Jump to content
BANGKOK
Sign in to follow this  
Xangsamhua

"another World"?

Recommended Posts

If reality were individual you'd be alone in this world wouldn't you, this is clearly not the case.

But am I not delusion?

I suppose it's a tall question asking what reality (enlightenment-nirvana) is?

No you are not delusion, however if you are not enlightened then your perception of your experiences is affected by delusion, as is mine.

Enlightenment is, among other things, seeing reality clearly as it is without delusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'another world' makes more sense n terms of 'Right View' where we are told there is Karma, there is rebirth, there are beings of deva and other realms. Since this actually is true, if you taught thus you would be teaching the correct teaching - as it goes in the sutta.

There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed.

There is fruit and result of good and bad actions.

There is this world and the other world.

There is mother and father.

There are beings that are spontaneously reborn.

There are good and virtuous recluses and Brahmins in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.

There is mother and father, and spontaneously born beings refers to the realms where you either have parents, or do not have parents i.e. deva realms (In the Sarvasitvada version of Buddhism, even Devas have parents, and conception occurs with a 'slightly lingering glance' between the male and female deva)

Results of good/bad action refers practially always to the next life, even though one can often see the results in this life too. Hence the 'other world' could be referring to the karma mentioned in the opening line, or the deva realms mentioned below it.

Despite many people's desire to make heaven/hel_l mental conditions rather than actual realms of rebirth, the suttas categorically, and repeatedly describe heaven/hel_l/rebirth as actual realms.

Bhava - Trans. as being or becoming is a tricky word, that has not been given its proper due discussion by scholars or meditators. Usually, in Thailand especially, it refers to the three realms of possible rebirth - sense sphere, form sphere and formless sphere - and is pronounced 'pop' (Thais drop the 'a' due to a quirk of writing Pali in Thai script) In fact it should not be referring to the realms, but to the attainment of mind that gains access to those realms - namely good deeds, jhana (concentration with an object (form)) and jhana with 'formless' object.

In other teachings, particularly dependent origination, 'bhava' is taken to mean entering the womb. This would make sense of 'bhava' part in the definition of enlightenment - which is described as 'there will be no more bhava in any form'.

Looking for a more consistant meaning of bhava, we can see it is related to the word bhavana (meditation, or more accurately 'development'). There is a definite connotation of activity in this word. If you take 'bhava' to mean the engagement of Citta (mind) with its object (arammana) then this could well be a universal fit for the meaning of bhava. The active engagement (and loss of mindfulness) of the mind with its object. Enlightenment is sometimes described as anarammana - 'without object [of citta]'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bhava - Trans. as being or becoming is a tricky word, that has not been given its proper due discussion by scholars or meditators. Usually, in Thailand especially, it refers to the three realms of possible rebirth - sense sphere, form sphere and formless sphere - and is pronounced 'pop' (Thais drop the 'a' due to a quirk of writing Pali in Thai script) In fact it should not be referring to the realms, but to the attainment of mind that gains access to those realms - namely good deeds, jhana (concentration with an object (form)) and jhana with 'formless' object.

In other teachings, particularly dependent origination, 'bhava' is taken to mean entering the womb. This would make sense of 'bhava' part in the definition of enlightenment - which is described as 'there will be no more bhava in any form'.

Looking for a more consistant meaning of bhava, we can see it is related to the word bhavana (meditation, or more accurately 'development'). There is a definite connotation of activity in this word. If you take 'bhava' to mean the engagement of Citta (mind) with its object (arammana) then this could well be a universal fit for the meaning of bhava. The active engagement (and loss of mindfulness) of the mind with its object. Enlightenment is sometimes described as anarammana - 'without object [of citta]'

Thank you for this. It seems then in summary that the cessation of bhava ("being" or "becoming") referred to in the sutta is disengagement of the mind from its object, whether the object be sensual, formal or non-formal. In other words, "mindfulness" is replaced by total absorption in the object of consciousness, i.e. the fourth jhana: "an abiding in which the mind becomes fully immersed and absorbed in the chosen object of attention,characterized by non-dual consciousness" (Wikipedia). In contemporary Western (phenomenological) terms, the experience of intentionality (subject-act-content-object) is replaced by simple content-object with no mindfulness or agency of the subject in attending to an object. I don't understand this. Where am I going wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Buddha was searching for the 'Amata' which had been told by the Aryan legends. Amata means 'deathless' or that part of oneself/experience/universe that does not die (or change). He looked about his immediate experience and found every engagement with anything of the senses to be not only changing, but rapidly so. Disengaging from the senses he experience citta (mind) without arammana (object), which he described in the first statement after enlightenment as "I have discovered the Amata". Other ways he described it were as consciousness 'unestablished' (Thanissaro's preferred translation) anywhere or with any object. You might say 'pure mind' or 'Buddha Nature' if you go by Mahayana texts, though these are more vague.

By the way, in Jhana, mindfulness is said to be perfected (see Kayakatasati sutta). A closer look however reveals a common overlooking of different forms of 'mindfulness'. In that sutta it is Sati-bala , rather than regular sati-sampajanya, where it means the power of recollection [of something]

I've no idea on intentionality and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion will slowely die in the future. People will get smarter and realize there is NO god.

No Allah, no Jezus, no Buddha, no whatever....

The earliest humans created this phenomen called " God ", because they didn't know better and the searched for a simple answer to what is called " The universe ". Look at the history books, the further you go back in time, the more religious people get. People in different regions, created their own " God ".

Edited by Datsun240Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Buddha was searching for the 'Amata' which had been told by the Aryan legends. Amata means 'deathless' or that part of oneself/experience/universe that does not die (or change). He looked about his immediate experience and found every engagement with anything of the senses to be not only changing, but rapidly so. Disengaging from the senses he experience citta (mind) without arammana (object), which he described in the first statement after enlightenment as "I have discovered the Amata". Other ways he described it were as consciousness 'unestablished' (Thanissaro's preferred translation) anywhere or with any object. You might say 'pure mind' or 'Buddha Nature' if you go by Mahayana texts, though these are more vague.

By the way, in Jhana, mindfulness is said to be perfected (see Kayakatasati sutta). A closer look however reveals a common overlooking of different forms of 'mindfulness'. In that sutta it is Sati-bala , rather than regular sati-sampajanya, where it means the power of recollection [of something]

I've no idea on intentionality and such.

Thank you. :D Plenty to reflect on here. I'll work on it. :)

Intentionality, if I understand it right, implies that consciousness must have a subject and object and that being conscious (attending) implies an action, not just a condition. The content of consciousness is the mental formation that arises when one intentionally attends to an object.

Obviously Husserl and his followers (who included people like Sartre, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Edith Stein and Karol Wojtyla [Pope JP2]) were not going as far as the Buddha in seeking "pure mind" or "disengagement from the senses"; however, they were trying to experience intentionality without the Kantian categories - pre-formed conceptual structures that enable us to construe the phenomena we sense, given that we can't directly experience those phenomena. So they accepted the necessity of the senses, but questioned the validity of the conceptual categories that convey us from perception, through feeling, to mental formations. They sought a way to experience phenomena, if not directly, at least in a less encumbered way.

I think, in a way like the Buddha, they were seeking a purer consciousness, but heavily influenced by Kant rather than the Vedic mind-world inherited by the Buddha. Schopenhauer, a revisionist follower of Kant, was the only great European philosopher of the 19th and 20th centuries who was influended by the Vedas (he read the Upanishads every day).

Incidentally, phenomenology was said to be the predominant philosophical trend influencing the Second Vatican Council (1963-65). It may have been a factor in that Council's declared openness to and respect for non-Christian religions (subsequently closed up and turned away from under the influence of Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Religion will slowely die in the future. People will get smarter and realize there is NO god.

No Allah, no Jezus, no Buddha, no whatever....

The earliest humans created this phenomen called " God ", because they didn't know better and the searched for a simple answer to what is called " The universe ". Look at the history books, the further you go back in time, the more religious people get. People in different regions, created their own " God ".

It could be said that, in the West, "religion" has already died. Most people have turned away from the old-style religion of the Catholic and Protestant varieties, with their focus on the after-life and the church institutions, sacraments, clergy etc. as mediators and gatekeepers. This has all been replaced by secular humanism, the philosophical underpinning of social-democratic governments.

Secular humanism can be seen as the apotheosis of Christianity. God came to Earth, promoted a radical and anti-institutional ethic, was executed for his pains, came back to life in the projected hopes of his followers and went off to return again in the future to establish a kingdom based pretty much on the ethical values of the secular humanists.

The old-style churches started dying out after the French Revolution and this was accelerated by the impact of Darwin's findings. Authentic Christianity has completed its mission. The Kingdom has arrived in the West, though vehemently opposed by pre-modern Christians who still seek favour with a patriarchal God "out/up there" by denying rights and freedoms they associate with a refusal to submit to "God's rule". The task now is to secure what has been attained, to improve people's quality of life everywhere and to extend the idea of "humanism" to all living things and the whole environment.

(Was that a rant?) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Religion will slowely die in the future. People will get smarter and realize there is NO god.

No Allah, no Jezus, no Buddha, no whatever....

The Buddha was not a god, and for that reason Buddhist teachings would still be effective even if it were proved that the Buddha never existed. Buddhist psychology is still way ahead of anything psychiatry has today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Was that a rant?) :D

Rants are OK... as long as they are Buddhist rants. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Was that a rant?) :D

Rants are OK... as long as they are Buddhist rants. :)

:D Mea culpa. I got a bit carried away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"This is the noble method that he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out through discernment."

AN 10.92

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...