Brucenkhamen

If it's not open to interpretation, how would you recognize it?

As per the normal process of recognising meaning from English text, unfortunately I read very little Thai if at all.

What would be acceptable to you. He talks extensively about his realization. Have you read his books. Quite a bit of smoke I would say.

A few,

Quite a bit of smoke I would say.

... and a few mirrors

Buddha didn't make such claims either. So where does that leave you?

...dredging up quotes outlining quite basic Buddhist concepts again.

But as soon as this my three-round, twelve-permutation knowledge & vision concerning these four noble truths as they have come to be was truly pure, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening unexcelled in the cosmos with its deities, Maras & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'" SN 56.11

Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata producing vision, producing knowledge leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. SN 56.11

For I am an arahant in the world;

I, the unexcelled teacher.

I, alone, am rightly self-awakened.

Cooled am I, unbound. MN 26

"Then how is this, Sariputta? Of me, who am at present the Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, do you have direct personal knowledge as to my virtue, my meditation, my wisdom, my abiding, and my emancipation?" DN 16

"There was a time, Ananda, when I dwelt at Uruvela, on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the goatherds' banyan-tree, soon after my supreme Enlightenment. DN 16

Then the Blessed One said: "Do you have faith, Ananda, in the Enlightenment of the Tathagata?" And the Venerable Ananda replied: "Yes, O Lord, I do." DN 16

It is not necessary for Maha Boowa to proclaim explicitly "I am an Arahant".

No, but I think it needs to be unambiguous, a smoking gun, not something open to interpretation or mistranslation.

Ven Maha Boowa made his claim in his Dharma talks which were published in his book.

He clearly described his awakening including his countless previous lives.

Ven Maha Boowa has a lot of books, if you have time to dig out a quote that would be appreciated, remembering past lives is supposed to coincide with 4th jhana.

If you are referring to the excerpt trd posted some time ago then I didn't find that to be about what it was purported to be.

Ven Maha Boowa

So rumour would have it, I've yet to see convincing evidence.

Mai Chei are two.

I googled "Mai Chei arahant", the top results are in Romanian.

I agree with trd, there is no way that we can judge with certainty that this person or that person is an arahant or any other attainment. I think we can tell when meeting someone that they've "got something" but we can't really judge what exactly that is. I've certainly met people I believe have "got something" that is the fruit of dedicated practice.

However I don't think that was what Maailmanmatti was saying, his main point being that an arahant has no need to blow his own trumpet (and of course if he/she is a monastic the vinaya prohibits it), so blowing his own trumpet is a strong indicator someone is not the real deal.

I can't say I've ever heard anyone make such a claim. I've encountered flakey types on the internet claiming to be enlightened or a Buddha, but arahant is a term not generally known outside of Buddhism so to use it someone will know a bit about Buddhism hopefully how such claims would be received.

Very cool to know that a forest monk is practicing Dzogchen. Before I became interested in dharma I used to teach a lot of monks at Mahidol Univeristy, I had some very, sometimes shocking and bizarre situations that I later learned were strikingly similar to Vajrayana mahasiddha style attempts to help me drop my ego games. I am fully convinced that Vajrayana is practiced very secretly in Thailand or that Vajrayana style emerges spontaneously from Thervada practices sometimes, so why not Dzogchen?

I can't remember how I came across this interview between Sam Harris and Joseph Goldstein see the soundcloud on this page http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-path-and-the-goal the first half is just about how Joseph got into the practice, in the second half they compare vipassana and dzogchen and is quite interesting.

So, green tea, black tea, yaa baa, diet pills, cocaine and crack are all OK, since they're stimulants?

I really don't think that caffeine (whether in tea, coffee, or chocolate etc) is comparable to yaa baa, cocaine, and crack.

I don't see the relevancy of diet pills either.

According to this web site it was created by the local abbot, maybe he thought it a fun thing to do http://thailandguidetravel.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/the-cremation-of-lord-buddhas-effigy.html

Coffee is allowable at any time (it's stimulant not an intoxicant), as are coffeemate and sugar.

Milk is not allowable in the afternoon depending on how strict the monastery they are from interprets the rules. If this is the worst they've been up to then they are doing pretty good.

Meditation is definately not about blanking the mind and listening to music.

You can sit in a chair if you want but it's best that the back is not supported so as to help keep you awake.

This looks like a good introduction to get you started http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/On_Meditation1.php

There seems to be a lot of agreement, at least on a verbal conceptual level between Dzogchen and her practices and philosophies.

If you haven't already you might want to check out this book http://forestsanghapublications.org/viewBook.php?id=28&ref=deb by Ajahn Amaro a senior Theravadin monk who has also been practicing Dzogchen.

I for one need to get on top of my own time management and also review what's important in my life.

Tell me about it.

I think time management is less of an issue if you can keep coming back to awareness again and again as you go through your daily activities though.

My daughter is my best teacher at times.

So, what keeps providing us with these thoughts?

What keeps producing them?

Not me, at least most of the useless thought that arises I didn't ask for, they arise because of past conditioning. To know this is enough, it's not generally fruitful to try and track down that conditioning to see the cause of a thought you already know is useless.

The problem here is that you virtually have to devote your life to practice to get to a point where you might get a glimpse.

That's not what I mean by glimpse. If at times one experiences the mind relatively less buffeted by craving, aversion, delusion even if it's fleeting it's usually enough of a glimpse to keep you going.

Whilst we have responsibilities in our lives (dependents, wives, children, infirm parents, charities), it's difficult to extract ourselves from daily living.

One just needs to look honestly at where you're at, what responsibilities you have, where your mind is at and how awareness is best cultivated in your situation.

You can have a vital practice living a normal every day life with work and family responsibilities if you make the most of your opportunities. A lot of senior monks who are abbots of monasteries are probably busier than you or me.

Changing your situation by giving up your responsibilities isn't always the best answer.

Let the goal take care of itself, our job is to take care of the mind.

I think we can't know for certain that Nibbana is real unless/until we experience it for ourselves.

What we can do though is determine whether it's an ideal worth living for.

If we know Dukkha is real and we can see that the process of practice leads to the mind gradually letting go of Dukkha then I don't think it's unrealistic to expect there is the possibility the mind can eventually be free from being conditioned by Dukkha.

As practice gains momentum it becomes more about the journey and less about the goal, too much goal orientation can be self defeating.

The Buddha presented his path bottom up, start from where you are and build on that. Too much attention to big metaphysical questions doesn't really help, I think a better question is whether the path is worth living for and whether it is working and as we go on we get glimpses of what Nibbana may be like.

Mindfulness practice does develop samadhi in unison with insight, the main difference is the awareness is of changing phenomena rather than one pointed with a single object. This samadhi doesn't tend to lend itself to absorption into jhana, but it does lend itself to the possibility of becoming continuous as one goes about ones day to day activities.

Classicly it's presented to do concentration practice first and then insight but I think it's important to know where one's mind is at, for me, and I think a lot of people the mind just isn't ready to develop one pointedness. If I had strived for jhana in my early days it would have been an exercise in frustration leading to discouragement, however mindfulness gave the opportunity to develop insight and the ability to let go leading to samadhi gradually over time. For busy people with families and careers I think it's a more realistic and flexible approach as reflective awareness, insight, letting go, and samadhi gradually build on each other over time.

As awareness grows the practice gains momentum of it's own, deepening samadhi becomes more possible.

Actually, Bruce, sex, celibacy and misogyny were only a part of what was intended as a general discussion of Buddhism at a serious level. This thread has not strayed off course. You are all still having a serious discussion, aren't you?

I wondered why the title didn't really match the first post.

Bruce, sex, celibacy and misogyny

A lethal combination.

Take the key word 'Dukkha' for example. Why the confusion? If we go back to the etymology of the word in Sanskrit we find that it consists of two radicals 'dus + kha'. 'Dus' is a prefix indicating bad, and 'kha' refers to the axle-hole of an ox-drawn cart. If your cart had a bad axle hole, or 'duhkha', you were in for a bumpy ride.

Now you can describe the discomfort of that bumpy ride using a variety of words. It might be downright painful if the seat is hard and you already have a sore bottom.

A very good example. The word "suffering" can lead people to the conclusion Buddhism is about doom and gloom, others object "But I'm not suffering", whereas I think the bumpy ride metaphor paints a different picture.

The Buddha was a master at wordplay and this is generally lost in translation.

I'm not interested in getting into arguments over Theravada versus Mahayana.

Then stick to common ground, or better yet stick to the topic of the thread.

There is only one Self. It is all there is.

Not interested, huh?

You are confusing the small self (anatta) with the true Self (atman). Here is the translation from the Yamamoto version.

In the original texts both concepts are presented as questionable, attachment to them a cause of suffering. But yes I can now find the passage.

I'm not interested in getting into arguments over Theravada versus Mahayana. It is clear where you stand. For me the Self (atma) is the ultimate reality. You are of course entitled to your own opinions.

Excellent. So can I take it that VincentRJ can have his thread about sex and celibacy in Buddhist monasticism back now?

"You, monks, should not thus cultivate the notion (samjna) of impermanence, suffering and non-Self, the notion of impurity and so forth, deeming them to be the true meaning [of the Dharma], as those people [searching in a pool for a radiant gem but foolishly grabbing hold of useless pebbles, mistaken for priceless treasure] did, each thinking that bits of brick, stones, grass and gravel were the jewel. You should train yourselves well in efficacious means. In every situation, constantly meditate upon [bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure. Those who, desirous of attaining Reality [tattva], meditatatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like that wise person [who obtained the genuine, priceless gem, rather than worthless detritus misperceived as the real thing.]"

The Buddha, Chapter Three, "Grief",The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Reciprocal selective quoting. I assume this is supposed to be proof that the Buddha changed his mind and went back to the pre-Buddhist idea of seeking the True Self, rather than the discarding of self view that we see in the original texts.

The interesting thing about the above quote is that the web site you probably lifted it from credits the Kosho Yamamoto translation, lloking at the full text of this translation here http://lirs.ru/do/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra,Yamamoto,Page,2007.pdf the above text is nowhere to be found, not in chapter 3 not anywhere as far as I can see. Help me out here?

The sutra basically waffles on and on around the topic for 584 pages and I'm left confused whether the authors are pro or anti self, here are is some more selective quoting...

O Cunda! Now, meditate upon all that is made, that is composite. Think that all things

are not-Self and are non-eternal, and that nothing endures.

It is thus with this carnal body. It has no Self and no master. Thus we meditate on selflessness. You, the Buddha, say:

"All things have no Self and nothing belonging to Self. O you Bhiksus! Learn and practise

[this]!" Once this is practised, self-conceit goes away. Self-conceit gone, one enters Nirvana.

Then all the bhiksus said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! You, the Buddha,

said before that all things have no Self, that we should practise this and that, when practised,

the thought of Self goes away, and that once the thought of Self is done away with, one does

away with arrogance and that, arrogance once done away with, one gains Nirvana.

Also, emancipation is not possessed of atmatmiya [fixation on self and what belongs to

self]. Such emancipation is the Tathagata. The Tathagata is Dharma.

Bodhisattva Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Really, there cannot

be any case in which there is Self. Why not? When a child is born, it knows nothing. If there is a

Self, the child would have to have knowledge when it is born into the world. Hence we can know

that there is no Self. If a Self definitely existed, there could not be any loss of knowing. If it

were true that all beings eternally possessed Buddha-Nature, there could be no breaking away.