https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-sa3cz-13334e1

This is a podcast from a prominent teacher in my lineage of Buddhism. Ajahn Brahmali is a Norwegian who took ordination under Ajahn Brahm in Western Australia who was himself taught by Ajahn Chah, a legendary figure in both Thai Forest Buddhism as well as within the Theravadan tradition as a whole.

This precise podcast does present difficulties that aren't as difficult for me NOW as they were 15 or so years ago when I had joined this site. (Alas, the main reason I've stayed away was that like my friend Kent, the conversations never seemed to really "move," they tended to get rather repetitive, and well, I was absolutely a contributor to that.)

This discussion ranges from the issues Brahmali has with "Secular Buddhism," a branch that at times I have found myself within, but offers some critical discussion that fans out to discuss Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as well as how western philosophy pendulum swings between Plato's idealism and Aristotle's materialism, and precisely how Buddhism sits within the overall mix. Yes, he even touches on NDEs and in how those topics are actually handled in the Buddhist scriptures dating back to at least 2300yrs ago.

This one was a tough one for me to get through, notably because rebirth and NDEs are two subjects that I have felt are filled with enough claptrap to fill volumes, but I just turned 43 and am approaching all of life differently than I was back when I was 27-28 and full of hubris. (well, you would hope that would be the case!)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-sa3cz-13334e1

This is a podcast from a prominent teacher in my lineage of Buddhism. Ajahn Brahmali is a Norwegian who took ordination under Ajahn Brahm in Western Australia who was himself taught by Ajahn Chah, a legendary figure in both Thai Forest Buddhism as well as within the Theravadan tradition as a whole.

This precise podcast does present difficulties that aren't as difficult for me NOW as they were 15 or so years ago when I had joined this site. (Alas, the main reason I've stayed away was that like my friend Kent, the conversations never seemed to really "move," they tended to get rather repetitive, and well, I was absolutely a contributor to that.)

This discussion ranges from the issues Brahmali has with "Secular Buddhism," a branch that at times I have found myself within, but offers some critical discussion that fans out to discuss Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as well as how western philosophy pendulum swings between Plato's idealism and Aristotle's materialism, and precisely how Buddhism sits within the overall mix. Yes, he even touches on NDEs and in how those topics are actually handled in the Buddhist scriptures dating back to at least 2300yrs ago.

This one was a tough one for me to get through, notably because rebirth and NDEs are two subjects that I have felt are filled with enough claptrap to fill volumes, but I just turned 43 and am approaching all of life differently than I was back when I was 27-28 and full of hubris. (well, you would hope that would be the case!)

I'll open it up and see if I can follow it with no background. I will turn 94 in April.

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-sa3cz-13334e1

This is a podcast from a prominent teacher in my lineage of Buddhism. Ajahn Brahmali is a Norwegian who took ordination under Ajahn Brahm in Western Australia who was himself taught by Ajahn Chah, a legendary figure in both Thai Forest Buddhism as well as within the Theravadan tradition as a whole.

This precise podcast does present difficulties that aren't as difficult for me NOW as they were 15 or so years ago when I had joined this site. (Alas, the main reason I've stayed away was that like my friend Kent, the conversations never seemed to really "move," they tended to get rather repetitive, and well, I was absolutely a contributor to that.)

This discussion ranges from the issues Brahmali has with "Secular Buddhism," a branch that at times I have found myself within, but offers some critical discussion that fans out to discuss Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as well as how western philosophy pendulum swings between Plato's idealism and Aristotle's materialism, and precisely how Buddhism sits within the overall mix. Yes, he even touches on NDEs and in how those topics are actually handled in the Buddhist scriptures dating back to at least 2300yrs ago.

This one was a tough one for me to get through, notably because rebirth and NDEs are two subjects that I have felt are filled with enough claptrap to fill volumes, but I just turned 43 and am approaching all of life differently than I was back when I was 27-28 and full of hubris. (well, you would hope that would be the case!)

I'll open it up and see if I can follow it with no background. I will turn 94 in April.

Finally, back here. And his discussion presumes I know something about Buddhism. I don't so I am not following him as I listen. I need a basic education.

I'll open it up and see if I can follow it with no background. I will turn 94 in April.

Finally, back here. And his discussion presumes I know something about Buddhism. I don't so I am not following him as I listen. I need a basic education.

List out your questions here and I can expound. I found it easy to follow but then I've been doing this for awhile.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

I'll open it up and see if I can follow it with no background. I will turn 94 in April.

Finally, back here. And his discussion presumes I know something about Buddhism. I don't so I am not following him as I listen. I need a basic education.

Matt:List out your questions here and I can expound. I found it easy to follow but then I've been doing this for a while.

I'll find some time tomorrow. Thank you. Perhaps dhw has a better background, so I am interested in his response and look forward to it.

xeno: https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-sa3cz-13334e1

This is a podcast from a prominent teacher in my lineage of Buddhism. Ajahn Brahmali is a Norwegian who took ordination under Ajahn Brahm in Western Australia who was himself taught by Ajahn Chah, a legendary figure in both Thai Forest Buddhism as well as within the Theravadan tradition as a whole.
This precise podcast does present difficulties that aren't as difficult for me NOW as they were 15 or so years ago when I had joined this site. (Alas, the main reason I've stayed away was that like my friend Kent, the conversations never seemed to really "move," they tended to get rather repetitive, and well, I was absolutely a contributor to that.)
This discussion ranges from the issues Brahmali has with "Secular Buddhism," a branch that at times I have found myself within, but offers some critical discussion that fans out to discuss Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as well as how western philosophy pendulum swings between Plato's idealism and Aristotle's materialism, and precisely how Buddhism sits within the overall mix. Yes, he even touches on NDEs and in how those topics are actually handled in the Buddhist scriptures dating back to at least 2300yrs ago.
This one was a tough one for me to get through, notably because rebirth and NDEs are two subjects that I have felt are filled with enough claptrap to fill volumes, but I just turned 43 and am approaching all of life differently than I was back when I was 27-28 and full of hubris. (well, you would hope that would be the case!)

Delighted to hear from you again! You always managed to find new angles for us to discuss, but I can hardly blame you for staying away because of all the repetitions. If it wasn’t for the interesting articles that David finds and which are a continuous source of education – plus the fact that our discussions gradually still accumulate quite a lot of viewings – I would have closed the site long ago.

I’ll listen to the podcast later today, barring the unforeseen, and will respond tonight or tomorrow. Shortage of time is a major problem for me, and I have to ration the amount that I spend on the forum. Many thanks again for your "comeback"!
--------
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

I love this, although it applies to a far wide range of folk than just ascetics!

xeno: https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-sa3cz-13334e1

This is a podcast from a prominent teacher in my lineage of Buddhism. Ajahn Brahmali is a Norwegian who took ordination under Ajahn Brahm in Western Australia who was himself taught by Ajahn Chah, a legendary figure in both Thai Forest Buddhism as well as within the Theravadan tradition as a whole.
This precise podcast does present difficulties that aren't as difficult for me NOW as they were 15 or so years ago when I had joined this site. (Alas, the main reason I've stayed away was that like my friend Kent, the conversations never seemed to really "move," they tended to get rather repetitive, and well, I was absolutely a contributor to that.)
This discussion ranges from the issues Brahmali has with "Secular Buddhism," a branch that at times I have found myself within, but offers some critical discussion that fans out to discuss Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as well as how western philosophy pendulum swings between Plato's idealism and Aristotle's materialism, and precisely how Buddhism sits within the overall mix. Yes, he even touches on NDEs and in how those topics are actually handled in the Buddhist scriptures dating back to at least 2300yrs ago.
This one was a tough one for me to get through, notably because rebirth and NDEs are two subjects that I have felt are filled with enough claptrap to fill volumes, but I just turned 43 and am approaching all of life differently than I was back when I was 27-28 and full of hubris. (well, you would hope that would be the case!)

dhw: Delighted to hear from you again! You always managed to find new angles for us to discuss, but I can hardly blame you for staying away because of all the repetitions. If it wasn’t for the interesting articles that David finds and which are a continuous source of education – plus the fact that our discussions gradually still accumulate quite a lot of viewings – I would have closed the site long ago.

I’ll listen to the podcast later today, barring the unforeseen, and will respond tonight or tomorrow. Shortage of time is a major problem for me, and I have to ration the amount that I spend on the forum. Many thanks again for your "comeback"!
--------
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

dhw: I love this, although it applies to a far wide range of folk than just ascetics!

I'm also looking for time.

Buddhism

I have struggled through this podcast with increasing frustration. Xeno, you will know far, far more than I do about Buddhism, but you kindly offered to answer questions, and this presentation of “true” Buddhism, as opposed to the “baloney” of western and other secular dilutions, is so full of gaps and what seem to me to be misrepresentations that I fear I may well have missed something crucial which you may be able to provide.

Ajahn Brahmali’s complaint seems to be based almost entirely on secular scepticism towards the fundamental doctrine of rebirth. As I understand this doctrine, it has nothing to do with NDEs, in which patients return to being themselves after their “souls” have entered some kind of afterlife. Rebirth means what it says: being reborn. But as what? Perhaps you can tell us. Whoever you may become next time around will depend on the mess you’ve made of your previous life, and this goes on in an endless cycle until whatever identity you have at the time achieves Enlightenment and you enter Nirvana, which as I understand it means a total loss of all “cravings” and of all individuality. With my perhaps all too sceptical mind, I have always considered this to be the perfect state of death, so why bother with the long and apparently always painful sequence of lives spent suffering? (I have always felt very sorry for Buddhists, who must feel horribly guilty if they ever actually enjoy life!)

The original teachings seem to focus on the goal of losing all the “cravings” which make life such a misery but which – apparently missing from the teachings – also make life such a pleasure. Yes, to hell with greed, lust for power, and all the consequences of human selfishness. But how about the joy of giving and receiving love, helping and being helped by others, creating a thing of beauty for one’s own delight and that of others? Not a word about that from Ajahn Brahmali.

In order to achieve the desired state of killing all desires, the Buddha recommended monastic life. I presume this would ideally entail solitary confinement, and I can’t help wondering why Ajahn Brahmali hasn’t shut himself away instead of giving interviews. (I’m sorry if this sounds flippant, but when I hear someone dismiss other people’s beliefs as “baloney”, I tend to feel less tolerant towards them than I should. I had the same feeling when Dawkins called God a “delusion”.)

I didn’t know that secular Buddhism had sided completely with materialism and excluded idealism (in the sense of dualism), but I think I can say with some certainty that there are plenty of idealists (dualists) and waverers still around. The observation that it would be devastating for materialists if their beliefs were proved wrong applies equally to idealists. I don’t see why either view should be called “baloney” when neither has been proved right. And the fact that Ajahn Brahmali considers Gotama to have been the greatest man who ever lived does not mean Gotama knew everything, and it does not mean that those who accept some of his teachings must accept them all, as he (Brahmali) interprets them. But that’s more than enough moaning from me. What I would really like to know, xeno, is if, as a Buddhist yourself, you believe in the all-important rebirth, monastic life and loss of self as the ultimate goal, or if you have reservations about all or any of these, and if you do, whether you regard your views as “baloney”. Thank you for at last diverting us from the battle over David’s evolutionary theory, and please don’t be offended by my combination of ignorance and scepticism! I’ll look forward very much to hearing your own views.

David, I will reply to your latest posts tomorrow.

Well, I've listened to the first half so far, and thank goodness for dhw's entry. I gather He doesn't like secular materialism poking its head into revered teachings. As for reincarnation, it seems to me reincarnating oneself in this life to be at peace with oneself is very reasonable. Trying to propose one becoming someone else but yet the same in continuity requires one's consciousness/self to enter a new brain. This is directly equivalent the concept of NDE's and a form of dualism with a material brain hosting an immaterial consciousness. If I am now the continued result of someone else, who was that? Me in an earlier form? I'm not making fun in any way. I find the whole basis of that tenet as unreasonable. What I hope for is your clear responses. Ill comment further with time for further listening.

Buddhism

I have struggled through this podcast with increasing frustration.
[snipped for brevity] With my perhaps all too sceptical mind, I have always considered this to be the perfect state of death, so why bother with the long and apparently always painful sequence of lives spent suffering? (I have always felt very sorry for Buddhists, who must feel horribly guilty if they ever actually enjoy life!)

There's a few misconceptions in much of the first part, and my heart goes out to anyone experiencing some of the same consternation. Let me address the misconception part first however. The common thread between Buddhist asceticism and well, all asceticism really is a rejection of the never-ending hamster wheel of wants and desires. Rejection isn't the right word though, because Buddhism's goal is to ideally have us be mentally present and not in the semi-conscious state that we tend to live in for most of our lives. The idea isn't to *reject* pleasures, but not to attach to them. Like, eat one chocolate, but not the entire box in a single sitting.

In my understanding (which comes from Brahmali's own tradition) the four noble truths are an accurate diagnosis of the human condition: we impulsively seek pleasure and avoid pain, and at the root of pleasure seeking and pain avoidance is the ego. So it's important (and also problematic as we'll discuss later) that Buddhism rejects the idea of a permanent immutable soul. At the time of the Buddha you actually had Eternalists and Materialists, schools which should be quite familiar to us here in the west as we're dealing with our own long history between those two poles. As suggested in the podcast, the Buddha proposed a "middle path" which says "It's not either/or, its both." I wish he went into more detail here.

To summarize a bit tersely, the key Buddhist observation (and this is one I have made on my own) is that when you observe your own thoughts, eventually you figure out that you're not in control of the majority of what's going on in that mind of yours. So for the Buddha, it became clear that what we typically refer to as a "self" or in the west as we would call it, "a soul" is actually a confluence of our "observational function" (my term) as well as conditioning received by living life... family, friends, and society. We don't even truly own our bodies... they are subject to aging and decay. Who you are as a person changes over time, so what we typically take of as a "self" is an illusion. We are processes, not things. But we are processes who often incorrectly think about ourselves as things. So the first big thing we do as Buddhists, is to try and get in tune with our minds so that way we are always observing the process. And I mean, if you're worried about what we give up, my percepts are 1) Don't kill 2.) Don't steal 3.) If I'm in a committed relationship don't break the rules 4.) Don't use intoxicants that lead to carelessness 5.) Don't speak unskillfully. (Other religions: 'don't lie' but Buddhists understand that there are moral or ethical times where lying is appropriate.) Core to the practice is Mudita (Other's joys), Metta (Loving kindness for all beings), and of course lots of meditation involving the deconstruction of our perceptions. Buddhist psychology has been making alot of inroads in western medicine, I'll leave it at that.

I think this answer would make my teacher happy and hopefully answers most of your irritation with Brahmali especially about the monastic parts of life. I have arguments with him on that but far afield from this conversation I think. (Buddhist inside football)

So... where I have considered myself a "secular Buddhist" is precisely because there's an aspect of Buddhism that talks about things such as a "Mind-made body," where supposedly if you meditate deep enough you can create a doppelganger of yourself and send it out on missions in the world. I would like to have seen Brahmali respond to THAT one. However the rebirth question is one that up until now I've felt I can do just fine without--I'm still very much the "I'll believe it when I see it" kind of guy and a critical aspect that remains to be explained... actually I'll call my monk tomorrow and ask him--I'm perfectly fine with all my ideas of self being mostly illusory. We should all believe we're part of a bigger picture. But how can we reject the idea of some sort of a permanent "soul" when there's something that somehow enters the mind-universe upon death, punishes itself, and then seeks out a new body... how exactly does that work? Isn't the mind that sheds this body still a discrete being? It certainly sounds like a self.

After having listened to the podcast a couple times, where Brahmali has heartburn is in the (mostly western) authors that are for example excluding the idea of rebirth wholesale and then calling it Buddhism. The more materialist leanings of the secularists decide not to even confront the issue, which is intellectually dishonest, IMHO.

He's not wrong. That's NOT what the Buddha taught. Whether or not Rebirth is a relevant concept for me to consider in THIS life, I don't know, but I DO know that if people like myself took a much longer view of their lives, we might actually live in a kinder, gentler place.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

xeno: […] The common thread between Buddhist asceticism and well, all asceticism really is a rejection of the never-ending hamster wheel of wants and desires. Rejection isn't the right word though, because Buddhism's goal is to ideally have us be mentally present and not in the semi-conscious state that we tend to live in for most of our lives. The idea isn't to *reject* pleasures, but not to attach to them. Like, eat one chocolate, but not the entire box in a single sitting.

I don’t know why eating one chocolate constitutes full consciousness and hogging the whole box = semi-consciousness, or why the desire for one chocolate isn’t a desire, or why having wants and desires = semi-consciousness. You’re proposing that we should indulge our wants and desires in moderation, but that’s not what I understand by Ajahn Brahmali’s Buddhism, and in any case I don’t think it would cause much disagreement in non-Buddhist or secular Buddhist circles!

Next comes the discussion of “eternalists” versus “materialists”:

xeno: As suggested in the podcast, the Buddha proposed a "middle path" which says "It's not either/or, its both." I wish he went into more detail here.

I’m afraid this is a major problem, and Brahmali simply glosses it over. He goes on and on about rebirth being a (the?) central point. David and I are in total agreement on this. What/who are we when we are reborn – and what is reborn if there is no immaterial “soul”?

xeno: the key Buddhist observation […] is that when you observe your own thoughts, eventually you figure out that you're not in control of the majority of what's going on in that mind of yours. […] We don't even truly own our bodies... they are subject to aging and decay. Who you are as a person changes over time, so what we typically take of as a "self" is an illusion. […] So the first big thing we do as Buddhists, is to try and get in tune with our minds so that way we are always observing the process.

I don’t recall this being discussed in the podcast (maybe I nodded off?), but it’s nothing more than the question of whether or not we have free will. Did Gotama really teach you to remember that you act like a zombie though you think you’re an autonomous being? I don’t think my “self” is an illusion. I may not be in control of what makes me “me”, and I have changed and am still changing, but I’m fully aware of my personal characteristics, and I challenge the right of anyone to tell me these are “illusory”. If secular Buddhists dislike all this vagueness, I’m on their side, and Brahmali’s failure to address these problems makes me hostile to his calling their doubts “baloney”!

xeno: And I mean, if you're worried about what we give up, my percepts are 1) Don't kill 2.) Don't steal 3.) If I'm in a committed relationship don't break the rules 4.) Don't use intoxicants that lead to carelessness 5.) Don't speak unskillfully. (Other religions: 'don't lie' but Buddhists understand that there are moral or ethical times where lying is appropriate.) Core to the practice is Mudita (Other's joys), Metta (Loving kindness for all beings), and of course lots of meditation involving the deconstruction of our perceptions.

I think all of us would approve of your precepts and “core”, but I have no idea if these represent the teachings of the Buddha, especially since one of Brahmali’s key issues is monasticism, which “secular” Buddhists seem to have turned their backs on. How do you show your loving kindness and concern for other people’s joys if you shut yourself up in a monastery? And what happens to the human race if sexual desires have to be overcome? And once we have deconstructed our perceptions etc., what are we supposed to do with that knowledge? Be reborn as whatever, keep suffering and deluding ourselves, until eventually one of us realizes it just ain’t worth living life on Earth, so we’re better off lying permanently under it! As I suggested before, Nirvana = permanent death!

The rest of your post asks virtually the same questions as my own, and what I have written is just my response to the statements above. I sense that you reject Ajahn Brahmali’s dismissal of “secular” Buddhism as baloney. He seems to have dodged all the issues that you have difficulty with yourself! I’ll skip to your final remark:

xeno: Whether or not Rebirth is a relevant concept for me to consider in THIS life, I don't know, but I DO know that if people like myself took a much longer view of their lives, we might actually live in a kinder, gentler place.

I think that message would apply to most religions and to humanism as well, but I would put it slightly differently. If people like and unlike myself would take a less egotistical view of themselves and would treat others in the way they themselves would wish to be treated, we might all live in a kinder, gentler place.

Thank you again for giving us a new topic to discuss. I’ll be interested to hear what your monk has to say in response to your own questions, though I wonder if he is a “secular” Buddhist himself!

Buddhism

dhw: I have struggled through this podcast with increasing frustration.
[snipped for brevity] With my perhaps all too sceptical mind, I have always considered this to be the perfect state of death, so why bother with the long and apparently always painful sequence of lives spent suffering? > >

Matt: There's a few misconceptions in much of the first part, and my heart goes out to anyone experiencing some of the same consternation. Let me address the misconception part first however. The common thread between Buddhist asceticism and well, all asceticism really is a rejection of the never-ending hamster wheel of wants and desires. Rejection isn't the right word though, because Buddhism's goal is to ideally have us be mentally present and not in the semi-conscious state that we tend to live in for most of our lives. The idea isn't to *reject* pleasures, but not to attach to them. Like, eat one chocolate, but not the entire box in a single sitting.

In my understanding (which comes from Brahmali's own tradition) the four noble truths are an accurate diagnosis of the human condition: we impulsively seek pleasure and avoid pain, and at the root of pleasure seeking and pain avoidance is the ego. So it's important (and also problematic as we'll discuss later) that Buddhism rejects the idea of a permanent immutable soul. At the time of the Buddha you actually had Eternalists and Materialists, schools which should be quite familiar to us here in the west as we're dealing with our own long history between those two poles. As suggested in the podcast, the Buddha proposed a "middle path" which says "It's not either/or, its both." I wish he went into more detail here.

To summarize a bit tersely, the key Buddhist observation (and this is one I have made on my own) is that when you observe your own thoughts, eventually you figure out that you're not in control of the majority of what's going on in that mind of yours. So for the Buddha, it became clear that what we typically refer to as a "self" or in the west as we would call it, "a soul" is actually a confluence of our "observational function" (my term) as well as conditioning received by living life... family, friends, and society. We don't even truly own our bodies... they are subject to aging and decay. Who you are as a person changes over time, so what we typically take of as a "self" is an illusion. We are processes, not things. But we are processes who often incorrectly think about ourselves as things. So the first big thing we do as Buddhists, is to try and get in tune with our minds so that way we are always observing the process. And I mean, if you're worried about what we give up, my percepts are 1) Don't kill 2.) Don't steal 3.) If I'm in a committed relationship don't break the rules 4.) Don't use intoxicants that lead to carelessness 5.) Don't speak unskillfully. (Other religions: 'don't lie' but Buddhists understand that there are moral or ethical times where lying is appropriate.) Core to the practice is Mudita (Other's joys), Metta (Loving kindness for all beings), and of course lots of meditation involving the deconstruction of our perceptions. Buddhist psychology has been making alot of inroads in western medicine, I'll leave it at that.

I think this answer would make my teacher happy and hopefully answers most of your irritation with Brahmali especially about the monastic parts of life. I have arguments with him on that but far afield from this conversation I think. (Buddhist inside football)

So... where I have considered myself a "secular Buddhist" is precisely because there's an aspect of Buddhism that talks about things such as a "Mind-made body," where supposedly if you meditate deep enough you can create a doppelganger of yourself and send it out on missions in the world. I would like to have seen Brahmali respond to THAT one. However the rebirth question is one that up until now I've felt I can do just fine without--I'm still very much the "I'll believe it when I see it" kind of guy and a critical aspect that remains to be explained... actually I'll call my monk tomorrow and ask him--I'm perfectly fine with all my ideas of self being mostly illusory. We should all believe we're part of a bigger picture. But how can we reject the idea of some sort of a permanent "soul" when there's something that somehow enters the mind-universe upon death, punishes itself, and then seeks out a new body... how exactly does that work? Isn't the mind that sheds this body still a discrete being? It certainly sounds like a self.

After having listened to the podcast a couple times, where Brahmali has heartburn is in the (mostly western) authors that are for example excluding the idea of rebirth wholesale and then calling it Buddhism. The more materialist leanings of the secularists decide not to even confront the issue, which is intellectually dishonest, IMHO.

He's not wrong. That's NOT what the Buddha taught. Whether or not Rebirth is a relevant concept for me to consider in THIS life, I don't know, but I DO know that if people like myself took a much longer view of their lives, we might actually live in a kinder, gentler place.

Seeing this from your personal level make it more understandable. I have question. Does your teacher act as a psychologist in a sense?

xeno: […] The common thread between Buddhist asceticism and well, all asceticism really is a rejection of the never-ending hamster wheel of wants and desires. Rejection isn't the right word though, because Buddhism's goal is to ideally have us be mentally present and not in the semi-conscious state that we tend to live in for most of our lives. The idea isn't to *reject* pleasures, but not to attach to them. Like, eat one chocolate, but not the entire box in a single sitting.

dhw: I don’t know why eating one chocolate constitutes full consciousness and hogging the whole box = semi-consciousness, or why the desire for one chocolate isn’t a desire, or why having wants and desires = semi-consciousness. You’re proposing that we should indulge our wants and desires in moderation, but that’s not what I understand by Ajahn Brahmali’s Buddhism, and in any case I don’t think it would cause much disagreement in non-Buddhist or secular Buddhist circles!

Next comes the discussion of “eternalists” versus “materialists”:

xeno: As suggested in the podcast, the Buddha proposed a "middle path" which says "It's not either/or, its both." I wish he went into more detail here.

dhw: I’m afraid this is a major problem, and Brahmali simply glosses it over. He goes on and on about rebirth being a (the?) central point. David and I are in total agreement on this. What/who are we when we are reborn – and what is reborn if there is no immaterial “soul”?

xeno: the key Buddhist observation […] is that when you observe your own thoughts, eventually you figure out that you're not in control of the majority of what's going on in that mind of yours. […] We don't even truly own our bodies... they are subject to aging and decay. Who you are as a person changes over time, so what we typically take of as a "self" is an illusion. […] So the first big thing we do as Buddhists, is to try and get in tune with our minds so that way we are always observing the process.

dhw: I don’t recall this being discussed in the podcast (maybe I nodded off?), but it’s nothing more than the question of whether or not we have free will. Did Gotama really teach you to remember that you act like a zombie though you think you’re an autonomous being? I don’t think my “self” is an illusion. I may not be in control of what makes me “me”, and I have changed and am still changing, but I’m fully aware of my personal characteristics, and I challenge the right of anyone to tell me these are “illusory”. If secular Buddhists dislike all this vagueness, I’m on their side, and Brahmali’s failure to address these problems makes me hostile to his calling their doubts “baloney”!

xeno: And I mean, if you're worried about what we give up, my percepts are 1) Don't kill 2.) Don't steal 3.) If I'm in a committed relationship don't break the rules 4.) Don't use intoxicants that lead to carelessness 5.) Don't speak unskillfully. (Other religions: 'don't lie' but Buddhists understand that there are moral or ethical times where lying is appropriate.) Core to the practice is Mudita (Other's joys), Metta (Loving kindness for all beings), and of course lots of meditation involving the deconstruction of our perceptions.

I think all of us would approve of your precepts and “core”, but I have no idea if these represent the teachings of the Buddha, especially since one of Brahmali’s key issues is monasticism, which “secular” Buddhists seem to have turned their backs on. How do you show your loving kindness and concern for other people’s joys if you shut yourself up in a monastery? And what happens to the human race if sexual desires have to be overcome? And once we have deconstructed our perceptions etc., what are we supposed to do with that knowledge? Be reborn as whatever, keep suffering and deluding ourselves, until eventually one of us realizes it just ain’t worth living life on Earth, so we’re better off lying permanently under it! As I suggested before, Nirvana = permanent death!

dhw: The rest of your post asks virtually the same questions as my own, and what I have written is just my response to the statements above. I sense that you reject Ajahn Brahmali’s dismissal of “secular” Buddhism as baloney. He seems to have dodged all the issues that you have difficulty with yourself! I’ll skip to your final remark:

xeno: Whether or not Rebirth is a relevant concept for me to consider in THIS life, I don't know, but I DO know that if people like myself took a much longer view of their lives, we might actually live in a kinder, gentler place.

dhw: I think that message would apply to most religions and to humanism as well, but I would put it slightly differently. If people like and unlike myself would take a less egotistical view of themselves and would treat others in the way they themselves would wish to be treated, we might all live in a kinder, gentler place.

Thank you again for giving us a new topic to discuss. I’ll be interested to hear what your monk has to say in response to your own questions, though I wonder if he is a “secular” Buddhist himself!

I'm happy just to follow along with dhw's insights. The parallel mine.

I don’t know why eating one chocolate constitutes full consciousness and hogging the whole box = semi-consciousness, or why the desire for one chocolate isn’t a desire, or why having wants and desires = semi-consciousness. You’re proposing that we should indulge our wants and desires in moderation, but that’s not what I understand by Ajahn Brahmali’s Buddhism, and in any case I don’t think it would cause much disagreement in non-Buddhist or secular Buddhist circles!

So, I have 5 precepts. The next step up for a lay person such as myself is 8 precepts, and to be honest I should take that vow because I already keep them. (The additional 3 are: abstain from false speech, abstain from harsh speech, abstain from useless speech.) Monks (such as Brahmali) have 227 precepts. Monks also have a special social role in their countries of origin, and it isn't lost on me the irony that when we praise the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, the chant for the Sangha is the longest. The veneration in Eastern traditions for their teachers is legendary and predates Buddhism. This isn't particularly controversial for me--Monasticism as far as the preservation of the Buddha's teachings *is* part of the package. It hasn't been until the mindfulness teachers here in the States where there has been a challenge of sorts to monastic authority--which is where some of his concern my lie.

I think this is really a sidebar though, so I'll address the meat of your comments in another post.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Next comes the discussion of “eternalists” versus “materialists”:

xeno: As suggested in the podcast, the Buddha proposed a "middle path" which says "It's not either/or, its both." I wish he went into more detail here.

I’m afraid this is a major problem, and Brahmali simply glosses it over. He goes on and on about rebirth being a (the?) central point. David and I are in total agreement on this. What/who are we when we are reborn – and what is reborn if there is no immaterial “soul”?

In trying to track this down for you (and for myself, frankly) I discovered this: https://suttacentral.net/sn12.61/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=as...
Different translation from what I have on my shelf but mostly the same idea. But at any rate, when you examine all of the processes of consciousness and cognition you determine that it is nothing but a cause and effect chain with no end. It’s better to think of your body as your “self” because the nature of human consciousness isn’t stable. Have you ever apologized to someone and said “I’m sorry, I wasn’t myself?” Well the Buddha points out that this is us *all* of the time. It would be better for us, any time we refer to “I” or “me” or “self” to add the modifier “at this moment” to better reflect the idea that the Buddha is getting at. The Buddha is aiming to demonstrate to us that our idea of the self as some unchanging phenomenon is what is false, which ties in with your comments a little further on.

I don’t recall this being discussed in the podcast (maybe I nodded off?), but it’s nothing more than the question of whether or not we have free will. Did Gotama really teach you to remember that you act like a zombie though you think you’re an autonomous being?

More or less yes, and modern pyschology actually agrees with his observation. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-work/201011/new-study-shows-humans-a...

It’s not that we’re non-autonomous zombies, but that we’re essentially dreaming while awake. One goal of Buddhist meditation is to decrease the amount of time we spend in that sleepwalking state. For me—catching myself in thoughts feels 100% like waking up from a dream.

I don’t think my “self” is an illusion.
I may not be in control of what makes me “me”, and I have changed and am still changing, but I’m fully aware of my personal characteristics, and I challenge the right of anyone to tell me these are “illusory”.

I would challenge that you would have to be in a mental state where your mind was stilled to the point where the only thing present would be your ability to observe—in order to understand what the Buddha means by “true self,” as opposed to “illusory self.” I would argue that during the 50% of my own waking hours that are spent not doing anything in particular—I’m not being myself. I would argue (based on my understanding of Buddhist psychology) that we’re only “ourselves” when we’re fully engaged in self-aware, intentional action.

You could charge maybe that I'm playing with definitions here but if its one teaching that I have internalized and appreciated from Buddhism it's that intentional action isn't as bad as our puritan forefathers and their theology of "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" wants us to believe. And yes, there's not necessarily anything special here that I have that a dedicated Humanist couldn't have studying default mode/flow state psychology, however I was never able to connect with humanism in any meaningful way.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Well, I've listened to the first half so far, and thank goodness for dhw's entry. I gather He doesn't like secular materialism poking its head into revered teachings. As for reincarnation, it seems to me reincarnating oneself in this life to be at peace with oneself is very reasonable. Trying to propose one becoming someone else but yet the same in continuity requires one's consciousness/self to enter a new brain. This is directly equivalent the concept of NDE's and a form of dualism with a material brain hosting an immaterial consciousness. If I am now the continued result of someone else, who was that? Me in an earlier form? I'm not making fun in any way. I find the whole basis of that tenet as unreasonable. What I hope for is your clear responses. Ill comment further with time for further listening.

I don't have a full explanation for you yet but in my own research I found this: https://suttacentral.net/sn12.61/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=as...

That doesn't quite get to the reincarnation question just yet BUT the observation that when you study your consciousness far enough you realize that the true self is actually "empty" (the mind naturally stills itself after meditation and it's that state of the mystics where the Buddha's path really begins.)

So more or less, what we take as consciousness relies on causes and conditions and should be thought of as no different than the death of our own bodies.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Seeing this from your personal level make it more understandable. I have question. Does your teacher act as a psychologist in a sense?

Yeah, self-help psychologist wouldn't be a terrible way to describe that. By learning more about how we process thoughts etc. we gain a deeper appreciation for how we interact with everyone.

Inflect towards kindness, remove the ego, rinse, repeat.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Ajahn Brahm, (Brahmali's teacher) goes directly into what he calls "proof" of reincarnation:

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-qdqh8-1337429

Nothing controversial here--he's not calling anything baloney, but his background makes this interesting. Before he became a monk he completed a degree in Theoretical Physics. So he's rather well-equipped to handle western science.

I have the same uncomfortable feeling I had reading Sabom's book. Many of these stories are personal which make them harder to criticize. However, you guys are about the only people that I'd feel fine talking about these kinds of stories as literally everyone else I know would think I'm looney for even listening to them!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Xeno: Ajahn Brahm, (Brahmali's teacher) goes directly into what he calls "proof" of reincarnation:
https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-qdqh8-1337429

Xeno: you guys are about the only people that I'd feel fine talking about these kinds of stories as literally everyone else I know would think I'm looney for even listening to them!

I’m delighted that you want to discuss these things with us, but please, no more podcasts. I can’t speak for David, but although short articles are fine, time is a problem. Your Brahms and Brahmalis may disapprove, but I love my work and many other things in my life (including fascinating discussions like this), but I have to prioritize. If a podcast deals with a particular issue like reincarnation, please summarize its answers to the questions David and I have asked, or give us a relevant quote. If the podcast is about people’s experiences (maybe of déjà vu?) perhaps a single example will do.

Reincarnation

dhw: I’m afraid this is a major problem, and Brahmali simply glosses it over. He goes on and on about rebirth being a (the?) central point. David and I are in total agreement on this. What/who are we when we are reborn – and what is reborn if there is no immaterial “soul”?

Xeno: In trying to track this down for you (and for myself, frankly) I discovered this:
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.61/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=as...

The article does not tell us anything about what is reborn or what/who we become. But the following certainly requires comment:

QUOTES: Choices are a condition for consciousness. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. … That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.’
Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”

The first premise is that choice causes nothing but suffering. I’m sorry, but this is so vague that I find it absurd. It's the sheer variety of opportunities open to us that can bring us joy. I like a menu in a restaurant, I like to choose the films I watch, the make of car I’m going to buy, the place where I’m going to spend my holidays. I prefer democracy to totalitarian dictatorship. I prefer Beethoven to Bach. Of course suffering ceases when consciousness ceases. So does joy. The message here is simple: life is hell, and you will end your suffering by being dead. My message to the writer is “Get a life!”

Happiness

QUOTES: It turns out that just under half the time, 46.9% to be exact, people are doing what's called 'mind wandering'. They are not focused on the outside world or the task at hand, they are looking into their own thoughts. Unfortunately, the study of 2,250 people proposes, most of this activity doesn't make us feel happy.

The study was designed to find out what kind of activities people did throughout a day, and which made them happiest. Mindwandering was just one of 22 possible activities people could list.

So in the first quote, mindwandering makes most people unhappy, but in the second quote mindwandering is one of 22 activities that make people happy.

QUOTE: Researchers found that people were at their happiest when making love, exercising, or engaging in conversation. They were least happy when resting, working, or using a home computer.

Making love won’t work unless you have sexual desire, but according to the first article you quoted, “when desire fades away they’re freed”, and according to Ajahn Brahmali, the original teachings required the elimination of all desires (which taken to its logical conclusion would lead to the end of the human race – a great solution to our problems).

Xeno: I would argue that during the 50% of my own waking hours that are spent not doing anything in particular—I’m not being myself. I would argue (based on my understanding of Buddhist psychology) that we’re only “ourselves” when we’re fully engaged in self-aware, intentional action.

Doing what? Thinking what? Do you believe that whatever thoughts you have when your mind wanders are not YOUR thoughts, characteristic of your individual identity? The above article is devoted to happiness. Are you unhappy when your mind wanders? Maybe you think damaging and confusing thoughts that make you unhappy. Then that’s part of your miserable self. When I’m washing the dishes, I often sing made-up songs. I’m cheerful. Sorry, but I didn’t know I was suffering, and frankly I think it's typical me! But of course, if I wander off because of a problem or I’m worried about a particular matter, my thoughts will not be happy. They are still my problems and my thoughts.

Back to the first article: apparently you will only be completely happy when you are dead. Sorry again, but I much prefer the approach to life which entails doing what makes you happy and at the same time doing whatever you can to make other people happy. I know you agree, but do you think Gotama would have disapproved? Do Ajahn Brahmali and your monk disapprove?

Ajahn Brahm, (Brahmali's teacher) goes directly into what he calls "proof" of reincarnation:

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-qdqh8-1337429

Matt:Nothing controversial here--he's not calling anything baloney, but his background makes this interesting. Before he became a monk he completed a degree in Theoretical Physics. So he's rather well-equipped to handle western science.

I have the same uncomfortable feeling I had reading Sabom's book. Many of these stories are personal which make them harder to criticize. However, you guys are about the only people that I'd feel fine talking about these kinds of stories as literally everyone else I know would think I'm looney for even listening to them!

I didn't feel strange with Sabom. I found it fascinating.

Xeno: you guys are about the only people that I'd feel fine talking about these kinds of stories as literally everyone else I know would think I'm looney for even listening to them!

dhw: I’m delighted that you want to discuss these things with us, but please, no more podcasts. I can’t speak for David, ... but I have to prioritize. If a podcast deals with a particular issue like reincarnation, please summarize its answers to the questions David and I have asked, or give us a relevant quote. If the podcast is about people’s experiences (maybe of déjà vu?) perhaps a single example will do.

Reincarnation

dhw: I’m afraid this is a major problem, and Brahmali simply glosses it over. He goes on and on about rebirth being a (the?) central point. David and I are in total agreement on this. What/who are we when we are reborn – and what is reborn if there is no immaterial “soul”?

Xeno: In trying to track this down for you (and for myself, frankly) I discovered this:
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.61/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=as...

dhw: The article does not tell us anything about what is reborn or what/who we become. But the following certainly requires comment:

QUOTES: Choices are a condition for consciousness. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. … That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.’
Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”

dhw: The first premise is that choice causes nothing but suffering. I’m sorry, but this is so vague that I find it absurd. It's the sheer variety of opportunities open to us that can bring us joy. I like a menu in a restaurant, I like to choose the films I watch, the make of car I’m going to buy, the place where I’m going to spend my holidays. I prefer democracy to totalitarian dictatorship. I prefer Beethoven to Bach. Of course suffering ceases when consciousness ceases. So does joy. The message here is simple: life is hell, and you will end your suffering by being dead. My message to the writer is “Get a life!”

Happiness

QUOTES: It turns out that just under half the time, 46.9% to be exact, people are doing what's called 'mind wandering'. They are not focused on the outside world or the task at hand, they are looking into their own thoughts. Unfortunately, the study of 2,250 people proposes, most of this activity doesn't make us feel happy.

The study was designed to find out what kind of activities people did throughout a day, and which made them happiest. Mindwandering was just one of 22 possible activities people could list.

So in the first quote, mindwandering makes most people unhappy, but in the second quote mindwandering is one of 22 activities that make people happy.

QUOTE: Researchers found that people were at their happiest when making love, exercising, or engaging in conversation. They were least happy when resting, working, or using a home computer.

Making love won’t work unless you have sexual desire, but according to the first article you quoted, “when desire fades away they’re freed”, and according to Ajahn Brahmali, the original teachings required the elimination of all desires (which taken to its logical conclusion would lead to the end of the human race – a great solution to our problems).

Xeno: I would argue that during the 50% of my own waking hours that are spent not doing anything in particular—I’m not being myself. I would argue (based on my understanding of Buddhist psychology) that we’re only “ourselves” when we’re fully engaged in self-aware, intentional action.

dhw: Doing what? Thinking what? Do you believe that whatever thoughts you have when your mind wanders are not YOUR thoughts, characteristic of your individual identity? The above article is devoted to happiness. Are you unhappy when your mind wanders? Maybe you think damaging and confusing thoughts that make you unhappy. Then that’s part of your miserable self. When I’m washing the dishes, I often sing made-up songs. I’m cheerful. Sorry, but I didn’t know I was suffering, and frankly I think it's typical me! But of course, if I wander off because of a problem or I’m worried about a particular matter, my thoughts will not be happy. They are still my problems and my thoughts.

Back to the first article: apparently you will only be completely happy when you are dead. Sorry again, but I much prefer the approach to life which entails doing what makes you happy and at the same time doing whatever you can to make other people happy. I know you agree, but do you think Gotama would have disapproved? Do Ajahn Brahmali and your monk disapprove?

Thanks for this. I've had a happy life, no suffering. Bad moments, yes. Forward looking even with not much time left.

I think what you have with that single teaching I shared earlier has a similar danger to other religious texts--out of context it's easy to railroad it into any form you want. And we humans tend to be negative. Maybe it would be good in this case to get an idea for a practice I do daily:

"This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
Not proud or demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born —
May all beings be at ease!

Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world."

Just to level set, this is centered on my personal views here, I'm not meaning to project to anyone else here. This is chanted followed by a meditation where we start with ourselves radiating a warm feeling of loving kindness, and then expand that out in greater circles to beam that feeling out in all directions.

Why engage daily in a practice designed to have us create the feeling of loving kindness--the same sort of love and compassion that a mother has for her child--and deliberately engage with everyone in the world with this feeling of love and compassion sitting in the background? One of the reasons I chose to throw my lot in with the Buddhists, is because after about a year of engaging with this practice daily, my wife even said she noticed major changes. Notably with my mother--that's complicated but the short version is that there was abuse involved and I was 100% fine with writing her out of my life. But it hit me in other places too.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

So the teaching you're taking issue with earlier *must* be taken alongside this (and other) daily practice(s). In my view, there is absolutely no way that the teaching you worried about can lead to the sort of nihilism that you're reading into it when several of the bedrock teachings stem from this metta sutta. Whatever we incline our minds towards--is where our minds go. We can't *control* our mind, but we can dig ruts into the road to help guide us where we want to go. I read that teaching in this way: an untrained person will always be at the whims of wherever their mind is blowing. Like a monkey travelling from vine to vine, their mind flies and they damage themselves and others. Anger is the best study for this: it takes alot of training and effort to handle anger in ways that won't cause us to lash out at other people. Because we wish to inflect ourselves on a path towards a kinder place, having that thought in the back of our minds we will more skillfully keep anger at bay, and transform its energies into constructive rather than destructive change. I think it's important to refer back to the ancient Greeks and Romans who believed emotions were thrown upon us by the Gods themselves. We realize that emotions are internal to us now, but we shouldn't throw away their insight that emotions don't typically come on command: That's why their explanations moved to external causes: Why do I experience Anger even when I don't want to be angry? The Stoics--a group I have a feeling you'll view as dour as well--developed many techniques to handle anger.

Buddhism altered how I view happiness: Happiness is contentment. And let me add to that: What if we could learn to be content with less? Consumerism is the obvious choice here to make a point. No matter how many things I buy, happiness isn't in accumulation despite what our marketing agents want us to believe. This I didn't need to be taught, but the Buddha's teaching on craving for sense desires perfectly aligns with a disenchantment I learned ages ago towards fashion trends. To this day I have a wardrobe that doesn't extend beyond about 20 shirts and maybe half that of pants and I replace things only when they wear out. I have two pairs of shoes and one pair of hiking boots. One pair of sandals. I have a tendency to buy too many books and have plenty that I will probably never read before I die. (Here I've done better--I've taken to using the library and am trying to pare down that collection to something much more manageable. I've bought two in the last year.)

Books and music provide temporary bursts of joy but the teachings help me to realize that joy like all things has a beginning, middle, and end. Okay, this is all stuff I've talked about with other Buddhists and my monk friend, and nobody once has said that any of this is contrary to the path. Food and many of the things of daily life, provide small sparks of joy, but none of that provides a lasting contentment. Due to these practices, what I would describe as large swaths of just neutral feeling that was punctuated by small sparks of joy through food, music, conversation etc. has been replaced with a sort of warm glow of contentment--I've learned how to be happy when not doing anything in particular. I've even used the meditation techniques to stop an 8yr long 750ml+/day drinking habit. Addiction is in my view, just the same pattern of pleasure seeking we all share--only turned towards substances that have harmful effects. At any rate, me building a book collection I'll never read is little different than a drinking habit. They're both attempting to satisfy cravings, and both lead to bad consequences--buying books I'll never read when I know full well I already have books I haven't read is more mundane but illustrative: I'm out of control. (My mom is a hoarder, and I try to keep that in mind.)

Now your monastics will practice to become disenchanted with everything but that feeling of pervasive contentment. That's really the only difference between the monks and us "normies." None of this quite gets at the point that started this thread, but you seemed to have such a negative and dour view on Buddhism that I felt it necessary to give you a little flavor as to what it means for me. To answer your question, yeah these thoughts pop in "my" head, but I don't understand myself to be anything more than the confluence of consciousness and conditioning that was born 40odd years ago, and if things go the way I figure they will, will eventually support daisies. I won't get to take any of those thoughts with me. So they're not *me*, in an ultimate sense. The hardcore Buddhists--they clearly think I'll carry on somehow, and I'm still researching and waiting on my monk to call me back to try and give us both better answers.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

As a third leg here, the Stoics would say that bad emotions are caused by not getting what you want and not accepting the fact that you can't get everything that you want: Very probably, you have unrealistic goals.

Instead of trying to win a tennis match--something you simply DO NOT have full control over, modify your goal to play your best. That way, your expectations more closely match reality.

Buddhism for me is THAT ethic on steroids.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Matt: I think what you have with that single teaching I shared earlier has a similar danger to other religious texts--out of context it's easy to railroad it into any form you want. And we humans tend to be negative. Maybe it would be good in this case to get an idea for a practice I do daily:

"This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited,
Contented and easily satisfied,
Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.
Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,
Not proud or demanding in nature.
Let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Wishing: In gladness and in safety,
May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born —
May all beings be at ease!

Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings;
Radiating kindness over the entire world:
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths;
Outwards and unbounded,
Freed from hatred and ill-will.
Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down
Free from drowsiness,
One should sustain this recollection.
This is said to be the sublime abiding.
By not holding to fixed views,
The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,
Being freed from all sense desires,
Is not born again into this world."

Just to level set, this is centered on my personal views here, I'm not meaning to project to anyone else here. This is chanted followed by a meditation where we start with ourselves radiating a warm feeling of loving kindness, and then expand that out in greater circles to beam that feeling out in all directions.

Why engage daily in a practice designed to have us create the feeling of loving kindness--the same sort of love and compassion that a mother has for her child--and deliberately engage with everyone in the world with this feeling of love and compassion sitting in the background? One of the reasons I chose to throw my lot in with the Buddhists, is because after about a year of engaging with this practice daily, my wife even said she noticed major changes. Notably with my mother--that's complicated but the short version is that there was abuse involved and I was 100% fine with writing her out of my life. But it hit me in other places too.

An abusive parent is a terrible load to bear. Has Buddhism returned you to her? I realize this is very personal.

So the teaching you're taking issue with earlier *must* be taken alongside this (and other) daily practice(s). In my view, there is absolutely no way that the teaching you worried about can lead to the sort of nihilism that you're reading into it when several of the bedrock teachings stem from this metta sutta. Whatever we incline our minds towards--is where our minds go. We can't *control* our mind, but we can dig ruts into the road to help guide us where we want to go. I read that teaching in this way: an untrained person will always be at the whims of wherever their mind is blowing. Like a monkey travelling from vine to vine, their mind flies and they damage themselves and others. Anger is the best study for this: it takes alot of training and effort to handle anger in ways that won't cause us to lash out at other people. Because we wish to inflect ourselves on a path towards a kinder place, having that thought in the back of our minds we will more skillfully keep anger at bay, and transform its energies into constructive rather than destructive change. I think it's important to refer back to the ancient Greeks and Romans who believed emotions were thrown upon us by the Gods themselves. We realize that emotions are internal to us now, but we shouldn't throw away their insight that emotions don't typically come on command: That's why their explanations moved to external causes: Why do I experience Anger even when I don't want to be angry? The Stoics--a group I have a feeling you'll view as dour as well--developed many techniques to handle anger.

Buddhism altered how I view happiness: Happiness is contentment. And let me add to that: What if we could learn to be content with less? Consumerism is the obvious choice here to make a point. No matter how many things I buy, happiness isn't in accumulation despite what our marketing agents want us to believe. This I didn't need to be taught, but the Buddha's teaching on craving for sense desires perfectly aligns with a disenchantment I learned ages ago towards fashion trends. To this day I have a wardrobe that doesn't extend beyond about 20 shirts and maybe half that of pants and I replace things only when they wear out. I have two pairs of shoes and one pair of hiking boots. One pair of sandals. I have a tendency to buy too many books and have plenty that I will probably never read before I die. (Here I've done better--I've taken to using the library and am trying to pare down that collection to something much more manageable. I've bought two in the last year.)

Books and music provide temporary bursts of joy but the teachings help me to realize that joy like all things has a beginning, middle, and end. Okay, this is all stuff I've talked about with other Buddhists and my monk friend, and nobody once has said that any of this is contrary to the path. Food and many of the things of daily life, provide small sparks of joy, but none of that provides a lasting contentment. Due to these practices, what I would describe as large swaths of just neutral feeling that was punctuated by small sparks of joy through food, music, conversation etc. has been replaced with a sort of warm glow of contentment--I've learned how to be happy when not doing anything in particular. I've even used the meditation techniques to stop an 8yr long 750ml+/day drinking habit. Addiction is in my view, just the same pattern of pleasure seeking we all share--only turned towards substances that have harmful effects. At any rate, me building a book collection I'll never read is little different than a drinking habit. They're both attempting to satisfy cravings, and both lead to bad consequences--buying books I'll never read when I know full well I already have books I haven't read is more mundane but illustrative: I'm out of control. (My mom is a hoarder, and I try to keep that in mind.)

Now your monastics will practice to become disenchanted with everything but that feeling of pervasive contentment. That's really the only difference between the monks and us "normies." None of this quite gets at the point that started this thread, but you seemed to have such a negative and dour view on Buddhism that I felt it necessary to give you a little flavor as to what it means for me. To answer your question, yeah these thoughts pop in "my" head, but I don't understand myself to be anything more than the confluence of consciousness and conditioning that was born 40odd years ago, and if things go the way I figure they will, will eventually support daisies. I won't get to take any of those thoughts with me. So they're not *me*, in an ultimate sense. The hardcore Buddhists--they clearly think I'll carry on somehow, and I'm still researching and waiting on my monk to call me back to try and give us both better answers.

It seems you are using this as catharsis and Mom, the hoarder, is always sitting there in the background with her severe psychological illness.

Matt: As a third leg here, the Stoics would say that bad emotions are caused by not getting what you want and not accepting the fact that you can't get everything that you want: Very probably, you have unrealistic goals.

Instead of trying to win a tennis match--something you simply DO NOT have full control over, modify your goal to play your best. That way, your expectations more closely match reality.

Buddhism for me is THAT ethic on steroids.

That is a greatt approach to life.

An abusive parent is a terrible load to bear. Has Buddhism returned you to her? I realize this is very personal.

Complicated but we've shared enough through the years to give you a real answer. =-)

So the practice outlined above coupled with other related meditation practice helped me to unwind mental knots that I didn't know I had. Forgiveness and compassion meditations were particularly powerful. I didn't think that people could *fundamentally* change until my wife pointed out the following behaviors:

1.) I no longer dodge her phone calls
2.) I rarely get into arguments with her anymore
3.) I even went so far at one point last year to intervene in a dispute she was having with a contractor

It's important to note that as far back as 2005 I gave my wife's phone number to my mom as the only point of contact knowing she would never call my wife unless there was an emergency.

Part of the reason is that the practices helped me figure out that abuse whether its physical or mental are the product of cycles. There was a Tonglen meditation I participated in around fall 2020 where I had a shocking discovery that people rarely are sociopaths and don't inflict suffering on other people out of malice... back to my mom while she was adamant that she didn't physically abuse me (as I later found out that she and the rest of her generation were abused by a raging alcoholic father) she did however mentally torment me. To understand that, I knew at the age of three that I was the product of a rape (how many toddlers know what rape is?) and when I was a teenager she would say things like "you're just like your father," which probably isn't the best choice of words for the depressive yet arrogant person I was at the time.

This has all allowed me to approach my mom as someone who is hurting themselves and while I won't lie and say that we're close like we were in 1989 it speaks volumes that I'm at this point.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Ajahn Brahm, (Brahmali's teacher) goes directly into what he calls "proof" of reincarnation:

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-qdqh8-1337429

Matt:Nothing controversial here--he's not calling anything baloney, but his background makes this interesting. Before he became a monk he completed a degree in Theoretical Physics. So he's rather well-equipped to handle western science.

I have the same uncomfortable feeling I had reading Sabom's book. Many of these stories are personal which make them harder to criticize. However, you guys are about the only people that I'd feel fine talking about these kinds of stories as literally everyone else I know would think I'm looney for even listening to them!

I didn't feel strange with Sabom. I found it fascinating.

Well, you weren't a materialist. (Or at least you weren't as of the time where you suggested I read his book!)

Where Buddhism offers some answers down this path, supposedly there are meditations we can do that allow us to have these experiences (even veridical OBE) that at least on paper, offer a 2500yr old answer to these questions. I'm almost done with Brahm's podcast but his argument is fairly squishy. However he's right to point out that rebirth was a Greek answer and I know from my own research that rebirth was even a belief within early Christianity as well as Kabbalah.

Actually I plan on writing a book titled "Where did our Mind go?" which is an exploration attempting to locate precisely when "The West" stopped treating the mind as one of the senses I mean short answer is probably the Scottish Enlightenment and David Hume, but it was taken for granted by the Greeks.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

One last bit, as the characterization of Buddhism as a sort of misanthropic death cult is stronger than I realized.

There's a very famous Sutta, the "Kisa Gotami" Sutta where a woman comes to the Buddha with the body of her only son. She was so distraught that the villagers believed her to be fully mad.

She lays the body of her young son at the Buddha's feet and asks the Buddha to bring him back to life. The Buddha tells her, "We can do this, but only if you find a white mustard seed from a home that has never lost someone.

She then goes through the entire village on her hunt. By the time she has investigated the last house in the village, she realizes that death touches everyone.

She comes back to the Buddha, still saddened, and when the Buddha asks her how her search went, she kneels and weeps: "I understand now that death comeas for everyone." The Buddha gives her some small teaching, and then hugs her, both weeping.

I had no idea that the idea of Buddhism being about an uncaring nihilism was so pervasive. If the Buddha could weep at the loss of a mother's only child, and he was the most accomplished teacher of his age, then how can Buddhism be a death cult that suggests that the only escape for suffering is death?

I'm still waiting for my monk friend to call me back, but I believe I have a tentative answer to the reincarnation question. I will wait until the dust settles on these small points however. My apologies for taking up this much of your time!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

An abusive parent is a terrible load to bear. Has Buddhism returned you to her? I realize this is very personal.

Complicated but we've shared enough through the years to give you a real answer. =-)

Matt: So the practice outlined above coupled with other related meditation practice helped me to unwind mental knots that I didn't know I had. Forgiveness and compassion meditations were particularly powerful. I didn't think that people could *fundamentally* change until my wife pointed out the following behaviors:

1.) I no longer dodge her phone calls
2.) I rarely get into arguments with her anymore
3.) I even went so far at one point last year to intervene in a dispute she was having with a contractor

It's important to note that as far back as 2005 I gave my wife's phone number to my mom as the only point of contact knowing she would never call my wife unless there was an emergency.

Part of the reason is that the practices helped me figure out that abuse whether its physical or mental are the product of cycles. There was a Tonglen meditation I participated in around fall 2020 where I had a shocking discovery that people rarely are sociopaths and don't inflict suffering on other people out of malice... back to my mom while she was adamant that she didn't physically abuse me (as I later found out that she and the rest of her generation were abused by a raging alcoholic father) she did however mentally torment me. To understand that, I knew at the age of three that I was the product of a rape (how many toddlers know what rape is?) and when I was a teenager she would say things like "you're just like your father," which probably isn't the best choice of words for the depressive yet arrogant person I was at the time.

This has all allowed me to approach my mom as someone who is hurting themselves and while I won't lie and say that we're close like we were in 1989 it speaks volumes that I'm at this point.

Thank you again for these revelations about yourself. Who told you about the rape? I assume your mother as an early method of reducing your self-worth, as not the result of a loving family arrangement.

Ajahn Brahm, (Brahmali's teacher) goes directly into what he calls "proof" of reincarnation:

https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-qdqh8-1337429

Matt: Nothing controversial here--he's not calling anything baloney, but his background makes this interesting. Before he became a monk he completed a degree in Theoretical Physics. So he's rather well-equipped to handle western science.

I have the same uncomfortable feeling I had reading Sabom's book. Many of these stories are personal which make them harder to criticize. However, you guys are about the only people that I'd feel fine talking about these kinds of stories as literally everyone else I know would think I'm looney for even listening to them!

DAVID: I didn't feel strange with Sabom. I found it fascinating.

Well, you weren't a materialist. (Or at least you weren't as of the time where you suggested I read his book!)

I'm far from a materialist.

Where Buddhism offers some answers down this path, supposedly there are meditations we can do that allow us to have these experiences (even veridical OBE) that at least on paper, offer a 2500yr old answer to these questions. I'm almost done with Brahm's podcast but his argument is fairly squishy. However he's right to point out that rebirth was a Greek answer and I know from my own research that rebirth was even a belief within early Christianity as well as Kabbalah.

Actually I plan on writing a book titled "Where did our Mind go?" which is an exploration attempting to locate precisely when "The West" stopped treating the mind as one of the senses I mean short answer is probably the Scottish Enlightenment and David Hume, but it was taken for granted by the Greeks.

That is a great point. The mind is one of our senses.

Matt: One last bit, as the characterization of Buddhism as a sort of misanthropic death cult is stronger than I realized.

There's a very famous Sutta, the "Kisa Gotami" Sutta where a woman comes to the Buddha with the body of her only son. She was so distraught that the villagers believed her to be fully mad.

She lays the body of her young son at the Buddha's feet and asks the Buddha to bring him back to life. The Buddha tells her, "We can do this, but only if you find a white mustard seed from a home that has never lost someone.

She then goes through the entire village on her hunt. By the time she has investigated the last house in the village, she realizes that death touches everyone.

She comes back to the Buddha, still saddened, and when the Buddha asks her how her search went, she kneels and weeps: "I understand now that death comeas for everyone." The Buddha gives her some small teaching, and then hugs her, both weeping.

I had no idea that the idea of Buddhism being about an uncaring nihilism was so pervasive. If the Buddha could weep at the loss of a mother's only child, and he was the most accomplished teacher of his age, then how can Buddhism be a death cult that suggests that the only escape for suffering is death?

I'm still waiting for my monk friend to call me back, but I believe I have a tentative answer to the reincarnation question. I will wait until the dust settles on these small points however. My apologies for taking up this much of your time!

I'm thrilled you have confided in us, allowing us such trust. Please continue with your teaching and comments about your self struggles.

Thank you again for these revelations about yourself. Who told you about the rape? I assume your mother as an early method of reducing your self-worth, as not the result of a loving family arrangement.

My mom did. She was an EMT and so to top all that off she was very much the kind of person where "we shouldn't hide the real world from our children," so when I was 6 I was the only child viewing Trauma slides when my mom went for her yearly continuing education. It was odd now that I think about it that nobody attempted to intervene, but I mean, it was North Dakota ROFL.

I didn't view it as abnormal until I started seeing the reactions (as an adult) of people who I told that to.

My teenage years were the most brutal. When I was 18 one of my best friends committed suicide and (this should tell you how deep my skepticism runs) I ran over to Drew's house because I didn't believe it... but yeah, the look on his dad's face literally said it all. I was numb all the way back home, and when I broke the news to my mom when I walked in the door the first words out of her mouth was "I told you to go over there yesterday!"

The teenage years I still feel eroded any sort of normal "love" reaction that I *should* have--and simply don't. 2-3 years ago as a joke my wife bought me an audio book "How to live with a narcissistic mother," and after I got done with that book, it hit me like a ton of bricks--in a good way. For the first time I had as accurate of a description of my childhood as I'd ever had... My case is weird because there's normally several different roles in a Narcissistic family and because I was the only family member I literally played all roles. The Golden Child who was also the Black Sheep.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Actually I plan on writing a book titled "Where did our Mind go?" which is an exploration attempting to locate precisely when "The West" stopped treating the mind as one of the senses I mean short answer is probably the Scottish Enlightenment and David Hume, but it was taken for granted by the Greeks.

That is a great point. The mind is one of our senses.

The inspiration from that book came directly from Ajahn Brahm. About a year ago I listened to a seminar where he pointed that fact out: The Greeks and the Buddha both had access to some very similar ideas about the world, and Aristotle explicitly talked about the mind as a sense object. There's a really good tiny lecture book called "Aristotle's Divine Intellect" that goes into a bit more detail on this topic. At any rate, we lose something important in the west by not treating the mind as a sense. How else can you try and think about the process of imagination or worldbuilding without exploring the fact that we can use our mind to feed inputs to the five senses? Reading a novel is mind-to-mind communication, sensory experience from person to person. If an author can make you smell and taste the air of a place then we have to consider the mind as a sense object that can feed all the others.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

DAVID: Thank you again for these revelations about yourself. Who told you about the rape? I assume your mother as an early method of reducing your self-worth, as not the result of a loving family arrangement.

Matt: My mom did. She was an EMT and so to top all that off she was very much the kind of person where "we shouldn't hide the real world from our children," so when I was 6 I was the only child viewing Trauma slides when my mom went for her yearly continuing education. It was odd now that I think about it that nobody attempted to intervene, but I mean, it was North Dakota ROFL.

Not really a laughing matter. I'm getting the picture of no father or a very ineffective one.

Matt: I didn't view it as abnormal until I started seeing the reactions (as an adult) of people who I told that to.

As a kid you couldn't know what is normal

Matt: My teenage years were the most brutal. When I was 18 one of my best friends committed suicide and (this should tell you how deep my skepticism runs) I ran over to Drew's house because I didn't believe it... but yeah, the look on his dad's face literally said it all. I was numb all the way back home, and when I broke the news to my mom when I walked in the door the first words out of her mouth was "I told you to go over there yesterday!"

Great. You always did it the wrong way.

Matt: The teenage years I still feel eroded any sort of normal "love" reaction that I *should* have--and simply don't. 2-3 years ago as a joke my wife bought me an audio book "How to live with a narcissistic mother," and after I got done with that book, it hit me like a ton of bricks--in a good way. For the first time I had as accurate of a description of my childhood as I'd ever had... My case is weird because there's normally several different roles in a Narcissistic family and because I was the only family member I literally played all roles. The Golden Child who was also the Black Sheep.

I couldn't have analyzed it any better.

M att: Actually I plan on writing a book titled "Where did our Mind go?" which is an exploration attempting to locate precisely when "The West" stopped treating the mind as one of the senses I mean short answer is probably the Scottish Enlightenment and David Hume, but it was taken for granted by the Greeks.

That is a great point. The mind is one of our senses.

The inspiration from that book came directly from Ajahn Brahm. About a year ago I listened to a seminar where he pointed that fact out: The Greeks and the Buddha both had access to some very similar ideas about the world, and Aristotle explicitly talked about the mind as a sense object. There's a really good tiny lecture book called "Aristotle's Divine Intellect" that goes into a bit more detail on this topic. At any rate, we lose something important in the west by not treating the mind as a sense. How else can you try and think about the process of imagination or worldbuilding without exploring the fact that we can use our mind to feed inputs to the five senses? Reading a novel is mind-to-mind communication, sensory experience from person to person. If an author can make you smell and taste the air of a place then we have to consider the mind as a sense object that can feed all the others.

From what you have told us, the teachings you have studied have finally given you a path to sorting out the reasons for your personal reactions and ego defense mechanisms. Your teacher is your therapist, an anser for a question I raised earlier. I appreciate having you point out to me the use of the mind as a sense organ. Without question.

Where to begin? Owing to the time gap between our countries, I woke up this morning to find an intensely moving personal story, accompanied by texts full of wisdom and compassion (accompanied by equally wise and compassionate comments from David) which create a totally different perspective from the one that we were discussing only yesterday. So I’ll begin by thanking you for all these insights into your own background and into those aspects of Buddhism that have been so helpful to you and may well help others who read your life story. There is nothing in these latest exchanges that I would dream of opposing. You began with a list of precepts:

"This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited etc."

If these were the Buddha’s teachings, there can be no controversy. David has, I think, rightly identified your embrace of Buddhism as a kind of therapy – and the very fact that it’s based on fundamental truths creates a solid base for you and indeed all of us to build on.

I’d like to add a personal note here. In my teens, I went through a religious crisis, and was initially deeply attracted to Buddhism, not least because it by-passed religion and “God”, and focused on the gentler, humanitarian aspects of life. It was only when I read about reincarnation and the prolongation of suffering as punishment for the bad things done in a previous life that I switched off. The crisis did not last long. By the time I reached my 20s, I'd realized that no religion or philosophy could answer my questions, and I settled for agnosticism. This brought what you would call a kind of contentment. I’m still fascinated by it all, and hurl myself into discussions, but they don't affect my attitude towards life, myself or other people, and I'm not suffering! I can’t say your story has brought me joy, but it has enriched me in an entirely positive way. It reaches out to all of us, regardless of temperamanent,situation, problems, solutions, beliefs and philosophies.

This leads me to points raised in your latest posts:

Xeno: I had no idea that the idea of Buddhism being about an uncaring nihilism was so pervasive. If the Buddha could weep at the loss of a mother's only child, and he was the most accomplished teacher of his age, then how can Buddhism be a death cult that suggests that the only escape for suffering is death?

The podcast could hardly have given us a worse start. Ajahn Brahmali focuses almost exclusively on the aspects of Buddhism that turned me away: rebirth, suffering, “freedom” from cravings - the “nihilism” - and neither you nor he can explain what is reborn, or what form of existence is more conducive to freedom from suffering, cravings etc. than permanent death. I love the tale of the grieving mother and the Buddha’s compassion and philosophy, but his consoling words are that everyone in the community has lost someone to death. He didn’t say to her, “Your son will be reborn, and his suffering will continue rebirth after rebirth until all his cravings and selfish actions will have ceased.”

Xeno: [...] Food and many of the things of daily life, provide small sparks of joy, but none of that provides a lasting contentment.

Yes, all things in this world are transient. Hence the cry “carpe diem!” I would rather enjoy each transient moment -and help others to do the same - than be miserable, and you're right, you can only do that if deep down your “self” has achieved an inner peace. This means acceptance of transience. Suffering may come from circumstances outside our control, and we can’t know how we will react to negative experiences. We may then discover aspects of ourselves that we didn’t know about – but they are still our own “selves”. My wife's death was one such event, but I've learned to live with it and still enjoy many transient moments. I was devastated when my elder son was diagnosed with an incurable cancer(though he's responding well to treatment at the moment), and I don’t know how I'll be able to endure the consequences if he dies before me. But we both know that we must accept transience. He makes the most of every moment, and so do I. If Buddhism helps you to accept your past and enjoy your present, then great. But don’t listen to podcasts like Ajahn Brahmali’s!

Xeno: I don't understand myself to be anything more than the confluence of consciousness and conditioning that was born 40 odd years ago, and if things go the way I figure they will, will eventually support daisies. I won't get to take any of those thoughts with me. So they're not *me*, in an ultimate sense.

They were you. But the current confluence of consciousness and conditioning may change, and so your “self” may change, but it will still be your "self". Gotama may also have changed before he became his wise and compassionate “self”.

Where to begin? Owing to the time gap between our countries, I woke up this morning to find an intensely moving personal story, accompanied by texts full of wisdom and compassion (accompanied by equally wise and compassionate comments from David) which create a totally different perspective from the one that we were discussing only yesterday. So I’ll begin by thanking you for all these insights into your own background and into those aspects of Buddhism that have been so helpful to you and may well help others who read your life story. There is nothing in these latest exchanges that I would dream of opposing. You began with a list of precepts:

"This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness,
And who knows the path of peace:
Let them be able and upright,
Straightforward and gentle in speech,
Humble and not conceited etc."

dhw: If these were the Buddha’s teachings, there can be no controversy. David has, I think, rightly identified your embrace of Buddhism as a kind of therapy – and the very fact that it’s based on fundamental truths creates a solid base for you and indeed all of us to build on.

dhw: I’d like to add a personal note here. In my teens, I went through a religious crisis, and was initially deeply attracted to Buddhism, not least because it by-passed religion and “God”, and focused on the gentler, humanitarian aspects of life. It was only when I read about reincarnation and the prolongation of suffering as punishment for the bad things done in a previous life that I switched off. The crisis did not last long. By the time I reached my 20s, I'd realized that no religion or philosophy could answer my questions, and I settled for agnosticism. This brought what you would call a kind of contentment. I’m still fascinated by it all, and hurl myself into discussions, but they don't affect my attitude towards life, myself or other people, and I'm not suffering! I can’t say your story has brought me joy, but it has enriched me in an entirely positive way. It reaches out to all of us, regardless of temperamanent,situation, problems, solutions, beliefs and philosophies.

This leads me to points raised in your latest posts:

Xeno: I had no idea that the idea of Buddhism being about an uncaring nihilism was so pervasive. If the Buddha could weep at the loss of a mother's only child, and he was the most accomplished teacher of his age, then how can Buddhism be a death cult that suggests that the only escape for suffering is death?

dhw: The podcast could hardly have given us a worse start. Ajahn Brahmali focuses almost exclusively on the aspects of Buddhism that turned me away: rebirth, suffering, “freedom” from cravings - the “nihilism” - and neither you nor he can explain what is reborn, or what form of existence is more conducive to freedom from suffering, cravings etc. than permanent death. I love the tale of the grieving mother and the Buddha’s compassion and philosophy, but his consoling words are that everyone in the community has lost someone to death. He didn’t say to her, “Your son will be reborn, and his suffering will continue rebirth after rebirth until all his cravings and selfish actions will have ceased.”

Xeno: [...] Food and many of the things of daily life, provide small sparks of joy, but none of that provides a lasting contentment.

dhw: Yes, all things in this world are transient. Hence the cry “carpe diem!” I would rather enjoy each transient moment -and help others to do the same - than be miserable, and you're right, you can only do that if deep down your “self” has achieved an inner peace. This means acceptance of transience. Suffering may come from circumstances outside our control, and we can’t know how we will react to negative experiences. We may then discover aspects of ourselves that we didn’t know about – but they are still our own “selves”. My wife's death was one such event, but I've learned to live with it and still enjoy many transient moments. I was devastated when my elder son was diagnosed with an incurable cancer(though he's responding well to treatment at the moment), and I don’t know how I'll be able to endure the consequences if he dies before me. But we both know that we must accept transience. He makes the most of every moment, and so do I. If Buddhism helps you to accept your past and enjoy your present, then great. But don’t listen to podcasts like Ajahn Brahmali’s!

Xeno: I don't understand myself to be anything more than the confluence of consciousness and conditioning that was born 40 odd years ago, and if things go the way I figure they will, will eventually support daisies. I won't get to take any of those thoughts with me. So they're not *me*, in an ultimate sense.

dhw: They were you. But the current confluence of consciousness and conditioning may change, and so your “self” may change, but it will still be your "self". Gotama may also have changed before he became his wise and compassionate “self”.

I note dhw's personal comments, noting some new facts I hadn't known

Not really a laughing matter. I'm getting the picture of no father or a very ineffective one.

Gallows humor of a sort. Think of your ER docs. (I worked ER for 4yrs as a pharmacy tech, I fit in well with the old docs.) But yeah, only child, single mom.

Matt: I didn't view it as abnormal until I started seeing the reactions (as an adult) of people who I told that to.

As a kid you couldn't know what is normal

Great. You always did it the wrong way.

But then when I chose to stop doing homework and just fail out, my mom refused to blame me, only the teachers. I mean I get it, public school teachers get a bad rap but in my case it was totally undeserved. Like I said, the dynamic could flip on a dime. The only thing to be certain of and is a key to understanding my mom, is that whatever threatens her ego is the enemy. So if I threatened it, I was the black sheep. If someone threatened me, she took it as a personal offense against her. Trying to analyze those threads just isn't worth it, but it was impossible to navigate at the time. That's why I ultimately started shutting down at school.

Matt: The teenage years I still feel eroded any sort of normal "love" reaction that I *should* have--and simply don't. 2-3 years ago as a joke my wife bought me an audio book "How to live with a narcissistic mother," and after I got done with that book, it hit me like a ton of bricks--in a good way. For the first time I had as accurate of a description of my childhood as I'd ever had... My case is weird because there's normally several different roles in a Narcissistic family and because I was the only family member I literally played all roles. The Golden Child who was also the Black Sheep.

I couldn't have analyzed it any better.

I wanted to add--just to be clear--the "psychologist" approach of my teacher... he actually doesn't know about any of this history. This all came from me using the teachings and actually a mentor I had in a Buddha-based recovery program. (I wasn't going to do AA.)

Actually, on that note, I also didn't know that I did something that old head recovery folks thought was insane. I had actually been studying Buddhism since 2003. I probably mentioned that here a few times. But in 2017 I finally decided to practice the meditation part.

When I finally quit drinking in 2020, keep in mind--I averaged north of 750ml/day with a habit that had grown over 8yrs I did it cold turkey. My hospital experience taught me that if my vitals tanked I could titrate. In the pharmacy we kept liquor for precisely when the doctors would order it for that reason. The Buddha's meditation focuses on learning that all aspects of the mind, good, bad, neutral--has beginning, middle, end. I was afraid of the cravings. Literally it was like a hunger that would radiate numbness and I feared it would get worse. But over that first 24hrs, I slept fine. I was pre stage-IV hypertension (whatever 142/98 would be) a few months before I quit. So I watched it carefully on that first day. The meditation I used was the simple starting breath meditation: You focus on your breathing as the object, and anytime you "wake up" from being distracted, you bring it back to the breath. When negative feelings pop up, focus on them carefully, until they pass.

Nothing happened. They always passed. I was afraid of quitting but it was being afraid of a hallucination, really.

The next day, cravings still came at the usual times, but a little less powerful. That continued over a week.

By the time I hit a week, my BP had fully returned to normal.

But the meditation was my watchman. So at that point I began all the work that lead me to most of the story that I have already recounted here.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

David’s response to my last post has set an alarm bell tinklimg:

DAVID: I note dhw's personal comments, noting some new facts I hadn't known.

The personal comments were meant to shed light on what I thought were some of Matt’s own preoccupations: the negative or “nihilistic” side of Buddhism, with its emphasis on repeated suffering and the nebulousness both of rebirth and of the final state when Enlightenment has been achieved, the transience of joy, and the true nature of the “self”. This latest post delves deeper into the ramifications of Matt’s sufferings, and how he has dealt with them. Enlightening in itself, but if my personal comments were irrelevant, then I’m sorry and of course they should be ignored.

This is a full plate my friend! I think I've lived such an otherwise normal life I still feel a bit awkward that anything about it would be terribly inspiring, lol. I've long sensed camaraderie with your take on things. The other reason I quit orbiting this site is because I realized after a bit "why am I defending being sceptical?" Human nature seems to send folks down to fill in all gaps with explanations. Maybe some things just don't have explanations? I'd developed a sort of "If all you're doing is arguing about existence, aren't you missing out on something immediately around you within your existence?" The ending song of Life of Brian has always held a great deal of significance.

I was devastated when my elder son was diagnosed with an incurable cancer(though he's responding well to treatment at the moment), and I don’t know how I'll be able to endure the consequences if he dies before me. But we both know that we must accept transience. He makes the most of every moment, and so do I. If Buddhism helps you to accept your past and enjoy your present, then great. But don’t listen to podcasts like Ajahn Brahmali’s!

This is a full plate, friend, and I send you virtual hugs from Tucson. I recently had what I could best describe as a "vision" or "waking dream." I met my wife at a Deftones concert just 25yrs and a few days ago. In the vision I was in an attic with a sort of golden glow. I was flipping through one of my old CD books, and found the CD released a couple weeks before that concert. I felt a pang, because she was no longer in my life in this vision. I put the CD on, and as the first song spun up, I began to weep. Then the CD started skipping, because of course CDs don't last forever either. When I came to I was crying in real life.

There's a stoic practice that I believe in but haven't practiced lately, where you imagine losing your loved ones. The reason they did this was to account for the fact that we take those around us for granted... the stoics didn't want us doing that, so you try to imagine their loss to create these kinds of feelings. This enables a fresh kindness. I *do* kind of understand what you're going through. I send you hugs from tucson, dhw!

It's funny that you say that last bit about Brahmali, that one is the only teaching that comes off as brash, I'm currently going through a workshop where he brings you to the life and times of the Buddha in the hope to gain what kind of truly different system he discovered compared to his contemporaries, the Jains, the Ajivakas, and then the orthodox Hinduism at the time. (Hinduism hadn't developed as a system yet, the caste system was evolving but hadn't been codified yet.) The idea here is to place the Buddha's words in the time and places where they brought rupture to traditional Indian life. I'm still offput by that interview I shared, but he's a great source of knowledge about this time period.

Xeno: I don't understand myself to be anything more than the confluence of consciousness and conditioning that was born 40 odd years ago, and if things go the way I figure they will, will eventually support daisies. I won't get to take any of those thoughts with me. So they're not *me*, in an ultimate sense.

They were you. But the current confluence of consciousness and conditioning may change, and so your “self” may change, but it will still be your "self". Gotama may also have changed before he became his wise and compassionate “self”.

I appreciate your conception of the self, I just don't share it! I've meditated enough at this point to have a strong grasp on my mind and I think I share the ancient Hindu desire to find the stable piece of footing: my thoughts are in *my* head but I don't identify with them as my "self." If you've ever had a vision of causing someone harm and you're like "no I'm not like that" that's how I am with everything now. My thoughts don't define me, my actions do that. Or to put another way, I don't experience my thoughts as part of my identity as a person. IF I defined myself by my thoughts, then I'd be a very crazy person indeed. My thoughts are typically a raging flood and I can go from exquisite kindness one moment to terrible cruelty in the blink of an eye. I can choose not to be defined by that great mass of contradictions, and that's just what I'll do! =-)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Not really a laughing matter. I'm getting the picture of no father or a very ineffective one.

Gallows humor of a sort. Think of your ER docs. (I worked ER for 4yrs as a pharmacy tech, I fit in well with the old docs.) But yeah, only child, single mom.

Matt: I didn't view it as abnormal until I started seeing the reactions (as an adult) of people who I told that to.

As a kid you couldn't know what is normal

Great. You always did it the wrong way.

M att: But then when I chose to stop doing homework and just fail out, my mom refused to blame me, only the teachers. I mean I get it, public school teachers get a bad rap but in my case it was totally undeserved. Like I said, the dynamic could flip on a dime. The only thing to be certain of and is a key to understanding my mom, is that whatever threatens her ego is the enemy. So if I threatened it, I was the black sheep. If someone threatened me, she took it as a personal offense against her. Trying to analyze those threads just isn't worth it, but it was impossible to navigate at the time. That's why I ultimately started shutting down at school.

Shutting down no surprise, when it is all about her.

Matt: The teenage years I still feel eroded any sort of normal "love" reaction that I *should* have--and simply don't. 2-3 years ago as a joke my wife bought me an audio book "How to live with a narcissistic mother," and after I got done with that book, it hit me like a ton of bricks--in a good way. For the first time I had as accurate of a description of my childhood as I'd ever had... My case is weird because there's normally several different roles in a Narcissistic family and because I was the only family member I literally played all roles. The Golden Child who was also the Black Sheep.

DAvid: I couldn't have analyzed it any better.

Matt: I wanted to add--just to be clear--the "psychologist" approach of my teacher... he actually doesn't know about any of this history. This all came from me using the teachings and actually a mentor I had in a Buddha-based recovery program. (I wasn't going to do AA.)

Actually, on that note, I also didn't know that I did something that old head recovery folks thought was insane. I had actually been studying Buddhism since 2003. I probably mentioned that here a few times. But in 2017 I finally decided to practice the meditation part.

When I finally quit drinking in 2020, keep in mind--I averaged north of 750ml/day with a habit that had grown over 8yrs I did it cold turkey. My hospital experience taught me that if my vitals tanked I could titrate. In the pharmacy we kept liquor for precisely when the doctors would order it for that reason. The Buddha's meditation focuses on learning that all aspects of the mind, good, bad, neutral--has beginning, middle, end. I was afraid of the cravings. Literally it was like a hunger that would radiate numbness and I feared it would get worse. But over that first 24hrs, I slept fine. I was pre stage-IV hypertension (whatever 142/98 would be) a few months before I quit. So I watched it carefully on that first day. The meditation I used was the simple starting breath meditation: You focus on your breathing as the object, and anytime you "wake up" from being distracted, you bring it back to the breath. When negative feelings pop up, focus on them carefully, until they pass.

Nothing happened. They always passed. I was afraid of quitting but it was being afraid of a hallucination, really.

The next day, cravings still came at the usual times, but a little less powerful. That continued over a week.

By the time I hit a week, my BP had fully returned to normal.

But the meditation was my watchman. So at that point I began all the work that lead me to most of the story that I have already recounted here.

I appreciate your confidenced in us.

David’s response to my last post has set an alarm bell tinklimg:

DAVID: I note dhw's personal comments, noting some new facts I hadn't known.

dhw: The personal comments were meant to shed light on what I thought were some of Matt’s own preoccupations: the negative or “nihilistic” side of Buddhism, with its emphasis on repeated suffering and the nebulousness both of rebirth and of the final state when Enlightenment has been achieved, the transience of joy, and the true nature of the “self”. This latest post delves deeper into the ramifications of Matt’s sufferings, and how he has dealt with them. Enlightening in itself, but if my personal comments were irrelevant, then I’m sorry and of course they should be ignored.

Not ignored, but helpful in relating to each other.

M att: This is a full plate my friend! I think I've lived such an otherwise normal life I still feel a bit awkward that anything about it would be terribly inspiring, lol. I've long sensed camaraderie with your take on things. The other reason I quit orbiting this site is because I realized after a bit "why am I defending being sceptical?" Human nature seems to send folks down to fill in all gaps with explanations. Maybe some things just don't have explanations? I'd developed a sort of "If all you're doing is arguing about existence, aren't you missing out on something immediately around you within your existence?" The ending song of Life of Brian has always held a great deal of significance. >

dhw: I was devastated when my elder son was diagnosed with an incurable cancer(though he's responding well to treatment at the moment), and I don’t know how I'll be able to endure the consequences if he dies before me. But we both know that we must accept transience. He makes the most of every moment, and so do I. If Buddhism helps you to accept your past and enjoy your present, then great. But don’t listen to podcasts like Ajahn Brahmali’s!

I should bring up the loss of my son in 2006, at age 45. Still miss him and our shared love of baseball. Stopped following the Astros for eleven years but could finally return.> >

Matt: This is a full plate, friend, and I send you virtual hugs from Tucson. I recently had what I could best describe as a "vision" or "waking dream." I met my wife at a Deftones concert just 25yrs and a few days ago. In the vision I was in an attic with a sort of golden glow. I was flipping through one of my old CD books, and found the CD released a couple weeks before that concert. I felt a pang, because she was no longer in my life in this vision. I put the CD on, and as the first song spun up, I began to weep. Then the CD started skipping, because of course CDs don't last forever either. When I came to I was crying in real life.

There's a stoic practice that I believe in but haven't practiced lately, where you imagine losing your loved ones. The reason they did this was to account for the fact that we take those around us for granted... the stoics didn't want us doing that, so you try to imagine their loss to create these kinds of feelings. This enables a fresh kindness. I *do* kind of understand what you're going through. I send you hugs from tucson, dhw! >

It's funny that you say that last bit about Brahmali, that one is the only teaching that comes off as brash, I'm currently going through a workshop where he brings you to the life and times of the Buddha in the hope to gain what kind of truly different system he discovered compared to his contemporaries, the Jains, the Ajivakas, and then the orthodox Hinduism at the time. (Hinduism hadn't developed as a system yet, the caste system was evolving but hadn't been codified yet.) The idea here is to place the Buddha's words in the time and places where they brought rupture to traditional Indian life. I'm still offput by that interview I shared, but he's a great source of knowledge about this time period.

Xeno: I don't understand myself to be anything more than the confluence of consciousness and conditioning that was born 40 odd years ago, and if things go the way I figure they will, will eventually support daisies. I won't get to take any of those thoughts with me. So they're not *me*, in an ultimate sense.

They were you. But the current confluence of consciousness and conditioning may change, and so your “self” may change, but it will still be your "self". Gotama may also have changed before he became his wise and compassionate “self”.

I appreciate your conception of the self, I just don't share it! I've meditated enough at this point to have a strong grasp on my mind and I think I share the ancient Hindu desire to find the stable piece of footing: my thoughts are in *my* head but I don't identify with them as my "self." If you've ever had a vision of causing someone harm and you're like "no I'm not like that" that's how I am with everything now. My thoughts don't define me, my actions do that. Or to put another way, I don't experience my thoughts as part of my identity as a person. IF I defined myself by my thoughts, then I'd be a very crazy person indeed. My thoughts are typically a raging flood and I can go from exquisite kindness one moment to terrible cruelty in the blink of an eye. I can choose not to be defined by that great mass of contradictions, and that's just what I'll do! =-)

A great educational thought. I am the person I project to others and that is myself. But the raging stream of thought goes on in all of us. That is an internal 'self'.

Xeno: […] I think I've lived such an otherwise normal life I still feel a bit awkward that anything about it would be terribly inspiring, lol. I've long sensed camaraderie with your take on things.

Thank you. I sense the same “camaraderie”! I don’t know what you regard as “normal”, but I also sense you’ve had more than your fair share of suffering. What on Earth (literally) did you do during your past lives? Seriously, I admire anyone who battles to overcome their demons, and I wonder if sometimes you’re too hard on yourself, since it must be your real “self” that’s trying to find balance. You said your wife has noticed the change in you, and if I try to imagine her feelings, I get a very moving picture of her love being rewarded. I’d like to put my arms round you both and pronounce an agnostic’s blessing on your marriage! (See your “vision” below.)

xeno: The other reason I quit orbiting this site is because I realized after a bit "why am I defending being sceptical?" Human nature seems to send folks down to fill in all gaps with explanations. Maybe some things just don't have explanations? […]

That’s the essence of agnosticism, but it spurs me on to make the most of the only life we know. The mysteries are part of the fascination – hence this website – but if I was struggling to stay alive, or to fight demons, then of course my priorities would be different.

(Thank you for your virtual hug and sympathy with regards to my elder son’s illness. I appreciate that.)

Xeno: I recently had what I could best describe as a "vision" or "waking dream." I met my wife at a Deftones concert just 25yrs and a few days ago. In the vision I […] found the CD released a couple weeks before that concert. I felt a pang, because she was no longer in my life in this vision. I put the CD on, and as the first song spun up, I began to weep. Then the CD started skipping, because of course CDs don't last forever either. When I came to I was crying in real life.

This is very moving. I wonder if your subconscious was telling you to go and give your wife a hug. I hope you did!

Xeno: There's a stoic practice […] where you imagine losing your loved ones. The reason they did this was to account for the fact that we take those around us for granted...

It’s not just our loved ones. Everything we’ve got used to is taken for granted, and so we “miss out” on the joy of it – until we lose it! Your stoics should tell you to imagine winter without heating, daily life without water/food/transport, sickness without medicine etc. Millions are in that situation, and we should take heed of that perspective in any struggle to achieve balance.

Xeno: I don't understand myself to be anything more than the confluence of consciousness and conditioning that was born 40 odd years ago, and if things go the way I figure they will, will eventually support daisies. I won't get to take any of those thoughts with me. So they're not *me*, in an ultimate sense.

dhw: They were you. But the current confluence of consciousness and conditioning may change, and so your “self” may change, but it will still be your "self". Gotama may also have changed before he became his wise and compassionate “self”.

Xeno: I appreciate your conception of the self, I just don't share it! […] my thoughts are in *my* head but I don't identify with them as my "self." If you've ever had a vision of causing someone harm and you're like "no I'm not like that" that's how I am with everything now. My thoughts don't define me, my actions do that. […] My thoughts are typically a raging flood and I can go from exquisite kindness one moment to terrible cruelty in the blink of an eye. I can choose not to be defined by that great mass of contradictions, and that's just what I'll do!

DAVID: A great educational thought. I am the person I project to others and that is myself. But the raging stream of thought goes on in all of us. That is an internal 'self'.

I agree about the internal “self”, but not the external one, although I’m sure it’s true of David and I’d like to think it’s true of me. But the world is full of people who project a false self to others: the good neighbour who beats his wife, the charming conman, the paedophile priest, the corrupt politician…I think Matt has gone to deeper levels than I did, and I agree that although the contradictory thoughts are part of us, they do not define us. His last sentence is perhaps the key: what defines us is the choices we make from the contradictions. I presume, Matt, that you choose to implement the exquisitely kind thoughts and repress the cruel ones. WHY you make those choices is open to question, but whatever the influences, the choices define who you are in your own eyes as well as in those of others. Sounds good to me.

Xeno: […] I think I've lived such an otherwise normal life I still feel a bit awkward that anything about it would be terribly inspiring, lol. I've long sensed camaraderie with your take on things.

dhw: Thank you. I sense the same “camaraderie”! I don’t know what you regard as “normal”, but I also sense you’ve had more than your fair share of suffering. What on Earth (literally) did you do during your past lives? Seriously, I admire anyone who battles to overcome their demons, and I wonder if sometimes you’re too hard on yourself, since it must be your real “self” that’s trying to find balance. You said your wife has noticed the change in you, and if I try to imagine her feelings, I get a very moving picture of her love being rewarded. I’d like to put my arms round you both and pronounce an agnostic’s blessing on your marriage! (See your “vision” below.)

xeno: The other reason I quit orbiting this site is because I realized after a bit "why am I defending being sceptical?" Human nature seems to send folks down to fill in all gaps with explanations. Maybe some things just don't have explanations? […]

dhw: That’s the essence of agnosticism, but it spurs me on to make the most of the only life we know. The mysteries are part of the fascination – hence this website – but if I was struggling to stay alive, or to fight demons, then of course my priorities would be different.

(Thank you for your virtual hug and sympathy with regards to my elder son’s illness. I appreciate that.)

Xeno: I recently had what I could best describe as a "vision" or "waking dream." I met my wife at a Deftones concert just 25yrs and a few days ago. In the vision I […] found the CD released a couple weeks before that concert. I felt a pang, because she was no longer in my life in this vision. I put the CD on, and as the first song spun up, I began to weep. Then the CD started skipping, because of course CDs don't last forever either. When I came to I was crying in real life.

dhw: This is very moving. I wonder if your subconscious was telling you to go and give your wife a hug. I hope you did!

Xeno: There's a stoic practice […] where you imagine losing your loved ones. The reason they did this was to account for the fact that we take those around us for granted...

dhw: It’s not just our loved ones. Everything we’ve got used to is taken for granted, and so we “miss out” on the joy of it – until we lose it! Your stoics should tell you to imagine winter without heating, daily life without water/food/transport, sickness without medicine etc. Millions are in that situation, and we should take heed of that perspective in any struggle to achieve balance.

Xeno: I don't understand myself to be anything more than the confluence of consciousness and conditioning that was born 40 odd years ago, and if things go the way I figure they will, will eventually support daisies. I won't get to take any of those thoughts with me. So they're not *me*, in an ultimate sense.

dhw: They were you. But the current confluence of consciousness and conditioning may change, and so your “self” may change, but it will still be your "self". Gotama may also have changed before he became his wise and compassionate “self”.

Xeno: I appreciate your conception of the self, I just don't share it! […] my thoughts are in *my* head but I don't identify with them as my "self." If you've ever had a vision of causing someone harm and you're like "no I'm not like that" that's how I am with everything now. My thoughts don't define me, my actions do that. […] My thoughts are typically a raging flood and I can go from exquisite kindness one moment to terrible cruelty in the blink of an eye. I can choose not to be defined by that great mass of contradictions, and that's just what I'll do!

DAVID: A great educational thought. I am the person I project to others and that is myself. But the raging stream of thought goes on in all of us. That is an internal 'self.'

dhw: I agree about the internal “self”, but not the external one, although I’m sure it’s true of David and I’d like to think it’s true of me. But the world is full of people who project a false self to others: the good neighbour who beats his wife, the charming conman, the paedophile priest, the corrupt politician…I think Matt has gone to deeper levels than I did, and I agree that although the contradictory thoughts are part of us, they do not define us. His last sentence is perhaps the key: what defines us is the choices we make from the contradictions. I presume, Matt, that you choose to implement the exquisitely kind thoughts and repress the cruel ones. WHY you make those choices is open to question, but whatever the influences, the choices define who you are in your own eyes as well as in those of others. Sounds good to me.

The childhood Matt describes evokes a lasting anger in an adult, who must learn to control it by recognizing its source and reasons to change from the biting anger in order to move forward. Matt did that in his own way, beautifully.

The childhood Matt describes evokes a lasting anger in an adult, who must learn to control it by recognizing its source and reasons to change from the biting anger in order to move forward. Matt did that in his own way, beautifully.

One of the things in this process that softened the hard stances I had taken vs religion in the past was recognizing the importance about connecting with an ancient tradition. There *is* something moving about being a part of an institution with 2500yrs of consecutive history.

And yeah David, you hit it on the head--if the exterior matched the interior I would certainly look worse for wear ROFL. Anger generally leads towards destruction if you don't channel it.

dhw: Yes its true that people can put on a mask, but you can't do THAT and live authentically. To the extent that internal peace is possible, thinking one way and constantly doing another is oppression. While I'm painting with broad strokes here, the closer one can get to having their internal state match their external state, the extent to which thought and deed are synonymous is an ideal that one should strive for. (I hesitate to push too broadly here because what does the "Golden Rule mean to a Masochist?)

Later today or tomorrow I'll start sketching what I think the Buddhists mean in regards to rebirth. My monk is attending to two funerals so he's apologized but he'll get back to me. I do think I've unlocked the logic at least, we'll see what he thinks later.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Matt: The childhood Matt describes evokes a lasting anger in an adult, who must learn to control it by recognizing its source and reasons to change from the biting anger in order to move forward. Matt did that in his own way, beautifully.

One of the things in this process that softened the hard stances I had taken vs religion in the past was recognizing the importance about connecting with an ancient tradition. There *is* something moving about being a part of an institution with 2500yrs of consecutive history.

And yeah David, you hit it on the head--if the exterior matched the interior I would certainly look worse for wear ROFL. Anger generally leads towards destruction if you don't channel it.

Thank you for keeping us old guys up on the internet slang.

dhw: Yes its true that people can put on a mask, but you can't do THAT and live authentically. To the extent that internal peace is possible, thinking one way and constantly doing another is oppression. While I'm painting with broad strokes here, the closer one can get to having their internal state match their external state, the extent to which thought and deed are synonymous is an ideal that one should strive for. (I hesitate to push too broadly here because what does the "Golden Rule mean to a Masochist?)

Mattt: Later today or tomorrow I'll start sketching what I think the Buddhists mean in regards to rebirth. My monk is attending to two funerals so he's apologized but he'll get back to me. I do think I've unlocked the logic at least, we'll see what he thinks later.

Looking forward to it.

Just wanted to bring in a quick note, I did indeed promptly go hug my wife, who typically has more in common with the great Saguaro, so it would have been comical for outsiders to see her surprise! =-)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

DAVID: The childhood Matt describes evokes a lasting anger in an adult, who must learn to control it by recognizing its source and reasons to change from the biting anger in order to move forward. Matt did that in his own way, beautifully.

Xeno: And yeah David, you hit it on the head--if the exterior matched the interior I would certainly look worse for wear ROFL. Anger generally leads towards destruction if you don't channel it.

This is what I meant by your choices defining who you are in your own eyes as well as in those of others.

dhw: (clarification: this is xeno responding to dhw:) Yes its true that people can put on a mask, but you can't do THAT and live authentically.

It would help if you could briefly quote what you are referring to. In reply to David’s comment that the person he projects to others is himself, I pointed out that very often the person projected to others is NOT necessarily the true self (e.g. a conman). I’m not sure what you mean by “authentically”. The conman’s concealment of his authentic self is his means of being his authentic self: i.e. a selfish bastard who couldn’t care less about the feelings of others. (The “Golden Rule”- see below - has no place in his authentic “self”!)

Xeno: To the extent that internal peace is possible, thinking one way and constantly doing another is oppression. While I'm painting with broad strokes here, the closer one can get to having their internal state match their external state, the extent to which thought and deed are synonymous is an ideal that one should strive for. (I hesitate to push too broadly here because what does the "Golden Rule mean to a Masochist?)

The strokes are TOO broad for me. Yes, we should strive for the “golden rule” (do as you would be done by), but that involves contact with other people. Maybe the Buddhist support for monastic life recognizes this, and recommends shutting yourself off from other people so that you have no occasion to think internal thoughts ( “cravings”) which must be suppressed by external actions. If you yourself had lived your life in solitary confinement, I should imagine 99% of the subjects you were angry about would never have had to enter your mind. (The 1% would have been: “Dammit, why am I cooped up in here?”) Social intercourse requires constantly monitoring and controlling one’s thoughts. You see a beautiful girl, just your type, and you’d like to kiss her. Not an unnatural “bad” thought, is it? But you choose not to kiss her, because that would be immoral and could quite rightly land you in big trouble. What’s the ideal you’re striving for in trying to match internal thought with external deed? To eliminate such thoughts? Then off you must go to solitary confinement. There are thousands of situations in which we have thoughts which must be rejected if we are to do as we would be done by. For me, the ideal is to implement the rule by making the appropriate choice, not by shutting yourself off from choice.

Xeno: Just wanted to bring in a quick note, I did indeed promptly go hug my wife, who typically has more in common with the great Saguaro, so it would have been comical for outsiders to see her surprise! =-)

Delighted to hear it. I had to look up “Saguaro”: a tree-like cactus. Hmmm...not sure she’d like that – and not sure you should hug her after all. Could be painful!

Matt: Just wanted to bring in a quick note, I did indeed promptly go hug my wife, who typically has more in common with the great Saguaro, so it would have been comical for outsiders to see her surprise! =-)

Prickly?

DAVID: The childhood Matt describes evokes a lasting anger in an adult, who must learn to control it by recognizing its source and reasons to change from the biting anger in order to move forward. Matt did that in his own way, beautifully.

Xeno: And yeah David, you hit it on the head--if the exterior matched the interior I would certainly look worse for wear ROFL. Anger generally leads towards destruction if you don't channel it.

dhw: This is what I meant by your choices defining who you are in your own eyes as well as in those of others.

dhw: (clarification: this is xeno responding to dhw:) Yes its true that people can put on a mask, but you can't do THAT and live authentically.

dhw: It would help if you could briefly quote what you are referring to. In reply to David’s comment that the person he projects to others is himself, I pointed out that very often the person projected to others is NOT necessarily the true self (e.g. a conman). I’m not sure what you mean by “authentically”. The conman’s concealment of his authentic self is his means of being his authentic self: i.e. a selfish bastard who couldn’t care less about the feelings of others. (The “Golden Rule”- see below - has no place in his authentic “self”!)

Xeno: To the extent that internal peace is possible, thinking one way and constantly doing another is oppression. While I'm painting with broad strokes here, the closer one can get to having their internal state match their external state, the extent to which thought and deed are synonymous is an ideal that one should strive for. (I hesitate to push too broadly here because what does the "Golden Rule mean to a Masochist?)

dhw: The strokes are TOO broad for me. Yes, we should strive for the “golden rule” (do as you would be done by), but that involves contact with other people. Maybe the Buddhist support for monastic life recognizes this, and recommends shutting yourself off from other people so that you have no occasion to think internal thoughts ( “cravings”) which must be suppressed by external actions. If you yourself had lived your life in solitary confinement, I should imagine 99% of the subjects you were angry about would never have had to enter your mind. (The 1% would have been: “Dammit, why am I cooped up in here?”) Social intercourse requires constantly monitoring and controlling one’s thoughts. You see a beautiful girl, just your type, and you’d like to kiss her. Not an unnatural “bad” thought, is it? But you choose not to kiss her, because that would be immoral and could quite rightly land you in big trouble. What’s the ideal you’re striving for in trying to match internal thought with external deed? To eliminate such thoughts? Then off you must go to solitary confinement. There are thousands of situations in which we have thoughts which must be rejected if we are to do as we would be done by. For me, the ideal is to implement the rule by making the appropriate choice, not by shutting yourself off from choice.

Xeno: Just wanted to bring in a quick note, I did indeed promptly go hug my wife, who typically has more in common with the great Saguaro, so it would have been comical for outsiders to see her surprise! =-)

dhw: Delighted to hear it. I had to look up “Saguaro”: a tree-like cactus. Hmmm...not sure she’d like that – and not sure you should hug her after all. Could be painful!

I wish you could come and tour our country. The Saguaro National Park is in Arizona

Saguaro National Monumenthttps://duckduckgo.com/?q=Saguaro+National+Monument&t=crhs&ia=web

See the photos.

I’m not sure what you mean by “authentically”. The conman’s concealment of his authentic self is his means of being his authentic self: i.e. a selfish bastard who couldn’t care less about the feelings of others. (The “Golden Rule”- see below - has no place in his authentic “self”!)

So barring some sort of severe pathology (psychotics or sociopaths) the great tendency for most human beings is that the act of keeping secrets an/or continuously lying to people exacts cognitive costs that aren't necessarily recognized by the people doing it. There's quite a good book I read last year called "how emotions are made," and while there are debatable aspects of every psychological model, it absolutely makes sense. The primary function of our brain in this model is to conserve energy. To the extent that we engage in actions that cause us to spend energy, it leaves us in a more depleted state. In a less clinical form, someone who is trying to keep a big secret from someone else has to expend more cognitive energy keeping their stories straight, especially if we include the body's stress response which has a feedback effect of sapping more energy. This is why in professional spywork, the basic idea is to keep your lies close to the truth. This is why sociopaths make excellent spies and conmen, actually.

So to correct a bit what I was referring to, I would walk back the idea that it's the persona that we project: we shouldn't be *projecting* anything. We should just *be.* The people spending all this energy to "project" are in a sense, cons themselves even if their aims and intention are banal or benevolent. A Buddhist comparison I would make is that the monks in my school are required to keep 227 precepts to my 5. However keeping those 227 precepts is actually quite easy if you *always* incline to kindness and peace. (You'll keep the precepts without having to think about them.)

The strokes are TOO broad for me. Yes, we should strive for the “golden rule” (do as you would be done by), but that involves contact with other people. Maybe the Buddhist support for monastic life recognizes this, and recommends shutting yourself off from other people so that you have no occasion to think internal thoughts ( “cravings”) which must be suppressed by external actions. If you yourself had lived your life in solitary confinement, I should imagine 99% of the subjects you were angry about would never have had to enter your mind. (The 1% would have been: “Dammit, why am I cooped up in here?”) Social intercourse requires constantly monitoring and controlling one’s thoughts. You see a beautiful girl, just your type, and you’d like to kiss her. Not an unnatural “bad” thought, is it? But you choose not to kiss her, because that would be immoral and could quite rightly land you in big trouble. What’s the ideal you’re striving for in trying to match internal thought with external deed? To eliminate such thoughts? Then off you must go to solitary confinement. There are thousands of situations in which we have thoughts which must be rejected if we are to do as we would be done by. For me, the ideal is to implement the rule by making the appropriate choice, not by shutting yourself off from choice.

So you raise an excellent observation, and you hit the nail on the head with the purpose of the monastic life: By removing yourself from the world you necessarily isolate yourself from contact with things that would otherwise challenge you. If your meals are donated by the public, and you have a tent and robe given to you by the community, you never need to touch money, for example. (Theravadan monks are expressly forbidden to touch money, and this is what caused the initial major split within Buddhism roughly 100yrs after his death.)

I would say that myself I have long recognized that more choice is rarely superior to limited choice. In my music, I rekindled my studio after mothballing it for 17yrs, and I can flat out say that having more choices of synthesizers and effects is vastly harmful to my output. I used to be able to punch out a song, beginning to end, in a day. Now--I've been working on the same song since early October. And the primary culprit is that I have too many damn choices of things to use. Part of me wants to sell everything down to maybe 3 synths tops and then write from there.

Here's an article from your neck of the woods: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/21/choice-stressing-us-out-dating-par...

Choice being negative--this is uncontroversial for me.

Xeno: Just wanted to bring in a quick note, I did indeed promptly go hug my wife, who typically has more in common with the great Saguaro, so it would have been comical for outsiders to see her surprise! =-)

Delighted to hear it. I had to look up “Saguaro”: a tree-like cactus. Hmmm...not sure she’d like that – and not sure you should hug her after all. Could be painful!

I married into a Scottish family where those tempers... I thought they were just stories! =-) My wife's nickname within the family growing up was "bear."

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

In the interest of at least offering the Buddhist take on rebirth, what follows is what I've been able to piece together.

Before I get terribly far, I think its best to begin with the two modes of thought in ancient India that predominated at the time of the Buddha.

Before I do this however, I'm waiting for the last book in my Nikaya collection to arrive. The very first Sutta in the entire Pali canon is a teaching the Buddha gave that was refuting Eternalism and Nihilist Materialism.

My 2c before I dig into the primary sutta designed to tackle these subjects is that the Buddha will contradict the eternalist view (the self or soul is eternal) by demonstrating that there is no aspect of our identity that isn't transient. Rebirth was already an automatic given in Indian discourse--Hence why in the Gotami Sutta the Buddha didn't offer the teaching on rebirth because part of the scope of THAT story was that she came to the Buddha distraught and mad. She came from a rich family and there's no way Brahmins didn't already know about rebirth.

If you were a deer in a prior life, and then a rich lady, and then a poor male beggar as a part of your story, there is nothing eternal about your "self" or your identity, because every incarnation is different. I think that to refute the nihilist materialists he would point to some of the same evidences of Rebirth that Ajahn Brahm gave in that other podcast I shared. (his teachings don't elevate to 'proof' in my view, but I think that's between him and I.) At any rate, Veridical NDEs certainly existed and would have been taken for granted as evidence of rebirth or at least a "detachable mind."

There is something I would call a "store" consciousness that sometimes gets interpreted as "stream" consciousness, but it is not a *mind*. For a mind to exist, there has to be a body, and its important to note that Hinduism didn't develop an idea of a God without a body. (They could project their minds places, sure, but all Hindu Gods had bodies.) So the Judeo-Christian idea of the ineffable or inscrutable doesn't make much sense to Hindu/Buddhist peoples. And in fact, all of the Hindu people I've met are inquisitive about how a "nothing" could be a "something." The Buddha would point out that Gods had lifetimes and could die. Therefore, they were not eternal either.

So upon death, the unenlightened seed consciousness is driven forward to a new body either on this plane of existence, or in one of the hell or heavenly realms based on the levels of purification conducted in that life. Standard Hindu Cosmology would posit that the whole mind transfers, Buddhism says "nope," just the 'store consciousness.' The desire to be reborn is enough to cause the store consciousness to enter a new being. The store consciousness holds only the memories of past lives. This allows the Buddha to explain how those who reach very high meditative states can "recall past lives."

That's my attempt, pre-teacher evaluation.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Matt: I’m not sure what you mean by “authentically”. The conman’s concealment of his authentic self is his means of being his authentic self: i.e. a selfish bastard who couldn’t care less about the feelings of others. (The “Golden Rule”- see below - has no place in his authentic “self”!)

dhw: So barring some sort of severe pathology (psychotics or sociopaths) the great tendency for most human beings is that the act of keeping secrets an/or continuously lying to people exacts cognitive costs that aren't necessarily recognized by the people doing it. There's quite a good book I read last year called "how emotions are made," and while there are debatable aspects of every psychological model, it absolutely makes sense. The primary function of our brain in this model is to conserve energy. To the extent that we engage in actions that cause us to spend energy, it leaves us in a more depleted state. In a less clinical form, someone who is trying to keep a big secret from someone else has to expend more cognitive energy keeping their stories straight, especially if we include the body's stress response which has a feedback effect of sapping more energy. This is why in professional spywork, the basic idea is to keep your lies close to the truth. This is why sociopaths make excellent spies and conmen, actually.

Matt: So to correct a bit what I was referring to, I would walk back the idea that it's the persona that we project: we shouldn't be *projecting* anything. We should just *be.* The people spending all this energy to "project" are in a sense, cons themselves even if their aims and intention are banal or benevolent. A Buddhist comparison I would make is that the monks in my school are required to keep 227 precepts to my 5. However keeping those 227 precepts is actually quite easy if you *always* incline to kindness and peace. (You'll keep the precepts without having to think about them.) >

dhw: The strokes are TOO broad for me. Yes, we should strive for the “golden rule” (do as you would be done by), but that involves contact with other people. Maybe the Buddhist support for monastic life recognizes this, and recommends shutting yourself off from other people so that you have no occasion to think internal thoughts ( “cravings”) which must be suppressed by external actions. If you yourself had lived your life in solitary confinement, I should imagine 99% of the subjects you were angry about would never have had to enter your mind. (The 1% would have been: “Dammit, why am I cooped up in here?”) ... What’s the ideal you’re striving for in trying to match internal thought with external deed? To eliminate such thoughts? Then off you must go to solitary confinement. There are thousands of situations in which we have thoughts which must be rejected if we are to do as we would be done by. For me, the ideal is to implement the rule by making the appropriate choice, not by shutting yourself off from choice.

Matt:So you raise an excellent observation, and you hit the nail on the head with the purpose of the monastic life: By removing yourself from the world you necessarily isolate yourself from contact with things that would otherwise challenge you. If your meals are donated by the public, and you have a tent and robe given to you by the community, you never need to touch money, for example. (Theravadan monks are expressly forbidden to touch money, and this is what caused the initial major split within Buddhism roughly 100yrs after his death.)

I would say that myself I have long recognized that more choice is rarely superior to limited choice. In my music, I rekindled my studio after mothballing it for 17yrs, and I can flat out say that having more choices of synthesizers and effects is vastly harmful to my output. I used to be able to punch out a song, beginning to end, in a day. Now--I've been working on the same song since early October. And the primary culprit is that I have too many damn choices of things to use. Part of me wants to sell everything down to maybe 3 synths tops and then write from there.

Here's an article from your neck of the woods: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/21/choice-stressing-us-out-dating-par...

Choice being negative--this is uncontroversial for me.

I must admit being amazed at the point of the discussion in the article. Don't people have brains to study and make reasonable choices among younger generations? Reasonable analysis and chose. The pension plan discussion fell into part of what I did early on with our clinic.
Great plan developed from good advice, so good I even flew to the pan handle to help a friend with his clinic's plan going with my advisor. Too much choice shows individual weakness in one's boundaries of desire.

Xeno: Just wanted to bring in a quick note, I did indeed promptly go hug my wife, who typically has more in common with the great Saguaro, so it would have been comical for outsiders to see her surprise! =-)

dhw: Delighted to hear it. I had to look up “Saguaro”: a tree-like cactus. Hmmm...not sure she’d like that – and not sure you should hug her after all. Could be painful!

Matt: I married into a Scottish family where those tempers... I thought they were just stories! =-) My wife's nickname within the family growing up was "bear."

At least not porcupine!!

Matt: In the interest of at least offering the Buddhist take on rebirth, what follows is what I've been able to piece together.

Before I get terribly far, I think its best to begin with the two modes of thought in ancient India that predominated at the time of the Buddha.

Before I do this however, I'm waiting for the last book in my Nikaya collection to arrive. The very first Sutta in the entire Pali canon is a teaching the Buddha gave that was refuting Eternalism and Nihilist Materialism.

My 2c before I dig into the primary sutta designed to tackle these subjects is that the Buddha will contradict the eternalist view (the self or soul is eternal) by demonstrating that there is no aspect of our identity that isn't transient. Rebirth was already an automatic given in Indian discourse--Hence why in the Gotami Sutta the Buddha didn't offer the teaching on rebirth because part of the scope of THAT story was that she came to the Buddha distraught and mad. She came from a rich family and there's no way Brahmins didn't already know about rebirth.

If you were a deer in a prior life, and then a rich lady, and then a poor male beggar as a part of your story, there is nothing eternal about your "self" or your identity, because every incarnation is different. I think that to refute the nihilist materialists he would point to some of the same evidences of Rebirth that Ajahn Brahm gave in that other podcast I shared. (his teachings don't elevate to 'proof' in my view, but I think that's between him and I.) At any rate, Veridical NDEs certainly existed and would have been taken for granted as evidence of rebirth or at least a "detachable mind."

There is something I would call a "store" consciousness that sometimes gets interpreted as "stream" consciousness, but it is not a *mind*. For a mind to exist, there has to be a body, and its important to note that Hinduism didn't develop an idea of a God without a body. (They could project their minds places, sure, but all Hindu Gods had bodies.) So the Judeo-Christian idea of the ineffable or inscrutable doesn't make much sense to Hindu/Buddhist peoples. And in fact, all of the Hindu people I've met are inquisitive about how a "nothing" could be a "something." The Buddha would point out that Gods had lifetimes and could die. Therefore, they were not eternal either.

So upon death, the unenlightened seed consciousness is driven forward to a new body either on this plane of existence, or in one of the hell or heavenly realms based on the levels of purification conducted in that life. Standard Hindu Cosmology would posit that the whole mind transfers, Buddhism says "nope," just the 'store consciousness.' The desire to be reborn is enough to cause the store consciousness to enter a new being. The store consciousness holds only the memories of past lives. This allows the Buddha to explain how those who reach very high meditative states can "recall past lives."

That's my attempt, pre-teacher evaluation.

Thank you for the lesson.

I am editing xeno’s comments in order to clarify arguments.

Xeno: So to correct a bit what I was referring to, I would walk back the idea that it's the persona that we project: we shouldn't be *projecting* anything. We should just *be.* […] A Buddhist comparison I would make is that the monks in my school are required to keep 227 precepts to my 5. However keeping those 227 precepts is actually quite easy if you *always* incline to kindness and peace. (You'll keep the precepts without having to think about them.)

This is a misunderstanding. David wrote: “I am the person I project to others and that is myself.” I pointed out that many people project persons who are NOT themselves. It makes no difference whether the person you project is fake or real (“real” means the person you really are), what you project is what other people see. And of course the ideal is that the real inner person should be perfect, and will therefore project a real and perfect outer person!

dhw: For me, the ideal is to implement the rule by making the appropriate choice, not by shutting yourself off from choice.

Xeno: So you raise an excellent observation, and you hit the nail on the head with the purpose of the monastic life: By removing yourself from the world you necessarily isolate yourself from contact with things that would otherwise challenge you. I would say that myself I have long recognized that more choice is rarely superior to limited choice. In my music, I rekindled my studio after mothballing it for 17yrs, and I can flat out say that having more choices of synthesizers and effects is vastly harmful to my output. […] Here's an article from your neck of the woods:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/21/choice-stressing-us-out-dating-par...

Choice being negative--this is uncontroversial for me.

The “rule” I was referring to above (now bolded) is the “Golden Rule” you mentioned as the ideal (do as you would be done by). This concerns one’s behaviour towards others, and has nothing to do with choice of consumer goods or the number of synthesizers you should own. I really don’t think you will be “punished” in your next life for choosing the wrong pension plan or buying the wrong tomato ketchup.

Again I am editing for the sake of clarity.

Xeno: the Buddha will contradict the eternalist view (the self or soul is eternal) by demonstrating that there is no aspect of our identity that isn't transient. […] If you were a deer in a prior life, and then a rich lady, and then a poor male beggar as a part of your story, there is nothing eternal about your "self" or your identity, because every incarnation is different.

If our current identity is transient, and our former identities were transient, what exactly is the point of having had former identities? The one I am lumbered with now is the one that has to get rid of its “cravings”, and if in my next life I can’t even remember the mess I made of my previous life, I might just as well not have led it. But see later for the astonishing and seemingly pointless revelation I shall one day be granted. Meanwhile, a personal question: have you yourself ever been aware of any of your past lives?

Xeno: There is something I would call a "store" consciousness that sometimes gets interpreted as "stream" consciousness, but it is not a *mind*. […] So upon death, the unenlightened seed consciousness is driven forward to a new body either on this plane of existence, or in one of the hell or heavenly realms based on the levels of purification conducted in that life.

It’s not a mind or a soul, it’s immaterial, and in most cases it does NOT store memories of past lives. You might as well call it a something. Now we have hell or heavenly realms, which I can only assume means that you have entered your new life with different degrees of misery which you can’t remember, so you haven’t a clue why you’re suffering, except when you know the causes that have occurred in this life. I’ll change the pronoun: I am now a miserable selfish bastard. What makes me want to be a happy, philanthropic angel? Here is the rather strange answer:

Xeno: The desire to be reborn is enough to cause the store consciousness to enter a new being. The store consciousness holds only the memories of past lives. This allows the Buddha to explain how those who reach very high meditative states can "recall past lives."

What desires to be reborn if the body is dead, and “I” haven’t got a mind or a soul. What has this immaterial store of past memories which I shan’t be able to remember got to do with anything? Is it my previous life’s dying wish to be reborn? What will happen to me if I don’t believe in rebirth and therefore don’t desire to be reborn? (Answer coming up in a moment.) What is the point of recalling past lives once I’ve purified myself of all the cravings I can’t remember I had in my previous lives? Just to tell myself what a fine fellow I’ve become? Ugh, that doesn’t sound like the enlightened selfless fellow I’m supposed to be now. And finally, now that I’ve achieved Enlightenment, but I am only transient and there is no such thing as eternal life, what possible future can I have other than eternal death – the same as the me who never asked to be reborn in the first place?

I hope these questions won’t make you angry, and they are not meant to deter you from the highly beneficial path you are on. It’s perfectly clear that there are certain aspects of Buddhism that would do all of us good to embrace, as is also the case with other religions (though I’m not sure that Buddhism should be classified as a religion). I just kick against certain forms of dogma which for me distract from the essence of the “Golden Rule”. And I strongly suspect that you do too. I don’t think you started this fascinating discussion with a view to proselytising. But I have very limited knowledge of the subject (indeed, of most subjects), and perhaps you or your teacher will enlighten me. Meanwhile, I’d like to join David in thanking you for bringing us into your personal life and also opening new doors for us. This in itself is a heartwarming experience.

I am editing xeno’s comments in order to clarify arguments.

Xeno: So to correct a bit what I was referring to, I would walk back the idea that it's the persona that we project: we shouldn't be *projecting* anything. We should just *be.* […] A Buddhist comparison I would make is that the monks in my school are required to keep 227 precepts to my 5. However keeping those 227 precepts is actually quite easy if you *always* incline to kindness and peace. (You'll keep the precepts without having to think about them.)

dhw: This is a misunderstanding. David wrote: “I am the person I project to others and that is myself.” I pointed out that many people project persons who are NOT themselves. It makes no difference whether the person you project is fake or real (“real” means the person you really are), what you project is what other people see. And of course the ideal is that the real inner person should be perfect, and will therefore project a real and perfect outer person!

dhw: For me, the ideal is to implement the rule by making the appropriate choice, not by shutting yourself off from choice.

Xeno: So you raise an excellent observation, and you hit the nail on the head with the purpose of the monastic life: By removing yourself from the world you necessarily isolate yourself from contact with things that would otherwise challenge you. I would say that myself I have long recognized that more choice is rarely superior to limited choice. In my music, I rekindled my studio after mothballing it for 17yrs, and I can flat out say that having more choices of synthesizers and effects is vastly harmful to my output. […] Here's an article from your neck of the woods:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/oct/21/choice-stressing-us-out-dating-par...

Choice being negative--this is uncontroversial for me.

dhw: The “rule” I was referring to above (now bolded) is the “Golden Rule” you mentioned as the ideal (do as you would be done by). This concerns one’s behaviour towards others, and has nothing to do with choice of consumer goods or the number of synthesizers you should own. I really don’t think you will be “punished” in your next life for choosing the wrong pension plan or buying the wrong tomato ketchup.

I've made my point previously

Again I am editing for the sake of clarity.

Xeno: the Buddha will contradict the eternalist view (the self or soul is eternal) by demonstrating that there is no aspect of our identity that isn't transient. […] If you were a deer in a prior life, and then a rich lady, and then a poor male beggar as a part of your story, there is nothing eternal about your "self" or your identity, because every incarnation is different.

dhw: If our current identity is transient, and our former identities were transient, what exactly is the point of having had former identities? The one I am lumbered with now is the one that has to get rid of its “cravings”, and if in my next life I can’t even remember the mess I made of my previous life, I might just as well not have led it. But see later for the astonishing and seemingly pointless revelation I shall one day be granted. Meanwhile, a personal question: have you yourself ever been aware of any of your past lives?

Xeno: There is something I would call a "store" consciousness that sometimes gets interpreted as "stream" consciousness, but it is not a *mind*. […] So upon death, the unenlightened seed consciousness is driven forward to a new body either on this plane of existence, or in one of the hell or heavenly realms based on the levels of purification conducted in that life.

dhw: It’s not a mind or a soul, it’s immaterial, and in most cases it does NOT store memories of past lives. You might as well call it a something. Now we have hell or heavenly realms, which I can only assume means that you have entered your new life with different degrees of misery which you can’t remember, so you haven’t a clue why you’re suffering, except when you know the causes that have occurred in this life. I’ll change the pronoun: I am now a miserable selfish bastard. What makes me want to be a happy, philanthropic angel? Here is the rather strange answer:

Xeno: The desire to be reborn is enough to cause the store consciousness to enter a new being. The store consciousness holds only the memories of past lives. This allows the Buddha to explain how those who reach very high meditative states can "recall past lives."

dhw: What desires to be reborn if the body is dead, and “I” haven’t got a mind or a soul. What has this immaterial store of past memories which I shan’t be able to remember got to do with anything? Is it my previous life’s dying wish to be reborn? What will happen to me if I don’t believe in rebirth and therefore don’t desire to be reborn? (Answer coming up in a moment.) What is the point of recalling past lives once I’ve purified myself of all the cravings I can’t remember I had in my previous lives? Just to tell myself what a fine fellow I’ve become? Ugh, that doesn’t sound like the enlightened selfless fellow I’m supposed to be now. And finally, now that I’ve achieved Enlightenment, but I am only transient and there is no such thing as eternal life, what possible future can I have other than eternal death – the same as the me who never asked to be reborn in the first place?

I hope these questions won’t make you angry, and they are not meant to deter you from the highly beneficial path you are on. It’s perfectly clear that there are certain aspects of Buddhism that would do all of us good to embrace, as is also the case with other religions (though I’m not sure that Buddhism should be classified as a religion). I just kick against certain forms of dogma which for me distract from the essence of the “Golden Rule”. And I strongly suspect that you do too. I don’t think you started this fascinating discussion with a view to proselytising. But I have very limited knowledge of the subject (indeed, of most subjects), and perhaps you or your teacher will enlighten me. Meanwhile, I’d like to join David in thanking you for bringing us into your personal life and also opening new doors for us. This in itself is a heartwarming experience.

Agreed. I'm following and trying/hoping to learn

Again I am editing for the sake of clarity.

If our current identity is transient, and our former identities were transient, what exactly is the point of having had former identities? The one I am lumbered with now is the one that has to get rid of its “cravings”, and if in my next life I can’t even remember the mess I made of my previous life, I might just as well not have led it. But see later for the astonishing and seemingly pointless revelation I shall one day be granted. Meanwhile, a personal question: have you yourself ever been aware of any of your past lives?

These are great questions. I'll start with where I'm at: I'm trying to understand these bits of Eastern philosophy. I would still categorize myself as a materialist who acknowledges that there are gaps. I'm no closer to believing in Rebirth at the moment than I am in Christ's resurrection. I certainly think that if I'm contrasting the Buddhist approach against other explanations, it has fewer gaps, but it still has a problem relating to epistemology. As a western materialist trying to tackle this issue, my Buddhist friends haven't provided much evidence outside of hearsay. Ajahn Brahm's argument rests on three assertions, disappointing since he used to be a physicist. They are:

1.) There's lots of evidence for rebirth, people just don't like it.
2.) Anecdote. (He shares a story that leaves me dubious but its so personal to the particular family involved that trying to doubt it makes me look and feel like a monster.
3.) Wouldn't it be a beautiful idea if it were true.

I think it's important to note that even in the podcast I shared, towards the end even Brahmali shifts into an "if it were true" mode of speaking, which suggests that at least in Brahmali's case, he might not fully believe in it himself. (FWIW The Dali Llama has said there's good reasons to doubt it, and he's supposed to be the 14th reincarnation of a Buddhist teacher!) If I could talk to Brahm, I'd ask if the standard of evidence he's using to accept rebirth would fly in a physics department!

So with that bit of background, my answer to your first question is that the Buddha is dealing with his own empirical observations based upon the collected evidence of Indian society. "What's the point" of all those lives was the central question for the ancient Hindus, and much of their religion was trying to deal with that question. The radical departure for the Buddha is that "What's the point" is a flawed question, because it is unknowable. According to the explorations relevant to that time period, his teaching about rebirth here is only in explaining that the cycle of rebirth *was not* eternal, and neither were the Gods as they were stuck in the same web as the rest of us. It is notable in Buddhist teachings that Gods came to the Buddha for answers, never the other way around.

This leads me to your more personal question: Nope. Nothing in my experience that would lead me to believe in rebirth. And if I ever break into those higher meditations, I'd still suffer the doubt that I made it up somehow, like how my imagination does all sorts of fun things.

It’s not a mind or a soul, it’s immaterial, and in most cases it does NOT store memories of past lives. You might as well call it a something. Now we have hell or heavenly realms, which I can only assume means that you have entered your new life with different degrees of misery which you can’t remember, so you haven’t a clue why you’re suffering, except when you know the causes that have occurred in this life. I’ll change the pronoun: I am now a miserable selfish bastard. What makes me want to be a happy, philanthropic angel? Here is the rather strange answer:

So the way I'm understanding it, it does indeed store memories of past lives. It just isn't a fully functioning *mind*.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Xeno: The desire to be reborn is enough to cause the store consciousness to enter a new being. The store consciousness holds only the memories of past lives. This allows the Buddha to explain how those who reach very high meditative states can "recall past lives."

What desires to be reborn if the body is dead, and “I” haven’t got a mind or a soul. What has this immaterial store of past memories which I shan’t be able to remember got to do with anything? Is it my previous life’s dying wish to be reborn? What will happen to me if I don’t believe in rebirth and therefore don’t desire to be reborn? (Answer coming up in a moment.) What is the point of recalling past lives once I’ve purified myself of all the cravings I can’t remember I had in my previous lives? Just to tell myself what a fine fellow I’ve become? Ugh, that doesn’t sound like the enlightened selfless fellow I’m supposed to be now. And finally, now that I’ve achieved Enlightenment, but I am only transient and there is no such thing as eternal life, what possible future can I have other than eternal death – the same as the me who never asked to be reborn in the first place?

So it's the combination of intent and action (remember, "karma" literally translates as "action") that determines your next life. Your "desire" for future lives is created by your actions right now. I read something just last night that might help, I'll follow up with a quote later. I would characterize it this way. Anne Rice wrote a series of Vampire novels where she explores the theme of what it would really be like to be an ancient being. More or less, the vampires who reach the age of the methuselahs become so utterly bored of life that death becomes something desirable. You can only go to so many fancy soirees and watch so many loved ones die before everything in the world becomes devoid of life, and meaning itself becomes meaningless.

While the Buddha expressly argues against this kind of nihilism, it is similar to how I imagine him talking about the dispassion that gets created after having accrued many many lifetimes. This is in fact why the Buddha left the "Brahmavihara" practices--loving kindness, appreciative joy, etc. After all the core problem that Buddhism sets out to solve is "Why is there suffering?" And the sort of asceticism that leads you to hate existence is also NOT what he was aiming for. (Remember, 'middle path.') Your "final death" (parinibbana) will come whether you want it to or not--the Buddha on this particular path just teaches what you need to do in order to bring it about. Students who accomplish "Stream Entry" will reach Nibbana within 7 lifetimes.

As for the rest, you could only ask the question "I can’t remember I had in my previous lives? Just to tell myself what a fine fellow I’ve become?" until you've done the work of purifying your mind to the point where you could easily recall your past lives. This was something that other Hindu teachers taught, they just had different doctrines surrounding the eternal nature of that reality. But the sort of selfless nature you would have to have in order to get there means you wouldn't be asking that sort of question to begin with. (Not by any means a slight, its just very clear what sort of person you have to be to get here--by this point your doubts would supposedly vanish.)

I hope these questions won’t make you angry, and they are not meant to deter you from the highly beneficial path you are on. It’s perfectly clear that there are certain aspects of Buddhism that would do all of us good to embrace, as is also the case with other religions (though I’m not sure that Buddhism should be classified as a religion). I just kick against certain forms of dogma which for me distract from the essence of the “Golden Rule”. And I strongly suspect that you do too. I don’t think you started this fascinating discussion with a view to proselytising. But I have very limited knowledge of the subject (indeed, of most subjects), and perhaps you or your teacher will enlighten me. Meanwhile, I’d like to join David in thanking you for bringing us into your personal life and also opening new doors for us. This in itself is a heartwarming experience.

Not at all angry. You have many of the same questions I do, because we're both westerners who grew up under a much different paradigm. I'm not on any path towards Nibbana in this life, rest assured of that. Good food, family, and solid friends keep me plenty warm and occupied! Present company especially!

"Secular Buddhism" seems for me to be a more likely path I'd settle in. When religion starts getting too "religiony" or in dealing with things I can't epistemologically agree with, I'm just going to leave those parts be.

That said, the Buddha himself said "Use the teachings that work and discard those that don't." Well, while I'm not seeing the utility of Rebirth, and I'm fine at this point in my life to leave it there. That said, it never hurts to be challenged. Rebirth used to even be in Christianity, so its not like it's a totally alien idea in the West.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Again I am editing for the sake of clarity.

dhw: If our current identity is transient, and our former identities were transient, what exactly is the point of having had former identities? The one I am lumbered with now is the one that has to get rid of its “cravings”, and if in my next life I can’t even remember the mess I made of my previous life, I might just as well not have led it. But see later for the astonishing and seemingly pointless revelation I shall one day be granted. Meanwhile, a personal question: have you yourself ever been aware of any of your past lives?

Matt: > These are great questions. I'll start with where I'm at: I'm trying to understand these bits of Eastern philosophy. I would still categorize myself as a materialist who acknowledges that there are gaps. I'm no closer to believing in Rebirth at the moment than I am in Christ's resurrection. I certainly think that if I'm contrasting the Buddhist approach against other explanations, it has fewer gaps, but it still has a problem relating to epistemology. As a western materialist trying to tackle this issue, my Buddhist friends haven't provided much evidence outside of hearsay. Ajahn Brahm's argument rests on three assertions, disappointing since he used to be a physicist. They are:

1.) There's lots of evidence for rebirth, people just don't like it.
2.) Anecdote. (He shares a story that leaves me dubious but its so personal to the particular family involved that trying to doubt it makes me look and feel like a monster.
3.) Wouldn't it be a beautiful idea if it were true.

I think it's important to note that even in the podcast I shared, towards the end even Brahmali shifts into an "if it were true" mode of speaking, which suggests that at least in Brahmali's case, he might not fully believe in it himself. (FWIW The Dali Llama has said there's good reasons to doubt it, and he's supposed to be the 14th reincarnation of a Buddhist teacher!) If I could talk to Brahm, I'd ask if the standard of evidence he's using to accept rebirth would fly in a physics department!

So with that bit of background, my answer to your first question is that the Buddha is dealing with his own empirical observations based upon the collected evidence of Indian society. "What's the point" of all those lives was the central question for the ancient Hindus, and much of their religion was trying to deal with that question. The radical departure for the Buddha is that "What's the point" is a flawed question, because it is unknowable. According to the explorations relevant to that time period, his teaching about rebirth here is only in explaining that the cycle of rebirth *was not* eternal, and neither were the Gods as they were stuck in the same web as the rest of us. It is notable in Buddhist teachings that Gods came to the Buddha for answers, never the other way around.

This leads me to your more personal question: Nope. Nothing in my experience that would lead me to believe in rebirth. And if I ever break into those higher meditations, I'd still suffer the doubt that I made it up somehow, like how my imagination does all sorts of fun things.

It’s not a mind or a soul, it’s immaterial, and in most cases it does NOT store memories of past lives. You might as well call it a something. Now we have hell or heavenly realms, which I can only assume means that you have entered your new life with different degrees of misery which you can’t remember, so you haven’t a clue why you’re suffering, except when you know the causes that have occurred in this life. I’ll change the pronoun: I am now a miserable selfish bastard. What makes me want to be a happy, philanthropic angel? Here is the rather strange answer:

So the way I'm understanding it, it does indeed store memories of past lives. It just isn't a fully functioning *mind*.

I'm following along.

Xeno: The desire to be reborn is enough to cause the store consciousness to enter a new being. The store consciousness holds only the memories of past lives. This allows the Buddha to explain how those who reach very high meditative states can "recall past lives."

What desires to be reborn if the body is dead, and “I” haven’t got a mind or a soul. What has this immaterial store of past memories which I shan’t be able to remember got to do with anything? Is it my previous life’s dying wish to be reborn? What will happen to me if I don’t believe in rebirth and therefore don’t desire to be reborn? (Answer coming up in a moment.) What is the point of recalling past lives once I’ve purified myself of all the cravings I can’t remember I had in my previous lives? Just to tell myself what a fine fellow I’ve become? Ugh, that doesn’t sound like the enlightened selfless fellow I’m supposed to be now. And finally, now that I’ve achieved Enlightenment, but I am only transient and there is no such thing as eternal life, what possible future can I have other than eternal death – the same as the me who never asked to be reborn in the first place?

So it's the combination of intent and action (remember, "karma" literally translates as "action") that determines your next life. Your "desire" for future lives is created by your actions right now. I read something just last night that might help, I'll follow up with a quote later. I would characterize it this way. Anne Rice wrote a series of Vampire novels where she explores the theme of what it would really be like to be an ancient being. More or less, the vampires who reach the age of the methuselahs become so utterly bored of life that death becomes something desirable. You can only go to so many fancy soirees and watch so many loved ones die before everything in the world becomes devoid of life, and meaning itself becomes meaningless.

While the Buddha expressly argues against this kind of nihilism, it is similar to how I imagine him talking about the dispassion that gets created after having accrued many many lifetimes. This is in fact why the Buddha left the "Brahmavihara" practices--loving kindness, appreciative joy, etc. After all the core problem that Buddhism sets out to solve is "Why is there suffering?" And the sort of asceticism that leads you to hate existence is also NOT what he was aiming for. (Remember, 'middle path.') Your "final death" (parinibbana) will come whether you want it to or not--the Buddha on this particular path just teaches what you need to do in order to bring it about. Students who accomplish "Stream Entry" will reach Nibbana within 7 lifetimes.

As for the rest, you could only ask the question "I can’t remember I had in my previous lives? Just to tell myself what a fine fellow I’ve become?" until you've done the work of purifying your mind to the point where you could easily recall your past lives. This was something that other Hindu teachers taught, they just had different doctrines surrounding the eternal nature of that reality. But the sort of selfless nature you would have to have in order to get there means you wouldn't be asking that sort of question to begin with. (Not by any means a slight, its just very clear what sort of person you have to be to get here--by this point your doubts would supposedly vanish.)

I hope these questions won’t make you angry, and they are not meant to deter you from the highly beneficial path you are on. It’s perfectly clear that there are certain aspects of Buddhism that would do all of us good to embrace, as is also the case with other religions (though I’m not sure that Buddhism should be classified as a religion). I just kick against certain forms of dogma which for me distract from the essence of the “Golden Rule”. And I strongly suspect that you do too. I don’t think you started this fascinating discussion with a view to proselytising. But I have very limited knowledge of the subject (indeed, of most subjects), and perhaps you or your teacher will enlighten me. Meanwhile, I’d like to join David in thanking you for bringing us into your personal life and also opening new doors for us. This in itself is a heartwarming experience.

Not at all angry. You have many of the same questions I do, because we're both westerners who grew up under a much different paradigm. I'm not on any path towards Nibbana in this life, rest assured of that. Good food, family, and solid friends keep me plenty warm and occupied! Present company especially!

"Secular Buddhism" seems for me to be a more likely path I'd settle in. When religion starts getting too "religiony" or in dealing with things I can't epistemologically agree with, I'm just going to leave those parts be.

That said, the Buddha himself said "Use the teachings that work and discard those that don't." Well, while I'm not seeing the utility of Rebirth, and I'm fine at this point in my life to leave it there. That said, it never hurts to be challenged. Rebirth used to even be in Christianity, so its not like it's a totally alien idea in the West.

My wife is a born-again Christian. But I don't think that is what you refer to, based on its definition.

My wife is a born-again Christian. But I don't think that is what you refer to, based on its definition.

No not at all ROFL.

During the 2nd council of Nicaea, any and all mention of the concept of "rebirth" or "reincarnation" were ordered out of all texts--keep in mind it was the first council that codified the Bible in the form we (mostly) have it today.

It was around this time that the early church expunged the Gnostics as well, who ran a version of the religion that directly countered Papal authority. (It was more akin to Lutheranism in that regard.)

There are texts in the dead sea scrolls that suggest that reincarnation was a more prevalent view in the early church. Supposedly. (I haven't read dead sea scrolls though I own a translation.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

A major correction. From the introduction of the Majjhima Nikaya:

"According to the Buddha's teaching, all beings except Arahants are subject to "renewal of being in the future" that is, to rebirth. Rebirth in the Buddhist conception, is not the transmigration of a self or soul but the continuation of a process, a flux of becoming in which successive lives are linked together by causal transmission of influence rather than by substantial identity."

I'll return to this later tonight or tomorrow.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

David: My wife is a born-again Christian. But I don't think that is what you refer to, based on its definition.

Matt: No not at all ROFL.

During the 2nd council of Nicaea, any and all mention of the concept of "rebirth" or "reincarnation" were ordered out of all texts--keep in mind it was the first council that codified the Bible in the form we (mostly) have it today.

It was around this time that the early church expunged the Gnostics as well, who ran a version of the religion that directly countered Papal authority. (It was more akin to Lutheranism in that regard.)

There are texts in the dead sea scrolls that suggest that reincarnation was a more prevalent view in the early church. Supposedly. (I haven't read dead sea scrolls though I own a translation.)

Thanks for the interesting Catholic history. Your scholarship constantly amazes me.

Matt: A major correction. From the introduction of the Majjhima Nikaya:

"According to the Buddha's teaching, all beings except Arahants are subject to "renewal of being in the future" that is, to rebirth. Rebirth in the Buddhist conception, is not the transmigration of a self or soul but the continuation of a process, a flux of becoming in which successive lives are linked together by causal transmission of influence rather than by substantial identity."

I'll return to this later tonight or tomorrow.

That implies there is no mental continuity, and one would not be conscious of the past life.

PART ONE

dhw: If our current identity is transient, and our former identities were transient, what exactly is the point of having had former identities? The one I am lumbered with now is the one that has to get rid of its “cravings”, and if in my next life I can’t even remember the mess I made of my previous life, I might just as well not have led it.

It’s quite difficult now to develop the discussion, because it’s clear that you and I have exactly the same doubts! (You wrote: I'm no closer to believing in Rebirth at the moment than I am in Christ's resurrection.) I can only pick on certain points, so forgive me if I again edit the entries accordingly.

You quote the Buddha’s answer to the question what is the point of the past lives:
Xeno: "What's the point" of all those lives was the central question for the ancient Hindus, and much of their religion was trying to deal with that question. The radical departure for the Buddha is that "What's the point" is a flawed question, because it is unknowable.

I would say it’s not the question that’s flawed but the theory that gives rises to the question. You summed it all up earlier when you said it boiled down to epistemology. Beliefs are not knowledge, and if a combination of theories seems senseless to us, why should we believe it?

xeno: Ajahn Brahm's argument rests on three assertions, disappointing since he used to be a physicist. They are:
1.) There's lots of evidence for rebirth, people just don't like it.
2.) Anecdote. (He shares a story that leaves me dubious but its so personal to the particular family involved that trying to doubt it makes me look and feel like a monster.
3.) Wouldn't it be a beautiful idea if it were true.

3) is a big laugh. 1) and 2)remind me of NDEs, and if any of them provide evidence of some confirmable truth (like information the patient could not possibly have known during their temporary “death”), I will keep an open mind. There are many psychic experiences which we cannot explain.

XENO: (The Dali Llama has said there's good reasons to doubt it, and he's supposed to be the 14th reincarnation of a Buddhist teacher!)

This encourages me still more to drop the subject altogether, since there can be no answers to other questions relating to rebirth (the answers are "unknowable"). However, there are other points in your posts to comment on.

dhw: It’s not a mind or a soul, it’s immaterial, and in most cases it does NOT store memories of past lives.

Xeno: So the way I'm understanding it, it does indeed store memories of past lives. It just isn't a fully functioning *mind*.
And
Xeno: The store consciousness holds only the memories of past lives. This allows the Buddha to explain how those who reach very high meditative states can "recall past lives."

Dhw: But until you’ve reached a very high meditative state, you can’t remember a thing. So where does this mysterious “store consciousness” hang out during all the lives when we don’t even know we’ve got it? Another “unknowable”?

Xeno: "According to the Buddha's teaching, all beings except Arahants are subject to "renewal of being in the future" that is, to rebirth. Rebirth in the Buddhist conception, is not the transmigration of a self or soul but the continuation of a process, a flux of becoming in which successive lives are linked together by causal transmission of influence rather than by substantial identity."

DAVID: That implies there is no mental continuity, and one would not be conscious of the past life.

A crucial point! And unconsciousness of past life is confirmed above: you only remember past lives when you’ve reached a “very high meditative state”. (In passing, Matt,I'd like to echo David's admiration for your scholarship.)

DAVID: My wife is a born-again Christian. But I don't think that is what you refer to, based on its definition.

I’ve been chuckling ever since I read this, as I thought it was a great joke. (Your wife’s punishment for her past sins is to be born again as a Christian!) I think a sense of humour is one of the most crucial attributes for the attainment of balance in anyone’s character. I hope there’s evidence of the Buddha having a good laugh in between his thoughts on “suffering”.

PART TWO

Xeno: What desires to be reborn if the body is dead, and “I” haven’t got a mind or a soul. [...] it's the combination of intent and action (remember, "karma" literally translates as "action") that determines your next life. Your "desire" for future lives is created by your actions right now.

My desire has to come from my mind. When? Do I say to myself on my deathbed: “I wanner come again”? And WHO OR WHAT determines my next life? Is someone sitting up in Never-Never-Land watching my every move and then plonking my non-soul into some poor woman’s womb (or some poor animal’s)?

dhw: And finally, now that I’ve achieved Enlightenment, but I am only transient and there is no such thing as eternal life, what possible future can I have other than eternal death – the same as the me who never asked to be reborn in the first place?

Xeno: I read something just last night that might help […] More or less, the vampires who reach the age of the methuselahs become so utterly bored of life that death becomes something desirable. You can only go to so many fancy soirees and watch so many loved ones die before everything in the world becomes devoid of life, and meaning itself becomes meaningless.

You are confirming what I have just written. The ideal end seems to be eternal death, as apparently confirmed by this remark:

Xeno: Your "final death" (parinibbana) will come whether you want it to or not--the Buddha on this particular path just teaches what you need to do in order to bring it about.

Wonderful! How about suicide, leaving a note to say: “Do not resuscitate”? Sorry if this sounds flippant, but I think you find it all as bewildering as I do. I will add, though, that transience seems to be essential to all our earthly joys, and is also a consolation for all our earthly sufferings. Moral: carpe diem, so long as you don’t harm others but, preferably, help them to enjoy life as well.

Xeno: After all the core problem that Buddhism sets out to solve is "Why is there suffering?"

I wouldn’t have thought it was too difficult to compile a list of causes: disease and death, the cruelties of nature, the cruelties of our fellow humans, the inadequacy of our social systems...Monotheistic religions grapple with the same problem (theodicy – why did God create evil, which is pretty close to “suffering”)? I would like to think the “core problem” is “How can I lead a happy life?” And I’d suggest that one factor might be to forget about the miseries of an unknown past, and the dread of more miseries in an unknown future, and another is to heed all the negative precepts (don’t do this or that) but to focus as well on the positives (starting with the Golden Rule). You seem to have reached the same conclusion, as follows:

xeno: You have many of the same questions I do, because we're both westerners who grew up under a much different paradigm. I'm not on any path towards Nibbana in this life, rest assured of that. Good food, family, and solid friends keep me plenty warm and occupied! Present company especially!

Let’s shake hands!

Xeno: When religion starts getting too "religiony" or in dealing with things I can't epistemologically agree with, I'm just going to leave those parts be.

Another handshake!

Xeno: That said, the Buddha himself said "Use the teachings that work and discard those that don't."

Very wise of him.

David: My wife is a born-again Christian. But I don't think that is what you refer to, based on its definition.

Matt: No not at all ROFL.

During the 2nd council of Nicaea, any and all mention of the concept of "rebirth" or "reincarnation" were ordered out of all texts--keep in mind it was the first council that codified the Bible in the form we (mostly) have it today.

It was around this time that the early church expunged the Gnostics as well, who ran a version of the religion that directly countered Papal authority. (It was more akin to Lutheranism in that regard.)

There are texts in the dead sea scrolls that suggest that reincarnation was a more prevalent view in the early church. Supposedly. (I haven't read dead sea scrolls though I own a translation.)

Thanks for the interesting Catholic history. Your scholarship constantly amazes me.

Well, you'll need to amend your thinking. It was the Second council of Constantinople and not the second council of Nicaea! This also has the complication in that this was the Ecumenical council where Emperor Justinian played a heavy hand in shaping. I was correct however in that it was the same council that denounced the teachings of the Valentinians who were a gnostic sect that believed in rebirth, as well as a couple of other names I don't recall who were neoplatonists. (Plato believing that we sinned in some heavenly realm and then are forced to live many lives here on earth to gain the knowledge to return.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

PART ONE

dhw: If our current identity is transient, and our former identities were transient, what exactly is the point of having had former identities? The one I am lumbered with now is the one that has to get rid of its “cravings”, and if in my next life I can’t even remember the mess I made of my previous life, I might just as well not have led it.

It’s quite difficult now to develop the discussion, because it’s clear that you and I have exactly the same doubts! (You wrote: I'm no closer to believing in Rebirth at the moment than I am in Christ's resurrection.) I can only pick on certain points, so forgive me if I again edit the entries accordingly.

You quote the Buddha’s answer to the question what is the point of the past lives:
Xeno: "What's the point" of all those lives was the central question for the ancient Hindus, and much of their religion was trying to deal with that question. The radical departure for the Buddha is that "What's the point" is a flawed question, because it is unknowable.

I would say it’s not the question that’s flawed but the theory that gives rises to the question. You summed it all up earlier when you said it boiled down to epistemology. Beliefs are not knowledge, and if a combination of theories seems senseless to us, why should we believe it?

xeno: Ajahn Brahm's argument rests on three assertions, disappointing since he used to be a physicist. They are:
1.) There's lots of evidence for rebirth, people just don't like it.
2.) Anecdote. (He shares a story that leaves me dubious but its so personal to the particular family involved that trying to doubt it makes me look and feel like a monster.
3.) Wouldn't it be a beautiful idea if it were true.

dnw: 3) is a big laugh. 1) and 2)remind me of NDEs, and if any of them provide evidence of some confirmable truth (like information the patient could not possibly have known during their temporary “death”), I will keep an open mind. There are many psychic experiences which we cannot explain.

XENO: (The Dali Llama has said there's good reasons to doubt it, and he's supposed to be the 14th reincarnation of a Buddhist teacher!)

dhw: This encourages me still more to drop the subject altogether, since there can be no answers to other questions relating to rebirth (the answers are "unknowable"). However, there are other points in your posts to comment on.

dhw: It’s not a mind or a soul, it’s immaterial, and in most cases it does NOT store memories of past lives.

Xeno: So the way I'm understanding it, it does indeed store memories of past lives. It just isn't a fully functioning *mind*.
And
Xeno: The store consciousness holds only the memories of past lives. This allows the Buddha to explain how those who reach very high meditative states can "recall past lives."

Dhw: But until you’ve reached a very high meditative state, you can’t remember a thing. So where does this mysterious “store consciousness” hang out during all the lives when we don’t even know we’ve got it? Another “unknowable”?

Xeno: "According to the Buddha's teaching, all beings except Arahants are subject to "renewal of being in the future" that is, to rebirth. Rebirth in the Buddhist conception, is not the transmigration of a self or soul but the continuation of a process, a flux of becoming in which successive lives are linked together by causal transmission of influence rather than by substantial identity."

DAVID: That implies there is no mental continuity, and one would not be conscious of the past life.

dhw: A crucial point! And unconsciousness of past life is confirmed above: you only remember past lives when you’ve reached a “very high meditative state”. (In passing, Matt,I'd like to echo David's admiration for your scholarship.)

DAVID: My wife is a born-again Christian. But I don't think that is what you refer to, based on its definition.

dhw:v I’ve been chuckling ever since I read this, as I thought it was a great joke. (Your wife’s punishment for her past sins is to be born again as a Christian!) I think a sense of humour is one of the most crucial attributes for the attainment of balance in anyone’s character. I hope there’s evidence of the Buddha having a good laugh in between his thoughts on “suffering”.

Born again in Christ, no religious organization necessary in going forward

PART TWO

Xeno: What desires to be reborn if the body is dead, and “I” haven’t got a mind or a soul. [...] it's the combination of intent and action (remember, "karma" literally translates as "action") that determines your next life. Your "desire" for future lives is created by your actions right now.

dhw: My desire has to come from my mind. When? Do I say to myself on my deathbed: “I wanner come again”? And WHO OR WHAT determines my next life? Is someone sitting up in Never-Never-Land watching my every move and then plonking my non-soul into some poor woman’s womb (or some poor animal’s)?

dhw: And finally, now that I’ve achieved Enlightenment, but I am only transient and there is no such thing as eternal life, what possible future can I have other than eternal death – the same as the me who never asked to be reborn in the first place?

Xeno: I read something just last night that might help […] More or less, the vampires who reach the age of the methuselahs become so utterly bored of life that death becomes something desirable. You can only go to so many fancy soirees and watch so many loved ones die before everything in the world becomes devoid of life, and meaning itself becomes meaningless.

dhw: You are confirming what I have just written. The ideal end seems to be eternal death, as apparently confirmed by this remark:

Xeno: Your "final death" (parinibbana) will come whether you want it to or not--the Buddha on this particular path just teaches what you need to do in order to bring it about.

dhw: Wonderful! How about suicide, leaving a note to say: “Do not resuscitate”? Sorry if this sounds flippant, but I think you find it all as bewildering as I do. I will add, though, that transience seems to be essential to all our earthly joys, and is also a consolation for all our earthly sufferings. Moral: carpe diem, so long as you don’t harm others but, preferably, help them to enjoy life as well.

Xeno: After all the core problem that Buddhism sets out to solve is "Why is there suffering?"

dhw: I wouldn’t have thought it was too difficult to compile a list of causes: disease and death, the cruelties of nature, the cruelties of our fellow humans, the inadequacy of our social systems...Monotheistic religions grapple with the same problem (theodicy – why did God create evil, which is pretty close to “suffering”)? I would like to think the “core problem” is “How can I lead a happy life?” And I’d suggest that one factor might be to forget about the miseries of an unknown past, and the dread of more miseries in an unknown future, and another is to heed all the negative precepts (don’t do this or that) but to focus as well on the positives (starting with the Golden Rule). You seem to have reached the same conclusion, as follows:

xeno: You have many of the same questions I do, because we're both westerners who grew up under a much different paradigm. I'm not on any path towards Nibbana in this life, rest assured of that. Good food, family, and solid friends keep me plenty warm and occupied! Present company especially!

dhw: Let’s shake hands!

Xeno: When religion starts getting too "religiony" or in dealing with things I can't epistemologically agree with, I'm just going to leave those parts be.

Another handshake!

Xeno: That said, the Buddha himself said "Use the teachings that work and discard those that don't."

dhw: Very wise of him.

David: My wife is a born-again Christian. But I don't think that is what you refer to, based on its definition.

Matt: No not at all ROFL.

During the 2nd council of Nicaea, any and all mention of the concept of "rebirth" or "reincarnation" were ordered out of all texts--keep in mind it was the first council that codified the Bible in the form we (mostly) have it today.

It was around this time that the early church expunged the Gnostics as well, who ran a version of the religion that directly countered Papal authority. (It was more akin to Lutheranism in that regard.)

There are texts in the dead sea scrolls that suggest that reincarnation was a more prevalent view in the early church. Supposedly. (I haven't read dead sea scrolls though I own a translation.)

DAVID: Thanks for the interesting Catholic history. Your scholarship constantly amazes me.

Matt: Well, you'll need to amend your thinking. It was the Second council of Constantinople and not the second council of Nicaea! This also has the complication in that this was the Ecumenical council where Emperor Justinian played a heavy hand in shaping. I was correct however in that it was the same council that denounced the teachings of the Valentinians who were a gnostic sect that believed in rebirth, as well as a couple of other names I don't recall who were neoplatonists. (Plato believing that we sinned in some heavenly realm and then are forced to live many lives here on earth to gain the knowledge to return.)

Still brilliant

I intend on giving a more in-depth response here--family coming into town though and I was busy getting the bedroom prepared.

Parinibbana/parinirvana isn't death. The Buddha deliberately left undeclared what Nibbana was other than a fully unconditioned state. My Monk got stuck between Phoenix and Tucson with a flat tire and has promised to get back to me--I just linked him to the discussion here.

One of the books he's had us work through had this to say:

"He or she has completed the development of the noble path, has fully understood the true nature of existence, and has eradicated all the mind's bonds and fetters For the duration of life the arahant abides in unruffled peace, in the experiential realization of Nibbana, with a mind stainless and secure. Then, with the breakup of the body at the end of the life span, he or she reaches the end of the entire process of re-becoming. For the arant death is not the passageway to a new rebirth, as it is for all others, but the doorway to the unconditioned state itself, the Nibbana-element without residue of conditioned existence. This is the true cessation of sufferings to which the Buddha's Teaching points, the final termination of the beginningless round of birth and death."

So it's not an escape to a final death, but something incomprehensible.

Well there ya go, at least in my book this DOES make Buddhism more of a religion than a philosophy, though I suppose it's up to the individual precisely where to take it.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Xeno: I intend on giving a more in-depth response here--family coming into town though and I was busy getting the bedroom prepared.

Parinibbana/parinirvana isn't death. The Buddha deliberately left undeclared what Nibbana was other than a fully unconditioned state. My Monk got stuck between Phoenix and Tucson with a flat tire and has promised to get back to me--I just linked him to the discussion here.
One of the books he's had us work through had this to say:

"He or she has completed the development of the noble path, has fully understood the true nature of existence, and has eradicated all the mind's bonds and fetters For the duration of life the arahant abides in unruffled peace, in the experiential realization of Nibbana, with a mind stainless and secure. Then, with the breakup of the body at the end of the life span, he or she reaches the end of the entire process of re-becoming. For the arant death is not the passageway to a new rebirth, as it is for all others, but the doorway to the unconditioned state itself, the Nibbana-element without residue of conditioned existence. This is the true cessation of sufferings to which the Buddha's Teaching points, the final termination of the beginningless round of birth and death."

So it's not an escape to a final death, but something incomprehensible.

Well there ya go, at least in my book this DOES make Buddhism more of a religion than a philosophy, though I suppose it's up to the individual precisely where to take it.

Thanks for this. The flat tire seems to me like a symbol for all of the above, except that once you’ve fully understood the true nature of existence, whatever that may be (a process which seems to entail becoming oblivious to all the ”cravings” that make life such a pain and such a pleasure), you will live happily ever after until your body dies its final death. And then your non-soul – totally independent of the “conditioned existence” (i.e. life on Earth) – will be at “unruffled peace”. I can’t see where the “store consciousness” fits in, since that is full of all the miserable memories of your past lives and presumably all the nasty things you did before your sufferings ceased, and yet that seems to be the only thing that doesn’t die when the body dies. In fact, to be honest, I can’t see what state could be more unruffledly peaceful or more “fully unconditioned” than permanent death. You say the Buddha didn’t specify. I’m not surprised.

Matt: I intend on giving a more in-depth response here--family coming into town though and I was busy getting the bedroom prepared.

Parinibbana/parinirvana isn't death. The Buddha deliberately left undeclared what Nibbana was other than a fully unconditioned state. My Monk got stuck between Phoenix and Tucson with a flat tire and has promised to get back to me--I just linked him to the discussion here.

One of the books he's had us work through had this to say:

"He or she has completed the development of the noble path, has fully understood the true nature of existence, and has eradicated all the mind's bonds and fetters For the duration of life the arahant abides in unruffled peace, in the experiential realization of Nibbana, with a mind stainless and secure. Then, with the breakup of the body at the end of the life span, he or she reaches the end of the entire process of re-becoming. For the arant death is not the passageway to a new rebirth, as it is for all others, but the doorway to the unconditioned state itself, the Nibbana-element without residue of conditioned existence. This is the true cessation of sufferings to which the Buddha's Teaching points, the final termination of the beginningless round of birth and death."

So it's not an escape to a final death, but something incomprehensible.

Well there ya go, at least in my book this DOES make Buddhism more of a religion than a philosophy, though I suppose it's up to the individual precisely where to take it.

First of all, enjoy Christmas with family. We can keep. Us Jewish folk do not have heaven or hell. If there is an afterlife "God will care for us". Same incomprehensible result.

Xeno: I intend on giving a more in-depth response here--family coming into town though and I was busy getting the bedroom prepared.

Parinibbana/parinirvana isn't death. The Buddha deliberately left undeclared what Nibbana was other than a fully unconditioned state. My Monk got stuck between Phoenix and Tucson with a flat tire and has promised to get back to me--I just linked him to the discussion here.
One of the books he's had us work through had this to say:

"He or she has completed the development of the noble path, has fully understood the true nature of existence, and has eradicated all the mind's bonds and fetters For the duration of life the arahant abides in unruffled peace, in the experiential realization of Nibbana, with a mind stainless and secure. Then, with the breakup of the body at the end of the life span, he or she reaches the end of the entire process of re-becoming. For the arant death is not the passageway to a new rebirth, as it is for all others, but the doorway to the unconditioned state itself, the Nibbana-element without residue of conditioned existence. This is the true cessation of sufferings to which the Buddha's Teaching points, the final termination of the beginningless round of birth and death."

So it's not an escape to a final death, but something incomprehensible.

Well there ya go, at least in my book this DOES make Buddhism more of a religion than a philosophy, though I suppose it's up to the individual precisely where to take it.

dhw: Thanks for this. The flat tire seems to me like a symbol for all of the above, except that once you’ve fully understood the true nature of existence, whatever that may be (a process which seems to entail becoming oblivious to all the ”cravings” that make life such a pain and such a pleasure), you will live happily ever after until your body dies its final death. And then your non-soul – totally independent of the “conditioned existence” (i.e. life on Earth) – will be at “unruffled peace”. I can’t see where the “store consciousness” fits in, since that is full of all the miserable memories of your past lives and presumably all the nasty things you did before your sufferings ceased, and yet that seems to be the only thing that doesn’t die when the body dies. In fact, to be honest, I can’t see what state could be more unruffledly peaceful or more “fully unconditioned” than permanent death. You say the Buddha didn’t specify. I’m not surprised.

Nor am I.

Well there ya go, at least in my book this DOES make Buddhism more of a religion than a philosophy, though I suppose it's up to the individual precisely where to take it.[/i]

Thanks for this. The flat tire seems to me like a symbol for all of the above, except that once you’ve fully understood the true nature of existence, whatever that may be (a process which seems to entail becoming oblivious to all the ”cravings” that make life such a pain and such a pleasure), you will live happily ever after until your body dies its final death. And then your non-soul – totally independent of the “conditioned existence” (i.e. life on Earth) – will be at “unruffled peace”. I can’t see where the “store consciousness” fits in, since that is full of all the miserable memories of your past lives and presumably all the nasty things you did before your sufferings ceased, and yet that seems to be the only thing that doesn’t die when the body dies. In fact, to be honest, I can’t see what state could be more unruffledly peaceful or more “fully unconditioned” than permanent death. You say the Buddha didn’t specify. I’m not surprised.

So in practice, what Buddhism is warning us against in regards to "cravings" are the issues involved with getting yourself wrapped up in them. Particularly, when we start to "identify" with them. Or in the case of addiction where the phenomenon is more black and white--where some sort of obsession develops. And I don't know where you get the idea that the goal is to be oblivious of cravings--when I turned towards (and not away from) alcohol cravings I wasn't supposed to "dismiss" them or "ignore them." I was to penetrate the events... to "roll with them" as it were. To understand them as transient phenomena; that they were "not self" and that they were a mental response. That they had a beginning, middle, and an end. To be "oblivious" would be more like "willful ignorance" and that's not something I think the Buddha taught at all. The fact is that most people "get caught up" in events and lack a layer of detachment or observation in what's going on. It's possible you've never had an unhealthy attachment to something and I'm talking Greek to you. But if you've ever had a moment where you've asked yourself "why am I doing this" and its a behavior you repeat frequently, the goal in Buddhism is to maintain that question for all things you do.

Probably, the best analogy for what it is--instead of "being oblivious" to cravings, is that you become a film critic for what's going on in your head. And some people *hate* film critics or engaging in that kind of thing--you might be one of them--but for me it actually enhances what's going on because I'm fully awake and aware of what's happening as its happening. A film critic that silences the critical commentary: Picture muting a Tennis match and just watching the match.

Now, the part of Buddhism that goes beyond being an internal film critic is the meditation. Meditation *necessarily* makes you less reactive. I absolutely don't get caught up in events like I used to--gone are violent swings of emotion. And other things slow down too. Acquisitiveness in general (both material and spiritual) decrease. Engaging in Metta meditation regularly built the space I needed to recognize my mom as a victim herself, though heaven help me for her unwavering tendency to try to damage.

So the decrease in cravings comes as a part of a regular and deepening meditation practice. And those practices include things like loving kindness and appreciative joy for others, compassion, and love for all beings great and small. To me, everything about the path is about dissolving the barriers we tend to erect between ourselves and other people. "Nibbana" to me, seems to represent a final dissolution where you more or less join into the greater body the universe. So it seems to me that in the literary sense, we melt the boundaries between ourselves and the rest of the universe and join it in an "ultimate" sense.

Honestly, it's the closest thing I've seen Buddhism have that orbits the same mystical cloud that St. John of the Cross or Theresa of Avila wrote about.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

So it's not an escape to a final death, but something incomprehensible.

Well there ya go, at least in my book this DOES make Buddhism more of a religion than a philosophy, though I suppose it's up to the individual precisely where to take it.

First of all, enjoy Christmas with family. We can keep. Us Jewish folk do not have heaven or hell. If there is an afterlife "God will care for us". Same incomprehensible result.

People still don't believe me when I tell them that Hell was a Christian invention. I mean, there IS a precursor in Zoroastrianism but usually I lose people before we even get that far.

Gehenna and Sheol, places where we go to purify according to some accounts. Hell was the first franchise business in the west.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

dhw: The flat tire seems to me like a symbol for all of the above, except that once you’ve fully understood the true nature of existence, whatever that may be (a process which seems to entail becoming oblivious to all the ”cravings” that make life such a pain and such a pleasure), you will live happily ever after until your body dies its final death. And then your non-soul – totally independent of the “conditioned existence” (i.e. life on Earth) – will be at “unruffled peace”. I can’t see where the “store consciousness” fits in, since that is full of all the miserable memories of your past lives and presumably all the nasty things you did before your sufferings ceased, and yet that seems to be the only thing that doesn’t die when the body dies. In fact, to be honest, I can’t see what state could be more unruffledly peaceful or more “fully unconditioned” than permanent death. You say the Buddha didn’t specify. I’m not surprised.

XENO: So in practice, what Buddhism is warning us against in regards to "cravings" are the issues involved with getting yourself wrapped up in them. Particularly, when we start to "identify" with them. Or in the case of addiction where the phenomenon is more black and white--where some sort of obsession develops. And I don't know where you get the idea that the goal is to be oblivious of cravings--when I turned towards (and not away from) alcohol cravings I wasn't supposed to "dismiss" them or "ignore them."

I like this reply, and will happily withdraw my reference to being “oblivious”; this was based solely on the apparent advocacy of monastic life, which would shut the potential sinner away from the pains and pleasures of “cravings”. I think we’ve been talking at cross purposes, because we started off with Ajahn Brahm’s attack on secular Buddhism and his almost exclusive focus on the “dogma” – especially rebirth, which is ostensibly the subject of this thread. You have focused on a parenthesis in my post and then ignored the rest until your final comment. However, I think your approach is vastly more relevant to all our lives, and your own story brings out the positive sides of the philosophy, as opposed to what I feel is the negative and sometimes incomprehensible religious side. I’ll edit your comments now, in order to keep the discussion as focused as possible.

XENO: It's possible you've never had an unhealthy attachment to something and I'm talking Greek to you. […]

It’s not Greek to me, but I’ve never been addicted to anything harmful - ugh, except maybe chocolate and other “sweeties”, which I gave up overnight when I was told I was pre-diabetic! Basically, you are focusing on Buddhism as a form of psychotherapy and as a moral code which we should all aspire to. Hence the illuminating and for me very moving account of your own progress. First the therapy:

XENO: Meditation *necessarily* makes you less reactive. I absolutely don't get caught up in events like I used to--gone are violent swings of emotion. And other things slow down too. Acquisitiveness in general (both material and spiritual) decrease. Engaging in Metta meditation regularly built the space I needed to recognize my mom as a victim herself, though heaven help me for her unwavering tendency to try to damage.

And now the moral code:

XENO: So the decrease in cravings comes as a part of a regular and deepening meditation practice. And those practices include things like loving kindness and appreciative joy for others, compassion, and love for all beings great and small.

Summed up by the Golden Rule: do as you would be done by. I doubt if David as a panentheist Jew or his wife as a born again Christian, or a humanist atheist like Dawkins would object to this code. Of course religious fundamentalism can lead to the very opposite of these virtues, but most religious people I know obey the Golden Rule through faith in and prayer to their benevolent God. I’m all in favour of any thought system that produces the “right” result and helps people overcome their addictions and other mental health problems. It’s religious dogma that I find so off-putting. And I think you feel the same, despite your final comment:

XENO: To me, everything about the path is about dissolving the barriers we tend to erect between ourselves and other people. "Nibbana" to me, seems to represent a final dissolution where you more or less join into the greater body the universe. So it seems to me that in the literary sense, we melt the boundaries between ourselves and the rest of the universe and join it in an "ultimate" sense.

Only here do you touch on the mystic side which I find so confusing. Your decomposing body also joins the greater body of the universe. But you and Ajan Brahm keep referring to some kind of non-soul – it’s a “store consciousness” which will remember past lives. Apparently “nirvana” is Sanskrit and means “extinction, literally a blowing out…” You objected when I suggested that the ultimate aim seemed to be permanent and total death (= extinction), but I can still see no alternative if you reject the idea of a conscious soul.

Well there ya go, at least in my book this DOES make Buddhism more of a religion than a philosophy, though I suppose it's up to the individual precisely where to take it.[/i]

Thanks for this. The flat tire seems to me like a symbol for all of the above, except that once you’ve fully understood the true nature of existence, whatever that may be (a process which seems to entail becoming oblivious to all the ”cravings” that make life such a pain and such a pleasure), you will live happily ever after until your body dies its final death. And then your non-soul – totally independent of the “conditioned existence” (i.e. life on Earth) – will be at “unruffled peace”. I can’t see where the “store consciousness” fits in, since that is full of all the miserable memories of your past lives and presumably all the nasty things you did before your sufferings ceased, and yet that seems to be the only thing that doesn’t die when the body dies. In fact, to be honest, I can’t see what state could be more unruffledly peaceful or more “fully unconditioned” than permanent death. You say the Buddha didn’t specify. I’m not surprised.

Matt: So in practice, what Buddhism is warning us against in regards to "cravings" are the issues involved with getting yourself wrapped up in them. Particularly, when we start to "identify" with them. Or in the case of addiction where the phenomenon is more black and white--where some sort of obsession develops. And I don't know where you get the idea that the goal is to be oblivious of cravings--when I turned towards (and not away from) alcohol cravings I wasn't supposed to "dismiss" them or "ignore them." I was to penetrate the events... to "roll with them" as it were. To understand them as transient phenomena; that they were "not self" and that they were a mental response. That they had a beginning, middle, and an end. To be "oblivious" would be more like "willful ignorance" and that's not something I think the Buddha taught at all. The fact is that most people "get caught up" in events and lack a layer of detachment or observation in what's going on. It's possible you've never had an unhealthy attachment to something and I'm talking Greek to you. But if you've ever had a moment where you've asked yourself "why am I doing this" and its a behavior you repeat frequently, the goal in Buddhism is to maintain that question for all things you do.

Probably, the best analogy for what it is--instead of "being oblivious" to cravings, is that you become a film critic for what's going on in your head. And some people *hate* film critics or engaging in that kind of thing--you might be one of them--but for me it actually enhances what's going on because I'm fully awake and aware of what's happening as its happening. A film critic that silences the critical commentary: Picture muting a Tennis match and just watching the match.

Now, the part of Buddhism that goes beyond being an internal film critic is the meditation. Meditation *necessarily* makes you less reactive. I absolutely don't get caught up in events like I used to--gone are violent swings of emotion. And other things slow down too. Acquisitiveness in general (both material and spiritual) decrease. Engaging in Metta meditation regularly built the space I needed to recognize my mom as a victim herself, though heaven help me for her unwavering tendency to try to damage.

So the decrease in cravings comes as a part of a regular and deepening meditation practice. And those practices include things like loving kindness and appreciative joy for others, compassion, and love for all beings great and small. To me, everything about the path is about dissolving the barriers we tend to erect between ourselves and other people. "Nibbana" to me, seems to represent a final dissolution where you more or less join into the greater body the universe. So it seems to me that in the literary sense, we melt the boundaries between ourselves and the rest of the universe and join it in an "ultimate" sense.

Honestly, it's the closest thing I've seen Buddhism have that orbits the same mystical cloud that St. John of the Cross or Theresa of Avila wrote about.

Recognizing your mom as a victim is a major step. The Buddhist approach to self-control is what I think happened to me from my parent's teachings.

M att: So it's not an escape to a final death, but something incomprehensible.

Well there ya go, at least in my book this DOES make Buddhism more of a religion than a philosophy, though I suppose it's up to the individual precisely where to take it.

First of all, enjoy Christmas with family. We can keep. Us Jewish folk do not have heaven or hell. If there is an afterlife "God will care for us". Same incomprehensible result.

People still don't believe me when I tell them that Hell was a Christian invention. I mean, there IS a precursor in Zoroastrianism but usually I lose people before we even get that far.

Gehenna and Sheol, places where we go to purify according to some accounts. Hell was the first franchise business in the west.

I always thought the threat of Hell was created to control folks.

dhw: The flat tire seems to me like a symbol for all of the above, except that once you’ve fully understood the true nature of existence, whatever that may be (a process which seems to entail becoming oblivious to all the ”cravings” that make life such a pain and such a pleasure), you will live happily ever after until your body dies its final death. And then your non-soul – totally independent of the “conditioned existence” (i.e. life on Earth) – will be at “unruffled peace”. I can’t see where the “store consciousness” fits in, since that is full of all the miserable memories of your past lives and presumably all the nasty things you did before your sufferings ceased, and yet that seems to be the only thing that doesn’t die when the body dies. In fact, to be honest, I can’t see what state could be more unruffledly peaceful or more “fully unconditioned” than permanent death. You say the Buddha didn’t specify. I’m not surprised.

XENO: So in practice, what Buddhism is warning us against in regards to "cravings" are the issues involved with getting yourself wrapped up in them. Particularly, when we start to "identify" with them. Or in the case of addiction where the phenomenon is more black and white--where some sort of obsession develops. And I don't know where you get the idea that the goal is to be oblivious of cravings--when I turned towards (and not away from) alcohol cravings I wasn't supposed to "dismiss" them or "ignore them."

dhw: I like this reply, and will happily withdraw my reference to being “oblivious”; this was based solely on the apparent advocacy of monastic life, which would shut the potential sinner away from the pains and pleasures of “cravings”. I think we’ve been talking at cross purposes, because we started off with Ajahn Brahm’s attack on secular Buddhism and his almost exclusive focus on the “dogma” – especially rebirth, which is ostensibly the subject of this thread. You have focused on a parenthesis in my post and then ignored the rest until your final comment. However, I think your approach is vastly more relevant to all our lives, and your own story brings out the positive sides of the philosophy, as opposed to what I feel is the negative and sometimes incomprehensible religious side. I’ll edit your comments now, in order to keep the discussion as focused as possible.

XENO: It's possible you've never had an unhealthy attachment to something and I'm talking Greek to you. […]

dhw: It’s not Greek to me, but I’ve never been addicted to anything harmful - ugh, except maybe chocolate and other “sweeties”, which I gave up overnight when I was told I was pre-diabetic! Basically, you are focusing on Buddhism as a form of psychotherapy and as a moral code which we should all aspire to. Hence the illuminating and for me very moving account of your own progress.

Very moving for me, also.

dhw: First the therapy:

XENO: Meditation *necessarily* makes you less reactive. I absolutely don't get caught up in events like I used to--gone are violent swings of emotion. And other things slow down too. Acquisitiveness in general (both material and spiritual) decrease. Engaging in Metta meditation regularly built the space I needed to recognize my mom as a victim herself, though heaven help me for her unwavering tendency to try to damage.

And now the moral code:

XENO: So the decrease in cravings comes as a part of a regular and deepening meditation practice. And those practices include things like loving kindness and appreciative joy for others, compassion, and love for all beings great and small.

dhw: Summed up by the Golden Rule: do as you would be done by. I doubt if David as a panentheist Jew or his wife as a born again Christian, or a humanist atheist like Dawkins would object to this code. Of course religious fundamentalism can lead to the very opposite of these virtues, but most religious people I know obey the Golden Rule through faith in and prayer to their benevolent God. I’m all in favour of any thought system that produces the “right” result and helps people overcome their addictions and other mental health problems. It’s religious dogma that I find so off-putting. And I think you feel the same, despite your final comment:

XENO: To me, everything about the path is about dissolving the barriers we tend to erect between ourselves and other people. "Nibbana" to me, seems to represent a final dissolution where you more or less join into the greater body the universe. So it seems to me that in the literary sense, we melt the boundaries between ourselves and the rest of the universe and join it in an "ultimate" sense.

dhw: Only here do you touch on the mystic side which I find so confusing. Your decomposing body also joins the greater body of the universe. But you and Ajan Brahm keep referring to some kind of non-soul – it’s a “store consciousness” which will remember past lives. Apparently “nirvana” is Sanskrit and means “extinction, literally a blowing out…” You objected when I suggested that the ultimate aim seemed to be permanent and total death (= extinction), but I can still see no alternative if you reject the idea of a conscious soul.

They have past life memories, many validated:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/feeling-too-much/201412/children-who-seemingly-...

Tucker follows in the footsteps of the late Ian Stevenson, who for decades scrupulously investigated cases in which young children around the world spontaneously volunteered—in great detail—recollections that seemed to be about someone else’s life. Much of the time, the person being spoken of had died violently or unnaturally. (In a prior post, I referenced one such instance, where a 2-and-a-half-year-old girl became distraught over her inability to find "her" children and described "her" having lost her life in a road accident.) Between them, Stevenson and Tucker have compiled more than 2,500 cases, and 70 percent of them fit this pattern.

There follows a true story of one child with total validation of his memories.

There is a second case presented with full validation.

Comment: reading the article takes time. The point to me with thousands of these cases reported that consciousness carrying these memories from one person to the next, indicates it is obviously separate from the brain and enters the new brain for interpretation.

It is perhaps fortuitous that this gets posted when it does.

So rebirth is obviously an important teaching in Buddhism, though it's also true that it's not a dogmatic religion and like most things I've deferred judgment as the question certainly appears unknowable. Well, at least til I die, and I'm not so eager for that just YET!

I think it's also interesting that reincarnation existed as a belief in early Christianity, prior to the 2nd century AD. (Speaking of things we'll never truly know!)

But yes, in my own school of Thai Forest Buddhism there are masters who claim that full knowledge of all your past lives is indeed knowable, it's one of the fruits you attain on the way to enlightenment.

As far as religious truths go, it is at least something attainable.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Matt: It is perhaps fortuitous that this gets posted when it does.

So rebirth is obviously an important teaching in Buddhism, though it's also true that it's not a dogmatic religion and like most things I've deferred judgment as the question certainly appears unknowable. Well, at least til I die, and I'm not so eager for that just YET!

I think it's also interesting that reincarnation existed as a belief in early Christianity, prior to the 2nd century AD. (Speaking of things we'll never truly know!)

But yes, in my own school of Thai Forest Buddhism there are masters who claim that full knowledge of all your past lives is indeed knowable, it's one of the fruits you attain on the way to enlightenment.

As far as religious truths go, it is at least something attainable.

Thanks for your comment. Does Buddhism recognize that consciousness is separate from the brain?

Matt: It is perhaps fortuitous that this gets posted when it does.

So rebirth is obviously an important teaching in Buddhism, though it's also true that it's not a dogmatic religion and like most things I've deferred judgment as the question certainly appears unknowable. Well, at least til I die, and I'm not so eager for that just YET!

I think it's also interesting that reincarnation existed as a belief in early Christianity, prior to the 2nd century AD. (Speaking of things we'll never truly know!)

But yes, in my own school of Thai Forest Buddhism there are masters who claim that full knowledge of all your past lives is indeed knowable, it's one of the fruits you attain on the way to enlightenment.

As far as religious truths go, it is at least something attainable.

Thanks for your comment. Does Buddhism recognize that consciousness is separate from the brain?

So, there's alot of variation--Tibetan Buddhism by itself is almost its own syncretic thing, and that happened as well with chan which later influenced all the current Zen schools. [Chan is essentially a syncretism with Dao.]

So you have some teachings that suggest "the mind is all, all things lead with mind" which is in line with your Zen schools.

In the Theravadan traditions which is in my orbit, they would say something different. Mind as we experience it is fully conditioned, in other words, there's not a concrete, permanent entity, mind is unique to that lifetime.

There is a stream of consciousness but it isn't 'you.' You can't think when you're in this realm. And yes, according to the teaching when you reach these meditative states, you're "there."

So if you're meditating in the 2nd Jhana when this body expires, you'll be reborn in that state.

Consciousness is that which is aware of the present moment--which we don't do all the time without training. So the definition is different. SO it would be best perhaps to summarize, that mind can only exist with the condition of the body, but consciousness knows no such bounds. IN the west we conflate mind with consciousness, and at least according to my school, that's a distortion. Our memories are part of an inert "store consciousness" that reignites as it were into a new body. Our minds reconstruct these memories into experiences, but how that works when reborn into higher realms, seems like alot of speculation to me. But there's answers, at least.

Now, there's a continuity of this experience, and the entire Tibetan Book of the Dead is a treatise on the experience of the mind dying and dissolving into consciousness. Out of Body experiences are considered commonplace though I've never had it happen. Monks throughout southeast asia and in Tibet regularly claim the ability to leave their bodies and there's a whole plethora of anecdotes for this including veridical experiences. (This is where your awesome kung fu stories have their root...)

While the body lives, there's enough cause and effect to maintain a mind, thus a sense of self and follow your consciousness out for a jaunt.

Never done that myself, but hey, if it happens I'll report back.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Rebirth: evidence in young children

DAVID: The point to me with thousands of these cases reported that consciousness carrying these memories from one person to the next, indicates it is obviously separate from the brain and enters the new brain for interpretation.

I have several times mentioned that my late wife (who was Nigerian) witnessed an instance of this in her own family, when a child died, and a child that was born later was mystified by changes that had taken place in the village since the first child’s death. No one could explain how the second child could have known what had been there in the past.

But perhaps there is a connection here with genetic memory. People who have had transplants have sometimes also received memories from their donors. It is therefore possible that the second child could have received memories from its parents’ genes. However, the two cases in the article really defy all explanation. Why these particular dead people and these particular children? And if the memories fade, and the children get on with their own lives, what on earth would be the point of the “reincarnation”?

Xeno: So rebirth is obviously an important teaching in Buddhism, though it's also true that it's not a dogmatic religion and like most things I've deferred judgment as the question certainly appears unknowable. Well, at least til I die, and I'm not so eager for that just YET!

It’s a delight to hear from you again and to share the agnostic deferral with you! This does not of course dampen your curiosity or mine, and thank you for your detailed and highly informative response to David’s question.

Xeno: […] in my own school of Thai Forest Buddhism there are masters who claim that full knowledge of all your past lives is indeed knowable, it's one of the fruits you attain on the way to enlightenment.

Oh well, if it’s true, I hope it’ll turn out that I was once Shakespeare, Beethoven and W.G.Grace.

Xeno: As far as religious truths go, it is at least something attainable.

Not sure about that, bearing in mind that I can’t even remember things that happened to the current me a couple of months ago. Why would my death bring it all back to me when I enter somebody else’s body? And if I led a lot of miserable lives, I’m not even sure I’d regard total recall as a benefit of enlightenment.

I remember that in our past discussions on this subject, we talked about the nature of “Nirvana”, which has always bugged me. One website defines this as “the highest state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, meaning a person's individual desires and suffering go away. The origin of the word nirvana relates to religious enlightenment; it comes from the Sanskrit meaning "extinction, disappearance" of the individual to the universal.” It means no more rebirth as well as no more self, and hence no more suffering or pleasure. To me, this means nothing more or less than our eternal death. Can you enlighten us?

Matt: It is perhaps fortuitous that this gets posted when it does.

So rebirth is obviously an important teaching in Buddhism, though it's also true that it's not a dogmatic religion and like most things I've deferred judgment as the question certainly appears unknowable. Well, at least til I die, and I'm not so eager for that just YET!

I think it's also interesting that reincarnation existed as a belief in early Christianity, prior to the 2nd century AD. (Speaking of things we'll never truly know!)

But yes, in my own school of Thai Forest Buddhism there are masters who claim that full knowledge of all your past lives is indeed knowable, it's one of the fruits you attain on the way to enlightenment.

As far as religious truths go, it is at least something attainable.

Thanks for your comment. Does Buddhism recognize that consciousness is separate from the brain?

So, there's alot of variation--Tibetan Buddhism by itself is almost its own syncretic thing, and that happened as well with chan which later influenced all the current Zen schools. [Chan is essentially a syncretism with Dao.]

So you have some teachings that suggest "the mind is all, all things lead with mind" which is in line with your Zen schools.

In the Theravadan traditions which is in my orbit, they would say something different. Mind as we experience it is fully conditioned, in other words, there's not a concrete, permanent entity, mind is unique to that lifetime.

There is a stream of consciousness but it isn't 'you.' You can't think when you're in this realm. And yes, according to the teaching when you reach these meditative states, you're "there."

So if you're meditating in the 2nd Jhana when this body expires, you'll be reborn in that state.

Consciousness is that which is aware of the present moment--which we don't do all the time without training. So the definition is different. SO it would be best perhaps to summarize, that mind can only exist with the condition of the body, but consciousness knows no such bounds. IN the west we conflate mind with consciousness, and at least according to my school, that's a distortion. Our memories are part of an inert "store consciousness" that reignites as it were into a new body. Our minds reconstruct these memories into experiences, but how that works when reborn into higher realms, seems like alot of speculation to me. But there's answers, at least.

Now, there's a continuity of this experience, and the entire Tibetan Book of the Dead is a treatise on the experience of the mind dying and dissolving into consciousness. Out of Body experiences are considered commonplace though I've never had it happen. Monks throughout southeast asia and in Tibet regularly claim the ability to leave their bodies and there's a whole plethora of anecdotes for this including veridical experiences. (This is where your awesome kung fu stories have their root...)

While the body lives, there's enough cause and effect to maintain a mind, thus a sense of self and follow your consciousness out for a jaunt.

Never done that myself, but hey, if it happens I'll report back.

Thank you for reappearing and exposing us to your teachings.

Always great to hear from you too! =-)

I remember that in our past discussions on this subject, we talked about the nature of “Nirvana”, which has always bugged me. One website defines this as “the highest state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, meaning a person's individual desires and suffering go away. The origin of the word nirvana relates to religious enlightenment; it comes from the Sanskrit meaning "extinction, disappearance" of the individual to the universal.” It means no more rebirth as well as no more self, and hence no more suffering or pleasure. To me, this means nothing more or less than our eternal death. Can you enlighten us?

Well, not exactly. Enlightenment is a personal practice

I have learned more since we last talked about this, maybe a contrast with Hindu thought would help.

In meditation, there's a space you can pass through, that begins with what can best be described as light--we call them nimitta's, St. John of the Cross called it "Holy Spirit Descending" and in traditions in Hinduism it's called "Brahma's Gate."

IN the Upanishadic traditions that teach this, it's considered the "highest state," "merging with God," and "becoming your true self, or "atman."" "Atman" is a pretty good word for "soul" in Christianity. In Hindu traditions, they view this with some extra dogma--this atman is "unchanging, unconditioned, indestructible etc."

The insight of the Buddha was strictly that even THAT state, the one that Hindus call the ultimate is ALSO fully conditioned, and that there are several more states a person can attain.

So here's some definitions direct from scripture for the states:

1. "...and abides in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. He makes the rapture and pleasure born of seclusion drench, steep, fill, and pervade this body, so that there is no part of his whole body unpervaded by the rapture and pleasure born of seclusion."

2. "...and abides in the second jhana, which has self-confidence and singleness of mind without applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of concentration." Important note, the word that usually gets translated as "concentration" is better translated as "stillness."

3. "Again with the fading away as well of rapture, a bhikkhu abides in equanimity, and mindful and fully aware, still feeling pleasure with t he body, he enters upon and abides in the third jhana, on account of which noble ones announce: 'He has a pleasant abiding who has equanimity and is mindful.'

4. "Again, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous disappearance of joy and grief, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the fourth jhana, which has neither-pain-nor-pleasure and purity of mindfulness due to equanimity.

5. "It is possible here that with the complete surmounting of perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of sensory impact, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, aware that 'space is infinite,' some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite space."

6. "It is possible here that by completely surmounting the base of infinite space, aware that 'consciousness is infinite,' some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite consciousness...."

7. "It is possible here that by completely surmounting the base of infinite consciousness, aware that 'there is nothing' some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of nothingness."

8. "It is possible here that by completely surmounting the base of nothingness, some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception."

The next stage after that last one is "Nibbana," which is "extinction," which in Pali means the same thing as putting out a candle. So this gradual training demonstrates an individual reaching finer and finer stages of consciousness until anything remotely like thinking or concepts totally vanishes. You're still very much alive, but your mind is permanently changed. The reason why this breaks the cycle of rebirth is that a person who achieves nibbana is utterly incapable of engaging in impure acts, and can no longer generate kamma. (kharma) When you die, you will simply not be reborn, but given what I talked about above, it's clear to me that your consciousness doesn't get destroyed, the consciousness being that place where all your memories and seeds were stored, only without a future rebirth, it isn't clear to me what this means other than possibly just returning to the primordial stuff of the universe. It reminds me a bit of the Jewish Sheol, except that you're already purified. And to be frank, there is no actual answer to the question, "what happens after parinibbana?" (final death on this life)

To the extent that there is a final mystery in Buddhism, it's this.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Matt: Always great to hear from you too! =-)

I remember that in our past discussions on this subject, we talked about the nature of “Nirvana”, which has always bugged me. One website defines this as “the highest state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, meaning a person's individual desires and suffering go away. The origin of the word nirvana relates to religious enlightenment; it comes from the Sanskrit meaning "extinction, disappearance" of the individual to the universal.” It means no more rebirth as well as no more self, and hence no more suffering or pleasure. To me, this means nothing more or less than our eternal death. Can you enlighten us?

Well, not exactly. Enlightenment is a personal practice

I have learned more since we last talked about this, maybe a contrast with Hindu thought would help.

In meditation, there's a space you can pass through, that begins with what can best be described as light--we call them nimitta's, St. John of the Cross called it "Holy Spirit Descending" and in traditions in Hinduism it's called "Brahma's Gate."

IN the Upanishadic traditions that teach this, it's considered the "highest state," "merging with God," and "becoming your true self, or "atman."" "Atman" is a pretty good word for "soul" in Christianity. In Hindu traditions, they view this with some extra dogma--this atman is "unchanging, unconditioned, indestructible etc."

The insight of the Buddha was strictly that even THAT state, the one that Hindus call the ultimate is ALSO fully conditioned, and that there are several more states a person can attain.

So here's some definitions direct from scripture for the states:

1. "...and abides in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. He makes the rapture and pleasure born of seclusion drench, steep, fill, and pervade this body, so that there is no part of his whole body unpervaded by the rapture and pleasure born of seclusion."

2. "...and abides in the second jhana, which has self-confidence and singleness of mind without applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of concentration." Important note, the word that usually gets translated as "concentration" is better translated as "stillness."

3. "Again with the fading away as well of rapture, a bhikkhu abides in equanimity, and mindful and fully aware, still feeling pleasure with t he body, he enters upon and abides in the third jhana, on account of which noble ones announce: 'He has a pleasant abiding who has equanimity and is mindful.'

4. "Again, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous disappearance of joy and grief, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the fourth jhana, which has neither-pain-nor-pleasure and purity of mindfulness due to equanimity.

5. "It is possible here that with the complete surmounting of perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of sensory impact, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity, aware that 'space is infinite,' some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite space."

6. "It is possible here that by completely surmounting the base of infinite space, aware that 'consciousness is infinite,' some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of infinite consciousness...."

7. "It is possible here that by completely surmounting the base of infinite consciousness, aware that 'there is nothing' some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of nothingness."

8. "It is possible here that by completely surmounting the base of nothingness, some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception."

The next stage after that last one is "Nibbana," which is "extinction," which in Pali means the same thing as putting out a candle. So this gradual training demonstrates an individual reaching finer and finer stages of consciousness until anything remotely like thinking or concepts totally vanishes. You're still very much alive, but your mind is permanently changed. The reason why this breaks the cycle of rebirth is that a person who achieves nibbana is utterly incapable of engaging in impure acts, and can no longer generate kamma. (kharma) When you die, you will simply not be reborn, but given what I talked about above, it's clear to me that your consciousness doesn't get destroyed, the consciousness being that place where all your memories and seeds were stored, only without a future rebirth, it isn't clear to me what this means other than possibly just returning to the primordial stuff of the universe. It reminds me a bit of the Jewish Sheol, except that you're already purified. And to be frank, there is no actual answer to the question, "what happens after parinibbana?" (final death on this life)

To the extent that there is a final mystery in Buddhism, it's this.

Confusing in a way but thank you. I did not know of Sheol as a concept after death. As for consciousness invading another person, as in the kids, my wife has dreams of older ancestors she has never met. But then, again, she has some definite psychic abilities.

To the extent that there is a final mystery in Buddhism, it's this.

Confusing in a way but thank you. I did not know of Sheol as a concept after death. As for consciousness invading another person, as in the kids, my wife has dreams of older ancestors she has never met. But then, again, she has some definite psychic abilities.

I'm not familiar with the canonical status of it, but the Catholic concept of purgatory is directly descended from the idea of Sheol. I remember distinctly that the word "sheol" appears 66 times in the Hebrew Bible, always in relationship with death, and that the purification concept arose in my research on Hell, it was in midrashic literature.

In my research, its essentially a place your soul migrates to undergo purification before some sort of ascendance. However in Isaiah and Ezekiel it starts to sound more like the Christian idea of Hell, though in the history of Hell, the place of Gehenna (essentially a trash pit for refuse outside of Jerusalem) is where most references were made in the leadup to Christ.

I have to point out that there's reason to believe that reincarnation was a perfectly acceptable Jewish belief at the time of Christ and that the idea of rebirth was actively redacted from early Christian bibles because it contradicted the doctrines of the church fathers.

I'm not a huge expert here, I've done some research on this for my novel--and that was over 10yrs ago. I'll be revisiting it the next couple years however as I get those juices flowing again.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

dhw: I remember that in our past discussions on this subject, we talked about the nature of “Nirvana”, which has always bugged me. One website defines this as “the highest state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, meaning a person's individual desires and suffering go away. The origin of the word nirvana relates to religious enlightenment; it comes from the Sanskrit meaning "extinction, disappearance" of the individual to the universal.” It means no more rebirth as well as no more self, and hence no more suffering or pleasure. To me, this means nothing more or less than our eternal death. Can you enlighten us?

MATT: Well, not exactly. Enlightenment is a personal practice.

Yeah, but my request only concerned the meaning and implications of “Nirvana”! Huge thanks for your whole post, which as always is immensely impressive and stimulating. I can’t comment on every detail, but will stick to the subject that bugs me, as summarized above. The following statements of yours are extremely relevant to my “bug”:

1. "...and abides in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

Rapture and pleasure seem mighty positive to me, but at a single stroke the jhana eliminates what for me is the greatest imaginable source of rapture and pleasure, which is love for others, including partner and children. Seclusion demands absolute focus on the self, which contradicts what I thought was another central precept of Buddhism: empathy and compassion for others.

4. "Again, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous disappearance of joy and grief, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the fourth jhana, which has neither-pain-nor-pleasure and purity of mindfulness due to equanimity.

This was a big leap, as pain and grief had not been mentioned before. Equanimity would seem to mean total indifference to everything!

8. "It is possible here that by completely surmounting the base of nothingness, some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception."

I see that the literal meaning of “bhikkhu” is “beggar”. All part of the journey to total focus on the self, even at the expense of others? And this is the last stage before entering “nothingness”, or as I said in my own brief summary and you now repeat:

MATT: The next stage after that last one is "Nibbana," which is "extinction," which in Pali means the same thing as putting out a candle. […] You're still very much alive, but your mind is permanently changed. The reason why this breaks the cycle of rebirth is that a person who achieves nibbana is utterly incapable of engaging in impure acts, and can no longer generate kamma.

The person is utterly incapable of engaging in any acts at all!

MATT: it's clear to me that your consciousness doesn't get destroyed, the consciousness being that place where all your memories and seeds were stored […] it isn't clear to me what this means other than possibly just returning to the primordial stuff of the universe.

I have no idea what purpose can possibly be served by having all your memories – good and bad – stored in a consciousness which is no longer yours. Returning to the primordial stuff of the universe is precisely what happens when we die, and so the ultimate goal of Buddhism seems to be the total blank we call death. Frankly, this is one of the few subjects on which I actually agree with David: I love life, and I accept the grief and pain as the price that must sometimes be paid for the pleasure, rapture, joy and love. And I do my best to help others cope with their grief and pain, and I think that caring for others is infinitely preferable to “pure” equanimity (= indifference).

MATT: To the extent that there is a final mystery in Buddhism, it's this.

Yep, I agree. It just doesn’t make sense to me!

MATT: I'm not a huge expert here, I've done some research on this for my novel--and that was over 10yrs ago. I'll be revisiting it the next couple years however as I get those juices flowing again.

A novel? Hey, this is great news. A 10-year hiatus is not such good news, but please, please, get those juices flowing!

Matt: To the extent that there is a final mystery in Buddhism, it's this.

Confusing in a way but thank you. I did not know of Sheol as a concept after death. As for consciousness invading another person, as in the kids, my wife has dreams of older ancestors she has never met. But then, again, she has some definite psychic abilities.

I'm not familiar with the canonical status of it, but the Catholic concept of purgatory is directly descended from the idea of Sheol. I remember distinctly that the word "sheol" appears 66 times in the Hebrew Bible, always in relationship with death, and that the purification concept arose in my research on Hell, it was in midrashic literature.

In my research, its essentially a place your soul migrates to undergo purification before some sort of ascendance. However in Isaiah and Ezekiel it starts to sound more like the Christian idea of Hell, though in the history of Hell, the place of Gehenna (essentially a trash pit for refuse outside of Jerusalem) is where most references were made in the leadup to Christ.

I have to point out that there's reason to believe that reincarnation was a perfectly acceptable Jewish belief at the time of Christ and that the idea of rebirth was actively redacted from early Christian bibles because it contradicted the doctrines of the church fathers.

I'm not a huge expert here, I've done some research on this for my novel--and that was over 10yrs ago. I'll be revisiting it the next couple years however as I get those juices flowing again.

Thank you for this review. As a modern Reform Jew we were taught there is no Hell or Heaven. So then what? "God will care for us, trust in God". Quite nebulous, but it fits into the Jewish concept of the loving, caring God.

1. "...and abides in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

Rapture and pleasure seem mighty positive to me, but at a single stroke the jhana eliminates what for me is the greatest imaginable source of rapture and pleasure, which is love for others, including partner and children. Seclusion demands absolute focus on the self, which contradicts what I thought was another central precept of Buddhism: empathy and compassion for others.

To be direct, it isn't possible to reach the first jhana if you aren't engaging in empathy and compassion for others. Just, full stop, it's never going to happen. The most rapid way to the first Jhana is a series of meditations referred to as the "Divine Abodes," or "Brahmaviharas."

These are summarized here:

• Metta: goodwill – desire for the welfare and happiness of all beings (opposite: ill will).
  
• Karuna: compassion – empathy with the suffering of others and the desire to remove the suffering (opposite: cruelty).
  
• Mudita: appreciative joy – joy produced by others’ success and good fortune (opposite: envy, discontent, aversion).
  
• Upekkha: equanimity – impartiality towards living beings (opposite: attachment and resentment).

While I suspect Upekkha might give you heartburn, and answer part of your next question, I feel the issue you might have is less with equanimity and more with attachment. The best way I can explain this, is that attachment implies a notion of control. Approach friendships and your ties with others with the realization that you cannot control their actions and reactions. This is incredibly hard for some personalities. But it should be clear: First Jhana isn't open to you if you're not doing those other practices in that list. This is a non-exhaustive list by the way, several sects take it a step further. Tonglenin particular has been a life-changing practice for me, and it's not technically in my school. IN that practice you willingly imagine the suffering of others and taking it in to breathe back out peace and calmness. Two meditation sessions with that (I don't do it frequently, its exhausting) in particular set me on some radical new paths. I've done less than ten total.

But at any rate, when you see the word "attachment" in Buddhism, you should be thinking more along the lines of a love that does not control or make demands. Think of the Greek terms philia, storge, pragma, and philautia, and add the Roman agape. Stay far away from Mania. Attachment's strongest version is equivalent to this Greek version of love. Any feeling that creates a sense of possession ought to be discarded. "This is ME! That is MINE!" are OK with a healthy detachment. Buddhism has much more in common with Heraclitus than with Plato or Aristotle.

8. "It is possible here that by completely surmounting the base of nothingness, some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception."

I see that the literal meaning of “bhikkhu” is “beggar”. All part of the journey to total focus on the self, even at the expense of others? And this is the last stage before entering “nothingness”, or as I said in my own brief summary and you now repeat:

Yes, the literal translation is correct, because monks are required to live purely off of the kindness of others. This is something that should be familiar to anyone who's studied Diogenes and the Cynics, but the name has come to represent "monk" in common parlance.

Part of the problem here, if I may make a suggestion, is that I think you find it difficult to see why someone would want to become a monk. There's half a billion Buddhists in the world, less than one-half of one-percent are monks. Buddhism and the monks in particular take a long-term view from the cosmic perspective. Maybe I'm not a monk in this life, no matter, doing the right things now will prepare me for an existence that--if I come back around to those practices--will continue my development. While we should always be wary of hierarchical thinking, this is what sits behind the general principle "if you don't like a teaching, drop it." IN my own experience, not liking a teaching is almost always an example of an unhealthy attachment.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

MATT: The next stage after that last one is "Nibbana," which is "extinction," which in Pali means the same thing as putting out a candle. […] You're still very much alive, but your mind is permanently changed. The reason why this breaks the cycle of rebirth is that a person who achieves nibbana is utterly incapable of engaging in impure acts, and can no longer generate kamma.

The person is utterly incapable of engaging in any acts at all!

How is that so when the Buddha was on this earth teaching for 40yrs after he achieved it?

MATT: it's clear to me that your consciousness doesn't get destroyed, the consciousness being that place where all your memories and seeds were stored […] it isn't clear to me what this means other than possibly just returning to the primordial stuff of the universe.

I have no idea what purpose can possibly be served by having all your memories – good and bad – stored in a consciousness which is no longer yours. Returning to the primordial stuff of the universe is precisely what happens when we die, and so the ultimate goal of Buddhism seems to be the total blank we call death. Frankly, this is one of the few subjects on which I actually agree with David: I love life, and I accept the grief and pain as the price that must sometimes be paid for the pleasure, rapture, joy and love. And I do my best to help others cope with their grief and pain, and I think that caring for others is infinitely preferable to “pure” equanimity (= indifference).

This is more interesting discussion here. I would suggest that what you think is *your* consciousness, isn't really yours. Ownership is illusion. I mean, do you even have a title granting you ownership? Can you make your consciousness do whatever you will? For as long as you will? Nietzsche said this best, "A thought comes when it wills, not when I will." The act of imagining or creating, as a writer yourself, when you have tried to "command" the entire process how good was the result vs when you were "in the zone" and it flowed from you naturally? Returning to the main theme, probably the only actual control you have over your consciousness is your ability to end your own life, and I think its obvious why that's considered anathema in almost all religions. (sans some warrior cultures)

As for the parts about grief and whatnot: Nowhere does it say not to grieve, but the steps here I originally posted was from a summary given to monks about the final stages of meditation before you break through to Nibbana. Even prior to the first Jhana, you've already done alot of work to recognize that you are simply part of a bigger cosmos, that any sense of ownership you have is illusory and fleeting. It pops up with the protestants too, "God giveth, God Taketh away." All religions have a sense for this: give up your desire for control. Buddhism takes it a little farther by drawing those lines to all the things that go on inside your head as well.

I think though, I've found the spots that seem the most "sticky" to your thinking, "equanimity," and "attachment." I've hopefully filled out the definition for equanimity more fully, as well as filled out a little better the discussion on attachments. Just like with stoicism, the idea isn't to become robots, the idea is to have a better recognition for what's fleeting so you don't overidentify with those things and cause more suffering for yourself than you otherwise would have.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

dhw: I remember that in our past discussions on this subject, we talked about the nature of “Nirvana”, which has always bugged me. One website defines this as “the highest state that someone can attain, a state of enlightenment, meaning a person's individual desires and suffering go away. The origin of the word nirvana relates to religious enlightenment; it comes from the Sanskrit meaning "extinction, disappearance" of the individual to the universal.” It means no more rebirth as well as no more self, and hence no more suffering or pleasure. To me, this means nothing more or less than our eternal death. Can you enlighten us?

MATT: Well, not exactly. Enlightenment is a personal practice.

dhw: Yeah, but my request only concerned the meaning and implications of “Nirvana”! Huge thanks for your whole post, which as always is immensely impressive and stimulating. I can’t comment on every detail, but will stick to the subject that bugs me, as summarized above. The following statements of yours are extremely relevant to my “bug”:

1. "...and abides in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

Rapture and pleasure seem mighty positive to me, but at a single stroke the jhana eliminates what for me is the greatest imaginable source of rapture and pleasure, which is love for others, including partner and children. Seclusion demands absolute focus on the self, which contradicts what I thought was another central precept of Buddhism: empathy and compassion for others.

4. "Again, with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous disappearance of joy and grief, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the fourth jhana, which has neither-pain-nor-pleasure and purity of mindfulness due to equanimity.

This was a big leap, as pain and grief had not been mentioned before. Equanimity would seem to mean total indifference to everything!

8. "It is possible here that by completely surmounting the base of nothingness, some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception."

dhw: I see that the literal meaning of “bhikkhu” is “beggar”. All part of the journey to total focus on the self, even at the expense of others? And this is the last stage before entering “nothingness”, or as I said in my own brief summary and you now repeat:

MATT: The next stage after that last one is "Nibbana," which is "extinction," which in Pali means the same thing as putting out a candle. […] You're still very much alive, but your mind is permanently changed. The reason why this breaks the cycle of rebirth is that a person who achieves nibbana is utterly incapable of engaging in impure acts, and can no longer generate kamma.

dhw: The person is utterly incapable of engaging in any acts at all!

MATT: it's clear to me that your consciousness doesn't get destroyed, the consciousness being that place where all your memories and seeds were stored […] it isn't clear to me what this means other than possibly just returning to the primordial stuff of the universe.

dhw: I have no idea what purpose can possibly be served by having all your memories – good and bad – stored in a consciousness which is no longer yours. Returning to the primordial stuff of the universe is precisely what happens when we die, and so the ultimate goal of Buddhism seems to be the total blank we call death. Frankly, this is one of the few subjects on which I actually agree with David: I love life, and I accept the grief and pain as the price that must sometimes be paid for the pleasure, rapture, joy and love. And I do my best to help others cope with their grief and pain, and I think that caring for others is infinitely preferable to “pure” equanimity (= indifference).

dhw thank you for equating us in this area of thought.

MATT: To the extent that there is a final mystery in Buddhism, it's this.

dhw: Yep, I agree. It just doesn’t make sense to me!

MATT: I'm not a huge expert here, I've done some research on this for my novel--and that was over 10yrs ago. I'll be revisiting it the next couple years however as I get those juices flowing again.

dhw: A novel? Hey, this is great news. A 10-year hiatus is not such good news, but please, please, get those juices flowing!

My thoughts also.

1. "...and abides in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

Matt: Rapture and pleasure seem mighty positive to me, but at a single stroke the jhana eliminates what for me is the greatest imaginable source of rapture and pleasure, which is love for others, including partner and children. Seclusion demands absolute focus on the self, which contradicts what I thought was another central precept of Buddhism: empathy and compassion for others.

To be direct, it isn't possible to reach the first jhana if you aren't engaging in empathy and compassion for others. Just, full stop, it's never going to happen. The most rapid way to the first Jhana is a series of meditations referred to as the "Divine Abodes," or "Brahmaviharas."

These are summarized here:

• Metta: goodwill – desire for the welfare and happiness of all beings (opposite: ill will).
  
• Karuna: compassion – empathy with the suffering of others and the desire to remove the suffering (opposite: cruelty).
  
• Mudita: appreciative joy – joy produced by others’ success and good fortune (opposite: envy, discontent, aversion).
  
• Upekkha: equanimity – impartiality towards living beings (opposite: attachment and resentment).

While I suspect Upekkha might give you heartburn, and answer part of your next question, I feel the issue you might have is less with equanimity and more with attachment. The best way I can explain this, is that attachment implies a notion of control. Approach friendships and your ties with others with the realization that you cannot control their actions and reactions. This is incredibly hard for some personalities. But it should be clear: First Jhana isn't open to you if you're not doing those other practices in that list. This is a non-exhaustive list by the way, several sects take it a step further. Tonglenin particular has been a life-changing practice for me, and it's not technically in my school. IN that practice you willingly imagine the suffering of others and taking it in to breathe back out peace and calmness. Two meditation sessions with that (I don't do it frequently, its exhausting) in particular set me on some radical new paths. I've done less than ten total.

But at any rate, when you see the word "attachment" in Buddhism, you should be thinking more along the lines of a love that does not control or make demands. Think of the Greek terms philia, storge, pragma, and philautia, and add the Roman agape. Stay far away from Mania. Attachment's strongest version is equivalent to this Greek version of love. Any feeling that creates a sense of possession ought to be discarded. "This is ME! That is MINE!" are OK with a healthy detachment. Buddhism has much more in common with Heraclitus than with Plato or Aristotle.

8. "It is possible here that by completely surmounting the base of nothingness, some bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception."

dhw: I see that the literal meaning of “bhikkhu” is “beggar”. All part of the journey to total focus on the self, even at the expense of others? And this is the last stage before entering “nothingness”, or as I said in my own brief summary and you now repeat:

Matt: Yes, the literal translation is correct, because monks are required to live purely off of the kindness of others. This is something that should be familiar to anyone who's studied Diogenes and the Cynics, but the name has come to represent "monk" in common parlance.

Part of the problem here, if I may make a suggestion, is that I think you find it difficult to see why someone would want to become a monk. There's half a billion Buddhists in the world, less than one-half of one-percent are monks. Buddhism and the monks in particular take a long-term view from the cosmic perspective. Maybe I'm not a monk in this life, no matter, doing the right things now will prepare me for an existence that--if I come back around to those practices--will continue my development. While we should always be wary of hierarchical thinking, this is what sits behind the general principle "if you don't like a teaching, drop it." IN my own experience, not liking a teaching is almost always an example of an unhealthy attachment.

Thanks again for teaching us. The goals ae the same for all of us, I hope.

MATT: The next stage after that last one is "Nibbana," which is "extinction," which in Pali means the same thing as putting out a candle. […] You're still very much alive, but your mind is permanently changed. The reason why this breaks the cycle of rebirth is that a person who achieves nibbana is utterly incapable of engaging in impure acts, and can no longer generate kamma.

dhw: The person is utterly incapable of engaging in any acts at all!

Matt: How is that so when the Buddha was on this earth teaching for 40yrs after he achieved it?

MATT: it's clear to me that your consciousness doesn't get destroyed, the consciousness being that place where all your memories and seeds were stored […] it isn't clear to me what this means other than possibly just returning to the primordial stuff of the universe.

dhw: I have no idea what purpose can possibly be served by having all your memories – good and bad – stored in a consciousness which is no longer yours. Returning to the primordial stuff of the universe is precisely what happens when we die, and so the ultimate goal of Buddhism seems to be the total blank we call death. Frankly, this is one of the few subjects on which I actually agree with David: I love life, and I accept the grief and pain as the price that must sometimes be paid for the pleasure, rapture, joy and love. And I do my best to help others cope with their grief and pain, and I think that caring for others is infinitely preferable to “pure” equanimity (= indifference).

Thank you, dhw.

Matt: This is more interesting discussion here. I would suggest that what you think is *your* consciousness, isn't really yours. Ownership is illusion. I mean, do you even have a title granting you ownership? Can you make your consciousness do whatever you will? For as long as you will? Nietzsche said this best, "A thought comes when it wills, not when I will." The act of imagining or creating, as a writer yourself, when you have tried to "command" the entire process how good was the result vs when you were "in the zone" and it flowed from you naturally? Returning to the main theme, probably the only actual control you have over your consciousness is your ability to end your own life, and I think its obvious why that's considered anathema in almost all religions. (sans some warrior cultures)

I feel like I have more control than that.

Matt: As for the parts about grief and whatnot: Nowhere does it say not to grieve, but the steps here I originally posted was from a summary given to monks about the final stages of meditation before you break through to Nibbana. Even prior to the first Jhana, you've already done alot of work to recognize that you are simply part of a bigger cosmos, that any sense of ownership you have is illusory and fleeting. It pops up with the protestants too, "God giveth, God Taketh away." All religions have a sense for this: give up your desire for control. Buddhism takes it a little farther by drawing those lines to all the things that go on inside your head as well.

I think though, I've found the spots that seem the most "sticky" to your thinking, "equanimity," and "attachment." I've hopefully filled out the definition for equanimity more fully, as well as filled out a little better the discussion on attachments. Just like with stoicism, the idea isn't to become robots, the idea is to have a better recognition for what's fleeting so you don't overidentify with those things and cause more suffering for yourself than you otherwise would have.

For some folks, stuck with hurtful memories, leaving the past is difficult. It is like fighting the inevitable. Losses must happen.

Matt: This is more interesting discussion here. I would suggest that what you think is *your* consciousness, isn't really yours. Ownership is illusion. I mean, do you even have a title granting you ownership? Can you make your consciousness do whatever you will? For as long as you will? Nietzsche said this best, "A thought comes when it wills, not when I will." The act of imagining or creating, as a writer yourself, when you have tried to "command" the entire process how good was the result vs when you were "in the zone" and it flowed from you naturally? Returning to the main theme, probably the only actual control you have over your consciousness is your ability to end your own life, and I think its obvious why that's considered anathema in almost all religions. (sans some warrior cultures)

I feel like I have more control than that.

That certainly hasn't been my experience. When I focus to deliberately imagine things, sans distractions, eventually I get bored.

I don't control when I get bored, it just happens. I'd rather not get bored, I'd rather I stay in that state until I get my task done, but I absolutely have no control over it. I don't control the distractions either, those come purely from thoughts that zip in from the aether.

When emotional experiences arise, I don't control those either: the causes and conditions have to be right, and then it will bubble up or explode to the surface. I don't have control over those either. I CAN however, do metta meditations on someone I hate for weeks and wear that hatred down. All of that is to say, "free will" as we're taught it exists is hogwash. Free will is something you have to prepare and train for, so that way when you get into the right situation, it executes according to plan. The "free will" is in the planning and practice, once you're faced with the event, that almost always plays out like a symphony where the conductor might have to make do with what's at hand. A great experiment with free will is to have someone repeat a phrase over and over and then ask a question that makes someone say the opposite thing. If the person's never been exposed to the trick, they'll keep on going sometimes being aware of what they're doing while they're doing it. This is why the military does "basic training," in fact.

Buddhism has definitely taught me to temper my expectations around free will, it does that by meditation and observation of the mind. We don't have an unfettered free will. We can set an intention, do a thing, but our minds inevitably intervene. Meditation sharpens the ability to see when this happens. In my case, I've come to accept that except for function of observing thoughts in the mind, I'm fairly helpless most of the time. Even in the course of writing this sentence, my brain is having two other streams of thought that interject, one reminding me to get back to work, and another wondering what I'm going to have for lunch.

It's pure folly from my experience, to claim I have any real control over more than maybe 25% of the total active brain activity I experience in a day. And this is all when I'm actively engaged in a task, writing these words, and not in the more common state between tasks where, well, that's just a whirlwind of randomness, like the nonstop shifting of a radio dial.

Matt: As for the parts about grief and whatnot: Nowhere does it say not to grieve, but the steps here I originally posted was from a summary given to monks about the final stages of meditation before you break through to Nibbana. Even prior to the first Jhana, you've already done alot of work to recognize that you are simply part of a bigger cosmos, that any sense of ownership you have is illusory and fleeting. It pops up with the protestants too, "God giveth, God Taketh away." All religions have a sense for this: give up your desire for control. Buddhism takes it a little farther by drawing those lines to all the things that go on inside your head as well.

I think though, I've found the spots that seem the most "sticky" to your thinking, "equanimity," and "attachment." I've hopefully filled out the definition for equanimity more fully, as well as filled out a little better the discussion on attachments. Just like with stoicism, the idea isn't to become robots, the idea is to have a better recognition for what's fleeting so you don't overidentify with those things and cause more suffering for yourself than you otherwise would have.

For some folks, stuck with hurtful memories, leaving the past is difficult. It is like fighting the inevitable. Losses must happen.

Forgiveness meditations for me, have helped immensely to heal exactly these sorts of things. Beyond just the logical "it's the past, you can't change it." It's like peeling back layers of an onion and finding bits of sand... that's the best analogy I can think of.

^^^I didn't control the construction of that analogy either, I asked myself, 'what's a good analogy for this,' and after a few seconds of buzzing, an onion appeared in my mind, and a reference to the princess and the pea. I then actively put those bits together, recognizing that we never actually find grains of sand in an onion, now do we? I better qualify that with 'best analogy I can think of...'

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

First and foremost, it’s clear that Buddhism has been of enormous help to you, just as religious faith can be of enormous help to believers, and since nobody knows the ultimate truth about any of the matters we discuss, I’ve no desire to cast shadows. In fact most of what you write makes perfect sense to me, but there are some areas which I find confusing and even off-putting. This may well be because of misunderstandings on my part, but as I said before, perhaps you will be able to enlighten me!

MATT: […] the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.

dhw: Rapture and pleasure seem mighty positive to me, but at a single stroke the jhana eliminates what for me is the greatest imaginable source of rapture and pleasure, which is love for others, including partner and children. Seclusion demands absolute focus on the self, which contradicts what I thought was another central precept of Buddhism: empathy and compassion for others.

MATT: To be direct, it isn't possible to reach the first jhana if you aren't engaging in empathy and compassion for others. Just, full stop, it's never going to happen.

Forgive me, but I don’t understand this. You seem to be saying initially that prior to becoming a monk, your Buddhist has experienced the rapture of love and has shown compassion etc., but now leaves all that behind him in order to focus purely on himself. But then you say it’s never going to happen, so are you telling us that only misery-guts who have had lousy lives will enter the monastery? How can the rapture of isolation teach you to love and be kind to others? And how does begging teach you to be compassionate when all it does is make YOU the recipient of compassion?

MATT: Part of the problem here, if I may make a suggestion, is that I think you find it difficult to see why someone would want to become a monk.

No, I can quite understand that someone who is having a rotten life might want to get away from the causes of their rotten life. But I find it difficult to see why a philosophy which apparently supports the concept of love for others tells us to abandon others and focus on ourselves “in seclusion”.

•Upekkha: equanimity – impartiality towards living beings (opposite: attachment and resentment).
MATT: […] I suspect Upekkha might give you heartburn…

Yes, it does. Impartiality implies no feelings, and it is not the opposite of resentment. Empathy and compassion towards living beings is what I would expect as the ideal opposite.

MATT: I feel the issue you might have is less with equanimity and more with attachment. The best way I can explain this, is that attachment implies a notion of control. […]when you see the word "attachment" in Buddhism, you should be thinking more along the lines of a love that does not control or make demands. […] Any feeling that creates a sense of possession ought to be discarded. "This is ME! That is MINE!" are OK with a healthy detachment.

I have no idea why you think attachment implies control, especially in the context of love. Of course relationships break down if one partner takes no notice of the other’s needs. If you think that form of attachment implies control, you need a language lesson and a marriage guidance counsellor! And your last comment seems to me to be contradictory. I possess my house and my worldly goods, and my students thanked me for the help I gave them, and the audience cheered my last play production. I get pleasure out of “this is me and mine”. Why should I “discard” that sense? But then you say I needn’t discard it if I have a healthy detachment. Thank you! My view is that there is intrinsically nothing whatsoever wrong with possession or with thinking in terms of this is me/mine. But as in most areas of human life, something perfectly “healthy” can turn into something extremely unhealthy when carried to extremes, e.g. the only thing that matters in life is that I should own as much property as I can get, and to hell with the damage I cause to other people. (See Part Two for my concept of a "healthy" balance.)

MATT: Buddhism has definitely taught me to temper my expectations around free will, it does that by meditation and observation of the mind. We don't have an unfettered free will. […] We can set an intention, do a thing, but our minds inevitably intervene. In my case, I've come to accept that except for function of observing thoughts in the mind, I'm fairly helpless most of the time. […] It's pure folly from my experience, to claim I have any real control over more than maybe 25% of the total active brain activity I experience in a day.

This is a subject David and I have discussed at great length. I think there is some confusion here. Free will only comes into play when there are decisions to be made. I would suggest that your remaining 75% has nothing to do with free will. Do we have it? My conclusion is that it depends on what you think it’s free from. If our decisions are made according to influences over which we have no control (e.g. heredity, upbringing, life-changing accidents, illness etc.), we don’t have it. If we accept that all those influences have produced our own individuality, then the decisions are taken by “me” and “me” alone, in which case we do have it. As regards our various thoughts throughout the day, I agree with you – the mind wanders around, and “I” only exercise control when I’m performing a specific task.

MATT: I think though, I've found the spots that seem the most "sticky" to your thinking, "equanimity," and "attachment." I've hopefully filled out the definition for equanimity more fully, as well as filled out a little better the discussion on attachments. Just like with stoicism, the idea isn't to become robots, the idea is to have a better recognition for what's fleeting so you don't overidentify with those things and cause more suffering for yourself than you otherwise would have.

No, these are not the sticky points, but of course I agree that everything is fleeting, and my own philosophy is make the most of what is fleetingly available to you, enjoy it as much as you can, and help others to enjoy it too. What bugs me is still the notion that Nirvana – the Buddhist ideal – is actually death. I regard birth as a privilege, and I reject the religious concept of “original sin”, which seems to me to underlie the whole Buddhist concept of rebirth until you are “pure”, as if living is some kind of punishment as opposed to being a benefit and a privilege. The vague concept of post-death consciousness without individual identity - apart from a box of memories to be stored in the great nothingness - might just as well be post-death unconsciousness lying in a grave. But it’s clear from your posts that there is no fixed form of Buddhism, and I suspect that you share my “philosophy” above, and can find it in the various “scriptures”!

Matt: This is more interesting discussion here. I would suggest that what you think is *your* consciousness, isn't really yours. Ownership is illusion. I mean, do you even have a title granting you ownership? Can you make your consciousness do whatever you will? For as long as you will? Nietzsche said this best, "A thought comes when it wills, not when I will." The act of imagining or creating, as a writer yourself, when you have tried to "command" the entire process how good was the result vs when you were "in the zone" and it flowed from you naturally? Returning to the main theme, probably the only actual control you have over your consciousness is your ability to end your own life, and I think its obvious why that's considered anathema in almost all religions.

dhw: I feel like I have more control than that.

Matt: That certainly hasn't been my experience. When I focus to deliberately imagine things, sans distractions, eventually I get bored.

I don't control when I get bored, it just happens. I'd rather not get bored, I'd rather I stay in that state until I get my task done, but I absolutely have no control over it. I don't control the distractions either, those come purely from thoughts that zip in from the aether.

When emotional experiences arise, I don't control those either: the causes and conditions have to be right, and then it will bubble up or explode to the surface. I don't have control over those either. I CAN however, do metta meditations on someone I hate for weeks and wear that hatred down. All of that is to say, "free will" as we're taught it exists is hogwash. Free will is something you have to prepare and train for, so that way when you get into the right situation, it executes according to plan. The "free will" is in the planning and practice, once you're faced with the event, that almost always plays out like a symphony where the conductor might have to make do with what's at hand. A great experiment with free will is to have someone repeat a phrase over and over and then ask a question that makes someone say the opposite thing. If the person's never been exposed to the trick, they'll keep on going sometimes being aware of what they're doing while they're doing it.

Buddhism has definitely taught me to temper my expectations around free will, it does that by meditation and observation of the mind. We don't have an unfettered free will. We can set an intention, do a thing, but our minds inevitably intervene. Meditation sharpens the ability to see when this happens. In my case, I've come to accept that except for function of observing thoughts in the mind, I'm fairly helpless most of the time. Even in the course of writing this sentence, my brain is having two other streams of thought that interject, one reminding me to get back to work, and another wondering what I'm going to have for lunch.

It's pure folly from my experience, to claim I have any real control over more than maybe 25% of the total active brain activity I experience in a day. And this is all when I'm actively engaged in a task, writing these words, and not in the more common state between tasks where, well, that's just a whirlwind of randomness, like the nonstop shifting of a radio dial. >

Matt: As for the parts about grief and whatnot: Nowhere does it say not to grieve, but the steps here I originally posted was from a summary given to monks about the final stages of meditation before you break through to Nibbana. you are simply part of a bigger cosmos, that any sense of ownership you have is illusory and fleeting... All religions have a sense for this: give up your desire for control. Buddhism takes it a little farther by drawing those lines to all the things that go on inside your head as well.

I think though, I've found the spots that seem the most "sticky" to your thinking, "equanimity," and "attachment." I've hopefully filled out the definition for equanimity more fully, as well as filled out a little better the discussion on attachments. Just like with stoicism, the idea isn't to become robots, the idea is to have a better recognition for what's fleeting so you don't overidentify with those things and cause more suffering for yourself than you otherwise would have.

For some folks, stuck with hurtful memories, leaving the past is difficult. It is like fighting the inevitable. Losses must happen.

Forgiveness meditations for me, have helped immensely to heal exactly these sorts of things. Beyond just the logical "it's the past, you can't change it." It's like peeling back layers of an onion and finding bits of sand... that's the best analogy I can think of.

^^^I didn't control the construction of that analogy either, I asked myself, 'what's a good analogy for this,' and after a few seconds of buzzing, an onion appeared in my mind, and a reference to the princess and the pea. I then actively put those bits together, recognizing that we never actually find grains of sand in an onion, now do we? I better qualify that with 'best analogy I can think of...'

I am fascinated by your exposition of how your brain seems to struggle so actively. My mind is quiet by comparison. Perhaps it is because I'm not looking deeper as you do. I don 't have the desire but for some reason you do. Can tell us why you had to do this in Buddhism?

MATT: Buddhism has definitely taught me to temper my expectations around free will, it does that by meditation and observation of the mind. We don't have an unfettered free will. […] We can set an intention, do a thing, but our minds inevitably intervene. In my case, I've come to accept that except for function of observing thoughts in the mind, I'm fairly helpless most of the time. […] It's pure folly from my experience, to claim I have any real control over more than maybe 25% of the total active brain activity I experience in a day.

This is a subject David and I have discussed at great length. I think there is some confusion here. Free will only comes into play when there are decisions to be made. I would suggest that your remaining 75% has nothing to do with free will. Do we have it? My conclusion is that it depends on what you think it’s free from. If our decisions are made according to influences over which we have no control (e.g. heredity, upbringing, life-changing accidents, illness etc.), we don’t have it. If we accept that all those influences have produced our own individuality, then the decisions are taken by “me” and “me” alone, in which case we do have it. As regards our various thoughts throughout the day, I agree with you – the mind wanders around, and “I” only exercise control when I’m performing a specific task.

MATT: I think though, I've found the spots that seem the most "sticky" to your thinking, "equanimity," and "attachment." I've hopefully filled out the definition for equanimity more fully, as well as filled out a little better the discussion on attachments. Just like with stoicism, the idea isn't to become robots, the idea is to have a better recognition for what's fleeting so you don't overidentify with those things and cause more suffering for yourself than you otherwise would have.

No, these are not the sticky points, but of course I agree that everything is fleeting, and my own philosophy is make the most of what is fleetingly available to you, enjoy it as much as you can, and help others to enjoy it too. What bugs me is still the notion that Nirvana – the Buddhist ideal – is actually death. I regard birth as a privilege, and I reject the religious concept of “original sin”, which seems to me to underlie the whole Buddhist concept of rebirth until you are “pure”, as if living is some kind of punishment as opposed to being a benefit and a privilege. The vague concept of post-death consciousness without individual identity - apart from a box of memories to be stored in the great nothingness - might just as well be post-death unconsciousness lying in a grave. But it’s clear from your posts that there is no fixed form of Buddhism, and I suspect that you share my “philosophy” above, and can find it in the various “scriptures”!

I've read both parts, but wish to add nothing.

I snipped parts that don't require a response to save space.

dhw: Rapture and pleasure seem mighty positive to me, but at a single stroke the jhana eliminates what for me is the greatest imaginable source of rapture and pleasure, which is love for others, including partner and children. Seclusion demands absolute focus on the self, which contradicts what I thought was another central precept of Buddhism: empathy and compassion for others.

So, think of the phrase, "Before you help/love others, you have to help/love yourself." Now, I've not reached the first Jhana myself, but what I can tell you is that meditation is something that is a secluded practice even when you're doing it in a group. You're turning inwards. And I can tell you that my progression through earlier states of meditation before the first demonstrates a definite progression towards a peaceful and sublime state that sticks with me when its over. That state heightens my ability for love and makes me more easily express compassion and forgiveness. In order to be better for everyone else, I need to be alone and secluded. Right, so these aren't discrete activities, you only do one thing, and then you only do the other, you create a feedback loop (imagine a figure-8 if that helps) between seclusion and your people.

Forgive me, but I don’t understand this. You seem to be saying initially that prior to becoming a monk, your Buddhist has experienced the rapture of love and has shown compassion etc., but now leaves all that behind him in order to focus purely on himself. But then you say it’s never going to happen, so are you telling us that only misery-guts who have had lousy lives will enter the monastery? How can the rapture of isolation teach you to love and be kind to others? And how does begging teach you to be compassionate when all it does is make YOU the recipient of compassion?

So the jhanas that I had shared, those are the end games for the monks. Its possible for lay people to do all of those things, but its incredibly rare simply because you'd pretty much have to be a billionaire to have enough free time to do it. My main goal in sharing that sequence was to demonstrate how each step in the continuum pushes into finer and finer views of consciousness, where you walk right on past all the normal daily states of consciousness to a place where you're still aware but all concept of self disappears, which is a far better idea of what nibbana means than the rest. The Nibbana question is the one I was aiming to answer, these other questions while related, are different.

The "rapture of isolation," I mean, that's the happiness that gets generated by meditation. See my figure-8 comment above on how isolation benefits the practitioner and other people. As for the begging question, there's several things at play, first off, you have to have a subdued sense of self in order to do it. Regardless of spiritual tradition, (Franciscan, Kwan Um Zen...) part of what you're shunning is your own ego. I have a harder time--with as well read as you are--understanding why you think this monastic practice wouldn't teach you to have more love and compassion? We have the saying, walk a mile in a man's shoes before you judge, right? Even if you weren't a monastic, anyone who I've known who has engaged in a fasting practice understands the link between hunger and the poor, which generates compassion. And then there is gratitude in being given a free gift that sustains life. Franciscans call it the Grace of God. And then there's the debt you owe as the receiver of the gift to also impart some spiritual gift to make up the distance... something immaterial for something material. (Though I would argue, wisdom often provides material benefits.) Then there's just general gratitude which is also a part of the Brahmavihara practices.

•Upekkha: equanimity – impartiality towards living beings (opposite: attachment and resentment).
MATT: […] I suspect Upekkha might give you heartburn…

Yes, it does. Impartiality implies no feelings, and it is not the opposite of resentment. Empathy and compassion towards living beings is what I would expect as the ideal opposite.

It cannot imply NO feelings. That's not possible. Okay, maybe I have to deepen this one a bit. Equanimity isn't built on feelings towards others, it's built on feelings towards yourself:

Hoping for positive circumstances

1. Hope for pleasure (physical comfort and mental happiness)
2. Hope for gain (material wealth and prosperity)
3. Hope for praise (heard directly)
4. Hope for a good reputation or fame (in one’s society)

Fearing negative circumstances

5. Fear of pain (physical and mental)
6. Fear of loss (material wealth and prosperity)
7. Fear of criticism (heard directly)
8. Fear of having a bad reputation (in one’s society)

Equanimity is in response to the 8 worldly concerns, hopefully this is sufficient to clear that up. The equanimity we want is the equanimity that leads us not to desire for things that feed our ego, and/or are out of our control anyway. I had to look this up to get you a better answer here, so throw out what I was trying to say before about impartiality. (Though it still applies that you can't control what others do, so why worry here?)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

MATT: I feel the issue you might have is less with equanimity and more with attachment. The best way I can explain this, is that attachment implies a notion of control. […]when you see the word "attachment" in Buddhism, you should be thinking more along the lines of a love that does not control or make demands. […] Any feeling that creates a sense of possession ought to be discarded. "This is ME! That is MINE!" are OK with a healthy detachment.

I have no idea why you think attachment implies control, especially in the context of love. Of course relationships break down if one partner takes no notice of the other’s needs. If you think that form of attachment implies control, you need a language lesson and a marriage guidance counsellor! And your last comment seems to me to be contradictory. I possess my house and my worldly goods, and my students thanked me for the help I gave them, and the audience cheered my last play production. I get pleasure out of “this is me and mine”. Why should I “discard” that sense? But then you say I needn’t discard it if I have a healthy detachment. Thank you! My view is that there is intrinsically nothing whatsoever wrong with possession or with thinking in terms of this is me/mine. But as in most areas of human life, something perfectly “healthy” can turn into something extremely unhealthy when carried to extremes, e.g. the only thing that matters in life is that I should own as much property as I can get, and to hell with the damage I cause to other people. (See Part Two for my concept of a "healthy" balance.)

I'll deal with the contradiction first: IN Buddhism you have the Four Noble Truths. It's placed in the context of rebirth, take that as you will, but you have to have some awareness of where the ideas come from.

1. There is suffering
2. The cause of suffering is craving, attachment, desire
3. The cessation of suffering is in letting go of the above
4. The Buddha's Eightfold path is what you do in order to achieve this letting go

The word "attachment" that you seem so hung up on... it directly implies ego in Buddhism. You can love without attachment. That's kind of the whole point of our english phrase "if you love something, let it go." To live without attachment in Buddhism, is to live without feelings of possession, to give up feelings of control, to always err against ego. You acknowledge this directly when you say "I needn’t discard it if I have a healthy detachment. ..can turn extremely unhealthy when carried to extremes..." You recognize that too much is bad. Monastic traditions in general, and Buddhism in particular, gives a set of practices to do exactly that. The practices on offer

The highest form of Love in Christianity is Agape. Agape is literally, "selfless love." You would give up your life for the sake of another, and ultimate expression of giving up control. In this, Buddhism and Christianity strive for the same thing. Attachment implies control because attachment involves the ego which wants everything to be "ME/MINE" and wants to hold onto everything forever--which it can't as there is nothing in this world that is permanent.

"My view is that there is intrinsically nothing whatsoever wrong with possession or with thinking in terms of this is me/mine."

Right... but at the same time every civilization that has ever existed has created social institutions to deal with me/mine precisely because if you don't muzzle it, that is what causes terrible problems.

In Buddhism, you're taught to acknowledge the "conventional" self, such that you don't bind too strongly with "Me/Mine." It's not that its intrinsically evil--nothing that every living being is subject to can be intrinsically evil--but that if you set your goal for Nibbana, you'll never get there without banishing that concept. If you don't want to give up your attachments, then don't set that goal, easy as that. It's not like Christianity, there's no commandment that any given practitioner get on the conveyor belt to Nibbana like there is with Christianity where only with belief in Jesus can you reach heaven. The kinds of problems you seem to have here I simply don't believe apply to anyone who isn't wearing monk's robes. Why aim for Nibbana? If you don't see the possible benefits, then its not for you.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

MATT: I think though, I've found the spots that seem the most "sticky" to your thinking, "equanimity," and "attachment." I've hopefully filled out the definition for equanimity more fully, as well as filled out a little better the discussion on attachments. Just like with stoicism, the idea isn't to become robots, the idea is to have a better recognition for what's fleeting so you don't overidentify with those things and cause more suffering for yourself than you otherwise would have.

No, these are not the sticky points, but of course I agree that everything is fleeting, and my own philosophy is make the most of what is fleetingly available to you, enjoy it as much as you can, and help others to enjoy it too. What bugs me is still the notion that Nirvana – the Buddhist ideal – is actually death. I regard birth as a privilege, and I reject the religious concept of “original sin”, which seems to me to underlie the whole Buddhist concept of rebirth until you are “pure”, as if living is some kind of punishment as opposed to being a benefit and a privilege. The vague concept of post-death consciousness without individual identity - apart from a box of memories to be stored in the great nothingness - might just as well be post-death unconsciousness lying in a grave. But it’s clear from your posts that there is no fixed form of Buddhism, and I suspect that you share my “philosophy” above, and can find it in the various “scriptures”!

I mean, while all the various sects of Buddhism have different ideas about what Nibbana actually means, in none of them does it imply death. I don't think death is a relevant category in Buddhism at all. Right, if you study the cosmology, there are planes of existence that are entirely mind-made. As I mentioned before, death in one of the jhanic states means rebirth in those planes. The correlation in Buddhism to those states equate to actual pieces of the universe. I.E., if you go to the 1st Jhana, you're actually in "Brahma's world." For obvious reasons, I don't really buy into all that, but in Buddhism it is clear that in its cosmology, it sees no perceivable beginning or end to the universe, Nibbana isn't death, it just stops the cycle of rebirth that suffering causes. You will not take another physical form. You're simply freely liberated until the current universe cycle ends. This is why in some lesser-known sects of Buddhism, Buddha is worshipped like a God. (It's considered blasphemy, but that's never stopped people before.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Forgiveness meditations for me, have helped immensely to heal exactly these sorts of things. Beyond just the logical "it's the past, you can't change it." It's like peeling back layers of an onion and finding bits of sand... that's the best analogy I can think of.

^^^I didn't control the construction of that analogy either, I asked myself, 'what's a good analogy for this,' and after a few seconds of buzzing, an onion appeared in my mind, and a reference to the princess and the pea. I then actively put those bits together, recognizing that we never actually find grains of sand in an onion, now do we? I better qualify that with 'best analogy I can think of...'

I am fascinated by your exposition of how your brain seems to struggle so actively. My mind is quiet by comparison. Perhaps it is because I'm not looking deeper as you do. I don 't have the desire but for some reason you do. Can tell us why you had to do this in Buddhism?

So the first meditation anyone learns is breath meditation. And basically everybody--struggles in this way. The Buddha referred to this as "monkey mind." This article discusses it in modern psychological terms, and yes, it's worse now than it was decades ago.

The goal in the beginning, is to relax to the point where the only thing you're focusing on is the breath. The first "fruit" of the teaching is in learning how difficult it is to simply focus on this one thing. As your relaxation deepens your mind naturally silences and the stillness you experience makes the normal everyday mind very obviously brash and loud. I've had enough experience of the silence that when my mind moves, it's very obvious.

Surgeons and professional athletes that learn this meditation regard the silence precisely like "being in the zone" when they're working.

As to "why looking deeper," you can't help it. Once you've identified the silence, all thoughts screech by like Hulk leaping from building to building. Every meditation session results in that being staved off for a time, and time in has a linear effect with time-out, meaning, if I'm still for an hour, my mind takes at least that long before returning to normal.

Deeper and deeper meditations lead to longer periods of silence and a sharped ability to perceive mental phenomena. I'm as attuned to what's going on in my head as my botanist friend is in identifying plants from a distance on a walk. Habitual thinking does lead to predictable results, but alot of stuff in that stream of consciousness is... just like I said, a radio dial where depending on where I pause I get a different station.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"