Brucenkhamen

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.

The idea of aiming for or attaining sotapanna is misconceived because it objectifies something that cannot be objectified. And it's being objectified as an imagined state which it is not.

I'm not sure what "cannot be objectified" means, I would have said that anything can be objectified the question is whether doing so is useful or helpful. It seems to me that we are talking about milestones here not states and while some people find milestones helpful I agree with you that aiming for attaining it doesn't really sit right.

Batchelor says that for him there is no need for any kind of rebirth or enduring entity needed to see kamma and its fruit in action because the effects of our actions can be seen in other people long after we die. i.e. we should practise wholesome behaviour out of compassion for others.

It seems to me that this is enough. We can all relate to it and it's not inconsistent with not-self view and not inconsistent with the Buddhas advice on avoiding both eternalism and annihilationism.

According to the Yogachara school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism, there are two levels of consciousness which record all our activities and motivations. The Mano (Sanskrit for Comprehending) records and stores the details of our daily life, including relationships, specific actions, specific memories and personal skills and attributes etc.

The Alya, which means a sort of 'storehouse of Karmic motivations', records only the basic mechanisms, trends, patterns and tendencies of one's actions. In a modern Western sense, one could associate the Alya with the 'subconscious', and the Mano with the 'conscious'.

Such explanations are only necessary if one expects Buddhism to contain ontological explanations of such things, something that is missing from the early texts, and doesn't seem to me to be that much different from possible interpretations of what "self" might be.

In the early texts we see a practice of reflecting on the not-self nature of the 5 aggregates, it's a practice of re-orienting ones view, I haven't seen an example of the Buddha explicitly denying the existence of "self".

He was also equally critical of those who held annihilationist views as he was of those who held eternalist views.

I agree with you though that holding to ideas about the rebirth of a future me is incongruent with the teaching of not-self.

I think the most common rationalisation of this is that what fuels rebirth is kamma so it is kamma that is reborn. The thing is the way we lead our lives doesn't just affect us personally but affects others around us and those that come afterwards.

Secular Buddhism ..?

secularism = is where no connection with religions, or to be free from any rituals that related to any belief,, isn't it?

Or maybe I misunderstood the concept of secularism?

No, you are right.

The point being that the Buddha's teaching is a psychology and a way of life that makes sense when separated from the religion that evolved around it.

See http://secularbuddhism.org/

A good example of this is the mindfulness movement, which we now see in schools, workplaces, news channels etc and is going through the same mainstreaming and secularisation process as yoga did a few decades ago.

The question I'd ask is what is the purpose of asking such a claim, as opposed to keeping quiet about it, what is to be gained.

The suicide doesn't seem consistent with this.

It's very long so I've only scanned through trying to pick up the main points, the following might be helpful.

The teaching on Anatta is not so much about confirming or denying an essence, the Buddha was more interested in having us examine the 5 aggregates and reflect on their not self nature, along these lines

The Blessed One said this:

"Monks, form is nonself. For if, monks, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to determine form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.' But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to determine form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.'

"Feeling is nonself....

Perception is nonself....

Volitional formations are nonself....

Consciousness is nonself. For if, monks, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to determine consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' But because consciousness is non-self, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to determine consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' -- (SN 22:59; III 66-68)

According to the standard formula, insight into the five aggregates as impermanent, suffering, and nonself induces disenchantment (nibbida), dispassion (viraga), and liberation (vimutti). (dukkha), and nonself (anatta). --Bhikkhu Bodhi

However, as you discussed "self" could have many potential meanings, so we need to look at what was understood as self in India at the Buddhas time, what was it that he was denying...

The Buddha is presented as having taught the doctrine (vada) of no soul (anatman).

What is being denied what is a soul? Western languages are at home in the Christian cultural tradition. Christian theologians have differed vastly over what the soul is. For Aristotle, and thus for Aquinas, it is the form of the body, what makes a given individual person a whole rather than a mere assemblage of parts.

However, most Christians conceive of the soul, however vaguely, in a completely different way, which goes back to Plato: that the soul is precisely other than the body, as in the common expression body and soul, and is some kind of disembodied mental, and above all, moral, agent, which survives the body at death.

But none of this has anything to do with the Buddhas position. He was opposing the Upanisadic theory of the soul. In the Upanisads the soul, atman, is opposed to both the body and the mind; for example, it cannot exercise such mental functions as memory or volition. It is an essence, and by definition an essence does not change. Furthermore, the essence of the individual living being was claimed to be literally the same as the essence of the universe. This is not a complete account of the Upanisadic soul, but adequate for present purposes.

Once we see what the Buddha was arguing against, we realise that it was something very few westerners have ever believed in and most have never even heard of. He was refusing to accept that a person had an unchanging essence. Moreover, since he was interested in how rather than what, he was not so much saying that people are made of such and such components, and the soul is not among them, as that people function in such and such ways, and to explain their functioning there is no need to posit a soul. The approach is pragmatic, not purely theoretical. -- Gombrich

My view is that there is a "self" but it is purely conceptual and relative, understanding this there is no need to identify with it, cling to it, defend it, or be trapped by the idea of what "I" am and that "I" can't change.

Have you visited any of the Ajahn Chah branch monasteries? or any of the other monasteries or retreat centres listed in the sticky guide http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/41645-a-guide-to-buddhist-monasteriesmeditation-centresstudy-groups/

You are likely to be disappointed if you just turn up at the nearest village wat. It's a bit like just turning on the TV without determining which channels and timeslots have something worth watching.

Yanna (Yajna skt) refers to ritualistic offerings and sacrifice ceremonies conducted by the Brahmins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajna

It was not necessarily of animals, it could be food etc.

I don't see the other meaning of sacrifice that you mention "sacrifice as giving up something for the benefit of others" as being relevant. Did you read somewhere that the Buddha opposed this? Possibly he would have regarded this as nekkhamma (renunciation).

Yes, Right Mindfulness & Right Concentration.

The two can be blended but my feelings are that they were deliberately taught as (two) practices of the 8 fold path.

I don't think, initially any way, I could achieve the necessary Concentration if I was going on about my daily life.

Sitting allows this to occur.

I also think that the insights and experiences achieved from deep Samadhi are needed before one can have such concentration levels during daily Mindfulness.

The point of sati (mindfulness) is continuity of attention, attention to whatever is appropriate at the time. We just need to remember to notice when attention has lapsed or drifted and re-establish attention over and over again until we establish a level of awareness that becomes mostly continuous. Generally we learn mindfulness techniques/exercises to help bring our attention using something tangible like the breath or body sensations but it's not about those exercises it's about learning to recognise awareness and cultivating it.

Samadhi is about stabilising the mind.

So we continually bring the mind to attention and stabilise it, and the two work hand in hand and support each other.

The thing with sitting meditation is that it allows one to work with the mind on a more subtle level and it gets momentum going but ideally we want to get to the point where we are less reliant on sitting as the mind has developed a momentum of mindfulness that is continuous throughout the day, I'm skeptical this can happen without the support of sitting in the first place though.