the great rebirth debate

[Ceisiwr]

All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings

Huang Po

Sounds more like Advaita Vedanta to me than Dhamma. Or at the very least Mahayana, but certainly not Theravada. That's just my take though.

The point is that wanting to be Buddha will be the very thing that stops you being Buddha (or Arahant in Pali terms)

[tiltbillings]

All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings

Huang Po

That is nice. Actually, I'd like to see you actually unpack these two sentences, to actually draw out what is actually being said here, showing us what "One Mind" actually is and how "One Mind" and "there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings" does not contract the suttas.

Something Namdrol once said that is valid here:

• "In general, if a sutra is crucial to one's own schools exegesis, but is of questionable provenance, it cannot be used in a general discussion to bolster one's own school's position since the text upon which one is basing one's position is not accepted as a valid text by all parties. "

[Ceisiwr]

One Mind" and "there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings" and how this does not contract the suttas

One Mind

Anatta

Or from the Canon, which you probably expected

""Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements." {I,v,10}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — there is no development of the mind." {I,vi,1}

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind." {I,vi,2}"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html



And

no distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings

"Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing." Ajhan Chah

As in, dont want to be a Buddha, as thats just craving to be

And dont want to get rid of negative traits, as thats just craving not to be

Instead just be

"If you students of the Way wish to become Buddhas, you need study no doctrines whatever, but learn only how to avoid seeking for and attaching yourselves to anything" Huang Po

"Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing." Ajahn Chah

So in other words do not want to be a "sentient being" and do no want to be "Buddha" as Nibbana is in the letting go, the complete awareness and acceptance of things as they are

[Ceisiwr]

To clarify

When "pleasure" arises, just be Buddha manifest and observe the dhamma arise and fall

When "pain rises, just be Buddha manifest and observe the dhamma rise and fall

Then there is no coming or going, no me or mine

There is just the way it is, no craving either way and so no dukkha

[Ceisiwr]

Ajahn Chah would refer to that Awareness, that knowing nature of mind, as Buddha.

“This is the true Buddha,The
One Who Knows [Poo Roo in Thai].” The customary way of talking
about Awareness for both Ajahn Chah and other masters of the forest
tradition would be to use the term Buddha in this way—the aware,
awake quality of our own mind.This is the Buddha.He would say things
like,

“The Buddha who passed into Parinibbana 2,500 years ago is not
the Buddha who is a refuge.” (He also liked to shock people; they would
think they had a heretic in front of them.) “How can that Buddha be a
refuge? He is gone. Gone...really gone.That’s no refuge.A refuge is a safe
place. So how can this great being who lived 2,500 years ago provide
safety? When you think about him, it makes you feel good? But this
feeling on its own is not so secure....”

And as Ajahn Chah taught to use

The Timeless Buddha

The original heart / mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. But if the heart is pure, is our practice over? No, we must not cling even to this purity. We must go beyond all duality, all concepts, all bad, all good, all pure, all impure. We must go beyond self and no self, beyond birth and death. To see a self to be reborn is the real trouble of the world. True purity is limitless, untouchable, beyond all opposites and all creation.

We take refuge in Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. This is the heritage of every Buddha that appears in the world. What is this Buddha? When we see with the eye of wisdom, we know that the Buddha is timeless, unborn, unrelated to any body, any history, any image. Buddha is the ground of all being, the realization of the truth of the unmoving mind.

So the Buddha was not enlightened in India. In fact he was never enlightened, was never born, and never died. This timeless Buddha is our true home, our abiding place. When we take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, all things in the world are free for us. They become our teacher, proclaiming the one true nature of life.

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Ajahn ... t_Pool.htm

[tiltbillings]

One Mind" and "there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings" and how this does not contract the suttas

One Mind

Anatta

Or from the Canon, which you probably expected

""Luminous, monks, is the mind.[1] And it is defiled by incoming defilements." {I,v,9} . . .

This just sad. In other words, Craig, you are just guessing. You do not have a clue as to what Huang Po means by "One Mind." You need to seriously do your home work before you start trying to press poor Huang Po into your service here of trying to beat up the idea of literal rebirth. And doing your homework means more than reading an online article or two.

[Ceisiwr]

I did not say that you did. It is simply a matter of how you are using Ajahn Chah's words in the offending msg.

And you are merely interpreting my posts based upon who "I" was three years ago (or less) ...

[Aloka]

Aloka: you are attempting to turn this into an ad hominem, when it's really just about the doctrine. I have a lot of respect for Ajahn Sumedho, I just don't agree with his flavour of Dhamma, I think it's eternalistic and at odds with the Suttas. That has nothing to do with whether I've met him or not or what he's like as a person. I know Ajahn Sumedho's done a lot for the Sangha, has been an outstanding monk all his life and has contributed so much to this world. So my disagreement is only with the doctrine he espouses, not with him as a person. Unfortunately the only reason I saw this post of yours was because somebody else quoted it - If you catch the drift of what I am saying. So if you wish to discuss this further, the only way to do so is via pm.\

There goes that "ad hominem" accusation from you again Jack!

You need to take care of how you speak about someone youve never met who is highly respected around the world,saying they're doing the Dhamma a disservice, especially as the late monk you follow yourself is not without controversy.

I'd also be grateful if you didn't send me any more pm's thanks, because I don't feel any need to discuss this further.

May you be happy and at ease ,

Aloka

[tiltbillings]

• "In general, if a sutra[, or any text,] is crucial to one's own schools exegesis, but is of questionable provenance, it cannot be used in a general discussion to bolster one's own school's position since the text upon which one is basing one's position is not accepted as a valid text by all parties. " -- LN/MS

[Ceisiwr]

This just sad. In other words, Craig, you are just guessing. You do not have a clue as to what Huang Po means by "One Mind."

Do you know what he meant more than me?

Maybe you do, however I just posted how I use them

At the end of the day we use the teachings to lead us to non grasping, not to grasp at ideas, do we not?

You need to seriously do your home work before you start trying to press poor Huang Po into your service here of trying to beat up the idea of literal rebirth. And doing your homework means more than reading an online article or two.

I'm not trying to "beat up anything" and I think a fair audience would agree with me

That seems to be your misapprehension, based on former experience

[Ceisiwr]

All I was pointing to, which seems to have generated such aversion, is awareness in the here and now ... to mindfulness

[tiltbillings]

This just sad. In other words, Craig, you are just guessing. You do not have a clue as to what Huang Po means by "One Mind."

Do you know what he meant more than me?

Maybe you do, however I just posted how I use them

Which makes this even sadder, doing an injustice to Huang Po himself by not carefully understanding his words, his contexts, using his words and Ajahn Chah's words as away of trying to shut down any opposing point of view in regard literal rebirth.

[Ceisiwr]

Which makes this even sadder, doing an injustice to Huang Po himself by not carefully understanding his words, his contexts, using his words and Ajahn Chah's words as away of trying to shut down any opposing point of view in regard literal rebirth.

Which I wasnt doing



I did say that what I posted didnt detract from the Three lifetimes model

As I said you seem stuck in past perceptions

[tiltbillings]

All I was pointing to, which seems to have generated such aversion, is awareness in the here and now ... to mindfulness

There is not a thing wrong with awareness in the here and now, but how you used Huang Po and Ajahn Chah's words here http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p255954 in the context of the ongoing debate, that is a problem.

[Ceisiwr]

Seem to have focused to much on attacking me for attacking rebirth , which I wasnt doing

As I said all i posted was concerned with the present moment and how Buddha can manifest here and now which is a useful teaching for some, but obviously not for you, which is fine xxxx