"another World"?

[Xangsamhua]

From the Apannaka Sutta (The Incontrovertible Teaching):8 (in Bikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, 2005 edition)

The Buddha says (to the Brahmins of Sala): Since there actually is another world, one who convinces another 'there is no other world' convinces him to accept an untrue Dhamma; and because he convinces another to accept an untrue Dhamma, he praises himself and disparages others. Thus any pure virtue that he formerly had is abandoned and corrupt conduct is substituted. And this wrong view, wrong intention, wrong speech [etc. etc.] .... these several evil, unwholesome states thus come into being with wrong view as their condition.

Having taken 60+ years to arrive at the point of seeing belief in and hope for "another world" as illusory, and regarding the Buddha's teaching as enlightened (though coloured by his place and time) I'm just not sure what he's referring to. Although he may have used the terminology of gods and demons, heavens and hells in order to communicate with the people around him, did he actually believe in other worlds and, if so, in what way?

[camerata]

Although he may have used the terminology of gods and demons, heavens and hells in order to communicate with the people around him, did he actually believe in other worlds and, if so, in what way?

Yes, according to A.K. Warder's Indian Buddhism (page 149): "the Buddha appears to admit the gods and God [brahma] to his scheme of the universe." The book is well-worth reading - and owning.

[Xangsamhua]

Although he may have used the terminology of gods and demons, heavens and hells in order to communicate with the people around him, did he actually believe in other worlds and, if so, in what way?

Yes, according to A.K. Warder's Indian Buddhism (page 149): "the Buddha appears to admit the gods and God [brahma] to his scheme of the universe." The book is well-worth reading - and owning.

Thanks, Camerata, I'll add it to my next order from Amazon.

I'm also puzzled by the Buddha's statement later in the same Sutta (section 34) that the wise man holds the view that "there definitely is cessation of being" and that he therefore "practises the way to disenchantment with being, to the fading away and cessation of being".

[Brucenkhamen]

From the Apannaka Sutta (The Incontrovertible Teaching):8 (in Bikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, 2005 edition)

The Buddha says (to the Brahmins of Sala): Since there actually is another world, one who convinces another 'there is no other world' convinces him to accept an untrue Dhamma; and because he convinces another to accept an untrue Dhamma, he praises himself and disparages others. Thus any pure virtue that he formerly had is abandoned and corrupt conduct is substituted. And this wrong view, wrong intention, wrong speech [etc. etc.] .... these several evil, unwholesome states thus come into being with wrong view as their condition.

Having taken 60+ years to arrive at the point of seeing belief in and hope for "another world" as illusory, and regarding the Buddha's teaching as enlightened (though coloured by his place and time) I'm just not sure what he's referring to. Although he may have used the terminology of gods and demons, heavens and hells in order to communicate with the people around him, did he actually believe in other worlds and, if so, in what way?

This article might be helpful http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html I've only skim read it but here it is translated as "Next World" not "Another World".

The passage makes more sense when reading it as just talking about rebirth rather than reading it as talking about other planes of existance or parrallel universes.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm also puzzled by the Buddha's statement later in the same Sutta (section 34) that

the wise man holds the view that "there definitely is cessation of being" and that he therefore "practises the way to disenchantment with being, to the fading away and cessation of being".

This is the standard Theravadin View of things.

[jaapfries]

Although he may have used the terminology of gods and demons, heavens and hells in order to communicate with the people around him, did he actually believe in other worlds and, if so, in what way?

Yes, according to A.K. Warder's Indian Buddhism (page 149): "the Buddha appears to admit the gods and God [brahma] to his scheme of the universe." The book is well-worth reading - and owning.

I don't believe in any "Religion", although Buddhism (a Life's Philosphy) is very interesting and challanging.

Churchill once said: "For everything that happens on this earth, there's a logical explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . and then, there's the truth !"

In that spirit (as in 'frame of mind') I can highly recommend a book written by Prof. Dr. Brian Weiss, which is titled "Many Lives, Many Masters" - It most certainly opened my eyes and I must be one

of the most skeptical persons I have ever had the pleasure of meeting . . . . . . .

Cheers,

JGK/Pattaya

[camerata]

I don't believe in any "Religion", although Buddhism (a Life's Philosphy) is very interesting and challanging.

Churchill once said: "For everything that happens on this earth, there's a logical explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . . and then, there's the truth !"

In that spirit (as in 'frame of mind') I can highly recommend a book written by Prof. Dr. Brian Weiss, which is titled "Many Lives, Many Masters" - It most certainly opened my eyes and I must be one

of the most skeptical persons I have ever had the pleasure of meeting . . . . . . .

OK, but how do you reconcile non-belief in religion with unproven (though perhaps compelling) revelations about reincarnation, channeling, Master Spirits and God? To me, it seems like one has to accept, reject or be agnostic about all supernatural phenomena, rather than accept some of them but only in certain contexts.

[camerata]

I'm also puzzled by the Buddha's statement later in the same Sutta (section 34) that the wise man holds the view that "there definitely is cessation of being" and that he therefore "practises the way to disenchantment with being, to the fading away and cessation of being".

Without seeing the whole thing in context and knowing that precise meaning of "being," I assume this refers to nibbana as the way out of existence in samsara. Ajahn Buddhadasa said the whole of the Buddha's teachings could be summarized as: "Nothing in this world is worth clinging to." I think that's why one "practises the way to disenchantment with being." That's my guess, anyway.

[Xangsamhua]

I'm also puzzled by the Buddha's statement later in the same Sutta (section 34) that

the wise man holds the view that "there definitely is cessation of being" and that he therefore "practises the way to disenchantment with being, to the fading away and cessation of being".

This is the standard Theravadin View of things.

Thank you. In fact Bhikkhu Thanissaro in the article you referred to translates "cessation of being" as "cessation of becoming". I think that helps, as I was having trouble connecting cessation of being with "deathlessness" (used by the Buddha together with "nothingness" in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation - MN 541). Cessation of being, nothingness and deathlessness do not ring out as synonyms to me; however, if we are talking about cessation of becoming, then there is no denial of being, but of change and potential. The absolute in terms of human development has been attained.

A quick search on the net indicates that there was a lot of interest in the relationship or difference between "being and becoming" in the axial age (6th and 5th centuries before Christ) in both the Greek states and among the Daoists in China. And here we appear to have the Buddha referring to it in the same period. I don't see how the Buddha could have interacted with the Greeks and Chinese at that time, 150 years or so before Alexander and 500 years before any links between Buddhism and China. I wonder if the passage in question does actually represent the Buddha's words or was added later. Bhikkhu Thanissaro suggests this as a possibility for the "safe bet" arguments in the sutta.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Xangsamhua

[Brucenkhamen]

Thank you. In fact Bhikkhu Thanissaro in the article you referred to translates "cessation of being" as "cessation of becoming". I think that helps, as I was having trouble connecting cessation of being with "deathlessness" (used by the Buddha together with "nothingness" in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation - MN 541). Cessation of being, nothingness and deathlessness do not ring out as synonyms to me; however, if we are talking about cessation of becoming, then there is no denial of being, but of change and potential. The absolute in terms of human development has been attained.

A quick search on the net indicates that there was a lot of interest in the relationship or difference between "being and becoming" in the axial age (6th and 5th centuries before Christ) in both the Greek states and among the Daoists in China. And here we appear to have the Buddha referring to it in the same period. I don't see how the Buddha could have interacted with the Greeks and Chinese at that time, 150 years or so before Alexander and 500 years before any links between Buddhism and China. I wonder if the passage in question does actually represent the Buddha's words or was added later. Bhikkhu Thanissaro suggests this as a possibility for the "safe bet" arguments in the sutta.

I understood cessation of being as meaning cessation of self. Cessation of self doesn't mean something dies as strictly speaking there is no self so nothing dies, rather it's the cessation of the process of delusion creating a belief in self. This is what is meant by the term becoming, delusion creates the self because of the desire to exist as a self, so the self image "becomes".

The term deathlessness as I understand it means that because becoming has ceased when the body dies there is no rebirth, because there is no birth there is no death, hence deathlessness. Of course the current body is yet to die so it's really deathlessness+1.

[Xangsamhua]

Thank you. In fact Bhikkhu Thanissaro in the article you referred to translates "cessation of being" as "cessation of becoming". I think that helps, as I was having trouble connecting cessation of being with "deathlessness" (used by the Buddha together with "nothingness" in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation - MN 541). Cessation of being, nothingness and deathlessness do not ring out as synonyms to me; however, if we are talking about cessation of becoming, then there is no denial of being, but of change and potential. The absolute in terms of human development has been attained.

A quick search on the net indicates that there was a lot of interest in the relationship or difference between "being and becoming" in the axial age (6th and 5th centuries before Christ) in both the Greek states and among the Daoists in China. And here we appear to have the Buddha referring to it in the same period. I don't see how the Buddha could have interacted with the Greeks and Chinese at that time, 150 years or so before Alexander and 500 years before any links between Buddhism and China. I wonder if the passage in question does actually represent the Buddha's words or was added later. Bhikkhu Thanissaro suggests this as a possibility for the "safe bet" arguments in the sutta.

I understood cessation of being as meaning cessation of self. Cessation of self doesn't mean something dies as strictly speaking there is no self so nothing dies, rather it's the cessation of the process of delusion creating a belief in self. This is what is meant by the term becoming, delusion creates the self because of the desire to exist as a self, so the self image "becomes".

The term deathlessness as I understand it means that because becoming has ceased when the body dies there is no rebirth, because there is no birth there is no death, hence deathlessness. Of course the current body is yet to die so it's really deathlessness+1.

Buddhism 101 question, I suppose, but what is it that is deluded? What is it that desires to exist as "self"?

Is that which desires, deludedly, itself some "thing" in a state of "being" or just an abstraction constantly "becoming"?

It seems to be the latter - it neither is nor is not; it is endless flux (as Heraclitus argued and Parmenides denied).

Perhaps these are unanswerable questions, but it looks to me like the Buddha favours the latter alternative (i.e. Heraclitus's).

Heraclitus and Gautama were contemporaries. I wonder if there was any flow of ideas between the Aegean and the Ganges at that time? There may have been some contact in Babylonia.

And if, as was suggested a couple of years ago, the Buddha came from Iran, then a Babylonian point of contact may be even more likely.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Xangsamhua

[Brucenkhamen]

Buddhism 101 question, I suppose, but what is it that is deluded? What is it that desires to exist as "self"?

Is that which desires, deludedly, itself some "thing" in a state of "being" or just an abstraction constantly "becoming"?

It seems to be the latter - it neither is nor is not; it is endless flux (as Heraclitus argued and Parmenides denied).

Perhaps these are unanswerable questions, but it looks to me like the Buddha favours the latter alternative (i.e. Heraclitus's).

Heraclitus and Gautama were contemporaries. I wonder if there was any flow of ideas between the Aegean and the Ganges at that time? There may have been some contact in Babylonia.

And if, as was suggested a couple of years ago, the Buddha came from Iran, then a Babylonian point of contact may be even more likely.

This is the purpose of practice, to differentiate between delusion and reality. That which desires to become is not so much an abstraction, rather desire creates the conditions for more desire and so on. Desire is not so much an emotion had by a distinct and seperate self rather the continuation of previous conditioning.

It's perfectly possible that Heraclitus came to his conclusions on his own by observing life with an open mind just like anybody can, the truth is self evident for anyone to see if they can see past delusion. One difference though I guess is Gautama offered a solution.

[rockyysdt]

This is the purpose of practice, to differentiate between delusion and reality. That which desires to become is not so much an abstraction, rather desire creates the conditions for more desire and so on. Desire is not so much an emotion had by a distinct and separate self rather the continuation of previous conditioning.

As we are all still firmly connected to the delusion, which is all that we know, we (the only thing we know) will die because we are impermanent.

And the really big one is "what is reality"?

What is it doing while we are in delusion?

Is reality global (everything) or is it individual & is it inside us or somewhere else?

I think on earlier posts it was said reality is "unconditional & permanent".

Is reality global (everything) or is it individual?

[Brucenkhamen]

And the really big one is "what is reality"?

What is it doing while we are in delusion?

Is reality global (everything) or is it individual & is it inside us or somewhere else?

I think on earlier posts it was said reality is "unconditional & permanent".

Is reality global (everything) or is it individual?

Reality is that which isn't corrupted by delusion, it's just doing what it's doing.

The Buddhist teaching is that all conditioned things are impermanent, this is the reality of things.

If reality were individual you'd be alone in this world wouldn't you, this is clearly not the case.

[rockyysdt]

If reality were individual you'd be alone in this world wouldn't you, this is clearly not the case.

But am I not delusion?

I suppose it's a tall question asking what reality (enlightenment-nirvana) is?

[Brucenkhamen]

If reality were individual you'd be alone in this world wouldn't you, this is clearly not the case.

But am I not delusion?

I suppose it's a tall question asking what reality (enlightenment-nirvana) is?

No you are not delusion, however if you are not enlightened then your perception of your experiences is affected by delusion, as is mine.

Enlightenment is, among other things, seeing reality clearly as it is without delusion.

[Sarathi]

'another world' makes more sense n terms of 'Right View' where we are told there is Karma, there is rebirth, there are beings of deva and other realms. Since this actually is true, if you taught thus you would be teaching the correct teaching - as it goes in the sutta.

There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed.

There is fruit and result of good and bad actions.

There is this world and the other world.

There is mother and father.

There are beings that are spontaneously reborn.

There are good and virtuous recluses and Brahmins in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.

There is mother and father, and spontaneously born beings refers to the realms where you either have parents, or do not have parents i.e. deva realms (In the Sarvasitvada version of Buddhism, even Devas have parents, and conception occurs with a 'slightly lingering glance' between the male and female deva)

Results of good/bad action refers practially always to the next life, even though one can often see the results in this life too. Hence the 'other world' could be referring to the karma mentioned in the opening line, or the deva realms mentioned below it.

Despite many people's desire to make heaven/hel_l mental conditions rather than actual realms of rebirth, the suttas categorically, and repeatedly describe heaven/hel_l/rebirth as actual realms.

Bhava - Trans. as being or becoming is a tricky word, that has not been given its proper due discussion by scholars or meditators. Usually, in Thailand especially, it refers to the three realms of possible rebirth - sense sphere, form sphere and formless sphere - and is pronounced 'pop' (Thais drop the 'a' due to a quirk of writing Pali in Thai script) In fact it should not be referring to the realms, but to the attainment of mind that gains access to those realms - namely good deeds, jhana (concentration with an object (form)) and jhana with 'formless' object.

In other teachings, particularly dependent origination, 'bhava' is taken to mean entering the womb. This would make sense of 'bhava' part in the definition of enlightenment - which is described as 'there will be no more bhava in any form'.

Looking for a more consistant meaning of bhava, we can see it is related to the word bhavana (meditation, or more accurately 'development'). There is a definite connotation of activity in this word. If you take 'bhava' to mean the engagement of Citta (mind) with its object (arammana) then this could well be a universal fit for the meaning of bhava. The active engagement (and loss of mindfulness) of the mind with its object. Enlightenment is sometimes described as anarammana - 'without object [of citta]'

[Xangsamhua]

Bhava - Trans. as being or becoming is a tricky word, that has not been given its proper due discussion by scholars or meditators. Usually, in Thailand especially, it refers to the three realms of possible rebirth - sense sphere, form sphere and formless sphere - and is pronounced 'pop' (Thais drop the 'a' due to a quirk of writing Pali in Thai script) In fact it should not be referring to the realms, but to the attainment of mind that gains access to those realms - namely good deeds, jhana (concentration with an object (form)) and jhana with 'formless' object.

In other teachings, particularly dependent origination, 'bhava' is taken to mean entering the womb. This would make sense of 'bhava' part in the definition of enlightenment - which is described as 'there will be no more bhava in any form'.

Looking for a more consistant meaning of bhava, we can see it is related to the word bhavana (meditation, or more accurately 'development'). There is a definite connotation of activity in this word. If you take 'bhava' to mean the engagement of Citta (mind) with its object (arammana) then this could well be a universal fit for the meaning of bhava. The active engagement (and loss of mindfulness) of the mind with its object. Enlightenment is sometimes described as anarammana - 'without object [of citta]'

Thank you for this. It seems then in summary that the cessation of bhava ("being" or "becoming") referred to in the sutta is disengagement of the mind from its object, whether the object be sensual, formal or non-formal. In other words, "mindfulness" is replaced by total absorption in the object of consciousness, i.e. the fourth jhana: "an abiding in which the mind becomes fully immersed and absorbed in the chosen object of attention,characterized by non-dual consciousness" (Wikipedia). In contemporary Western (phenomenological) terms, the experience of intentionality (subject-act-content-object) is replaced by simple content-object with no mindfulness or agency of the subject in attending to an object. I don't understand this. Where am I going wrong?

[Sarathi]

The Buddha was searching for the 'Amata' which had been told by the Aryan legends. Amata means 'deathless' or that part of oneself/experience/universe that does not die (or change). He looked about his immediate experience and found every engagement with anything of the senses to be not only changing, but rapidly so. Disengaging from the senses he experience citta (mind) without arammana (object), which he described in the first statement after enlightenment as "I have discovered the Amata". Other ways he described it were as consciousness 'unestablished' (Thanissaro's preferred translation) anywhere or with any object. You might say 'pure mind' or 'Buddha Nature' if you go by Mahayana texts, though these are more vague.

By the way, in Jhana, mindfulness is said to be perfected (see Kayakatasati sutta). A closer look however reveals a common overlooking of different forms of 'mindfulness'. In that sutta it is Sati-bala , rather than regular sati-sampajanya, where it means the power of recollection [of something]

I've no idea on intentionality and such.

[Datsun240Z]

Religion will slowely die in the future. People will get smarter and realize there is NO god.

No Allah, no Jezus, no Buddha, no whatever....

The earliest humans created this phenomen called " God ", because they didn't know better and the searched for a simple answer to what is called " The universe ". Look at the history books, the further you go back in time, the more religious people get. People in different regions, created their own " God ".

Edited August 31, 2009 by Datsun240Z

[Xangsamhua]

The Buddha was searching for the 'Amata' which had been told by the Aryan legends. Amata means 'deathless' or that part of oneself/experience/universe that does not die (or change). He looked about his immediate experience and found every engagement with anything of the senses to be not only changing, but rapidly so. Disengaging from the senses he experience citta (mind) without arammana (object), which he described in the first statement after enlightenment as "I have discovered the Amata". Other ways he described it were as consciousness 'unestablished' (Thanissaro's preferred translation) anywhere or with any object. You might say 'pure mind' or 'Buddha Nature' if you go by Mahayana texts, though these are more vague.

By the way, in Jhana, mindfulness is said to be perfected (see Kayakatasati sutta). A closer look however reveals a common overlooking of different forms of 'mindfulness'. In that sutta it is Sati-bala , rather than regular sati-sampajanya, where it means the power of recollection [of something]

I've no idea on intentionality and such.

Thank you. Plenty to reflect on here. I'll work on it.

Intentionality, if I understand it right, implies that consciousness must have a subject and object and that being conscious (attending) implies an action, not just a condition. The content of consciousness is the mental formation that arises when one intentionally attends to an object.

Obviously Husserl and his followers (who included people like Sartre, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Edith Stein and Karol Wojtyla [Pope JP2]) were not going as far as the Buddha in seeking "pure mind" or "disengagement from the senses"; however, they were trying to experience intentionality without the Kantian categories - pre-formed conceptual structures that enable us to construe the phenomena we sense, given that we can't directly experience those phenomena. So they accepted the necessity of the senses, but questioned the validity of the conceptual categories that convey us from perception, through feeling, to mental formations. They sought a way to experience phenomena, if not directly, at least in a less encumbered way.

I think, in a way like the Buddha, they were seeking a purer consciousness, but heavily influenced by Kant rather than the Vedic mind-world inherited by the Buddha. Schopenhauer, a revisionist follower of Kant, was the only great European philosopher of the 19th and 20th centuries who was influended by the Vedas (he read the Upanishads every day).

Incidentally, phenomenology was said to be the predominant philosophical trend influencing the Second Vatican Council (1963-65). It may have been a factor in that Council's declared openness to and respect for non-Christian religions (subsequently closed up and turned away from under the influence of Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI).

[Xangsamhua]

Religion will slowely die in the future. People will get smarter and realize there is NO god.

No Allah, no Jezus, no Buddha, no whatever....

The earliest humans created this phenomen called " God ", because they didn't know better and the searched for a simple answer to what is called " The universe ". Look at the history books, the further you go back in time, the more religious people get. People in different regions, created their own " God ".

It could be said that, in the West, "religion" has already died. Most people have turned away from the old-style religion of the Catholic and Protestant varieties, with their focus on the after-life and the church institutions, sacraments, clergy etc. as mediators and gatekeepers. This has all been replaced by secular humanism, the philosophical underpinning of social-democratic governments.

Secular humanism can be seen as the apotheosis of Christianity. God came to Earth, promoted a radical and anti-institutional ethic, was executed for his pains, came back to life in the projected hopes of his followers and went off to return again in the future to establish a kingdom based pretty much on the ethical values of the secular humanists.

The old-style churches started dying out after the French Revolution and this was accelerated by the impact of Darwin's findings. Authentic Christianity has completed its mission. The Kingdom has arrived in the West, though vehemently opposed by pre-modern Christians who still seek favour with a patriarchal God "out/up there" by denying rights and freedoms they associate with a refusal to submit to "God's rule". The task now is to secure what has been attained, to improve people's quality of life everywhere and to extend the idea of "humanism" to all living things and the whole environment.

(Was that a rant?)

[camerata]

Religion will slowely die in the future. People will get smarter and realize there is NO god.

No Allah, no Jezus, no Buddha, no whatever....

The Buddha was not a god, and for that reason Buddhist teachings would still be effective even if it were proved that the Buddha never existed. Buddhist psychology is still way ahead of anything psychiatry has today.

[camerata]

(Was that a rant?)

Rants are OK... as long as they are Buddhist rants.

[Xangsamhua]

(Was that a rant?)

Rants are OK... as long as they are Buddhist rants.

Mea culpa. I got a bit carried away.

[sabaijai]

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"This is the noble method that he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out through discernment."

— AN 10.92