Brucenkhamen

Good point. The Yamaka Sutta makes the argument against annihilation (which is the belief that because there is no permanent self when you die you cease to exist). The sutta basically says that nothing ever ceases to exist, when it changes in such a way that it is no longer recognisable as what it was it has not ceased to exist it has changed into something else. We can see this on the molecular level, if a tree dies for example it decomposes and the molecules become part of something else. It might not be too far fetched to suggests a similar thing happens on the mental/life-force level. This is consistent with the Buddhas teaching on impermanence and not self.

The teaching asks for as much time and effort as you are prepared to give, a lot of lay people do nothing more than offer food to monks, though I don't see much value in this for a westerner. Buddhism does not advocate the renunciation of pleasure, though monks do renounce some things that complicate your life or lead to distraction that are sometimes known to be pleasurable. It doesn't make sense to talk in terms of who will be rewarded, there is no rewardee. When I first started practice I quickly found the Buddhist practice of present moment awareness and letting go of self view and identification very powerful. The Indian religion problem statement ending rounds of rebirth didn't really gel with this and was never a motivator for me, what motivated me was seeing the gradual changes in my mind. I'd suggest you take this approach, if you want a concrete promise on what happens when you die Buddhism is a bit vague on this, most other regions will give you this promise. Luangta Maha Boowa doesn't say his previous lives were in Thailand, he says nothing specific about them other than there were a lot, just that you could fill Thailand with their corpses. You are free to take such accounts literally, but I'd suggest that you put these things aside rather than allow them to trip you up, work on sila, work on mindfulness, work on samadhi, these are all positive things here and now.

As a modern day layperson we have lots of options in living a life that is meaningful and constructive in terms of the path, no need to consider ordination unless that's what you want, no need to question the value of the path based on the monastic ideal. Cessation of suffering can and does occur in this life, one will experience unpleasant and painful physical things but one does not need to add mental suffering as a result. The Buddha taught for 45 years after awakening, he experienced the physical symptoms of old age and sickness but not the mental dukkha that usually goes with it. The ultimate goal is to eliminate craving and full awakening, however this is a gradual process and a relative lack of craving and a relative awakening is well worth the investment, and this is observable as you progress on the path. I think you are focusing on "countless rounds of re birth" too much, most western Buddhists don't. If you take care of the present then the future will take care of itself, free the mind now, let go of craving now, establish positive qualities now. Everything we do we do now, we can't do it in the future, it's better to set aside questions about what happens when you die and concentrate on now while basing you actions on the kind of future you want to create. Nibbana is a state where all craving is extinguished, this includes self view and suffering. As I said the Buddha taught for 45 years after attaining Nibbana so your question "what ever exists in Nibbana?" does not make sense. The main difference between Buddhism and other religions as far as I'm concerned is that it doesn't posit a creator God nor a permanent self and one can practice based on limited testing the efficacy of the practices and see if they bear the results expected.

If pigs could fly how will we prevent getting pig<deleted> on our heads? It's pointless raising an extreme scenario that is nowhere near happening. Yes, there are probably other lifestyles that might be very positive, satisfying and rewarding, someone choose the Buddhas path if they believe the benefit to sacrifice ratio outweighs the alternatives. The classical presentation might be "A life of denial and sacrifice in order to extinguish re-birth" but when you look into the practice techniques and the the Buddhas teaching in the scriptures it's mostly about freeing the mind here and now. Most Indian religions have that same classical formula as basis, its the Indian religion problem statement, the Buddha used it also but only really as a background. I think you'd be better off looking into what the Buddhas unique teachings were rather that what he integrated from his culture and time. That which is reborn is not us/me/you but what we do in life is our legacy. Your children are not us/me/you either and yet you would do anything to help them get into a position to have a good life after you are gone, if you do have a kammic link to a future life wouldn't you do the same? It's not that different. If you believe there are many lifestyles which can maximise balanced pleasure, love, enjoyment, & satisfaction in life whilst limiting pain and suffering without a life of renunciation and denial, why didn't you choose one?

I think you're focusing too much on pleasures here. Buddhist monastic renunciation is primarily about simplifying ones life so that you are not pulled in different directions and distracted from your practice. This also includes stopping chasing pleasures for pleasures sake and stop avoiding pain but I'd say this is secondary. There is nothing wrong with pleasurable experiences, there is something wrong with craving them. Honestly I think most people give up the hedonistic pursuit of pleasures after their teens, grow up, and realise these do not provide lasting happiness, they choose instead to have a relationship, family, and career which all have a mixture of pleasure and pain. Its called being an Adult. Going back to a hedonistic bargirl/drugs lifestyle later in life might indicate a lesson not learned, or a mid life crises. I would not say the greater number of pleasures restricted denied will enhance ones chances of successfully reaching the Buddhist goal of Awakening, jhana for example is highly pleasurable and without the bitter aftertaste of worldly pleasures. As Thanissaro says its about swapping candy for gold and this is just as true for an adult layperson as it is for a monk. Monks do a lot of physical exercise, at least forest monks do. I don't think the Buddha ever suggested that we would ever get to the stage where nobody is being reborn anymore, better to focus on your own life. A monk may for practice for decades in their quest for Awakening, and end up never reaching it, but he lived a lifestyle that he chose. To see the value in that I think it best to compare it with the lifestyle he would have lived if he'd stayed a layperson, this of course varies from person to person. Our lives are real, here's a definition of the deathless...

Denying oneself some pleasures, not all pleasure. One does this because one sees that flitting from pleasure from pleasure doesn't provide lasting happiness. The pursuit of pleasure often involves a lot of pain, have you ever tried to convince a women to have sex with you for example? The pleasurable experience then lasts a short time then afterwards there is an empty feeling and craving the next pleasure. If you believe pursuing pleasure will provide lasting happiness knock yourself out, people who are willing to deny themselves have seen that this doesn't work, that's why they want to do it. This is all because of the craving involved in the process, not the pleasure itself. Denying yourself gross pleasure opens up the possibility of experiencing equanimity, peace, and subtle pleasure which is far better. We want to achieve it before we die because because it's a better way to live the remainder your life.

In pali the word for a wholesome desire is different (chanda), compared with an unwholesome desire (tanha) which I call craving (its sometimes called greed or thirst) they have two different words because they are considered two different things. Craving is an addiction, a compulsion, driving force, and this addiction or compulsion compounds suffering. There is nothing wrong with wanting something wholesome and pursuing it, though this pursuit can turn to craving if one lacks awareness and just strives without balance. Buddhist practice includes the renunciation of pleasures as this gives you the opportunity to see clearly whether or not these things have a hold on you, and then let them go. It's not that there is anything wrong with pleasurable experiences as such, it's that renunciation (even if temporary) helps you see clearly and understand your relationship with them. Nature is a constant flow of death and renewal and we are part of nature. One is impermanent but craving leads to new life if that craving hasn't been snuffed out, not really you but generated by your kamma, at least that's my take on it.

Kind of, I'm saying awareness is a mental process therefore is conditioned and impermanent, there is no such thing as "pure unconditioned awareness". Clinging and craving such ideas is just clinging and craving for permanence. The Buddha taught the understanding of the nature of suffering and the ending of suffering, through among other things the acceptance of impermanence, the idea of there being "something beyond" crept back in later mostly the re-integration of pre-Buddhist philosophies.

You've hit the nail on the head, awareness aka consciousness is just a mental process, one of the five aggregates, subject to impermanence and arising and passing away according to causes and conditions. Spiritual traditions that get fascinated with and deify awareness because it seems so profound and ever present to a spiritual seeker who discovers it (except when its not) fall short of the liberation that the Buddha recommended.

I have heard of a drug induced experience opening someone's eyes to what is possible and inspiring their practice, Sam Harris is an example. Still its not the experience itself that is important, its the skill, the letting go, and the wisdom developed in the process that is important. The risk is instead of that all you get is addiction.

A drug induced experience isn't comparable with an experience that has resulted from years of dedicated practice, even if they have a similar quality, because while the former creates a dependency on the drug the latter is only dependent on the skill developed to create it. If that skill created it once it can create it again, or further develop so that it becomes the norm.

The present exists, but it is a relative concept, relative to past and future. What I think you're musings are pointing to though is that "the present" is a relative concept that is dependent on how we experience it and how we measure it. We experience our reality in a constant flow of moment to moment change and it is impossible to really say that this moment is in the past, that moment is in the present, and here comes the one in the future. The teaching is not about metaphysics but about understanding the true nature of your experience.

I don't see how meditation could cause brain damage, meditation is a mental activity and the brain is a physical organ. Could software damage hardware? maybe if it switched off the cooling fan I guess but otherwise I think its a good analogy. While mediation should result in not getting entangled or distracted by thought its purpose isn't the end of thought. Thinking subsides in the 2nd jhana but the mind is still active I'd expect, just in a non verbal way. Meditation, particularly mindfulness, is an active use of the mind. When done right it should be a good way to keep the mind and brain active, even when relatively quiet it takes effort to keep the mind from going all over the place so I don't think you should expect it to result in an inactive atrophied mind or brain.

If you've just been around BKK and judging by your description then it's likely most temples you will have visited will be oriented towards tourists. Forest monasteries in regional areas couldn't be more different. Having said that its common in Thai culture to value ostentatious displays of wealth and not realise the contradiction with the Buddhas teaching.

That's a silly question. Its quite reasonable to ask if your post is on topic if there doesn't appear to be relevance.