Brucenkhamen

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.

Samadhi is often translated as concentration, which is wrong in my view. Samadhi is one pointedness of mind.

Yes concentration is a pretty poor translation for samadhi as it implies straining, squinting, or striving.

I think one pointedness of mind is better as long as it's understood that it's about the mind and not so much about being one pointed on an object. Collectedness, stabalising, centering I think are good descriptions.

Asoke people emphasise more the aspect of concentration, and thus their meditation is concentration in whatever they do whether it be eating, working or sleeping. Every action is carried out with careful concentration, which is their meditation. "

I think most of us would understand what you've described to be right mindfulness, not right concentration, though the two go hand in hand and the level of emphasis varies from teacher to teacher.

If the jar represents the mind, it seems, according to Buddhadhasa, that the purpose of meditation is to distinguish between the peanuts and the walnuts, and remove only the walnuts. If the peanuts are still inside the jar, then the jar cannot be described as being empty, period. There's where the confusion lies.

However, the term 'to empty the jar of walnuts' , or 'to empty the mind of defilements', does make sense, and after reading Bhuddadhasa's article I understand that this is what he meant by the 'void' or 'empty' mind.

While I agree the title of the book is a bit confusing the content is quite clear, and that's the main thing.

The problem with your peanuts and walnuts analogy is that both are equally desirable and neither are integral with the jar.

If we said that if we removed pollution from water then we'd have "void water" it's still a bit counterintuitive but is closer to what he's saying about the mind.

What he writes makes sense from a practical point of view. A mind which is free of anxiety, worry, fear and anger etc, and a mind that is free of a sense of ego that causes one to be vulnerable to the effects of imagined insults, is a mind that can function more efficiently and understand more clearly. I have no criticism of such benefits, but I still wonder what the ultimate purpose is.

If the state of mind you describe is not dependant on conditions, is that not enough?

I once spent nearly a half day back and forth with him on a single Pali term, nibbida, trying various Thai and English translations until he was satisfied.

I wonder whether the way Ajahn Buddhadasa uses the word sunnata (void) in this talk nibbida (cassation) might have been more appropriate, the latter implies emptying out whereas the former implies being intrinsically empty

I think most people would understand a 'void' as being a 'completely empty' space, not something that is partially empty.

I have the same reaction to the word "void", to me it suggests nihilism. However if Ajahn Buddhadasa had used the word "emptiness" as the translation of sunnata I probably would have assumed he was using it in the Mahayana sense ie the lack of an intrinsic or essential nature.

Either way he clearly defines the sense in which he is using it, an adjective for the mind being void/empty of something.

Here's a long and detailed critique of Dhammakaya by former member Dr Mano Laohavanich: http://www.undv.org/vesak2012/iabudoc/22LaohavanichFINAL.pdf

Interesting and scary stuff.

I don't know why this group is tolerated by the wider community.

the Void Mind.

I hadn't heard it phrased like this before but I see there is a book with this title from Ajahn Buddhadhasa talks, it's very good http://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/015/original/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Void_Mind.pdf?1462866778

I'd like you to be nice or neutral to TRD.

You'll be surprised how genuine he is.

I don't really want to be talking about a third person.

However checking through my responses to the above over the last 6 pages of this thread as I suspected I haven't found any where I've gotten personal, as far as I can see I challenge the ideas or how they are expressed not the person, if anyone doesn't like having their ideas challenged perhaps posting them on a public forum is not a good idea.

While discussions on this board can get pretty bickery at times it's rare to find such a blatent personal attack as post #256.

I'll take your feedback under advisement though.

Please note I haven't personally been belittled but have observed.

That's what I thought, I didn't think I'd ever intentionally belittled you, you've contributed positively to this board for many years.

I know you've got good intentions but perhaps others would prefer to fight their own battles.

It's not the bluntness but the belittling it's accompanied with.

Could you please give an example of text you felt belittled by?

You are one of us, but I feel uncomfortable when reading the feelings (+ or -) which color your words.

I'm sorry to hear that, we are all adults here and should be able to discuss objectively.

While I can be blunt at times I think it would be safer to assume that there are no feelings colouring my words.

In the original texts sunnata/emptiness is mostly just a synonym for not-self.

You are a fundamentalist Buddhist hung up on dogma and mistake it for the truth. You are no different to a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. Your mind derives some satisfaction from deciding that emptiness means not self. Congratulations. What does it bring you? Is that the truth you are looking for. Conceptual gratification about a word. For you Buddhism is a religion, which also means you are an end of path denier. You will do anything to stay on the path and revel in its mystery and complexity as you see it. The more difficult and arduous the path, the more you become invested in it and that investment cannot be threatened by anything that doesn't conform to entrenched ideas based on what you have come to regard as the pure doctrine. But that's your prison. Don't you see? If you were transported back in time and came face to face with the Buddha I think you would actually be disappointed. When Buddhism becomes all about the words and you get irritated when taken out of your comfort zone and have to resort to calling it science fiction or new age or some such disparaging remark, then you really have to question what it is that you think you know. Fundamentalism is safe you see but it keeps mind in a trap. The essence of what Buddhism is, is what happened under the Bodi tree before all the words were written which were then consumed by those like you who mistake them for truth. Release your mind and you will find out you had the cart before the horse. Be still and stop thinking about scripture too much. It's a trap.

... somebody got out of bed on the wrong side this morning.

If you investigate a little further.

Apart from radiation, light, and matter, deep space is empty (nothing) but still exists.

You can go up, down or across the vacuum of space (void).

This void is empty but still exists.

I think your interpretation here sounds like borderline science fiction.

The Mahayana teaching of emptiness (while I guess it varies from school to school) is just about how all things lack an essential/intrinsic nature of their own, ie they are all just changing combinations of components, causes, conditions, and interdepedancies.

Translating sunyata as voidness instead of emptiness I think can be misleading, it's not about existence being one meaningless black hole.

From Wikipedia "Voidness does not mean nothingness, but rather that all things lack intrinsic reality, intrinsic objectivity, intrinsic identity or intrinsic referentiality. Lacking such static essence or substance does not make them not exist - it makes them thoroughly relative". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81

In the original texts sunnata/emptiness is mostly just a synonym for not-self.

And it is the fundamental nature of being that was being discussed, but you first used the word metaphysical to characterise concepts about existence as meaningless and intellectual laziness. At least I wasn't talking about realms and hungry ghosts, but that which is directly experienced.

Yes, we directly experience the totality of existence every day, at least in a limited way.

When Buddha become enlightened he saw innumerable past lives pass before him. Is that not metaphysical in nature?

Add the Greek prefix "meta-" (beyond) to the base "physical" (nature), and you get metaphysical a near synonym to the Latin-based word "supernatural." Both concern phenomena that are outside everyday experience or knowledge.

Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

So Buddhism has no metaphysical concepts does it?

I'm sure you know it does.

However the Buddha was recorded as often not engaging regarding metaphysical questions.

Advaita, means not two which means that the Self is one without a second. There is only consciousness. Brahman is not a being or deity. It is a way of describing the totality of existence as both the absolute and the relative as it appears as samsara. I maintain that the essence of Buddhism is non duality. What Buddha taught was essentially very simple but most people can't see the wood for the trees.

It's pantheistic monism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism and mincing words doesn't make it any the less so, the absence of personal pronouns referring to this totality of existence doesn't make it any less so. I think a metaphysical concept describing the totality of existence is meaningless and intellectual laziness.

What Buddha taught was essentially very simple but most people can't see the wood for the trees.

Trees are not made of just one thing, they are not just made of wood. One needs to understand that certain component parts have certain characteristics as nobody wants to live in a house made of leaves.

If you need such a metaphysical concept I don't have a problem with that, just be honest about it and dispense with the obfuscation, it's just not relevant to Buddhist practice as presented in original texts. Mahayana does seem to lean towards it more and seems to be able to do so without all the unnecessary waffle in my opinion.