I'm pre-path and quite unsure about why one would ever want to meditate, especially since intuitively it seems that experiential knowledge of the three characteristics is useless in itself - even if I could bring it on demand into any "normal" non-meditating mind state.

Would it be accurate to say that MCTB enlightenment gives one the ability to fully relax - on demand, and possibly while experiencing pain, boredom, negative mind states?

I mean stress in the modern everyday sense, not as a translation of dukkha. A motivational description shouldn't use Buddhist terminology.

Why no replies, come on! May I just have a simple yes/no from someone with path?

I think the answer is "no".

I also think the reason you haven't gotten an answer is because it's hard to describe what the benefit it (though there certainly is one). It might be something like: things become less "sticky". That doesn't mean that things you carried with you will be things you're able to immediately drop...rather, there is an ever-increasing psychological ability to let go of one's psychological baggage as well as daily stresses, bit by bit.

As for the value of experiential knowledge of the 3Cs: as I see it, the more you see the 3Cs, the less attachment you have to anything, and the less unpleasantness caused by that attachment there is. MCTB 4th path is, in my view, quite far from the end of the line regarding understanding the 3Cs.

Thanks.

Is dukkha (sometimes translated as stress) at least related to stress? I don't seem to understand dukkha at all, which is pretty weird to me since the other two characteristics I think I get quite well (experientially). All I know is dukkha is supposed to be pervasive and distinct from unpleasant sensations. The only thing I notice in meditation that seems like it could fit the bill is the quality of attention where I feel "involved" in what I observe, which seems pretty close to the everyday notion of stress.

I don't think dukkha can be translated into english very well at all. I think John Peacock said it would take 30+ english words to describe it. Attachment, aversion, anxiety, stress, grasping, dissatisfaction, pain, frustration, agony, unhappiness...they all fit.

You can see dukkha in everything. Even things like clinging to pleasant experience is dukkha.

"Modern everyday sense" means "in the unawake" sense. Like "oh, I AM SOOO stressed out right now.." Therefore the enlightened/awakened cannot give a proper reply.

This is a great article on the subject:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/mountains.html

I used something like your understanding when I was working with the MCTB model, and it worked out fine for me.

For an oversimplification, MCTB 1st-3rd path involve a gradual diminution of the sense of involvement; MCTB 4th path involves something else, related in a way to the sense of involvement, but larger than it. (After MCTB 4th, you can then continue to practice and continue to reduce the sense of involvement.)

In Buddhism, "dukkha" includes the everyday stuff that people consider to be stress, as well as the everyday stuff that people don't consider to be stress. So it includes the sense of involvement, but certainly doesn't end there.

Here's one way to understand it better:



From recollection, the major difference between "dukkha" in MCTB and "dukkha" in Buddhism is that, in MCTB's model, only a small part of dukkha can be categorically eliminated via insight (the part that's sort of related to the sense of involvement that you're pointing to).

Regarding "dukkha as distinct from unpleasant sensations", my understanding is this: sensations (whether seen as positive, negative, or neutral) have an unpleasant aspect to them, or directly cause other sensations that have an unpleasant aspect to them, all the way up until when you're enlightened. It's easiest to see this with overtly negative sensations such as pain, but a fuller understanding of dukkha (as well as, potentially, a different sort of motivation for pursuing meditation) comes from seeing it in neutral and positive sensations as well.

I don't see "dukkha as distinct from unpleasant sensations". The reason as to why I don't see it as such is because when I can do free flow scanning throughout the body not leaving any part at all (Goenka vipassana), then there is no dukkha (no suffering, stress or anything remotely like that).

Here is a Goenka-style progression you can consider:



Each stage involves a diminution of the fundamental problem, so you can look to see whether the same problem persists in some subtler form at the end. If you can't see it, you may wish to work on your concentration so you can discern more of the structure of the subtle vibrations more clearly and see whether, after discerning more of their structure, you think the fundamental problem continues in some subtler form or not.

The suggestion I would offer is to consider whether the structure of the subtle vibrations is completely unrelated to the prior stages of the progression, or whether there is a fundamental connection between the experience of subtle vibrations and the experience of gross unpleasant body states.

I don't claim that this is how all schools of Buddhism would ask you to investigate the issue, so if you don't care for the "hardcore vipassana" approach, there are certainly others.

Regarding "dukkha distinct from unpleasant sensations", this should clarify what I intended to convey. However, I agree with you to the extent that you were trying to point out that the things that are called "unpleasant sensations", which have an internal structure, are as a whole instances where dukkha is experienced.

It would be great to read some sutras which address this notion of dukkha. Any pointers?

Edit: Better-phrased question

"Dukkha as basically everything": pretty much any sutta that mentions the first noble truth.

Dukkha tied in with vibrations: I say that this is a major part of dependent origination, so, any sutta that talks about dependent origination. However, the suttas are not explicit enough about some of the terms used in describing dependent origination, so you'll have to decide for yourself, after discerning more of the structure of vibrations, whether you think there is anything else that "craving" (etc.) could more aptly refer to, or not.

(The unfortunate thing about the suttas is that they don't give explicit descriptions of many things. I think the idea is that, if you practice concentration, avoid sensuality, try to understand why all craving and desire and etc. are problematic, and rely on an arahant for a teacher, then it should all become clear. Unfortunately, many teachers aren't arahants, and lay practitioners have many impediments involving the other issues; so we all lumber along, as best as we can, trying to figure things out individually or as a group...)

Yeah, I don't mean to imply that I would consider the notion to be illegitimate without scriptural support. A lot of spiritual practice is oral tradition, even when it's heavily documented. It's just something I would like to read.

EiS, don't you think craving more aptly refers to the tendency to attach to things and that vibrations are then more aptly referred to as mental fabrication? I don't think craving is something that you experience directly, it seems to be more a tendency or an attitude that gives rise to suffering. If craving = the vibrations then what is this thing called "suffering" which the vibrations give rise to?

Adam, before we have this conversation, we have to synchronize terminology: cultivate some physical pleasure in one of the "chakra" areas of the body, and then name or describe the different experiences you have in that region, as well as you can.

I have no specific references, but this perspective seems to be implied in the idea of the Three Characteristics. The first two characteristics, anicca and anatta, are clearly meant to apply to absolutely every experience or object (except nibbana). Otherwise, they wouldn't be very salient. By analogy one would expect the third characteristic to be equally pervasive.

Also:



Actually, the suttas make a much broader claim than the one I'm prepared to defend, namely, that craving is experienced everywhere (extended over all modalities of experience), not just in the body. The craving experienced in the body that I like to talk about would seem to be a subcategory of the general phenomenon.




Fivebells, about the suttas and dukkha:





If you have a more specific question that you'd like some sutta references for, I can try to find them for you if I know the appropriate suttas.

I meant sutra references to the vibrational stuff.

You're quite correct, dukkha is in every experience you note during meditation. It is simply the struggle to hang on to what you like, avoid what you don't like, and ignore the rest.

No references for "vibrations"...but, I found that with vipassana practice, I see them less and less as vibrations in the first place, and the sense that "the suttas don't talk about these explicitly" has receded, while the sense that "'vibrations' is ultimately an inaccurate or misleading term" has grown.

For a contrasting perspective, MCTB describes sense-experience appearing and disappearing, to be replaced by what it calls "consciousness" appearing and disappearing, each in an analog way, and relates this (and the claimed necessity of experience being this way) to what the suttas mean by "impermanence". (Other pragmatic dharma teachers have made similar associations in the past.)

Thanks, EiS.

One attempt at a sutta-compatible description of this that I've seen somewhere (probably elsewhere on DhO) interpreted this process as dependent origination.

It's useful to cultivate a habit of attending to the 3Cs in the experience of the present moment because awareness of the 3Cs in an experience implies disenchantment with the process creating the suffering in that moment. Awareness of the current dukkha means awareness of how the suffering is arising. Awareness of nonself means no identification with the phenomena arising. Awareness of impermanence means no grasping to maintain phenomena.



To see the benefits of meditation, it's not necessary to think about enlightenment as a stable state. For most people, some phenomenon keeps arising in their life and causing some kind of disturbance: pain, loss, unwanted behavior, etc. Usually there are many such phenomena. With the ability to see the 3Cs in the moment these phenomena arise, it becomes possible to end the disturbance. This doesn't necessarily involve complete relaxation, though the ability to rest in the experience of such a phenomenon seems to be a prerequisite for seeing the 3Cs in it.

I do see the benefits of meditation. But Buddhism, MCTB and this place seem pretty heavy on the idea of enlightenment/paths being something very beneficial and important to achieve.

Was the purpose of this thread to find a way to explain to people other than you why they might want to start meditating, or to give you some additional motivation to continue?

Ok well that seems like a straightforward request but there were some issues regarding what pleasure is. There are two types of pleasure I can cultivate, one seems to arise via paying attention to the breathing through the whole body, there is a sort of solid sense of the body being soaked in pleasure juice, then around the chakras particularly chest there are fast little prickles, if I ask whether the are pleasant or painful they seem painful, but if I am focused on stilling the mind they can be taken as pleasant or painful depending on how concentrated I am. The prickles are vibrations right? I can't seem to discern them as attention bouncing between two things, they seem more like tiny pinpricks, just arising and passing in an instant.

what is the suffering which that craving causes if vibrations are craving? And why is craving in other modalities of consciousness so wildly elusive?

"Enlightenment" is important because it is the basis for disenchantment from the whole process of suffering. But IMO it's not the best way to motivate a new practitioner. There is no substitute for disenchantment from the suffering in the present moment and someone who is chasing after enlightenment is much harder to disenchant from the suffering of that particular chase.

In another thread, you have written:



What if you get to a point where there is no volition? Do you think that the volitional vibratory component will go away? Which sensations will remain after that if the volition and the volitional vibratory component go away?

I'm talking of unpleasant sensations which have a volitional component. And when I say no dukkha, then I mean when there is no volition and no volitional vibrations.

The sutras say, and ajahn brahm and thanissaro bhikku agree that all sensations are volitional (includes "bare sensate"). If you drop volition then you experience cessation. ajahn brahm says this is oblivion thanissaro bhikku says it is the unfabricated aspect of consciousness.

I don't know what the sutras say or what Ajahn Brahm or Thanissaro Bhikkhu agree or disagree on. I talk from my experience. When there is no volition, then there are no volitional vibrations and there is no suffering.

Do you notice anything other than pleasure and tingles? Do you notice a sense of tension? If so, how does it manifest in relation to pleasure and tingles? Anything else?

When tingles arise and pass in an instant, is it literally an instant (in a "point" of time) or does it happen in MCTB's "analog" way?



I took the word "dwell" to imply that craving hangs out in that sense-modality. I suppose it could be read in different ways, especially depending on what the original Pali word is.

(The part relating craving to the sense-bases seems especially true and useful when taken in the way I took it. Villum (on KFD) had a practice tip about "relaxing the eyelids". I find, right now, that there is a special kind of tension on my eyes (including where my eyelids are when they're open), nostrils, ear-holes, and tongue, on top of the general subtle bodily tension wherever my body extends to. I think this is what Villum was onto...what this sutta seems to me to be pointing out.)



I think the experience you're referring to as "vibrations" are a collection of different connected experiences, one of which is craving. Think of vibrations as having "parts" or segments; the first part is craving, which gives rise to the later part.

Maybe you could find the



Good question. Sometimes I think it isn't so elusive. Other times I think I'm kidding myself for thinking that.

One thing that's clear to me is that there is what I call "becoming" and what MCTB calls "consciousness" (the "mental replica" or distortion of sense-experience) in all modalities. Perhaps I'll see if I can look more closely at it and find something analogous to what I think of as craving in those modalities, over the next few days.

In jhanic experiences (which I relate to what the Visuddhimagga describes) there is no volition in the normal sense of the word, and no tingly vibratory stuff. (I believe it's possible to get directly to this state, from Goenka's bhanga, by increasing concentration. The mark of increased concentration is less volition and thus less tingly stuff.)



In jhanic experiences, very little (depending on the jhana).

Outside of jhanic experiences (as in the case of an arahant) I'm not certain, but I believe that all the tingling will go away.



What kind of vibrations remain? Can you examine them more closely?

I am pointing out that there might be a subtler level of intention which you (and I) are missing.

Just the physical sensations and I can't examine them more closely.

There is nothing subtler than the intention to live and when you drop that, there is nothing that is left to miss. I think death meditation is important.

Both. I'm always interested in the latter. I got more interested in the former recently, after attending an introductory Mahasi workshop where the instructor promised "permanently eliminating all physical and mental pain" as the goal of meditation. Now this sounds like a blatant lie (even the scriptural Buddha experienced physical pain), but it sure got the people hooked! Goenka makes similar unrealistic promises. Is it necessary to lie to get people to meditate?

Vipassana has obvious and well-documented benefits (stress reduction, mindfulness, increased tolerance to pain) which make it worthwhile to meditate occasionally. But getting those benefits doesn't seem to require a lot of time or effort. I don't think those benefits alone justify intense (many hours) daily meditation or going on 10-day or longer retreats. Striving for enlightenment does.

The benefits I was talking about do require intense practice for most people.

Most "physical" pain that I used to experience (aches, tension, lumps in the throat, butterflies in the stomach, constriction in the chest) turned out to be mental pain, and it seems to me that it can all be totally eliminated with further practice (though I haven't done so). So there's something to the claim you mentioned, though you are right that pain that is actually physical is likely to continue as long as there's a nervous system to experience it.

But even "partial elimination of mental and 'physical' pain" seems like a really good reason to meditate for many hours each day, if a person sees that these kinds of experiences are always happening to them in a gross or subtle form, all throughout the day. So that could be a motivational description of some good outcomes of meditation, in really down-to-earth, everyday terms.

Why can't you examine them more closely?

Goenka, for instance, says that there are trillions of mind-moments per second, or something like that. True or not, I think it's always possible to increase mental resolution (within quite broad limits).

What is beyond just hearing, just seeing etc.? Can you examine just hearing, just seeing etc.? Mind comes into picture when it tries to label seeing, hearing etc.

Are you describing an experience with vibrations, or not? The impression I had was "yes" but perhaps we're talking past each other on this issue.

If there are vibrations, then, for example, if you perceive them as analog, you can examine the time frame in which they arise and the time frame in which they pass.

As for the senses themselves, in principle you could examine visual experience so as to see the way that visual forms change more precisely. (In Abhidhamma it's claimed that one can discern all kinds of mental processes that we normally blur together into the label "seeing", though I have no idea about that.)

Another way to approach this would be to develop greater concentration while in the state you're describing, and then analyze what changes as concentration increases.

I read the new translation of Manual of Insight Chapter 5 the link to which was kindly provided by J Groove and my experience lines up with what is described by the following sentences:

"Mostly, however, their mind remains very clear from moment to moment. At this stage they feel very peaceful, as if their mind were floating alone in space. However, they will not be able to note that mental state. Even if they try to note it, they will not be able to be aware of it effectively. They do not want to contemplate anything else and they are not able to note other objects. Their mind is simply clear and peaceful."

Quotes from Manual of Insight Chapter 5 By Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw
Translated by Hla Myint
and AriyaÑāni
Edited by Steve Armstrong, Kamala Masters
And Deborah Ratner-Helzer
Pali Research by ViraÑāni

At this link: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion?p_p_id=19&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=exclusive&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_19_struts_action=%2Fmessage_boards%2Fget_message_attachment&_19_messageId=476414&_19_attachment=Buddhist+Geeks%2C+Cha+5.pdf

I think you are right that there needs to be more concentration.

Examining visual becoming ("seeing in the mind's eye"), I got the impression that these images are located "on" any tension that seems to be causally responsible for them, rather than free-floating "nowhere". So, rather than finding a visual analog for tension, as tension would seem to exist in a different modality than vision, it seems that tension and visual becoming arise in the same modality.

(The issue could also be confounded by some synaesthetic thing which is idiosyncratic to me.)

Even if I thought this observation was 100% accurate (and I don't, yet), it still leaves some confusion about how craving could manifest "on" sense-experience. I'll see what I can make of that later.

I'll post an update on this if I figure anything out.

Hi Fivebells,


Here is the Majjhima Nikaaya I.

2.3 Mahaadukkhakkhandhasutta.m
(13) The Great Mass of Stress.

In Bodhi,ed., p.1200, there is a footnote here in the feelings-section of this sutta, specifically in the first paragraph (re: first jhana, "Now what, monks, is the allure of feelings? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation." - this sentence is taken from Thanissaro's linked translation***) In his edit of Nanamoli's translation, after this first jhana sentence, Bhikkhu Bodhi includes this footnote: "To expose the danger in feelings, the Buddha chooses the most refined and exalted type of mundane pleasure, the bliss and peacefulness of jhanas, and shows that even those states are impermanent and therefore unsatisfactory."


Is this what you are looking for?

***Nanamoli's translation (ed. Bodhi) is somewhat different from the translation linked here (Thanissaro's)).

[Edit: clarifying between translations, though that is just a technical point; typo correction as well]

Thanks, Katy. I'm afraid my question was unclear. (You're the second person to interpret it that way, so I should go back and edit it.) The key thing I'd be interested to read is the history of people describing the vibrations which come up in MCTB, because I hadn't come across them before, and the cycles I've observed in my own practice have relatively long periods.

It's not really relevant to my own practice. If I really wanted to see these cycles, I should probably do Mahasi-style noting for a while.

Are you saying you haven't come across vibrations in your practice, or you hadn't come across a description of them before?

The fastest cycles I've observed have all been forced by external stimuli or the demands of the task at hand. (E.g., rapidly shifting scenes in a movie, or typing, respectively.)

Okay.Thank you.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're curious about suttas that may relate to that kind of vibrational atomization as described in the MCTB? (like detecting form arising and passing several times within a single second)?

So Bhante Gunaratana speaks of materialist approaches in meditation (e.g.,complacent and nitty-gritty) in a video linked here in the next sentence. After describing complacent practice (that which advises "just be aware (...) you don't have to do anything (...) just go with the flow...") in the video called Goals of Meditation:
he speaks about breaking down into nitty-gritty analysis:
[indent]"On the other hand, there is another way of looking at meditation which has become extremely, almost impossible, that is this analytical system: you keep analyzing, analyzing,analyzing, analyzing, breaking down to very nitty-gritty details and go on and on like microbiology, you know...nanoseconds and so forth; you keep breaking down.

"I don't know how many people can do that. That is what these atomists, some scientists do. They keep breaking down material things.

(...)

So that is all materialist approach.

When you look at the Buddha's sutras we don't see that kind of nitty-gritty breaking down system."
[/indent]

So those comments come at the beginning of an hour-ish long talk by that teacher.

You know, people's practices are actually just theirs, so a person can determine for themselves over time if a practice is helping them towards insight and metta or nibbana or if it's leading into some more attachments and stress...

Relevant?


[edit: color, typo,format]

Yes, very. Thanks, Katy! And I loved Mindfulness in Plain English, so a link to a talk by the same guy is very welcome, too.

Now I understand better what you're asking. I thought you were asking about vibrations, rather than meditation methods (that result in experiencing vibrations).

The translator's note on this sutta links it to the question you're asking: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html

The more minute the analysis, the more the mind is liable to let go of its attachments in any moment due to those attachments seeming ridiculous from this perspective. (My experience.) For example, if you want to get up, but see that "get up" is now a string of rapidly-shifting thoughts and intentions that are called "the idea of getting up" only by convention, it is much harder to continue to want the thing, as the thing you could want no longer seems to have existed in the first place. The wanting finds nothing to be about, and disbands (at least temporarily, until you lose that perspective).

I am actually specifically asking about historical references to vibrations, but that is a great sutra which explains the "present moment" theory of dependent origination better than I have seen before, and the note is indeed helpful in explaining how noting practice works. Thank you for the link.

I think this description is very good for entering shavasana and experiencing extreme relaxation of the body.

Ok perhaps I got some glimpse of this via ear. I was listening to bob Dylan visions of johanna and I noticed how there was a tension as well as a "segregation" in bhante g's use of the word right at the highest shriek of the harmonica. They seemed to take place on top of each other, that's what you mean right? Both experiences happen at the ear, they blend together into a single mind movement of "objectification" for me.

For those who are enlightened...

In regards to stress...how would you describe the stress you currently feel as in comparison to when you were pre-path.

Say on a scale of 1 to 10.

and how much stress do you experience now on a scale of 1 to 10?

Are you constantly in a good mood? What was your mood like before enlightenment? And what is your mood like now?

These are the questions I want to know.