The Noble Truths as Skillful Means

[JimTempleman]

What you say here is very interesting.

Are you under the impression that the Buddha, (for instance in the Turning The Wheel of Dhamma Sutta) was somehow excluding thought or desire for thought, or desire for lack of thought in meditation from the second or third Noble Truths? Why would meditative experiences of grasping at thought, etc. not be a part of the understanding in the first place? Meditation is often said to be something like familiarization with reality, not a state where special rules apply, which would not apply to the mind in other circumstances.

This reminds me of the point my English teacher, who taught the course in transcendentalism, back in high school made: If there were a man that continually clenched his hand into a fist, wouldn't you tell him to open his hand?

Something happened that night that transformed Gautama into the Buddha. Let's not argue about what it was this time, just accept that it was a change. How can we possibly say that he did not "somehow exclude thought or desire for thought, or desire for lack of thought"? (At least not without some further evidence.) He did what he needed to transform himself. Sometimes a doctor has to pull on your arm to get the elbow joint back in its socket, and that can be painful.

Sometimes going through 'a state where special rules apply' can open us up to see and accept the truth of a situation.

The way this is parsed in the Pali stuff that I remember is a desire for becoming, or a desire for annihilation. If you learn Vipaysana from a good teacher, they cover observation of your aversion and attachment for thoughts, it is not an unusual topic, though I'd say it's definitely not a 'beginner' one, because just having enough stability/clarity to observe thought consistently without being pulled into it is a pre requisite.

Intersting! So they bound desire-to-arising and desire-to-fading away.
There is a difference between "observation of your aversion and attachment for thoughts" and noticing the desire for the next thought in sequential thought. (The details are important.) And once they 'observe aversion and attachment for thoughts' how do they apply that knowledge?

The specific wording is unnecessary, unless you are looking to copyright it or something. Again it is not a unique concept. It is admirable that you discovered it on your own, but I swear, it is not new.

I'm just trying to walk through the minefield (mind-field?) of finding terms that people will not adamantly object to, yet that are clear enough to get the point across.

[JimTempleman]

No apology is needed! I'm not offended at all, please express yourself freely at all times. However, I do not think in this matter that it is a question of semantics. To call the four noble truths 'skillful means' is simply incorrect.

However, I'm not an expert, and I leave it to members of this forum who are more knowledgeable than myself to make a definitive judgment.

Thanks! I really appreciate your support.

[Supramundane]

No apology is needed! I'm not offended at all, please express yourself freely at all times. However, I do not think in this matter that it is a question of semantics. To call the four noble truths 'skillful means' is simply incorrect.

However, I'm not an expert, and I leave it to members of this forum who are more knowledgeable than myself to make a definitive judgment.

Thanks! I really appreciate your support.

Of course, my brother
metta

[JimTempleman]

I'm surprised a moderator hasn't brought this thread to an end, for at least three reasons.

1. Every single lineage advises practitioners to seek instruction from a teacher, and advises this incessantly. It is simply too easy to get confused about what texts are actually saying, and how your experience relates to what is described in texts, particularly when those texts are read in translation.

So you don't want to allow people to examine the texts from a different point of view. Astounding! I want to learn from these amazing texts but not be limited to only one way of viewing them. I'm actually trying to fit a modern understanding of human perception into the Buddhist framework, and not the other way around.

2. Trying to relate different lineages based on descriptions of their practices is a fool's errand. This has been discussed ad nauseam here. Pick your tradition and practice within it according to the instructions and framework of that lineage. Don't try to play Chess according to the rules of Go.

How can anyone possibly cut off Chan or Zen from the origin of Buddhism? I guess its specifically the methods of practice that you want to keep segregated. When you look back at the history of the development of Buddhism in, say China, where do you see this kind of segregation taking place? I guess Dogen should have stayed in Japan.

3. One has to be very careful in sharing insight gained from personal experiences. I've sat at the feet of a lot of well-respected Dharma teachers, but never have I heard a single one explain the Dharma in terms of what they think is a novel theory they've discovered in their own practice.

If that were the case throughout the history of Buddhism there would only be a single linage. Don't teachers adopt skillful means suitable to each individual? And how you exactly do you keep them from learning through experience?

[Malcolm]

Something happened that night that transformed Gautama into the Buddha. Let's not argue about what it was this time, just accept that it was a change.

The Buddha gave a very detailed account of his awakening. So there is no need to argue what it was. It is quite well known.

He first recalled 90k+ lifetimes, understood that these lifetimes were a result of karma, suffering. He then entered into the eight dhyānas to eliminate traces for rebirth in their corresponding lokas, but seeing for each of them that they were suffering, that there was a cause for that suffering, there was a cessation for that suffering, and a means to bring about that cessation. He then entered Vajropama Samadhi, eradicated all traces connecting him with samsara. That's it and that's all. No altered states of consciousness, etc. There was also an episode with Papayin Māra, aka Kamadeva, just prior to his final awakening.

Samadhi, concentration, etc. create traces in rebirth in ordinary people. This is why it is said by many awakened masters prajñā must be cultivated first. What is prajñā? Right view, the first of the eight limbs of the path of nobles.

Observing the rising, abiding, and passing away of thoughts is not in itself profound. Even a child can do this. That does not constitute right view. Right view is discussed here:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... an.html#s1

If you wish to understand what samādhi is in Mahāyāna, then you should consult this sūtra, in particular chapter 13.

https://read.84000.co/translation/toh127.html

[PeterC]

I'm surprised a moderator hasn't brought this thread to an end, for at least three reasons.

1. Every single lineage advises practitioners to seek instruction from a teacher, and advises this incessantly. It is simply too easy to get confused about what texts are actually saying, and how your experience relates to what is described in texts, particularly when those texts are read in translation.

So you don't want to allow people to examine the texts from a different point of view. Astounding! I want to learn from these amazing texts but not be limited to only one way of viewing them. I'm actually trying to fit a modern understanding of human perception into the Buddhist framework, and not the other way around.

Not what I said. I want people to study the Dharma the way every teacher since and including Sakyamuni said it should be studied, with a qualified teacher. Your posts above demonstrate, amongst other things, the futility of doing it on your own.

The Dharma has no need of updating, modernizing, reinterpreting or recontextualizing. Those things might not harm it but certainly won’t help it.

2. Trying to relate different lineages based on descriptions of their practices is a fool's errand. This has been discussed ad nauseam here. Pick your tradition and practice within it according to the instructions and framework of that lineage. Don't try to play Chess according to the rules of Go.

How can anyone possibly cut off Chan or Zen from the origin of Buddhism? I guess its specifically the methods of practice that you want to keep segregated. When you look back at the history of the development of Buddhism in, say China, where do you see this kind of segregation taking place? I guess Dogen should have stayed in Japan.

Again, not what I said, at all. Oh and why did Dogen go to China, since you bring that up? To find a teacher.

3. One has to be very careful in sharing insight gained from personal experiences. I've sat at the feet of a lot of well-respected Dharma teachers, but never have I heard a single one explain the Dharma in terms of what they think is a novel theory they've discovered in their own practice.

If that were the case throughout the history of Buddhism there would only be a single linage. Don't teachers adopt skillful means suitable to each individual? And how you exactly do you keep them from learning through experience?

First of all, not all lineages consider Sakyamuni to be the sole revealer of the Dharma. But leaving that to one side, again, you’re not reading what I said. In two and a half thousand years a lot of Dharma teachers have elaborated philosophical systems. Libraries are full of them. No one person could study everything in even one lineage in a lifetime. And perhaps that is why I have never heard a living teacher elaborate a novel theory discovered in their personal practice, as opposed to teaching from the existing corpus. Please read that sentence again slowly if it is unclear. Of course contemporary Dharma teachers write books, some of which are excellent. But these do not expound new systems. Now you come along and think that you have made a new discovery that you want to share with the world. Do you think that you’re so much better than them?

If you’re going to do DIY Dharma, perhaps at least start by learning some vocabulary. I suggest starting with “prapanca”.

[Malcolm]

I'm actually trying to fit a modern understanding of human perception into the Buddhist framework, and not the other way around.

This will never work. This is your first error, that is, feeling you can " fit a modern understanding of human perception into the Buddhist framework." If it isn't broken, there is no need to fix it. Otherwise, the assumption you are making here is that Buddhas teachings are inadequate to the times. To present this point of view on a traditionalist Buddhist website is the very height of hubris.

How can anyone possibly cut off Chan or Zen from the origin of Buddhism? I guess its specifically the methods of practice that you want to keep segregated. When you look back at the history of the development of Buddhism in, say China, where do you see this kind of segregation taking place? I guess Dogen should have stayed in Japan.

You are not practicing Chan or Zen. You cannot practice Chan or Zen by reading a book and then trying to meditate. Chan and Zen are oral traditions in which working with a teacher is not only recommended, but is mandatory. The same is true of Theravada, Tibetan Buddhism, and so on.

If that were the case throughout the history of Buddhism there would only be a single linage. Don't teachers adopt skillful means suitable to each individual?

You are not a teacher, or so you have said. Also, this is overblown. The teachings are not adapted to persons, they are adapted to afflictive profiles and levels of intelligence. We have three afflictions, desire, hatred, and ignorance, and everyone has some mixture of these. When it is said there are 84,000 dharma skandhas, this is reference to the teachings meant to address these three afflictions, separately and combined. These afflictions cause us to engage in actions, and those actions result in suffering in this and future lives. In general, we practice three trainings: discipline to counteract desire; samādhi to counteract hatred; and wisdom to counteract ignorance. Practicing discipline eliminates rebirth in the three lower realms. Practicing samādhi eliminates rebirth in the desire realm; and practicing wisdom eliminates rebirth in the three realms altogether. This is from the point of view of our own personal benefit. Developing bodhicitta, the wish to attain full buddhahood for the benefit of sentient beings involves practicing the six perfections for the benefit of others.

The whole point of the Dharma is to reverse this cycle of endless, uncontrolled rebirth in the three realms, both for ourselves and for others. If one does not accept rebirth, there is no point in practicing Buddhadharma at all, because one is negating the very point of practicing Buddhadharma to begin with.

And how you exactly do you keep them from learning through experience?

Even the Buddha had to deal with Māra when he was on the seat of awakening. We have far more issues with Māra than the Buddha, since we are still ordinary, unawakened people, and our capacity for being deceived is far greater than our capacity to ascertain where we have erred. Every tradition of Buddhadharma has many teachings concerning experience, and how to judge an authentic experience from a deceptive experience (most of them). The problem is that, without a teacher, one will be unable to ascertain the difference, just a person with no knowledge of jungle plants will be unable to ascertain which ones will sustain them and which ones will kill them.

[reiun]

I'm actually trying to fit a modern understanding of human perception into the Buddhist framework, and not the other way around.

This will never work. This is your first error, that is, feeling you can " fit a modern understanding of human perception into the Buddhist framework." If it isn't broken, there is no need to fix it. Otherwise, the assumption you are making here is that Buddhas teachings are inadequate to the times. To present this point of view on a traditionalist Buddhist website is the very height of hubris.

"Our need today is to find a new paradigm in which the intellectual and the intuitive meet, a paradigm which is rooted in the wisdom of our own meditative experience."

--Mu Soeng: Heart Sutra: Ancient Buddhist Wisdom in the Light of Quantum Reality

I will leave it to the OP to comment if he believes this matches or parallels with his efforts.

[JimTempleman]

In the future would you find the expression: 'The Method of the Noble Truths' more acceptable?

It’s not the four noble truths, it’s the four truths of nobles.

The Four Noble Truths can also be called The Four Truths of Nobles, or the Four Ennobling Truths. It's just that, at least in the West, they are most frequently referred to as The Four Noble Truths.
And don't you have enough respect for them to capitalize those titles (in keeping with were the thread of this post seems to be going at the moment).

The only method in these four truths is the eightfold path.

Where is that written?

[Malcolm]

In the future would you find the expression: 'The Method of the Noble Truths' more acceptable?

It’s not the four noble truths, it’s the four truths of nobles.

The Four Noble Truths can also be called The Four Truths of Nobles, or the Four Ennobling Truths. It's just that, at least in the West, they are most frequently referred to as The Four Noble Truths.

They are specifically defined as truths that āryas see.

...

Where is that written?

Methods are connected with paths. The only path mentioned in the four truths of nobles is the eight-fold path.

[justsit]

"Our need today is to find a new paradigm in which the intellectual and the intuitive meet, a paradigm which is rooted in the wisdom of our own meditative experience."

--Mu Soeng: Heart Sutra: Ancient Buddhist Wisdom in the Light of Quantum Reality

Text here, if anyone might be interested.
https://www.purifymind.com/WisdomQuantum.htm

[JimTempleman]

The Buddha gave a very detailed account of his awakening. So there is no need to argue what it was. It is quite well known.

You realize the different Suttas say different things, right. I'm not saying they contradict each other, just cover different ground.

Samadhi, concentration, etc. create traces in rebirth in ordinary people. This is why it is said by many awakened masters prajñā must be cultivated first.

In Silent Illumination stillness and insight (prajñā) are practiced together, according to Master Sheng Yen.

Right view is discussed here:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... an.html#s1

If you wish to understand what samādhi is in Mahāyāna, then you should consult this sūtra, in particular chapter 13.
https://read.84000.co/translation/toh127.html

Thanks for the references. Especially chapter 13.

Let me just take this phrase from chapter 13: 'it is devoid of cessation'
Just because the samādhi itself is devoid of cessation, that does not mean that the method for entering into it did not involve the cessation of other 'things.' Come to think of it, how can it not?

I never claimed to have reached the deepest level of this samādhi.

But I did experience this for about 30 minutes straight:
“There are no notions, there are no concepts,
There is nothing to be grasped, there is nothing to be shown,
And there is no object for the mind.
Therefore it is called samādhi."

In fact, it's more like the 'fixed-frame' of an unmoving mind.
I don't see how I can prove that to you & the version I can still access is much 'softer' & includes calmness & insightful thoughts.

[Malcolm]

The Buddha gave a very detailed account of his awakening. So there is no need to argue what it was. It is quite well known.

You realize the different Suttas say different things, right. I'm not saying they contradict each other, just cover different ground.

The account of the night the Buddha attained awakening as mentioned in the suttas is very consistent.

Samadhi, concentration, etc. create traces in rebirth in ordinary people. This is why it is said by many awakened masters prajñā must be cultivated first.

In Silent Illumination stillness and insight (prajñā) are practiced together, according to Master Sheng Yen.

One must distinguish mundane, contaminated prajñā of ordinary people like us, from the prajñā of āryas. Of course, one always practices śamatha and vipaśyanā in tandem, ideally. It is impossible to make progress in either in absence of a qualified teacher. Certainly not in 35 minute sitting sessions.

Let me just take this phrase from chapter 13: 'it is devoid of cessation'

Just because the samādhi itself is devoid of cessation, that does not mean that the method for entering into it did not involve the cessation of other 'things.' Come to think of it, how can it not?

“The wise know that they are without thought,
Are devoid of thought, and that there is no object. [F.44.a]
They have eliminated without remainder
Every conception of cessation and noncessation.

You keep on talking about arising and cessation. This itself indicates you have not understood the truth of dependent origination.

I never claimed to have reached the deepest level of this samādhi.

But I did experience this for about 30 minutes straight:
“There are no notions, there are no concepts,
There is nothing to be grasped, there is nothing to be shown,
And there is no object for the mind.
Therefore it is called samādhi."

I doubt it. You are basically claiming to be an awakened person by making this claim.

In fact, it's more like the 'fixed-frame' of an unmoving mind.

The is a śrāvakayāna error.

[JimTempleman]

Not what I said. I want people to study the Dharma the way every teacher since and including Sakyamuni said it should be studied, with a qualified teacher. Your posts above demonstrate, amongst other things, the futility of doing it on your own.

My goal when I started practicing Chan was to experience 'Mirror Mind'. Admittedly I didn't really know what that was but it sounded like an interesting perceptual state to enter.
I'm very happy to have achieved the level of samadhi I experienced & you have no right to call it a futile exercise. What qualifies as a fruitful effort in your view?

First of all, not all lineages consider Sakyamuni to be the sole revealer of the Dharma.

Interesting, I didn’t know that.

The Dharma has no need of updating, modernizing, reinterpreting or recontextualizing. Those things might not harm it but certainly won’t help it.
... In two and a half thousand years a lot of Dharma teachers have elaborated philosophical systems. Libraries are full of them. No one person could study everything in even one lineage in a lifetime. And perhaps that is why I have never heard a living teacher elaborate a novel theory discovered in their personal practice, as opposed to teaching from the existing corpus. Please read that sentence again slowly if it is unclear. Of course contemporary Dharma teachers write books, some of which are excellent. But these do not expound new systems. Now you come along and think that you have made a new discovery that you want to share with the world. Do you think that you’re so much better than them?

There are many scientific fields with an accumulated body of knowledge, such that no one person can master them. That doesn’t stop the progress going forward. Could you imagine a world in which scientific investigation stopped and we all decided to live with what we’ve already got? (Go ahead & answer yes, if you would prefer that.)

Around 1115, in China Hongzhi Zhengjue & Dahui Zonggao both came up with innovative new approaches to Chan practice. According to your philosophy, back then someone should have asked: How dare they? & Why did they bother?

I’m not saying the method I described is something that should be practiced by everyone, or even some. But I thought it was an interesting example that points out a number of issues that are worth considering, even by people who have no interest in practicing it. Think of it as a high school science fair project. But think what would happen if we condemn high school science fairs because the libraries are already full of ‘time-tested’ scientific approaches.

Are you actually saying that you don’t want students thinking about such things because it will only taint their minds and make it harder for them to follow their teacher’s instruction? Maybe I’m crazy, but I think studying the Dharma is a lot like studying mathematics (which is a very strange non-science field): the more you practice it, the more intuition you develop about its inner workings, both in terms of practice & theory.

One more bit of advice: You’re sitting on a precipice, similar to that of the Catholic Church in Galileo’s day. Science has already turned to address neural function, and this time it’s for real. Artificial neural networks provide new ways to model them. If you want to keep your doors closed to new ideas & hold onto an earth centered solar system, you’re going to be left in a niche role. To my mind that would be a great pity, since the tradition of Buddhism has in the past been very empirical and highly innovative. It has so much to offer the world! Let me go deeper: Buddhism might be the difference between using the new knowledge for good or evil. Buddhism has the practical & theoretical means of showing how to access man’s better nature! Please, don’t commit the sin of omission at this critical juncture.

– If you’re going to do DIY Dharma, perhaps at least start by learning some vocabulary. I suggest starting with “prapanca” [Conceptual proliferation].
– In two and a half thousand years a lot of Dharma teachers have elaborated philosophical systems. Libraries are full of them.
– 2. Trying to relate different lineages based on descriptions of their practices is a fool's errand.

So you're saying: Please don't proliferate anything new. We have more than we can deal with. And we have no capacity whatsoever to find the common thread that would allow us to integrate any of the old stuff. And we don't want to let anybody study the problem of proliferation because anything new would be considered conceptual, while everything old is considered Dharma.

[Malcolm]

So you're saying: Please don't proliferate anything new. We have more than we can deal with. And we have no capacity whatsoever to find the common thread that would allow us to integrate any of the old stuff. And we don't want to let anybody study the problem of proliferation because anything new would be considered conceptual, while everything old is considered Dharma.

You don't understand the old stuff. You are a relative newbie. You have not even done any serious retreat.

[JimTempleman]

I'm actually trying to fit a modern understanding of human perception into the Buddhist framework, and not the other way around.

This will never work. This is your first error, that is, feeling you can " fit a modern understanding of human perception into the Buddhist framework." If it isn't broken, there is no need to fix it.

I'm not saying it's broken. I'm saying there may be something learned by doing so. It's basic research at this point, so I cannot tell you what the application will be.
Are you saying that anything that might be learnt by attempting this has no possibility value to Buddhism itself. If so, you're the one being presumptive.

How can anyone possibly cut off Chan or Zen from the origin of Buddhism? I guess its specifically the methods of practice that you want to keep segregated. When you look back at the history of the development of Buddhism in, say China, where do you see this kind of segregation taking place? I guess Dogen should have stayed in Japan.

You are not practicing Chan or Zen.

There is nothing in that paragraph that says I'm practicing Chan/Zen. I study their texts & practice (my interpretation) of their method.

The teachings are not adapted to persons, they are adapted to afflictive profiles and levels of intelligence. We have three afflictions, desire, hatred, and ignorance, and everyone has some mixture of these. When it is said there are 84,000 dharma skandhas, this is reference to the teachings meant to address these three afflictions, separately and combined. These afflictions cause us to engage in actions, and those actions result in suffering in this and future lives. In general, we practice three trainings: discipline to counteract desire; samādhi to counteract hatred; and wisdom to counteract ignorance. Practicing discipline eliminates rebirth in the three lower realms. Practicing samādhi eliminates rebirth in the desire realm; and practicing wisdom eliminates rebirth in the three realms altogether. This is from the point of view of our own personal benefit. Developing bodhicitta, the wish to attain full buddhahood for the benefit of sentient beings involves practicing the six perfections for the benefit of others.

Fascinating!
"The teachings are not adapted to persons, they are adapted to afflictive profiles and levels of intelligence." So who does the profiling, you or your teacher?

The whole point of the Dharma is to reverse this cycle of endless, uncontrolled rebirth in the three realms, both for ourselves and for others. If one does not accept rebirth, there is no point in practicing Buddhadharma at all, because one is negating the very point of practicing Buddhadharma to begin with.

I view life & death as a beginnings & endings that takes place at many levels - the beginning & ending of: a thought, an interaction with another person, waking up & going to sleep, etc. That way when I die, if I don't get reincarnated I won't have any regrets.

And how you exactly do you keep them from learning through experience?

Even the Buddha had to deal with Māra when he was on the seat of awakening. We have far more issues with Māra than the Buddha, since we are still ordinary, unawakened people, and our capacity for being deceived is far greater than our capacity to ascertain where we have erred. Every tradition of Buddhadharma has many teachings concerning experience, and how to judge an authentic experience from a deceptive experience (most of them). The problem is that, without a teacher, one will be unable to ascertain the difference, just a person with no knowledge of jungle plants will be unable to ascertain which ones will sustain them and which ones will kill them.

My question was: how do you keep teachers from every learning to improve what & how they teach. And your answer was that you learn how not to be deceived. Does that mean that once you can no longer be deceived, your teaching is perfect and therefore cannot be improved? Where can I find the list of perfect teachers?

[JimTempleman]

"Our need today is to find a new paradigm in which the intellectual and the intuitive meet, a paradigm which is rooted in the wisdom of our own meditative experience."

--Mu Soeng: Heart Sutra: Ancient Buddhist Wisdom in the Light of Quantum Reality

That's a fine quote. And I fully agree with it. –Thanks reiun!
But I hope that everyone would agree that Nagarjuna & the entire Huayan tradition already demonstrated the merit of that, back in their day. –Just to name a few.

[Malcolm]

Are you saying that anything that might be learnt by attempting this has no possibility value to Buddhism itself. If so, you're the one being presumptive.

The dharma, as it is said, is good in the beginning, good, in the middle, and good in the end. There is nothing that can be added to it by ordinary people.

There is nothing in that paragraph that says I'm practicing Chan/Zen. I study their texts & practice (my interpretation) of their method.

Right, this is what is known in Buddhadharma as a personal fabrication.

Fascinating!
"The teachings are not adapted to persons, they are adapted to afflictive profiles and levels of intelligence." So who does the profiling, you or your teacher?

Generally, people meet the dharma that is suited to them, and their teachers, based on roots of virtue cultivated in past lives. Some people have the unfortunate karma to read dharma books and never meet the living dharma.

The whole point of the Dharma is to reverse this cycle of endless, uncontrolled rebirth in the three realms, both for ourselves and for others. If one does not accept rebirth, there is no point in practicing Buddhadharma at all, because one is negating the very point of practicing Buddhadharma to begin with.

I view life & death as a beginnings & endings that takes place at many levels - the beginning & ending of: a thought, an interaction with another person, waking up & going to sleep, etc. That way when I die, if I don't get reincarnated I won't have any regrets.

Negating literal rebirth, etc., is explicitly defined as wrong view by the Buddha. One can certainly be agnostic about it, but if one does not accept that ending rebirth is the central existential goal of the Buddha, one has not understood the Buddha's intention.

My question was: how do you keep teachers from every learning to improve what & how they teach. And your answer was that you learn how not to be deceived. Does that mean that once you can no longer be deceived, your teaching is perfect and therefore cannot be improved? Where can I find the list of perfect teachers?

Buddhadharma is a lineage, like a seal and its stamp. Buddhadharma cannot be improved, its source was perfect.

You can find many perfect teachers, you just have to decide that you want to study with a teacher, gather merit, and seek them out.

[JimTempleman]

And don't you have enough respect for them to capitalize those titles (in keeping with were the thread of this post seems to be going at the moment).

...

Or a rather dry sense of humor.

[JimTempleman]

It is impossible to make progress in either in absence of a qualified teacher. Certainly not in 35 minute sitting sessions.

How, exactly do you measure progress. Please be specific.
If you defer this entirely to your teacher, what kind of feedback do you get from him?

You keep on talking about arising and cessation.

Just trying to keep the conversation focused.

This itself indicates you have not understood the truth of dependent origination.

I understand that rather well. Trust me on this one. Unless you want to read a really long new post about how Indra's Net was the worlds first neural network model. Mutual co-arising is what neural networks do. On this there is perfect alignment between Buddhism & human perception. Both function & learning interdependently arise.
Now quick, tell me what this implies about sunyata?

I never claimed to have reached the deepest level of this samādhi.

But I did experience this for about 30 minutes straight:
“There are no notions, there are no concepts,
There is nothing to be grasped, there is nothing to be shown,
And there is no object for the mind.
Therefore it is called samādhi."

I doubt it. You are basically claiming to be an awakened person by making this claim.

Tell me why the following description of the ‘third stage of Silent Illumination’ cannot support: “There are no notions, there are no concepts, There is nothing to be grasped, there is nothing to be shown, And there is no object for the mind."?
from Master Sheng Yen (2012) The Method of No Method

While experiencing the immediacy of the environment, you are not influenced by it—it is all there but absorbed in stillness. There are no inner thoughts, no conditioning by external things. You perceive everything in the immediacy of the present. This is the silent aspect. The illumination aspect is the clear awareness of things as they are. You are undisturbed, motionless, and very clear as to the multitude of things surrounding you. This is the third stage.