camerata

If I remember correctly, at the time I got my PR I would have had to wait 5 years to apply for citizenship, but I retired just before I reached the 5 years. I can't say I was ever very interested in citizenship, though.

Thailand Post wouldn't accept my pink card for sending an EMS mail today. The notice on the counter says it must be the original passport (for foreigners) and says it is mandated by the Narcotics Control Act. It applies to registered domestic mail too.

I think what happened is that the view of the Jains - the "fourfold restraint" - is briefly mentioned in the sutta and Buddhadasa has filled it out from the Commentaries. In any case, it is given as one of six examples of incorrect view - according to the Pali Cannon. So, no surprise there.

In the Samannaphala Sutta of the Pali Canon appears a doctrine:

" practice of dhamma conducive to freedom of sins and attainment of the pinnacle of sublime life, as he has done so, he is considered to have reached Atman".

I can't find this in any translation of the sutta. It only appears in a book by Buddhadasa as an example of non-Buddhist views:

eliminating dhammas, and attainment of the pinnacle of sublime life through the sin-eliminating dhammas. As he has done so, he is considered to have been reached atman, completed his practice, reached immortality and eternality.

This view has rivaled Buddhism from the beginning up to the present. If we read a history book or take a look from the historical aspects with neutral, unbiased presentation, and not just read Buddhist books on the commentary level, we will find that this doctrine had as many followers as, or even more followers than, Buddhism. In the Buddha’s time, such high-class people as kings esteemed both doctrines equally. Our own commentaries, in spite of their tendency to belittle other doctrines intentionally and overly, indicate in some places that there were more followers and disciples of this heretical doctrine in some towns than there were those of Buddhism.

I'm fairly sure that in Theravada Buddhism the Pali word citta does not mean "individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being." If that definition applies in Mahayana Buddhism, it would be the Sanskrit equivalent, since Sanskrit is the language of the original Mahayana scriptures. Do you have a Buddhist source for this definition? The Pali dictionary simply defines citta as 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'state of consciousness', and as a synonym for vinnana (consciousness), one of the 5 aggregates.

How is my definition of individuated consciousness which is impermanent essentially different from yours as mind, consciousness and a state of consciousness as one of the aggregates which are impermanent?

It was your additional description of it arising from Being that didn't sound like the Pali citta. However, if you're saying citta is not eternal, I think we all agree.

You say that Maha Boowa was controversial. So was Buddha.

"The Tathagata is liberated from being reckoned in terms of consciousness, Vaccha, he is profound, boundless, unfathomable like the ocean.”

To be boundless and unfathomable is to be outside the illusion of space and time. That sounds eternal to me.

I agree. The way I've always understood it (from Theravada sources) is as a "state of being" that is not any kind of self or consciousness. I suppose one could argue that a state of being must be experienced by some sort of self, but I think the Buddha would have objected to that.

Yes, Buddha would have objected to the idea of Being experienced by a self. The self with a small s is the person, but if you try and find this person you will never find it. Everywhere you look is not the self which is the true meaning of anatta, not that there is something called a not self. In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra what is referred to as the Self with a big S also means Being, which knows itself without the intermediary of another self to experience it. In vedanta, chit (sanskrit) and in Buddhism, citta (pali) are essentially the same and describe individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being.

I'm fairly sure that in Theravada Buddhism the Pali word citta does not mean "individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being." If that definition applies in Mahayana Buddhism, it would be the Sanskrit equivalent, since Sanskrit is the language of the original Mahayana scriptures. Do you have a Buddhist source for this definition? The Pali dictionary simply defines citta as 'mind', 'consciousness', and 'state of consciousness', and as a synonym for vinnana (consciousness), one of the 5 aggregates.

Please advise which precepts you consider me to have broken.

Let's all try and practise Right Speech and leave it at that, shall we?

Now, on with the proliferation...

In the life story of Luang Por Man (albeit written by Maha Boowa) there is the part where he attains to Arahant, in a cave in ChiangDao I believe. He states that he is visited by many past Arahants and Buddhas who teach him.

So they must be somehwere...

When Ajahn Brahm was asked about this he said he understood it to be nimitta. But there seems to be a belief in popular Thai Buddhism that the Buddha and the arahants can reappear in some form.

You say that Maha Boowa was controversial. So was Buddha.

"The Tathagata is liberated from being reckoned in terms of consciousness, Vaccha, he is profound, boundless, unfathomable like the ocean.”

To be boundless and unfathomable is to be outside the illusion of space and time. That sounds eternal to me.

I agree. The way I've always understood it (from Theravada sources) is as a "state of being" that is not any kind of self or consciousness. I suppose one could argue that a state of being must be experienced by some sort of self, but I think the Buddha would have objected to that.

Much as I hate to quote Wiki, it has a decent summary on the subject of atman in Buddhism and states that: 'Although the Buddha argued that no permanent, unchanging "self" can be found, some Buddhist schools, sutras and tantras present the notion of an atman or permanent "Self", although mostly referring to an Absolute and not to a personal self.'

On the Mahaparinirvana Sutra it says: "While there may be ambivalence on the existence or non-existence of self in early Buddhist literature, adds Bronkhorst, it is clear from these texts that seeking self-knowledge is not the Buddhist path for liberation, and turning away from self-knowledge is. This is a reverse position to the Vedic traditions which recognized the knowledge of the self as "the principal means to achieving liberation".

And in the sutra, the Buddha says: "The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self."

Personally, I don't find this article very convincing. I don't know the background to the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, but if the prevailing view of scholars rejects an eternal self, how do those scholars account for a key sutra with a seemingly opposite view? And Ajahn Boowa is somewhat controversial for his unorthodox ideas on an "eternal citta," which I've heard described as an idiosyncratic teaching of the Thai Forest Tradition.

In the Pali Canon, the Buddha generally avoids questions about nibbana after physical death because they are not beneficial and do not lead to enlightenment. What he does say on one occasion occurs in the conversation with Vaccha:

“But, Master Gotama, a bhikkhu whose mind is thus liberated:
Where does he reappear [after death]?”

[here the Buddha uses the well-known candle simile]

“That does not apply, Master Gotama. The fire burned dependent
on its fuel of grass and sticks; when its fuel is used up – if no
more fuel is added to it – it is simply reckoned as ‘gone out’
(nibbuto).”
“Even so, Vaccha, the Tathagata has abandoned any material
form by which one describing the Tathagata might describe him;
he has cut it off at the root, made it like a palm tree stump,
deprived it of the conditions for existence and rendered it
incapable of arising in the future. The Tathagata is liberated from
being reckoned in terms of material form, Vaccha, he is profound,
boundless, unfathomable like the ocean. The term
‘reappears’ does not apply; the term ‘does not reappear’ does
not apply; the term ‘both reappears and does not reappear’ does
` not apply; the term ‘neither reappears nor does not reappear’
does not apply.
“So too, any feeling... any perception... any mental formations...
any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata might
describe him: that the Tathagata has abandoned... The Tathagata
is liberated from being reckoned in terms of consciousness,
Vaccha, he is profound, boundless, unfathomable like the
ocean.”

That doesn't sound nihilistic to me, but it does avoid mention of any kind of eternal "self." Specially for Vince, here's the analogy taken from The Island:

To borrow the language of modern physics, one could aptly refer to
Parinibbana as an ‘event horizon’ from beyond which nothing ever returns and
from whence no messages can come. Around a black hole, it is the distance from
its surface beyond which the laws of gravity ensure that there can be no turning
back. It is a one-way border.
Nothing can escape the powerful gravitational grip of the black hole, not
even light, for lightspeed is less than the escape velocity required to leave that hyperdense
sphere. The event horizon is thus the limit of knowledge for the outside
observer.
All analogies are flawed but this image well portrays the essence of the
situation. Even though theories abound about what might be happening ‘inside’ a
black hole, physicists of the calibre of Stephen Hawking have said that it’s still
impossible to know. All information is lost forever once something has passed the
event horizon: the laws of reality that function beyond that limit; whether they
form gateways to other dimensions; if they are sources of big bangs generating
other universes; whether qualities and occurrences, multiple dimensionalities,
curling profusions of planes of time and space that utterly defy descriptive power
are there; or an awesome nothingness – all of this is unknowable. Such wonderful
unknowability is the principle in question.

However, don't get me wrong. I'm not dismissing the benefits of the Buddha's teachings. I'm merely saying that his teachings are a positive response in relation to the awful conditions that prevailed during his lifetime in ancient India. Such conditions do not prevail in advanced societies.

I think you are still hung up on the idea that dukkha has to be 'suffering' in the sense of severe pain or is otherwise 'unsatisfactoriness' that is so minor it's hardly worth mentioning. But unsatisfactoriness encompasses all kinds of mental anguish and existential angst. Not having a father can cause anguish, having an unfaithful husband causes anguish, having a wayward child causes anguish, being in debt causes anguish, being fat causes anguish, being bullied at school causes anguish, having a controlling mother causes anguish, not finding a job we like causes anguish, being an introvert causes anguish (up to a third of us are said to be introverts), etc. I came across a web forum the other day dedicated to "social anxiety," with a load of kids all talking about their meds and how they couldn't socialise and didn't have a life.

These are mostly timeless examples that could occur at any time in history. Some perhaps weren't common in the Buddha's time, but are now.

There is a good example of anguish in the story of the monk Bhaddiya, who I believe the commentaries say was a royal tax collector, fearful of royal displeasure. The Buddha asks him why he is going around saying, "Ah, what bliss!" all the time. He replies:

"Formerly, revered sir, when I was a householder and enjoyed the bliss of royalty, inside and outside my inner apartments guards were appointed; inside and outside the city guards were appointed; inside and outside the district guards were appointed. But, revered sir, although I was thus guarded and protected, I lived fearful, agitated, distrustful, and afraid. But now, revered sir, on going alone into the forest, to the foot of a tree or to an empty place, I am fearless, unagitated, confident, and unafraid. I live unconcerned, unruffled, my needs satisfied, with a mind become like a deer's. Seeing this, revered sir, prompts me, on going to the forest... to utter constantly, 'Ah, what bliss! Ah, what bliss!'"

I can give you a more modern example of dukkha overcome. A few years ago there was a story in the Bangkok Post about a Thai man who had lost his legs in an accident. Obviously, after the initial pain was gone, we'd expect a lot of mental anguish at the disability. Yet this guy looked like the happiest person in the world - he had been practising the Buddha's teachings and meditation for some years and had eventually become a teacher. Around the same time I saw a TV programme about an Australian rugby player whose back had been broken and resulted in him being paralysed. He was crying on camera and saying he wished he'd never heard of rugby.

Sayings of the Buddha is a new translation of the Buddha's core teachings by the excellent Rupert Gethin. Available on Kindle.

Talking about the Pali Canon, the Chinese Sanzang and the Tibetan Kanjur in the Introduction, Gethin says: "While there is some overlap insofar as one canon might contain certain scriptures contained in another canon, these versions are not straightforward translations into different languages, and it is not possible to identify a universally accepted common core."

Interesting.

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/sayings-of-the-buddha-9780192839251?cc=th&lang=en&

Enough of the quibbling and personal remarks. If you are going to disagree on basic terms that can have many meanings, like "awareness," I suggest you give us support for your definition from a reliable Buddhist source. Part of the problem here is that AFAIK Bruce's background is mainly Theravada Buddhism while Trd's is mainly Vedanta (which may or may not be similar to Mahayana). If the disagreement on a particular term stems from two different, ancient schools of thought, it's unlikely it will ever be resolved.

Sorry camerata but if you want to impose a form of censorship on how common words like awareness are used and defined then that's when I make my exit. You don't need to be a Buddhist or a Vedantin to discuss what awareness is.

No you don't, but this is the Buddhist forum and if you (or others) are going to bicker endlessly about basic terms, I suggest you keep the discussion relevant to Buddhism.

Enough of the quibbling and personal remarks. If you are going to disagree on basic terms that can have many meanings, like "awareness," I suggest you give us support for your definition from a reliable Buddhist source. Part of the problem here is that AFAIK Bruce's background is mainly Theravada Buddhism while Trd's is mainly Vedanta (which may or may not be similar to Mahayana). If the disagreement on a particular term stems from two different, ancient schools of thought, it's unlikely it will ever be resolved.

This awareness of others helps me to inwardly focus on my fixed views and opinions.

Each of us must grow awareness in order to let go.

Has anyone had success in letting go?

For me it was examining my own mental processes, through practising Right Speech, that allowed me to see the role of ego in holding/defending views. At the same time, I read some excellent teachings on the subject of ego (True Freedom by Ajahn Jagaro, etc) and how it works. Once we understand how ego actually enslaves us much of the time, we suddenly wake up (a major theme in The Matrix) and have the potential to do something about it. It's then that we see it in others too.

The problem is maintaining awareness of the ego every minute of the day in order to deal with it. It's a slow process and it's easy to just give up and let the ego have its own way. As I understand it, having views is fine, it's fixed views that cause problems. i.e. We hold views but keep an open mind so that we can change them without feeling threatened. We don't make these views part of our identity by becoming attached to them.

Given time to think things over, it isn't difficult to let go of any particular opinion if a more logical or better supported opinion is presented. It's more of a problem during face to face human interaction, when the ego is liable to feel threatened and attempt to take control.

But your question above was about whether a pain-killer could make Buddhism redundant - replicate nibbana - not about whether drugs can help cure disease in general. Given that the benefits of Buddhism come after progressive training (i.e. deprogramming) of the mind, it's difficult to see how any drug could do the job.

Ehipassiko!

Whereas the 'real' state of Nirvana is possible for the ordinary person who might otherwise rely upon a variety of drugs to fix his various problems? Is that what you are saying?

The benefits of practising the Dhamma aren't an all-or-nothing deal. The more you practise - and you do have to practise, not just talk about it - the more benefits you get. You don't have to attain nibbana. You don't even have to attain sotapanna. It's more like a sliding scale than an on-off switch. No drugs required.

The particular example of dukkha isn't important. It was just a random example of mental anguish that doesn't involve physical pain, to show that your pain-killer wouldn't eradicate dukkha. I mentioned Valium because that at least aims to dampen emotional responses rather than pain, but for the reason Bruce gives above, a nirvana pill simply isn't possible.

Your last analogy doesn't work because the monkey mind is the brain's natural state. If you nuke the defilements they will simply return. They have to be deprogrammed. It's like meditation - you can rid yourself of defilements for a short time and then they come crashing back because the mental processes involved have been suppressed rather than changed. At least, that's my supposition.

And another one I've come across:

Buddhism is anti-gay: At the turn of the millennium the Dalai Lama was asked to write a book about Buddhist ethics. When the publisher saw that he had written that homosexuality violated the lay precept on sexual misconduct he was asked to remove that section (as it would be offensive to many) and he did. The only source he gave for that view was "a traditional text" - i.e. not canonical. If there are traditional texts or views condemning homosexuality, they don't come from anything the Buddha said in the Pali Canon. Harvey's Introduction to Buddhist Ethics maintains that the precept on sexual misconduct applies to any sexual orientation.

Nirvana is a state of being, not a place. How would you know if anyone has experienced it or not? Buddhists use the Buddha's teachings as a means to a happier life. If you don't believe any of it, that's not a problem for us.

Dukkha is not just pain. A perfect pain-killer is not going to help if you catch your wife banging the milkman, for example. Even if your perfect drug also had the effect of 50mg of Valium, you wouldn't be free of dukkha, and you would be a near-zombie. You'd be a slave to the drug. The Buddha's teachings are about freedom, not slavery.

What proof do you require? How could I possibly prove to you that I was once a Tang Dynasty Chinese scholar? According to Theravada Buddhism, if you meditate until you reach the 3rd jhana you'll be able to read your past lives, and will understand. But no one can do that for you. Also, it is said that all doubts are resolved on reaching the first stage of enlightenment (sotapanna). The Buddha did not discuss anything that would be a distraction to the goal of nirvana. Nirvana is the goal, not rebirth.

so there is no proof then only faith in something people hope to be true, it's merely another belief and not reality?

How could there ever be a scientific proof? Like nirvana, it's something we can only know for ourselves, and everyone is free to believe it or not. Some Buddhists are agnostic about it.

What proof do you require? How could I possibly prove to you that I was once a Tang Dynasty Chinese scholar? According to Theravada Buddhism, if you meditate until you reach the 3rd jhana you'll be able to read your past lives, and will understand. But no one can do that for you. Also, it is said that all doubts are resolved on reaching the first stage of enlightenment (sotapanna). The Buddha did not discuss anything that would be a distraction to the goal of nirvana. Nirvana is the goal, not rebirth.

Soldiering on, then... here's one that isn't so easy to answer.

Buddhism is sexist: Popular Buddhism does appear to discriminate against women, particularly with the view that a women needs to be reborn as a man to attain nibbana. This view is nonsense, though, as many females become arahants in the Pali Canon. It's true that the set-up of the Sangha was initially men only, and then favoured male monks over female monks (bhikkhuni), but we have to look at how this happened. The Pali Canon has the Buddha persuaded by Ananda to allow women into the Sangha, but according to scholars this scenario is unlikely. The Buddha had already admitted Untouchables and a serial killer to the Sangha, which the laity wasn't happy about, and he also admitted children without parental permission until there were complaints about that too. It was considered beyond the pale to allow women to become wandering renunciants. Also, there were practical problems to consider. Having sex was a serious violation of the monastic code. But what happened if a bhikkhuni was raped? Would she have violated the code? How would anyone know if it was consensual or not?

Again, according to scholars, the Buddha's influential step-mother was threatening to set up her own separate Sangha if the Buddha didn't accept women, so eventually he did, making a dire prediction that they would one day bring down the Sangha. To my mind this wasn't so much a mystical foretelling as a logical extrapolation of what might happen with a laity unhappy with a female Sangha. So it seems to me that the Buddha himself wasn't "sexist" but he had to consider very carefully the long-term effect of admitting women to his Sangha. There was at least one female (Khema, wife of King Bimbisara) recorded in the Canon as attaining arahantship before entering the order of bhikkhuni.