Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What are your thoughts?
hermitwin
Veteran
0
Comments
@SherabDorje: let's wait and see what happens, before trotting out the dying horse.
And a great study here:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qMMbndcHE2IJ:www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh141.pdf+Survival+and+karma+from+the+Buddhist+perspective&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjJgXX6G9RvrD-trkVqJghDiNjNMQWpROuSM-fJQpLhEnMkBqmgctAbvJDoT5KSV0HZo6UONGRupaBVykrPJgj0C86C0fwetGrR0qe5Fi224AR-hlsJohEz-jm5N686aiGSf7KN&sig=AHIEtbQSUG8dlmg1SFLHSWlFiN_XmTsBPw&pli=1
And don't forget this sutta including the 62 types of wrong view. To me this is really an obligatory reading on anybody who wants to form a serious opinion on this subject.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
Very beautiful sutta.
Some reading to do for those interested, but it is worth it.
2 hours and sweep everything that stands in its path away.
The relevent suttas are here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
However, for enlightened beings, the exclusive view of EXISTENCE is wrong view, here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html
One may be a "hermit" but to be obsessed with rebirth are the views of a householder
In the suttas, the Buddha made it clear the distinction between the household life and the homeless life was a state of mind/attitude.
It's dueling videos! Great. Thanks.
P.S. I'm new to the Theravada scene. Who is this Brahm guy, besides some Brit? What are his qualifications for putting himself forward as a teacher? Just asking.
His non-sense about a female Buddha in a matriarchial society is contrary to the suttas
His obsession with jhana is just self-serving & not the essense of Buddha-Dhamma
His denial of neighbourhood concentration is contrary to reality and contrary to the suttas, where the Buddha, although not using the term, described Anapanasati without mentioning the jhanas
This monk is full of it and is a fanatical power seeking authoritarian in my eyes.
Brahm doesn't discuss what it is that gets reborn from a Buddhist perspective, from scripture. He addresses it through his friend's near death experience. That's interesting. Not what I expected.
I get you re: rebirth being mundane right view. Back to mundane vs. supramundane. Ok. Got it.
So Brahm is freelancing as a monk-teacher? He doesn't have a lineage or school? :scratch:
The Buddha regarded jhana as a supernormal state and not accessable to most people.
In my eyes, and to many other Buddhists, this monk has lost the plot.
The Buddha did not seach for 6 years for the purpose of jhana.
The Buddha is "the wise one" whose primarly goal was to share wisdom with humanity.
The Buddha himself said his entire teaching can be summed up by NON-ATTACHMENT
The Buddha instructed many in non-attachment (when suitable), even though they did not meditate.
Brahm's jhana obsession is something rarely found amongst modern Buddhist teachers.
Ajahn Chah certainly did not have the same emphasis.
His jhana obsession gives him authority in the eyes of others and a platform for his reincarnation propagation, as though declaring he has seen his past lives.
:sawed:
that is why AB bringing up the matter is not really related to Dhamma
for monks, the Buddha labelled such talk as "animal talk"
as Kevin said it the video, "AB is making it up as he goes along"
Modern incorrect interpretations of people who for some reason can not accept the Buddha taught it.. I know this is a long read, but it is worth it, read the Brahmajala sutta on the types of wrong view:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
It's clearly stated that all kinds of annihilation are wrong view. And an eternal soul is also wrong view. So that only leaves rebirth as right view. This is also stated in other sutta's, but this is the most broad one I know. (Also nibbana here and now stuff is wrong view according to the sutta, which is also some kind of modern interpretation often combined with the non-rebirth view.)
Rebirth is stated that often in sutta's in various ways, it just is undeniable Buddha taught this, really. Also he didn't just teach it because it was the general opinion at the time. Opinions were very broad at those times, in fact most of the high class people were skeptics or even materialists I heard. So, very much like today
Besides, without rebirth Buddhism doesn't answer any of life's questions, which is what a religion should do. If you take rebirth into the picture you'll find it is one beautiful coherent teaching with every word and sutta having its place. If you don't, you'll find you'll need to eel-wiggle, change the meaning of words, discard certain suttas, etc. and it becomes a mess.
For clarity: I totally accept that people do not believe rebirth, that is 100% fine with me (been there), but I keep bringing this up because saying that the Buddha didn't teach is just denial and changing a religion to fit you instead of the other way around. When I didn't believe in rebirth I just thought: "This Buddha guy was wrong and I am right" instead of changing his words to suit me. Tbh, I don't really see why anybody should do that.. :scratch: If you don't believe in rebirth then quote someone like Richard Dawkins to make that point but do not quote the Buddha. Nobody ever picked up the bible to show it says God doesn't exist, so I wonder why this is so different with Buddhism?
Again, I respect everybody's view but I guess I'm just trying to protect the dhamma here from being destroyed by modern times.
With metta to all,
Sabre
I will reply to your first post later.
As for AB, he has gone his separate way.
He DOES NOT teach the same essence as Ajahn Chah.
He has been expelled from the Ajahn Chah community, so he go his own way.
Regards
I regard your post as accusing another of having wrong view. The Buddha regarded this as a various serious matter.
Therefore please point out the very paragraphs in the above sutta that form the basis for your assertions.
Then, when I return from my walk & swim, I will respond.
If I do not respond, then I have either been banned, eaten by a shark or crocodile, bitten by a snake or incurred some other misshap)
:sawed:
Ucchedavādo
85. ‘‘Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṃvādī hoti evaṃdiṭṭhi [evaṃdiṭṭhī (ka. pī.)] – ‘yato kho, bho, ayaṃ attā rūpī cātumahābhūtiko mātāpettikasambhavo kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṃ maraṇā, ettāvatā kho, bho, ayaṃ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti. Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti.
Ajahn Brahm was expelled for ordaining nuns. A highly
contentious issue in Thailand long before AB came into the
picture.
AB is a fanatic??? I am sending metta to AB....
and some to you too. AB is a great teacher.
Dear DD,
I'm not accusing anybody. I think I made it quite clear in my post that I respect all views and am simply defending what I see as the dhamma. If somebody takes it personal that only makes it a messy discussion, not leading to friendship, insight or wisdom. If that was not clear, than hereby I say once again I'm not talking to anybody personally. That does not mean I should not defend my points, though, because discussion might lead to friendship, insight or wisdom.
To all who are interested:
This is really a profoundly deep philosophical sutta and I can't really do it any justice in a quick post on an internet forum, however I will try to do as best as I can. From the Brahmajala some quotes:
It is followed by a section on virtue, not really important for this discussion. But keep this section in mind, the Buddha is speaking about what is true and what is not in this entire sutta, he's not taking any agnostic view (in fact he even denies them clearly in the same sutta). Then there is a section on deeper teachings, about what happens before and after death etc starting with: Beyond the sphere of reasoning means only seen by direct insight, for example coming from meditation, past life realizations or whatever. However, we can still discuss these matters here of course. So in accordance with reality, concerning the following matters (62 will follow in the sutta) we can speak to those who do not see or understand. Again, nothing personal, this is just what the Buddha said.
It starts of with a section on why the monks should speak against eternalism, those who believe in an eternal self, or sometimes called reincarnation. So this sutta also includes the teachings of no-self, because it states here a fixed self, in whatever form is incorrect view.
Then there is a section about other incorrect views: On the world, not taking any point because you think it is impossible to know, things happening by chance, immortality. But then in another section annihilationism and materialism, which is a common viewpoint of today, is also considered incorrect view. Annihilationism of course means no life after death or no rebirth, may this be clear. This is clear from "annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death".
It starts here, I'm not going to insert the quote here because it is a bit long and talks about seven kinds of annihilationism that existed at the time:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html#paragraph-84
And it ends here: So these views (including annihilation) are not the reality, not in accordance with the Dhamma and therefore wrong.
I am wondering why quite a few Western scholars think the Buddha didn't teach rebirth or just as a moral issue because this is just one of the suttas which clearly shows he didn't. If you combine more and more suttas the picture becomes even clearer. How strange it may seem to some it's just undeniable, the Buddha taught rebirth. It doesn't really matter if we believe it or not, but this is what the suttas say.
Let me say again that it is perfectly fine if somebody isn't that sure about some of the Buddha's statement and decides to be agnostic on that matter. That is very, very intelligent. But than accept the fact the Buddha didn't teach it like that and keep practicing, keep questioning. This is what the Buddha did himself.
(What he is saying is about wrong skepticism in this sutta is people who claim you will never-ever know, that is not wise, or at least not Buddhist, this is obviously something different from being a wise agnostic)
With metta,
Sabre
<
in the exact words of his holiness -
''In buddhism you can find the distinction between ordinary beings and superior beings, or the Arya. This basis can be made on their respective levels of consciousness or realization. ANyone who has gained direct intuitive realization of emptiness, or the ultimate nature of reality, is said to be an Arya according to Mahayana, and anyone who has not gained that realization is called an ordinary being. In relation to the three realms, the subtler the level of consciousness an individual attains, the subtler the realm of existence he can inhabit.
For example, if a person's ordinary mode of being is very much within the context of desire and attachment- that is to say that he tends to develop attachment to whatever he perceives, like desirable forms or pleasant sensations and so on - then such attachment to physical objects, thought processes and sensory experiences leads to a form of existence which is confined within the desire realm, both now and in the future. At the same time, there are people who have transcended attachment to objects of immediate perception and physical sensations, but who are attached to the inner states of joy or bliss. That type of person creates causes that will lead him or her to future rebirths where physical existence has a much more refined form.
Furthermore, there are those who have transcended attachment not only to physical sensations, but also to pleasurable inner sensations of joy and bliss. They tend more towards a state of equanimity. Their level of consciousness is much more subtler than the other two, but they are still attached to a particular mode of being. The grosser levels of their mind can lead to the fourth level of the form realm, while the subtler attachment towards equanimity leads to the formless realms. So this is the way we relate to three realms to level of consciousness.
On the basis of this cosmology, Buddhism talks about the infinite process of the universe, coming into being and going through a process of dissolution before again coming into being. This process has to be understood in relation to the three realms of existence. It is from the third level of the form realms downwards that the world is subject to continuous process of arising and dissolution. From the fourth level of the form realm upwards, which includes the formless realm, the world is beyond this process which we could call the evolution of the physical universe.''
Friendship is not the issue here nor insight or wisdom. The Buddha said your views are not related to the faculty of wisdom, as follows:
I already pre-empted you, above, by posting the Pali of this paragraph, as follows: As I said in my former post, about which you falsely accused me of having wrong understanding, where you falsely accussed me of misrepresenting the Buddha-Dhamma, that teachings such as the above are MUNDANE OR LOKIYA DHAMMA.
The sutta above is about view of "self" or "atta" being anihilated after death. It is a moral teaching. It is not a supramundane or transcendent (lokuttara) teaching.
Therefore, contrary to what you said, this sutta is not a profoundly deep sutta nor is it related to the sphere of reasoning means only seen by direct insight.
You have spoken incorrectly here.
The sphere of insight is related to "not-self" or anatta but this sutta is about "self" or "atta.
:buck:
Now, to continue, demonstrating how you have misrepresented this sutta.
The sutta does not declare the Buddha holds views opposite to the above. The sutta simply lists seven kinds of views held by annihilationists. The Buddha does not declare he is an anti-annihilationist. The Buddha simply states:
I know my mind, not you.
http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=1
Please note: The Pali does not actually inc
This is why the various translations conflict. The Pali probably simply states: "In the future", per the Pali Dictionary:
It is getting late.
To end, what I said was correct. I referred to the suttas accurately.
The mundane view in MN 60 are different to the supramundane view in SN 12.15.
PLEASE NOTE: I did not once deny rebirth in this thread. I simply mentioned two kinds of view: mundane & supramundane.
The mundane view is about "self" and "existence" and the supramundane view is about "not-self" and neither-existence-nor-non-existence.
We have the right to choose our "right view" in Buddhism, for there are two kinds.
All the best
Following the morality sections, the whole sutra becomes at least an encouragement to shut the hell up about imponderable issues of metaphysics, if not an encouragement to actual agnosticism. He dismisses a set of metaphysical views and styles of discourse, but he doesn't ever say what the correct metaphysical view and way to talk about it is. Even the stuff about post-mortem survival is extremely negative (though it seems that the Access To Insight translation appears to be self-servingly wonky on this point; have to check with someone who knows Pali): The central part of the sutra is the last section, where he criticises these views and rhetoric as "conditioned by contact." That is the central problem with all of them. It has nothing to do with whether they're true or false, it's what they indicate about the mind of the person expressing them.
(This is my favorite sutra.)
Ajahn Brahm would have started with Ajahn Chah probably in early 1974 at the earliest.
I think "one of the first disciples" is a bit of an exaggeration.
For example, Ajahn Jagaro, the original W.A. abbott, was senior to Brahm
Regards
:bowdown:
Tonight was the first time I ever looked at it and I just browsed. Too long for me.
:dunce:
thank you for your reply. I didn't mean it like that. I think equivocation is a word not everybody understands so I didn't use it. Just a word difference, no biggie. These are my lines with which I tried to point that out: He doesn't ever say? How about all the other suttas with the 4 noble truths and all that?
This is another part about this which usually follows the sutta (don't know why it isn't on accesstoinsight for some reason it stops at 144). It also explains why it is called the net of views, because one can get stuck in them: So our goal is to not get caught in these 62 views, which include annihilationism / materialism. Because it is wrong type of post-mortem survival view, like everlasting or merge with god or whatever. Note that the Buddhas finding was rebirth is impersonal (no-self) and therefore can be ended into non-existence (nibbana). This view, which is the correct one according to Buddhism, is not included in these 62 of course. All these 62 views are about other views that existed at the time, like Jainism, early Hinduism, materialism and all sorts of views. Again no problem to me if anybody beliefs in any of those, I'm not trying to convince anybody of any view, but may it be clear those things are not what the Buddha taught. That is what this entire sutta is about and why I quoted it.
With metta,
Sabre
I am happy to have any reasonable discussion on this subject, really. I like it and I think we can be friends even if we have a different view on things even if you think we can't. But only if somebody is consistent in what they post we can have a discussion. So in this case, we can't.
With metta,
Sabre
You are 100% wrong. So much for your hopes.
You really need to take care with the assumptions & projections you make about others.
The Buddha said: "The Dhamma has one taste".
As for the DN, it is mostly crap. The real Dhamma is found in the MN and SN.
Third, I understood the sutta correctly & demolished your misunderstanding.
IT IS YOU that is just picking and choosing certain parts of suttas without looking at the bigger picture.
THE SUPRAMUNDANE TEACHINGS OF THE BUDDHA DO NOT ACCORD TO EITHER ETERNALISM OR NIHILISM. They are unrelated to these common dicotomies.
Regards
My view is you are not offering any reasonable discussion on this subject because you are quoting suttas without even understanding them.
You have strongly fixed views based on the teachings of Ajahn Brahm.
You appear to not understand the sutta path is not the same as the guru path.
The guru, such as Ajahn Brahm, is necessary for those who do not take the time to study & understand the suttas.
I once too took refuge in a guru but as soon as I found the suttas I dismissed the guru.
If you wish to understand the suttas, it is best to dismiss the guru.
One cannot be the slave of two masters.
If our mind has the five hindrances and, worse, inappropriate respect/attention towards the Buddha, it cannot understand the suttas.
When reading the suttas, each & every word must be read with appropriate respect/attention.
One cannot simply pick up an idea from the suttas and then "run with it", shooting off the hip, left, right & centre, all over the place.
The Buddha said in DN1 those who cannot understand that which is subtle are headed for a bad destination.
If you continue to challenge my posts about the suttas, this may be dangerous for your blind faith because alot of what AB says is refutted by the suttas.
Please take care.
Regards
This has been explained to you many times.
The Buddha's teachings about rebirth are mundane & "personal". The Buddha did not teach supramundane "not-self" was reborn.
The Buddha did not say Nibbana is non-existence. The Buddha said Nibbana is the end of greed, hatred & delusion and transcends both existence & non-existence.
The Buddha did not say the things you are saying he said.
Your views are your personal views and not the views of the Buddha.