Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Re: Better phrasings...

RESPONDENT No. 19: I always thought that any bit of confrontational wisdom that is felt by me and some other few in Richard’s words can be rephrased in way that is less or non-confrontational .... though he believed that it is the nature of the wisdom (and of the self) that such things happen.... as a proof of my opinion, I was pondering over the oft repeated statements and one example here:

Actualist wording: Feelings are not facts, they don’t exist in the actual world (this is not quote and quote, but surely the core actualists will have no issues with the above statement). My rephrasal: Mental life is not an actuality as it is merely a reaction/ interpretation/ representation of the actuality. And feelings/psyche/real world etc... not being actual is merely an instance of this general wisdom... and stated this way, it is non-confrontational and readily agreeable and self evident. In fact, I claim that the essence of this also captured by Krishnamurti’s ‘The word is not the thing’. I know that Richard wants to specially emphasize upon feelings here, but this special emphasis is artificial and generated by the goal of actual freedom.

SRID: No. 19, Richard is not ‘emphasizing’ feelings here (he umabiguously reports that a feeling is not a fact); rather *you*, by your watered-down rephrasing, are de-emphasizing feelings by insincerely mixing in thoughts into the illusory/actual distinction. no thanks, i’d rather have someone call a spade a spade instead of twisting a potentially offensive fact only to go astray on the practice for years (your watered-down rephrasing could easily make an actualist reading it go lax on investigating feelings because he ‘readily agrees’ that thoughts and feelings are not part of the physical/ corporeal world; duh!).

RICHARD: G’day Srid, Whilst on the subject of ‘better phrasings’ (as in the ‘I-Know-Better-Than-Richard’ titling of this thread), and the topic of there being no feelings in actuality, it has been brought to my attention that you recently posted three (unreferenced) quotes on another forum, written by feeling-being ‘Peter’ back in 2003, so as to provide ‘food for thought’ ... namely:

1. That those quotes bring up some parallel with Mr. Satya Goenka’s ‘equanimity towards all physical sensations’ practice.

2. That what those quotes say is that the ‘instinctual reactions’ trigger hormones (which are experienced as physical sensations) in the body which are almost instantaneously ‘felt’ as the instinctual passions.

3. That those quotes also raise the question of whether AF [sic] people only remain blind to ‘instinctual reactions’ – i.e. have they cut the chain right where these reactions are ‘felt’ (which feelings form themselves into ‘being’)?

4. That those quotes also raise the question that while even a shadowy feeling being can give off vibes, what of a body with instinctual reactions?

5. That those quotes conflict with Richard’s report of him not experiencing any bodily symptoms associated with fear (for instance). (dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message _boards/message/3694814#_19_message_3694814).

That last point (Point No. 5) should surely have given one pause to consider that perhaps ‘better phrasings’, on the topic of the instinctual passions vis-à-vis hormonal chemicals, were to be sought elsewhere on The Actual Freedom Trust website ... such as in the Library Topic ‘Affective Feelings (Emotions, Passions and Calentures)’, for instance, where feeling-being ‘Peter’ unambiguously made it clear, circa 1999, that it is the instinctual passions (as in his ‘instinctually-sourced feelings’ phrasing) which produce hormonal chemicals and not the other way around. Vis.:

• [Peter]: ‘(...). The arising of instinctually-sourced feelings produces a hormonal chemical response in the body, which can lead to the false assumption that they actual’. The Actual Freedom Trust Library, Feelings

Indeed, the topic of that ‘better phrasing’, by feeling-being ‘Peter’ circa 1999, was specifically addressed to me back in December 2004. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘[quote] ‘The arising of instinctually-sourced feelings produces a hormonal chemical response in the body, which can lead to the false assumption that they are actual’. [actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/feelings.htm].

From the above phrase I understand that feelings (out-sourced by the instinctual program) produce hormonal substances, not the other way around.

From the TV documentaries I’ve watched, it is because of the physical hormonal substances in the body that certain good/bad feelings arise.

Scientists have managed to identify and link certain hormonal substances to particular feelings, giving the impression that a feeling cannot arise without an associated body-produced ‘chemical’ (...)’. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No. 25, 1 December 2004

The resultant exchange goes on for three consecutive emails (before straying off-topic); meanwhile, another co-respondent picked-up on that ‘Scientists-Know-Better-Than-Richard’ topic a couple of weeks later. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Richard – I see a few flaws in your description of a lack of adrenaline (now called epinephrine). First of all, can you detect exactly the forms of the molecules that flow through your body?

Also, I am not sure what scientific claims you are consulting but studies done by Schacter provide strong evidence for the conclusion that epinephrine is NOT linked to specific emotions. I suggest you research the studies of this man (...)’. Richard, The Actual Freedom Trust Mailing List, No. 78, 12 December 2004

The resultant exchange goes on for a total of four non-consecutive (and rather laboured) emails; however, my 2003 exchange with a different co-respondent on another forum expresses the essential nature of the topic in question in a most succinct fashion. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘The bottom line is that you can’t understand the nature of mind by merely studying the words of others’.

• [Richard]: ‘As I have repeatedly referred to a living understanding of, not only eleven years of spiritual enlightenment, but a decade now of an actual freedom from the human condition, I do look askance at what you say here ... plus there is more to understanding human nature than pointing the finger at thought.

Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘The self is nothing other than conditioning, the thinker/ feeler/ doer is thought’. [endquote].

As feelings demonstrably come before thought in the perceptive process this is but a shallow understanding’.

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Why divide the process up?’

• [Richard]: ‘I am not dividing the process up ... that is how it operates naturally (as is borne out by laboratory testing): sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary. The sensate signal, a loud sound for example, takes 12-14 milliseconds to reach the affective faculty and 24-25 milliseconds to reach the cognitive faculty: thus by the time reasoned cognition can take place the instinctual passions are pumping freeze-fight-flee chemicals throughout the body thus agitating cognitive appraisal ... and whilst there is a narrowband circuit from the cognitive centre to the affective centre (through which reason can dampen-down and stop the reactive response) the circuitry from the affective faculty to the cognitive faculty is broadband (which is why it takes some time to calm down after an emotional reaction).

Not that I knew anything of these laboratory tests all those years ago ... but it is always pleasing when science proves what one has already sussed out for oneself’. List B, No. 12, 11 January 2003

Do you now see that there are *no* parallels with the ‘equanimity towards all physical sensations’ practice promulgated by Mr. Satya Goenka (who does not comprehend that the Pali term ‘vedanūpādānakkhandhā’ – which is one of the pañc’upādānakkhandhā – and the ‘vedanākkhandhā’ of the arahants, both terms referring as they do to hedonic-tone/ feeling-tone, are affective in nature)?

Furthermore, actually free people (as in actualists, such as the handful of daring pioneers, as distinct from those buddhistic affers) are not ‘blind to instinctual reactions’ – that is, blind to autonomic reflexes such as the startle response – and neither have they ‘cut the chain right where these reactions are felt’ as there is no such chain (as in ‘paṭicca-samuppāda’) to cut in actuality.

Also, as none of those daring pioneers ever experienced a [quote] ‘shadowy feeling being’ [endquote], it has been thereby confirmed that no bona fide actually free person can [quote] ‘give off vibes’ [endquote], either.

I wrote about this topic in June this year, on this forum (in Message No. 11701), to the very person posting about how that [quote] ‘shadowy feeling being’ [endquote] was caused by vedanā arising with sense-impressions (as in ‘phassa-paccayā vedanā’). Vis.:

• [Richard to Nikolai]: ‘(...) there is no hedonic-tone (aka vedanā) here in this actual world; furthermore, each of those handful of daring pioneers reported the extinction of hedonic-tone – along with the extirpation of the instinctual passions and the feeling-being formed thereof – at the very moment an actual freedom took place ... just as it did for me, at my moment of becoming (newly) free, in an abandoned cow-paddock all those years ago’. List D, Nikolai, 19 June 2012

And the reason why I apprised him of the extinction of vedanā (hedonic-tone/feeling-tone), at the very moment an actual freedom from the human condition takes place, is because of what he had written elsewhere. For instance:

• [Nikolai]: ‘Vedana does not disspaear in a PCE nor at what some are calling af. It continues. (...)’. (Subject: Re: Nikolai’s Practice Journal; Posted: Oct 14, 2011; 7:57am).

 As vedanā does indeed disappear in a PCE (aka ‘in abeyance’) and at an actual freedom from the human condition (aka ‘extinct’), a chat exchange Nikolai posted a week earlier (on Oct 07, 2011; 10:50am) is particularly pertinent in this regard.

I will provide here an edited-for-clarity version of the most salient aspects of that exchange (access the URL below the text for the original). Vis.:

• [Nikolai]: ‘Hi AFer, do you still experience vedana?

• [Tarin]: ‘of course

• [Nikolai]: ‘what is your definition of vedana as Other AFer says he doesn’t experience vedana

• [Tarin]: ‘from a buddhist perspective, the khandhas don’t go away. Other AFer’s comment probably comes from his rather unique appreciation of the buddhist texts

• [Nikolai]: ‘he says they are affective , and affectless vedana cannot be. I see. good to know you both have differing understandings. I was confused

• [Tarin]: ‘the way he interprets the texts seem more aligned to skillful means within a situation than to a coherence between all situations

• [Nikolai]: ‘I see (...). so the way I have taken it is ‘feeling tone’ would you disagree?

• [Tarin]: ‘i wouldnt put it that way

• [Nikolai]: ‘how would you put it?

• [Tarin]: ‘i would express its system as preferences which are dependent on tastes. which are as much a physical as a mental experience

• [Nikolai]: ‘(...). does the buddha go into detail about this in any suttas? that vedana is more about physcial preferences?

• [Tarin]: ‘not that i can recall

• [Nikolai]: ‘so it is your own interpretation?

• [Tarin]: ‘no, it is obvious

• [...snip...].

• [Nikolai]: ‘(...). ok , Other AFer just reminded me he told me to investigate ‘delight’. Delight still arises for vedana, preference for vedana

• [...snip...].

• [Nikolai]: ‘(...) so in the sequence of DO [dependent origination], concerning the arising of shadow being, trent seems to point to not delighting, is this what you point to to?

• [Tarin]: ‘what trent is referring to is ‘delighting in’

• [Nikolai]: ‘ah, a distinction

• [Tarin]: ‘the question that matters: perceiving clearly, does one then delight in what is perceived?

• [Nikolai]: ‘delighting in would refer then to a sankharic mental movemnt to affectively enjoy the vedana?

• [...snip...].

• [Tarin]: ‘is old age delightful? (...). is perceiving the aging, decaying, inevitable dying, delightful?

• [Nikolai]: ‘(...) obviously no (...). anicca is dukkha so then , trying to work out where ‘delight’ falls into this, would it be wise to take note of any tendency to ‘delight in’ the feeling tones that arise?

• [Tarin]: ‘weight can be given to any of the khandas, not only vedana, the tendency is inherent

• [Nikolai]: ‘meaning the tendency cannot be stopped until death?

• [Tarin]: ‘if you want to be a real stickler about it, it will clear up what vedana might be (http://the-hamilton-project-forum.2294154.n4.nabble.com/Nikolai-s-Practice-Journal-td3662485i40.html).

O what a tangled web those affers weave, eh?

‘Tis for reasons such as the above that I advised a self-acknowledged [quote] ‘sincere practitioner’ [endquote], upon being asked for clarification, to ‘cease aiming to be aff, forthwith’ and to ‘stop listening to the affers, period’. Richard to Claudiu, 07 February 2012

 (I am presuming, of course, that the affers pronounce those [quote] ‘AF’/‘AFer’ [endquote] designators they use, for their mongrel state of being, in the way that the first syllable of, say, the word affectation is pronounced).

And I am pleased to report how that ‘sincere practitioner’ not only turned their life around but has gone on and prospered, mightily, as a direct result of taking that advice.

Regards, Richard.

*

Re: Better phrasings...

RICHARD: (...) That last point [that those quotes by feeling-being ‘Peter’ back in 2003 conflict with Richard’s report of him not experiencing any bodily symptoms associated with fear, for instance] should surely have given one pause to consider that perhaps ‘better phrasings’, on the topic of the instinctual passions vis-a-vis hormonal chemicals, were to be sought elsewhere on The Actual Freedom Trust website ... such as in the Library Topic ‘Affective Feelings (Emotions, Passions and Calentures)’, for instance, where feeling-being ‘Peter’ unambiguously made it clear, circa 1999, that it is the instinctual passions (as in his ‘instinctually-sourced feelings’ phrasing) which produce hormonal chemicals and not the other way around. Vis.:

• [Peter]: ‘(...). The arising of instinctually-sourced feelings produces a hormonal chemical response in the body, which can lead to the false assumption that they actual’. The Actual Freedom Trust Library, Feelings

SRID: my experiential understanding is that affective feelings come prior to those hormonal physical reactions (the heart-pumping, the neck-tightening, pulse-racing, etc.).

RICHARD: G’day Srid, Does your experiential understanding – that affective feelings come prior to those hormonal physical reactions – include the experiential understanding that it is those affective feelings which trigger off those hormones (the hormones which produce those physical reactions)?

As in:

no affective feelings=no hormonal production; no hormonal production=no physical reaction.

*

RICHARD: (...) My 2003 exchange with a different co-respondent on another forum expresses the essential nature of the topic in question in a most succinct fashion. Vis.:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘The self is nothing other than conditioning, the thinker/ feeler/ doer is thought’.

• [Richard]: ‘As feelings demonstrably come before thought in the perceptive process this is but a shallow understanding’.

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Why divide the process up?’

• [Richard]: ‘I am not dividing the process up ... that is how it operates naturally (as is borne out by laboratory testing): sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary. The sensate signal, a loud sound for example, takes 12-14 milliseconds to reach the affective faculty and 24-25 milliseconds to reach the cognitive faculty: thus by the time reasoned cognition can take place the instinctual passions are pumping freeze-fight-flee chemicals throughout the body thus agitating cognitive appraisal ... and whilst there is a narrowband circuit from the cognitive centre to the affective centre (through which reason can dampen-down and stop the reactive response) the circuitry from the affective faculty to the cognitive faculty is broadband (which is why it takes some time to calm down after an emotional reaction).

Not that I knew anything of these laboratory tests all those years ago ... but it is always pleasing when science proves what one has already sussed out for oneself’. List B, No. 12, 11 January 2003

Do you now see that there are *no* parallels with the ‘equanimity towards all physical sensations’ practice promulgated by Mr. Satya Goenka (who does not comprehend that the Pali term ‘vedanūpādānakkhandhā’ – which is one of the pañc’upādānakkhandhā – and the ‘vedanākkhandhā’ of the arahants, both terms referring as they do to hedonic-tone/ feeling-tone, are affective in nature)?

SRID: late 2011, i was informed by at least one of the DhO people that goenka vipassna, if practiced sincerely, does lead to actual freedom ...

RICHARD: As none of those DhO practitioners, such as you refer to, are actually free from the human condition then being informed, by any of them, that sincerely practicing Mr. Satya Goenka’s ‘equanimity towards all physical sensations’ practice does lead to an actual freedom, is to be informed of a hypothesis.

Such practice – ‘equanimity towards all physical sensations’ – does not even lead to awakenment/enlightenment because, as already mentioned, Mr. Satya Goenka does not comprehend that the Pali term ‘vedanūpādānakkhandhā’ (which is the second khandhā of the pañc’upādānakkhandhā) refers to hedonic-tone (aka feeling-tone) and is thus, of course, affective in nature.

SRID: ... and that it was based on the premise that feelings/emotions are simply distortions in the perception of physical sensations (hormonal reactions, to be specific).

RICHARD: As vedanūpadanakkhandhā is not a distortion in the perception of physical sensations/ hormonal reactions – and neither is the vedanakkhandhā of the arahants an undistorted perception of those physical sensations – then any such premise has no basis in the buddhavacana (‘The Word/Teaching of Buddha’).

SRID: their idea was that a clear and equanimous perception of the physical sensations *is* the ending of emotions/feelings (and being).

RICHARD: As none of them have ended either vedanūpadanakkhandhā or the vedanakkhandhā of the arahants – as is evidenced (for example) by those quotes I provided – then that idea has not been borne out by results.

Which is why I observed (further above) that it is hypothetical.

Regards, Richard.

RESPONDENT: I am definitely trying to practice actualism, but I have not received one answer to any of my questions I have posed to you. You know I don’t expect you to be some sort of guru or anything, just would like some info. Earlier you asked ‘where have I ever been evasive in answering direct questions to me?’ and it seems to me that my direct questions have been evaded.

RICHARD: I have just now gone back through all twelve of the e-mails you have written to this mailing list and found the following three addressed specifically to me:

• [Respondent]: ‘I have been practicing your method for about 2 months now with significant changes in my life. Gotta enjoy that intense sensation in the amygdala! Before I discovered your experience/method, I was doing Vipassana the Goenka way. There I also had big changes in my life. I still sit now, what do you think of that? I sit, and try my damnedest to be this body and every sensation that is a part of it, delighting in the change. Do you see any conflict with this and actualism? This sitting is very restful, but that seems to be its main function now. I am trying to decide if it would be beneficial for me to chuck it, but when I can really experience the sensations, I get STRONG pressures/ sensations in the amygdala, an indication of change, and I propose that this is accelerating the process – what do you think?’ (Thursday 07/10/2004 AEST).

And:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am new to the list, but have been practicing quite some time now. I posted a question for you right before you left recently, but you never got around to it. My question is this – What is wrong with sitting by yourself and thoroughly enjoying the changing sensations that show up in the body? (Friday 22/10/2004 AEST).

And:

• [Respondent]: ‘I am in a class called philosophy and psychology of the self, and I have the opportunity to have many wonderful conversations with my professor. He defines beauty as complexity harmonized – where do you have a problem with that? If you say that harmony is not a fact or is subjective, then how is peace not the same? (Saturday 23/10/2004 AEST).

If all it takes is to not respond to each and every e-mail each and any person addresses to me in order to qualify as being evasive (synonyms: elusive, slippery, shifty, cagey, hard to pin down, equivocal, ambiguous, vague) in answering a direct question then all I can do is tug my forelock and say ‘guilty as charged, milord’ as there are an untold number of e-mails I have not responded to.

You asked what I thought of you still doing Vipassana Bhavana – aka ‘Insight Meditation’ – in the way Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west (as in your ‘I still sit now’ phrasing), and whether I saw any conflict with that and actualism, plus what I thought of your proposal that it is accelerating the process of you trying your damnedest to be the body and every sensation that is a part of it.

First of all, in regards to your query, here is what Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) had to say:

• ‘Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta – Impermanence, Suffering and Egolessness – are the three essential characteristics of things in the Teaching of the Buddha. If you know anicca correctly, you will know dukkha as its corollary and anattā as ultimate truth. It takes time to understand the three together. Impermanence (anicca) is, of course, the essential fact which must be first experienced and understood by practice. Mere book-knowledge of the Buddha-Dhamma will not be enough for the correct understanding of anicca because the experiential aspect will be missing. It is only through experiential understanding of the nature of anicca as an ever-changing process within you that you can understand anicca in the way the Buddha would like you to understand it. (... ...) The real meaning of anicca is that Impermanence or Decay is the inherent nature of everything that exists in the Universe – whether animate or inanimate. The Buddha taught His disciples that everything that exists at the material level is composed of ‘kalāpas’. Kalāpas are material units very much smaller than atoms, which die out immediately after they come into being. Each kalāpa is a mass formed of the eight basic constituents of matter, the solid, liquid, calorific and oscillatory, together with colour, smell, taste, and nutriment. The first four are called primary qualities, and are predominant in a kalāpa. The other four are subsidiaries, dependent upon and springing from the former. A kalāpa is the minutest particle in the physical plane – still beyond the range of science today. It is only when the eight basic material constituents unite together that the kalāpa is formed. In other words, the momentary collocation of these eight basic elements of behaviour makes a man just for that moment, which in Buddhism is known as a kalāpa. The life-span of a kalāpa is termed a moment, and a trillion such moments are said to elapse during the wink of a man’s eye. These kalāpas are all in a state of perpetual change or flux. To a developed student in vipassanā meditation they can be felt as a stream of energy’.(U Ba Khin, The Essentials of Buddha Dhamma in Meditative Practice http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh231-u.html).

Thus where you say you can ‘really experience the sensations’ whilst still sitting now (doing insight meditation the way Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west) then what you are experiencing – a stream of energy known as kalāpas – is impermanence or decay, and its corollary, suffering itself ... neither of which has anything to do with who you really are as you who are trying your damnedest to be the body, and every sensation that is a part of it (aka the kalāpas), are an illusion.

And I say this, not only out of my own experience, but also because of what the very goal of Vipassana Bhavana makes crystal clear:

• [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘... we should understand that each action – whether by deed, word or thought – leaves behind an active force called ‘saṅkhāra’ (or ‘kamma’ in popular terminology), which goes to the credit or debit account of the individual, according to whether the action is good or bad. There is, therefore, an accumulation of saṅkhāra (or Kamma) with everyone, which functions as the supply-source of energy to sustain life, which is inevitably followed by suffering and death. It is by the development of the power inherent in the understanding of anicca, dukkha and anattā, that one is able to rid oneself of the saṅkhāra accumulated in one’s own personal account. This process begins with the correct understanding of anicca, while further accumulations of fresh actions and the reduction of the supply of energy to sustain life are taking place simultaneously, from moment to moment and from day to day. It is, therefore, a matter of a whole lifetime or more to get rid of all one’s saṅkhāra. He who has rid himself of all saṅkhāra comes to the end of suffering, for then no saṅkhāra remains to give the necessary energy to sustain him in any form of life. *On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering*. For us today who take to vipassanā meditation, it would suffice if we can understand anicca well enough to reach the first stage of an Ariya (a Noble person), that is, a Sotāpanna or stream-enterer, who will not take more than seven lives to come to the end of suffering’. [emphasis added]. (U Ba Khin, The Essentials of Buddha Dhamma in Meditative Practice http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh231-u.html).

Hence where you ask what is wrong with sitting by yourself, and thoroughly enjoying the changing sensations that show up in the body, you are not only committing the cardinal error of trying to identify with that which is impermanence or decay (which, according to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, is ‘dukkha’) but you who are trying to so identify are not who you really are anyway (the perfected saint who, at the termination of your life, will pass into an after-death peace).

As to how all this conflicts with actualism: both who you currently are (an illusion) and who you really are (a delusion) can never be the flesh and blood body ... both the thinker (the ego) and the feeler (being itself) are forever locked-out of actuality.

In regards to your professor defining beauty as complexity harmonised and, if harmony is not a fact or is subjective, then how peace is not the same: all I can say is that I have never said that harmony is not actual/is subjective ... it is beauty itself – the very feeling of beauty – which has no existence in actuality.

When I speak of living in peace and harmony I am referring to living in accord, amity, fellowship, and so on (and not as in blending, balance, symmetry, and so forth).

RESPONDENT: I think Vineeto (and perhaps Richard) do not know what they are talking about when they speak of Vipassana: SC ‘body’.

RICHARD: As I can only presume that by ‘SC ‘body’’ you are referring me to my ‘Selected Correspondence’ topic labelled ‘Body’ I checked through both pages and cannot find ‘Vipassana’ mentioned at all: if you could provide the text where Richard ‘perhaps’ does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought.

And the reason why I suggest this is also because of this (in a recent post):

• [Respondent]: ‘(...) I myself do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition, but the [Vipassana] technique works and it is not at all what Richard or Vineeto describes it to be. THAT is why I say they do not understand the technique’. (Saturday 06/11/2004 AEDST).

As you not provide the text, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is ‘not at all’ what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to.

RESPONDENT: From what I have been taught, the teaching of Vipassana is to go beyond both body AND consciousness, or mind.

RICHARD: Indeed ... here is but one instance (among many) where Mr. Gotama the Sakyan makes it abundantly clear that full release is beyond both body and consciousness:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) Lastly, the discourse drives the point home by explaining that the instructed disciple is

• [quote] ‘Disenchanted with the *body*, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with *consciousness*. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released’. He discerns that ‘Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world’. ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66).

Note well it says ‘there is nothing further for this world’ ... if that is not a clear indication of a withdrawal from this sensate material world I would like to know what is. [emphasises added].

RESPONDENT: (...) Are you sure actualism is 180 degrees opposite?

RICHARD: Ha ... as I am this flesh and blood body only, and as this flesh and blood body being conscious – as in being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, being sensible, not insensible (comatose) – is what consciousness is (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition), I am most assuredly not disenchanted with the body/disenchanted with consciousness ... let alone fully released from same (and thus) discerning there is nothing further for this world.

RESPONDENT: Maybe you guys just know Vipassana as taught by quacks.

RICHARD: As the only occasion I am cognisant of, wherein you have read anything of what I have written about the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west, is the e-mail I wrote to you on Tuesday 26/10/2004 AEST – wherein I quoted from what Mr. Ba Khin had to say – I can only assume that you are characterising him (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) as being a quack.

Especially so as you specifically say that you [quote] ‘do not buy much of the theory handed down from tradition’ [endquote].

RESPONDENT: Ok –

RICHARD: If I may ask? Are you saying ‘Ok’ (as in an assent or acquiescence in response to a question or statement) to my assumption that it is Mr. Ba Khin – Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master – whom you are characterising as being a quack?

RESPONDENT: Actually I was referring to your general description of Vipassana and the SC body from Vineeto.

RICHARD: If you could provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you are referring to where you think Richard [quote] ‘perhaps’ [endquote] does not know what he is talking about I may be able to respond constructively to your thought.

Furthermore, as you do not provide the ‘general description of Vipassana’ of mine you are referring to, where Richard describes the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west in a way which is [quote] ‘not at all’ [endquote] what the technique you were taught is, there is nothing of substance for me to respond to.

RESPONDENT: I just figured you guys agree on most of the things you say about actualism.

RICHARD: Indeed we do ... however, as the Vipassana Bhavana (aka ‘Insight Meditation’) Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west is not, and never will be, actualism there is no reason to suppose that such concordance would extend to each and every detail of one of the multitudinous sub-sects of the multiplicity of sects which subsist in the religious denomination known as ‘Buddhism’.

Speaking personally, I always leave sectarian disputes to the sectarians to deal with.

RESPONDENT: Richard – you may also want to look at this and explain how you can still assert the 180 degree different-ness of actualism and what you call spirituality. Sure, you don’t have to know everything about all the different sects and such, but you better know enough to be able to assert how what you say and what others say is actually 180 deg. opposite.

[Richard]: ‘Actual freedom: This physical universe is beginningless and endless (unborn and undying). Spiritual freedom: God (by whatever name) is beginningless and endless (unborn and undying)’.

No God in Vipassana., this becomes clear after practice.

RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘The law of nature is such that when you stop creating new sankharas [mental formations] you are on the path of liberation, nirodha-gamini patipada. The Buddha called it dukkha-nirodha-gamini patipada, the path to eradicate all miseries; and he has also called it vedana-nirodha-gamini patipada, the path to eradicate all vedana [sensation]. In other words, by walking on the path one reaches the stage where there is no more vedana because *one experiences something beyond mind and matter*. Within the field of mind and matter there is constant contact, because of which there is vedana, whether pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. To come out of vedana is to come out of misery’. [italics in original, emphasis added]. (‘The Snare Of Mara’; www.vri.dhamma.org/newsletters/nl0002.html).

Just as a matter of interest ... were you ever to ‘come out of misery’ (as also expressed in the ‘freedom from all suffering’ phrasing below) just what is your plan for informing this mailing list of your success? And here is why I ask:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘When one experiences the truth of nibbana – a stage beyond the entire sensorium – all the six sense organs stop working. *There can’t be any contact with objects outside*, so sensation ceases. At this stage there is freedom from all suffering’. [emphasis added]. (‘Buddha’s Path Is to Experience Reality’; www.vri.dhamma.org/newsletters/nl9510.html).

Here is some more on that ‘something’ referred to in the first quote which is beyond mind and matter:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘... transcending the field of mind and matter, one comes to *the ultimate truth* which is beyond all sensory experience, beyond the phenomenal world. In this transcendent reality there is no more anicca [impermanence]: nothing arises, and therefore nothing passes away. It is a stage without birth or becoming: the deathless. While the meditator experiences this reality, the senses do not function and therefore sensations cease. This is the experience of nirodha, the cessation of sensations and of suffering’. [emphasis added]. (‘Sensation – The Key to Satipattana’; www.vri.dhamma.org/archives/ddsensation.html).

RESPONDENT: What appealed me most about actualism is that I don’t have to believe in it (the same thing I liked about Vipassana).

RICHARD: If you did ‘care about what is the exact philosophy behind it’ you would find that you do indeed have to believe in ‘Vipassana’ ... but do not take my word for it; instead, shall we see what Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) had to say in 1981? Vis.:

• [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘Anicca, dukkha, anattā – Impermanence, Suffering and Egolessness – are the three essential characteristics of things in the Teaching of the Buddha. If you know anicca correctly, you will know dukkha as its corollary and anattā as ultimate truth. (...) It is only through experiential understanding of the nature of anicca as an ever-changing process within you that you can understand anicca in the way the Buddha would like you to understand it. (...) It is by the development of the power inherent in the understanding of anicca, dukkha and anattā, that one is able to rid oneself of the saṅkhāra accumulated in one’s own personal account. (...) He who has rid himself of all saṅkhāra comes to the end of suffering, for then no saṅkhāra remains to give the necessary energy to sustain him in any form of life. On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering. For us today who take to vipassanā meditation, it would suffice if we can understand anicca well enough to reach the first stage (...) The fact of anicca, which opens the door to the understanding of dukkha and anattā and eventually to the end of suffering, can be encountered in its full significance only through the Teachings of a Buddha (...) For progress in vipassanā meditation, a student must keep knowing anicca as continuously as possible. (...) The last words of the Buddha just before He breathed His last and passed away into Maha-parinibbāna were: ‘Decay (or anicca) is inherent in all component things. Work out your own salvation with diligence.’ This is in fact the essence of all His teachings during the forty-five years of His ministry. If you will keep up the awareness of the anicca that is inherent in all component things, you are sure to reach the goal in the course of time. (...) It is only when you experience impermanence (anicca) as suffering (dukkha) that you come to the realization of the truth of suffering, the first of the Four Noble Truths basic to the doctrine of the Buddha. Why? Because when you realize the subtle nature of dukkha from which you cannot escape for a moment, you become truly afraid of, disgusted with, and disinclined towards your very existence as mentality-materiality (namarupa), and look for a way of escape to a state beyond dukkha, and so to Nibbāna, the end of suffering. (...) Before entering upon the practice of vipassanā meditation, that is, after samādhi has been developed to a proper level, a student should acquaint himself with the theoretical knowledge of material and mental properties, i.e., of rūpa and nāma. For in vipassanā meditation one contemplates not only the changing nature of matter, but also the changing nature of mentality, of the thought-elements of attention directed towards the process of change going on within matter. At times attention will be focused on the impermanence of the material side of existence, i.e. upon anicca in regard to rūpa, and at other times on the impermanence of the thought-elements or mental side, i.e., upon anicca in regard to nāma. (... ...) The world is now facing serious problems which threaten all mankind. It is just the right time for everyone to take to vipassanā meditation and learn how to find a deep pool of quiet in the midst of all that is happening today. Anicca is inside of everybody. It is within reach of everybody. Just a look into oneself and there it is – anicca to be experienced. When one can feel anicca, when one can experience anicca, and when one can become engrossed in anicca, one can at will cut oneself off from the world of ideation outside. (... ...) The time-clock of vipassanā has now struck – that is, for the revival of Buddha-Dhamma vipassanā in practice. (U Ba Khin, The Essentials of Buddha Dhamma in Meditative Practice http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh231-u.html).

This is what Mr. Eric Lerner had to say about Mr. Ba Khin:

• [Mr. Eric Lerner]: ‘In the past few decades in Theravada Buddhist countries there has been a general revival of interest in insight meditation among the robed Sangha, and with it a spreading of the practice outside the monastery walls. (...) one of the most important meditation masters of modern day Burma, Thray Sithu U Ba Khin (...) [taught] meditation at the International Meditation Centre in Rangoon, which was established under his guidance in the early 1950s. The unique characteristics of his spiritual teaching stem from his situation as a lay meditation master in an orthodox Buddhist country (...) all of his practice was geared specifically to lay people. He developed a powerfully direct approach to vipassanā meditation that could be undertaken in a short period of intensive practice and continued as part of householding life. His method has been of great importance in the transmission of the Dhamma to the West, because in his twenty five years at the Center he instructed scores of foreign visitors who needed no closer acquaintance with Buddhism per se to quickly grasp this practice of insight. Since U Ba Khin’s demise in 1971 several of his commissioned disciples have carried on his work, both within and outside of Burma. Hundreds of Westerners have received the instruction from S.N. Goenka in India, Robert Hover and Ruth Denison in America and John Coleman in England. In addition, several of U Ba Khin’s closest disciples still teach at the Centre in Rangoon’. (Eric Lerner, U Ba Khin: An Appreciation http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh231-u.html).

Just in case this précis of Mr. Ba Khin’s teaching was too much for you to take in, may I leave you with just one sentence of his (copied from above) to leave you with? Vis.: [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering’ [dukkha]. [endquote]. And just in case you miss the point, he is clearly saying that ‘the end of suffering’ (editorial note) lies in ‘Parinirvana’ (an after-death state) and is the sole goal of ‘Vipassana Bhavana’.

So, can you now start to ‘differentiate between spiritualism versus actualism’?

VINEETO: As you say you quite enjoy the practice of ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ then clearly actualism is not for you because, as the very term expressively states, actualism is all about what is actual whereas vibes, being feelings, are not actual.

RESPONDENT: Sorry I’m not hip to your lingo ...

RICHARD: It is quite commonplace ‘lingo’ actually. Vis.:

• ecstatic: of the nature of, characterized by, or producing ecstasy [the state of being distracted by some emotion; a frenzy, a stupor; (now the usual sense) an exalted state of feeling]. (Oxford Dictionary).
• ecstatic: of, relating to, or marked by ecstasy [a state of being beyond reason and self-control; a state of overwhelming emotion; trance, especially: a mystic or prophetic trance]. (Merriam Webster Dictionary).
• ecstatic: feeling or characterized by ecstasy [an overwhelming feeling of great happiness or joyful excitement; an emotional or religious frenzy or trancelike state]. (Compact Oxford English Dictionary).
• ecstatic: showing or feeling great pleasure or delight; completely dominated by an intense emotion; (plural) somebody who undergoes spells of intense emotion. (Encarta® World English Dictionary).
• ecstatic: enraptured, rapturous, rhapsodic; feeling great rapture or delight. (WordNet® 2.0).
• ecstatic: marked by or expressing ecstasy [a state of emotion so intense that one is carried beyond rational thought and self-control]. (American Heritage® Dictionary).

And:

• vibes: a distinctive emotional atmosphere; sensed intuitively; synonym: vibration. (WordNet® 2.0).
• vibe: (slang) an emotional quality believed to be detectable in a person or thing by intuition; vibration; often plural; related word: intuition. (Wordsmyth Dictionary).
• vibe: (slang) a vibration; often used in the plural; short for vibration [a distinctive emotional aura or atmosphere regarded as being instinctively sensed or experienced; often used in the plural]. (American Heritage® Dictionary).
• vibes: (slang) the feeling you get from being in a particular place or situation or from being with a particular person. (Cambridge Dictionary of American English).
• vibe: (informal) the atmosphere or aura of a person or place as communicated to and felt by others. (Compact Oxford English Dictionary).
• vibes: (slang) atmosphere or feeling: a particular kind of atmosphere, feeling, or ambience; plural: vibes. (Encarta® World English Dictionary).
• vibe: mood or atmosphere; feeling; (plural) signals or messages sent out to someone. (Macquarie Dictionary).
• vibe: (slang) transmit in the form of vibrations [characteristic signals or impressions about a person or thing, regarded as communicable to others; (an) atmosphere: also, a mental (esp. occult) influence]; affect in a specified way by means of vibrations. (Oxford Dictionary).
• vibe: a characteristic emanation, aura, or spirit that infuses or vitalizes someone or something and that can be instinctively sensed or experienced – often used in plural; a distinctive usually emotional atmosphere capable of being sensed – usually used in plural. (Merriam Webster Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: (...) I was not referring to ‘Psychic Vibes’ or vibes as ‘feelings’, sorry.

RICHARD: That being the case then, for the sake of clarity in communication, it would be handy to use some other expression than ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ as that phraseology does not convey what you explain it to mean in this e-mail (more on this below).

RESPONDENT: As you continue to put (unintended) meaning into my words you will continue to misunderstand me, making effective communication impossible. This has happened countless times now.

RICHARD: As I also took your ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ as to be conveying that you were intensely enjoying (as in ‘grooving’) exalted (as in ‘ecstatic’) feelings (as in ‘vibes’) I checked with a wide range of dictionaries to see why I too had taken it that way ... given the (further above) definitions it is a quite understandable take and thus your remonstrations (above) are most definitely uncalled for.

Here is what you say, in this e-mail, that you were conveying (from the parenthesised snip above):

• [Respondent]: ‘What I am referring to is the utter delight in experiencing the universe as it actually is’. [endquote].

And the following is how the universe ‘actually is’ (also from the parenthesised snip) according to you:

• [Respondent]: ‘... as I recall, the whole universe is vibrating. Atoms are themselves harmonic oscillators, same for molecules, etc. Molecules are constantly vibrating in your body, and effective chemical signalling between neurons would be impossible with out vibration (diatomic, etc.). So, when you are sensately experiencing the universe, this input can only come in the form of vibration (sensation, sight, sound, even taste and smell)’. [endquote].

Thus ‘grooving on ecstatic vibes’ is your way of conveying that you are utterly delighting (as in ‘grooving’) in experiencing exalted (as in ‘ecstatic’) vibrations (as in ‘vibes’) of the nature proposed by theoretical physicists ... which, being but a mathematical model of the universe, cannot be experienced sensately.

Here is what you go on to say:

• [Respondent]: ‘If you insist that vibrations are feelings and you have no part of them I wonder in what realm your experience happens’. [endquote].

Going by what your co-respondent has written it is most certainly not the realm where the following occurs (from the web site you provided a link to previously):

• [Question]: What are vibrations? How do they affect us?
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: Everything in the Universe is vibrating. This is no theory, it is a fact. The entire Universe is nothing but vibrations. The good vibrations make us happy, the unwholesome vibrations cause misery. Vipassana will help you come out of effect of bad vibrations – the vibrations caused by a mind full of craving and aversion. When the mind is perfectly balanced, the vibrations become good. And these good or bad vibrations you generate start influencing the atmosphere all around you. Vipassana helps you generate vibrations of purity, compassion and goodwill – beneficial for yourself and all others’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#vibrations).

As compassion is unambiguously a passion it would appear that the [quote] ‘good vibrations’ [endquote] of the entire universe are affective in character ... as is evidenced by the following:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘... at the end of a 10-day Vipassana course, you are taught how to send metta, the vibrations of love and compassion. He or she [the deceased person being referred to in the question being answered] will be happy. Wherever you are, your metta vibrations will touch this person’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#emotion).

Thus the [quote] ‘metta vibrations’ [endquote] are indeed the ‘good vibrations’ being referred to and, furthermore, like all such vibes, are both transmittable and receivable. Vis.:

• [Question]: ‘Are there Dhamma forces that support us as we develop on the Path?
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘Certainly – visible as well as invisible ones. (...) If we develop love, compassion and goodwill, we will get tuned up with all beings, visible or invisible, that have these positive vibrations, and we will start getting support from them. It is like tuning a radio to receive waves of a certain meter band from a distant broadcasting station. Similarly, we tune ourselves to vibrations of the type we generate; and so we receive the benefit of those vibrations’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#dhammaforces).

And:

• [Question]: ‘What is the value of attending group sittings?
• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘Whenever a few people sit together, whatever they generate in their minds permeates the atmosphere. If five, ten, twenty, or fifty people meditate together, the vibrations of one or two among them might be good vibrations and this may help the others meditate better in that atmosphere’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/newsletters/nl9906.html).

And:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘... at the end of every Vipassana course, or a 1-hour sitting, a meditator is asked to practice metta [loving-kindness], to share the merits gained with all beings. Metta vibrations are tangible vibrations whose beneficial power increases as the purity of the mind increases. (...) Without samadhi, the metta is really no metta [selfless love]. When samadhi is weak, the mind is very agitated, and it is agitated only when it is generating some impurity, some type of craving or aversion. With these impurities, you cannot expect to generate good qualities, vibrations of metta, or karuna (compassion)’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#metta).

And:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘... people who don’t practice Vipassana can practice Metta Bhavana. In such countries as Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand, Metta Bhavana is very common in every household. However, the practice is usually confined to mentally reciting ‘May all beings be happy, be peaceful’. This certainly gives some peace of mind to the person who is practicing it. To some extent good vibrations enter the atmosphere, but they are not strong. However, when you practice Vipassana, purification starts. With this base of purity, your practice of Metta naturally becomes stronger. Then you won’t need to repeat these good wishes aloud. A stage will come when every fiber of the body keeps on feeling compassion for others, generating goodwill for others’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#metta).

As for the [quote] ‘bad vibrations’ [endquote] of the entire universe ... the following is quite clear:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘When we generate vibrations of negativity – anger, hatred, ill-will, animosity, ego, etc. – the atmosphere around us becomes charged with these vibrations. This pollution, although invisible, causes so many problems in human society – tensions, stress, strain, conflicts. Misery, nothing but misery. Vipassana is the way out of this misery. It is a technique to purify the mind. In order to overcome the darkness of ignorance and negativity we must generate love, compassion and goodwill. In order to generate these wholesome qualities, we need to purify our minds. (...) It is the mind which creates all these different types of pollution. As long as the mind remains impure, it will continue to generate unhealthy vibrations, making the entire atmosphere full of misery’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/research/94sem/sng94talk.html).

And:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘This is how mara (which is nothing but the manifestation of your own impurities) gets into the centre; you start fighting with each other and generating bad vibrations of anger and hatred and this spoils the entire atmosphere of the centre. You have come to help develop good vibrations of love and compassion and peace, and in the name of Dhamma you have started harming the centre and also harming yourselves. Be careful to see that you do not fight with each other; you must live together in peace and harmony’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/dgedays.html).

And:

• [Mr. Satya Goenka]: ‘Vipassana wants you to observe the natural vibration that you have – in the form of sensations – vibrations when you become angry, or when you are full of passion, or fear, or hatred, so that you can come out of them’. (www.vri.dhamma.org/general/question.html#mantras).

Needless is it to add there there are no such vibrations, be they either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ vibrations, here in the actual world (the world of the senses)?

I have provided those detailed quotes because the problem with the peoples who discard the Christian/Judaic/Islamic god is they do not realise that by turning to the eastern spiritual philosophy they have effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Eastern spirituality is religion ... merely in a different form to what people in the west have been raised to believe in. Eastern spiritual philosophy sounds so convincing to the western mind which is desperately looking for answers. The Christian/Judaic/Islamic conditioning actually sets up the situation for a thinking person to be susceptible to the esoteric doctrines of the east. It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the west are eagerly following the east down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking divine immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. At the end of the line there is always a god/goddess/truth, of some description, lurking in disguise wreaking its havoc with its ‘ancient wisdom’.

Have you ever been to India to see for yourself the results of what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living?

I did, back when there was a full suite of affections in this body, and it was hideous.

RESPONDENT: There is nothing new in the idea of using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening. If effort at self-mastery makes sense to you right now, so be it. The nondualistic approach is difficult to penetrate.

RICHARD: I have never advocated ‘using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening’ because, first of all, I have explained to you that ‘to awake from a dream is but to be lucidly dreaming’ and that the ‘dreamer’ must become extinct and, secondly, ‘mindfulness’ is a Buddhist term that I never use and it involves a total withdrawal of self from the sensate world so as to realise the ‘timeless’ which is another term I never use and, thirdly, I speak of ‘self-immolation’ and not ‘self mastery’. I have never, ever said anything whatsoever that could possibly persuade you to make such inaccurate and unsubstantiated comments about what Richard is on about ... leaving me no option but to consider you ignorant (as in ignoring what I write) or ignorant (as in stupid).

RESPONDENT: To ask and stay aware of what I am experiencing now is mindfulness.

RICHARD: The word ‘mindfulness’ is an English word that means ‘taking heed or care; being conscious or aware; paying attention to, being heedful of, being watchful of, being regardful of, being cognizant of, being aware of, being conscious of, taking into account, being alert to, being alive to, being sensible of, being careful of, being wary of, being chary of’ and may be used, more or less, the same as ‘watchfulness’, ‘heedfulness’, ‘regardfulness’, ‘attentiveness’, and to a lesser extent ‘carefulness’, ‘sensibleness’, ‘wariness’. However, the word ‘mindfulness’ has taken-on the Buddhist meaning of the word for most seekers (the same as the word ‘meditation’ which used to mean ‘think over; ponder’), and no longer has the every-day meaning as per the dictionary. The Buddhist connotations come from the Pali ‘Bhavana’ (the English translation of the Pali ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ is ‘Insight Meditation’). ‘Bhavana’ comes from the root ‘Bhu’, which means ‘to grow’ or ‘to become’. There fore, ‘Bhavana’ means ‘to cultivate’, and, as the word is always used in reference to the mind, ‘Bhavana’ means ‘mental cultivation’. ‘Vipassana’ is derived from two roots: ‘Passana’, which means ‘seeing’ or ‘perceiving’ and ‘Vi’ (which is a prefix with the complex set of connotations) basically means ‘in a special way’ but there also is the connotation of both ‘into’ and ‘through’. The whole meaning of the word ‘Vipassana’, then, is looking into something with meticulousness discernment, seeing each component as distinct and separate, and piercing all the way through so as to perceive the most fundamental reality of that thing. This process leads to intuition into the basic reality of whatever is being inspected. Put it all together and ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ means the cultivation of the mind, aimed at seeing in a special way that leads to intuitive discernment and to full understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s basic precepts. In ‘Vipassana Bhavana’, Buddhists cultivate this special way of seeing life. They train themselves to see reality exactly as it is described by Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, and in the English-speaking world they call this special mode of perception: ‘mindfulness’.

Which is why I have never advocated ‘using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening’ because ‘mindfulness’ is clearly a Buddhist term and involves a total withdrawal from the sensate world so as to realise the ‘timeless’ (which is another term I never use), apart from which, to awake from a dream is but to be lucidly dreaming ... the ‘dreamer’ must become extinct. And how to bring about extinction? By asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive. Given that this is one’s only moment of being alive, if one is not experiencing the peace-on-earth that is already always here now, then one is wasting this moment of being alive by settling for second-best ... it means that the long evolutionary process that produced this flesh and blood human being has come to naught. But, here is another moment, another opportunity, to actually be here now – where one’s destiny is – and how is one experiencing this moment? More often than not one is experiencing this moment through a feeling – standing back and feeling it out like putting a toe into the water – instead of jumping-in boots and all. Thus one can find out what brought about this feeling that is preventing me from being here now and through this ‘hands-on’ examination have it vanish ... and the reward is immediate and direct.

This actualist method is a far cry from the Buddhist carefully cultivated ‘mindfulness’ ... which is a further withdrawal from this actual world.

RESPONDENT: If it is a technique to bring about a desired result such as self-immolation or freedom from conditioned reaction, it is effort at self-mastery in which the old me is gone and the desired state only remains, i.e.: attainment.

RICHARD: Goodness me, no ... ‘self-mastery’ is all about imposing discipline, order, regulation, control, restraint, obedience and so on. Psychological and psychic self-immolation is self-sacrifice ... how can it be seen by you as ‘self-mastery’?

You are stretching a long bow, here.

RESPONDENT: Dualistic approach is effort to bring about a desired result of freedom for me. It starts with belief that I know what is and I know what I want, what should be, so I will work to get there. But that is like a fish trying to become water. Fish or form is the time aspect and water or emptiness is the timeless aspect.

RICHARD: Indeed ... you are, more or less acceptably, describing the Buddhist approach, although the Buddhist Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni starts with the attitude that they cannot know in advance ‘what is’ (‘Isness’) or ‘what they want’ (‘Nirvana’) or ‘what should be’ (‘Deathless’) really is like, but that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan does. Hence the necessity of ‘taking refuge’ in the Buddha (the awakened one), in the ‘Dhamma’ (the timeless law) and in the ‘Sangha’ (the community of perfected people). I would agree with you that all this is a belief as in faith (and, further, that the word ‘refuge’ is but a code-word for ‘surrender’) but Buddhists will shake their heads knowingly and tell me that I just do not understand.

RESPONDENT: I suspect they are right.

RICHARD: Why? What does ‘I take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha’ mean to you?

*

RICHARD: The word ‘emptiness’ as you use it is the Buddhist ‘Sunyata’ ... which is a ‘timeless an spaceless and formless absolute’.

RESPONDENT: The state of the man or woman determines the level of understanding and it is understanding that determines approach. Emptiness can not be understood conceptually.

RICHARD: Then why talk to me about it? If you can say that ‘fish or form is the time aspect and water or emptiness is the timeless aspect’ then why can I not say that the Buddhist ‘Sunyata’ is a ‘timeless and spaceless and formless absolute’? You do this quite often – introduce a topic giving your view on it – then when the discussion gets going you come out with your stock-standard response that grinds everything to a halt. If you will not discuss it then why start in the first place?

RICHARD: Do you practice detachment (you are twice-removed from actuality)?

RESPONDENT No. 25: Alas, I do not practice much (please define detachment). Do you have a method which you endorse?

RICHARD: I am using ‘detachment’ in the Buddhist meaning of ‘withdrawal from the world of the senses’. I would never endorse any such method.

RESPONDENT: While there may indeed be some who proclaim to be Buddhist who hold to this definition of detachment it is by no means ‘the Buddhist meaning’ as Richard would have us believe.

RICHARD: Methinks upon closer examination you will find that it is indeed ‘the Buddhist meaning’ of the word. Contrary to popular belief, Buddhists are not actively pursuing peace-on-earth per se.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica ‘Ultimate Reality’ in Buddhism is called ‘Parinirvana’ (Complete Nirvana) or the freedom of spirit (by whatever name) brought about by release from the body. In the Buddhist analysis of the human condition, delusions of egocentricity and their resultant desires bind humans to a continuous round of rebirths and its consequent suffering (dukkha). It is release from these bonds that constitutes ‘Nirvana’, or the experience of Enlightenment. ‘Nirvana’ – in Buddhist religious thought and spiritual philosophy – is but the initial goal of the mindfulness disciplines and practice in that it signifies the transcendent state of freedom achieved by the extinction of desire and of individual consciousness. That this is only the inaugural objective is very clear to the discerning eye because – while liberation from rebirth does not imply immediate death and thus release into the ‘Ultimate Reality’ – the physical death of a ‘Perfect One’ (an Arhat or a Buddha) does. Thus while the immediate aim of the Buddhist path is release from the round of phenomenal existence with its inherent suffering by attaining Nirvana (the enlightened state in which the fires of greed, hatred, and ignorance have been quenched), Nirvana is not to be confused with total annihilation because, after attaining Nirvana, the enlightened individual will continue to live, burning off any remaining karma until the state of ‘Final Nirvana’ (Parinirvana) is attained at the moment of physical death. It may be noted that, during the early centuries of Buddhist history, not only were there the three major pilgrimage centres – the place of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s birth at Lumbini, the place of his Enlightenment at Bodh Gaya, the Deer Park in Varanasi where he preached his first sermon – but particularly the village of Kusinara, (or Kushinagara) located in the eastern district of Deoria, which is the place of his Parinirvana.

Quite obviously, this is a very self-seeking approach to life on earth ... something that all metaphysical peoples are guilty of. The quest to secure one’s immortality (by whatever name) in some spurious ‘After-Life’ (by whatever name) is unambiguously selfish ... peace-on-earth is readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagined spirit (by whatever name) after physical death. So much for their humanitarian ideals of peace, goodness, altruism, philanthropy and humaneness. All religious and spiritual and mystical quests amount to nothing more than a self-centred urge to perpetuate oneself for ever and a day. All metaphysicists fall foul of this existential dilemma. They pay lip-service to the notion of self-sacrifice – weeping crocodile tears at noble martyrdom – whilst selfishly pursuing the timeless ‘State of Being’ ... the ‘Deathless State’. The root cause of all the ills of humankind can be sheeted home to this single, basic fact: the overriding importance of the survival of ‘self’ by whatever name.

RESPONDENT: Rather, detachment (properly understood in the context of the teachings of Buddha) is regarded on one level as an ending of the identification process; identifying with possessions, beliefs, titles, jobs, status, etc.

RICHARD: The word ‘detachment’ is a common English rendering of the mental absorption deemed necessary for the removal of what the Buddhists conceive of as being the cause of birth in the first place (in Pali ‘nirodha’ more properly means ‘cessation’). It refers to the ‘mindfulness’ that leads to the cessation of ‘dukkha’ through the cessation of craving. In Buddhism, ‘craving’ (Pali ‘tanha’ or Sanskrit ‘trishna’) is said to draw creatures on through greed – and drives them on through hate – while ignorance prevents their seeing the truth of how things are or where they are going (ignorance is regarded as a basic factor in the continuity of existence). Therefore the Buddhist ‘detachment’ (‘nirodha’) is seen as the removal of a poison, the curing of a disease, not as the mere denial of it (opposed to the assertion of it) or the obstruction of it (in conflict with the favouring of it) since both assertion and denial confirm and maintain alike the basic idea or state that is required to be cured ... which state is known as ‘clinging’ (Pali ‘upadana’). The word ‘upadana’ means literally ‘taking up’ (‘upa’ plus ‘adana’) and is used for what the Buddhists maintain is the assumption and consumption that satisfies craving and produces existence. As craving pre-dates birth, such upadana is the condition sine qua non for ‘being’. And, as clinging’s ending is Nirvana, the Buddhist detachment (as ‘cessation’) is not to be confounded with mere negativism or nihilism ... it is a total disassociation of self from the world of people, things and events. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan expressly states that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic, SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66). Vis.:

• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease (...) But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease (...) ‘Feeling is not self (...) ‘Perception is not self (...) ‘Mental fabrications are not self (...) ‘Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease (...) ‘What do you think, monks: Is form constant or inconstant?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’.
• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Stressful, Lord’.
• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘No, Lord’.
• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘Is feeling constant or inconstant (...)?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant Lord’.
• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘Is perception constant or inconstant (...)?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’.
• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘Are fabrications constant or inconstant(...)?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’.
• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘What do you think, monks: Is consciousness constant or inconstant (...)?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Inconstant, Lord’.
• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘Stressful, Lord’.
• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?’
• [Messrs. Monks]: ‘No, Lord’.
• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘Thus, monks, any body whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am’. Any feeling whatsoever (...) Any perception whatsoever (...) Any fabrications whatsoever (...) Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am’. (...) Seeing thus, the instructed noble disciple grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, ‘Fully released’. He discerns that ‘Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world’. (http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/samyutta/sn22-59.html).

Hence my use of ‘detachment’ in the post quoted (at the top of this post) was indeed in the full Buddhist meaning of ‘withdrawal from the world of the senses’ and, as I further wrote, I would never, ever endorse any such method because it promotes the fantasy that the ‘Real Self’ (by whatever name) is to be found in the ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’ dimension that is not of this temporal and spatial world of matter ... this physical world of the senses.

RESPONDENT: We depend on these things to define who we are, to give substance to our self image. Therefore we are attached to them, because to lose them is to lose a part of our ‘self’. The practice of detachment in this context would be to pay attention to these ‘things’ and the fact of the identification process. Detachment itself (not its practice) arises from an awareness of the truth of the matter; the confusion, conflict and harm inherent in the identification process. With awareness of the truth comes an end to the matter; one is no longer attached by identification. One is now ‘detached’ (so to speak).

RICHARD: The ‘end to the matter’ only comes with the psychological and psychic extinction of self in any way, shape or form. One’s very identity is felt and thought to be a ‘being’ inside this flesh and blood body ... busily identifying with people, things and events ‘outside’ the body. To become detached from the superficial ‘outer’ identification (self-image as presented to self and others) only endorses and perpetuates the delusion that who ‘I’ feel and think ‘I’ am is a psychological and psychic entity inhabiting this body.

RESPONDENT: On another level detachment is regarded as an end to the bias and prejudice of past conditioning. It is freedom from partiality. It is seeing clearly. The practice of detachment in this context is to be aware of/ attentive to the process of bias and prejudice as they manifest. Once again, it is awareness of the truth of the matter that ends the matter and detachment is then actualised, not practiced. In all matters it is this way. To practice is to be aware of/ attentive to what is happening now. Attention is the seed. Returning again and again to attentiveness is caring for the seed. Awareness is the flowering plant that naturally arises from the seed of its own accord.

RICHARD: May I ask? What is the constitution of this ‘seed’ that you are letting flower into awareness? To say that the seed is ‘attention’ (and say nothing else) does not convey that this seed is, in itself, innocent.

RESPONDENT: To return to the ‘Buddhist meaning’ of detachment. I have never come across a ‘Buddhist’ definition as presented by Richard.

RICHARD: I beg to differ. Mr. Gunaratana Mahathera (the ‘Venerable H. Gunaratana Mahathera’ of the Bhavana Society; Rt. 1 Box 218-3 High View, WV 26808. USA.), for just one example, said on December 7, 1990:

• [quote]: ‘Vipassana is the oldest of Buddhist meditation practices. The method comes directly from the Sitipatthana Sutta, a discourse attributed to Buddha himself. Vipassana is a direct and gradual cultivation of mindfulness or awareness. It proceeds piece by piece over a period of years (...) this Sutta offers comprehensive practical instructions on the practice of mindfulness meditation’. [endquote].

An examination of this core Sutta shows a pronounced and deliberate withdrawal from the world of the senses and this flesh and blood body itself. Vis.:

‘The Satipatthana Sutta’ (MN 10; PTS: MN i.55):

• [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: ‘This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the disappearance of pain and distress, for the attainment of the right method, and for the realisation of Unbinding – in other words, the four frames of reference ... remain focused on the body in and of itself – ardent, alert, and mindful – putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world (...) remain focused on feelings (...) mind (...) mental qualities in and of themselves – ardent, alert, and mindful – putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world’.

A. (Body) [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: [1] ‘There is the case where a monk – having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building – sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out (...) He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. (...) He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or externally on the body in and of itself, or both internally and externally on the body in and of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that ‘There is a body’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself. [2] ‘Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns that he is walking. When standing, he discerns that he is standing. When sitting, he discerns that he is sitting. When lying down, he discerns that he is lying down. Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or focused externally (...) unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself. [3] ‘Furthermore, when going forward and returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward and looking away (...) when bending and extending his limbs (...) when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe and his bowl (...) when eating, drinking, chewing, and savouring (...) when urinating and defecating (...) when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, and remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or focused externally (...) unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself. [4] ‘Furthermore (...) a monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: ‘In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, faeces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine’. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or focused externally ... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself. [5] ‘Furthermore (...) the monk contemplates this very body – however it stands, however it is disposed – in terms of properties: ‘In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property’. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or focused externally (...) unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself. [6] ‘Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground – one day, two days, three days dead – bloated, livid, and festering, he applies it to this very body, ‘This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate’. Or again, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground, picked at by crows, vultures, and hawks, by dogs, hyenas, and various other creatures (...) a skeleton smeared with flesh and blood, connected with tendons (...) a fleshless skeleton smeared with blood, connected with tendons (...) a skeleton without flesh or blood, connected with tendons (...) bones detached from their tendons, scattered in all directions – here a hand bone, there a foot bone, here a shin bone, there a thigh bone, here a hip bone, there a back bone, here a rib, there a chest bone, here a shoulder bone, there a neck bone, here a jaw bone, there a tooth, here a skull (...) the bones whitened, somewhat like the colour of shells (...) piled up, more than a year old (...) decomposed into a powder: He applies it to this very body, ‘This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate’. In this way he remains focused internally on the body in and of itself, or externally on the body in and of itself, or both internally and externally on the body in and of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that ‘There is a body’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by not clinging to anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in and of itself.

B. (Feelings) [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan ]: [1] ‘There is the case where a monk, when feeling a painful feeling, discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling. When feeling a pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling. When feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he discerns that he is feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. When feeling a painful feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling of the flesh. When feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a painful feeling not of the flesh. When feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling of the flesh. When feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a pleasant feeling not of the flesh. When feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling of the flesh. When feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling not of the flesh, he discerns that he is feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling not of the flesh. In this way he remains focused internally on feelings in and of themselves, or externally on feelings in and of themselves, or both internally and externally on feelings in and of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to feelings, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to feelings, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to feelings. Or his mindfulness that ‘There are feelings’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by not clinging to anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on feelings in and of themselves.

C. (Mind) [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: [1] ‘There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion. When the mind is restricted, he discerns that the mind is restricted. When the mind is scattered, he discerns that the mind is scattered. When the mind is enlarged, he discerns that the mind is enlarged. When the mind is not enlarged, he discerns that the mind is not enlarged. When the mind is surpassed, he discerns that the mind is surpassed. When the mind is unsurpassed, he discerns that the mind is unsurpassed. When the mind is concentrated, he discerns that the mind is concentrated. When the mind is not concentrated, he discerns that the mind is not concentrated. When the mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns that the mind is not released. In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in and of itself, or externally on the mind in and of itself, or both internally and externally on the mind in and of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the mind, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the mind, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to the mind. Or his mindfulness that ‘There is a mind’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by not clinging to anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the mind in and of itself.

D. (Mental Qualities) [Mr. Gotama the Sakyan]: [1] ‘There is the case where a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five hindrances? There is the case where, there being sensual desire present within, a monk discerns that ‘There is sensual desire present within me’. Or, there being no sensual desire present within, he discerns that ‘There is no sensual desire present within me’. He discerns how there is the arising of unrisen sensual desire. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of sensual desire once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of sensual desire that has been abandoned. A monk discerns that (...) ill will (...) sloth (...) drowsiness (...) restlessness (...) anxiety (...) and uncertainty. In this way he remains focused internally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or externally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or both internally and externally on mental qualities in and of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to mental qualities, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to mental qualities. Or his mindfulness that ‘There are mental qualities’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five hindrances. [2] ‘Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five aggregates for clinging/sustenance. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five aggregates for clinging/sustenance? There is the case where a monk discerns: ‘Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling (...) Such is perception (...) Such are fabrications (...) Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance’. In this way he remains focused internally on the mental qualities in and of themselves, or focused externally (...) unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five aggregates for clinging/sustenance. [3] ‘Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal and external sense media. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal and external sense media? There is the case where he discerns the eye, he discerns forms, he discerns the fetter that arises dependent on both. He discerns how there is the arising of an unrisen fetter. And he discerns how there is the abandoning of a fetter once it has arisen. And he discerns how there is no further appearance in the future of a fetter that has been abandoned. There is the case where he discerns the (...) ear (...) nose (...) tongue (...) body (...) and intellect. In this way he remains focused internally on the mental qualities in and of themselves, or focused externally (...) unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the sixfold internal and external sense media. [4] ‘Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the seven factors of awakening. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the seven factors of awakening? There is the case where, there being mindfulness as a factor of awakening present within, he discerns that ‘Mindfulness as a factor of awakening is present within me’. Or, there being no mindfulness as a factor of awakening present within, he discerns that ‘Mindfulness as a factor of awakening is not present within me’. He discerns how there is the arising of unrisen mindfulness as a factor of awakening. And he discerns how there is the culmination of the development of mindfulness as a factor of awakening once it has arisen. He discerns how there is the arising of unrisen analysis of qualities (...) persistence (...) rapture (...) serenity (...) concentration (...) and equanimity. In this way he remains focused internally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or externally ... unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the seven factors of awakening. [5] ‘Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the four noble truths. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the four noble truths? There is the case where he discerns, as it is actually present, that ‘This is stress ... This is the origination of stress ... This is the cessation of stress ... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress’. In this way he remains focused internally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or externally on mental qualities in and of themselves, or both internally and externally on mental qualities in and of themselves. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to mental qualities, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to mental qualities, or on the phenomenon of origination and passing away with regard to mental qualities. Or his mindfulness that ‘There are mental qualities’ is maintained to the extent of knowledge and remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the four noble truths’. (MN 10; PTS: MN i.55; http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/majjhima/mn10.html).