Brucenkhamen

Now I'm beginning to understand your confusion, ... Do you think you could manage to carry it?

How is your question relevant to the Buddhist path?

I have little interest a samsara of musings regarding your mind being an illusion, you'll recall my original point was that I didn't think the Buddha taught that the mind is an illusion and where you picked up such an idea?

Are you ready to answer the question yet?

Fair enough! We're all entitled to our opinions. However, if you are going to describe someone's opinion as nonsense, it would help to demonstrate why you think it is nonsense and provide some evidence and hard facts which make it clear how and why the other person's opinion is nonsense.

Already done.

Do you consider fiction to be real, Bruce?

Fiction is real, go to any library and you'll see whole shelves devoted to it, it's not an illusion it's not my imagination it's real stories written by real people often on real paper or real bandwidth. However the storie(s) contained in the fiction did not happen, that's the definition of fiction, if the story did in fact happen it's called non-fiction.

Fiction is a real concept with a real definition...

Fiction is the classification for any creative informational workalmost always a narrativewhose creator does not claim responsibility for the work's faithfulness to reality; in other words, any informative account not guaranteed to present only actual people, factual descriptions, or historically accurate events.

How is your question relevant to the Buddhist path?

So I guess Buddhism really doesn't answer this question.

That's a good example of how the Buddha see's this topic in relation to his teaching.

Okay! You've given some good examples which are worthy of discussion. First I'll point out that I do not dismiss something as being of no consequence because it's an illusion. This is an illusory assumption of yours, or a misinterpretation of what I've written.

Clearly you and I have a different understanding of what it means to say something is an illusion.

If I have a nightmare involving a monster I will understand that the monster is a creation of the mind and is therefore an illusion, this is synonymous with saying that the monster does not exist.

I will not say that because the mind creates an illusory monster that the mind is an illusion, ie that the mind does not exist. It's just nonsense, and it's not Buddha Dhamma.

That's a good point. Maybe I do tend to think like that. Can you give me some examples of things that do not have a physical existence and that are also not illusions or distortions of reality. I can't think of any, but presumably you can. I'm always willing to learn.

A distortion of reality is not an illusion, it's something that is real but misperceived.

So here are some examples things that do not have physical existence but are not an illusion;

Love

Warmth

Family

The Netherlands

War

Name

Date of Birth

Immigration

Justice

Marriage

You'll notice they are all concepts. As concepts they cover a range of processes, causes, and conditions, some physical some not. Just as the mind is a concept and covers a range of processes, causes, and conditions, or Aggregates as the Buddha termed them.

To suggest that something is an illusion is to dismiss it as being no consequence. I'll tell my daughter her nightmare was an illusion because I want her to dismiss it and go back to sleep, I won't tell her that her mind is an illusion. The Buddhas teaching does not dismiss the mind, rather it's to help us to to use the mind wisely, to understand it, to train it, to learn to see through the distortions and experience life with clear understanding.

Everything that exists in the mind is a distortion of reality to some degree. Since the existence of the mind is dependent upon the existence of distorted perceptions of an illusory nature, it seems quite logical to me to decribe the mind as an illusion.

It's quite illogical.

It's like saying because the petrol is liquid the car is liquid

or because the show is comedy the television is comedy.

or because the magic trick is illusion the audience is illusion.

Perhaps the problem is, you have some illusory impression that the mind has a physical existence, like a bowl that contains things, and if the bowl is empty you think that the bowl (ie. the mind) still exists. Is that true?

Perhaps you have the illusory impression that everything that doesn't have a physical existence is illusion.

Dear me! It seems you've misunderstood everything I've written. If you want to talk about cosmogony, that's a subject which provides some excellent examples of the illusory nature of the mind and how it is so easily tricked.

If something is easily tricked that does not mean that that something is an illusion.

If I say "the audience is easily tricked" that does not mean the audience is an illusion, anybody would realise that it's actually the magic trick that is an illusion.

To suggest the mind is an illusion because it is easily tricked is nonsense. The mind is real, the tricks that fool the mind are usually distortions of reality.

Talking round in circles to belabour a mismade point is not fooling anyone.

Goodness gracious me! Absolutely everything that anyone teaches, thinks, feels or says about any subject whatsoever, whether true or false, silly or serious, must involve the mind.

You are absolutely correct! Which is why the statement that "the mind is an illusion" is nonsense.

Since we are clearly now in agreement on that topic perhaps we can return to the subject of cosmogony.

Well, I'm sorry you've misunderstood my use of ordinary words, Bruce. Of course Buddha didn't precisely teach that the mind is an illusion. The English word 'mind' didn't exist in his vocabulary. As far as I know, there is no specific word in either Pali or Sanskrit which exactly translates to our modern concept of the word 'mind', although I understand there are overlapping terms such as citta, nannas and vinnana which might in total approximate to the general English term 'mind'.

Of course he was able to teach about the mind without the use of the English word mind, his entire teaching centres around the mind. I assume you are being facetious here as that's a lot of text just to avoid the point.

What he didn't talk about was illusion.

The nearest I know of is the Phena Sutta where he talks of form as being "like" foam and foam is not an illusion.

Whatever the mythology, and the selected quotes from scriptures, the fundamental principle of Buddhism that clarifies the situation and (hopefully) enlightens one, is the concept that the mind is an illusion.

If that's what you believe you may as well kill yourself now as it's all pointless.

Luckily the Buddha didn't teach that.

I'm curious where you picked up such an idea. My understanding is some Mahayana philosophies say only mind is real everything else is illusion, a quick google reveals quite a few references to mind being illusion-like for example "In Mahayana Buddhism, mind is illusion-like in the sense that it is empty of inherent existence. This does not mean it does not exist, it means that it exists in a manner that is counter to our ordinary way of misperceiving how phenomena exist, according to Buddhism."

I find the word illusion quite misleading in this context.

I found a reply on another forum which quotes the Pali Canon's Agganna Sutta on the subject of Devas (Angels in Buddhist cosmology?) and their devolution into human form.

That could be a candidate.

It's interesting it starts out talking in terms of it appening in the future. Looking at Wikipaedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agga%C3%B1%C3%B1a_Sutta it appears some scholars see it as being satirical take on the Brahmins claims regarding the divine nature of the caste system, otherwise you've got to wonder why an account on the evolution of the universe is buried inside a Sutta about the caste system. Another scholar sees it as consistent with big bang and evolution.

The Buddha had nothing to say about how the Universe came about.

I'm not really sure why other religions consider it their job, I think it's the job of science.

"The Buddha's reason for refusing three times the request of Mahapajapati Gotami, his maternal aunt and adoptive mother, to be ordained, should be pondered in depth," adds Phra Kru Suthammanath."

There may be other reasons but the most obvious one is that it's a standard formula throughout scripture and the tradition when making a request to ask for something three times, I think it's supposed to be a demonstration of sincerity.

So we take refuge 3 times, we ask for the precepts 3 times etc. etc.

There may have been other dynamics in this particular situation with her being the Buddha's foster mother and in a leadership position over 500 women see http://www.academia.edu/9441592/Questions_about_Mah%C4%81paj%C4%81pat%C4%AB_Gotam%C4%AB_s_Ordination for more info.

The main thing is that the Buddha confirmed there wasn't any suggestion women were not "spiritually" capable;

Respectfully he questioned the Buddha, "Lord, are women capable of realising the various stages of sainthood as nuns?"

"They are, Ananda," said the Buddha.

Does all this align with the Buddhas teachings?

It doesn't, it aligns with cultural conditioning. If we lived 100 years ago we might have had the same cultural conditioning but ours has changed over that time.

I spent a week in Wat Pah Nana Chat in 2011, total vegetarian.

Things have changed. I spent a few months there in the late 90's, there was a lot of meat on the menu though the vegetarian dishes were distributed first to make it easier for the monks who chose to be vegetarian.

would he not have had compassion for animals?

I think he did. Its just that he was pragmatic and not really in the Thou shalt not business.

If he were to tell his followers what they could and could not eat what would have been the affect of that? The farmers would have to open their gates and set their livestock free, some would lack the skills to live in the wild, some fall prey to predators, most would probably be rounded up by non-Buddhist farmers, so nothing would have been gained.

Instead we have killing discouraged in the 5 precepts, basing ones livelihood on selling meat discouraged in the eightfold path, killing specifically for feeding monks discouraged. People then have the opportunity to look how they live their lives and where they can make adjustments.

I agree with Vince that compassion is about how we treat animals when they are alive not about what we eat, looking at the affect we have on the world around us rather than upsetting the foodchain and the ecological balance.

Overthinking? What's that? Do you mean one should only think in moderation, according to the general Buddhist principle of 'everything in moderation'?

By that I mean making something pretty simple into something complicated through unnecessary analysis.

In relation to the supreme Buddhist goal of a complete cessation of all thought,

Is of course a silly statement.

I didn't know that. I imagine there are some Buddhists who would disagree.

Yes, A lot of Buddhist laypeople only offer vegetarian food to monks, it's not so common among thais but I find much more so among westerners and sri lankans for example.

I personally don't have a problem with Arahants proclaiming their state.

If a person is not telling the truth then this would be driven by the kilesas.

If a person is telling the truth then the motive must be beyond kilesas.

If the person is in fact an arahant then you probably already have a lot of respect for that person and inspiration from that person, so does the confirmation really add anything that wasn't already there?

However if not then what if the person didn't show the virtue or ethical conduct consistent with being an arahant. What if he/she didn't teach consistent with the Dhamma. What if he/she encouraged donations far more than needed and far more then some people could afford. What if he had too much control over his followers lives. What if he gave an unnatural amount of attention to his followers daughters.

What about the ones who join a forum out of nowhere, come out as a fully enlightened being on their first post, proceed to post spiritual sounding nonsense or the teachings of a different path, and get very hot under the collar when challenged.

I'm glad we have a culture where claiming spiritual attainments is considered unnecessary.

Quote: Ven Maha Boowa.

I sacrificed everything to attain the Supreme Dhamma that I teach you now. Those sacrifices were not made to attain something evil. I nearly gave up my life in search of Dhamma, crossing the threshold of death before I could proclaim to the world the Dhamma that I had realized.

Do you think that I spoke in anger? Where does anger come from? Anger comes from the kilesas. For someone who is completely free of kilesas, you cannot make him angry, try as you will. There is simply no anger left in his heart. If even a small amount of anger remained, he could not be called an Arahant free of kilesas.

For anger, greed, and delusion are all kilesas. Do you understand?

The evidence is mounting.

You'll notice he halfway through that paragraph he changes from the first person to the second person. The implication is there, but it's still indirect. Who's to know he didn't pause and start on a new tack at that point, if for example the translator had chosen to start "For someone " on a new paragraph it would read quite differently.

If we go back to the first quote you gave it reads to me like he is giving a heartfelt account of deeply personal experiences in order to inspire others, it doesn't read to me like laying a claim or blowing his own trumpet, though you could say he let too much cat out of the bag.

I visited his monastery many times when he was alive, I ordained in one of his branch monasteries for a period and stayed in another. If I were to ask any Thai there "Do you think he is an arahant?" I'm pretty sure I can predict the answer, he was that well regarded. Someone like that has nothing to prove, has no need to lay claims or blow their own trumpet.

I guess for me it's not just the words but the intention behind them.

You are being evasive my dear Bruce.

No, actually you are attempting to change the topic.

But at least now it is clear. You want a clear statement from him saying "I am arahant". So if he had said that you would be convinced? Or is there more. Come on old chum, put your neck on the block for once.

Convinced of what? Why are you talking about whether I am convinced that someone is or isn't an arahant? I only said "I can't say I've heard of anyone making such a claim".

Why do you need me to be in the business of judging other people?

But in case you are in fact still on topic then yes if I hear a clear statement along the lines of "I am an arahant" then my statement would change to "I can say I've only really heard of one person making such a claim".

Furthermore what do you mean by mirrors in relation to Maha Boowa's accounts.

Lighten up.

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

It's pretty clear english,

Of course there are many possibilities. It's like if I asked you "What would convince you that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine?".

In this Dharma presentation doesn't the Ven: Maha Boowa clearly indicate his Arahantship?

He clearly had a profound experience that made a major shift in his path and in his appreciation of dhamma. He doesn't claim to be an arahant. I can see how you might want to interpret that way, but how do you know it wasn't one of a number steps, 4th jhana? or stream entry? or becoming an anagami?

I'm looking for "I am now this", "I am no longer that", type of language.

So I repeat. What specifically would convince you that someone is arahant? Would they have to say it in the terms you quoted from SN 56 et al. And how would you know they spoke the truth.

Your question is irrelevant, the question we are discussing is my statement "I can't say I've ever heard anyone make such a claim"

What would convince you I can't say that?

How would you know if I spoke lies?