The Search for Nirvana

[camerata]

I just came across this fascinating essay about three early Western Buddhist monastics in Sri Lanka: Nanavira Bhikkhu (known to a few for Clearing the Path), Nanamoli Bhikkhu (known to many for his translation of the Visuddhimagga) and Sister Vajira. Nanavira suffered terribly from amoebiasis, yet he managed to attain stream entry. Later on, though, his medication caused him to develop satyriasis and unable to practise further in this life, he committed suicide in his kuti in the jungle. Nanamoli had already passed away from a heart attack. Sister Vajira had also attained stream entry after reading some of Nanavira's essays, but she then had some kind of nervous breakdown and was deported from Sri Lanka to live an uneventful life in Germany.

The debate over the validity of Nanavira's claim to be a stream entrant had already begun in Sri Lanka before he died. It is an offence deserving expulsion from the order for a bhikkhu to declare himself to have a spiritual attainment that he in fact does not have. Even if he does have the attainment, he is forbidden to tell of it to anyone except a fellow bhikkhu. Nanavira's claim to stream entry was recorded in a letter in a sealed envelope that was only to be opened by the senior bhikkhu of the Island Hermitage in the event of his death. For some reason (perhaps a rumour of suicide?), the letter was opened in 1964 and the contents became known. To defuse the matter, Nanavira spoke openly about it for the first time to a fellow bhikkhu in Colombo, thus letting "this rather awkward cat ... out of the bag."

How does one decide whether another person really is a stream entrant or whether they are deluding themselves? According to the suttas , only an arya can recognise another arya . It would follow, therefore, that only a bona fide arya would have the authority to deny Nanavira's claim. But then the same questions would arise with regard to that person, which would require the authority of yet another bona fide arya , and so on ad infinitum.

Subjectively, however, the attainment of stream entry can be validated by a discernible and definitive psychological change. For upon attaining stream entry three "fetters" (samyojana) disappear for good: (1) views that a self abides either in or apart from the psycho-physical aggregates (sakkaya-ditthi); (2) doubts about the validity of the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, the Training, Conditionality and other key doctrines (vicikiccha); and (3) attachment to the efficacity of mere rules and rituals (silabbata-paramasa). For Nanavira to have made the claim he did implies that he actually experienced the disappearance of these tendencies from his own mind. But only he (or another clairvoyant arya) would have been able to know this. Although his writings bear no trace of these attitudes, that alone would be insufficient evidence to conclude anything about the degree of the author's attainment; for it could reflect merely a commitment to doctrinal orthodoxy.

http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/existence-enlightenment-and-suicide

[Brucenkhamen]

The question I'd ask is what is the purpose of asking such a claim, as opposed to keeping quiet about it, what is to be gained.

The suicide doesn't seem consistent with this.

[VincentRJ]

What a tragic story. If I may summarize it, we have a couple of ex-army friends, Osbert Moore and Harold Musson who meet in a bar one evening, after WWII, share their belief during their discussions that life is a farce and utterly pointless, then decide to travel to Ceylon to become Buddhist monks, having previously spent some time reading about Buddhism.

After practicing meditation for a year, Harold contracted typhoid which resulted in chronic indigestion which was so severe and painful that it interfered with his practice. Some years later, despite the difficulty in practicing because of his medical condition, Harold became convinced that he had achieved the level of 'stream entry' and had become an 'arya'.

As a result of this experience of (at least partial) enlightenment, Harold decided to break off communication with his friend, Osbert, "....because there was no longer anything for me to discuss with him, since the former relationship of parity between us regarding the Dhamma had suddenly come to an end."

Tragically, his friend died suddenly of a heart attack about 8 months later, which would no doubt have caused Harold considerable sorrow as a result of his own decision to cease communication due to his advanced experience of partial enlightenment.

In the year following his stream-entry (1960) Harold began writing a series of "notes." By the summer of 1961 he had finished two such notes, one on "Paticcasamuppada" (conditionality) and one on "Paramattha sacca" (higher truth).

In July of the same year, a German Buddhist nun called Vajira (Hannelore Wolf), who had been in Ceylon since 1955 and since 1959 had been living as a hermit, called on Harold for advice.

As a result of Harold's advice, and his insightful notes which he gave her, the German nun also achieved stream entry, but the rapidity and intensity of the change provoked a kind of nervous breakdown and the Ceylonese authorities deported her to Germany (on February 22, 1962).

Four months after Vajira's deportation, Harold's chronic indigestion (amoebiasis) was further aggravated by satyriasis, the male equivalent of nymphomania, that is, uncontrollable sexual thoughts and desires. His continuing condition of chronic indigestion prevented him from dealing with his sexual problems through the usual method of meditation practice.

About 3 years later, Harold ended his life by putting his head into a cellophane bag containing drops of chloroform.

There's something very dysfunctional about this entire state of affairs. I get a sense of a failure of Buddhist practice in these circumstances, rather than any success which might be attributed to his claimed attainment of Arahatship.

[tifino]

Does this all lead up to why a most senior monk cannot be put up on top of all them cohort monks,

except by a higher authority,

who themselves were put up on top of everyone,

by putting themselves there?

I think, therefore I am...

aha the Monks are A.I.

[tandor]

..I wonder whether Harry would have been able to help me with live streaming.

[SunsetT]

I studied and practised meditation for many years. My conclusion when getting down to the nitty gritty of it, was that it is all 'smoke and mirrors'. Also realise that all that was written, interpreted and translated was written by a fallible human hand and cannot be trusted. So many contemporary gurus, advanced practitioners, and spiritual authorities from so many religions have been caught with their pants down or fingers in the till so how can one trust any so-called spiritual authority from the past however lofty? Anything questionable would all have been swept under the carpet and hidden and we have no way of knowing anything of it today. Case in point: Sathya Sai Baba; Indian God man/Avatar revered and visited by thousands daily before his death and after to his ashram today was a peodophile and serial gay sexual abuser of devotees. He has never been exposed by Indian polititions or police authorities or the Indian press because he was and still is worth millions of votes and millions of rupees in religious tourism and donations. Without the internet (google: 'The Findings') all this would have been forgotten over time.

I have come to think that one must dismiss all the illusory mystic goals, superstititious and supernatural mumbo jumbo sales talk of all religions, and the only way to judge any religion is simply whether the values it teaches are good values for it's followers and societies to TRY and live by. I think these values are a necessary attempt to counter-balance our raping, pillaging and killing base animal instincts which sadly even today lie not too far beneath the surface of the thin veneer of civilization. Also important is how the founders and leaders of religions serve as role models. The founder of Buddhism is said to have abandoned his wife, child, and wordly responsibilities to seek his own salvation......Does that ring any bells for Thailand?....... Observing for 10 years how Thailand's religion influences or fails to influence the Thai people has actually given me renewed respect for the values said to have been taught by the man, (forget all the son of God, virgin birth, rising from the dead and miracles mumbo jumbo) Jesus, which, like it or not, have greatly influenced how westerners TRY and live, think and feel today.

Edited July 13, 2016 by SunsetT

[camerata]

The point of the essay was that these early Western pioneers of Buddhism were extremely dedicated, risking their lives, living the Dhamma, and ultimately dying for it. As the author points out in a podcast, something similar happened 40 years later when many Westerners headed for Thailand and Japan. Many of them are still in robes, abbots of monasteries, giving Dhamma talks or writing books.

[rockyysdt]

The point of the essay was that these early Western pioneers of Buddhism were extremely dedicated, risking their lives, living the Dhamma, and ultimately dying for it. As the author points out in a podcast, something similar happened 40 years later when many Westerners headed for Thailand and Japan. Many of them are still in robes, abbots of monasteries, giving Dhamma talks or writing books.

Hi Camerata.

Evidence of Dhamma success inspires me to practice and gives me encouragement.

Declarations of stream entry though seem to have the opposite effect on me.

Such states are theoretical and I'm feeling have nothing to do with me (conditioned and imperment).

That which gains stream entry is not part of my current awareness.

I'm also concerned that some "extreme dedication" might sometimes actually be "extreme zeal".

Once the travelers started having visions of stream entry I suspect ego was getting in the way.

Ego probably fueled suicide.

Don't get me wrong.

I am micro in terms of my advancement, but I would never aim for stream entry as I feel this is Ego related.

I would always aim for Awakening in this life.

If there is re birth in future lives I would let that take care of itself.

[camerata]

I'm not sure what you mean. Stream entry (sotapanna) is just the first step in a four-step process to awakening, as defined by the Buddha. If you aim for awakening (nibbana) you have to go through sotapanna first, in which the fetters of personality-belief, skeptical doubt, and attachment to rules and ritual have been eradicated. It isn't any more or less theoretical than awakening.

No one is ever going to be sure about claims of enlightenment, since it is essentially a subjective experience. Even the individual himself may not be sure. Ajahn Man was sure. Ajahn Chah was not. What Ajahn Chah said was, "I don't know what it was. Suddenly I was thinking differently from everyone else, and they were thinking differently from me."

[VincentRJ]

No one is ever going to be sure about claims of enlightenment, since it is essentially a subjective experience. Even the individual himself may not be sure. Ajahn Man was sure. Ajahn Chah was not. What Ajahn Chah said was, "I don't know what it was. Suddenly I was thinking differently from everyone else, and they were thinking differently from me."

That's a good point. Human biology, including brain and mind, is a very complex organism. Usually, changes take place in a very gradual manner. When changes take place relatively suddenly, then there's an implication of a medical disorder, such as 'multiple personality disorder' or 'bipolar disorder', or highs from a drug intake, or changes in mood due to alcohol consumption, and so on.

I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that the categorization of such changes in our degree of enlightenment, can be described in such simplistic terms and stages as 'stream entry', as though that's an either/or situation.

Nevertheless, I can understand that someone who has been preoccupied with a problem for a long time might experience a fairly sudden revelation as to the solution, perhaps after a good night's sleep. This sometime happens to scientists. However, the ultimate truth of such revelations is always open to question.

[rockyysdt]

I'm not sure what you mean. Stream entry (sotapanna) is just the first step in a four-step process to awakening, as defined by the Buddha. If you aim for awakening (nibbana) you have to go through sotapanna first, in which the fetters of personality-belief, skeptical doubt, and attachment to rules and ritual have been eradicated. It isn't any more or less theoretical than awakening.

No one is ever going to be sure about claims of enlightenment, since it is essentially a subjective experience. Even the individual himself may not be sure. Ajahn Man was sure. Ajahn Chah was not. What Ajahn Chah said was, "I don't know what it was. Suddenly I was thinking differently from everyone else, and they were thinking differently from me."

This aspect (sotopanna) I understand and in agreement.

If this ends up being your highest state in this life, it's the belief that you'll have future lives to progress further that I have an issue with.

[VincentRJ]

I'm not sure what you mean. Stream entry (sotapanna) is just the first step in a four-step process to awakening, as defined by the Buddha. If you aim for awakening (nibbana) you have to go through sotapanna first, in which the fetters of personality-belief, skeptical doubt, and attachment to rules and ritual have been eradicated. It isn't any more or less theoretical than awakening.

No one is ever going to be sure about claims of enlightenment, since it is essentially a subjective experience. Even the individual himself may not be sure. Ajahn Man was sure. Ajahn Chah was not. What Ajahn Chah said was, "I don't know what it was. Suddenly I was thinking differently from everyone else, and they were thinking differently from me."

If this ends up being your highest state in this life, it's the belief that you'll have future lives to progress further that I have an issue with.

Hi Rocky,

Just as the Buddha is claimed to have advised that there is no purpose served in speculating on the existence of a Creator God, it would seem to follow, by applying the same line of reasoning, that no purpose is served in speculating on the existence of future lives along the lines of reincarnation or rebirth.

However, perhaps there is a purpose served in trying to examine and understand the need for such beliefs within the Buddhist context. The purpose there could be a greater understanding and clarity of thought, which is surely of benefit.

Should this be the subject of a new thread?

I'll begin by mentioning an aspect of these beliefs which I find puzzling and inconsistent. Let's first address the distinction between Reincarnation and Rebirth. As I understand, the ancient Indian concept of Reincarnation also requires the concept of a permanent soul which represents the 'self', at some basic level at least. This 'soul-like' representation of the individual even includes the person's caste and social conditions.

Since the Buddha was quite rightfully opposed to the caste system, and also had the view that nothing is permanent, it's quite understandable that he might 'water down' these rigid, traditional views about reincarnation which tended to reinforce the caste system.

As I understand, the Buddhist concept of rebirth refers to the continuity only of an individual's 'tendencies' or 'motivations' in relation to good or bad actions and thoughts in this life, as distinct from the details of the actions, the relationships, memories, circumstances, and personal skills of the individual, which in total would constitute a personality.

Fair enough! But what is puzzling and seems to be contradictory, are the accounts of the Buddha's recollection of previous lives during the 'first watch' under the Bodhi tree.

Here's an account from one of the earliest Buddhist texts, the Tripitaka.

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. "

This seems to me like a very clear description of Reincarnation, as opposed to Rebirth. What do you think?

I believe there is also a huge collection of 'birth stories' in early Buddhist texts called the Jatakas, which detail the many previous lives of the Buddha. I haven't read them but I assume they are allegorical and mythical.

[rockyysdt]

I'm not sure what you mean. Stream entry (sotapanna) is just the first step in a four-step process to awakening, as defined by the Buddha. If you aim for awakening (nibbana) you have to go through sotapanna first, in which the fetters of personality-belief, skeptical doubt, and attachment to rules and ritual have been eradicated. It isn't any more or less theoretical than awakening.

No one is ever going to be sure about claims of enlightenment, since it is essentially a subjective experience. Even the individual himself may not be sure. Ajahn Man was sure. Ajahn Chah was not. What Ajahn Chah said was, "I don't know what it was. Suddenly I was thinking differently from everyone else, and they were thinking differently from me."

If this ends up being your highest state in this life, it's the belief that you'll have future lives to progress further that I have an issue with.

Hi Rocky,

Just as the Buddha is claimed to have advised that there is no purpose served in speculating on the existence of a Creator God, it would seem to follow, by applying the same line of reasoning, that no purpose is served in speculating on the existence of future lives along the lines of reincarnation or rebirth.

However, perhaps there is a purpose served in trying to examine and understand the need for such beliefs within the Buddhist context. The purpose there could be a greater understanding and clarity of thought, which is surely of benefit.

Should this be the subject of a new thread?

I'll begin by mentioning an aspect of these beliefs which I find puzzling and inconsistent. Let's first address the distinction between Reincarnation and Rebirth. As I understand, the ancient Indian concept of Reincarnation also requires the concept of a permanent soul which represents the 'self', at some basic level at least. This 'soul-like' representation of the individual even includes the person's caste and social conditions.

Since the Buddha was quite rightfully opposed to the caste system, and also had the view that nothing is permanent, it's quite understandable that he might 'water down' these rigid, traditional views about reincarnation which tended to reinforce the caste system.

As I understand, the Buddhist concept of rebirth refers to the continuity only of an individual's 'tendencies' or 'motivations' in relation to good or bad actions and thoughts in this life, as distinct from the details of the actions, the relationships, memories, circumstances, and personal skills of the individual, which in total would constitute a personality.

Fair enough! But what is puzzling and seems to be contradictory, are the accounts of the Buddha's recollection of previous lives during the 'first watch' under the Bodhi tree.

Here's an account from one of the earliest Buddhist texts, the Tripitaka.

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. "

This seems to me like a very clear description of Reincarnation, as opposed to Rebirth. What do you think?

I believe there is also a huge collection of 'birth stories' in early Buddhist texts called the Jatakas, which detail the many previous lives of the Buddha. I haven't read them but I assume they are allegorical and mythical.

I've said this before and got into controversial waters over it.

Firstly it seems to me travellers who hang their hat on stream entry level in this life, might have put their foot on the brakes to take up diversions of Ego along their path.

Perhaps backing off on effort thinking: "Stream Entry is good enough, now only 5 or 7 re births to go.

Secondly if it's not a Soul, what is the commonality between the many re births.

If you look at it more closely, my re births are different to your re births.

If that which is common between our re births, is permanent and unconditioned, but not a soul, what is it?

Thirdly, who wrote these things?

Some scholars have said, that the Buddha was actually talking about re birth moment to moment to dovetail his teachings into re birth/reincarnation life to life.

He made his teaching contemporary and in apparent alignment to thoughts of the day.

Those listening could believe what they wanted to.

Did he actually teach many lives or were these added to his teachings?

Edited July 17, 2016 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

I'm not sure what you mean. Stream entry (sotapanna) is just the first step in a four-step process to awakening, as defined by the Buddha. If you aim for awakening (nibbana) you have to go through sotapanna first, in which the fetters of personality-belief, skeptical doubt, and attachment to rules and ritual have been eradicated. It isn't any more or less theoretical than awakening.

No one is ever going to be sure about claims of enlightenment, since it is essentially a subjective experience. Even the individual himself may not be sure. Ajahn Man was sure. Ajahn Chah was not. What Ajahn Chah said was, "I don't know what it was. Suddenly I was thinking differently from everyone else, and they were thinking differently from me."

This aspect (sotopanna) I understand and in agreement.

If this ends up being your highest state in this life, it's the belief that you'll have future lives to progress further that I have an issue with.

Don't forget that with sceptical doubt eliminated, the sotapanna has no doubt whatsoever that he will return. This is key to understanding how Nanavira came to kill himself.

[NativeSon360]

Re: "Clearing the path", in The Search for Nirvana, one (popularly known) stream entrant (an obvious "aspirant" only), commits "suicide", while yet another (also popularly known) has a "nervous breakdown", and, is further deported from Sri Lanka (of all places), to the UK? Not a very encouraging sojourn path to take, especially for the "uninitiated" aspirant of the future, to pursue.

Edited July 17, 2016 by NativeSon360

[VincentRJ]

Hi Rocky,

Just as the Buddha is claimed to have advised that there is no purpose served in speculating on the existence of a Creator God, it would seem to follow, by applying the same line of reasoning, that no purpose is served in speculating on the existence of future lives along the lines of reincarnation or rebirth.

However, perhaps there is a purpose served in trying to examine and understand the need for such beliefs within the Buddhist context. The purpose there could be a greater understanding and clarity of thought, which is surely of benefit.

Should this be the subject of a new thread?

I'll begin by mentioning an aspect of these beliefs which I find puzzling and inconsistent. Let's first address the distinction between Reincarnation and Rebirth. As I understand, the ancient Indian concept of Reincarnation also requires the concept of a permanent soul which represents the 'self', at some basic level at least. This 'soul-like' representation of the individual even includes the person's caste and social conditions.

Since the Buddha was quite rightfully opposed to the caste system, and also had the view that nothing is permanent, it's quite understandable that he might 'water down' these rigid, traditional views about reincarnation which tended to reinforce the caste system.

As I understand, the Buddhist concept of rebirth refers to the continuity only of an individual's 'tendencies' or 'motivations' in relation to good or bad actions and thoughts in this life, as distinct from the details of the actions, the relationships, memories, circumstances, and personal skills of the individual, which in total would constitute a personality.

Fair enough! But what is puzzling and seems to be contradictory, are the accounts of the Buddha's recollection of previous lives during the 'first watch' under the Bodhi tree.

Here's an account from one of the earliest Buddhist texts, the Tripitaka.

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. "

This seems to me like a very clear description of Reincarnation, as opposed to Rebirth. What do you think?

I believe there is also a huge collection of 'birth stories' in early Buddhist texts called the Jatakas, which detail the many previous lives of the Buddha. I haven't read them but I assume they are allegorical and mythical.

Did he actually teach many lives or were these added to his teachings?

This is the big question which we will perhaps never know the answer to.

Through my internet research, I've discovered some additional explanations for the processes of reincarnation, which, however, are more associated with Mahayana Buddhism than Theravada.

According to the Yogachara school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism, there are two levels of consciousness which record all our activities and motivations. The Mano (Sanskrit for ‘Comprehending’) records and stores the details of our daily life, including relationships, specific actions, specific memories and personal skills and attributes etc.

The Alya, which means a sort of 'storehouse of Karmic motivations', records only the basic mechanisms, trends, patterns and tendencies of one's actions. In a modern Western sense, one could associate the Alya with the 'subconscious', and the Mano with the 'conscious'.

At the moment of death, the Mano, with all its conscious memories, dissolves and ceases to be. However, the Alya. containing the essence of the Karmic tendencies, remains in a field of non-substantiality. These patterns and tendencies stored in the Alya remain dormant until a trigger from the environment activates them (like ‘seeds’ which have the potential to sprout, depending on the availability of appropriate external conditions).

If no trigger from the surroundings occurs to activate the stored tendencies, then the stored karmic seeds remain dormant in the Alaya .

I find this an interesting and imaginative explanation, but impossible to verify scientifically. Our modern science implies that everything to do with our character, actions, thoughts, achievements, failures, attitudes, likes, dislikes etc. is due to a combination of individual genetic make-up and the effects of all the experiences the individual has been subjected to from the time the person was a fetus in the mother's womb.

Determining just how much of a person's general behaviour, activity, attitudes, motivation, success or failure is due to genetic tendencies as opposed to environmental influences, is just too complicated.

First, it would require a complete understanding of the person's genome, which is not currently possible to begin with. Then it would require a continuous recording of every moment of the person's life from the time he was a fetus in his mothers womb. Such recordings would have to include at least sight and sound, but to be truly scientifically rigorous, the recordings would also have to include the effects of taste, smell, touch, the quality of the food eaten, and the general environmental conditions, since these factors can also influence a person's behaviour and tendencies.

After taking all the recorded factors of the individual's life into consideration, and after having understood all the influences and the reactions and relationships with the genetic make-up of the individual, we might then be in a position to claim, "There's something missing, which cannot be explained. There's some force which is neither genetic, nor environmental nor experiential. Perhaps the Alya exists."

[Brucenkhamen]

According to the Yogachara school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism, there are two levels of consciousness which record all our activities and motivations. The Mano (Sanskrit for Comprehending) records and stores the details of our daily life, including relationships, specific actions, specific memories and personal skills and attributes etc.

The Alya, which means a sort of 'storehouse of Karmic motivations', records only the basic mechanisms, trends, patterns and tendencies of one's actions. In a modern Western sense, one could associate the Alya with the 'subconscious', and the Mano with the 'conscious'.

Such explanations are only necessary if one expects Buddhism to contain ontological explanations of such things, something that is missing from the early texts, and doesn't seem to me to be that much different from possible interpretations of what "self" might be.

In the early texts we see a practice of reflecting on the not-self nature of the 5 aggregates, it's a practice of re-orienting ones view, I haven't seen an example of the Buddha explicitly denying the existence of "self".

He was also equally critical of those who held annihilationist views as he was of those who held eternalist views.

I agree with you though that holding to ideas about the rebirth of a future me is incongruent with the teaching of not-self.

I think the most common rationalisation of this is that what fuels rebirth is kamma so it is kamma that is reborn. The thing is the way we lead our lives doesn't just affect us personally but affects others around us and those that come afterwards.

[VincentRJ]

According to the Yogachara school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism, there are two levels of consciousness which record all our activities and motivations. The Mano (Sanskrit for Comprehending) records and stores the details of our daily life, including relationships, specific actions, specific memories and personal skills and attributes etc.

The Alya, which means a sort of 'storehouse of Karmic motivations', records only the basic mechanisms, trends, patterns and tendencies of one's actions. In a modern Western sense, one could associate the Alya with the 'subconscious', and the Mano with the 'conscious'.

I agree with you though that holding to ideas about the rebirth of a future me is incongruent with the teaching of not-self.

What is perhaps also incongruent is that the accumulated evidence from the various studies that have been carried out on the recollection of former lives, seems to involve the recollection of the sorts of details (such as appearance, relationships and events) that would be recorded only in the Mano and would not survive the death of the individual, according to the Yogachara explanation.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm

[rockyysdt]

I'm not sure what you mean. Stream entry (sotapanna) is just the first step in a four-step process to awakening, as defined by the Buddha. If you aim for awakening (nibbana) you have to go through sotapanna first, in which the fetters of personality-belief, skeptical doubt, and attachment to rules and ritual have been eradicated. It isn't any more or less theoretical than awakening.

No one is ever going to be sure about claims of enlightenment, since it is essentially a subjective experience. Even the individual himself may not be sure. Ajahn Man was sure. Ajahn Chah was not. What Ajahn Chah said was, "I don't know what it was. Suddenly I was thinking differently from everyone else, and they were thinking differently from me."

This aspect (sotopanna) I understand and in agreement.

If this ends up being your highest state in this life, it's the belief that you'll have future lives to progress further that I have an issue with.

Don't forget that with sceptical doubt eliminated, the sotapanna has no doubt whatsoever that he will return. This is key to understanding how Nanavira came to kill himself.

Those who are delusional have also overcome sceptical doubt.

We see examples daily in the media.

It's a dangerous territory.

For me, aiming for Stream Entry involves attachment or belief in future lives, events which are only theoretical for the Unawakened.

[camerata]

Why do you think you have to believe in future lives to aim for sotapanna? It's Nibbana Lite, that's all, and available in this life. If you believe in future lives, you won't be coming back more than 7 times, otherwise that particular bonus is completely irrelevant.

[camerata]

Ok, I just realised what the problem is: you are thinking sotapanna means we MUST come back 7 times before nibbana. No, it's just a guarantee that we will not come back more than 7 times. But we can attain all four levels of awakening in this life, as did many of the Buddha's disciples, and Ajahn Man, and Mae Chee Kaew.

[trd]

Why do you think you have to believe in future lives to aim for sotapanna? It's Nibbana Lite, that's all, and available in this life. If you believe in future lives, you won't be coming back more than 7 times, otherwise that particular bonus is completely irrelevant.

The idea of aiming for or attaining sotapanna is misconceived because it objectifies something that cannot be objectified. And it's being objectified as an imagined state which it is not. This is illustrated quite well in the Diamond Sutra.

DIAMOND SUTRA

SECTION IX.

REAL DESIGNATION IS UNDESIGNATE

Subhuti, what do you think? Does a disciple who has entered the Stream of the Holy Life say within himself: I obtain the fruit of a Stream-entrant? Subhuti said: No, World-honored One. Wherefore? Because "Stream entrant" is merely a name. There is no stream-entering. The disciple who pays no regard to form, sound, odor, taste, touch, or any quality, is called a Stream-entrant. Subhuti, what do you think? Does an adept who is subject to only one more rebirth say within himself: I obtain the fruit of a Once-to-be-reborn? Subhuti said: No, World-honored One. Wherefore? Because "Once-to-be-reborn" is merely a name. There is no passing away nor coming into existence. [The adept who realizes] this is called "Once-to-be-reborn." Subhuti, what do you think? Does a venerable one who will never more be reborn as a mortal say within himself: I obtain the fruit of a Non-returner? Subhuti said: No, World-honored One. Wherefore? Because "Non-returner" is merely a name. There is no non-returning; hence the designation "Nonreturner." Subhuti, what do you think? Does a holy one say within himself: I have obtained Perfective Enlightenment? Subhuti said: No, World-honored One. Wherefore? Because there is no such condition as that called "Perfective Enlightenment." World-honored one, if a holy one of Perfective Enlightenment said to himself "such am I," he would necessarily partake of the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality. Worldhonored One, when the Buddha declares that I excel amongst holy men in the Yoga of perfect quiescence, in dwelling in seclusion, and in freedom from passions, I do not say within myself: I am a holy one of Perfective Enlightenment, free from passions. World-honored One, if I said within myself: Such am I; you would not declare: Subhuti finds happiness abiding in peace, in seclusion in the midst of the forest. This is because Subhuti abides nowhere: therefore he is called, "Subhuti, Joyful Abider-in-Peace, Dweller in Seclusion in the Forest."

[camerata]

Why do you think you have to believe in future lives to aim for sotapanna? It's Nibbana Lite, that's all, and available in this life. If you believe in future lives, you won't be coming back more than 7 times, otherwise that particular bonus is completely irrelevant.

The idea of aiming for or attaining sotapanna is misconceived because it objectifies something that cannot be objectified. And it's being objectified as an imagined state which it is not. This is illustrated quite well in the Diamond Sutra.

According to Mahayana, perhaps. But there is a gulf between Mahayana and Theravada on many points. It's up to the practitioner to decide which works best for them.

[trd]

Why do you think you have to believe in future lives to aim for sotapanna? It's Nibbana Lite, that's all, and available in this life. If you believe in future lives, you won't be coming back more than 7 times, otherwise that particular bonus is completely irrelevant.

The idea of aiming for or attaining sotapanna is misconceived because it objectifies something that cannot be objectified. And it's being objectified as an imagined state which it is not. This is illustrated quite well in the Diamond Sutra.

According to Mahayana, perhaps. But there is a gulf between Mahayana and Theravada on many points. It's up to the practitioner to decide which works best for them.

That's my point, and the Diamond Sutra. Nibbana is beyond scripture. Neither Mahayana nor Theravada is true.

[Brucenkhamen]

The idea of aiming for or attaining sotapanna is misconceived because it objectifies something that cannot be objectified. And it's being objectified as an imagined state which it is not.

I'm not sure what "cannot be objectified" means, I would have said that anything can be objectified the question is whether doing so is useful or helpful. It seems to me that we are talking about milestones here not states and while some people find milestones helpful I agree with you that aiming for attaining it doesn't really sit right.

[Brucenkhamen]

Neither Mahayana nor Theravada is true.

Neither Mahayana nor Theravada nor Advaita Vedanta is true.

Actually as they are all orthopraxic rather than orthodoxic (correct me if I'm wrong regarding the latter) true/false doesn't really apply, works/doesn't-work is a more appropriate measure.

[trd]

Neither Mahayana nor Theravada is true.

Neither Mahayana nor Theravada nor Advaita Vedanta is true.

Actually as they are all orthopraxic rather than orthodoxic (correct me if I'm wrong regarding the latter) true/false doesn't really apply, works/doesn't-work is a more appropriate measure.

Yes I agree. Well said.

[gregk0543]

Well the idea of becoming a stream enterer has been around a long time. 

It does imply rebirth and a rounds of rebirth and if we start from the first few suttas taught by the buddha, Dhammacakkapavattana, and Anatta lakkhana sutta it is definitely about kamma, and rebirth. So I  find it amusing that people want to leave out those concepts.

 

Without rebirth we all attain Nirvana at death. 

 

The qualities of a Sotapanna  are confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and keeping five precepts.

Because of the good Kamma involved in just keeping 5 precepts that would be a good starting place to aim at.

Must be close if you can do that. 

 

I have read Nanaviras book and I dont think his life or the nun are very impressive examples of Dhamma but they sure tried.

I have seen lots of people claiming lots of things during 36 years of practising Buddhism in Myanmar and Thailand and the west.

But what really is noticeable is how often people who claim stuff are found to be overestimating.

 

In the end everything boils down to your actions of body speech and mind. Your kamma.

If you get those right you may get to the end of suffering. 

Buddhism is ultimately all just about kamma and thats all we really are.

 

It is seeing that which takes away the belief in rites and rituals as a way to nibbana. Thats what takes away superstition. The whole game is just kamma and results of kamma. No magic beyond that. No shortcuts. No other ways to get out of suffering 

 

Once you see that then the it is just a matter of investing in doing various forms of cultivating good and not doing evil and purifying your own mind.

Good luck it is not easy it requires good kamma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rockyysdt]

On 20/08/2016 at 11:22 PM, gregk0543 said:

 

Without rebirth we all attain Nirvana at death. 

 

 

Isn't it about the extinction of Dukkha?

 

When dead there is no longer body. Mind and Body are inseparable. Without one the other cannot be.

 

Your statement maybe correct (Without rebirth we all attain Nirvana at death).

 

As there is no consciousness upon death then isn't it better to attain this state of Awakening in this life in order to be conscious of your achievment?

 

 

The only issue about Sotapanna is that "confidence or faith" is a common feature of all Religions.

 

Without faith all Religions would be adrift.

 

What makes Buddhism unique, after all, trying it for oneself to confirm its validity may take your entire lifes resources, often without result.

 

A key ingredient of a Religion is "currently unproven", where as when a Religion is proven correct then word Religion can be replaced with the word "Truth".

Edited August 29, 2016 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

On 8/20/2016 at 11:22 PM, gregk0543 said:

Well the idea of becoming a stream enterer has been around a long time. 

It does imply rebirth and a rounds of rebirth and if we start from the first few suttas taught by the buddha, Dhammacakkapavattana, and Anatta lakkhana sutta it is definitely about kamma, and rebirth. So I  find it amusing that people want to leave out those concepts.

 

Without rebirth we all attain Nirvana at death. 

 

 

I find the concepts of Karma and Rebirth to be a clever and interesting way of organizing human affairs. The Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell seem to serve a similar purpose, but seem to me to be less believable and more mythical, from my scientific perspective.

 

We now live in very litigious societies with complex sets of laws and large police forces which investigate every misdemeanor. This was not the situation in the past. Even a couple of hundred years ago in Europe, there was no organised police force. If a house was burgled, one had to employ one's own investigator to track down the thief and negotiate a return of the stolen goods.

 

We know from a scientific/evolutionary perspective that all animals steal and kill incessantly. Even vegetarian animals, such as the cuddly Koala bear, will kill a sexual rival, which is of course not allowed for modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

 

My deep philosophical point here, is that human beings are animals. We have some special abilities which enable us to organize ourselves in large groups and communicate with a more sophisticated and complex language than any other species of animal can; but our basic instincts and desires have that fundamental animal characteristic. Christians and Muslims appear to be in denial about this fact.

 

However, the Buddhist concepts of Karma and Rebirth, express a continuum of states from the most primitive and disgusting organism that the human mind can imagine, to the most enlightened state of Nirvana.

 

This theory of Karma sort of embraces the modern, more materialistic theory of evolution, at a spiritual level.
Societies which embrace the principles of compassion and 'do unto others as you wish they would do unto you', will thrive because this is the advantage that humans have over other animals; our ability to cooperate, which is essential for large societies to exist.

 

The notion of 'spirituality' might appear to have no credence in the scientific domain, but I would question that view. Long before the principles of modern science were defined, such as the importance of empirical evidence and the opportunity to falsify such evidence, hypotheses about the fundamental nature of things were imagined thousands of years ago. (Is that imagining not a form of spirituality?)

 

For example, those who are interested in history will no doubt be aware that the concept of the 'atom', the most basic particle which constitutes all matter, goes back to 442 BC, or even further.
The Greek philosopher, Democritus, considered that all matter is composed of indivisible, small particles or elements, or atoms. It took us about 2400 years to clearly define and confirm this fact.

 

Possibly, even before the time of Democritus, an ancient Indian had a similar idea. Who was first? We don't know for certain, just as we don't know for certain the date of Gautama's birth.

 

The Indian, Acharya Kanad, was born in 600 BC in Prabhas Kshetra (near Dwaraka) in Gujarat, India, it is claimed. Kanad is reporting to have said: ”Every object of creation is made of atoms which in turn connect with each other to form molecules.”  His theory of the atom was abstract and enmeshed in philosophy as it was based on logic and not on personal experience or experimentation. 
Here's the Wikipedia reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanada_(philosopher)

 

It took humanity over 2,000 years to confirm that the basic building blocks of all matter consists of atoms. How long will it take to confirm (or falsify) the hypothesis that there is something carried over from life to rebirth, other than the materialistic, genetic make-up of the parents.

 

I've mentioned before many times, there's a tendency for each generation to express pride in the extent of its knowledge, but often what we thought was absolute truth, or the 'Laws' of physics, later turns out to be false.
I won't repeat the examples in any detail, but Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Junk Genes, and Climate Change, are examples of our lack of knowledge.

 

Thus endeth my philosophical rant for today.