Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Explain what Buddhism has to say about materialism

24

Comments

  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    ...dhamma datu needs to wait till he dies before passing judgment on the whole process.
    can a decomposing corpse pass judgment?

    however, here, now, today, the cessation of suffering can be experienced in the mind

    free from craving, free from clinging, free from appropriating, free from self-views, knowing life is just natural elements (dhamma dhatu), the mind can be at peace

    may all beings experience some nibbana

    all the best

    :)
    Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him and arisen fermentations increase.

    This is how he attends inappropriately:

    'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?

    Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?'

    Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

    Sabbasava Sutta




  • heres a simple buddhist monk speaking clearly on rebirth, heaven hell etc, he doesnt speak for all buddhists but at least a good share of the tibetan ones.
  • WhoknowsWhoknows Australia Veteran
    Hi Voyaging,

    Thanks for your post, here is my take on this:

    - Our "gates" to the outside world are our perceptions. Everything we, as individuals, know is determined from our perceptions. Sure we learn theories about reality, but all these theories are limited by the experimental data which is gleaned though perceptions.

    - What we perceive is modified by our beliefs and ideas and other mental states. eg) A nice juicy steak can taste really good (if you're into meat), but eating one after the death of a very close friend or family member or even a dear pet would be a completely different situation, in this case it tastes completely tasteless (an extreme example yes but quite descriptive if somewhat morbid).

    So no matter what objective and materialistic theories we have about reality they are 100% dependent (without exception) on the subjective process in some way. So we cannot have a purely objective understanding of reality unless we "chose" to ignore this. In this case the ignoring of the participation of subjectivity in our world view is a clear case of standard Buddhist ignorance.

    Also scientific experiments are always artificially set up to exclude outside interference, which is fair enough. However by doing this we are creating artificial environments, who is to say that the results from such restrictive experiments can be extrapolated into the world at large with possibly infinite complexity?

    There are so many other assumptions made in science: 1) nature is subject to a mathematical explanation: isn't it collectively egotistical of us to expect nature to conform to maths?, 2) the laws of nature are time independent? Where's the proof to this, most scientists just assume this to be true otherwise all their theories fall down, 3) the Laws of nature are location independent: again no real proof on this one, we may have determined this based on a small amount of experiments here on earth but hardly very conclusive. 4) What is this thing "nature" that scientists refer to? All it is is the modern day equivalent of excluding God. Remember that modern day science was founded on religion, sure they ditched it later but were left with many holes in the basic theories.

    Also scientists often, particularly in the media, forget to differentiate between proven theories and their personal beliefs. I saw the other day a scientist was commenting on some (rudimentary) sensory experiments on brain activity and reporting on the results, it was quite interesting, however he then followed up with "in a short while we will know everything about the working of the brain and the mind". The problem is that this was presented as a scientific "fact" rather than just some unproven BS from an undisciplined scientist who doesn't know the limits of his knowledge and authority. There is no scientific evidence at all, even a tiny tiny amount to support his statement.

    Basically, materialism just isn't able to withstand analysis, it is flawed. These are the only loop holes there are many more....fundamental particles, the shifting paradigm, etc.

    Cheers, WK
  • edited February 2011
    I wanna be clear that I don't think you necessarily have to take on these esoteric ideas to be a Buddhist. However, Sidhartha came from a culture that was immersed in these esoteric type beliefs, and I think that should be acknowledged. As long as you work to gain control over your desires, I think that's ultimately what really matters. I hope the long post I wrote earlier helps yous see where my and many Buddhists' perspective about consciousness is coming from and that it has logic to it though.
  • edited February 2011
    Sincerely, your mind is holding one very bizarre & dangerous wrong view.

    I can only suggest you straighten out your bizzare, dangerous & disrespectful views.
    Do you think that ad-hominem attacks will further your argument? They just reflect on you. I will not be using this sort of attack on you.

    Many sincere Buddhists, including renowned teachers & monks, do not believe in rebirth. Amongst these, I am not including Stephen Batchelor. I am referring to dedicated practitioners.
    This is irrelevant to whether rebirth exists.

    The Buddha never once included rebirth in a description of his core teachings.
    This is also irrelevant. The "core teachings" are: suffering, cause of suffering, cessation of suferring and the path. That's it. But the suttas contain much, much more that supports the "core teachings". Those that deny rebirth ignore a great deal of the suttas. Are we to completely ignore the entire book of the Jataka stories?

    Regardless of virtues or powers a monk can display, accepting unverifiable teachings from such monks remains blind faith.

    All the best

    :)
    You may choose to cherry-pick your suttas, you may choose to attack me directly or via ad-hominem but the fact remains that it is the "western Buddhists" who so vehemently and violently choose to ignore and bury the concept of rebirth. And as such, they, as you are also doing here, misrepresent the Buddha-dhamma.

  • And here's a monk in the Theravada tradition that talks of rebirth:


  • edited February 2011
    Hi Voyaging,


    Also scientists often, particularly in the media, forget to differentiate between proven theories and their personal beliefs. I saw the other day a scientist was commenting on some (rudimentary) sensory experiments on brain activity and reporting on the results, it was quite interesting, however he then followed up with "in a short while we will know everything about the working of the brain and the mind". The problem is that this was presented as a scientific "fact" rather than just some unproven BS from an undisciplined scientist who doesn't know the limits of his knowledge and authority. There is no scientific evidence at all, even a tiny tiny amount to support his statement.

    Basically, materialism just isn't able to withstand analysis, it is flawed. These are the only loop holes there are many more....fundamental particles, the shifting paradigm, etc.

    Cheers, WK
    Are you talking about the Nova Science program from last week that discussed computers and the human mind? If that's the one, I have to agree with you that, though it was fascinating, there was a lot of bias from some of the scientists. The statement that stuck with me was from the neurophysicist who said that the mind was made up of "simple" electrons. If Electrons can result in the phenomenon of subjective awareness, there's nothing "simple" about them.

  • ...quoting or misquoting scripture is annoying, wait till you die to figure it out if you cant understand it, the buddha obviously talked a lot about his past lives...
    Hi John

    Naturally, I would not agree with your appraisal

    Firstly, in the Pali, the term 'past lives' does not exist. The term is 'pubbe nivāsā', which means 'past dwellings' or 'past abodes', literally, 'past homes'.
    Nivāsa [fr. nivasati2] stopping, dwelling, resting -- place, abode; living, sheltering http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.2.pali.234459

    Kām kroḏẖ jih parsai nāhan ṯih gẖat barahm nivāsā. who is not touched by sexual desire or anger - within his heart, God dwells
    When the Buddha spoke to Brahmins & layfollowers, he described pubbenivāsānussati in a certain way, such as in the Bhaya-bherava Sutta

    When the Buddha spoke to bhikkhus for the purpose of enlightenment, he described pubbenivāsānussati in another way, such as in the Khajjaniya Sutta

    As we are not Arahants, we cannot really know what happened during the Buddha's final completion of enlightenment, when his mind totally 'unwound' or 'purified' its past karma, its past clinging, its past self-views, etc

    for example, as adults, we may have clinging & self-beliefs buried within the subsconscious of the mind, formed when we where children, which are not conscious now, which may become conscious via memory but which must be purified if the mind is to reach complete purity from self-view

    so when all attachment & self-view was erased from the Buddha's mind, we can speculate this was not only the mind's present attachment but also that from the past

    it is our choice to understand this as a literal 'past life' or merely as 'past self-views' (such as when "I was the best artist in kindergarten")

    kind regards

    :)




  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    And here's a monk in the Theravada tradition that talks of rebirth:
    Sure. Many Theravadin monks teach from the Singalese Mahavihara Commentary sect.

    But this monk was expelled from the Thai Forest Tradition. Not simply for ordaining women but also for being overly concerned with teaching contrary to the teachings of the Forest Tradition.

    This monk's teacher, Ajahn Chah, did not teach the same as him.

    :)
    You should know that that which is arising and passing away is only the activity of mind. When something arises, it passes away and is followed by further arising and passing away. In the Way of Dhamma we call this arising and passing away "birth and death"; and this is everything -- this is all there is! When suffering has arisen, it passes away, and, when it has passed away, suffering arises again. There's just suffering arising and passing away. When you see this much, you'll be able to know constantly this arising and passing away; and, when your knowing is constant, you'll see that this is really all there is. Everything is just birth and death. It's not as if there is anything which carries on. There's just this arising and passing away as it is -- that's all.

    http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Articles/Ajahn_Chah_Living_With_the_Cobra.htm
    When we get something we like we are glad over it. If there is no clinging to that gladness there is no birth; if there is clinging, this is called "birth." So if we get something, we aren't born (into gladness). If we lose, then we aren't born (into sorrow). This is the birthless and the deathless. Birth and death are both founded in clinging to and cherishing the sankharas.

    http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Ajahn_Chah_A_Taste_of_Freedom.htm
    If you attach to the thought 'I'm peaceful', 'I'm agitated', 'I'm good', 'I'm bad', 'I'm happy' or 'I'm suffering', it means you are caught in more becoming and birth.

    The condition of being delighted is 'birth' and the condition of being distressed is 'death'. If there is death there must be birth, if there is birth there must be death. This process of birth and death is vatta - the cycle of birth and death which continues on endlessly.

    http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books2/Ajahn_Chah_The_Key_to_Liberation.htm
    In our practice, our tendency is to grasp, to take experiences as me and mine. If you think, '1 am calm, I am agitated, I am good or bad, I am happy or unhappy," this clinging causes more becoming and birth. When happiness ends, suffering appears; when suffering ends, happiness appears. You will see yourself unceasingly vacillating between heaven and hell. The Buddha saw that the condition of his mind was thus, and he knew, because of this birth and becoming, his liberation was not yet complete. So he took up these elements of experience and contemplated their true nature. Because of grasping, birth and death exist. Becoming glad is birth; becoming dejected is death. Having died, we are then born; having been born, we die. This birth and death from one moment to the next is like the endless spinning of a wheel.

    Therefore, the Buddha taught us to contemplate the movements of the mind. Watching the mind move, we can see its basic characteristics: endless flux, unsatisfactoriness and emptiness. You should be aware of and contemplate these mental phenomena. In this way, you can learn about the process of dependent origination. The Buddha taught that ignorance is the cause of the arising of all worldly phenomena and of our volitions. Volition gives rise to consciousness, and consciousness in turn gives rise to mind and body. This is the process of dependent origination.

    When we first study Buddhism, these traditional teachings may appear to make sense to us. But when the process is actually occurring within us, those who have only read about it cannot follow fast enough. Like a fruit falling from a tree, each link in the chain falls so fast that such people cannot tell what branches it has passed.

    When pleasurable sense contact takes place, for example, they are carried away by the sensation and are unable to notice how it happened.

    Of course, the systematic outline of the process in the texts is accurate, but the experience is beyond textual study. Study does not tell you that this is the experience of ignorance arising, this is how volition feels, this is a particular kind of consciousness, this is the feeling of the different elements of body and mind. When you let go of a tree limb and fall to the ground, you do not go into detail about how many feet and inches you fell; you just hit the ground and experience the pain. No book can describe that.

    http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books2/Ajahn_Chah_A_Still_Forest_Pool.htm








  • edited February 2011
    trying to stay on topic; sorry OP for the detour;, the Buddha taught that materialism is a form of delusion that can and usually does cause untold suffering, the teaching; reality is an illusion, has partly to do with the fact that a lot of material possesions look really good to us but cause more suffering than the're worth, in the buddhas opinion. a lot of things that dont appear good to the senses, but are really good for us, like bad tasting medicine, or old tattered books, on the other hand, are good for us and alleviate our suffering.

    the Buddha taught that the senses are likely to delude us in to wrong ideas and create suffering, and to see things as they truly are we have to put our senses, our ego, and a lot of what we call the mind on hold. true awareness, or mindfulness shows us things as they really are, and we can achieve happiness with a much simpler life less obssesed with "things",

    Some of the happiest people in the world are Buddhist monks and nuns who have renounced the world to practise simple living, love, compassion, and mindfulnness in humble settings with very few possesions. Certainly the Buddha offered a way to happiness for poor people who in Hindu society were taught they were nothing compared to the wealthy Brahman elite.
  • WhoknowsWhoknows Australia Veteran
    Hi Voyaging,


    Also scientists often, particularly in the media, forget to differentiate between proven theories and their personal beliefs. I saw the other day a scientist was commenting on some (rudimentary) sensory experiments on brain activity and reporting on the results, it was quite interesting, however he then followed up with "in a short while we will know everything about the working of the brain and the mind". The problem is that this was presented as a scientific "fact" rather than just some unproven BS from an undisciplined scientist who doesn't know the limits of his knowledge and authority. There is no scientific evidence at all, even a tiny tiny amount to support his statement.

    Basically, materialism just isn't able to withstand analysis, it is flawed. These are the only loop holes there are many more....fundamental particles, the shifting paradigm, etc.

    Cheers, WK
    Are you talking about the Nova Science show on PBS they had last week on whether or not computers and intelligence? If that's the one, I have to agree with you that, though it was fascinating, there was a lot of bias from some of the scientists. The statement that stuck with me was from the neurophysicist who said that the mind was made up of "simple" electrons. If Electrons can result in the phenomenon of subjective awareness, there's nothing "simple" about them.

    Hi Mellow,

    No not specifically this one, but a lot of these shows have the same simplistic representation of science. Unfortunately, this is the same representation that teachers of science present. So you end up with a lot of educated scientists that do not know the real bounds of their knowledge. It should be necessary for scientists to have a real working understanding of philosophy to be able to report scientific facts. That will keep them honest. If only 21st century science could catch up with 21st century philosophy (or even 20th).

    BTW: I'm passionate about this just because I ***was*** an absolute scientific materialist and absolutely believed that this theory was flawless. It took my investigation of buddhism to realise how flawed scientific materialism was as a theory of reality. It was like being hit over the head with a brick!

    Don't believe anyone, especially theories based on consensus (aka peer reviews)!

    Cheers, WK
  • i thought the Therevadas societies got together got together and voted to allow the ordination of women recently, after all the order of nuns was blessed by the buddha and founded by his own ex wife from Sakya, his son was a leader of the monks too.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Do you think that ad-hominem attacks will further your argument? They just reflect on you. I will not be using this sort of attack on you.
    Hi

    Certainly not an ad-hominem attack. You posted Buddhism is not for those who do not believe in rebirth.

    Example, when Kitsagotami lost her child & the Buddha instructed her to acquire one mustard seed, was the Buddha concerned with rebirth or was he concerned with relieving Kitsagotami of her anguish & suffering?

    Your view is dangerous & disrespectful.

    It is like say a human being does to need to see a doctor because they do not believe in rebirth.

    It is saying the many practitioners who have strived to extinguish dukkha using the Buddha's methods do not need Buddhism.

    :screwy:
    Those that deny rebirth ignore a great deal of the suttas. Are we to completely ignore the entire book of the Jataka stories?
    The Jataka stories are for children, just like the rebirth teachings, to encourage morality. They are unrelated to the end of suffering.

    The Jataka stories could not end Kitsagotami's suffering. The Jataka stories cannot result in enlightenment & Nirvana.
    You may choose to cherry-pick your suttas, you may choose to attack me directly or via ad-hominem but the fact remains that it is the "western Buddhists" who so vehemently and violently choose to ignore and bury the concept of rebirth. And as such, they, as you are also doing here, misrepresent the Buddha-dhamma.
    I have not misrespresented the Buddha-Dhamma. The Buddha taught there are two kinds of right view, namely, mundane & supramundane.

    The two kinds of teachings are given to different dispositions of students.

    Each of us has the right to chose whatever suits us.

    As for your "Western Buddhists" ad-hominem attack, there are many Eastern Buddhists who do not ascribe to rebirth.

    :)
    If you see states rising and falling in the mind and do not cling to the process, letting go of both happiness and suffering, mental rebirths become shorter and shorter.
    Take the question of whether or not there. is rebirth. What is reborn? How is it reborn? What is its kammic inheritance? These questions are not aimed at the extinction of Dukkha. That being so they are not Buddhist teaching and they are not connected with it. They do not lie in the sphere of Buddhism. Also, the one who asks about such matters has no choice but to indis­criminately believe the answer he's given, because the one who answers is not going to be able to produce any proofs, he's just going to speak according to his memory and feeling. The listener can't see for himself and so has to blindly believe "the other's words. Little by little the matter strays from Dhamma until it's something else altogether, unconnected with the extinction of Dukkha.

    Therefore, there being no one born here, there is no one who dies and is reborn. So, the whole Question of rebirth is utterly foolish and nothing to do with Buddhism at all.

    http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Heart_Wood_from_the_Bo_Tree.htm
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    i thought the Therevadas societies got together got together and voted to allow the ordination of women recently, after all the order of nuns was blessed by the buddha and founded by his own ex wife from Sakya, his son was a leader of the monks too.
    Hi John

    There is no agreement to date, however, in my view, there are ample means for women to take full ordaination. It has not been agreed on or openly accepted however it is openly tolerated. For example, the Thais do not want female ordaination but female bhikkhunis receive sufficient hospitality in Thailand.

    Kind regards

    :)

  • You can find rebirth explained here:

    Ven. S. Dhammika: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/gqga-4ed.pdf
    Ven. Narada, Thera: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/nutshell.pdf
    Aggacitta Bhikkhu: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/dietolive.pdf
    Bhikkhu Nanamoli & Bhikkhu Bodhi: Introduction to the Majjhima Nikaya

    In addition of course there are many suttas which mention rebirth including the Buddha stating where dead monks have been reborn, including material and non-material realms of existence. And of course, the Buddha himself recalled innumerable past lives which led him to declare:

    "Without recognisable end is this samsara. A first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving, wander and fare on, is not to be perceived."

    I could go on as the number of monks that discuss rebirth is enormous. However, this is a pointless exercise, ultimately. I suggest you drop your wrong view and aggressive personal attacks and accept the Buddha-dhamma as it is being taught by the Sangha and the suttas.
  • edited February 2011
    Dhamma, you said yourself the monk in the second video was discredited for ordaining women, then you say this like its not a bad thing; you seem to have some kind of dual personality, most of the time youre quite rational, then you kind of go off like youre making up youre own scripture or something.

    if anyone has dangerous and disrespectful views i would look within myself before criticising someone for only believing what most buddhists believe, so you're beliefs are in the minority, big deal, you still have every right to believe them, you strike me as a buddhist nihilist, a lot of new buddhists want to hear about reincarnation, in fact a lot of new believers are drawn to the idea,

    the scriptures you're continually quoting aren't basic buddhism for new buddhists, and are incomprehensible to newcomers. try to answer this question; how does not believing in rebirth and an afterlife make my life better and happier, less suffering, and how can it help others feel the same? you're words, please, without quoting scripture, personally my life would be completely hopeless if i had no belief in the afterlives, but thats just me
  • edited February 2011
    you seem to have some kind of dual personality, most of the time youre quite rational, then you kind of go off like youre making up youre own scripture or something.
    There is no need to make a personal attack on another member with an accusation of "duel personality"

    Most things DD says make perfect sense to me, and his quotes from the Buddha and various teachers are extremely helpful in supporting what he says. He also has considerable offline experience.

    Were you a Buddhist or a Christian monk,by the way, 'former monk John'?

    :)
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    But this monk was expelled from the Thai Forest Tradition. Not simply for ordaining women but also for being overly concerned with teaching contrary to the teachings of the Forest Tradition.
    Do you happen to have a reference for this? From what I understand, it was only his refusal to "acknowledging the invalidity of the [bhikkhuni] ordination ceremony" performed in Perth on Oct. 22, 2009 that prompted the Ajahn Chah Sangha to officially delist Bodhinyana Monastery as an affiliate:
    At the November 1st meeting at Wat Pah Pong, Ajahn Brahmavamso was given the opportunity to reconcile himself with the Sangha of Wat Pah Pong, and by extension the Thai Sangha at large, by acknowledging the invalidity of the ordination ceremony. Having been formally presented with the option three times, he still felt unable to do so. The Sangha felt in turn that it had no alternative but to delist his monastery.

  • Do you happen to have a reference for this? From what I understand, it was only his refusal to "acknowledging the invalidity of the [bhikkhuni] ordination ceremony" performed in Perth on Oct. 22, 2009 that prompted the Ajahn Chah Sangha to officially delist Bodhinyana Monastery as an affiliate:
    Correct. In fact, Ajahn Brahm offered to not do any more bhikkhuni ordinations but that was not enough for the forest sangha. They wanted him to renounce the ordinations that he had already performed. He didn't have the heart to do that - it would have heart too many people.

  • edited February 2011


    Most things DD says make perfect sense to me
    Sorry Dazzle, but his constant personal attacks make no sense to me. This behaviour does not accord with the dhamma. He can quote suttas all day long as can I but the person shows himself by his thoughts, words and actions.


  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    People in this thread need to remember they are discussing different points of view on a specific topic, and that personal comments and opinions about the validity of another person's credentials, or of any nature criticising, attacking insulting or belittling another member or members, are completely unwarranted, out of place and uncalled for.
    You need to control yourselves, folks.

    ;)
  • I thought this was supposed to be a thread about materialism???
  • This is the central question. Can enlightenment be explained in terms of brain activity?
    haw haw haw etc No offence intended.
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited February 2011

    Do you happen to have a reference for this? From what I understand, it was only his refusal to "acknowledging the invalidity of the [bhikkhuni] ordination ceremony" performed in Perth on Oct. 22, 2009 that prompted the Ajahn Chah Sangha to officially delist Bodhinyana Monastery as an affiliate:
    Correct. In fact, Ajahn Brahm offered to not do any more bhikkhuni ordinations but that was not enough for the forest sangha. They wanted him to renounce the ordinations that he had already performed. He didn't have the heart to do that - it would have heart too many people.

    Actually, he didn't technically perform the ordinations. Ayya Tathaaloka was the preceptor. Ajahn Brahm simply participated in the confirming ceremony that followed the ordination (as per the Vinaya) acknowledging the acceptance of the candidates, but you right that he didn't have the heart to renounce their confirmation.
  • edited February 2011
    dazzle, i was a buddhist monk in the cambodian therevada tradition, but only for three weeks, when i had set out to complete three months, which is a sort of minimum in therevada tradition. becoming a monk in the northern Mahayana tradition is a lifetime commitment, with bad luck for ever leaving.

    one of my main inspirations at the temple for being a monk was a cambodian family man, married, who had taken the vow for three days only, so he could go back to his family. i hope this answers you're question.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited February 2011
    I am a materialist in a sense. I think all conscious states are caused by physical activity in the brain. I think there is no life after death or reincarnation.

    To someone like me, neglecting the possibility for a change in my beliefs, particularly that all conscious activity can be described by physical brain activity, what truth can Buddhism still purport? Can enlightenment be explained in terms of brain activity?

    This is the central question. Can enlightenment be explained in terms of brain activity?
    Mind is that which is formless; it is feelings, perceptions, thoughts and consciousness. And so mind is not the brain, exactly. However, the brain and the sense organs (and what they sense) work together to create all that we call mind. So they are truly interconnected, though the brain itself would be considered "form". Without form, there is no formless. Without formless, there is no form.

    To answer your question, you don't need to think of it in any special way. The physical brain is the part that contains memories, memories that condition the mind's state and were conditioned by previous states of mind. And so changes in the mind are changes in the brain; changes in the brain are changes in the mind. Enlightenment can be explained as the perceptions of the world of the mind, in the here-and-now, and the perceptions that have previously existed and solidified in the memory, changing to align with reality.

    So the answer is yes. There's no need to go further or for there to be argument, and regardless of your beliefs in rebirth, enlightenment can help you go beyond all suffering in this life while still living. My two cents.

    (It may not be perfect, in fact I wrote this real quick without trying to think about it, so please don't nit-pick... but the truth is, the truth is beyond belief and systems of thought. It can come to anyone, simply by realizing what is there. Don't get too caught up in what others tell you that you must believe... because that's their belief. This too is my opinion, but take it for what it's worth.)

    Namaste

  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Do you happen to have a reference for this?
    You will need to re-read the verbal exchanges about the ordination.

    The primary matter was the ordination.

    But then, when the bhikkhus were giving Brahm the dressing down, they also labelled him "Mahayana", saying he visited Thailand often but did not visit the forest monastary. Instead, he was overly obssessed with teaching laypeople (mundane Dhamma) in Bangkok.

    As least Ajahn Buddhadasa regarded being overly concerned with teaching morality as unacceptable.

    :)
    Another monk opined that since Ajahn Brahm was now out of WPP he was a Mahayanist.

    Why Ajahn Brahmavamso was excluded from the Wat Pa Phong Sangha

    The following is a statement from Wat Pa Nanachat, explaining their reasons for the expulsion of Ajahn Brahmavamso from the Wat Pa Phong Sangha

    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia -- Receiving ordination as a bhikkhu in Thailand, entails acceptance of the authority not only of the Vinaya, but also that of the Mahatherasamakom, (the Thai Sangha's governing body) and the laws of the land.

    The Wat Pa Phong Sangha considers as a matter of course, that all of its members are ethically bound to respect their commitments to the Mahatherasamakom and to the Thai State.

    Ajahn Brahmavamso deliberately and unilaterally performed a ceremony knowing it to be considered illegal by the Thai state, illegitimate by the Mahatherasamakom and thus unacceptable to the Wat Pa Phong Sangha. There could be little doubt that by doing so he was, in effect, turning his back on continued membership of the Wat Pa Phong Sangha

    Wat Pa Phong and its branch monasteries constitute an informal grouping within the Thai Sangha. Membership of this group is voluntary and dependent on a willingness to conform to certain broad standards, most of which were established by Ajahn Cha.

    They include dhutanga practices such as daily almsround and eating one meal a day from the almsbowl. Special allowances are granted for overseas monasteries and generally speaking, abbots are almost completely autonomous in the running of their own monasteries.

    However, in the case that a monastery develops practices that significantly deviate from the Wat Pa Phong template, the matter is raised at the annual general meeting in June. The abbot in question is interviewed and asked to choose between the unacceptable practice or exclusion from the group. This procedure was followed in the case of Ajahn Brahmavamso with a meeting held on 1st November.

    Exclusion from the Wat Pa Phong Sangha is primarily intended to maintain the harmony and integrity of the group. It is not a punitive measure, although in Thailand at least, exclusion may lead to a certain loss of prestige and material gains.

    Ajahn Brahmavamso is unlikely to be adversely affected by the exclusion. His reputation and fund raising activities may well be enhanced. His social ties with Wat Pa Phong were already weak. He has neglected relations with his Thai colleagues for some time now.

    Over the last few years several of his trips to Thailand have been devoted to teaching laypeople without including visits to Ubon (most notably the one that coincided with the Wat Pa Phong annual general meeting of June 2009 in which the bhikkhuni issue was discussed).





  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Dhamma, you said yourself the monk in the second video was discredited for ordaining women, then you say this like its not a bad thing; you seem to have some kind of dual personality, most of the time youre quite rational, then you kind of go off like youre making up youre own scripture or something.

    if anyone has dangerous and disrespectful views i would look within myself before criticising someone for only believing what most buddhists believe, so you're beliefs are in the minority, big deal, you still have every right to believe them, you strike me as a buddhist nihilist, a lot of new buddhists want to hear about reincarnation, in fact a lot of new believers are drawn to the idea,

    the scriptures you're continually quoting aren't basic buddhism for new buddhists, and are incomprehensible to newcomers. try to answer this question; how does not believing in rebirth and an afterlife make my life better and happier, less suffering, and how can it help others feel the same? you're words, please, without quoting scripture, personally my life would be completely hopeless if i had no belief in the afterlives, but thats just me
    John

    I do not have a dual personality.

    I give credit where I believe it is due and where i believe it is not.

    Now about your post, it is this that makes no sense:

    (1) Contrary to what you asserted, the OP in this thread, a new buddhist, did not want to hear about reincarnation.

    (2) The Buddha did not define a "nihilist" as you did. The Buddha defined nihilism in two ways: (a) morally, not believing results of actions, which includes not believing there are happy & painful destinations; and (b) spiritually, believing death will bring peace (what he called "over reaching"), rather than practising the 8FP here & now.

    (3) The scriptures I am quoting are not comprehensible to you. But the first scripture I quoted was comprehensible to the OP. He confirmed that, saying he agreed with MN 38

    (4) personally, your life would be completely hopeless if you had no belief in the afterlives, but thats you. for the OP it is the contrary. for me, it is the contrary. quoting scripture below, what you must rely on in your life is inappropriate for enlightenment. if you have no interest in practising the noble path, of letting go of 'self-view', of developing the perception of impermanence (anicca sanna), of abandoning craving, then that is your choice

    (5) personally, I would not have got so involved in this thread if Vangelis did not say: "Buddhism is not for you if you do not believe in rebirth". This is entirely false. If a person wants to believe in rebirth, they can become a Hindu. In Hinduism, the 8FP, three characteristics, etc, are not found but rebirth is found. If person has no suffering that needs to be extinguished, then they do not need the 4NTs, 8FP, 3Cs, emptiness, etc.

    :)
    "And how does one have yearnings? There is the case where a certain person thinks, 'May form be like this in the future. May feeling... May perception... May fabrication... May consciousness be like this in the future.' This is how one has yearnings.

    "And how is one free from yearning? There is the case where a certain person does not think, 'May form be like this in the future. May feeling... May perception... May fabrication... May consciousness be like this in the future.' This is how one is free from yearning.

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.003.than.html
    Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him and arisen fermentations increase.

    "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html
    The Buddha instructed there are three kinds of fermentations (asava = pollution, outflows of mental sewerage), namely, sensual desire, becoming & ignorance.

    Each time you yearfully argue your case for reincarnation, as the Buddha advised, unarisen fermentations [of becoming] arise and arisen fermentations [of becoming] increase.

    :)
    "And what is the right view that has effluents [asava], sides with merit & results in acquisitions [of becoming]? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the other after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit & results in acquisitions.

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Reincarnation is a relative truth that can be useful to usurp other wrong views. Same with karma. It is not the ultimate nature of mind I would imagine. It seems to be a metaphysics to me. Maybe that is because I do not have recollections of past lives. Having a belief or disbelief in rebirth is not the liberating force cutting at the root of samsara.

    I would suggest being open to possibilities. Why should we think the world is ordinary and 'explained' by our intellectual assumptions and understanding?

    (the opinions expressed here are not necessarily representations of my own realization, my readings, the dharma, or my teachers communication to me. Nonetheless I enjoy sharing my ideas with fellow brothers and sisters)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    dazzle, i was a buddhist monk in the cambodian therevada tradition, but only for three weeks, when i had set out to complete three months...
    When I was 21 years old, I went to a fancy dress party dressed as The Pope. This did not necessarily mean I had any useful spiritual attainments or knowledge, despite the photographs showing my mother bowing down at my feet and my hand blessing her head.

    In Thailand, it is the norm most young men spend three months as a monk. Many do so reluctantly. Why? Their mother's push them to do it because she believes it will help her gain a favourable rebirth. Also, practically, in the atmosphere of sensory deprivation, the monks can brainwash the young men into respecting them, so when they get married, when their wifes run to the monastery complaining about their husband's bad behaviour, hopefully the husband will listen to the monks.

    All of this is part of the Buddhism of Thai society.

    :)

  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Sorry Dazzle, but his constant personal attacks make no sense to me. This behaviour does not accord with the dhamma. He can quote suttas all day long as can I but the person shows himself by his thoughts, words and actions.
    Vangelis

    Have you not realised yet the grave & deadly error of your original post, where it was asserted:
    Then there is no role for Buddhism in your life.
    For one who believes in rebirth, all I can say is you are quite heedless.

    :)
    So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

    "As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

    "What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

    "What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

    "What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html
    Ironic how the Buddha himself was wrongly accused as a "nihilist".

    :lol:
    THE BODHISATTVA VOWS

    The Eighteen Root Downfalls

    12. discouraging others from seeking full enlightenment

    The Forty-Six Secondary Downfalls

    7. not giving the Dharma teaching to those who wish to learn

    :-/
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    ...accept the Buddha-dhamma as it is being taught by the Sangha and the suttas.
    Vangelis

    The suttas teach as follows:

    Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves.

    Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth clinging to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth adhering to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he fully understood everything,

    And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other worlds. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the others after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.

    "And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.


    :om:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    heres a simple buddhist monk speaking clearly on rebirth, heaven hell etc, he doesnt speak for all buddhists but at least a good share of the tibetan ones.
    heres a simple rational man demolishing the unverified speculative illogical views of Ajahn Brahm



    same man on the 'simple' Dalai Lama



    :)
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited February 2011
    Do you happen to have a reference for this?
    You will need to re-read the verbal exchanges about the ordination.

    The primary matter was the ordination.

    But then, when the bhikkhus were giving Brahm the dressing down, they also labelled him "Mahayana", saying he visited Thailand often but did not visit the forest monastary. Instead, he was overly obssessed with teaching laypeople (mundane Dhamma) in Bangkok.
    Again, from what I can see, it was only his refusal to acknowledging the invalidity of the bhikkhuni ordination ceremony that prompted him to be delisted. The article you quote says:
    Ajahn Brahmavamso deliberately and unilaterally performed a ceremony knowing it to be considered illegal by the Thai state, illegitimate by the Mahatherasamakom and thus unacceptable to the Wat Pa Phong Sangha. There could be little doubt that by doing so he was, in effect, turning his back on continued membership of the Wat Pa Phong Sangha.
    It certainly doesn't say anything about his teachings or him being a 'Mahayanist.' And from Wat Nanachat's official statement:
    At the November 1st meeting at Wat Pah Pong, Ajahn Brahmavamso was given the opportunity to reconcile himself with the Sangha of Wat Pah Pong, and by extension the Thai Sangha at large, by acknowledging the invalidity of the ordination ceremony. Having been formally presented with the option three times, he still felt unable to do so. The Sangha felt in turn that it had no alternative but to delist his monastery.
    Again, it doesn't say anything about his teachings or him being a 'Mahayanist.' And a monk stating after the fact that "since Ajahn Brahm was now out of WPP he was a Mahayanist" doesn't mean that he was expelled for being a Mahayanist, whatever that even means. Frankly, I'm going to need more than that to believe he was expelled for anything other than his participation in the bhikkhini ordination ceremony.

  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Frankly, I'm going to need more than that to believe he was expelled for anything other than his participation in the bhikkhini ordination ceremony.
    Sure.

    I said the primary reason was the ordination.

    But he was dressed down for other matters considered alien to WPP.

    For example, if Ajahn Sumedo ordained the woman, I sense the matter would have unfolded much differently. Ajahn Sumedo would probably have been treated with much more respect by WPP.

    Jason. Do you not regard it rather unusual Ajahn Brahm's teachings do not have the same flavour as Ajahn Chah? For example, Ajahn Brahm's explanation of Dependent Origination is in complete contradiction to that of Ajahn Chah.

    In response to the expulsion, do you regard Ajahn Amaro was speaking falsely when he said it was his duty is the deliver "the message" [of Emptiness] of Ajahn Chah?

    Anyway. My questions are just for your reflection. I have no wish or expectation you reply.


    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Can enlightenment be explained in terms of brain activity?
    Although Buddhism does not concern itself with biology, I think enlightenment may be explained in terms of brain activity.

    Are not our motivations rooted in the brain, according to psychology & biology?

    For example, when human beings have psychiatric conditions, they may be given medications that include certain chemicals or, in rare cases, receive a lobotomy.

    By directly affecting the brain, these treatments are able to control the mind's moods.

    Now enlightenment also controls or negates the mind's moods. The Buddha taught enlightenment results in the ending of the asava (mental fermentations), that is, the ending of greed, hatred & delusion.

    It follows we can speculatively but confidently probably make a correlation between enlightenment & brain activity.

    For example, I recall the His Holiness The Dalai Lama, in his wisdom, has taken a scientific interest in meditation, enlightenment & brain activity.


    :)
  • People who don't believe in rebirth due to lack of experience, should be more undecided about the idea, instead of so definite when they have no idea. Those that believe in rebirth without experience should also be undecided until one has experience. But, we shouldn't antagonize each other either.
  • People who don't believe in rebirth due to lack of experience, should be more undecided about the idea, instead of so definite when they have no idea. Those that believe in rebirth without experience should also be undecided until one has experience. But, we shouldn't antagonize each other either.

    Hi Vajraheart,

    Could you explain what you mean by 'lack of experience' ?

    kind regards,

    Dazzle

  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    Frankly, I'm going to need more than that to believe he was expelled for anything other than his participation in the bhikkhini ordination ceremony.
    Sure.

    I said the primary reason was the ordination.

    But he was dressed down for other matters considered alien to WPP.

    For example, if Ajahn Sumedo ordained the woman, I sense the matter would have unfolded much differently. Ajahn Sumedo would probably have been treated with much more respect by WPP.
    You say that, but I've yet to see one concrete example of anything other than his refusal to acknowledging the invalidity of the bhikkhuni ordination ceremony. The only thing 'alien' appears to be his support for the bhikkhuni ordination ceremony.

    As for speculating whether things would have been different if Ajahn Sumedho were to have done it, I think that's rather pointless. There's no way of knowing whether things would've been different.
    Jason. Do you not regard it rather unusual Ajahn Brahm's teachings do not have the same flavour as Ajahn Chah? For example, Ajahn Brahm's explanation of Dependent Origination is in complete contradiction to that of Ajahn Chah.
    Not really. Ajahm Brahm isn't Ajahn Chah. Different people have different teachings styles. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Ajahn Brahm's explanation of Dependent Origination is in complete contradiction to that of Ajahn Chah." To be honest, I'm not really that familiar with either. Maybe you could start a new thread comparing the two.
    In response to the expulsion, do you regard Ajahn Amaro was speaking falsely when he said it was his duty is the deliver "the message" [of Emptiness] of Ajahn Chah?
    I'm not really sure what that means. I'd have to read what he said in context. I'm about to run out the door right now, but when I have the time, I'll do that and tell you what I think if you're still interested.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited February 2011
    People who don't believe in rebirth due to lack of experience, should be more undecided about the idea, instead of so definite when they have no idea. Those that believe in rebirth without experience should also be undecided until one has experience. But, we shouldn't antagonize each other either.
    @Vajraheart, You tread the path that is between belief-for and belief-against, where there is not sufficient cause for either, that has seemed to me the only reasonable way of thinking for some time on such issues. :D Well said, says I! We should understand the teachings to the best of our ability, but not equate them with truth without putting them to the test, having direct experience of the reality that is right in front of us despite what we would wish it to be.
  • Mind and body interpenetrate.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    People who don't believe in rebirth due to lack of experience, should be more undecided about the idea, instead of so definite when they have no idea. Those that believe in rebirth without experience should also be undecided until one has experience. But, we shouldn't antagonize each other either.
    Hi Vajraheart

    Did i read you post somewhere you had experienced "your" past lives?

    The Buddha taught all things are not "ours".

    The Buddha also taught the mind can only experience five things, namely, form, feeling, perception, mental formation & consciousness.

    Whatever your mind experienced within itself was simply mental formations.

    The Buddha said:

    Thus, monks, any mental formations whatsoever that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right wisdom as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

    (Khajjaniya Sutta: Chewed Up)

    In short, your mind did not experience your former lives. Instead, I say, your mind is deluded.

    All the best

    :)

  • People who don't believe in rebirth due to lack of experience, should be more undecided about the idea, instead of so definite when they have no idea. Those that believe in rebirth without experience should also be undecided until one has experience. But, we shouldn't antagonize each other either.

    Hi Vajraheart,

    Could you explain what you mean by 'lack of experience' ?

    kind regards,

    Dazzle

    Hi Dazzle... seeing past lives directly. Actual re-experiencing of them, it's more like time travel than seeing a memory. Leading more to experiential faith than doubt.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited February 2011
    By that argument DD you have not realized the knowledge contained in the Pali Canon. Because your knowledge, recollection, understanding is only a mental formation. Theres nothing wrong with that of course ;)

    Though it points out the fallacy of undermining confidence in our own discernment by describing it as a mental formation.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Hi Vajraheart,

    The suttas state the Buddha remembered, with memory, his previous "homes".

    The suttas state the Buddha did not use any special means (such as the divine eye) to recollect his past dwellings.

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited February 2011
    By that argument DD you have not realized the knowledge contained in the Pali Canon. Because your knowledge, recollection, understanding is only a mental formation.
    I have missed your point. Please clarify?

    Keep in mind the Buddha said:

    "Monks, any priests or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past dwellings all recollect the five aggregates, or one among them. Which five?

    When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form.

    Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling.

    Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception.

    Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications.

    Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness.



    :)

  • edited February 2011

    Hi Dazzle... seeing past lives directly. Actual re-experiencing of them, it's more like time travel than seeing a memory. Leading more to experiential faith than doubt.
    Probably what you experienced was cryptomnesia. My previous Vajrayana teacher said people often can make things up when they think they are regressing to their past lives.


    :)
  • People who don't believe in rebirth due to lack of experience, should be more undecided about the idea, instead of so definite when they have no idea. Those that believe in rebirth without experience should also be undecided until one has experience. But, we shouldn't antagonize each other either.
    Hi Vajraheart

    Did i read you post somewhere you had experienced "your" past lives?

    The Buddha taught all things are not "ours".

    The Buddha also taught our mind can only experience five things, namely, form, feeling, perception, mental formation & consciousness.

    Whatever your mind experienced within itself was simply mental formations.

    The Buddha said:

    Thus, monks, any mental formations whatsoever that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right wisdom as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

    In short, your mind did not experience your former lives. Your mind is deluded.

    All the best

    :)

    Yes, there is still the personal mind stream that is without self.

    The continuation of habit patterns within consciousness lasts beyond the individual body due to it's subtlety and clinging to self. For an enlightened being, this patterns is transformed into maintaining self awareness as an offering, leading to things such as the tulku tradition. There are too many proofs for past lives, kids that remember spontaneously without parental inference, etc.

    Because you are reading this sutta with an attachment to an outcome, you are not open to any sort of possible clarification and might not take my clarification with any weight. This has more to do with your pre-conceptions than my level of delusion.

    Seeing past lives directly for me does not solidify this sense of self, but realizes more deeply relativity and the subtle depth of mind. Sensations, forms, etc. exist on other dimensions, not merely physical. You are limiting your perception to gross level, and are missing much of what the Buddha taught in the Pali Suttas. You should go deeper into Jhana and stop attaching so much onto the body.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited February 2011
    Calling Vajras experience with past lives as only a mental formation was used to undermine her experience as delusion. I could similarly undermine your whole experience with Buddhas teaching as a mental formation. And thus a delusion. Therefore the practice of labeling things as mental formations to undermine the content is ludicrous.

    As an aside my teacher says that the skandas are mistaken perceptions of how reality is. They are how things appear. As much 'relative truth' as rebirth and karma in fact.
  • VajraheartVajraheart Veteran
    edited February 2011

    Hi Dazzle... seeing past lives directly. Actual re-experiencing of them, it's more like time travel than seeing a memory. Leading more to experiential faith than doubt.
    Probably what you experienced was cryptomnesia.


    :)
    Nope, it was and are various past lives. From animal, to heaven realms, to human realm stuff. It's interesting when people from outside the experience like to project all sorts of limitations onto it in order to fulfill their own clinging or pre-conceptions instead of opening to the possibility of another outcome for themselves?
This discussion has been closed.