The ultimate purpose of Buddhist-style meditation practices

[nongai]

Don't forget that it is very easy to fall into rebirth in the four lower realms where suffering is extreme and prolonged. we cannot be certain to have human rebirth unless we pass to one of the four Noble stages.

When the Buddha admonished his monks to practice to escape rebirth he said that the main reason for rebirth and suffering was ignorance. Ignorance of the truth, about the three characteristics of conditioned existence.... Dukkha, Aniga, Anatta ... suffering, impermanence & non-self, and the three mind states... Moha, Loha, Dosa, Anger/ill will, greed & ignorance.

[trd]

Vincent, what you call unsatisfactoriness is a better and more accurate translation of dukkha.

If Buddhism says that nothing permanent exists, then if you are not reborn that suggests extinction. Buddhism is therefore nihilistic. If it is not nihilistic then what you are is unborn and therefore you have a permanent existence outside mind and body. Buddha actually said this in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra where he redressed the balance of non Self doctrine.

"The Self (ātman) is reality (tattva), the Self is permanent (nitya), the Self is virtue (guna), the Self is eternal (śāśvatā), the Self is stable (dhruva), the Self is peace (siva)."

That is not dissimilar to what Vedanta would say. I don't know what Theravadins would make of this.

[camerata]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[VincentRJ]

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

I think you are still hung up on the idea that dukkha has to be 'suffering' in the sense of severe pain or is otherwise 'unsatisfactoriness' that is so minor it's hardly worth mentioning.

No. I've always understood that suffering is a general term that covers everything from extreme pain to mild discomfort.

I get a sense that many people in today's societies experience an exaggeration of milder forms of suffering as a result of the influence of the 'nanny state', where fear of trivial things is constantly mentioned, resulting in some people suffering from OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), as an example.

OCD is not an either/nor situation, just like suffering is not either/nor, but a matter of degree. There are some people with extreme OCD who insist on washing their hand 6 times on every occasion, or cleaning their house every day without exception.

There are others with a milder form of OCD who might not even be aware of the condition that afflicts them They think they are just behaving normally.

I think Buddhist teachings could help such people.

[VincentRJ]

Buddha actually said this in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra where he redressed the balance of non Self doctrine.

Crikey! I'll have to read this long Sutra before I reply.

[trd]

Buddha actually said this in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra where he redressed the balance of non Self doctrine.

Crikey! I'll have to read this long Sutra before I reply.

I suggest you start with this.

http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/jan_june2010/pdf/Page_47.pdf

Interestingly the revered Maha Boowa subscribed to this view. From that document:

Maha Boowa is a famed Thai Buddhist meditation master who belongs to the Forest Monk tradition of Thai Theravada Buddhism. His teachings are notable for being more affirmative of a positive, enduring Reality than is often found in Theravada Buddhism. He calls this deathless essence in all people and creatures the indwelling Dhamma (Truth) or citta – the heart or mind. Reminiscent of tathāgata-garbha doctrine, Maha Boowa tells of how this heart is led astray by kilesas (mental defilements), and of how we thus fail to be what we in fact are – our ‘true self’.

[camerata]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[trd]

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

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

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

Stephen Hawking has since proved to the physics community that all information entering a black hole is not lost and is emitted from a singularity as "Hawking radiation" named after him.

[nongai]

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

So they must be somehwere...

[camerata]

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

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

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

[camerata]

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

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

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

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

[camerata]

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

So they must be somehwere...

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

[Brucenkhamen]

If Buddhism says that nothing permanent exists, then if you are not reborn that suggests extinction. Buddhism is therefore nihilistic.

I don't think stating nothing permanent exists is nihilism, just because something lacks permanence does not mean it lacks meaning or value. The point of the Buddhas teaching here is conditionality, everything arises and passes away according to causes and conditions not random chaos, the point of morality and practice is to generate positive causes and conditions not just for us as individuals but for society as a whole. So instead of looking for some kernel of permanence that we can cling to in order to feel better we embrace change, the changing nature of things is not our enemy.

That is not dissimilar to what Vedanta would say. I don't know what Theravadins would make of this.

Comparitive religion instead of a sermon, I'm liking this change of approach.

[Brucenkhamen]

Crikey! I'll have to read this long Sutra before I reply.

You didn't have any plans for the rest of the year did you?

[Brucenkhamen]

Personally, I don't find this article very convincing.

I'm with you, but Luangta has a colourful way of saying things at times that can easily be taken as not consistent with the suttas.

I'll try and do a bit more digging when I have time, I think this is the only real smoking gun from that article though "the true power of the cittas own nature is that it knows and does not die." and in the same book "But since the essential knowing nature of the citta never dies".

However looking at theses excerpts from the same book are more in line with the suttas...

One moment after another from the day of our birth to the present, the khandhas have risen and fallen away continuously. On their own, they have no real substance and it is impossible to find any. The cittas interpretation of these phenomena lends them a semblance of personal reality. The citta clings to them as the essence of oneself, or as ones own personal property. This misconception creates a self-identity that becomes a burden heavier than an entire mountain, a burden that the citta carries within itself without gaining any benefit. Dukkha is its only reward for a misconceived attachment fostered by self-delusion.

Every conventional realityno matter how refined it is or how bright and majestic it seemsinvariably manifests some irregular symptoms. These are sufficient to catch the cittas attention and make it search for a solution. Both the very refined sukha and dukkha that arise exclusively within the citta, and the amazing radiance that emanates from it, have their origin in avijja. But since we have never before encountered them, we are deluded into grasping at them when we first investigate this point. We are lulled into a sound sleep by avijja, believing that the subtle feelings of satisfaction and shining radiance are our true essence beyond name and form. Oblivious to our mistake, we accept this majestic citta, complete with avijja, as our one true self.

The self as reference point, which is the essence of avijja, remains integrated into the cittas knowing nature. This is the genuine avijja. Ones self is the real impediment at that moment. As soon as it disintegrates and disappears, no more impediments remain. Everything is empty: the external world is empty, and the interior of the citta is empty. As in the case of a person in an empty room, we can only truly say that the room is empty when the person leaves the room. The citta that has gained a comprehensive understanding of all external matters, and all matters pertaining to itself, this citta is said to be totally empty. True emptiness occurs when every single trace of conventional reality has disappeared from the citta.

All allusions to oneself, to the true essence of ones being refer specifically to this genuine avijja. They indicate that it is still intact. All investigations are done for its sake. This self is what knows; this self is what understands. This self is radiant, light and happy. I and minethe genuine avijja lies here. Everything is done for its sake. Once it finally disintegrates, so too does the personal perspective. Things are still done, but not for anyones sake.

[trd]

If Buddhism says that nothing permanent exists, then if you are not reborn that suggests extinction. Buddhism is therefore nihilistic.

I don't think stating nothing permanent exists is nihilism, just because something lacks permanence does not mean it lacks meaning or value. The point of the Buddhas teaching here is conditionality, everything arises and passes away according to causes and conditions not random chaos, the point of morality and practice is to generate positive causes and conditions not just for us as individuals but for society as a whole. So instead of looking for some kernel of permanence that we can cling to in order to feel better we embrace change, the changing nature of things is not our enemy.

That is not dissimilar to what Vedanta would say. I don't know what Theravadins would make of this.

Comparitive religion instead of a sermon, I'm liking this change of approach.

I don't believe Buddha's teachings are nihilistic. I was presenting a possible view which is not mine. I totally agree with what you have written here about changing phenomena.

[VincentRJ]

Crikey! I'll have to read this long Sutra before I reply.

You didn't have any plans for the rest of the year did you?

I certainly do. My life consists of a constant choice of priorities, despite being officially retired. A few years ago I bought a Kindle with a large screen, so I could avail myself of the vast supply of free classics on the Project Gutenberg site.

I've now also accumulated a number of works on Buddhism, but I simply don't have the time to read most of them, including lots of e-books on philosophy and literature classics.

I also have a 5 acre property to maintain in my retirement. I prefer to keep fit by working on my property, rather than sitting on a bicycle in the living room, or lifting weights in a gym.

I try to do everything in moderation; a bit of exercise in the garden; a bit of jogging for the aerobic benefits; a bit of reading; a bit of communication on internet forums; a bit of charity work; a bit of research on topics such as Buddhism and Climate Change; and so on.

I practice the Middle Way.

[trd]

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

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

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

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

Yes, Buddha would have objected to the idea of Being experienced by a self. The self with a small s is the person, but if you try and find this person you will never find it. Everywhere you look is not the self which is the true meaning of anatta, not that there is something called a not self. In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra what is referred to as the Self with a big S also means Being, which knows itself without the intermediary of another self to experience it. In vedanta, chit (sanskrit) and in Buddhism, citta (pali) are essentially the same and describe individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being. We have to be careful and recognize that language always imposes duality on the subject. For, instance does saying "arises from" or "prior to" even mean anything when we talk about that which is without form.

[nongai]

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

So they must be somehwere...

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

The recently late Luang Por Jaran (Arahant) told of his being taught by an Arahant who had died hundreds of years before, and was also one of those Thai monks who returned Buddhism to Sri Lankha. Also he met Somdet Toh and other famous monks after they had passed on.

One descoption of Nibbana i liked was that it is as if a drop of water returns to the ocean, but retains its identity as a seperate drop.

[Brucenkhamen]

I practice the Middle Way.

If I may make an observation I think probably you are mostly thinking about, reading about, and discussing the middle way.

In order to practice it one needs to suspend these to a certain extent and just get aquainted with the mind as it is.

[Brucenkhamen]

Yes, Buddha would have objected to the idea of Being experienced by a self. The self with a small s is the person, but if you try and find this person you will never find it. Everywhere you look is not the self which is the true meaning of anatta, not that there is something called a not self. In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra what is referred to as the Self with a big S also means Being, which knows itself without the intermediary of another self to experience it. In vedanta, chit (sanskrit) and in Buddhism, citta (pali) are essentially the same and describe individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being. We have to be careful and recognize that language always imposes duality on the subject. For, instance does saying "arises from" or "prior to" even mean anything when we talk about that which is without form.

At least you are now out of the awareness closet and doing full blown theism.

Could you provide a quote from the early Buddhist texts (ie the Suttas or Agamas) where the Buddha says citta arises out of Being (Brahman, True Self, God, or any other names one might like to euphemise it by).

It never ceases to amaze me how followers of other spiritual paths try to retrofit their ideas onto Buddhism, like it lends legitimacy or something.

While the Buddha never explicitly denied the God concept I think its pretty clear its not central; to his path, and this is a significant point of difference from other paths.

Wikipedia appears to be well aware of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman#Buddhist_understanding_of_Brahman and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions#Buddhism

From the Tevijja Sutta..

"A young brahmin called Vasettha once went to see Gotama. "This is the only straight path," he declared, "the path of salvation that leads one who follows it to union with Brahma [God], as is taught by brahmin Pokkharasati!" Gotama asked him whether any brahmin had ever seen Brahma face-to-face. Since God is invisible and unknowable, Vasettha was obliged to reply: "No." In that case, countered Gotama, any claim about a path that leads to union with Brahma must be groundless. "Just as a file of blind men go on, clinging to each other, and the first one sees nothing, the middle sees nothing, and the last one sees nothing, so it is with the talk of these brahmins. Their talk is laughable, mere words, empty and vain."

And from Bhante Sujato https://sujato.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/why-we-can-be-certain-that-god-doesnt-exist/

[trd]

Yes, Buddha would have objected to the idea of Being experienced by a self. The self with a small s is the person, but if you try and find this person you will never find it. Everywhere you look is not the self which is the true meaning of anatta, not that there is something called a not self. In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra what is referred to as the Self with a big S also means Being, which knows itself without the intermediary of another self to experience it. In vedanta, chit (sanskrit) and in Buddhism, citta (pali) are essentially the same and describe individuated consciousness which is impermanent, which arises from Being. We have to be careful and recognize that language always imposes duality on the subject. For, instance does saying "arises from" or "prior to" even mean anything when we talk about that which is without form.

At least you are now out of the awareness closet and doing full blown theism.

Could you provide a quote from the early Buddhist texts (ie the Suttas or Agamas) where the Buddha says citta arises out of Being (Brahman, True Self, God, or any other names one might like to euphemise it by).

It never ceases to amaze me how followers of other spiritual paths try to retrofit their ideas onto Buddhism, like it lends legitimacy or something.

While the Buddha never explicitly denied the God concept I think its pretty clear its not central; to his path, and this is a significant point of difference from other paths.

Wikipedia appears to be well aware of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman#Buddhist_understanding_of_Brahman and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions#Buddhism

From the Tevijja Sutta..

"A young brahmin called Vasettha once went to see Gotama. "This is the only straight path," he declared, "the path of salvation that leads one who follows it to union with Brahma [God], as is taught by brahmin Pokkharasati!" Gotama asked him whether any brahmin had ever seen Brahma face-to-face. Since God is invisible and unknowable, Vasettha was obliged to reply: "No." In that case, countered Gotama, any claim about a path that leads to union with Brahma must be groundless. "Just as a file of blind men go on, clinging to each other, and the first one sees nothing, the middle sees nothing, and the last one sees nothing, so it is with the talk of these brahmins. Their talk is laughable, mere words, empty and vain."

And from Bhante Sujato https://sujato.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/why-we-can-be-certain-that-god-doesnt-exist/

How do you get to the notion of theism from what I have written? You know I really have no idea what you are talking about.

[Brucenkhamen]

How do you get to the notion of theism from what I have written? You know I really have no idea what you are talking about.

What is Being with a capital B? ie how does it differ from being with a small b?

[trd]

How do you get to the notion of theism from what I have written? You know I really have no idea what you are talking about.

What is Being with a capital B? ie how does it differ from being with a small b?

One starts with B and the other starts with b. That's the only difference. As a practising Buddhist you really have some issues you need to resolve don't You?

[Brucenkhamen]

One starts with B and the other starts with b. That's the only difference. As a practising Buddhist you really have some issues you need to resolve don't You?

I shouldn't have to teach you English grammar.

We usually only capitalise a word like being when referring to one specific being, without a capital b could refer to one or many beings or a state of being.

Which did you intend? I don't see how maintaining the ambiguity further adds anything to the discussion.

[VincentRJ]

I practice the Middle Way.

If I may make an observation I think probably you are mostly thinking about, reading about, and discussing the middle way.

In order to practice it one needs to suspend these to a certain extent and just get aquainted with the mind as it is.

Actually, I devote my time to a number of different activities. However, my circumstances are such that I'm reluctant to spend much time sitting still, meditating, essentially doing nothing, although I do spend some time like that.

I prefer to practice my meditation through the mindful engagement in simple tasks in the garden (a fairly large garden which takes up quite a lot of time), in a peaceful and natural environment.

This is why I became particularly interested in the Santi Asoke movement when I first read about it, because the members seemed to be practicing what I was already intuitively practicing back in Australia. However, when I visited a Santi Asoke community near Ubon Ratchathani, I was surprised to discover that the monks and nuns did not work in the garden, in case they accidentally killed a worm or insect. But they did engage in other activities to support the community.

I would like to discuss the issue with them at greater length, because I happen to know that there are 'no-till' agricultural techniques that were developed a long time ago, such as Permaculture and Hugelkulture, and that such techniques would greatly reduce the risk of killing a worm.

This is where I see the principle of moderation and the Middle Way being very relevant to the situation. If one takes the principle of not killing any creature whatsoever, to extreme levels, then one would never be able to leave the house. Even if one were to walk down the street very mindfully, paying attention to every step, there is still the possibility that one might crush an ant or some other tiny insect with one's foot. The ant might not be visible because it's under a leaf or a twig on the ground, or it might not be visible because of the monk's failing eyesight.

Now, if I were able to achieve a state of Nirvana, I could return to the Santi Asoke community and teach them about Permaculture and Hugelkulture. They would pay attention to me because my entire being would be radiating a great luminosity.

[trd]

One starts with B and the other starts with b. That's the only difference. As a practising Buddhist you really have some issues you need to resolve don't You?

I shouldn't have to teach you English grammar.

We usually only capitalise a word like being when referring to one specific being, without a capital b could refer to one or many beings or a state of being.

Which did you intend? I don't see how maintaining the ambiguity further adds anything to the discussion.

I see where you are coming from. Being suggests a deity to you. But there is another reason to capitalise the word. Whereas we might agree that your personhood is different from mine in the sense that if you stub your toe then you will feel the pain rather than me, how about being? For me, being is the same as awareness. It is unbounded, undifferentiated and without form. As such can we really speak of being in the same way as individual personhood. Can we say this is my being and this is your being when being is unbounded. So if there is just being it surely conforms to the grammatical rule of capitalization. And there is no need to deify it either.

Please don't reply if you are unable to be respectful and abide by the precepts.

[Brucenkhamen]

I see where you are coming from. Being suggests a deity to you. But there is another reason to capitalise the word. Whereas we might agree that your personhood is different from mine in the sense that if you stub your toe then you will feel the pain rather than me, how about being? For me, being is the same as awareness. It is unbounded, undifferentiated and without form. As such can we really speak of being in the same way as individual personhood. Can we say this is my being and this is your being when being is unbounded. So if there is just being it surely conforms to the grammatical rule of capitalization. And there is no need to deify it either.

At last weve made some progress.

So if I may paraphrase what I think you are saying You believe each of us is a being (self, soul, Being, atman) and the citta / 5 aggregates arises out of this.

If thats the case as a theory I dont see a problem with it from a Buddhist perspective as anicca, dukkha, anatta applies to the 5 aggregates, it forms no part of Buddhist practice as defined in the early texts though.

I cant help but think this theory is inherently dualistic though.

It also appears you dont subscribe to the Wikipedia description Advaita (Sanskrit; not-two, "no second") refers to the idea that the true Self, Atman, is the same as the highest Reality, Brahman. If you dont deify these beings as Brahman.

If Im guessing wrong then dont leave it up to me to guess.

Please don't reply if you are unable to be respectful and abide by the precepts.

Please advise which precepts you consider me to have broken.

[Brucenkhamen]

Actually, I devote my time to a number of different activities. However, my circumstances are such that I'm reluctant to spend much time sitting still, meditating, essentially doing nothing, although I do spend some time like that.

I prefer to practice my meditation through the mindful engagement in simple tasks in the garden (a fairly large garden which takes up quite a lot of time), in a peaceful and natural environment.

I think there is a middle way between theory and practice and we each have to find our own balance.

[camerata]

Please advise which precepts you consider me to have broken.

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

Now, on with the proliferation...