VincentRJ

He is trying to find out and understand what 80% of Thai are thinking when they think they are engaged in Buddhist practices. This is far more interesting to me too than the abstract guesses of western Buddhists on what Nirvana might be.

I think the main point is, they're probably not thinking. They're probably mindlessly following rituals and customs they've been brought up to accept without rational reason, and perhaps sometimes without any reason at all.

A more acceptable interpretation (for some of us) is that the term 'former lives' refers to former 'states of mind' or former thoughts within this life. We know that thoughts arise and pass, to be replaced by new thoughts in a continuous process of change. It's not difficult to appreciate that an arising of a new thought could be described as a 'birth'.

Buddha also believed in the realms of rebirth. In god like beings and spirits. In this new rebirth interpretation, do these realms and godlike beings still exist or are these realms abolished in the new way of understanding?

There is a wide variety of beliefs associated with Buddhism. Back in the 7th and 8th centuries, the Indian monks in Vietnam were bemused by the number of local beliefs that the Vietnamese insisted on injecting into their Buddhism. Also, there are many different sects. Some Japanese monks own their temples, charge for officiating at weddings and funerals, marry and eat meat and drink alcohol. One of my Vietnamese monk friends tells fortunes. He sees no problem with that.

So far as Thai Buddhism goes, according to Ajahn Chah, there is no such thing as hell and there is no rebirth. Read his book "Food for the Heart." You'll learn about Thai monks who condemn making merit and who don't accept other than very basic donations.

I am aware that this post will offend some TV Buddhists. I've had posts deleted in the past. Maybe this one will be too but I don't think that it is very "Buddhist" to delete opinions that don't agree with your doctrine.

"So far as Thai Buddhism goes, according to Ajahn Chah, there is no such thing as hell and there is no rebirth."

What do you mean that there is no concept of rebirth in Buddhism? What was Buddha trying to end the 'cycle of' then? Buddhism's concept of rebirth is not the same as other faith's idea of reincarnation ... there is no individualised soul moving from one life/body to the next. It's more a continuity of consciousness, with the common example being the flame passed from candle to candle (not the same flame, but one flame being a continuity of a previous flame). Is that what you're referring to?

Perhaps for some people it is a lack of motives in general which leads them to Buddhism.

That is, they have no strong desire to become a successful business man, or a famous footballer, or a vetinary scientist, and so on.

Perhaps after considering the options that have occurred to them, or which have been presented to them, they decide to take the path, or lead the lifestyle of a Buddhist monk, because pursuing the ultimate goal of a lasting peace of mind, inner joy, and a deep, general understanding or awareness of the conditions of life, seems more worthwhile than the joys and despair, successes and failures, and constant worries associated with normal life in Samsara.

Could motives also vary depending on ones age?

For example a 20 year old's motives might differ to a 70 year old.

Quite likely, Rocky. I imagine that motives will differ among different individuals whatever their age. A 70-year-old is a different person to what he was as a 20-year-old. Most cells in his body have reproduced several times, and sometimes with errors. Even brain cells undergo a degree of neurogenesis, although how much is still a matter of ongoing research.

Even if it's the case that not all brain cells, or neurons, will reproduce during a lifetime, new connections between neurons, ie. synapses, are continually being created as we learn, or as the body/brain adjusts to a new set of circumstances.

Also, I imagine a 20-year-old, in general, would be far more reluctant than a 70-year-old to deprive himself of all the potential, exciting, thrills and adventures to be experienced in life, including those of a sexual nature.

Perhaps for some people it is a lack of motives in general which leads them to Buddhism.

That is, they have no strong desire to become a successful business man, or a famous footballer, or a vetinary scientist, and so on.

Perhaps after considering the options that have occurred to them, or which have been presented to them, they decide to take the path, or lead the lifestyle of a Buddhist monk, because pursuing the ultimate goal of a lasting peace of mind, inner joy, and a deep, general understanding or awareness of the conditions of life, seems more worthwhile than the joys and despair, successes and failures, and constant worries associated with normal life in Samsara.

But you said that, "giving should always be a part of a practical and effective process..." and would presumably not give if it wasn't.

That's correct. Of course, I would have to have some reason, some knowledge and some awareness of the particular circumstances, for not giving on the basis it would likely not be practical and effective in relation to good outcomes.

Also, I haven't said that being tricked into giving, in circumstances which in reality produce bad outcomes on balance, must result in a complete cancellation of any merit, or even result in a degree of demerit. How could I possibly know! How could one possibly calculate such matters!

One principle taught in Buddhism, again as I understand it, is that everything is connected, resulting in a myriad of cause and effect relationships which are always subject to change. Such a concept resonates with modern science.

The nature of delusion is that it represents some truth or reality we are not aware of. If I give money to a poor, dejected woman sitting by the roadside, perhaps holding in her arms a young child in a pitiful state, a child that has been thrust into her arms by the gangster that controls her, then in effect I am donating money to the gangster and supporting the gangster's evil activities.

Whilst my action in giving money to the beggar is partially rooted in 'giving' and 'love', which gains at least some merit, it is also partially rooted in delusion if I'm not aware of the gangster connections. Also such action could definitely not be described as rooted in 'wisdom'.

I think we have to be careful not to use the word "delusion" here in its normal English sense. In Pali it is moha or avijja, one of the "three roots of evil," and basically means "not understanding the Four Noble Truths!" The problem with your example is that on the one hand you have no evidence of the gangster connections (you would deny the beggar a handout based on hearsay) and on the other I can't see how an action can be morally wrong just because I am ignorant of potential knock-on effects.

The problem I see with your defence on this issue, is in understanding how it is possible for an enlightened individual to be ignorant of such basic matters of human behaviour that result in his being duped or tricked into supporting evil activities. Surely such a person would not gain as much merit as another person who gives with a similar feeling of love and compassion but in a manner that involves wisdom and understanding, and which ensures good outcomes.

Another way of describing such differences would be to compare someone who willy-nilly gives money indiscriminately to various charities in order to feel good but without any knowledge of the effectiveness of his donations, with someone who devotes his own time and energy to charitable work to ensure good outcomes.

Which of these people is likely to gain more merit?

Wadda bunch of pseudointellectual yuck. And the answer is most certainly not. Buddha was just well published.

Are you aware that Buddha and his teachings had a significant following for around 400 years before anything was published? Don't you think that this fact is an indication that the Buddha was not just well published?

Of course if accounts of Buddha's teachings are accurate he, allegedly, warns us against following his own teachings;

...which is a slightly misleading introduction to the Kalama Sutta. I would modify that that statement along the lines....he allegedly warns us against following any teachings, whether his own or that of others, uncritically and unthinkingly. Those last two words are the main point, and I think it is the teachings like this, which are a part of the Buddhist scriptures, which resonate with our modern understanding of the scientific method and make Buddhism attractive to many non-religious Westerners.

I myself was rather amazed when I first came across the Kalama Sutta, because one tends to associate most religions with dogmatism, blind faith and an uncritical subservience to an invisible authority. Critical thinking is usually not encouraged in religions.

If a jazz band plays in the middle of a forest and there is no one there to hear them, do they still suck?

A great preponderance!

That's no great preponderance at all. If there's no-one there to hear them, such a band cannot possibly suck or exhibit any other subjective characteristic of sound.

However, the absurdity of the situation is the concept that a band of deaf musicians would attempt to play music in the middle of a forest.

If they are not deaf, then there must be someone there to hear them. Each musician can hear himself play, as well as hear what the others in the band are playing, and each musician is capable of thinking what he and/or any of the others is playing, sucks or needs improvement, or is brilliant, as the case may be.

Wadda bunch of pseudointellectual yuck. And the answer is most certainly not. Buddha was just well published.

Are you aware that Buddha and his teachings had a significant following for around 400 years before anything was published? Don't you think that this fact is an indication that the Buddha was not just well published?

"Any thoughts, speech or actions that are rooted in greed, hatred and delusion and thus lead us away from Nirvana are bad and any thoughts, speech or actions that are rooted in giving, love and wisdom and thus help clear the way to Nirvana are good."

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda04.htm

I've never seen any explanation by the Buddha as to what happens if an action done with pure intentions has a bad consequence. If we don't know the consequence, it's difficult to see how we are to blame. I mean, suppose I give a desperate beggar a small amount of money for food, but unknown to me he later uses that to buy cheap whisky, gets drunk and kills someone - I can't see my merit suddenly switching to demerit. If I subsequently found out about it, I'm sure I'd feel bad, but not as bad as if I knew my intention had been unwholesome.

You raise some interesting philosophical problems, Camerata. First, it's understood that any thoughts, speech or actions rooted in greed, hatred and delusion etc, are bad by definition, and that the opposite is also true by definition.

The word 'delusion' is perhaps the key to understanding the 'merit' consequences of giving money to a beggar who buys whisky, gets drunk and kills someone, or the merit consequences of keeping alive a stray cat in Australia which is having difficulty in finding sufficient natural wildlife in its area to sustain itself.

We often tend to think in dualities of either/or. That is, something is either hot or cold, and an action is either rooted in delusion or it's not. In reality, I would suggest that there are many levels and degrees of delusion.

The nature of delusion is that it represents some truth or reality we are not aware of. If I give money to a poor, dejected woman sitting by the roadside, perhaps holding in her arms a young child in a pitiful state, a child that has been thrust into her arms by the gangster that controls her, then in effect I am donating money to the gangster and supporting the gangster's evil activities.

Whilst my action in giving money to the beggar is partially rooted in 'giving' and 'love', which gains at least some merit, it is also partially rooted in delusion if I'm not aware of the gangster connections. Also such action could definitely not be described as rooted in 'wisdom'.

According to this logic, the merit attributed to Giving and Love would be at least partially cancelled by the aspects of Delusion and lack of Wisdom involved in that particular act of giving.

That is how I see it.

Well, I am not in Australia. In Thailand, stray cats will mostly just die or have a miserable existence if someone doesn't help them. Perhaps dana is to some extent situation-dependent.

The 'giving' should always be a part of a pratical and effective process or program to help people to become independent so they don't have to rely upon charity.

An admirable sentiment and preferable to just handing out money, but that is not Dhamma. According to the Buddha, intention is everything. If you give to anyone with good intentions, you still accrue merit.

Fine! But the question then arises, how do you define a good intention, and what levels and degrees of good intentions are there? Furthermore, certain 'apparent' good intentions might have disastrous consequences for others, such as feeding a stray cat in Australia, or perhaps giving money to certain beggars on the streets of Bangkok when such beggars, particularly women with deformed babies, are controlled by gangsters who pocket most of the day's collections.

Camerata,

If you were in Australia, giving food to stray cats would definitely not be recommended, unless you took them in and cloistered them in your home to never escape.

Feral cats (escaped domestic cats) have cause the extinction of many indigenous species in Australia. It's a huge problem. The following link describes the problem.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/feral-cats-re-write-the-australian-story/5802204

I see giving, or acts of generosity, simply because it makes one feel good, or because one imagines one gains merit in some afterlife, as problematical. It encourages dependence. The 'giving' should always be a part of a pratical and effective process or program to help people to become independent so they don't have to rely upon charity.

Some time ago, I got rather excited when I discovered the existence of a breakaway Buddhist group called Santi Asoke. I understood from my reading of articles on the internet, that this group produced its own food and refused all donations offered by visitors to their communities. They strived to be independent and sold their own organic food in the local market in order to raise the funds they needed to support themselves.

The group also ordained women as full monks with the status of monks, so I imagined a situation where monks and nuns would be working together in the fields, tending to their organically-grown crops.

Some months ago I decided to visit such a community located near Ubon Ratchathani. Wow! Did I get a surprise! I could see no nuns or monks working in the fields, just local people.

When I finally met a monk, exiting his hut in the forest, and started a conversation, I was dismayed to learn that the monks and nuns do not do any work in the fields, because they might kill a few worms, which is not allowed.

So, the battle for the mind goes on. We will never come to understand it, nor overcome problems related to it.

Wotsdermatter,

When I fist saw your name, my mind tricked me into thinking it was Wordsmatter.

I attempted to overcome such problems you refer to by describing the mind as an illusion, in the thread on Cosmogony here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/808984-cosmogony/page-2

But that idea didn't go down well with some folks.

In the final analysis we all struggle to make sense of our life and circumstances, using whatever concepts we've acquired as we progress through life.

I've got no training in Psychology or Psychiatry, but I have read one or two books on Freud and Jung out of general interest.

What I think is puzzling about Buddhism for many Westerners, is an apparent negativity about life, as implied in the concept and the goal of escaping from Samsara, the material world, and the cycle of death and rebirth.

Taken to its logical conclusion, such a precept or goal would lead to the self-extinction of the human race, if everyone became a true Buddhist.

How does one deal with this problem? Can it be explained in Freudian terms? For example, in Freudian psychology the mind, or psyche, is divided into three main categories, the Id, the Ego and the Superego.

The Id is the 'dark' side of the personality, containing all the basic, instinctual drives, wants and desires we were born with, including the very significant sexual drive essential for the propagation of our species.

However, what might be relevant to explain Buddhism, is Freud's later inclusion of a 'death instinct' into the Id. This death instinct, or death drive, is often described as an Instinct of Destruction directed against the external world through aggression.

Now it's true that Buddhism doesn't promote aggression and violence. However, according to Freud, the ego moderates and organizes these chaotic primordial drives of the Id, in accordance with the morality and ethical principles that reside in the Superego.

If I were to attempt to understand Buddhism in Freudian terms (at my very basic level of understanding, of course), I would imagine that there is a Buddhist flavour of Superego, containing the precepts and teachings of the Buddhist Dhamma, as understood through individual interpretation, and a practical, hard-nosed Ego which attempts to tame the Id.

When Buddhists claim that the Ego is an illusion, perhaps they really mean that the Id is an illusion. It's the Ego in conjunction with the Superego that does all the claiming and all the teaching, and tries to modify and control those basic drives of the Id.

If those basic drives of the Id can be divided into two prominent drives, the sexual instinct and the death instinct, then is it possible, I ask myself, that Buddhist psychology has not entirely eliminated the 'death drive' but has tamed and modified it so that it has a more benign and universal effect, eventually resulting in the gradual extinction of the human race at best (or at worst, depending on your outlook)?

Alternatively, one could imagine that some of these Buddhist precepts express a very profound understanding that all species on our planet are subject to a 'natural' process of extinction. Most of the species that have existed at some time in the past are now extinct, through changing environments, catastrophic geological events, and failure to adapt through normal evolutionary processes.

We like to think as humans that we are so clever that extinction could never happen to us, but perhaps it could. Perhaps the Buddha understood this, which is why part of the Buddhist teaching is that nothing is permanent, which must include the human race.

Hope this doesn't sound like so much gobbledegook.

How can one have a desire to rid oneself of all desire, for example?

Without wholesome desire, nothing could be accomplished. Just think of the desire involved in metta meditation, for example!

In one of his books, Ajahn Brahm says that an arahant is motivated by compassion (presumably as opposed to self-interest). The Buddha had a wholesome desire to pass on his techniques for 40 years. The problem for us is to understand the nature of ego-less desire.

Indeed! According to Freudian psychology, to the extent I've understood it, the Ego stands between the Id, representing our primitive desires (perhaps equivalent to 'kamma-chanda'), and the Superego, representing our moral beliefs (perhaps equivalent to 'dhamma-chanda).

In other words, the Ego has the role of balancing our primitive, instinctual needs, drives and sexual desires, with our culturally conditioned moral and ethical beliefs.

According to this theory of psychology, if we get rid of the ego, which according to Buddhist precepts is an illusion, then we've got rid of the mediator, which doesn't seem like a good thing to do.

Camerata,

Thanks for the link to the article from the Nation, However, I think you might have opened a can of worms.

2,500 years after the death of Gautama, we still don't fully understand the nature of consciousness or mind. A lot of Freud's theories are on shaky ground due to a lack of 'true' scientific verification.

However, I agree that the Buddha had some tremendous psychological insights. Unfortunately, psychology as a discipline is a 'soft' or 'fuzzy' science with associations of chaos and many unverifiable theories.

One of the best articles I've come across in relation to Buddhism, that delves into such complexity, is from Stanford university. Here's the link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/

and here's an extract defining the soteriological dimension, or salvational aspect of Buddhism. Anyone who can read the whole article and understand all the nuances deserves an award.

"In espousing the doctrine of not-self with its aggregated view of persons, the Buddha claims to be offering a solution to the problem of human suffering. Not only is the idea of a permanent self a conceptual fiction, but adopting such a view leads to grasping after notions such as ‘I,’ ‘me,’ and ‘mine’ with deleterious effects for our psychological well being: attachment to such a fictional ‘I’ is the root cause of a range of negative emotions, including selfishness, craving, hatred, conceit, and ill-will. These negative emotions, in turn, fuel the general feeling of unsatisfactoriness that pervades the unenlightened human condition, and ultimately are responsible for all the troubles that ordinarily afflict our world.

The not-self doctrine offers not merely an enlightened metaphysical perspective on the ultimate nature of things, but also an effective remedy for eradicating ignorance and achieving nirvāṇa, the summum bonum of the Buddhist path and the antithesis of cyclical existence (with the caveat that Mahāyāna Buddhist traditions generally place less emphasis on nirvāṇa, focusing instead on the enlightened and compassionate attitude of the Buddhist saint or ‘bodhisattva’)."

I am of course very impressed with some of the insights attributed to Buddha, which is why I'm contributing to this forum. At the same time, I have a skeptical nature and often fall back on the advice in the Kalama Sutta ,which I think is even more relevant to modern societies because of our diverse cultures which are often in conflict.

Continue a fake diskussion, I will write a book..

Hi Lungmi.

It's agreed that the discussion is fake.

But coming from unawakened beings all stuck in samsara, I observe it for what it is.

This is how the unawakened behave.

Isn't anything else a pretense?

As long as one has the resolve to stick to the precepts, maintain the practice, and develop awareness, then until change occurs, ones mind will continue to operate with its impurities.

One of the precepts of Buddhism, Rocky, is that continual change is an inevitable condition of reality. Nothing is permanent.

For the mind to continue to operate with its impurities would be quite remarkable. The impurities must change over time whatever one does, even if one does nothing. However, it would be only sensible to try to reduce such impurities rather than increase them, of course.

The problem with sticking to precepts is that sometimes one can't be sure that the precepts, as one has interpreted them, are correct and/or ultimately beneficial in relation to one's own unique circumstances and current level of understanding.

At some point one perhaps needs to take a 'leap of faith', and that, for some of us, can be a problem.

I'm reminded here of that famous poem by Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken. I've quoted just a couple of relevant extracts from the entire poem.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

............................................

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

Hi Vincent.

I was just simply acknowledging that until we become touched with personal experience through practice, our state will probably include discussion anchored in samsara.

That such behavior will be natural to those who are without awareness.

I must admit, Rocky, I find such ideas more than a little bit absurd. To engage in any discussion at all, about any subject, requires a certain degree of awareness.

Also, surely all discussions are anchored in Samsara if one defines Samsara as 'the material world'. You need a material object such as a computer in order to post your comments on this forum, for a start.

Even those who might claim to have achieved the ultimate awareness of Nirvana or Samadhi, still need material food and material water to continue living.

Your use of the word 'anchor' is revealing. To continue living, one is unavoidably anchored to material things. However, being anchored to certain ideas and precepts might not be helpful, unless you are lucky and happen to have latched on to precepts which in reality are true.

The attractive thing about the scientific method, at its best, is the awareness that everything we think we know for certain is really never certain and needs to be questioned in the light of any anomalies to the theory that might arise.

In this sense, science is less anchored than religion. I've always found it disappointing that religious beliefs tend to be so dogmatic and unchanging.

I also find a great contradiction between the Buddhist precept that nothing is permanent, and the qualification by certain Buddhist monks, 'except the Dharma'. How does such a notion fit in with the concept of the Maitreya, the future Buddha who will appear after the present Buddha is forgotten?

Do some people really believe that in 200 years time, or more, perhaps even 2,000 years time, a new Buddha will appear and teach the same Dharma, which is permanent and unchangeable?.

Isn't it reasonable to suppose that a future Buddha would be influenced by his surrounding culture, just as Gautama was influenced by ancient Indian beliefs and practices, and would therefore be preaching either a different message or a similar message with a radically different emphasis, in accordance with the advanced culture of the times?

Continue a fake diskussion, I will write a book..

Hi Lungmi.

It's agreed that the discussion is fake.

But coming from unawakened beings all stuck in samsara, I observe it for what it is.

This is how the unawakened behave.

Isn't anything else a pretense?

As long as one has the resolve to stick to the precepts, maintain the practice, and develop awareness, then until change occurs, ones mind will continue to operate with its impurities.

One of the precepts of Buddhism, Rocky, is that continual change is an inevitable condition of reality. Nothing is permanent.

For the mind to continue to operate with its impurities would be quite remarkable. The impurities must change over time whatever one does, even if one does nothing. However, it would be only sensible to try to reduce such impurities rather than increase them, of course.

The problem with sticking to precepts is that sometimes one can't be sure that the precepts, as one has interpreted them, are correct and/or ultimately beneficial in relation to one's own unique circumstances and current level of understanding.

At some point one perhaps needs to take a 'leap of faith', and that, for some of us, can be a problem.

I'm reminded here of that famous poem by Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken. I've quoted just a couple of relevant extracts from the entire poem.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could

To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,

And having perhaps the better claim,

Because it was grassy and wanted wear;

............................................

Oh, I kept the first for another day!

Yet knowing how way leads on to way,

I doubted if I should ever come back.

Buddha wasn't intersested on how the universe was created.

His whole 'philosophy' was how to break free from Samsara.

I am sure his answer in this thread would be......'It's irrelevant'

Did the Buddha say he wasn't interested, or was he just practical enough to realise that the question was unanswerable in any truthful way? I believe Confucius had a similar attitude regarding that question.

Nevertheless, it's an intriguing question which has resulted in our modern scientific theory of the Big Bang, through the application of a science and technology which neither the Buddha nor Confucius had access to.

I prefer the Big Bang theory to the Creator God theory.

Whatever the mythology, and the selected quotes from scriptures, the fundamental principle of Buddhism that clarifies the situation and (hopefully) enlightens one, is the concept that the mind is an illusion.

If that is true, then all fanciful interpretations of the origins of the universe, the existence of God(s) etc. are illusory.

In the Anguttara Nikaya (A.I.8-10) the Buddha states: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements."

The discourses indicate that the mind's natural radiance can be made manifest by meditation.

Ajahn Chah's comment:

The mind is something more radiant than anything else can be, but because counterfeits – passing defilements – come and obscure it, it loses its radiance, like the sun when obscured by clouds.

Don’t go thinking that the sun goes after the clouds. Instead, the clouds come drifting along and obscure the sun. So meditators, when they know in this manner, should do away with these counterfeits by analyzing them shrewdly... When they develop the mind to the stage of the primal mind, this will mean that all counterfeits are destroyed, or rather, counterfeit things won’t be able to reach into the primal mind, because the bridge making the connection will have been destroyed. Even though the mind may then still have to come into contact with the preoccupations of the world, its contact will be like that of a bead of water rolling over a lotus leaf.

So in summary, the mind exists, but it's the counterfeit aspects of mind which bring about illusion.

Further,

Mental factors (Sanskrit: caitasika) are formations (Sanskrit: saṅkhāra) concurrent with mind (Sanskrit: Citta).

They can be described as aspects of the mind that apprehend the quality of an object, and that have the ability to color the mind.

The Buddha emphasized the need to purify dispositions rather than eliminate them completely.

Kalupahana states that "the elimination of dispositions is epistemological suicide," as dispositions determine our perspectives.

The development of one's personality in the direction of perfection or imperfection rests with one's dispositions.

So when we Awaken, we do not destroy Mind (Citta), but adopt purified dispositions.

Rocky,

When I try to understand such concepts, I tend to take into consideration the fact that the Buddha, and those who later wrote the Buddhist scriptures, probably had no direct understanding of the brain and its functions.

I believe the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Greeks tended to think that the heart was the seat of all our thoughts and emotions. The brain was always scooped out during mummification.

However, the great Hippocrates, who lived very approximately around the same time as the Buddha, perhaps a bit later, appears to have realised the significance of the brain and wrote:

"Men ought to know that from the brain, and from the brain alone, arise our pleasures, joys, laughter and jests, as well as our sorrows, pains, griefs and tears. Through it, in particular, we think, see, hear and distinguish the ugly from the beautiful, the bad from the good, the pleasant from the unpleasant… I hold that the brain is the most powerful organ of the human body… wherefore I assert that the brain is the interpreter of consciousness…’ (Hippocrates: On the sacred disease.) "

I think it's understandable that an ancient culture that accepts a belief in reincarnation and karma, and has no knowledge of the functions of the material brain, might attribute a permanence and reality to the mind which is perhaps not justified in the light of modern science.

The following extract from a philosophical source, addresses the problem.

"Rejection of a permanent agent eventually led to the philosophical problems of the seeming continuity of mind and also of explaining how rebirth and karma continue to be relevant doctrines without an eternal mind. This challenge was met by the Theravāda school by introducing the concept of mind as a factor of existence. This "life-stream" (Bhavanga-sota) is an undercurrent forming the condition of being. The continuity of a karmic "person" is therefore assured in the form of a mindstream (citta-santana), a series of flowing mental moments arising from the subliminal life-continuum mind (Bhavanga-citta), mental content, and attention."

I admit I don't have a literal belief in reincarnation, and that will influence my opinions on this issue of the mind, although I also like to think I have an open mind, subject to change in the light of new evidence.

I expect that those who have a general scientific background or at least a general appreciation of scientific principles will view this problem in a different way to those whose understanding is based only on the definitions of common words. (No disparagement intended).

I tend to have a philosophical 'bent of mind' (to use a phrase which is itself suggestive of bias or illusion). I'm conditioned through my education to only accept things and concepts that make sense. Things that don't make sense, I have to put to one side and considered them as a 'yet to be explained' mystery.

I'm attracted towards Buddhism to the extent that the teachings make sense. The Kalama Sutta is my guiding light.

An illusion which does not exist is not an illusion.

Thanks for cthe concise response.

It exists as an illusion, it does not exist as a reality, that's the point.

If I see a monster it exists as an illusion, it does not exist as a monster, that's the point of the word illusion.

From vacabulary.com...

An illusion is something that isn't real. It may look real, but it's actually fake just a crafty construction or fantasy. Like the old rabbit-out-of-the-hat trick practiced by magicians around the globe.

An illusion is an act of deception. Some optical illusions are pretty cool to watch, but an illusion can also point to an erroneous belief or false perception of reality, which is where you start getting into hallucination territory seeing things that aren't there. You can give the illusion that youre fascinated by your professors lecture by chewing on your pencil, furrowing your brow, and making sure to nod enthusiastically every so often.

Bruce,

I'm trying here to get beyond common assumptions in order to get a clearer picture of what's really happening. I agree that an illusion by definition is some sort of misinterpretation, or misidentification of a 'real' sensory stimulus which relates to a 'real' external reality. The sensory stimulus in the brain is real, but the interpretation of that stimulus in the mind may not accurately reflect reality.

The problem at both a philosophical and practical level, which seems to me to have implications for all of humanity, is who or what decides what the correct, and/or the most accurate interpretation should be? If people were able to agree upon that, there wouldn't exist all the continuous disputes and arguments amongst scientists and academics in all fields, and in particular the violent fighting to death that has plagued humanity throughout history.

When discussing such matters I find it helpful to use specific examples which illustrate the point I'm trying to get across. Let's use your example of the term 'monster'. What is a monster? That which is a monster to one person may not be a monster to another person.

Two people see a snake as they walk through the woods. One person has a great affection for snakes and likes to hold them and stroke them. The other person has a great phobia of snakes and truly hates them. The person with the snake phobia, on seeing the snake, shouts, "Go away you bloody monster!" The other person declares quite calmly, "It's not a monster, it's a lovely snake. See how beautiful and smooth its movements are."

The person with the phobia responds, "It might be just a snake to you, but it's also a monster to me."

In this example, both people have correctly identified the external object as a snake, but their emotional reactions to the same stimulus are different as a result of their different conditioning.

A major principle of Buddhism, as I understand it, is that the mind is continually tricking us in all sorts of ways that we are often unaware of. I believe Science can confirm this is true.

Actually; there are a great number of sutras where it's stated that the mind is an illusion and does not exist. I will find some and quote if you'd like ?

Yes please.

It's good to see somebody else understands illusion = does not exist.

An illusion which does not exist is not an illusion.

Whereas my understanding is that everything the brain/mind perceives is illusory to some degree. At one end of the 'illusion' spectrum we have the magician who is skilled in deliberately tricking our normal perceptions through the use of 'sleight of hand', for example, and at the other end of the spectrum we have scientifically rigorous observations using sophisticated tools which can translate all sorts of normally unobservable and undetectable phenomena into some form of recognizable reality, but still a distorted reality, such as X-ray images and brain scans.

To some degree? Something is either an illusion or it is not, you can't have half a nightmare or half a magic trick or half a hologram. When something is not perceived correctly by the mind I'd call that delusion, corruption, misperception, misinterpretaion etc there are many words situations for when the mind experiences reality incorrectly.

That does not make the mind itself an illusion.

Looks like you've fallen into the trap of the 'either/or' duality. That is, something is either good are bad, hot or cold, illusory or real, and that there's no 'in between'. The number of common words available to describe temperature is limited, but a thermometer can describe temperature in fractions of a degree, from unbelievably cold to unbelievably hot.

Of course one could have half a nightmare. Half a nightmare would be called a very unpleasant dream, as opposed to a horrifying dream. I have very rarely experienced a nightmare, but I have no difficulty in understanding that dreams in general can range from the very pleasant to the totally horrifying, with dozens of different shades of pleasantness and unpleasantness in between.

The fact that the mind experiences reality incorrectly is beside the point and should be obvious to all. So are you saying that because the everything the mind perceives is illusory to some degree that means the mind itself must be an illusion, or are you not? I don't need all this waffle just a straight answer.

To understand the answer to that question one must first define what the mind is. Surely we can agree that the mind does not have a physical presence, a shape, form, dimension and weight, like a bowl or a skull that contains things. The brain does, but the mind is like an intangible awareness resulting from very complex activity of an electrical and neuronal nature in the brain.

I would describe the mind as a conglomeration of intangible thoughts and impressions about ourselves, others and the world we perceive around us. All such thoughts and impressions, sense of 'self' and 'ego', are illusory to some degree, which is why Buddhist texts on meditation teach stillness of the mind with the ultimate goal of achieving a complete cessation of all thought, not a cessation of just delusional thought, but all thought. When the mind is free of all thoughts, all illusion has been dispelled, and the experience is ineffable, beyond words. In such a state, one has gone beyond all concepts of 'the mind'.

I claim, if the mind consists entirely of illusory thoughts and impressions, then it logically follows that the mind is an illusion. If you can point to some part of the mind that is totally real, totally free of any distortion, colouring, conditioning, misinterpretation, bias or limitations in any sense, then let's hear it, and I might then agree that the mind could be an illusion only to the extent that it consists of illusory thoughts.

However, if you think this is all waffle, don't bother.