Brucenkhamen

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.

6 hours ago, trd said:

That's a legitimate question. My search is over and I know because I am free from the bondage of action and suffering (dukkha).

Your demeanor here tells a different story, but that's just my opinion.  Having said that the rest of your post is a pretty good outline of how the process of awakening works.

11 hours ago, trd said:

If my question doesn't make sense then what the heck draws you to Buddhism? It's very difficult having conversations with dogmatic Buddhists which is why I have yet to meet one who has awakened.

Grammatical problems aside the path of practice is not a search, it starts out as a search, for most people probably, but if you're still searching after 35 years then I'd suggest that there is a problem.

It's only difficult for you to have conversations with Buddhists because your motivation is to preach Advaita Vedanta.  Look at post #13 it sticks out on this thread like a sore thumb. How is a post that could be paraphrased as "The Buddha really taught Advaita Vedanta all the rest of the teachings are for you dummies that don't understand it" an appropriate response to the question Why are you drawn to Buddhism?

I think it is perfectly reasonable to challenge alternative facts on a forum like this, if you can let go of aversion to that process we might all learn something.

2 hours ago, trd said:

Tell me something about Buddhism that will end your search.

That statement doesn't appear to make sense.

“Show me your Original Face, the face you had before your parents were born.”

Why are you drawn to Buddhism?

1 hour ago, trd said:

No you're not happy at all.

That's an opinion, if you want to speculate about the happiness (or lack thereof) of others fine, again expressing opinion as fact is when it can become a problem.

20 minutes ago, trd said:

Well it's obvious that I'm not going to agree with you or Bhikkhu Bodhi since I know that non dual awareness is the reality and it's what the historical Buddha also discovered. You are free to believe whatever you want. I made a statement about the living truth and there is only one truth no matter where it comes from. So I know for certain what Buddha discovered, but he had many ways of teaching because he understood how the egoic mind works and what freedom means in the desireless state.

Of course nobody is going to have a problem with your beliefs differing from Bhikkhu Bodhi if you present them as your beliefs, but you didn't present them as your beliefs but as the Buddha's teaching.  Presumably Jesus and Mohammed also taught non dual awareness is the reality in the trd world view.

I'm very happy for you that you know for certain what you believe, but you made a statement about the Buddha which amounts to alternative facts and fake news.

28 minutes ago, trd said:

I'm not interested in historical references or debates about scripture. You see, you think it's about the 84,000 teachings. So go and be a scholar and believe that's Buddhism. 

 

BTW are you referring to the Hindu/Vedic Agamas or Buddhist Agamas?

 

 

So you're telling us what an historical person taught but have no interest in historical evidence?  How does that work, it's just opinion then.

I never said there were 84,000 teachings, you did, I think it's pretty nonsensical that a teacher would create 84,000 teachings just to obfuscate his one and only teaching.  Even so why not 84,001 or 83,999?

But regarding my question, here is a very good analysis of the topic from Bhikkhu Bodhi http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

Quote

The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses. - Bhikkhu Bodhi

Regarding the Agamas the answer should be obvious considering this is a Buddhist forum.

But getting back to the original topic of this thread, Why are you drawn to Buddhism?

8 hours ago, trd said:

The Buddha only had one real teaching which is that you are non dual awareness. That is your true nature.

Do you have a reference for that from the historical texts?  If not the Pali Canon the Agamas would be fine.

Certainly not at the average temple, at least not unless you are fluent in Thai.  You'll need to find one that teaches and practices meditation and has english speaking teachers.  In Chiang Mai Wat Umong is probably your best bet, they have a section of the monastery which is an international meditation centre and you would be able to pop in and sit with others on residential retreat.  I also noticed during the time I was there the local Zen group would meet with the teacher for discussion one per week or so.  You could also try one of the Ajahn Tong manasteries.

I don't know about Hua Hin sorry.

Other than his web site I can't find any reference to it anywhere else.  This might indicate that the retreat is for Thai speakers so only advertised in Thai but you could always send an email to his centre and ask.

The Paccha-bhumika Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.006.than.html

The Pali word for monk is Bhikkhu, see https://suttacentral.net/define/bhikkhu

I think it's unlikely a word ending in an s sound is Thai, as in Thai when the last letter of a word is an s sound it gets changed to a t, I'm sometimes called Brut for example.  Words borrowed from Pali get similar treatment when they don't conform to Thai grammar, so Kamma becomes Gum, and Dukkha becomes Took for example.  Unless fluent I find most Thais struggle to pronounce plurals in english or any words ending in s.

Even in Pali I don't think words ever end in an s sound, its not used for plural and I can't think of any off the top of my head, here is a glossary of common terms http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html.

So i think That rules out Thai, Pali, and probably Lao, maybe Khmer is a possibility,. 

The most common Laotian term I've heard is Ko Pra, I understand Pra Song is a formal term and in Khmer it's Preahsang.  If it's a very senior monk Luang Por is an appropriate address.  In Pali it's Bhikkhu or Bhante.

I guess Sadhus could be possibility, it's a hindu term for a spiritual seeker I think it's understood in Thai but I haven't heard anyone use it.

I think in asia study of Pali would be rare outside of monastics, in the west though academics and keen meditators/buddhists study it.

The language that chanting is done is is Pali, itr's an Indian language similar to Sanskrit that was used to record the scriptures.

As for Daboo is she speaking a local dialect? The only thing I can come close to is if these monks live on a mountain it could be PraPoo, ie mountain monks but I'd think PraPa would be more likely in that case ie forest monks.

I agree it's inconsiderate, but it's a cultural thing not a religious thing.

If you go to a shopping mall, market, festival, or just have neighbours who like to share their loud music with their neighbours it's much the same.

It would be nice to think that Buddhists would know better, being into meditation and all, but some meditation centres are among the noisiest places I've been.

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

although I'm a bit put-off by Stephen Batchelor's continual waving of his hands as he speaks. 

 

Aussie flies, they take a bit of getting used to.

Neither Mahayana nor Theravada is true.

Neither Mahayana nor Theravada nor Advaita Vedanta is true.

Actually as they are all orthopraxic rather than orthodoxic (correct me if I'm wrong regarding the latter) true/false doesn't really apply, works/doesn't-work is a more appropriate measure.