Enlightenment In Three Aeons (Three Billion Years)?

[rockyysdt]

Do I understand there are some 'conflicting' teachings about time related to enlightment within Buddhism?

I think what people are suggesting is that whilst unenlightened (Buddhist ), we can only speculate as none of us will ever know the answer.

Practicing Mindfulness, both sitting and during the wakeful day is the way.

As Sabaijai indicated:

"One who is honest to himself and practice this four Pattana Meditations without a delay, he should be willing to achieve Arahat or Anagami level, in seven days to seven years in time which would ultimately direct to Nirvana."

--Maha Satipattana Sutta

The key is to be truly honest with yourself and to practice.

Unfortunately without practice most of us are deluded, and/or dishonest with ourselves.

[fabianfred]

Hi Fred.

A Dhamma podcast I played recently was titled "Exploring the Judging Mind".

The speaker taught that self observation reveals that humans make judgments of those around us, based on beliefs and conditioning.

By practicing Mindfulness regularly we begin to have insights into our judging mind?

Mindfulness eventually allows us to recognize our judgment, giving us opportunity to replace it with loving kindness, patience and understanding.

If I misjudge another due to my prejudice or judging mind, mindfulness eventually allows me to see this and allows me to better understand how I think and how I react to given conditions.

Alternatively if I observe another who is trapped in delusion or misjudgment, my mindfulness will eventually allow me to extend compassion for that traveler who might have dust in his eyes.

Without knowing what was in his heart , I was surprised to read your reaction to Jawnies words.

It was as if you automatically reacted to key words based on conditioning without thought of their impact.

Please correct me if I'm wrong or if your intentions weren't correctly conveyed by your words.

When you practice mindfulness do you observe yourself and any conditioned responses you might harbor?

Are you mindful of the impact of your chosen words when responding to others.

Has your practice yielded growth on your path of awareness?

I ask you respectfully.

My practice is limited but I'm trying to gauge whether many hours of practice will make any difference to my conditioning over the years.

Thank you ..... we are all working towards a goal....and have yet to reach it. I am still working at it and have yet some way to go.

We all tend to get defensive about things we cherish.

[fabianfred]

The title of this thread is: "Enlightenment In Three Aeons (Three Billion Years)?"

Man has been around since about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago (and even then we'd be talking homo sapien neanderthalenthis. Unless you want to think the first incarnation of Buddha was a more primitive human form (Australopithecus???).

And then, on a number of occasions in this forum, we have been told that Buddhism is the most scientific religion.

Do I need to point out the disconnect here?

Or are we saying Buddha is not a human...something supernatural?

In Theravada Buddhist terms...an Aeon is a Mahakappa which is not a billion years but far longer.

Now a certain brahmin came to the Exhalted One…. “How many aeons, Lord,

have passed and gone by?”

“Many, brahmin, are the aeons passed and gone by. It is not easy to reckon them

up: so many aeons….”

“Can it be done, Lord, with a simile?”

“It can, brahmin,” said the Exalted One. “Now take the case of where the River

Ganges begins and where it reaches the ocean. The sand that lies between, that is not easy

to count: so many (grains of ) sand, so many thousands, so many millions of grains of

sand. More than that are the aeons which have passed and gone by.

“How is that? Inconceivable, brahmin, is a beginning to the wandering on in birth

and death. For beings obstructed by unknowing and fettered by craving, migrating and

wandering through the round of births, a starting-point is not evident. Thus for a long

time have you experienced dukkha, experienced pain, experienced destruction. Long

enough, bhikkhus, for you to have become dispassionate towards all conditioned things,

long enough to become detached, long enough to become released from them.”

> Now a certain bhikkhu came to the Exalted One….”How long, Lord, is an aeon?”

“Long, O bhikkhu, is an aeon. It is not easy to reckon how long by saying so

many years, so many centuries, so many millenia, so many hundred thousand years.”

“Can it be done, Lord, with a simile?”

“It can, bhikkhu,” said the Exalted One. “Suppose, bhikkhu, there were a great

mountain, a peak one yojana wide, one yojana across, one yojana high, a solid mass

without clefts or cracks. And at the end of every hundred years a bird were to land, wipe

it’s beak and leave. Well, that mountain in this way would sooner be eroded and worn

away than would an aeon. So long, bhikkhu is an aeon. And of aeons so long more than

one has passed, more than a hundred thousand, more than a billion have passed….”

“Bhikkhus, the bones of a single person journeying on, wandering on for an aeon,

would make a cairn, a pile, a mound as great as Mount Vepulla, were there a collector of

those bones and if the collection were not destroyed.”

[Brucenkhamen]

What is the relation of your story to taking things literally or not literally?

I would have thought it was obvious.

You suggested;

"We take things literally to proove something or to attack something, and not literally to proove or attack something when it suits us."

I suggested that this is not necessarily the a case of changing from a literal and non literal stance when it suits us but it can be a matter of different contexts and perspectives. On the whole a more positive outlook wouldn't you say. My "story" was an illustration of differing perspectives.

Talking about 'sky' - we all can experience in actuality ourself- , is something else as talking about texts telling about aeons and texts giving different explanations about time and aeons.

Indeed, this is why I'd rather talk about things we can and do experience because these things are real to us, talking about Buddhist practise ever without experiencing it seems pretty pointless.

[fabianfred]

"One who is honest to himself and practice this four Pattana Meditations without a delay, he should be willing to achieve Arahat or Anagami level, in seven days to seven years in time which would ultimately direct to Nirvana."

--Maha Satipattana Sutta

I find this quite profound.

My mindfulness is often aware of my projection of self image.

We project our self image to show others how we want them to see us.

To varying degree we either hide aspects of ourselves or project dishonestly.

How can we be honest to ourselves if we aren't genuine or honest to others?

To be honest to oneself is simple and but also difficult.

I guess practice is the key.

Do I understand there are some 'conflicting' teachings about time related to enlightment within Buddhism?

Once again there is the confusion between enlighenment and Nibbana. Arahant gets one to nibbana but falls short of enlightenment.

The Sattipattana sutta (Four Foundations of Mindfulness) (Vipassana) states that ...one who practices mindfulness continually...can reach Arahant in seven days, or if not seven days seven months, or if not seven months seven years, or seven lives. Remebering that we have different Paramis and are not equal so some may attain it quicker and some slower. The reference to seven lives refers to the fact that once one reaches Sottapana (stream-entry) one has a maximum of seven lives before reaching arahant and nibbana... inferring that once one practices mindfulness with determination one should reach stream-entry in this very life.

[camerata]

The Pali word for "enlightenment" is bodhi. From the Pali dictionary entry on bodhi:

"There is a threefold classification of enlightenment: 1. that of a Noble Disciple sāvaka-bodhi. i.e. of an Arahat, 2. of an Independently Enlightened One pacceka-bodhi, and 3. of a Perfect Enlightened One sammā-sambodhi This 3-fold division, however, is of later origin, and in this form it neither occurs in the canonical texts nor in the older Sutta commentaries. The closest approximation to it is found in a verse sutta which is probably of a comparatively later period, the Treasure Store Sutta Nidhikkanda Sutta of the Khuddakapātha, where the following 3 terms are mentioned in stanza 15: sāvaka-pāramī, pacceka-bodhi, buddha-bhūmi see Khp. Tr., pp. 247f..

Neither in the canonical texts nor in the old commentaries is it stated that a follower of the Buddha may choose between the three kinds of enlightenment and aspire either to become a Buddha, a Pacceka-Buddha, or an Arahat-disciple. This conception of a choice between three aspirations is, however, frequently found in present-day Theravāda countries, e.g. in Sri Lanka."

http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Buddhist.Dictionary/dic3_b.htm#bodhi

Presumably this is where Mahayana gets its idea of "buddhahood" being "perfect enlightenment," which then became even more fuzzily described as "perfect nirvana."

[camerata]

Rocky lamented:

I haven't given up my attraction to Buddhism, but reading Jawnie's post has knocked some wind out of my sails.

Quote: The sutras talk about ten levels of Bodhisattvas, the tenth being a fully Enlightened One. Reaching the first level is extremely difficult and time consuming to reach (we are talking lifetimes here. I don't believe the Therevada form of Buddhism allows for enlightenment in one life time; I think Theravada allows for enlightenment after "Three Immeasurable Aeons.

Why would you go into a negative tailspin over a quotation from a Mahayana text (apparently not a sutta) by Asanga written 800 years after the Buddha's death and referring specifically to a buddha? It's nothing to do with Theravada and doesn't relate to attaining nibbana.

Theravada (I can't remember if it's the Canon or the Commentaries) presents the Buddha, like his predecessors, as making a vow to a previous Buddha that he would strive to become the future Buddha. But the Canon also presents him as deciding to find a way out of suffering after he first leaves his palace. So when do you start counting the days? Similarly, if I attain nibbana in this life, do we say I did it in "one lifetime" or assume that I've been working up to it over a gazillion lifetimes? The whole question is ridiculous. How can Tibetan or any other sect claim to be the only one to be able to do it in one lifetime? Starting from when? Does it mean that person had no previous lives, or that he had but he wasn't trying to attain anything until the present one? You have to apply some critical thinking and common sense to this stuff, and check the sources. Clearly, we can attain nibbana in the current lifetime. If we don't, it's a matter of personal faith/hope whether we'll have future lives to continue working at it.

[christiaan]

What is the relation of your story to taking things literally or not literally?

I would have thought it was obvious.

You suggested;

"We take things literally to proove something or to attack something, and not literally to proove or attack something when it suits us."

My suggestions are out of factual observing, and I did wrote it more detailed, however, I think I should have been more precise and instead should have written 'texts' and not 'things''.

I suggested that this is not necessarily the a case of changing from a literal and non literal stance when it suits us but it can be a matter of different contexts and perspectives. On the whole a more positive outlook wouldn't you say. My "story" was an illustration of differing perspectives.

In my opinion your story was not telling of other perspectives but just telling about parts of the same phenomenon, as i illustrated by comprising it to one statement.

Talking about 'sky' - we all can experience in actuality ourself- , is something else as talking about texts telling about aeons and texts giving different explanations about time and aeons.

Indeed, this is why I'd rather talk about things we can and do experience because these things are real to us, talking about Buddhist practise ever without experiencing it seems pretty pointless.

I agree on the fact that it is important to talk about things we can and do experience but texts, as texts, are not only telling a 'certain'story' about experiences but are as texts experienced in reading them or becoming aware of them. So every text is also an experience when a person experiences the texts.

Then all thinking related to experience is practice, all contemplation, and meditation about and within thoughts related to experience are practice and that is not exclusively Buddhist thinking or practice it is human activity.

After learning to know some I do not need to be attached to any master or teacher, since I am not depending on masters or certain teachers since I can think by my Self based on the experiences of my Self.

The times of revelations are over.

In general its my expression the main talk related to, out of, based on Buddhism, seems to be mainly based on texts andabout texts, not a lot of - new - information (that could become texts) out of nowadays practice.

[rockyysdt]

Once again there is the confusion between enlighenment and Nibbana. Arahant gets one to nibbana but falls short of enlightenment.

The Sattipattana sutta (Four Foundations of Mindfulness) (Vipassana) states that ...one who practices mindfulness continually...can reach Arahant in seven days, or if not seven days seven months, or if not seven months seven years, or seven lives. Remebering that we have different Paramis and are not equal so some may attain it quicker and some slower. The reference to seven lives refers to the fact that once one reaches Sottapana (stream-entry) one has a maximum of seven lives before reaching arahant and nibbana... inferring that once one practices mindfulness with determination one should reach stream-entry in this very life.

I suppose this then raises the question: " what is the difference between Nibbana & Enlightenment?"

I thought one is a place and the other is a state.

[camerata]

"Nibbāna: Sanskrit nirvāna lit. 'ceasing' nir + Ö va to cease blowing, to become extinguished; according to the commentaries, 'freedom from desire' nir+ vana Nibbāna constitutes the highest and ultimate goal of all Buddhist aspirations, i.e. absolute ceasing of that life-affirming will manifested as greed, hate and confusion, and convulsively clinging to existence; and therewith also the ultimate and absolute deliverance from all future rebirth, old age, disease and death, from all suffering and misery."

[rockyysdt]

Quote: The sutras talk about ten levels of Bodhisattvas, the tenth being a fully Enlightened One. Reaching the first level is extremely difficult and time consuming to reach (we are talking lifetimes here. I don't believe the Therevada form of Buddhism allows for enlightenment in one life time; I think Theravada allows for enlightenment after "Three Immeasurable Aeons.

Why would you go into a negative tailspin over a quotation from a Mahayana text (apparently not a sutta) by Asanga written 800 years after the Buddha's death and referring specifically to a buddha? It's nothing to do with Theravada and doesn't relate to attaining nibbana.

Theravada (I can't remember if it's the Canon or the Commentaries) presents the Buddha, like his predecessors, as making a vow to a previous Buddha that he would strive to become the future Buddha. But the Canon also presents him as deciding to find a way out of suffering after he first leaves his palace. So when do you start counting the days? Similarly, if I attain nibbana in this life, do we say I did it in "one lifetime" or assume that I've been working up to it over a gazillion lifetimes? The whole question is ridiculous. How can Tibetan or any other sect claim to be the only one to be able to do it in one lifetime? Starting from when? Does it mean that person had no previous lives, or that he had but he wasn't trying to attain anything until the present one? You have to apply some critical thinking and common sense to this stuff, and check the sources. Clearly, we can attain nibbana in the current lifetime. If we don't, it's a matter of personal faith/hope whether we'll have future lives to continue working at it.

Thanks for clearing that up C.

Due to infinity, I can't imagine the world with a beginning or an end, so perhaps many of us have already been involved in Aeons of re birth.

On the subject of Buddhism, why is there so much aversion between adherents of Mahayana & Theravada?

I think many have already said they live their lives and practice for benefits in the present.

The esoteric side including Re Birth, karma, and enlightenment are a bonus when/if they happen but tangible benefits of practice can be experienced here and now.

If practice associated with Theravada & Mahayana are almost identical, aren't the esoteric beliefs and politics of each, of no consequence?

Won't successfully traveling on the path eventually lead to the answers anyway?

Darma teachers who podcast, concentrate on teaching practice of awareness but are open to retreat experiences regardless of persuasion, including Zen, Theravada, Mahayana.

Edited March 11, 2011 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

On the subject of Buddhism, why is there so much aversion between adherents of Mahayana & Theravada?

I don't think there is any aversion when it comes to the people themselves these days. But Mahayana was a later development (according to the scholars), and the writers of the Mahayana sutras and texts seemed to feel they had to justify their new direction by denigrating "Hinayanists" and sometimes other Mahayana sects (see The Zen Teachings of Huang-Po for an example). The main contention of Mahayana is that the Pali Canon teachings of the Hinayanists didn't go far enough. There were "higher" teachings that couldn't be understood at the time, so they were hidden in a Naga Realm or hidden in an iron stupa (take your pick) for hundreds of years. When the Mahayana sutras appeared, they were very different in style and content from the Pali Canon suttas, but they purported to be the words of the Buddha, in some cases as he spoke to assemblies of humans and bodhisattvas (check the Lotus Sutra) not mentioned in the Canon. So while the Mahayana texts may contain some good stuff, no one wants to hear the tired old nonsense repeated about how superior it is to Theravada and how Theravada is "selfish" for pursuing personal liberation.

If practice associated with Theravada & Mahayana are almost identical, aren't the esoteric beliefs and politics of each, of no consequence?

Well, the practices aren't almost identical. Pure Land and Nichiren are quite different from Theravada, whereas Zen is a lot closer. But I've certainly been impressed by the Mahayana monks I've heard lately - they know their scriptures and tend to concentrate on what all traditions have in common. And they don't use the word "Hinayana."

[Brucenkhamen]

"Nibbāna: Sanskrit nirvāna lit. 'ceasing' nir + Ö va to cease blowing, to become extinguished; according to the commentaries, 'freedom from desire' nir+ vana Nibbāna constitutes the highest and ultimate goal of all Buddhist aspirations, i.e. absolute ceasing of that life-affirming will manifested as greed, hate and confusion, and convulsively clinging to existence; and therewith also the ultimate and absolute deliverance from all future rebirth, old age, disease and death, from all suffering and misery."

My understanding is that the word nibbana/nirvana was in common usage before the Buddha started using it in teaching. After food was cooked people would nibbana it for a while before eating ie they'd let it cool.

The Buddha used this as a metaphor for enlightenment, wheras it was common for previous teachers to use metaphors like fire for enlightenment the Buddha ever clever with wordplay used the opposite metaphor, one of cooling down.

So it isn't a separate state from bodhi/enlightenment/arahantship/buddhahood but a metaphor for it.

[Brucenkhamen]

In my opinion your story was not telling of other perspectives but just telling about parts of the same phenomenon, as i illustrated by comprising it to one statement.

That's right, one perspective looked at one part of the same phenomenon, another perspective looked at another part.

I agree on the fact that it is important to talk about things we can and do experience but texts, as texts, are not only telling a 'certain'story' about experiences but are as texts experienced in reading them or becoming aware of them. So every text is also an experience when a person experiences the texts.

When texts are read then reading is experienced, when texts are thought about then thinking is experienced. Nobody experiences Aeons by reading about them so discussion about aeons is merely theoretical and not direct experience.

After learning to know some I do not need to be attached to any master or teacher, since I am not depending on masters or certain teachers since I can think by my Self based on the experiences of my Self.

I have this approach also, but it isn't a matter of attachment or non attachment to a teacher, if I had a question such as yours I'd ask it of somebody who might be qualified to answer it I wouldn't expect an answer on Thaivisa.

The times of revelations are over.

That would indicate that progress has ceased then.

In general its my expression the main talk related to, out of, based on Buddhism, seems to be mainly based on texts andabout texts, not a lot of - new - information (that could become texts) out of nowadays practice.

Then you haven't been in Buddhist practise environments.

Nor have you noticed how many modern teachers are writing new texts.

Buddhist internet discussion forums tend to lean much more to text based discussions because the nature of internet forums is much more conducive to text or theory based discussion, thaivisa less so because it's much smaller and attracts a lot of non practitioners.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[Brucenkhamen]

For a more detailed explanation of the meaning of the word Nibbana and enlightenment in general I'd recommend this book http://www.abhayagiri.org/main/book/1788/

[christiaan]

In my opinion your story was not telling of other perspectives but just telling about parts of the same phenomenon, as i illustrated by comprising it to one statement.

That's right, one perspective looked at one part of the same phenomenon, another perspective looked at another part.

I would say humans and not perspectives looks at phenomena, and the fact that different humans are only looking or telling about different aspects of one and the same phenomenon just tells those humans are subjective in their way of looking or telling about things. So I still do not see what this has to do with taking things literally or not literally. Because I do not see any objection to take all those 'sayings about the sky ' literally. When people say blue, it is literally blue.

It is different when talking about time, when the Bible tells/translates within Genesis the 'creation' did took 6 days, then people tell, by literally taking the 6 days as 6 days, it is impossible to create all of this in 6 days. Then another tells one should not take those 'days' literally but as an explanation of 'some measurement of time'

And so the 6 days could mean something else as the days we understand to be days now. Therefore my remark people take things literally or not literally as it suits them.

And... speaking for myself.... this is what I can read and hear people do.

I agree on the fact that it is important to talk about things we can and do experience but texts, as texts, are not only telling a 'certain'story' about experiences but are as texts experienced in reading them or becoming aware of them. So every text is also an experience when a person experiences the texts.

When texts are read then reading is experienced, when texts are thought about then thinking is experienced. Nobody experiences Aeons by reading about them so discussion about aeons is merely theoretical and not direct experience.

When texts are read not only reading is experienced as an activity but , to some extend, depending of the intellect of the reading person , also the meaning of what the text might tell or actually does tell is experienced. When people think about texts they experience thinking and within this thinking experience meanings, concepts, all realities within our world. So when we read and think about texts we experience realities, at least the realities of the person telling or writing.

Reading about what people tell about Aeons is experiencing ideas that can be or are related to the meaning and explanation of - how those people think about - Aeons.

I maybe have to understand that you try to diminish the experience and meaning of reading but then I wonder what this has to tell about all written down as what Buddha - might - have told. As far as I see till now, most of wat one can learn to know about Buddhism or out of Buddhism is based on old texts written long time after Buddha died. And not only that, I did visit the second hand bookstore in my city and there are a lot of books for sale second hand about Buddhism and in the department of new books it is astonishing to see how many books today are written about or out of Buddhism. None of those books are direct experience but just words telling about ideas.

I would not only say people cannot experience aeons directly by books, but also not nirvana, enlightment, karma, and so on but then even you advise a book to learn to know more about the meaning of the word nibbana and enlightment.

And at the moment someone would experience the full and absolute truth of Aeons, at the moment this person starts to use words to tell or write about this experience his or her words are just theories and not direct experience anymore, just telling -'something'- about it., and it just depends on the abillities of the reader or listener to understand the ideas the writer or speaker make known to the world.

I have this is approach also, but it isn't a matter of attachment or non attachment to a teacher, if I had a question such as yours I'd ask it of somebody who might be qualified to answer it I wouldn't expect an answer on Thaivisa.

Well that is your choice, I ask it anywhere I like to ask and every answer is worth thinking about and sometimes lay people have more interesting remarks as some 'teachers'. There are some people overhere at Thavisa I respect for what they have to ask and tell. Who is qualified to answer, people who have a lot of texts in their memory? People who are very good in combinative and associative thinking? I certainly value intuitive thinking.

The times of revelations are over.

That would indicate that progress has ceased then.

To me progress certainly did not cease but changed, transformed, transcended. Progress or non progress is in the hands of humanity. Not only did the time of revelations pass,.... the time of independent thinking, the autonomous thinking of the self did more and more come to life and is progressing more and more. and hopefully will continue in a positive way.

In general its my expression the main talk related to, out of, based on Buddhism, seems to be mainly based on texts andabout texts, not a lot of - new - information (that could become texts) out of nowadays practice.

Then you haven't been in Buddhist practise environments.

I have been in Buddhist practice environments, not in the close circle but in the bigger circle.

Thailand is the Buddhist environment and when someone tells you cannot find Buddhist wisdom in Thai culture and Thai way of life, I would like that someone to explain why then Buddhism is so overwhelmingly present in their way in that Thai culture and Thai way of life, and very much dominating it.

It is a unique cultural situation in the world.

The more I look at it the more It seems to me there is a strong depending relation between Thai culture and Thai Buddhism, it seems they are attached to eachother.

As I wrote before, how would Thai culture be without Thai Buddhism, how would 'Thai' Buddhism be without Thai culture.

I have the impression they are completely interwoven and entangled with eachother like man and woman are.

Nor have you noticed how many modern teachers are writing new texts.

That is possible, but I have read a lot and still do and I mainly see old concepts in new words.

Buddhist internet discussion forums tend to lean much more to text based discussions because the nature of internet forums is much more conducive to text or theory based discussion, thaivisa less so because it's much smaller and attracts a lot of non practitioners.

Forums or meetings, books, or spoken texts, it is all about concepts and ideas, even when there is talk about practice, meditation, contemplation, nibbana and enlightment. At the moment people start to talk and write words these words do not cover experiences, often do not cover the complete truth. I did go to several meetings with teachers and I noticed these are not environements to have profound questions and dialogues out of other concepts.

[Brucenkhamen]

I would say humans and not perspectives looks at phenomena, and the fact that different humans are only looking or telling about different aspects of one and the same phenomenon just tells those humans are subjective in their way of looking or telling about things. So I still do not see what this has to do with taking things literally or not literally. Because I do not see any objection to take all those 'sayings about the sky ' literally. When people say blue, it is literally blue.

Again hair splitting and again missing the point.

And so the 6 days could mean something else as the days we understand to be days now. Therefore my remark people take things literally or not literally as it suits them.

Some people do, but I prefer to see good in people.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and hope that people take things literally or not literally out of careful consideration, not because it suits them to attack or defend with, not out of expediency. Unless of course there is evidence to the contrary or they cannot present a reasonable justification for their position or get defensive when challenged.

So when we read and think about texts we experience realities, at least the realities of the person telling or writing.

Well you’ve got a strange definition of reality then, have you read fairy stories and experienced those magical worlds as realities? Of course not.

Most of wat one can learn to know about Buddhism or out of Buddhism is based on old texts written long time after Buddha died. And not only that, I did visit the second hand bookstore in my city and there are a lot of books for sale second hand about Buddhism and in the department of new books it is astonishing to see how many books today are written about or out of Buddhism. None of those books are direct experience but just words telling about ideas.

Then you haven’t being paying attention to what you’re being told here, as I thought.

Most of what one can learn to know about Buddhism is learned through direct experience by following various practise methodologies and looking directly at ones own mind, this happens with some initial guidance of teachers and texts but the teachers and texts are not expected to impart the knowledge other than the knowledge of how to practise.

I would not only say people cannot experience aeons directly by books, but also not nirvana, enlightment, karma, and so on but then even you advise a book to learn to know more about the meaning of the word nibbana and enlightment.

One can learn the meaning of a word from a book, one cannot experience the experience that word describes by reading a book.

I certainly value intuitive thinking.

Then perhaps you should try and apply it in regards to your enquiries into Buddhism.

To me progress certainly did not cease but changed, transformed, transcended. Progress or non progress is in the hands of humanity. Not only did the time of revelations pass,.... the time of independent thinking, the autonomous thinking of the self did more and more come to life and is progressing more and more. and hopefully will continue in a positive way.

If it were true then there would have been some hint of the fruits of that during your time on thaivisa by now.

I have been in Buddhist practice environments, not in the close circle but in the bigger circle.

What is this close circle and bigger circle? again pompous nonsense.

Thailand is the Buddhist environment … blah blah blah

As I wrote before, how would Thai culture be without Thai Buddhism, how would 'Thai' Buddhism be without Thai culture.

What does this have to do with the OP? ever heard of the English phrase stuck record?

If you aspire to be a freethinker someday then the ability to talk about a range of topics depending on the context and what is appropriate at the time would be a good start.

Returning again and again to 2 or 3 pet subjects regardless of context is not only boring but inconsiderate and not the sign of a freethinker.

That is possible, but I have read a lot and still do and I mainly see old concepts in new words.

Do you think there should be new and improved ways to awaken every few hundred years? That would just be a product of mans restlessness and resistance to good advice. The human mind still works the same as it did 2500 years ago, though more sophisticated, so the principles of awakening still apply.

Forums or meetings, books, or spoken texts, it is all about concepts and ideas, even when there is talk about practice, meditation, contemplation, nibbana and enlightment. At the moment people start to talk and write words these words do not cover experiences, often do not cover the complete truth.

Of course internet forums are all about concepts and ideas, how could it be anything else? As soon as somebody describes an experience it’s a concept in the mind of the listener. If you want to have an experience you need to go to a place or apply a methodology where that experience is supposed to happen and see for yourself.

I did go to several meetings with teachers and I noticed these are not environements to have profound questions and dialogues out of other concepts.

Which Buddhist teachers? when?

So already too long, so go on shout me down by making it longer again, I dare you.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Brucenkhamen

[christiaan]

Well I was understanding you were telling different 'somebody's' were looking at the sky and then suddenly these 'somebody's' turned out to become ' perspectives' looking at the sky. And then you tell me I am 'hairsplitting' when I wrote I was thinking we were talking about humans?

I think it would have been more apropriate to write why your 'somebody's' suddenly became 'perspectives'.

Then, when I wrote; ' we take things litereally or not literally as it suits us by our subjective motivation' you advised me to speak for myself. Well I did since I wrote we, I did and do not exclude myself in this, but now you yourself wrote ' some people do' by this not only speaking for yourself also and as I understand excluding yourself from doing so. Well, I meant, we, people, do, but I was not aware you don't and so I have to excuse myself for suggesting by the way I wrote what I wrote, you also do.

So my excuse for giving the impression I was including you in my remark by the way I wrote.

I was not writing or referring to what is good or bad or writing about what I prefer to see, I was giving the results of my limitted observations and to make it possible to correct this by appreciated remarks of other respectfull contributors. I have not seen a remark towards my observations that make me changed my mind in the way I think about those.

When I read and think about texts I experience realities by the meaning I discover in those texts by way of my thinking.

Texts tell about ideas and concepts and to me most of those texts do have a meaning and in this way do tell about living realities, spiritual realities. Realities that are of have been realities related to life on earth.

And so ofcourse I have read fairy tales and experienced the magical words of them since I 'saw' not only the wisdom profoundly hidden inside by my intuitive thinking, being the eye of my inner spiritual existence, but I also 'saw' the reason why those fairy tales came to existence to inform people in the past, without awakened intelligence, about the spiritual essences of life.

So your conclusion out of your own question showing your subjectve interpretation of the literature of fairytales ( literally or not literally) is not according to my experience. This also is a part of text, where, when I would have written this, you might have written: Speak for your self!

I have been and do follow and experience various practise methodologies and within this look directly at my one mind.

I do this by the written texts from enlighted teachers, ( I before named just some of the several (Georg Kuhlewind and Paul Asmus) and by regular meetings - organised by other people and by myself- where is much to learn and to experience about all aspects of life. The main purpose of the meetings and especially the practice is to develop the abillities to experience the living ideas in the world we live in today. This is based on the fact that we as humans are the 'tool' by wich we can experience and learn to know.

We mainly work with profound texts.

One can 'learn' the meaning of a word from a book, or spoken by a person, and this meaning grasped by our inner intuitive thinking can - not necessarily will - lead us to experience. Grasping the meaning of a word , the living idea inside, however is experience, inner experience, spiritual experience.

I ofcourse do apply this to Buddhism and especially Thai Buddhism and your opinion about the results of that is very limitted.

I am aware I do have my 'pet subjects' no problem with that, I am aware of this that is the most important, I am not only aware I have but I am also aware others have.

Would there be a stuck record then you in your actions might be one with the needle.

I do not have the 'thinkproduct' there should be new ways to stay awake every few hundred years. Life itself tells awareness it is asking for a transcending and transforming ways of staying awake and aware all the time. That is not a product of restlessness and resisting man, as the opinion one should do otherwise would be, but it is dynamically moving with an evermoving evolving physical and spiritual reality.

The human mind certainly is not still working as it did 2500 years ago and the history of mankind, the history of philosophy clearly shows this. But also the outcomes of transcended and transformed thinking is showing this. Unfortunately mainly with regard to the material world but that is because there is no blocking tradition anymore.

Yes already too long, and no shouting, no remarks like bla bla, waffle and so on, since practice teached me to stay away from this.

[Brucenkhamen]

Well I was understanding you were telling different 'somebody's' were looking at the sky and then suddenly these 'somebody's' turned out to become ' perspectives' looking at the sky. And then you tell me I am 'hairsplitting' when I wrote I was thinking we were talking about humans?

I think it would have been more apropriate to write why your 'somebody's' suddenly became 'perspectives'.

Don’t be ridiculous.

Then, when I wrote; ' we take things litereally or not literally as it suits us by our subjective motivation' you advised me to speak for myself. Well I did since I wrote we

When you wrote we you spoke for all of us, Christaan isn’t we, since you didn’t make it clear who we was then the inference was anybody reading this takes things literally or not to suit themselves to attack or defend.

I did and do not exclude myself in this, but now you yourself wrote ' some people do' by this not only speaking for yourself also and as I understand excluding yourself from doing so. Well, I meant, we, people, do, but I was not aware you don't and so I have to excuse myself for suggesting by the way I wrote what I wrote, you also do.

If you have some examples you’d like to share of “we” doing what you describe go ahead. I think it would be much better to be specific about a specific instance than to just post a criticism aimed at everybody with nothing to back it up.

I was not writing or referring to what is good or bad or writing about what I prefer to see, I was giving the results of my limitted observations and to make it possible to correct this by appreciated remarks of other respectfull contributors. I have not seen a remark towards my observations that make me changed my mind in the way I think about those.

Have you ever seen a remark that has made you change your mind in your time here? As far as I’ve noticed your mind appears to be made up.

And so ofcourse I have read fairy tales and experienced the magical words of them since I 'saw' not only the wisdom profoundly hidden inside by my intuitive thinking, being the eye of my inner spiritual existence, but I also 'saw' the reason why those fairy tales came to existence to inform people in the past, without awakened intelligence, about the spiritual essences of life.

You experienced those things in your mind, you didn’t experience them as realities, if you can’t tell the difference between reality and mind created objects then you’re wasting your time.

I have been and do follow and experience various practise methodologies and within this look directly at my one mind.

I do this by the written texts from enlighted teachers, ( I before named just some of the several (Georg Kuhlewind and Paul Asmus) and by regular meetings - organised by other people and by myself- where is much to learn and to experience about all aspects of life. The main purpose of the meetings and especially the practice is to develop the abillities to experience the living ideas in the world we live in today. This is based on the fact that we as humans are the 'tool' by wich we can experience and learn to know.

This wasn’t my question, my question was which Buddhist teachers did you practise with, or learn from, or ask your question of.

I think it’s obvious by your continued evasiveness that it’s Ajahn Zilch, Sayadaw U Nada, and Zero Roshi.

This points to your question being ingenuine because you haven’t made a genuine effort to consult those who may be qualified to answer but instead prefer to trot it out again and again on Thaivisa and bemoan the fact that it hasn’t been answered.

We mainly work with profound texts.

Should we be profoundly impressed?

One can 'learn' the meaning of a word from a book, or spoken by a person, and this meaning grasped by our inner intuitive thinking can - not necessarily will - lead us to experience. Grasping the meaning of a word , the living idea inside, however is experience, inner experience, spiritual experience.

You obviously don’t understand the meaning of the word experience then. If I read the word “ice cream” in a book that is the experience of reading not of ice cream, if I imagine what ice cream tastes like that is the experience of imagining not of tasting, if I taste ice cream then that is the experience of tasting ice cream.

So reading a word is not the same as experiencing what that word describes.

I am aware I do have my 'pet subjects' no problem with that, I am aware of this that is the most important, I am not only aware I have but I am also aware others have.

I beg to differ, I think there is a problem with that. Yes other people have pet subjects too but nobody is as obstinate in response to the feedback given.

Would there be a stuck record then you in your actions might be one with the needle.

Certainly I can take the blame for feeding the troll and not leaving your statements unchallenged. But don’t blame me if when challenged you can’t let go but would rather create rounds of ever increasing cycles of digression in an attempt to obstruct that challenge rather than actually back up your statements or provide evidence or answer questions.

I do not have the 'thinkproduct' there should be new ways to stay awake every few hundred years. Life itself tells awareness it is asking for a transcending and transforming ways of staying awake and aware all the time. That is not a product of restlessness and resisting man, as the opinion one should do otherwise would be, but it is dynamically moving with an evermoving evolving physical and spiritual reality.

Please give some examples of what you describe and explain how that differs from 2500 year old Buddhist practises.

The human mind certainly is not still working as it did 2500 years ago and the history of mankind, the history of philosophy clearly shows this. But also the outcomes of transcended and transformed thinking is showing this.

The human mind still has craving, still has aversion, still has delusion, this hasn’t changed in 2500 years.

The human mind may be more sophisticated but this just means among other things it’s strategies to delude itself are more difficult to penetrate.

Yes already too long, and no shouting, no remarks like bla bla, waffle and so on, since practice teached me to stay away from this.

I think it’s too late to play take the moral high ground games don’t you.

So another thread hijacked by the Christaan and Brucenkhamen show, one simple question that you could have answered in one sentence has resulted in paragraph after paragraph of waffle in order to evade it.

It’s not worth my time and effort to engage with you, good luck finding someone else who will.

Unless you can demonstrate genuine interest and / or absence of disdain for the topic of this forum I’m done feeding the troll.

[camerata]

Any more off-topic waffle will be deleted. The "definition of enlightenment" is available in Theravadin Buddhist texts, which evidently some of us haven't read. The Pali dictionary is your friend, and it's online. Another good source is In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (Teachings of the Buddha) by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

[christiaan]

When I understand well we cannot be sure what is meant regarding the lengths of aeons. Not only Buddhist science on this topic seems to be incomplete and hard to understand. Time is relative, we can know by experience, time is experienced differently when being a child and when we grow old. As far as I know, from the physical point of view, time is related to physical existence. How do we know about time, how could we know the time when there would not be physical reality?

What is time within nirvana?

The time as we know might end at the moment the physical existence of the earth ends, by my knowledge this will be before 7000 years have passed from now on.

I would say the meaning of aeons is telling more as we can comprehend at the moment and so we can correctly asks our self how important it is to know.

I however would not object when 'time' spiritualy spoken not only transcends and transforms but also will be part of ongoing never ending -spiritual - dynamic.

At this moment in time I do not think, by my knowledge, it will take a lot of " I ' s, in my case just 1 since in my experience I have just 1 " I ", not depending on physical existence and so not depending on time as we define here on earth. It will however probably take several ego's within several lifes on earth in future. This seems not to be corresponding with Buddhist teachings as I understand but since I have no intention to 'convert' anybody but just to express my opinion within a dialogue related to the topic and the conditions of this forum I take the opportunity of free speech and thinking. When that is not accepted please let me know and I will know.

[camerata]

This seems not to be corresponding with Buddhist teachings as I understand

Then you shouldn't be posting it. There are two aspects to being "on-topic." One is to stick to the subject of the original post, the other is to stick to the subject of Buddhism - because this is the Buddhist forum - not the spiritualism forum, the philosophy forum, the religion forum or the freethinkers forum. It's for people to learn about Buddhism. When someone posts a question, they want an answer from a Buddhist perspective - not the perspective of Christianity, Hinduism, some German philosopher, or anyone's personal religion. If you have doubts that your post is from a Buddhist perspective, research it first or don't post it, otherwise you risk having it deleted.

[christiaan]

This seems not to be corresponding with Buddhist teachings as I understand

Then you shouldn't be posting it. There are two aspects to being "on-topic." One is to stick to the subject of the original post, the other is to stick to the subject of Buddhism - because this is the Buddhist forum - not the spiritualism forum, the philosophy forum, the religion forum or the freethinkers forum. It's for people to learn about Buddhism. When someone posts a question, they want an answer from a Buddhist perspective - not the perspective of Christianity, Hinduism, some German philosopher, or anyone's personal religion. If you have doubts that your post is from a Buddhist perspective, research it first or don't post it, otherwise you risk having it deleted.

The way you write it I would say it is not according to the welcome post telling about this board.

Does this mean this is more and only an information board for Theravada Buddhism and not some discussion or dialogue board at all?

If so, write that in the welcome part of the board.

The questions I posted were posted to have answers from a Buddhist perspective.

I have been very interested in the different opinions and answers of the contributors overhere and in this I was also very interested to have some exchange of opinions related to the way I look at things.

In the past time I have learned a lot, not only about -Thai- Buddhism but also about the way people handle and look at -Thai - Buddhism.

I did not inform about what I have learned and probably will not do because, as I became aware of overhere: one has to stay within 'the tradition'

'The German Philosopher, (I tried to restrain myself in mentioning names since it seemed to be custom only to mention names of other people when they in one or another way are supportive to Buddhism), Georg Kuhlewind, was welknown in some circles and, being heavily critised by some people for this, referring often to Buddhism and even wrote a book in wich he teached by the 'use' of Zen Buddhism.

Then, beside Kuhlewind, other people , I consider them also to be my teachers, advocate and teach a lot of the methodologies related to practice as what Buddha teached 2500 years ago and by my experience they do even more profound as what I have met till now within traditional Buddhism.

And to prevent people would think this teaching is only text-teaching, some of my teachers have been practicing intensively over a long period of time in a way that was at least similar as what is known about original Buddhist practice.

And, to inform, I do not write out of any religion not even a personal one, not out of spiritualism, ofcourse out of some philosophy as we all do, and not out of a freethinking movement.

But I do feel very well by free thinking, out of practice and experience as I see in the Kalama Sutta:

"It is proper for you, Kalamas [the people of the village of Kesaputta], to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill, abandon them. "...Do not accept anything by mere tradition... Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures... Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions...

But when you know for yourselves—these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness—then do you live acting accordingly."

So, related to your remarks, it still is to question if I do or do not write out of Buddhist perspective, but maybe we can be almost sure it is not out of traditional Thai Buddhist perspective.

[camerata]

The way you write it I would say it is not according to the welcome post telling about this board.

Does this mean this is more and only an information board for Theravada Buddhism and not some discussion or dialogue board at all?

The Welcome Message is clear to everyone except you. That's why I'm giving you a personal explanation. It says, "People of all faiths - atheists and agnostics, too - are invited to post provided what you have to say is relevant to Buddhism." Much of what you say is related to your own personal religion/beliefs.

I have been very interested in the different opinions and answers of the contributors overhere and in this I was also very interested to have some exchange of opinions related to the way I look at things.

This is the problem. You see the forum as a place where you can debate and demonstrate what you apparently feel is the superiority of your beliefs and "autonomous thinking" over Buddhism. The reason other members have said you are not sincere is because you don't ask about the facts of Buddhism as it is (i.e. "What did the Buddha say about...?" or "What does the Pali Canon say about...?"), you generally solicit opinions about Buddhism as an opening to beat us over the head with your own generally non-Buddhist views.

But I do feel very well by free thinking, out of practice and experience as I see in the Kalama Sutta

The Kalama Sutta was generic advice give to a group who were not followers of the Buddha. What the Buddha said everywhere else in the Pali Canon was basically, "I have found the way to enlightenment and by following my teaching you can find it too. So come and test my teachings." Ehipassiko - come and see. Sorry, but you can't use the Kalama Sutta as an excuse to throw any idea into a Buddhism forum.

So, related to your remarks, it still is to question if I do or do not write out of Buddhist perspective, but maybe we can be almost sure it is not out of traditional Thai Buddhist perspective.

Many of your remarks are not from any kind of Buddhist perspective at all, so be prepared to have them deleted. And this is the end of public discussion about it. Much of this has been explained to you by PM already, but if you want to continue arguing by PM, feel free.

[Jawnie]

If you thought Buddhism and following the Dharma was going to be an easy way to reach a "no problem place" it seems you were mistaken. Even the Buddha said his teaching were "deep" and hard to understand. So, the fact that you find some of the basics of Buddhism difficult should not surprise. Anyone telling you it is easy is mistaken or doesn't know. Yes, discussions about karma invariable include the anomalies you raise: why do the bad guys seem to get away with it, and why do bad things happen to good people. You have to study, practice, and acquire the proper view in order to understand. You can't stay the same and expect things to be different for you.