[JonnTEN]

Well said!

naturally, i have already disagreed

the realms are insights into the human condition of hell (suffering), heedless/instinctual behaviour (animal), addiction (hungry ghost), angelic or vain bliss (heavenly), reflective morality (human), etc

although the metaphors may be dispensed with, imo, the subject matter is essential

regards

[Michaelnewerb]

naturally, i have already disagreed

the realms are insights into the human condition of hell (suffering), heedless/instinctual behaviour (animal), addiction (hungry ghost), angelic or vain bliss (heavenly), reflective morality (human), etc

although the metaphors may be dispensed with, imo, the subject matter is essential

Maybe I have misconstrued something, but I didn't see that Tjampel was arguing the subject matter is irrelevant. I understood him as saying the Buddha's presentation was appropriate to the audience of his time. If he were teaching now, he might have conveyed it differently.

A metaphor is a way of presenting content. It seems to me that by saying the six realms are metaphorical, you are agreeing with Tjampel that the issue here is about presentation.

[Muramoursuard]

Maybe I have misconstrued something, but I didn't see that Tjampel was arguing the subject matter is irrelevant. I understood him as saying the Buddha's presentation was appropriate to the audience of his time. If he were teaching now, he might have conveyed it differently.

A metaphor is a way of presenting content. It seems to me that by saying the six realms are metaphorical, you are agreeing with Tjampel that the issue here is about presentation.

This is how I took Tjampel's post also, and how I see it, too.

The presentation in the Pali Canon is culturally relevant.

[chipkluchi]

The presentation in the Pali Canon is culturally relevant.

Again, I disagree and I retract my previous position that "the metaphors may be dispensed with"

It was insight into the human condition (rather than culture) which gave rise to the metaphors

The metaphors are valid metaphors, which people commonly use in the West

For example, a Westerner learns about a horrific murder & comments: "They are not human! They are just animals!"

Or a Westerner sees politicians or corporates abuse power & comments: "They act as though they are Gods".

Or pop songs about hungry ghosts: "You lived your life like a candle in the wind, never knowing who to cling to, when the rain set in".

The realms are products of insight

The Buddha's title "Lokavidu: Knower of the Worlds" was not some kind of Brahminist legacy

Kind regards

[occafeVes]

Again, I disagree and I retract my previous position that "the metaphors may be dispensed with"

It was insight into the human condition (rather than culture) which gave rise to the metaphors

The metaphors are valid metaphors, which people commonly use in the West

For example, a Westerner reads a newpaper article about a horrific murder & comments: "How inhuman! They are just animals!"

Or a Westerners sees politicians or corporates abusing power & comments: "They act as though they are Gods".

The realms are products of insight

The Buddha's title "Lokavidu: Knower of the Worlds" was not some kind of Brahminist legacy

Kind regards

I agree it is insight into the human condition, rather than to culture which is of importance - the metaphors used were culturally appropriate to the time
( and I also agree that many remain relevant today ).

[Shinegayboyx]

It was insight into the human condition (rather than culture) which gave rise to the metaphors.

Agree Element, this is my take on the issue. Metaphors are different from tales and allegories. Metaphors are means to bring facts into understanding. Into insight.

Buddha uses thousands of them along his suttas: the arrow, the raft, the water boiling, and many others along many suttas.

Also he uses symbols as means to embrace a complex fact of reality into a well understandable unit to reach everybody understanding. Furthermore, a coherent system of symbols can lead to a metaphor.

For example the Simsapa Leaves Sutta: Each leave is a sort of teaching. The important ones are in the hands of Buddha being offering for us.

This is a deep teaching given through symbols. A few leaves are a few teachings enough for quenching Dhukkha.

Anybody can bring someone to a park or to a forest, can take some leaves and tell the same thing that Buddha told 2500 with the exact same symbolic content and leads to that same understanding.

Culture did not that gave birth to that early teachings, but insight into the true nature of things.

The teachings used symbols and metaphors well understood for any given culture at any given time.

Metaphors, like music, has that kind of universal understanding. Every human being has been exposed to a some kind of boiling water.

Thus when the metaphor is used to point toward a mind that is under stress, everybody can figure to where the teaching is pointing.

True nature of things -impermanence, non self and unsatisfactoriness- are beyond cultural conditioned believes.

At least this is where my understanding goes.

[husartrof]

Tijampel,

If I have understand your last post let me issue this question. If not, let me know it.

Isn't that a kind of needed "cultural dressing" in terms of mundane human nature?

Personally I do not have a contemporary or any other kind of imagine of Buddha. When I read a sutta the only thing is that Buddha is speaking that sutta and that is all. No need to go further.

I have not found any problem at following and practicing the early teachings in this "post modern" civilization context.

Furthermore, they are devoid of any cultural dressing that should be "modernized" or updated.

That has happend with the traditions endless struggle of the "such is this" and "such is that".

You can ignore that and go to the source.

So, I haven't found that problem. I haven't found the need to bring "into context" his deliberative instructions.

As an example, in Mexico, there are at least a thousand different Christs from dark skinned ones in areas of high historical African immigration to some very European "look" in some places where we can find communities with an Italian and French descent backgrounds.

All them are nothing more than just needed cultural superstitious artifacts. The real doctrine of Christ is not known. What makes this different "Christs" fascinating and charming is all the superstition and supernatural believes around them.

The real meaning of Christ is completely lost for the masses.

Then, isn't the removal of such custom given to the image of Buddha, in dependence of the superstitious believes of many cultures along historical time, a core aspect, so to get at the root of the deliberative early teachings?

The Dhamma spoken by the historical Buddha is timeless. It was not a by product of culture but a penetration of the true nature of things, including "human nature" which precisely as its highest defilement, there are found those cultural atavisms.

But anyway, at the very end of this discussion, everybody is in its own right to hold the believe that best comforts the mind.

Hi Kaarine;

I am not sure that we disagree. My efforts are directed towards practicing what is most useful to advance my spiritual goal, not to have a satisfying, warm, or fuzzy view of the Buddha or any other being who teaches the dharma/dhamma that has the unique ability to liberate. The cultural baggage of any teacher, Buddha or "some dude" in New Jersey who discovers all this for himself (perhaps we'll call him Maitreya), will always be evident. And it shouldn't deter me from following her or his instructions, once I have decided that these teachings are the highest and best for me. Who cared about Einstein's religion, place of birth, or school grades? His theory of special relativity, at least, worked. His theories about general relativity may or may not work. As a result of just the theory of special relativity this world was (and IS) radically changed.

As Lazy Eye states; as Element has stated numerous times, there are plenty of Suttas and Sutras which reference incorrect cosmology (as it is understood today), realms and beings and states and processes, powers, and knowledges, all of which defy our conventional, Western, rational, scientific, logical....need I add any more adjectives?...understanding of what's possible.

So we can:

A. Claim that a large number of Suttas declared as Sutta by people who specialized in preserving Sutta 2400 years ago are "officially" bogus because we know better. This doesn't fly with me. Disparage them as unscientific; ignore them because they don't help you (the Buddha himself told us to use what we were able to confirm as useful), but don't claim that ..."oh these couldn't possibly have been spoken by our precious Lord Buddha himself" (as if we knew himpersonally). This, at the same time as we praise those beings who worked so hard to preserve the exact words and phrases used by the Buddha, and at the same time that we point to their reliability over the 180 or so years they carried on their tradition orally. We argue that the Suttas are reliable and trustworthy....except for....THAT ONE! It clearly doesn't fit. This won't work for me, not because I don't want it to work but because it doesn't make much sense that numerous suttas, in their entirety are bogus and, if we then start to argue that "well, the Sutta is, for the most part authentic; however, the insertion of all these references to devas, to lives occurring after the breakup and dissolution of the body, to cosmologies that make no sense...all these are add-ons by bad bad disciples. These are arhats we're talking about, who convened these councils; what motivation would an arhat have to add in references to superstitious phenomena, which the Buddha clearly (allegedly) steered entirely away from. I have to conclude that the Buddha did NOT steer entirely away from it.


B. Even worse, I think, is to take specific references by the Buddha, which appear to have a common 'face value"meaning and argue that they, in fact, have ONLY a less common meaning, ONLY a metaphorical meaning---a being who speaks constantly in metaphor about devas (metaphor for....something), about "the life to come", about the breakup and dissolution of the body after death referring to subsequent consciousness; everything becomes a metaphor; and of course the cosmology used and reused and never challenged by the Buddha. That's metaphor?

The Buddha claims to have taught Brahma himself. He is, by his own declaration, teacher of gods and men. Yes, ALL these things; all these hundreds of references may be considered metaphorical by us right here right now. They may ALL be irrelevant to our practice as well. Yet, my own legal training compels me to evaluate them in toto, in connection with, in context with all of the passages too, for example, where he clearly references birth of a mental state, death of a mental state, for example, where he references the importance of practicing in the here and now, of the importance of NOT speculating on future anything, of the uselessness of developing complex philosophies to explain phenomena, etc.

It's not possible to know what the Buddha believed personally about cosmology, future lives, etc. It is possible, however, to make a judgment about what he was attempting to convey to his students, based specifically on their abilities, beliefs, needs, on what would be most effective in pushing them towards the edge of knowledge--toward the most profound.

To unequivocally assert, however, (that is, to assert as if it's the only logical conclusion) that the Buddha expected that his audience understood his teachings on cosmology and all the other items, set forth above as mere metaphor or as references to scientifically verifiable states of mind in this life, fails to give proper credence and deference to the multitude of other supernatural and superstitious references in the Suttas. I simply can't ignore then, I can't exile or sequester them. They exist, they are considered sutta, they are considered the words of the Buddha, no matter what he actually believed, and no matter how we should best practice his teachings.

If the Buddha consistently is throwing out reference after reference to supernatural scientifically impossible things as if they're ordinary experience for him then, either they are, or he was deluded, or he was simply not challenging deeply held beliefs of his student/contemporaries. And, if all these supernatural references were really uttered then it's no stretch at all, of course, to go from there to past and future lives....as in...if that is so then anything's possible.

It seems that he at least accepted his students' beliefs (in the sense of not upsetting or challenging them) in many of these areas; he knew they took much of it for granted (for example, that Kamma had a definite effect in this life or, after death and dissolution/breakup of the body and , in the next life or in some future life is a pretty mainstream view. When the Buddha used this pretty stock phrase in his great exposition of Kamma I see it as simply accepting and not challenging commonly held belief on this topic, knowing that the real practice of Buddhism, geared towards acquiring wisdom, insight into how we misapprehend phenomena and misunderstand self.

The Buddha did not begin teaching in order to shake up people's notions or understanding of their own environment, of after death processes and the rest. He taught to liberate us from our own delusion about having a true self (through leading us to nonconceptually discern the utter lack and impossibility of any such thing), and, in doing so, to free us from all the misery that befalls us due to our ignorance on this subject.

If as a result of, what I consider to be a "realist" view regarding the historical Buddha---that he was a creature of his time and culture, and that his views were definitely influenced by it---one loses faith in his liberative teachings then that's a tragedy...even if it's just one person. But let's deal honestly with who he was, what he said, what's especially useful, what to pick up from the Suttas and what to perhaps just kind of leave on the side.

[ZesePreodaNed]

naturally, i have already disagreed

the realms are insights into the human condition of hell (suffering), heedless/instinctual behaviour (animal), addiction (hungry ghost), angelic or vain bliss (heavenly), reflective morality (human), etc

although the metaphors may be dispensed with, imo, the subject matter is essential

regards

Hate to say it (almost....not really) but, I am far happier when I view the realms this way. I certainly have no ability to alter my true beliefs about realms. I grew up not believing in the and never encountered evidence that convinced me otherwise, though I'm open to it. I've experienced some unusual things in meditation but who's to say what the nature of that is. So this is a better meditation practice for a being like me, who would just be faking it were I do posit hot and cold and sharp and pointy hells located in the hot molten core of earth (or somewhere close).

Tibetan logicians say that, if you have never seen or felt the presence of a ghost, then of course, it's a grave logical error to assert "ghost" on the merely because others assert it. You can assert something based on an absence where the appearance of something else mandates that conclusion. If you see smoke rising on the ridge (absent any fog....say a clear and dry day at noon) you can reasonably assert fire. If the monk Tashi never eats in the morning and he's fat you can assert that he's eating in the afternoon or evening. '

We don't have to look very far to see these kinds of gross and more subtle kinds of sufferings; only at our mind, at our tv (check out the latest war), at our friends and loved ones, at neutral people, at enemies. It's unnecessary to posit realms to bring the message about suffering home. And for those who assert one life then this is clearly the best way to go about it.

Now do I say that the Buddha's students CLEARLY understood what you're asserting here. No way. I don't think so. I don't think conclaves or Arhats (beings which far surpass us) who decided to put all manner of references to the supernatural and superstitious in suttas believed that what they were putting in would be clearly understood to be metaphorical by later students. And what's my proof? That is has NOT been understood that way by most of them. And if these fully evolved beings were completely wrong about the course how future generations would interpret the suttas then why?

Well, I've expressed my view above and you may want to respond to that post.

Take care---I have learned a great deal from reading your posts. You're a wonderful and passionate consolidator and expositor of the Buddha's teachings---thanks for that!

tj

[flanna.kersting]

In general thinking about different 'realms' as real places somewhere I might go to in the future or have been in the past, is speculative - and irrelevant to my life in the here and now.

Hi Aloka, maybe it is possible to think of these other realms as existing side by side with this one. It is quite possible that there are levels of reality/consciousness beyond the one we appear to share

[Nadin Maison]

Hi Kaarine;

I am not sure that we disagree.

I really hope not to. I don't like disagreements. I don't delight into them. It is not my sport. Mine is swimming.

Your post can't be adressed fully by now. It is full of ideas that are needed to take them into serene consideration.

Let me quote some relevant paragraphs... not as an aggressive series about quoting you bringing into combat, please.

Who cared about Einstein's religion, place of birth, or school grades? His theory of special relativity, at least, worked. His theories about general relativity may or may not work. As a result of just the theory of special relativity this world was (and IS) radically changed. The religious believes of Einstein tainted his works and at the end when he refuses to accept randomness at the light of quantum mecanics he said that very sad phrase of "God do not play dice".

As Lazy Eye states; as Element has stated numerous times, there are plenty of Suttas and Sutras which reference incorrect cosmology (as it is understood today), realms and beings and states and processes, powers, and knowledges, all of which defy our conventional, Western, rational, scientific, logical....need I add any more adjectives?...understanding of what's possible. Those cosmologies of Buddha -and not the ones of "Buddhisms"- aren't of the same nature of the astrophysical western development. The cosmologies are means to induce insight about human nature. And yes, they are metaphorical in the "upaya" of Buddha.

For example. There was a post about some demons that are true for Pure land Buddhism. Element here bring them into the realm of the Dhamma showing the metaphorical nature of them to one of the new members here.

A. Claim that a large number of Suttas declared as Sutta by people who specialized in preserving Sutta 2400 years ago are "officially" bogus because we know better. This doesn't fly with me. Disparage them as unscientific; ignore them because they don't help you (the Buddha himself told us to use what we were able to confirm as useful), but don't claim that No, a serious lecture can not disparage them. They are needed, through metaphorical understanding to keep coherent his teachings. As an anthropologist any context has to be considered.


It clearly doesn't fit. This won't work for me, not because I don't want it to work but because it doesn't make much sense that numerous suttas, in their entirety are bogus and, if we then start to argue that "well, the Sutta is, for the most part authentic; however, the insertion of all these references to devas, to lives occurring after the breakup and dissolution of the body, to cosmologies that make no sense...all these are add-ons by bad bad disciples. These are arhats we're talking about, who convened these councils; what motivation would an arhat have to add in references to superstitious phenomena, which the Buddha clearly (allegedly) steered entirely away from. I have to conclude that the Buddha did NOT steer entirely away from it. Not my case. If some sutta is not well understood it is not disparage. It is put aside waiting to the proper moment to be understood. We can not understood everything in an instant. Takes a lot of time and patience the lecture and contemplation of suttas.

B. Even worse, I think, is to take specific references by the Buddha, which appear to have a common 'face value"meaning and argue that they, in fact, have ONLY a less common meaning, ONLY a metaphorical meaning---a being who speaks constantly in metaphor about devas (metaphor for....something), about "the life to come", about the breakup and dissolution of the body after death referring to subsequent consciousness; everything becomes a metaphor; and of course the cosmology used and reused and never challenged by the Buddha. That's metaphor? Yes. In the light of Buddha teachings. If we forget the real aim, seems not. But having in mind the real aim of his teachings, IMO, they are used as metaphors. But maybe for an audience hooked in such believes it is obvious that they do not were taken as such... from this we have the further additions to his teachings.

The Buddha claims to have taught Brahma himself. A metaphor of his deep insight.

They may ALL be irrelevant to our practice as well. No, metaphors are not irrelevant tools for teaching. They are needed means to develop insight. If this was developed at the 100% of his audience... good, but it was not the case. Hundreds of monks were gathered around the Buddha, as it is told, when this special kind of teachings were told. Some could be still cling into those believes as literal.

Yet, my own legal training compels me to evaluate them in toto, in connection with, in context with all of the passages too, for example, where he clearly references birth of a mental state, death of a mental state, for example, where he references the importance of practicing in the here and now, of the importance of NOT speculating on future anything, of the uselessness of developing complex philosophies to explain phenomena, etc. Who iniciates he teaching?, What is the story?, What is the setting?, Who the teaching?, to Whom are the teaching directed?, what is the method of persuasion and under it?, what is the essential teaching?, how does it end? and what does this sutta have to offer me? are the guidelines to see the metaphorical material in each context.

It's not possible to know what the Buddha believed personally about cosmology, future lives, etc. It is possible, however, to make a judgment about what he was attempting to convey to his students, based specifically on their abilities, beliefs, needs, on what would be most effective in pushing them towards the edge of knowledge--toward the most profound. The deepest is quenching dukkha, as quenching craving. And some of them has this perfectly exposed.

To unequivocally assert, however, (that is, to assert as if it's the only logical conclusion) that the Buddha expected that his audience understood his teachings on cosmology and all the other items, set forth above as mere metaphor or as references to scientifically verifiable states of mind in this life, Is the case at the light of overcoming craving.

fails to give proper credence and deference to the multitude of other supernatural and superstitious references in the Suttas. Seems he tried to get ride of superstition with or without the aid of metaphor.


If the Buddha consistently is throwing out reference after reference to supernatural scientifically impossible things as if they're ordinary experience for him then, either they are, or he was deluded, or he was simply not challenging deeply held beliefs of his student/contemporaries. Knowing that the Buddha told in a sutta, to an argumentative priest, that his teaching was not to quarrel. So metaphorical use of skillful means was good to avoid that purpose. But the metaphor, in its nature, would lead into insight leaving alone the pupil to its own verification.

It seems that he at least accepted his students' beliefs (in the sense of not upsetting or challenging them) in many of these areas; Yes.

he knew they took much of it for granted (for example, that Kamma had a definite effect in this life or, after death and dissolution/breakup of the body and , in the next life or in some future life is a pretty mainstream view. When the Buddha used this pretty stock phrase in his great exposition of Kamma I see it as simply accepting and not challenging commonly held belief on this topic, knowing that the real practice of Buddhism, geared towards acquiring wisdom, insight into how we misapprehend phenomena and misunderstand self. Seems to agree here...

The Buddha did not begin teaching in order to shake up people's notions or understanding of their own environment, of after death processes and the rest. He taught to liberate us from our own delusion about having a true self (through leading us to nonconceptual discern the utter lack and impossibility of any such thing), and, in doing so, to free us from all the misery that befalls us due to our ignorance on this subject. Seems we agree here.

If as a result of, what I consider to be a "realist" view regarding the historical Buddha---that he was a creature of his time and culture, and that his views were definitely influenced by it We disagree here Tijample. Kaarine needs to elaborate more here.

---one loses faith in his liberate teachings then that's a tragedy...even if it's just one person. But let's deal honestly with who he was, what he said, what's especially useful, what to pick up from the Suttas and what to perhaps just kind of leave on the side. No. No need to leave aside as understanding evolves slowly. But do not means an acceptance of superstitious believes in literal cosmological issues taken as a kind of ancient astrophysics.

Thanks Tijampel,

Very good post... lots of insight and needed further elaboration.

[GinaIsWild]

In general thinking about different 'realms' as real places somewhere I might go to in the future or have been in the past, is speculative - and irrelevant to my life in the here and now.

Hi Aloka, maybe it is possible to think of these other realms as existing side by side with this one. It is quite possible that there are levels of reality/consciousness beyond the one we appear to share

Welcome back Frank Dear :hug:

[TRASIAOREXOLA]

[...] though I'm open to it.

IMO, this just brings distraction from the here and now. Is wandering and wondering of mind habitual crave.

Tibetan logicians say that, if you have never seen or felt the presence of a ghost, then of course, it's a grave logical error to assert "ghost" on the merely because others assert it. You can assert something based on an absence where the appearance of something else mandates that conclusion. It is normal in Tibetan culture and in philosophers of God existence.

Sorry to have put my spoon in this particular thread, Tjampel.

[TaxSheemaSter]

In general thinking about different 'realms' as real places somewhere I might go to in the future or have been in the past, is speculative - and irrelevant to my life in the here and now.

Hi Aloka, maybe it is possible to think of these other realms as existing side by side with this one. It is quite possible that there are levels of reality/consciousness beyond the one we appear to share

Hi Frank, nice to see you again - Its not clear that your first paragraph is something which I wrote previously - can you please use the quote function in future by pressing 'reply with quote' or by clicking on the speech bubble at the top of your post and copying and pasting the section you want to quote in between the brackets.

Speech marks are good too....like this.... " blah blah "

In answer to your suggestion - no not really, as I said, for me its speculative and unnecessary. Mental states makes perfect sense.

[Sheestgag]

IMO, this just brings distraction from the here and now. Is wandering and wondering of mind habitual crave.



It is normal in Tibetan culture and in philosophers of God existence.

Sorry to have put my spoon in this particular thread, Tjampel.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Can you be specific. Are you criticizing my logic, that asserting ghosts is illogical? Tibetan Buddhism uniformly reject the concept of a creator God deity. They uniformly claim that any Buddha they assert was a human and became a buddha

[Inettypofonee]

I really hope not to. I don't like disagreements. I don't delight into them. It is not my sport. Mine is swimming.

We have perfect agreement on swimming---it's what I do best. I used to swim 1 mile or more each day, when I lived in Florida (in an apartment complex with a pool) :-) I rejoice in our ability to have find common ground somewhere!

Thanks for your careful consideration of my points and your analysis. It's helpful to me and, hopefully, others, to be able to see things from your perspective.

What I've done here is to basically point out some things that make it hard for me to read metaphor into all these teachings (though you may be totally right, there is a case to be made for what you say!).

We all have our own personal tenets---our own deep belief structures, which are NOT based on reason per se, though they may accord with reasoning perfectly. They are internalized structural hierarchies that have developed over many years. We always have to work with what's actually there deep down rather than work with what sounds clever, convincing, awe-inspiring and whatnot. If something that the Buddha said fails to persuade at that same deep level; if, for example, I can't believe in rebirth, then I can rationalize (as we do) that it's metaphorical or I can look to all the Suttas and try to find a pattern there. Element has spent considerable time, it seems, doing that. His conclusion seems to be that some Sutta's were not the words of the Buddha and that the others, which contain such language use it in a metaphorical way. I haven't read so many suttas so I will continue to do so and will try to gain an understanding of the Buddha's speech that resonates and makes total sense at that very deep level.

To repeat what I've said before, this "deep level" I refer to is easily understood in the following way. You are in a plane plunging towards earth and feel you're going to die. Do you concentrate on your rebirth at that time...what type, where, etc. or...do you react purely in an existential manner...clinging to this very life, because you don't feel there's any life or consciousness or continuity for you other than right here, right now. There are many people who may speak of rebirth as if it exists who will quickly reject it (due to grave doubt) when plunging to earth in that plane. I know, I'm one of them (just some bad turbulence, in my case, was all it took!).

So, when I read sutta do I read all these references as metaphor; it's not a decision to do it or not do it. It's a conditioned reflect based on 50 years of reading books, of understanding context, concept, skillful teaching means. And if it feels like it's intended as metaphor then that's what I will get out of the experience. If it doesn't then that's when I may need to question the authenticity or question what the Buddha believed (which is all we disagree about). And that's where the comment with regard to Einstein is germane. The theory of special relativity stands on its own no matter what beliefs Einstein developed later in life. And I think the Buddha's core teachings stand on its own in the same way, no matter what elements are found in other teachings, which may be thought to be superstitious by some here.

Take care

tj

[Gosxjqum]

To repeat what I've said before, this "deep level" I refer to is easily understood in the following way. You are in a plane plunging towards earth and feel you're going to die. Do you concentrate on your rebirth at that time...what type, where, etc. or...do you react purely in an existential manner...clinging to this very life, because you don't feel there's any life or consciousness or continuity for you other than right here, right now. There are many people who may speak of rebirth as if it exists who will quickly reject it (due to grave doubt) when plunging to earth in that plane. I know, I'm one of them (just some bad turbulence, in my case, was all it took!).

if that was actually happening to me, I don't think thoughts about rebirth or clinging to life would even enter my mind as the plane plunged to earth. I'd just be present with whatever was happening at the time. I think also that if one is in a state of shock then mental processes can temporarily stand still.

Regarding the subject of other 'realms' I like what Ajahn Buddhadasa had to say here in 'No religion':


"The words "birth" and "death" require the same discrimination
regarding language. In people language, the word "birth" means to be
born from a mother's womb. In Dhamma language, however, the word
"birth" means some form of attachment is born.

This kind of birth
happens every time we allow the arising of a thought or feeling which
involves grasping and clinging to something as "I" or "mine," such as,
"I am," "I have," "I think," and "I do." This is the birth of the "I"
or the ego.

For example, think like a criminal and one is instantly born
as a criminal. A few moments later those thoughts disappear, one
thinks like a normal human being again and is born as a human being
once more. If a few moments later one has foolish thoughts, right
then one is born as a fool. If one then thinks in an increasingly
foolish and dull manner, one will be born as an animal immediately.

Whenever an attachment is felt intensely--when it burns inside
one with the heat of fire--one is born as a demon in hell.
Whenever one is so hungry and thirsty that one could never be
satiated, one is born as an insatiably hungry ghost. When one is
overly cautious and timid without reason, one is born a cowardly
titan.

Thus, in a single day one can be born any number of times
in many different forms, since a birth takes place each and every time
there arises any form of attachment to the idea of being something.
Each conception of "I am," "I was," or "I will" is simultaneously
a birth.

This is the meaning of "birth" in Dhamma language.
Therefore, whenever one encounters the word "birth," one must be very
careful to understand its meaning in each particular context."

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Budd...on/NORELIG.HTM

[soyclocky]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Can you be specific. Are you criticizing my logic, that asserting ghosts is illogical? Tibetan Buddhism uniformly reject the concept of a creator God deity. They uniformly claim that any Buddha they assert was a human and became a buddha

Hi Tijampel,

Seems today is a bad day about my comments...

I reread your comment quoted at #32 and indeed I rush my commentary because I couldn't understood well if you wrote "can" or "can't" at:

You can assert something based on an absence where the appearance of something else mandates that conclusion. Even with "can" or "can't" I couldn't understand the above statement.

About ghosts, well I don't believe in them. About deity, I know that Tibetan Buddhism has many like the Green Tara. About God, I don't believe in any sort of God, Goddess or Gods, being them creators or not like the case of the new age "universal consciousness".

About philosophers of God, well we have a bunch of them that, through philosophical struggle, think that such exists.

It is quiet common to read that if you can't prove the existence of God, ghosts or whatever, that do not means that they do not exist for real...

But anyway... that is in the realm of personal believes...

And no, I am not being critical with your logic... just tried to state my opinion (not very welcome at times).

[Fksxneng]

We have perfect agreement on swimming---it's what I do best. I used to swim 1 mile or more each day, when I lived in Florida (in an apartment complex with a pool) :-) I rejoice in our ability to have find common ground somewhere!

Sure, when I was a young woman I used to swim freestyle in the specialty of 4 X 400 combined.

Thanks for your careful consideration of my points and your analysis. It's helpful to me and, hopefully, others, to be able to see things from your perspective. You are welcome Tjampel...

To repeat what I've said before, this "deep level" I refer to is easily understood in the following way. You are in a plane plunging towards earth and feel you're going to die. Do you concentrate on your rebirth at that time...what type, where, etc. or...do you react purely in an existential manner...clinging to this very life, because you don't feel there's any life or consciousness or continuity for you other than right here, right now. There are many people who may speak of rebirth as if it exists who will quickly reject it (due to grave doubt) when plunging to earth in that plane. I know, I'm one of them (just some bad turbulence, in my case, was all it took!). I have had some car accidents. I have never thought about rebirth. I just remember waking up at the accident place and looking for help.

IMO, believes in after life or future lifes are just because the need of some sort of eternalism... but such issues are about very personal believes because I have seen are a core aspect for people to have meaning and purpose in life.

So, when I read sutta do I read all these references as metaphor; it's not a decision to do it or not do it. It's a conditioned reflect based on 50 years of reading books, of understanding context, concept, skillful teaching means. And if it feels like it's intended as metaphor then that's what I will get out of the experience. If it doesn't then that's when I may need to question the authenticity or question what the Buddha believed (which is all we disagree about). Rebirth at the early teachings seems they are not the main aspect to quench Dukkha. IMO, rebirth can be a very subtle way of craving.

And that's where the comment with regard to Einstein is germane. The theory of special relativity stands on its own no matter what beliefs Einstein developed later in life. Not so sure Tjampel. This can be a good issue for the Tea Room.

Just a few words about this:

Einstein is an object of devotion for some people. At the end he was really stressed by Quantum Mechanics. He never accepted randomness as a fact nor the the irreversibility of time. His thought founded the idea of a ruling God behind the Big Bang. Recently, his most devoted pupil, Hawking, has come to understand, in his theoretical stagnation, that physics is not about finding Gods.

On the other hand, the thought of Niels Bohr opened the door to outstanding new scientific research fields like the sciences of complexity or the school of Thermodynamics of Living Systems of Ilya Prigogine.

Best wishes,

[cymnPrayerm]

Not so sure Tjampel. This can be a good issue for the Tea Room Yes, lets not get too diverted from the subject of Buddhist Cosmology, huh ?

[7kitthuptarill]

Hi Tijampel,

Seems today is a bad day about my comments...

I reread your comment quoted at #32 and indeed I rush my commentary because I couldn't understood well if you wrote "can" or "can't" at:



Even with "can" or "can't" I couldn't understand the above statement.

About ghosts, well I don't believe in them. About deity, I know that Tibetan Buddhism has many like the Green Tara. About God, I don't believe in any sort of God, Goddess or Gods, being them creators or not like the case of the new age "universal consciousness".

About philosophers of God, well we have a bunch of them that, through philosophical struggle, think that such exists.

It is quiet common to read that if you can't prove the existence of God, ghosts or whatever, that do not means that they do not exist for real...

But anyway... that is in the realm of personal believes...

And no, I am not being critical with your logic... just tried to state my opinion (not very welcome at times).

Hi Kaarine; I don't believe in ghosts either, never having seen one. If ever happens I'll have to reassess, I guess.

However, as for dismissing them or any other non-provable superstitious phenomena out of hand, I have to defer to some degree to those who do claim personal experience, especially where they are highly respected within their tradition. Let's use Theravada this time. For example in the Thai Forest tradition...

Ajahn Mun believed in rebirth and beings in the formless realm. There's a nice little story he told to Ajahn Bua (his student, and another highly accomplished monk of the Forest Tradition) about one such encounter shortly after he claimed to have achieved arhat status.

Ajahn Sao, one of those hailed as "founders" of the Thai Forest tradition and Ajahn Mun's principal teacher, rarely ever spoke; and he once explained this to Ajahn Mun in terms of a previous rebirth he had remembered.

Ajahn Bua also claims to have observed Ajahn Mun and others use clairvoyance on various occasions, generally to understand other people's needs, so they could help them.

These are all people who spent 40-50 years in very primitive conditions meditating many hours per day and certainly not engaged in the pursuit of Samsara. They are all believed to have achieved very deep absorptions and to have properly followed the instructions of their teachers. These unusual experiences came after they achieved great proficiency or even after they achieved (it is said) Arhat-hood. So I can just dismiss them as crazy or deluded or I can say "I don't know what it was that they were experiencing; I am not experiencing this and I didn't personally observe them performing any miraculous feats, etc., so I can't simply start believing in any of this stuff." That's a far different approach than to say "I have decided that this simply can't be. I won't even listen to anyone who claims to have experienced any of these things". I take the former approach.

As for deities, I think you are referring to general Mahayana belief, not Tibetan Buddhist belief. Mahayana practitioners believe (or at least don't dismiss the possibility) that Buddhas' minds don't cease to exist after death of the physical Buddha that appears in whatever realm they appear in. That they continue to help sentient beings in various ways. No point arguing this. It's the wrong thread for it. Unfortunately it leads to a whole host of practice lineages which, for example, simply use faith in some holy "other" being to achieve success for themselves. The Buddha said that we need to work out our own salvation. Tibetan Buddhists do put that belief into practice, as you can see below.

Deity practice is different than cultural belief in the existence of deities and it can be done and should be done with the understanding that "deity" is nothing other than the highest and best part of your mind (your wisdom)...that part you are trying to achieve. That it takes a bright and colorful form is characteristic of many meditation aids. The idea is to be able to generate complex images without effort. As you know, when one achieves absorptions with regard to meditation objects they are able to examine them more and more subtly and to visualize them in exquisite detail. Deities are understood as the knowledge you want...what you wish to become. They are mentally created entities in practice and always described as mentally created and not actual beings flocking to practitioners.

A Tibetan Buddhist practitioner visualizes a deity when doing their sadhana practice, as arising from emptiness and as not separate from their own mind. To do otherwise is improper. And, furthermore, when one does visualize a deity they are never to see it as truly existent either in terms of it's material existence or how the practitioner relates with it (emptiness of the 3 spheres...the 3rd referencing any true existence of the practitioner (in terms of having a self nature)). They are to see it as representing the type of mind they wish to have. It's their goal to achieve that status and help other sentient beings. One visualizes deities, generally, to get to stable meditation. Later they visualize more subtle energetic phenomena, which forms the bulk of their practice.