Told A Monk About This Forum

[yellow1red1]

was swapping English chat, for discussion on Buddhism with a monk. on Face-book.

2 things, he began to talk about reincarnation. & he says Vishnu is a real Deity,

So I asked him if he is Mahayan Buddhist and he said, no.

he is an ordained Theravadan monk.

said I was confused.

so, I suggested he could get really good English practise here, and I could watch the discussions!

I mean I was ready to accept Vishnu doesn't exist, which would be cosmically ironic, but then a monk says He does exist,

oh MAN

I hope he shows up here to get educated from people with the proper credentials.

---

ok I was meditating and had fallen awake. A Thai spirit was saying to me over and over kittemai, kittemai

In Thai,,, as I can speak nit noi Thai,,, hello, thank you, where is the bathroom... I found this tantalizing

2 different Thais have told me that means kittemai 'don't think that' or 'don't think anything' which was very very appropriate to the trance ..

A. Now if there are no deities, or spirits, in Buddhism, this could not have been mental telepathy, or some monk like spirit. instead, some kind subconscious putting together of 'exposure' I have had to Thai to be able to speak a Thai phrse to myself.. ?

B. I guess I can't be Buddhist, because I believe there really was another 'being' talking to me...

but then again my FB monk believes that, too and he wears an orange robe.

Now. I'm not ruling out A, it's actually quite an attractive option, that mind can speak a foreign language to myself, COOL

it's just B. seems more real

You can see my question \is there guardian angels in Buddhism/?

or what the eh, kittemai, not even think about it...

[lungmi]

This a worlwide problem with meditation. You meditate to have mobile phone to Buddha, to devas, to angels and so on.

This is not bad, but without pannha (wisdom). And the problem is: There is an self desired answer --- and they believe.

Farang come to meditation centers in Thailand for the quick instruction to have the short way to awakening, to see the devas and angels.

Thai monks are not different.

[householder]

If you see devas and angels during meditation, isn't that something else to let go of? I've not seen any, don't want to, and would probably be quite concerned if I did!

Edited January 7, 2011 by householder

[fabianfred]

My teacher Luang Por Jaran says that mara, the evil one, is often trying to fool us and get us to stop meditation, even make us think we have attained the goal.

If we see or hear things we must note 'knowing' or 'seeing'...then if it is real it will stay but if false it will go. We mustn't get lost in the movie and forget to note.

[phetaroi]

My teacher Luang Por Jaran says that mara, the evil one, is often trying to fool us and get us to stop meditation, even make us think we have attained the goal.

If we see or hear things we must note 'knowing' or 'seeing'...then if it is real it will stay but if false it will go. We mustn't get lost in the movie and forget to note.

So, is Mara supernatural? You indicate he still exists. Does that mean he is more powerful than Buddha, since Buddha was just a man and no longer exists?

[IMA_FARANG]

My teacher Luang Por Jaran says that mara, the evil one, is often trying to fool us and get us to stop meditation, even make us think we have attained the goal.

If we see or hear things we must note 'knowing' or 'seeing'...then if it is real it will stay but if false it will go. We mustn't get lost in the movie and forget to note.

He sounds like a very wise teacher then, and you are lucky to have him.

I've been told that as a person begins to gain understanding, a natural pride will often be felt by that person in his/her accomplishments. Pride is the destroyer of humility and humility is the foundation of further understanding. In that way you could call that feeling of pride Mara, the evil one.

I understand also that isn't uncommon to see and dream things then that you know to be false visions.

My understanding is that it is the "last gasp" of what is called "The Monkey Mind" trying to hold on to that person, to preserve the (false) understanding of "I" and "not I" as seperate

identitys.

I'm told that continuing on the path will reveal all that as simply another "illusion" of the mind.

I'm told with time and further understanding then all those false illusions will be made clear as the false illusions they really are.

I'm hoping it's true.

[lungmi]

only

My teacher Luang Por Jaran says that mara, the evil one, is often trying to fool us and get us to stop meditation, even make us think we have attained the goal.

If we see or hear things we must note 'knowing' or 'seeing'...then if it is real it will stay but if false it will go. We mustn't get lost in the movie and forget to note.

So, is Mara supernatural? You indicate he still exists. Does that mean he is more powerful than Buddha, since Buddha was just a man and no, longer exists?

No, there are no "supernatural" things. The term "supernatural" belongs to a limited western notion of science. What limited science cannot explain it must be supernatural.

There is no Dhamma (law of nature) over the Dhamma. We only don't understand on our way to awakening what happens, what is really what.

Mara comes, the delusion of what is what, and gives us short satisfaction because we believe to be elected for a holy life : we reject it with pannja (wisdom) or cultivate it. Meditation can be a drug, if you don't see meditation as only one part of the eightfolded path in a holistic way, you get in the trap of Mara.

[lungmi]

My adaptation of a Buddhist legend I read somewhere.

Two novices stay with different masters and meet together.

- My master is wonderful. He has supernatural powers. I'm overwhelmed by his powers. He can ride on clouds, walk over water, predict the future, command an army of devas, speak with the ghosts. I admire him, I want

to be like him.

- Oh, my master is different. He has nothing of this supernatural power. But I'm overwhelmed by his powers. When he goes, he goes, when he speaks he speaks, when he sleeps he sleeps, when he thinks he thinks, when he meditates he meditates,

when he gives water to plants he gives water to plants ..........................................................

All this in a perfect way.

I admire him, I want to be like him.

But I have to learn very much.

Oh, I forget, Animals come to listen his teaching. Trees have flowers.

[Brucenkhamen]

So, is Mara supernatural? You indicate he still exists. Does that mean he is more powerful than Buddha, since Buddha was just a man and no longer exists?

That would be a reasonable assumption if one thinks of Mara as a real living being, I think it's just a personification, the same way we might say "I have to face my demons", that doesn't mean I think I'm carrying whole lot of demons around with me.

[phetaroi]

So, is Mara supernatural? You indicate he still exists. Does that mean he is more powerful than Buddha, since Buddha was just a man and no longer exists?

That would be a reasonable assumption if one thinks of Mara as a real living being, I think it's just a personification, the same way we might say "I have to face my demons", that doesn't mean I think I'm carrying whole lot of demons around with me.

I'm simply trying to interpret exactly what Fred is saying.

[fabianfred]

It is my understanding that Mara exists in one of the higher realms.

Not all devas are good, so not all gods existing in the higher realms are good.

Mara tried to prevent the Buddha from attaining to Nirvana...and will do his best to stop us progressing upon the path to nirvana too..... vipassana is the fast-track and very much his concern.

[rockyysdt]

It is my understanding that Mara exists in one of the higher realms.

Not all devas are good, so not all gods existing in the higher realms are good.

Mara tried to prevent the Buddha from attaining to Nirvana...and will do his best to stop us progressing upon the path to nirvana too..... vipassana is the fast-track and very much his concern.

Hi Fred.

Mara could either be an evil deva living in a higher realm or a mental construct symbolising our negative self talk.

The Buddha taught that one should not believe all but learn through self experience and analysis through ones path or practice.

Isn't it better to keep an open mind about whether Mara is real or not until you experience him/her to be real?

Edited January 9, 2011 by rockyysdt

[yellow1red1]

It is my understanding that Mara exists in one of the higher realms.

Not all devas are good, so not all gods existing in the higher realms are good.

Mara tried to prevent the Buddha from attaining to Nirvana...and will do his best to stop us progressing upon the path to nirvana too..... vipassana is the fast-track and very much his concern.

gad! so Mara exists and gods in higher realms some good some bad: but other Buddhists say no,

especially Vishnu cannot.

for every 100 who will agree this is Vipassana > http://www.dhamma.org/en/vipassana.shtml

is there another 100 schools and sects with different Ideas?

it's like a shell game.

[camerata]

According to Buddhist cosmology - which didn't necessarily come from the Buddha's own discourses - Mara, the personification of delusion and desire, lives in the realm of "Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva)."

Source: Access to Insight.

[lungmi]

According to Buddhist cosmology - which didn't necessarily come from the Buddha's own discourses - Mara, the personification of delusion and desire, lives in the realm of "Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva)."

Source: Access to Insight.

Oh, the trap of words. Meta-language and/or object-language?

Mara is an ontological or an symbolic reality?

The Buddha as Teacher knew perfectly how to speak to his students.

To Anand he gave ontological teaching.

To other students he had to speak in the symbolic way, the deep structure was ontologic, the surface structure was symbolic in a very

subtle way.

This gave the way to the Cultural Buddhism, the deep structure is not changed very much, but at the surface structure you have the figthing for what the

Buddha really said.

[lungmi]

A tibetan tankha exposed in Suan Mokh (Tan Buddhadasa) shows clearly the position of the Buddha and the Awakened Ones.

It shows clearly that the Buddha and the Awakended Ones are above Mara. Very interesting for me is that the Buddha shows to

the abstract wheel on the left (his Teaching) as way to liberation.

Underlying is the Kingdom of Mara. The King of Death.

In traditional Buddhism four senses of the word "mara" are given. (I quote Wiki)

• Klesa-mara, or Mara as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions.
• Mrtyu-mara, or Mara as death, in the sense of the ceaseless round of birth and death.
• Skandha-mara, or Mara as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.
• Devaputra-mara, or Mara the son of a deva (god), that is, Mara as an objectively existent being rather than as a metaphor.

Think about.

Edited January 13, 2011 by lungmi

[rockyysdt]

In traditional Buddhism four senses of the word "mara" are given. (I quote Wiki)

• Klesa-mara, or Mara as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions.
• Mrtyu-mara, or Mara as death, in the sense of the ceaseless round of birth and death.
• Skandha-mara, or Mara as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.
• Devaputra-mara, or Mara the son of a deva (god), that is, Mara as an objectively existent being rather than as a metaphor.

Think about.

I wonder if the real Mara looks like his depiction, except of course when he appears in his endless guises?

Edited January 13, 2011 by rockyysdt

[lungmi]

Mind precedes its objects. They are mind-governed and mind-made. (Start of the Dhammapada)

Or:

An old Daoist story:

I, Tschuang Tse, dreamt once, I was a butterfly, flying here and there

looking for and searching for things that a butterfly would do. I only knew

that I was following my moods as butterfly and was unaware of my being

a human being. All of a sudden I awoke up from my dream; there I lay: again

"myself."

Now I don't know: was I there a man who was dreaming

he was a butterfly, or am I now a butterfly dreaming it

is a man? Between man and butterfly lies a barrier.

To transcend it is called transformation.

------------------------------------------------------

or:

Descartes

Cogito ergo sum. (Wrong conclusion, he only could say: Cogito ergo sum cogitans.)

I think therefore I am (ontologically false), I think therefore I'm thinking (ontologically correct)

[phetaroi]

A tibetan tankha exposed in Suan Mokh (Tan Buddhadasa) shows clearly the position of the Buddha and the Awakened Ones.

It shows clearly that the Buddha and the Awakended Ones are above Mara. Very interesting for me is that the Buddha shows to

the abstract wheel on the left (his Teaching) as way to liberation.

Underlying is the Kingdom of Mara. The King of Death.

In traditional Buddhism four senses of the word "mara" are given. (I quote Wiki)

• Klesa-mara, or Mara as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions.
• Mrtyu-mara, or Mara as death, in the sense of the ceaseless round of birth and death.
• Skandha-mara, or Mara as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.
• Devaputra-mara, or Mara the son of a deva (god), that is, Mara as an objectively existent being rather than as a metaphor.

Think about.

So, Buddha was not a man.

[rockyysdt]

A tibetan tankha exposed in Suan Mokh (Tan Buddhadasa) shows clearly the position of the Buddha and the Awakened Ones.

It shows clearly that the Buddha and the Awakended Ones are above Mara. Very interesting for me is that the Buddha shows to

the abstract wheel on the left (his Teaching) as way to liberation.

Underlying is the Kingdom of Mara. The King of Death.

In traditional Buddhism four senses of the word "mara" are given. (I quote Wiki)

• Klesa-mara, or Mara as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions.
• Mrtyu-mara, or Mara as death, in the sense of the ceaseless round of birth and death.
• Skandha-mara, or Mara as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.
• Devaputra-mara, or Mara the son of a deva (god), that is, Mara as an objectively existent being rather than as a metaphor.

Think about.

So, Buddha was not a man.

Just a little puzzled Vince.

What in lungmi's post leads you to ask this?

[phetaroi]

Just a little puzzled Vince.

What in lungmi's post leads you to ask this?

Lungmi said, "It shows clearly that the Buddha and the Awakended Ones are above Mara."

One of the things I have heard people say -- often -- to show that Buddhism is superior to, for example, Christianity (but other religions as well), is that Buddhism eschews the magical aspects. That Buddha was simply a wise man who taught valid principles.

And yet, as we read Buddhist beliefs and history, we hear about gods and devas and arahants and demons...all a sort of magical hierarchy.

Mara was a demon. But, according to Lungmi, Buddha was above Mara. So I guess Buddha was not a man.

My point here is that some want to pretend that, unlike Christ (as one example), Buddha was not magic. But then we tell Buddhist stories about Buddha that are full of magic (let's see now, how was he conceived?). We say that Buddhism is simply a set of principles that can be proven. Yet then we talk about multiple Buddhist heavens and hells.

You can't have it both ways.

[Brucenkhamen]

My point here is that some want to pretend that, unlike Christ (as one example), Buddha was not magic. But then we tell Buddhist stories about Buddha that are full of magic (let's see now, how was he conceived?). We say that Buddhism is simply a set of principles that can be proven. Yet then we talk about multiple Buddhist heavens and hells.

You can't have it both ways.

If you look at the actual recorded words of the Buddha then yes they are a simply a set of principles that can be proven. However he taught in a culture with a rich mythology and superstition who had expectations that their religion would be more that just a psychology of awakening, these are the people who passed on verbally then wrote down the scriptures we have today.

There is no necessity to believe all of that and accept or reject it hook line and sinker. If we don't apply some intelligent scrutiny to the scriptures and just accept them blindly then we go against some of what's unique in them, but if talk about literal Mara and literal multiple Buddhist heavens and hells is meaningful to you then all power to you.

You'll see 3 of the 4 bullet points in Lungmi's post talked about Mara as metaphorical or an embodiment, I don't think this is evidence that the Buddha was not a man.

If we imagine for a minute Mara as a real being when you consider one of the stated aims of Buddhism is to cease the endless rounds of rebirth I hardly think Mara still being stuck in that is proof that he is higher than the Buddha who has gained freedom from it.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[fabianfred]

Every Buddha has to be born as a man...since otherwise people will believe he can do things because he is superhuman.

However he is more than just a normal man, because he has been perfecting himself as a Boddhisatva for innumerable aeons...which is why when he was born he proclaimed that there was no being his superior in any of the 31 realms....quite true.

[rockyysdt]

Every Buddha has to be born as a man...since otherwise people will believe he can do things because he is superhuman.

However he is more than just a normal man, because he has been perfecting himself as a Boddhisatva for innumerable aeons...which is why when he was born he proclaimed that there was no being his superior in any of the 31 realms....quite true.

At what age and development did he make the proclamation?

Was he enlightened at the time?

Does this mean that if any of us haven't been a Boddhisatva in former re births, we are precluded from enlightenment in this life?

The movie Groundhog Day was very insightful and comes to mind.

A man was stuck in time, repeating the same day with the same people, only he was able to remember each day that went before.

He would make mistakes and over indulge, but eventually improved his interactions until true love and care for others was perfected.

Edited January 15, 2011 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

Every Buddha has to be born as a man...since otherwise people will believe he can do things because he is superhuman.

However he is more than just a normal man, because he has been perfecting himself as a Boddhisatva for innumerable aeons...which is why when he was born he proclaimed that there was no being his superior in any of the 31 realms....quite true.

At what age and development did he make the proclamation?

Was he enlightened at the time?

Does this mean that if any of us haven't been a Boddhisatva in former re births, we are precluded from enlightenment in this life?

The movie Groundhog Day was very insightful and comes to mind.

A man was stuck in time, repeating the same day with the same people, only he was able to remember each day that went before.

He would make mistakes and over indulge, but eventually improved his interactions until true love and care for others was perfected.

He is supposed to have made the proclamation at the end of seven steps...right after birth...so at that time he was not enlightened since he was still a Boddhisatva right up until the moment he reached nirvana and became an Arahant and a self-enlightned Buddha.

Boddhisatva is a Buddha in training if you like.... we can reach enlightenment as an arahant by following the teachings of a Buddha. We reach nirvana ...as a Buddha does...but we are not Buddhas and do not have the same capabilities as one.

Groundhog day was considered to be a very 'Buddhist' movie.

[Brucenkhamen]

Groundhog day was considered to be a very 'Buddhist' movie.

As was The Matrix, as was Star Wars, shows how shallow an understanding of Buddhism people out there have.

Still, a movie can help you stop and think, look at things a bit differently, Groundhog Day was like that for me.

[Gaccha]

Every Buddha has to be born as a man...since otherwise people will believe he can do things because he is superhuman.

However he is more than just a normal man, because he has been perfecting himself as a Boddhisatva for innumerable aeons...which is why when he was born he proclaimed that there was no being his superior in any of the 31 realms....quite true.

I find this epistemological arguing genuinelly enchanting. Obviously, it is the key discussion of Western philosophy for the last 30 years. It struck me how useful Foucault's History of Sexuality Volume 1 or, say, Todd May's 'Between Genealogy and Epistemology' would be to the monk.

FabianFred is arguing the transcendental card. While other writers are arguing for the indeterminancy of truth or the non-existence of truth. Indeed, I think one writer is arguing that the non-existence of truth is a transcendence. All interesting because the vocabulary of the Western philosphers is not picked up on, so it has a sense of innocence about it.

I wonder if I am actually having a genuine Buddhist meditative existence by my interactions with French philosphy over the last 5 years.

I had Thai friends push me to go to a Buddhist camp by some Japanese monk in a temple in Thailand. They suggested he would listen to my arguments. I declined since to turn up to his camp would be to imply his superior knowledge over mine. I suspect my thoughts on knowledge are greater than his, and my reading wider, yet this would through the semiotics of the temple/monk/layman nexus of power/knowledge be regarded as arrogance.

Ask yourselves: how is that which you claim to know? Some of you speak of insight or 'analysis', but what is your epistemology to realise this 'analysis'. How can you know truth when you see it? Why do you believe you can find it? There are foundational assumptions of 'received knowledge' that imply superiority through some supernatural unknown. That is fine, but then, you do you know this to be true, how do you know it can exist?

I find Albert Camus' argument of the absurdity of life much more compelling than anything I hear from the works of Buddha. But I am open to doubt.

:jap:

[phetaroi]

Every Buddha has to be born as a man...since otherwise people will believe he can do things because he is superhuman.

However he is more than just a normal man, because he has been perfecting himself as a Boddhisatva for innumerable aeons...which is why when he was born he proclaimed that there was no being his superior in any of the 31 realms....quite true.

You perfectly demonstrate the concerns I have. I can accept all the teachings of Buddha that are based on his wisdom. His "advice" can fairly easily be proven by testing.

But then you want to bring in:

Boddhisatva

Innumerable aeons (for which there is not one iota of scientific evidence)

31 realms

To which my response is -- faith, faith, and faith.

And, as I have stated many times, nothing wrong with faith...just as long as you admit that "faith issues" are not the same as principles which can be proven.

Edited January 15, 2011 by phetaroi

[Brucenkhamen]

You perfectly demonstrate the concerns I have. I can accept all the teachings of Buddha that are based on his wisdom. His "advice" can fairly easily be proven by testing.

But then you want to bring in:

Boddhisatva

Innumerable aeons (for which there is not one iota of scientific evidence)

31 realms

To which my response is -- faith, faith, and faith.

And, as I have stated many times, nothing wrong with faith...just as long as you admit that "faith issues" are not the same as principles which can be proven.

I'd have to say I've come across very few westerners that express nearly as much faith as Fred.

It doesn't really bother me either way whether these things are literally true, metaphorically true, or not because as far as I can tell they have no bearing on practising the path to liberation here and now.

[canuckamuck]

You perfectly demonstrate the concerns I have. I can accept all the teachings of Buddha that are based on his wisdom. His "advice" can fairly easily be proven by testing.

But then you want to bring in:

Boddhisatva

Innumerable aeons (for which there is not one iota of scientific evidence)

31 realms

To which my response is -- faith, faith, and faith.

And, as I have stated many times, nothing wrong with faith...just as long as you admit that "faith issues" are not the same as principles which can be proven.

I'd have to say I've come across very few westerners that express nearly as much faith as Fred.

It doesn't really bother me either way whether these things are literally true, metaphorically true, or not because as far as I can tell they have no bearing on practising the path to liberation here and now.

Except that liberation is also a concept of faith.