment and Practice

[Pathless]

Some heated debate about this subject in toujour's thread on the colorbar. In case people would like to continue discussing the subject, I am creating this new thread.

First, I would like to thank everyone for their input and also humility. It seems that we are all in agreement that there are several different points of view in play here. I will attempt to summarize at least two:

1. All is illusion and suffering; therefore, we must attempt to transcend attachment, which is a key ingredient to suffering. Only in this way--by becoming a Buddha--will we reach liberation and be able to help other beings.
2. Attachment, illusion, and suffering exist at all levels of being, and are relative to experience, context, and other subjective factors. For some, they may appear as obstacles to be transcended; for others, tools to be used to reach greater understanding; for another group, they may even be the raw representation understanding and enlightenment--who knows?
3. The common thread that we can find in both these views, if we allow ourselves, is that there are multiple perspectives on attachment which may be equally valid, depending on person, place, time, and other contexts.

Now I will describe my view of attachments--which is true for me, at this point in my "practice"--and which is certainly relative and subjective, as all things must be when viewed by an individual or from anything other than pure Buddha nature or cosmic mind.

My personal practice these days revolves not around sitting meditation or even a Dharma center, necessarily, but around service. I am active in my small community because I am passionate about certain issues: the environment, peace, free speech, human rights, and others. Right away you can see that I have many attachments--many passions . These are things that, for me, when I work to promote them, bring a sense of fulfilment and well-being. Perhaps, then, I am attached to those feelings as well.

The way I see it, since I did not sell all my stuff and join a community of monks and nuns (who I might add are attached to their ideas of guru, the right way to practice and think, and selfless service), I have to support myself. Right Livelihood is important to me; that is, I know that I get depressed, frustrated, and even risk dipping into cynicism, if I just go get a job to pay the bills. So, for me, it's very important to find work that makes me feel good about what I am doing with my time.

The point I am clumsily attempting to make is that it seems that we are always going to have some kind of attachments, if we simply look at them as things to be abandoned or transcended. Perhaps taking a view of attachments simply as across-the-board things to be thrown away and transcended so that we can reach Nirvana is not quite complete.

When I think deeply of attachments, I think of the suffering that is caused because of such attachments. Then, I begin to look deeply at different attachments and see which ones cause the most suffering; and I look not only at the suffering that the attachments cause me, but the suffering that they may cause other beings as well. From there, I begin to pick my attachments, and perhaps, in a sense, befriend them. My attachemnts and I become well acquainted, and I begin to practice with them, to see how they can benefit me. At the same time, I want to see how my attachments can benefit other beings. Since I know that I currently have a preference (attachment) for working outside because it makes me feel good, and since I recognize that my passion for cleaning up the environment can benefit many people, animals, and plants besides myself, I begin to work towards environmental restoration--so I am working alongside my attachment and letting it play itself out, rather than trying to root it out.

I am attached to the planet I am living on, and I don't see that changing until I die. Not that I shouldn't look deeply into death as well; but while I am alive, I make the decision that I am going to work towards making this planet a more hospitable and friendly place for all of the beings that call it home.

It seems to me that at the root of this debate are two different ways of looking at the world:

1. A transcendental worldview. Much like the worldview of many Christians who see earth as a testing ground for whether or not a soul is worthy of God, this worldview, when filtered through Buddhism, sees the world as, in essence, pure illusion, ready to vanish in a magic puff of (non-)smoke at the moment of critical enlightenment.
2. An immanent worldview. In this view, whether Buddhist, Pagan, or Christian, the reality that we see before us is taken--at least at some level--as truly objective and concrete, and indeed is a real manifestation of cosmic consciousness or God. As such, it becomes important for humans to be stewards of reality, and to work towards its restoration, redemption, or even homeostasis. Also of importance is to comfort other beings and to make reality as joyful as possible. From a Buddhist perspective, a practive of immanence means being in the world, not separate from it, and working actively to create an environment that will be conducive to the liberation of all beings.

My thoughts for now. I look forward to hearing other people's ideas.

Metta,
Pathless

 

[michaellangelo]

i really enjoyed reading your post, pathless!

i guess basically i believe that attachment is a negative thing, in the sense that in the end it will cause us to suffer, but i dont think that we nessiccerally(sp) need to distant ourselves from the things that we get attached to.
there are a lot of things that people have worked really hard for so that we can enjoy them..call them the comforts of life i suppose.. and i think we should really appreciate them. also there are things that individually we enjoy, for example with me its art, and i think we should all persue these.
that said, attachment being a mental thing, we need to put all of these comforts and enjoyments in perspective, knowing that there are more important things to deal with. and i really admire you for having an occupation that allows you to help the envirnment and people.

i dont think i'v made my view very clear, but i guess basically i mean that just because we can practice detatchment it doesnt nessiccerily (sp. theres that word again) mean that we cant persue things that we enjoy.
for me, having a view of non-attachment means that i can enjoy and appreciate these things more, as i try to use producing art as a means to help me on my way along my path.

hmm, not too clear, perhaps this is more of a view for a lay person.

peace

 

[toujour_333]

well, my theory is this, attachment isnt a bad thing unless we let ourselves be upset by the losing of whatever we become attached to. i mean, i think its almost impossible to not become attached to something along the path of life, but as long as we realise that things end and we are ok with that, then the attachment doesnt rule our life, and therefore it doesnt cause a problem. i mean, i think the problem with attachment is the fact that it causes sufferring, and if we take away the sufferring, then is attachment so bad? so, as long as the attachments that we make dont cause sufferring, then i dont see how they can be bad. and the only way for the attachments that we make to not cause sufferring is to realise the inpermanence of all things and become comfortable with that. once we are comfortable with that, then attachments wont cause sufferring anymore. does anyone else see my logic? if not, please let me know and ill try to explain myself further. i hope that everyone is well in peace.


be well in peace,
toujour_333

 

[Pathless]

Thanks for the replies. My view of attachment is quite similar to what the two of you expressed. Perhaps we can then define attachment not necessarily as passion, but more as grief over the passing of things--suffering, if you will.

A quick thought on a different wavelength; not that either of the replies have prompted this particular thought, but--

If we view attachments as inherently negative things and take the transcendent view that I mentioned in my initial post, it seems to me that we risk becoming passive observers of the world. That is, I see a danger in being too detached. If we view everything as impermanent and illusory, why make any effort to make the world a better place? After all, it's not real, so we may as well put our efforts into meditation rather than physical activity.

Thoughts?

 

[toujour_333]

'If we view attachments as inherently negative things and take the transcendent view that I mentioned in my initial post, it seems to me that we risk becoming passive observers of the world. That is, I see a danger in being too detached. If we view everything as impermanent and illusory, why make any effort to make the world a better place? After all, it's not real, so we may as well put our efforts into meditation rather than physical activity.'

well, my thoughts on this is that we should work towards the happiness of those who have yet to see the world in its illusory sense and who are still caught up in attachments and samsara and hopefully as we try to help them find happiness, we can share with them the teachings of the buddha. in seeing the world as illusory we are less inclined to be caught up with finding illusory joys and therefore we can then focus on the helping of others in finding true happiness. thats my personal opinion or how i see things right now. i hope that my preception has helped.

be well in peace

 

[michaellangelo]

interesting points,

i think perhaps even though there are monks and nuns who are training their mind so that one day they will be able to help everyone in i suppose the most ultimate way, untill practitioners attain a profound realization of imperminence/non attatchment, such as these, i feel that there needs to be ballance of our mind and our environment. there are still people who need basic nesseccities of life, who need suport for their human rights, and i feel we should all try to do as much as we can to help people like this, as well as training our mind to attain realisations.

we can do this through things we enjoy, through things which we could get attached to, and there are lots of things we can learn from these, but i agree with toujour that we need to ballancethese with teachings on non-attachment.

peace

 

[Devadatta]

Some heated debate about this subject in toujour's thread on the colorbar. In case people would like to continue discussing the subject, I am creating this new thread.

First, I would like to thank everyone for their input and also humility. It seems that we are all in agreement that there are several different points of view in play here. I will attempt to summarize at least two:

1. All is illusion and suffering; therefore, we must attempt to transcend attachment, which is a key ingredient to suffering. Only in this way--by becoming a Buddha--will we reach liberation and be able to help other beings.
2. Attachment, illusion, and suffering exist at all levels of being, and are relative to experience, context, and other subjective factors. For some, they may appear as obstacles to be transcended; for others, tools to be used to reach greater understanding; for another group, they may even be the raw representation understanding and enlightenment--who knows?
3. The common thread that we can find in both these views, if we allow ourselves, is that there are multiple perspectives on attachment which may be equally valid, depending on person, place, time, and other contexts.

Now I will describe my view of attachments--which is true for me, at this point in my "practice"--and which is certainly relative and subjective, as all things must be when viewed by an individual or from anything other than pure Buddha nature or cosmic mind.

My personal practice these days revolves not around sitting meditation or even a Dharma center, necessarily, but around service. I am active in my small community because I am passionate about certain issues: the environment, peace, free speech, human rights, and others. Right away you can see that I have many attachments--many passions . These are things that, for me, when I work to promote them, bring a sense of fulfilment and well-being. Perhaps, then, I am attached to those feelings as well.

The way I see it, since I did not sell all my stuff and join a community of monks and nuns (who I might add are attached to their ideas of guru, the right way to practice and think, and selfless service), I have to support myself. Right Livelihood is important to me; that is, I know that I get depressed, frustrated, and even risk dipping into cynicism, if I just go get a job to pay the bills. So, for me, it's very important to find work that makes me feel good about what I am doing with my time.

The point I am clumsily attempting to make is that it seems that we are always going to have some kind of attachments, if we simply look at them as things to be abandoned or transcended. Perhaps taking a view of attachments simply as across-the-board things to be thrown away and transcended so that we can reach Nirvana is not quite complete.

When I think deeply of attachments, I think of the suffering that is caused because of such attachments. Then, I begin to look deeply at different attachments and see which ones cause the most suffering; and I look not only at the suffering that the attachments cause me, but the suffering that they may cause other beings as well. From there, I begin to pick my attachments, and perhaps, in a sense, befriend them. My attachemnts and I become well acquainted, and I begin to practice with them, to see how they can benefit me. At the same time, I want to see how my attachments can benefit other beings. Since I know that I currently have a preference (attachment) for working outside because it makes me feel good, and since I recognize that my passion for cleaning up the environment can benefit many people, animals, and plants besides myself, I begin to work towards environmental restoration--so I am working alongside my attachment and letting it play itself out, rather than trying to root it out.

I am attached to the planet I am living on, and I don't see that changing until I die. Not that I shouldn't look deeply into death as well; but while I am alive, I make the decision that I am going to work towards making this planet a more hospitable and friendly place for all of the beings that call it home.

It seems to me that at the root of this debate are two different ways of looking at the world:

1. A transcendental worldview. Much like the worldview of many Christians who see earth as a testing ground for whether or not a soul is worthy of God, this worldview, when filtered through Buddhism, sees the world as, in essence, pure illusion, ready to vanish in a magic puff of (non-)smoke at the moment of critical enlightenment.
2. An immanent worldview. In this view, whether Buddhist, Pagan, or Christian, the reality that we see before us is taken--at least at some level--as truly objective and concrete, and indeed is a real manifestation of cosmic consciousness or God. As such, it becomes important for humans to be stewards of reality, and to work towards its restoration, redemption, or even homeostasis. Also of importance is to comfort other beings and to make reality as joyful as possible. From a Buddhist perspective, a practive of immanence means being in the world, not separate from it, and working actively to create an environment that will be conducive to the liberation of all beings.

My thoughts for now. I look forward to hearing other people's ideas.

- Very good & helpful summary. Many stepping off points on this, and I’ve considered several kinds of responses, but I’ve hesitated until now because I feel I’ve already yakked up my POV sufficiently enough on these threads. But I guess I can’t resist throwing in 2 or 3 more cents.

- There are innumerable approaches to this from both the conceptual side and from the side of practice, and I appreciate everything that’s been said so far.

- But we may all agree that in the end we each have to go back to the very site of the problem. I’m thinking of the exposition of the Four Noble Truths in the Mahasatipatthana Sutta and in particular the section on the arising & cessation of suffering. It’s tanha, we’re told, that arises at the site of everything enticing & pleasurable. And what’s enticing & pleasurable? Well, just about everything: senses, objects, thoughts, ponderings...

- And what’s tanha? It’s usually translated as craving or thirst, but in the context of what we’re discussing it’s attachment, or that part of the idea of attachment we see as the problem.

- But I don’t think tanha is all that easy to sum up. For me it’s not about attachment/detachment but about our basic disposition toward reality & how we process it. For me it’s not about literally cutting off what can’t be cut off, since the nature of reality, conventional & ultimate, is dependent origination, interdependence, or precisely this network of causes & conditions which we sometimes call attachments. So for me it’s not a matter of disengaging & dissolving the elements of reality, but of deeply penetrating the nature of tanha itself, dissolving it, and thus transforming the way we process reality from the ground up.

- Again, I’ll quote (misquote) the Lankavatara: liberation does not entail the obliteration of the senses & their fields but a deep turning in the mind.

- For me, that’s the end game, but of course in the meantime there is the realty of the day-to-day struggle to tame & sublimate tanha and direct it to better & better ends, which you & others have eloquently spoken of here.

- On that topic, there’s the old Zen story you’ve probably heard before. A woman approaches two travelling monks and asks to be carried across a river. The first monk does so. He rejoins the second monk and they continue along the road. After a while the second monk can contain himself no longer: Don’t you remember that we monks are not allowed to touch women? And you’ve carried one across the river! The second monk replies: I carried her across the river, but you have yet to set her down.

- Forgive my artless paraphrase, but this is the best story I’ve heard for summing up the tanha/attachment dilemma.

- And it brings me back to where we started back on the “rainbow” thread. Can we, say, have the hottest sex imaginable (within a compassionate & loving context) with our partner of whatever gender, and then move on to the next innumerable moment without obsessive clinging, longing or craving, without adding any conceptual, abstract overlay, whether “material” or “spiritual”, "transcendent" or "immanent" while never leaving equanimity, or falling into the near enemy territory of indifference? Can we get out of the way of our own liberation?

With metta

 

[samabudhi]

If we view everything as impermanent and illusory, why make any effort to make the world a better place?

You are not separate from the world - the world is a projection of your own mind. Observer and observed, completely interdependent. Maybe do both?

 

[samabudhi]

You had to go and talk about hot sex on the most depressing day of the year, didn't ya!

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

interesting thread and discussion thus far

i had the occassion to be reading the Sammaditthi Sutta today and it seems that, perhaps, some of what is contained therein may be germane to the discussion.

Stress
Saying "Good, friend," having delighted in and approved of Ven. Sariputta's words, the monks asked him a further question: "Would there be another line of reasoning by which a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma?"

"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns stress, the origination of stress, the cessation of stress, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress, then he is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma.

"And what is stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what one wants is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful. This is called stress.

"What is the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. This is called the origination of stress.

"And what is the cessation of stress? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. This is called the cessation of stress.

"And what is the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress? Just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress.

"Now, when a disciple of the noble ones discerns stress, the origination of stress, the cessation of stress, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress in this way, when — having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished aversion-obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession 'I am'; having abandoned ignorance & given rise to clear knowing — he has put an end to suffering & stress right in the here-&-now, it is to this extent, too, that a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma."

Clinging

Saying "Good, friend," having delighted in and approved of Ven. Sariputta's words, the monks asked him a further question: "Would there be another line of reasoning by which a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma?"

"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns clinging, the origination of clinging, the cessation of clinging, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of clinging, then he is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma.

"And what is clinging? What is the origination of clinging? What is the cessation of clinging? What is the way of practice leading to the cessation of clinging?

"There are these four clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

"From the origination of craving comes the origination of clinging. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging. And the way of practice leading to the cessation of clinging is just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

"Now, when a disciple of the noble ones discerns clinging, the origination of clinging, the cessation of clinging, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of clinging in this way, when — having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished aversion-obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession 'I am'; having abandoned ignorance & given rise to clear knowing — he has put an end to suffering & stress right in the here-&-now, it is to this extent, too, that a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma."


Craving

Saying "Good, friend," having delighted in and approved of Ven. Sariputta's words, the monks asked him a further question: "Would there be another line of reasoning by which a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma?"

"There would. When a disciple of the noble ones discerns craving, the origination of craving, the cessation of craving, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of craving, then he is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma.

"And what is craving? What is the origination of craving? What is the cessation of craving? What is the way of practice leading to the cessation of craving?

"There are these six cravings: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.

"From the origination of feeling comes the origination of craving. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. And the way of practice leading to the cessation of craving is just this very noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

"Now, when a disciple of the noble ones discerns craving, the origination of craving, the cessation of craving, and the way of practice leading to the cessation of craving in this way, when — having entirely abandoned passion-obsession, having abolished aversion-obsession, having uprooted the view-&-conceit obsession 'I am'; having abandoned ignorance & given rise to clear knowing — he has put an end to suffering & stress right in the here-&-now, it is to this extent, too, that a disciple of the noble ones is a person of right view... who has arrived at this true Dhamma."

http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-009-tb0.html

please visit the link for the rest of the Sutta and the site for a very good selection of the Pali canon online.

metta,

~v

 

[Devadatta]

i had the occassion to be reading the Sammaditthi Sutta today and it seems that, perhaps, some of what is contained therein may be germane to the discussion.

Hi Vajra. Thanks for bringing in the Sammaditthi, which I agree is very relevant here. I’ll throw out my own nearly random thoughts:

- Although in a sense one section builds on the last, the structure of the sutta is more a series of overlapping conceptual frameworks designed to point to the core truth of craving & its dissolution/transformation.

- Of course this identical procedure is followed in many other suttas, especially the Satipatthana that follows. The four foundations are progressive in a sense, but it’s equally true that insight & liberation are available at every step. All the methods/frameworks come to the same point.

- The Zen masters who jump from 30 blows, to 3 pounds of flax, to katz!! are following the same procedure, coming to the same point by variable means. For me this is one of the fascinations of Buddhism – its inherent consistency beneath the great variety of surface forms, each keyed to a given mentality or mood.

- I think that’s the main reason we can’t cite Buddhist suttas the way others cite biblical scripture.

- So the Sammaditthi progressively sets craving/clinging within the frame of
1. the three wholesome/unwholesome roots (unwholesome roots being craving under other names)
2. nutriment (in dependent origination the arising of this is condition for the arising of that; each moment/dhamma is “food” for the next; craving is implied here as hunger)
3. the Four Noble Truths (craving the centrepiece of course)
4. the Twelvefold chain (craving appears near the “centre” of the chain in its own name and reappears at the “end” as the taints [āsavas]; of course there is no centre or end)

- Again, I don’t think there’s some master frame within which these individual frames are subsets. Each frame is on a footing of equality with the others. (I’m aware of course that after the Buddha scholar-monks made great efforts to systemize & catalogue all 84,000 pointers to liberation – but such are the terrible dangers of tenure!)

- Katz!

- The question is what use we can make of these pointers.

- It seems to me that the true subject of this thread is our contested relationship with the whole idea of “attachment”, and what it really means. Are we to take it literally, or should we approach it in some other way?

- In the Sammaditthi, as in other suttas, attachment in the sense we’ve been talking about is called upādāna, usually translated as “clinging”, and is said to be an intensification of craving.

- But what’s interesting to me is that upādāna doesn’t just cover “clinging” but can also apply to what is clung to. That’s why some translate upādāna as “clinging/sustenance”.

- So here is a very intimate relationship between the act of clinging and the dhammas that are cling to. In a sense, we’re looking at two sides under one heading, one phenomenon seen from two sides.

- But this precisely echoes the central Buddhist metaphor of fire & its extinction. Fire is a phenomenon that appears to be two but is in reality one. In ancient Indian terms, fire resides or is trapped in the fuel itself. In modern terms, fire isn’t a duality of energy and fuel but a unitary chemical transformation.

- (Fire as metaphor opens up endless perspectives, which I have to avoid here if I’m ever to get through this.)

- All our senses, their objects, the consciousness established on our senses, all are on fire, says the Buddha in the Aditta-pariyaya, or Fire Sermon.

- Craving at the sites of all that is enticing & pleasurable, suggests the Mahasatipatthana, intensifies into clinging (fire), i.e., starts the world ablaze, and in a sense creates the world, since we can’t properly distinguish between our clinging (fire) and its world (fuel).

- So that’s the metaphor. But what does the fire and its extinguishing really mean, and what’s left behind?

- Is clinging/craving literally a life force/will that drives everything, or is it merely an added factor? Does craving/clinging literally create the world, or merely the world-as-fuel? Does extinction literally leave nothing behind, or does it leave behind the world-as-it-is? Your face before you were born?

- And if the fire is extinguished before the fuel is exhausted, what then?

- 3 pounds of flax?

- At the root I feel of literalist thinking on this is one of the fundamental conditions of the tradition & its texts: the scientific thought of ancient India.

- Upādāna, as already mentioned, expresses an idea of a particular intimacy, even identity between the act of clinging and what is clung to that is common to ancient Indian thinking as a whole, and not just a Buddhist innovation.

- As well, there’s “nutriment”, or the metaphor of food, which is related to the metaphor of sacrifice in the Vedic tradition and discussed in the Upanishads, and the taints, or āsavas, which is common to the Jain tradition as well, and with pretty much the same meaning.

- The āsavas are of particular interest here. It’s never been adequately translated; in fact, judging from the notes of translators, I’m not convinced that most are even quite sure what it means. The word has suggestions of “flow” or “leakage” and has been translated as “outflows” or “influx”, etc., but mostly settles on “taints” or something analogous.

- I’ve read somewhere that for the Jains “āsavas” carry the connotation of a kind of stickiness, literally a physical substance that must be progressively shed along the path of purification.

- This strand of dualist thinking is extremely common to the west as well, among Gnostics and others. We are stuck, somehow, in impure matter, and must free ourselves, it’s said. (Mahayana sutras expend vast energy attempting to dispel the legacy of these original conditioning theories, but I wonder if they ever altogether succeed.)

- KATZ!!

- But the point is that concepts like āsavas, upādāna and nutriment may serve as dhammic pointers, but they are also lead backward to a kind of dualist physiological/metaphysical thinking rooted in the state of scientific knowledge of the time. And like all scientific explanations they should be open to correction.

- I think most of us would allow modern corrections to ancient geographical & cosmological knowledge. Most of us would allow that modern chemistry has proven more useful than ancient alchemy. So for me it only follows that we should be open to modern corrections to these particular psychophysical theories.

- Of course, it’s true that the kind of theory that conditions the Sammaditthi is different than theories on cosmology or geography since it’s rooted in practice and direct experience, calm & insight.

- But what’s at issue here is not core truth but its expression in the vocabulary and conceptual frameworks of the day. Cosmological theories also had core truths, but their detailed expression was very much culturally and historically conditioned, and thus open to revision.

- At the very least we should be careful that what insight arises from practice truly reflects direct knowing/experience and is not predetermined by some ancient, perhaps discredited conceptual order.

- To take these expressions literally, I feel, is to be more literal the reciters and compilers themselves, plus Chinois que les Chinois.

- Did the Buddha literally hold to the conceptual framework of his day? Or did he make the best of the imperfect instruments of communication at hand? How would the Buddha have spoken if he’d been born in ancient Palestine or in ancient Germania?

- Whether you say “the same” or “differently”, you’ll deserve 30 blows.

- Tradition holds we must deeply penetrate & understand tanha, upādāna, the āsavas. That makes me a traditionalist. But limiting that understanding within the framework of ancient scientific theories is not deep penetration, I feel, and is to risk falling into various errors & dualisms.

- The truth, said the Buddha, is subtle, profound, difficult to see, discernible only by the wise. Is a Gnostic-style belief in the literal cutting off of the senses & their fields, the literal “escape” from the world, the literal dissolution of the world really subtle? profound? difficult to see?

- I humbly receive my 30 blows.

with metta