The Karma Of An Immoral Life

[camerata]

if you gave away a bottle of wine to a person who you knew was an alcoholic,other than that what would be wrong in giving a gift to someone.

Since drinking alcohol violates the 5th Precept, giving someone a bottle of wine is encouraging them to do something unskillful. Suppose they drink it all, decide to drive somewhere and end up crashing and killing someone. Your feelings of guilt about that would be the karmic result, IMO.

[samuibeachcomber]

if you gave away a bottle of wine to a person who you knew was an alcoholic,other than that what would be wrong in giving a gift to someone.

Since drinking alcohol violates the 5th Precept, giving someone a bottle of wine is encouraging them to do something unskillful. Suppose they drink it all, decide to drive somewhere and end up crashing and killing someone. Your feelings of guilt about that would be the karmic result, IMO.

ok but why would i feel guilty?if i knew he did not drink alcohol i would not give it too him.what about personal responsibility of the person receiving this gift?am sorry i know i am looking at this from just a commonsense point of view and not a religious perspective which maybe a little off topic.

[SeerObserver]

Abandon seems to be a fully paid up card carrying member of the dhammakaya.... so will allow no criticism

[Omission]

I very much disagree with their claim that theirs is the only way to practise meditation to achieve Nirvana.....

Samatha meditation was practised long before the Buddha was born in his final birth.... but it is Vipassana or Insight meditation which is the way to Nirvana. This was unknown before the Buddha taught it in his Four Foundations of Mindfulness.

It seems to be commonly accepted that Dhammakaya says their way of meditation is the only path to Nirvana. I would be interested to see this documented in their material somewhere. Abandon...(I did something and made this get cut off, I suppose.)

And now here we are with another similar statement. I do not think many people would be comfortable to accept that there is only one way that is "THE" way to Nirvana. I personally believe that there are more than that. Different mediations are arguably suited for different temperaments, but I believe with the right practice there are a few different methods that could be used to attain this end with success by people of all temperaments.

Any thoughts?

I'm not sure how some of my my post got cut off. I meant to include that Abandon is knowledgeable about Dhammakaya and could really contribute an important point of view.

It's very easy to find information on the Dhammakaya controversy and criticism of the sect, but I have not seen much in the way of refuting claims made on those sites/articles other than Abandon's posts.

A lot of the claims made on critical sites/articles are very outlandish and I would like to see them refuted with some substantive showings. Or are they so outlandish that people able to do just don't feel the need?

Edited February 1, 2009 by SeerObserver

[Brucenkhamen]

ok but why would i feel guilty?if i knew he did not drink alcohol i would not give it too him.what about personal responsibility of the person receiving this gift?am sorry i know i am looking at this from just a commonsense point of view and not a religious perspective which maybe a little off topic.

I agree. If I knew someone was an alcoholic or in some way irresponsible or impressionable then my giving that person alchohol would create nagative kamma for me, in the wrong hands alchohol can be very distructive.

If alcohol were somehow "sinful" or "evil" in some way then why did I have it in my possession in the first place?

The 5th precept is a training rule rather than a commandment, if in doubt keep away from it but a little wine over a shared meal with decent people is hardly anything to be concerned about, nor is giving it as a gift.

[camerata]

ok but why would i feel guilty?if i knew he did not drink alcohol i would not give it too him.what about personal responsibility of the person receiving this gift?am sorry i know i am looking at this from just a commonsense point of view and not a religious perspective which maybe a little off topic.

It's just human nature that you feel bad if you are part of the chain of events that leads to something bad happening. From the Buddhist perspective, as I understand it, encouraging or facilitating the breaking of precepts is unskillful. Dealing in alcohol is Wrong Livelihood. We can't claim that we didn't drink the alcohol ourselves. Dealing in weapons in Wrong Livelihood. We can't claim we didn't pull the trigger or fire the missile. It's the same with Wrong Action.

If you look at the precepts, they don't come with any qualifications. It's just "Don't kill" or "Don't lie" or "Don't take intoxicating substances." It's not "Don't kill unless it's to save someone else" or "Don't tell big lies" or "Don't drink much." I think the reason for this is that we don't know the consequences of bending the precepts. The only way to be sure of 100% good karma is to keep the precepts as stated. Frankly, I would feel happier having a beer myself than giving away a bottle of wine because I'm reasonably sure I know what the result will be of my own actions. Having said that, though, I do think the important thing is to observe the spirit of the precepts.

[camerata]

If alcohol were somehow "sinful" or "evil" in some way then why did I have it in my possession in the first place?

In this case it was given to me as a gift. Of course it isn't evil in itself, but it is dangerous. Alcohol can kill. This reminds me of the NRA's lame slogan, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Anyone can figure out that guns make it easier for people to kill people. Similarly, alcohol makes it easier for people to have car accidents, get angry, get violent, etc.

[fabianfred]

why has the thirdpage of this thread gone...and attached itself to the sticky on Buddhist books....after my post about my teachers books???

[sabaijai]

I merged the posts on books with the book thread.

[sabaijai]

There are differing interpretations and translations of the 5th precept on intoxication, from total abstinence to drinking in moderation. The Pali itself is ambiguous with the qualifying correlative 'which lead to carelessness,' the obvious comment being that a drink or two doesn't necessarily lead to carelessness. One could also argue that coffee and tea -- commonly consumed by monks -- are also intoxicants that may lead to carelessness.

Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami

I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/.../pancasila.html

[Samuian]

simply put "what goes round comes round" in this life.if you do good things,the good things you do will come back to you.if you do bad things but repent(in my beliefs)and not do the bad things again you will be forgiven(in other words your sins of the past will be wiped away.

Agreed!

Just look around and analyze it, not with any specific filter, just watch, not much else did (imho) the "enlightened ones", the rishis, the "seers"!

I have particular interesting person in my life, this person is wondering, why?

It's easy and clearly to see, stomps on other peoples life, feelings, subject itself to all forms of greed, can be very warmhearted, but most of the time isstrugling to take somehow advantge of people around.

It's sad, very sad to watch and see and understand, if I bring the subject up, all there is ego driven anger and accusations of how all the others are bad, liars,making false statements and not understanding why...

Sad, very sad!

This person once attended a vipassana course, it did this person much good, but lasted only a few days... and now this person keeps on harming itself..

Karma or Kamma happens NOW almost at an instant, not "tomorrow" or "next life" NOW!

Yesterday has gone... and tomorrow never comes!

if it has come - it will be NOW - always!

As for this truth there is not much else to do, say and desirable then the realization of the virtues of the eighfold path may that be of Buddhist doctrine or the one laid out by Patanjali, which I personally embrace!

Cause it leads the student directly to exercise yama -> niyama -> asana -> pranayama -> pratyahara -> dharana -> samadhi

I dare to assume that this was the original "hindu" practice of leading a spiritual life and been adopted by the school of "Buddhism" as the Puranas already mention the "Buddha" as the ninth avatara!

And besides, regarding "teachers" and false or tainted doctrines, there is the Concept of the "Jagatguru" the omnipresent "teacher" which doesn't need to be in any form, dressed in certain robes, uttering specific sutras, mantras and the like, substance or body, it will manifest where ever, whenever needed, or better "is seen and understood".

This has been used as a "title" as well in worldly concepts, but as the "Picture of Sri Krishna is drawn in the Bhagavat Gita, teaching Arjuna" makes a good example for deeper understanding of the universal, unmanifested, omnipresent "teacher" (Achariya/Ajarn) who isn't tied and can't be tied to ANY specific place, temple, attributes, manifestations, thought, doctrine or otherwise, isn't tied to nationality, not to language, either!

But there for everyone, anytime, everywhere!

The Supermind referred to as the infinite unitary truth-consciousness or truth-idea simultaneously transcendent and immanent to planes of matter, life, and mind. Supermind is the dynamic form of satcitananda (being-consciousness-bliss), and the necessary conduit, mediator or linkage between satcitananda and the manifest creation.

source:

Wasn't it "Na itti, na itty" - "not this, nor that?

Don't be intrigued, but watch it. Whereas, if I recognize that I am crude without wanting to change, without trying to become sensitive, if I begin to understand what crudeness is, observe it in my life from day to day—the greedy way I eat, the roughness with which I treat people, the pride, the arrogance, the coarseness of my habits and thoughts—then that very observation transforms what is. Similarly, if I am stupid and I say I must become intelligent, the effort to become intelligent is only a greater form of stupidity; because what is important is to understand stupidity. However much I may try to become intelligent, my stupidity will remain. I may acquire the superficial polish of learning, I may be able to quote books, repeat passages from great authors, but basically I shall still be stupid. But if I see and understand stupidity as it expresses itself in my daily life—how I behave towards my servant, how I regard my neighbor, the poor man, the rich man, the clerk—then that very awareness brings about a breaking up of stupidity.

- Jiddhu Krishnamurti -

for the answer about "clubs" of this kind is to be found in there!

Edited February 3, 2009 by Samuian

[ourmaninbangers]

One of my colleagues recently gave me a book and CD called "The Ordination" which she got from Wat Dhammakaya. It's quite a handy little guide to ordination, although there is some mention of "guardian deities" and "angels."

I noticed it was published by a group called "The Writers and Thinkers for World Peace, Moral Development thru Education Foundation" so I took a look at their website at http://www.bdvision.net/html/eng_version.html .

The site features some questions with answers supposedly from a Buddhist perspective. One of the questions is "What will be the result of giving up drinking but still going to pubs?" and you really have to read the whole answer to believe it.

It points out that with regard to students, "Going to the pubs usually causes them to have sexual relations with prostitutes working there."

Part of the answer is a story related by the Buddha's disciple Ananda about a previous life in which he had "immoral sexual relations with many women." To cut a long story short, Ananda gets reborn mutiple times as a good looking male monkey, and female monkeys get jealous and bite his pecker off (must have been Thai monkeys). Then he gets reborn as a good looking male donkey who doesn't get much work done because of all the attention from female donkeys (it's the females' fault, of course), so his owner castrates him.

Finally, someone - it isn't clear who - says, "According to Lord Buddha's teachings, if persons who did wrong like me but never made merit by giving alms to Phra Pajjeka Buddha, they would have to be born as gays or lesbians or prostitutes about 500 lives later. When the penalty became dilute, they would be born as women who had unfaithful husbands so many lives. And then 500 lives more, they became the women who had happy family as general people we've seen. Finally, they could return to be men. But if male persons still behave unfaithful sexual relation or go to pubs or go wenching, eventually they have to return to such cycle again."

So there you go, guys - if you go to pubs but don't make merit you'll get your dick bitten off by angry monkeys and come back as a gay, a lesbian or a hooker for 500 lives!

karma is a kind of nice theory- and most Buddhists are very nice people

but that's all it is,

and all it will ever be, and a convenient tool for controlling the masses, like most religion's( yes, I know it isn't I'm using a word tool) it appeals to the weak

by offering hope, it does have some nice parts to it, but please do not buy into the hype

giving alm's, 4 faced whatever... 500 live's, etc, etc, its all nonsense, the funny thing is that people really deep down know this( that is why I'll probably get some angry reply)

do not willingly hand over the power inside you like this to all this mambo-jumbo

[Samuian]

...........edited....

do not willingly hand over the power inside you like this to all this mambo-jumbo

Agreed, clear cut, nothin' to be added, i like simple solutions!

[camerata]

"The basic premise of kamma is simple — that skillful intentions lead to favorable results, and unskillful ones to unfavorable results..."

See Thanissaro's Wings to Awakening.

[phetaroi]

karma is a kind of nice theory- and most Buddhists are very nice people but that's all it is, and all it will ever be, and a convenient tool for controlling the masses, like most religion's (yes, I know it isn't I'm using a word tool) it appeals to the weak by offering hope, it does have some nice parts to it, but please do not buy into the hype giving alm's, 4 faced whatever... 500 live's, etc, etc, its all nonsense, the funny thing is that people really deep down know this( that is why I'll probably get some angry reply) do not willingly hand over the power inside you like this to all this mambo-jumbo

I don't get angry at people who have the opinion you've stated, providing they're not forcing their view on me. I think you're failing to recognize several issues when you say that Buddhism (which is what this forum is about) is "a convenient tool for controlling the masses." First, is there anything wrong with some control? Isn't a lack of control by the masses pure anarchy? I actually worry that there are some signs of a lack of self-control popping up in mindless demonstrations (not all demonstrations are mindless) and what I see as a change from too much mai pben rai to no mai pben rai in, for example, Thai politics.

Second, I think Buddhism is much different than Western religions in terms of proselytizing, which again makes it a world apart in terms of controlling the masses. Here in the States no one has ever knocked on my door preaching Buddhism to me. Or stopped me at a shopping center and done so. When in Thailand (and soon to be retiring in Thailand), no one has ever "preached Buddhism at me" anywhere I have ever gone...even when I have visited a temple (something I do daily when in the country). No one, even in a predominantly Buddhist country...has ever told me I will go to very bad heck (we're not supposed to write the bad word in this forum) or have negative karma now or later or in the next lifetime if I do something bad.

I have to go and seek out such discussions. They are not foisted upon me. So where exactly is the attempt to control the masses by Buddhism? Particularly in a religion (yes, I think it is a religion) or philosophy where so much is left to the individual's logic, rather than a 10 Commandments type of religion.

To be honest, your point of view has become rather a cliche by those who do not like organized religions...although I don't see Buddhism as being quite so organized. And, there's nothing wrong with cliches...we all use them when convenient to a discussion. You say that karma is a nice theory. Your view is just as much a theory. Neither viewpoint can be proven or disproven.

And. what exactly...and I mean EXACTLY...is "the power inside you." Sounds like pretty much of a theory to me. And what if "the power inside me" leads me to Buddhism...or Catholicism...or Hinduism...or...well, you get the point.

Here's my point in a Reader's Digest version...every post in this forum, including yours and mine...ought to begin with, "In my opinion," because there are few, if any, definitive answers.

[LoveBug]

May I know what Buddhist text tells that story about Ananda's past lives as a monkey and a donkey?

[camerata]

It seems our problem is, how do we eventually know what is skillful and what isn't?

The karmic consequences of giving away alcohol is one example.

Ajahn Brahm says if we are confused about the precepts we can reduce them to "Don't harm others and don't harm yourself." That can logically be extended to "Don't cause anyone to harm others or themselves."

[SeerObserver]

There are differing interpretations and translations of the 5th precept on intoxication, from total abstinence to drinking in moderation. The Pali itself is ambiguous with the qualifying correlative 'which lead to carelessness,' the obvious comment being that a drink or two doesn't necessarily lead to carelessness. One could also argue that coffee and tea -- commonly consumed by monks -- are also intoxicants that may lead to carelessness.

Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami

I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/.../pancasila.html

As this is written, it would appear to mean that if a substance is of a nature that its use leads to carelessness, it is not to be ingested. This is different from ingestion in moderation but not to the point of carelessness.

By this stricter interpretation, ingestion would then be breaking a precept, and so enabling/encouraging ingestion would also be a wrong act.

I've heard the caffeine argument before. I'm interested to know what people think about this and other stimulants, and where a line would have to be drawn. Or are they not to be ingested at all either?

Edited February 5, 2009 by SeerObserver

[phetaroi]

As this is written, it would appear to mean that if a substance is of a nature that its use leads to carelessness, it is not to be ingested. This is different from ingestion in moderation but not to the point of carelessness.

By this stricter interpretation, ingestion would then be breaking a precept, and so enabling/encouraging ingestion would also be a wrong act.

I've heard the caffeine argument before. I'm interested to know what people think about this and other stimulants, and where a line would have to be drawn. Or are they not to be ingested at all either?

My impression has always been that the logical path in all things is non-extremism...the so-called middle path. That there should be a focus in between extreme indulgence and austerity.

In his first sermon, I thought Buddha talked about avoiding "addiction to indulgence of sense-pleasures." I have one caffeine drink in the morning, but none the rest of the day. I wouldn't say that is addiction, anymore than my one dessert at night is. I don't drink alcohol, but my father was an alcoholic. Therefore, to me there is an extreme difference if I choose to have a drink at dinner, as compared to my father who drank more than a fifth of Black Velvet a day. Clearly, my father had an addiction to "indulgence of sense-pleasures"...not just alcohol, but also up to 5 packs of cigarettes per day.

It was also my impression that Buddha spoke to ascetics about avoiding severe austerities.

[rockyysdt]

It seems Wat Thammakai and the Dhammakaya Foundation have been very successful at mass marketing, both in methodology and content, eg, teaching that there is a permanent atta (soul) that lives in nibbana for eternity (or put another way, nibbana contains atta, and Dhammakaya is also atta), a notion that has always worked well for the propagation of Mahayana Buddhism, relative to Theravada.

Sabaijai.

Didn't the Buddha refrain from what enlightenment is, but only described it as "permanent & unconditioned"?

We already agree the atta (ego or self) is impermanent & conditioned.

In Buddhism isn't soul quite possible & fits into the concept of "permanent & unconditioned"?

Could the soul be the "permanent & unconditioned" & may be individual when associated with a non enlightened entity & reunited with the whole when the associated entity becomes enlightened?

If there is no soul or something which exists behind our ego then what is there?

Are we an impermanent & conditioned entity exclusively there for the experience of a fragment of the "permanent & unconditioned" which is temporarily asleep to its reality and awakens when the host becomes enlightened.

If only a spark carrying our accumulated khamma & last thought at death is carried to new life, then, in reality don't we we expire & the so called reincarnation is not us at all but some kind of fascimile of us.

If so then we are mortal & upon death will expire for eternity.

If Dhammakaya's model is wrong what is your model?

In particular what is behind the ego or self (atta) and is this individual or universal?

If it's universal, permanent & unconditioned & unknown to us, then what is it's relationship to us given that when we die (ego or self) it will be for eternity?

Edited June 29, 2009 by rockyysdt

[jumnien]

ok but why would i feel guilty?if i knew he did not drink alcohol i would not give it too him.what about personal responsibility of the person receiving this gift?am sorry i know i am looking at this from just a commonsense point of view and not a religious perspective which maybe a little off topic.

I agree. If I knew someone was an alcoholic or in some way irresponsible or impressionable then my giving that person alchohol would create nagative kamma for me, in the wrong hands alchohol can be very distructive.

If alcohol were somehow "sinful" or "evil" in some way then why did I have it in my possession in the first place?

The 5th precept is a training rule rather than a commandment, if in doubt keep away from it but a little wine over a shared meal with decent people is hardly anything to be concerned about, nor is giving it as a gift.

I have to say I tend to agree with you, but it's a dangerous rationalization to make. Once you go down that road, then the training rule against inappropriate sex isn't really a commandment and a "rub and a tug" at the local massage parlor isn't really sex, as verified by Bill Clinton.

[sabaijai]

It seems Wat Thammakai and the Dhammakaya Foundation have been very successful at mass marketing, both in methodology and content, eg, teaching that there is a permanent atta (soul) that lives in nibbana for eternity (or put another way, nibbana contains atta, and Dhammakaya is also atta), a notion that has always worked well for the propagation of Mahayana Buddhism, relative to Theravada.

Sabaijai.

Didn't the Buddha refrain from what enlightenment is, but only described it as "permanent & unconditioned"?

We already agree the atta (ego or self) is impermanent & conditioned.

In Buddhism isn't soul quite possible & fits into the concept of "permanent & unconditioned"?

Could the soul be the "permanent & unconditioned" & may be individual when associated with a non enlightened entity & reunited with the whole when the associated entity becomes enlightened?

If there is no soul or something which exists behind our ego then what is there?

Are we an impermanent & conditioned entity exclusively there for the experience of a fragment of the "permanent & unconditioned" which is temporarily asleep to its reality and awakens when the host becomes enlightened.

If only a spark carrying our accumulated khamma & last thought at death is carried to new life, then, in reality don't we we expire & the so called reincarnation is not us at all but some kind of fascimile of us.

If so then we are mortal & upon death will expire for eternity.

If Dhammakaya's model is wrong what is your model?

In particular what is behind the ego or self (atta) and is this individual or universal?

If it's universal, permanent & unconditioned & unknown to us, then what is it's relationship to us given that when we die (ego or self) it will be for eternity?

I don't know the answer to that question, when I really think about it. Something experiences nibbana, or something *is* nibbana, but I don't know what it is.

One problem in elucidating the point is that the two terms, Pali 'atta' and English 'soul,' don't mean the same thing. So when you say there's a soul that lives on, you can't mean 'atta' in the Buddhist context, since nibbana is anatta (non-atta). 'Soul' in Pali is usually translated viññána, which is the fifth khandas that arises and falls with objects met at the sense-doors. Also translated 'consciousness,' it's anything but permanent.

This short Q&A might help:

http://www.supawangreen.in.th/forum/viewto...83950d0887b37f2

[rockyysdt]

I don't know the answer to that question, when I really think about it. Something experiences nibbana, or something *is* nibbana, but I don't know what it is.

One problem in elucidating the point is that the two terms, Pali 'atta' and English 'soul,' don't mean the same thing. So when you say there's a soul that lives on, you can't mean 'atta' in the Buddhist context, since nibbana is anatta (non-atta). 'Soul' in Pali is usually translated viññána, which is the fifth khandas that arises and falls with objects met at the sense-doors. Also translated 'consciousness,' it's anything but permanent.

This short Q&A might help:

http://www.supawangreen.in.th/forum/viewto...83950d0887b37f2

Thanks SJ.

This lead was interesting & indicated that there is something far greater than what we refer to as consciousness.

Other than referring to it as "innocent perception" & an absolute unconditioned state, no description is given other than through self experience.

How much practice should one devote before they can experience glimpses of "innocent perception"?

Have you experienced this in your many years of practice?

Would it answer my earlier questions?

[Xangsamhua]

It seems Wat Thammakai and the Dhammakaya Foundation have been very successful at mass marketing, both in methodology and content, eg, teaching that there is a permanent atta (soul) that lives in nibbana for eternity (or put another way, nibbana contains atta, and Dhammakaya is also atta), a notion that has always worked well for the propagation of Mahayana Buddhism, relative to Theravada.

I know this discussion goes back three years now, but I was curious at your suggestion that atta, "a permanent .. soul that lives in nibbana for eternity" is a Mahayana notion. I had understood the opposite, that anatta is a core teaching in Mahayana and that the dispute between the Yogacara and the Madhyamaka schools was over whether there is in fact some kind of irreducible substratum or that all things are contingent on each other without any original cause. (See Paul Williams, Buddhist Thought, Routledge 2000: 140-160.)

To save time and effort (I'm supposed to be working), can I simply quote from a web forum to clarify the matter a bit?

Mahayana does not go further than "emptiness of atta", but rather, it understands atta\atman differently. It interprets atta more broadly as "identity" (applying to both personal object, that is, people, and impersonal objects, like chunks of rock) rather than simply narrowly as "personhood" (applying only to people, to sentient beings). So, anatta in Mahayana is a "lack of intrinsic identity of anything" (a rejection of svabhava, literally own-being or own-existence), whereas Theravadins interpret anatta as the mere non-existence of personhood, and their Abhidhamma is more or less materialistic and realist in treating mental qualities as derivatives of the four physical elements (earth, fire, air, water), which are paramatha, or "ultimate". It would be a distortion to conflate the Mahayana position with nihilism or non-realism.

So, for a Theravadin, anatta means, "I have no self\soul\personhood\status as an agent. You have no self, etc.. We have no self.. Nobody has a self, etc.. The self's existence is not exactly rejected, but no self can be found anywhere, so it cannot be said to exist." For a Mahayanist, anatta means, "I have no self, etc.," but this means, "I have no self-nature," and so, also, "Tree has no tree-nature. Rock has no rock-nature. Television has no television-nature. America has no America-nature" etc.. Everything completely lacks intrinsic identity.

One Mahayana cosmology illustrates its notion of emptiness and its distinction from non-realism by means of an analogy: Indra's net. Indra's net is described as a net of jewels which stretches out infinitely in all directions. Each jewel has no color of its own. Each jewel's bright glowing color is merely a reflection of every other jewel in the net.

This is a description of what it means to say that the world is empty: No sentient being, but also no object at all, has any identity of its own, no independent existence. This is because of dependent-origination; all existence is causally dependent (an "independent" causal force is the definition of an agent, a self). Each object, whether it's a sentient being or not, is impermanent and is defined by an infinite set of causal relations among which a beginning or end cannot be found -- like a single jewel among a never-ending sea of jewels, which each reflects one another.

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1553

[sabaijai]

Xangsamhua, fair enough. Even within Mahayana schools, there is plenty of room for interpretation. In the quote about tree-nature, TV-nature, etc I don't see any difference at all from the Theravada view though. Sati doesn't perceive a tree, it sees dhammas shared by all things existing.

Rocky,

How much practice should one devote before they can experience glimpses of "innocent perception"?

That's one of the most common questions one hears from fellow practitioners towards the middle or end of an intensive satipatthana retreat, 'how long?' As long as it takes, is the only answer. Forever is not enough

Have you experienced this in your many years of practice?

I don't know if it's 'innocent perception' or not, but what the Tipitaka and my teachers have called sati has arisen, and exposed nama-rupa. It doesn't seem as much related to practice in the sense of meditation as much as it relates to seeing the dhamma, the four noble truths, for yourself. It's worth any amount of time you have to put in, whether 10 minutes or 10,000 years.

I think most Buddhists focus less on definitions of self, atta, nibbana, etc with advancing practice. You eventually realise that you've entertained most of them intellectually and none have borne much fruit. The entertaining has to be passed through, but in the end you often find it can keep you from the real work of finding out for yourself what the mind is. Not that you give it up altogether (although many do).

I don't know what self is and I don't know what experiences nibbana. I don't think any of us here know this. One could say 'I'll let you know when I find out,' but the Buddha and thousands of commentators have already done that, and all it seems to prove is that you have to find out for yourself You gotta empty the cup before you can fill it, as Ajahn Chah once said.

[rockyysdt]

Rocky,

How much practice should one devote before they can experience glimpses of "innocent perception"?

That's one of the most common questions one hears from fellow practitioners towards the middle or end of an intensive satipatthana retreat, 'how long?' As long as it takes, is the only answer. Forever is not enough

It's a pity it is so difficult to achieve.

The downside is that to grow we must commit our lives to appropriate practices and deny ourselves of many aspects of life including rewards via our senses. Experiences which many will say are lifes rewards. Naturally we suffer pain, but without it there can't be joy & pleasure.

Although an illusion, our consciousness is all that we know.

The alternative (only proven through self experience) may either never come or take so long it may as well be never.

So long in fact that it may bridge countless reincarnations, each of which are separate impermanent & conditioned entities with the only thing in common being the spark & kamma from the previous.

In terms of the entity we call self (ego, body) it appears in vain as we will die for eternity because we are conditioned & impermanent.

There doesn't appear to be any benefit for us. Only for another reality which hides, is unconditioned & permanent, & appears not to be at risk due to its attributes.

Just expressing disappointment about wanting to achieve something, the odds of which appear overwhelming.

It also means that proving the Buddhas claims through self experience won't happen even for dedicated practitioners.

Have you experienced this in your many years of practice?

I don't know if it's 'innocent perception' or not, but what the Tipitaka and my teachers have called sati has arisen, and exposed nama-rupa.

I know nama-rupa means mind and matter. What is meant by it having arisen in you?

How would you describe your experience of it & how does it affect you?

Edited July 1, 2009 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

With the right attitude I don't think it's that difficult to achieve at least sotapanna, 'stream-enterer.' As the Buddha said:

"Now I say this, Nigrodha: Whatever discerning persons come to me who are honest, open and straightforward -- I will instruct them, I will teach them Dhamma. If they practice in accordance with what is taught, in this very life, within seven years, they will enter on and abide in, know and experience for themselves that unsurpassed culmination of the religious life for the sake of which a person of good family rightly goes forth from the homelife into homelessness. Let alone seven years -- six years; let alone six years -- five years . . . a fortnight; let alone a fortnight -- in seven days they will know and experience this for themselves."

(D.III,55)

Sati apprehends simple ordinary reality without conceptualization. It apprehends the attributes of things rather than their identity, which is a construct that comes about with nama, ie, the attributes are rupa and the mental responses to them are nama. Sati sees each for what they are and nothing more. Objects don’t have the same solidity or continuity when seen by sati, they are fleeting realities arising and falling away rapidly.

A chair falls over, the sound characteristic enters the sense door and creates hearing via nama. Without nama, no ‘hearing.’ To paraphrase an old saw, if a chair falls in the room and there is no nama, there is no hearing. But is there a chair if there is nama? Not with sati, only sound (rupa) and mentality (name), together creating ‘chair’, ‘hearing,’ ‘room’ and a whole host of concepts.

Sati sees a rupa in a chair, eg hardness, and it also sees nama, eg the mind’s tagging of that hardness.

My telling you what it feels like, after the fact, would only be nama-rupa. Nama-rupa can't tell you what it's like for sati to expose them. But in this way Buddhadhamma is confirmed, and it will drag your kicking, screaming, procrastinating, excuse-making ego towards the inevitable. How long it takes depends on how much screaming and procrastinating you put up, I would say.

[rockyysdt]

in seven days they will know and experience this for themselves."

(D.III,55)

My telling you what it feels like, after the fact, would only be nama-rupa. Nama-rupa can't tell you what it's like for sati to expose them. But in this way Buddhadhamma is confirmed, and it will drag your kicking, screaming, procrastinating, excuse-making ego towards the inevitable. How long it takes depends on how much screaming and procrastinating you put up, I would say.

Thanks for the encouragement & inspiration SJ.

I'll use it to combat my procrastinating ego.