October 27, 2009
- Practical Advice From the Buddha -
“A monk intent on heightened mind should attend periodically to three themes: he should attend periodically to the theme of concentration; he should attend periodically to the theme of uplifted energy; he should attend periodically to the theme of equanimity. If the monk intent on heightened mind were to attend solely to the theme of concentration, it is possible that his mind would tend to laziness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of uplifted energy, it is possible that his mind would tend to restlessness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of equanimity, it is possible that his mind would not be rightly centered for the stopping of the fermentations. But when he attends periodically to the theme of concentration, attends periodically to the theme of uplifted energy, attends periodically to the theme of equanimity, his mind is pliant, malleable, luminous, & not brittle. It is rightly centered for the stopping of the fermentations.”
Shakyamuni Buddha, from
Nimitta Sutta: Themes
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Go read the rest of it. He talks about superpowers. ;)
What about periodically chasing after beautiful women? What does that do to your mind?
Comment by Ted — October 27, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Hmm, Buddha and chasing women… A few quotes:
“Monks, I know of no other form that so captivates the mind of a man, than the form of a woman. I know of no other voice, no other scent, no other taste, no other contact, that so captivates the mind of a mans as the voice, scent, taste, and contact of a woman.” Anguttara Nikaya 1.1
(note, he’s not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, just not conducive to enlightenment)
When Ananda asked the 80 year old Buddha how a monk should behave towards women, he said:
“He should not look at them, Ananda.”
“But if we see them what should we do?”
“Do not speak to them, Ananda.”
“But if they speak to us, lord, what should we do?”
“Be on your guard, Ananda.”
(Digha Nikaya 16.5.9)
So Buddha was not all that in favor of chasing women. But he was one of the only sages of his time to allow women to enter his group. He did so only after some argument, but he did admit that they were as capable of reaching enlightenment as men were. Seems obvious now, but not so much at that time in history, as Ken Wilber points out here (PDF)
Comment by Ian — October 28, 2009 @ 11:37 am
That pdf is 18 pages
Comment by Ted — October 28, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Yeah, and Mr. Wilber has somehow found a way to make it both unprintable and un-cut-and-paste-able, even though it IS possible to save it to a desktop. Kind of annoying.
But it’s a quick read. The lines are spaced pretty far apart so it goes fast. :)
Comment by Ian — October 28, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
I really don’t want to be a monk….
Comment by Ted — October 28, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
You don’t have to, as Ken Wilber points out in that PDF. But the fact remains that mindfulness is important when chasing women, cause the feelings your dealing with there are strong and run deep.
Comment by Ian — October 28, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
I have this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrequited_love
Comment by Ted — October 29, 2009 @ 12:54 am
Yeah, I’ve had a few chronic cases of that myself. It sucks, but at the same time, it can be kind of exciting.
Then again, it sucks to be on either side of the equation though.
Maybe that book on Nietzsche, written by his own unrequited love, might be a good read after all.
At least, as that wikipedia article shows, it’s certainly not a rare thing. :)
Comment by Ian — October 29, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Yeah, there are worse things in life than to fall in love with a beautiful girl. I also feel like its a spiritually uplifting experience.
I read the Ken Wilber article.
I think I am an over-socialized caveman. Which, there never were any cavemen really. That’s just a pop culture icon. There were just Foragers living in Europe in the Pliestocence and conducting Shamanic rituals in caves.
But anyway, I feel really close to that era.
.
But I am also a influenced a lot by late (decadent?) Western-Post modernism, Nihilism, etc, with its Christian underpinnings.
I think there are people living in sub populations of even the West living at all these levels Wilber mentions.
I am a Forager at heart, overlaid with this Westernizd Bourgeois, overly polite, fake personality, that’s slowly disintigrating.
I think Patriarchalism is more complex than he is talking about though. I don’t think Farmers are all that manly. Just picture a group of people practicing “female farming” like say Papuans. The women grow veggies and raise young and the guys lay around all day taking psychedelic drugs, hunting and making war. Its gang war, not modern war, that utilizes bravery and stealth, etc, but is also self limiting and sporadic, but a continuous part of life.
What would these papuans think of a bunch of dudes doing all the Farming? Doing woman’s work?
They wouldn’t think much of it, until, they get invaded by the superior numbr
But all these Indian Warriors, Sitting Bull, Gall, Geronimo, They really looked down on the Whites. They were more Noble and they knew it. The Whites knew it.
The European Nobles all came from the same stock. They looked down on the peasants. Knights don’t farm. They hunt and make war, period. There was a strong bond between The Indians and British Royalty actually. They recognized each other as kindred spirits. Black Elk and Queen Victoria were very impressed with each other.
Nietzsche traced all this back to the root. The Blonde Beasts conquered the peasants and became their gods. Then the Priestly Caste (ascetics) split off from the Warrior caste and came to a serious irreconcilable disagreement. The priests aligned with the peasants and brought down the Warriors, through Christianity, democracy and the servant morality.
So anyway, what we need is some new type. The new type will have elements of the Noble Savages that became the Germanic barbarians that overthrew Rome and the Nobility of Europe, which were in turn ultimately conquered and overthrown by Democracy and industrialization. The new type will be more shrewd and cunning though than the original type.
My sense is that the Buddha is an old type. The old type of the Priest. But there is something eternal and real there, also.
There are lots of hybrid around, now, though. Like the Bushes. They are a throw back to an old type, the type of the Roman Oligarchs, but also have decadent elements. History is moving backwards in a way.
But anyway, these Chivalrous Knights, were very Romantic and spiritual. They loved Women. They weren’t ascetics.
Comment by Ted — October 29, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
That sounds like a chemistry experiment between the different “types” you mention, trying to find the perfect mix. It’s a question of temperance, I think, finding the best elements of each, developing those, dropping the bad, unhelpful elements, and trying to get the resulting mix to get along not only with each other, but with the world at large as well.
Not so easy a task, but totally worthwhile trying to get it right! :)
Comment by Ian — October 29, 2009 @ 2:59 pm
Just to let you know I started blogging again:
http://freerangeorganichumanlives.blogspot.com/
Ted
Comment by Ted — November 2, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Nice! FROH is back. :)
Comment by Ian — November 3, 2009 @ 11:23 am