Brucenkhamen

In Buddhist practice psychic powers are understood as possible side affects of advanced meditation practice, they are never seen as a goal, or something to cultivate as an end in themselves.

Monks are forbidden from telling lay people that they have had such attainments, the idea being such monks may be motivated to manipulate others into following them.

Buddhism is about self purification, eradicating craving aversion and delusion, and these kinds attainments can often work against this goal leading to pride, distraction, and craving more.

The Buddha practiced these Siddhis with the teachers of the day reached the conclusion that they were a dead end, and moved on to practice by himself to look for something more meaningful.  It seems to me that equating Enlightenment with mental masturbation and the gaining of Siddhis as the path then you're already on the wrong path.

Mahayana does have ideas that sound a bit more like salvation but I think it varies from school to school.  Pure Land I think is definately salvation oriented whereas Zen has ideas like delaying your enlightenment in order to save others, and of instant enlightenment. but it's practice is very much self purification oriented like Theravada.

I'm not sure Christianity has been very successful in gaining converts anywhere in Asia, except Korea.  In a lot of these cultures people hedge their bets as far as religious practice is concerned, they might attend Taoist, Shinto, or animist etc practices as well as Buddhist, and the idea of a conversion experience is foreign.  So Jesus might be just another deity for them.  Also In Theravadin countries it's not uncommon for lay people to have ideas that sound more like expecting salvation, if someone doesn't have the time and energy for self purification the notion someone else could save them is appealing.

I think that's a reasonable assumption.

On 12/24/2019 at 9:52 AM, mekong.star said:

my adopted son will become monk soon. i have been told i need to contribute 300,000 baht.  i don't understand this.

That's outrageous!

when I ordained many years ago the main expenses were the robe and bowl, probably only a few thousand all up for all of the gear.  In addition to that the monks who officiated in the ceremony each received an evelope with about $1000 baht in it (which they hopefully gave to their steward to handle).

Holding big lavish parties, if that's what the money is being used for, doesn't seem in keeping with an ordination.

The headquarters of the sect that he ordained in (Wat Boronives or Wat Mahathat) will know where he ordained but I doubt they'll track his movements after that.

On 1/8/2019 at 12:38 AM, trd said:

On 1/8/2019 at 12:25 AM, rockyysdt said:

Is the expression Awakening more apt, Enlightenment being a word whose origin began in the 17th century?

I don't like the word Enlightenment. I only used it because it's in the title of the thread. Full awakening in Buddhist terms is Nirvana (quenching, blowing out) Awakening is less precise because for instance you could say you have awakened to the reality of impermanence or you awakened to the cause of suffering or you have awakened to realizing that wherever you look you will not be able to find an entity that is a self. Or you have awakened through meditation practice to the discrimination between unchanging awareness and changing phenomena of the aggregates. I would consider that more important, but while those awakenings are important it is not liberation.

Good point.  awakening with a small a is relative and adjective you could apply to all kinds of small insights or happenings, Awakening with a capital A is Full Awakening, or liberation, or Nibbana.

On 1/8/2019 at 12:25 AM, rockyysdt said:

Is the expression Awakening more apt, Enlightenment being a word whose origin began in the 17th century?

Yes

Wat Suan Mokh would be my recommendation for a beginner, but unless it's changed retreats start on the 1st ofthe month so you've already missed this month.

This page has a selection http://www.littlebang.org/retreats-2/

Also see the sticky on this board;

If you want to drop in and just meditate casually rather than do a residential retreat then Wat Umong is a good bet. 

After you go through the main gates immediately veer left and you will find the international meditation centre, depending on the time of the day you should find a group of foreigners meditating in a hall which is the first main building you come to on the road that branches to the left, unless things have changed in recent years.

On 7/9/2018 at 10:46 AM, fusion58 said:

The meaning of "egocentrism" I have in mind refers to the psychological condition in which the ego is experienced as the center of the psyche.

 

In other words your original statement "I thought enlightenment meant the dissolution of ego... I've since come to understand it as the dissolution of egocentrism." was about originally thinking that enlightenment was the dissolution of an entity, and now understanding it as the dissolution of a psychological state.

If so I concur.

Statues are usually unconcious and oblivious to their surroundings, thronging crowds or not.

The way you've described what you expect enlightenment is pretty on the mark as far as I'm concerned, at least in terms of how the Buddha taught it.

It's not a trance, escape, or annihilation of conciousness.

I was last at SuanMokh in 1997, so not so recent but no dogs back then, the retreats are held in a retreat centre seperate from the main monastery so I think it's likely they would continue to keep It dog free.  The same is probably true of Wat Kow Tahm.

I think you've interpreted this teaching a bit literally, as I understand the teaching you refer to doesn't state that humans are the only state capable of awakening it's that the human state is the optimum.  This is because we have the optimum balance of self awareness and freedom of thought and suffering partly due to physical form.

If you want to speculate about aliens in other worlds then I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that there may be other species with a similar balance.

I think when you look at the suttas where the Buddha goes into this cosmology in depth you'll find that he is talking to Brahmins.  My view is that he is using their cosmology to teach them a principle which is probably don't wait until you get to one of your heavenly realms to practice to attain awakening, the best time to do it is now. 

3 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

Yes, who is re born, and what awakens?

 

... and how does this question segue from "The distinction between dualism and non-dualism", if at all.

On 12/3/2017 at 11:12 PM, rockyysdt said:

Interesting subject Bruce.

 

Is calling it God or Brahman technically incorrect though?

 

Didn't the Buddha suggest that even Brahman was in a state of Samsara?

Yes it's technically incorrect within the Buddhist framework because it doesn't form part of the framework, I was talking more in terms of the concept not being useful.

The Buddha talked in terms implying all deities being samsaric beings, Brahma is just one of them but is mentioned in quite a few passages.  However I referred to Brahman which is a very different concept, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma#Difference_between_Brahma,_Brahman,_Brahmin_and_Brahmanas

I don't see how killing can protect a religion, if you need to kill to protect a religion it's not worth protecting. 

If the Rohingyas were proseletysing amongst the Rakhines then you'd counter that by reviving the local Buddhist practice, but I doubt very much that this is what's happening.  Rather two ethnic groups have been competing for scarce resources for centuries and now the army and clergy have gotten involved.

The Sayadaw's is using of a Sri Lankan saga to justify what most people who know a little about Buddhist know is not right.  The article suggests non-Buddhists are less than human but there is no justification for such a view in the original teachings and even if that were true Buddhism encourages compassion for all sentient beings human or not.

1. I wouldn't have thought so.  Normally in the Thai forest tradition monks walk in a disciplined line on a standard route, I was surprised to see in Chiang mai monks walking on their own in quite random routes perhaps this is what you're referring to.

2. Generally in rural areas I think arrangements are made with the locals on what would be an appropriate route as people need to organise themselves to be ready and don't want to miss out.  In the city though I think there are a lot more people and a lot more route options, if a monastery's discipline is lax then I guess monks go where they like.

A monk can't get married, he would have to disrobe if he wanted to marry.

A married man can become a monk, as temporary ordinations are quite common in Thailand this isn't such a big deal, you'd hope he'd only do so with his families blessing and not in circumstances that would leave his family unsupported.

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Concepts such as monism and non-dualism perhaps just serve the purpose of helping us to understand, at an intellectual level, that all things that we perceive through our senses are 'empty' of any inherent identity or 'self'. The identity we ascribe to the various things that surround us, are no more than a product of our own thought processes.

I think you are right.

If we look at the characteristics of existence.

1. Everything is impermanent,
2. therefore everything does not provide lasting satisfaction,
3. therefore everything is not self,
4. therefore everything is empty, ie has no inherent existence,
5. therefore everything is one, ie there is a unifying principle here, ie non-dual.

The first 3 are in the original teachings, the last two are Mahayana enhancements.  I think they are useful as enhancements if they are just about clarifying one's view about the characteristics of existence but become a problem when it becomes a new conceptual framework that replaces the old.

ie adding 6th therefore oneness is is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe. Call it True self or God or Brahman or whatever, and realising this oneness is the purpose or ultimate reason for the path.  This is where it is adding concepts that don't need to be there, antiethical to the original teachings, and it becomes not Buddhism.

Actually monism as I understand it goes much further than that and claims that life the Universe and everything is just one thing, everything is one.  On a material level that makes sense as everything is built of the same atomic building blocks so possibly that can be extended to the non  material. However I don't really see how that oneness gets equated with awareness, or considered The True Self.

Vipassana practice does the opposite and attempts to break experience down to the smallest components.  The point of both approaches is to get away from interpreting our experience just from the conceptual framework we live by, to loosen attachment to ideas of me, you, country, identity, occupation, security etc as if these were the ultimate reality of things.

Concepts are necessarily dualistic because it's all about differentiating between this and that, and we need then to interact with the world around us.  It's attachment to and identification with the concepts we interpret our experience through that is responsible for much of our unwise attitudes and suffering.

That's an excellent analysis Vince.

I think there are several non-dual perspectives within Mahayana, they can be skillful means if one understands the truth they point to rather than believe in them as a monist ultimate truth.

The idea of Nirvana and Samsara being inseperable for example to me it's like they are two sides of the same coin.  The point is the potential to awaken from Samsara into Nirvana is always a pregnant possibility but it doesn't change ones outer environment, (ie Nirvana and Samsara exist in the same environment/reality) rather it changes the mind and how the mind relates to it.

Vipassana practice is non dual from the point of view that among other things it seeks to break down this idea of me (subject) experiencing objects.  Instead of using the unifying principle mentioned above it uses the opposite principle of change and conditionality breaking every experience down to the smallest components in order to free oneself of a subject object perspective.

Of course you are correct though that the distinction between 'dualism' and 'non-dualism' is itself a dualistic concept, which is why I prefer the way the Buddha's teaching doesn't make a big song and dance about it but instead promotes the crumbling of dualistic conceptual frameworks.  To me this is very different from the reifying of a monist non-dual concept as the goal and centre of ones path or religion which looks a lot like replacing one problem with another.

I agree with Camerata that your topic is inappropriate on this thread, so this will be my last post on it unless you want to create a new topic.

9 hours ago, trd said:

 

I don't know how you can say that non dual is just a view. Awareness is non dual if there is only awareness as subject without an object. One pointedness of mind or samadhi is just awareness knowing itself. That's what makes it non dual. It's not an idea. It's a direct experience. What you describe as awareness as a process is a duality when awareness consists of knower and object that is known. I am aware of this is a duality. I am aware is non duality. I wish you would stop pidgeon holing this as Buddhist or Advaita.

 

Whether awareness is non dual or not it's a matter of perspective and how you understand and relate to experience.  Yes in our practice we want to get away from the idea of me (subject) aware of object and it's quite liberating when one consistently does so, it's just that it's not central to our religion like it is yours, it's not the goal like it is in yours.

Samadhi may well be one pointed and therefore non dual, but so what, again it's not considered the goal or purpose of the path in the Buddha's teachings as it's temporary and subject to causes and conditions.

9 hours ago, trd said:

Why do you want to keep talking about Vedanta. I don't. I am taking about the essence of Buddhism which happens to be the same as the essence of Vedanta. Is there one kind of awareness for Buddhists and another kind for Vedantists?

 

You absolutely keep talking about Vedanta, it's just that you keep calling it Buddhism.  You believe your own rhetoric and Advaita propaganda to the degree that you are oblivious to the feedback that the central concepts you espouse are totally absent from the Pali Canon and totally absent in Theravada.  Mahayana does have similar concepts about non-duality, though my feeling is that they use them quite differently.  Claiming Buddhism as some kind of subset of your own religion is just arrogant religious colonialism, alternative facts, and fake news.

Instead of flogging a dead horse you'd find it less frustrating to talk about approaches to practice that we share that are similar.

9 hours ago, trd said:

 If your primary practice is what you call the cultivation of awareness then why do you continue to have a mental tug of war within yourself that feels the need to defer to Buddhist dogma in a protectionist way? The direct knowledge and spontaneous wisdom arising from awareness is your inner guru which is not different from Buddha. Learn to appreciate the methodology I am discussing here.

I can assure you I have no inner tug of war about the nature of awareness, I just don't buy into the conceptual framework around it that you are promoting here.  When I'm talking about awareness I'm talking about a mental process, and a very important one in developing the path of practice.  When you do sometimes you talk about it like that and other times it's some kind of monist non dual ultimate reality, which frankly makes no sense.  If you can drop the latter and stick to the Buddhas framework we'll get on fine.

37 minutes ago, trd said:

44 minutes ago, superglue said:

Buddhism may be succinctly described as - you are born; you suffer; you die.

No, that's just a description of ignorance. The cessation of suffering is the primary teaching.

You are right of course, if there was no solution it would be a pointless teaching.

46 minutes ago, trd said:

 

If your primary interest is now cultivating further the spacious awareness that mindfulness brings, this should tell you two things.

1. Awareness is non dual.
2. Scriptural references are secondary to direct experience of awareness.

You don't need to put a label on that or engage me on a battlefield where Advaitists are fighting Buddhists but instead appreciate the universal truth of Buddha's teachings. When i spoke of the essence of Buddhism you immediately had a knee jerk reaction towards dogma, yet here you are following my advice in your practice. Funny huh?

Non-dual is just a view, not an ontological ultimate truth, not the goal of the path.  Awareness is a process of mind, just because it seems relatively stable, relatively spacious, relatively profound, relatively non-dual doesn't make it an ultimate truth or goal of the path.  This is how I understand the Buddhist view, of course I'd never go on an Advaita Vedanta forum to say so.

Scriptural references provide a basis for a methodology, of course it's secondary to direct experience of awareness.  But when someone promotes alternative facts about who taught what direct experience of awareness won't help you, historical evidence will.

You did not speak of the seesnse of Buddhism, you spoke of the essence of Advaita Vedanta and said the Buddha taught that, I don't know why other religions need to make such claims as if the Buddha lends integrity that would otherwise be absent.

Learn to appreciate the methodology we are discussing here and then you'll be able to draw parallels.  For example were you aware that I know of at least 3 vipassana teachers that were students of HWL Poonja in their early days, one was recommended vipassana as the right practice for her by Poonja-ji ?  Of course not because your only interest is here is promoting your own beliefs.

In an attempt to get Rocky's thread back on track I was drawn to Buddhism through crises in my life and the four noble truths really resonating at the time, I had a stop the world I want to get off type attitude.  Life just seemed suffering, the Buddha claimed to have the answer, I was inspired by the hagiography of the Buddha and ideals of renunciation.

Over time of course this changed, my interest in Buddhist as a religion waned, I wasn't so inspired by these ideals, I suffered less.  This was replaced by an interest in the mind,  an interested in cultivating further the spacious awareness that mindfulness brings.

I think for a lot of people they just start dabbling in meditation as a form of stress reduction and it gradually grows from there.