[DhammaStudyGroup]drugs) Re: kusala, akusala, ignorance, wrong view, samatha,samadhi, dogmas, drugs and ex-Christian aunts!
- --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Kirkpatrick
> This is true. But if we are doing some activity other thanJust like samatha & jhana won't support the path? This is where the
> understanding whatever is arisen - in the belief that this
> activity will condition the path - then there is likely to be a
> subtle or not subtle type of silabataparamasa (clinging to sila
> and ritual), a type of wrong view. If one has taken some
> hallucinogen or any drug I don't think we can say this precludes
> awareness arising BUT if we take it with the idea that this will
> support the path that is another matter.
logic goes out the window. They definitely do act as supports. If
they didn't the Buddha wouldn't have taught them. And if samatha &
jhana can act as supports, why not drugs, if they create similar
conditions? I have yet to see any logical argument against them. The
only arguments against have so far been founded on conjecture. Not a
very good basis for drawing sound conclusions.
It is very important to recall that there are many many strategies
out there, from the emptiness strategy to the one of watching the
arising and passing away of dhammas, even koan practice. Very
different approaches. There is no "one size fits all" approach to the
Dharma, never has been, never will be. To suggest that drugs,
samatha, jhana are somehow silabbataparamasa makes no sense at all.
To say that practices don't support the path makes no sense. In what
way do they not "support" the path? If they didn't why would the
Buddha have taught them? To say they don't support the path is to
get caught in semantics. The danger here is missing the forest for
the trees, becoming too enamoured of semantics or pedagogies: the
classic case of mistaking the finger for the moon.
--- Philip <plnao@...> wrote: >
> Now, I've done so much reading in various religions...
> before "settling" on the Buddha's teaching, that I can't remember if
> I read this in a book by a Christian mystic (Meister Eckhardt?) or in
> new -agey stuff like Seat of the Soul or whether it was the Buddha's
> teaching, but is there anything about the value of intentions in
> themselves, irregardless of whether the intention is carried through?
> For example, when I told Nina that I intended to send a donation toAn intention to do kusala can itself be kusala. That is to say, the
> the Dhamma Foundation to thank her for her books, but didn't, was the
> intention itself kusala even though it wasn't followed through? That
> is just one example....
> Was the intention I felt quite clearly the other day, an intention
> that just kind of arose, of a kusala nature in itself? If "deeds are
> essentially the manifestation of their accompanying intention", but
> the deed is some months down the road, can it be said there was
> wholesome khamma with the intention?
possibility of such an intention itself being kusala cannot be ruled out.
Not all kusala moments manifest as an action through body or speech.
As to a particular instance, it's impossible to say, and probably best not
to even wonder about ;-)) For most of us, intentions are mixed at the
best of times, so it's a safe bet there would have been both kusala and
akusala mind-states arising, alternately.
> I'm not wanting to use this as aAny presently arising dhamma, be it kusala mind-state, akusala mind-state,
> way of having wholesome khamma by intending things intentionally -
> but if an seemingly wholesome intention arises on its own, clearly,
> explicitly, in an unexpected way...can I understand it as kusala?
a mental factor such as feeling, or a rupa such as visible-object, can be
the object of awareness.
Awareness of a presently arising dhamma is the most precious form of
kusala there is.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk