Refuge in Oneself

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by acinteyyo »

there must be emphasized not to mix up "oneself" and "one self" (sorry I don't know how to express myself better in english)
when I'm talking about "myself" then what I mean are the 5 aggregates usually known as e.g. "acinteyyo"
but when I'm talking about "my self" then there must be said that neither in one of these 5 aggregates, nor more, nor all of the 5 aggregates, nor outside of these 5 aggregates "my self" or "one/a self" can be found.

an/atta is not the question in the quoted sutta DN16
this is what it means "to be refuge unto oneself":
"When he dwells contemplating the body in the body, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world; when he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings, the mind in the mind, and mental objects in mental objects, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world, then, truly, he is an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; having the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge.
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by tiltbillings »

kannada wrote:Imagemarie hi...

Exactly... Who(m) needs a refuge when there is no-one to shelter?

Best wishes

k
The classic beginners mistake. Language within the Dhamma is used variously. One one level there is no self, but in a conventional level, which is not less true, we talk about self in a functional manner. Here is something I wrote in a different context on another forum in a galaxy far, far away:


An unchanging self certainly would not be able to feel since it would not be influenced by or even aware of its surroundings (which would be the khandhas). It would be meaningless to say that this unchanging “being” was impure and wanted to change to a state of purity.

The Buddha clearly stated: Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. - SN III 46.

The idea that there is some unchanging thing, some “being,” some self, that we really in fact are that is different from the khandhas is meaningless. An unchanging “being” cannot act, cannot feel, is not aware, would have no qualities by which it can be defined, cannot influence or respond to that which changes, the khandhas.

‘”I am’ is derivative upon form … perception … feelings … volitional formation … consciousness’ – S XXII 83/iii 105

We make a radical, unstated assumption that the "self" -- this “being”, this "I am" that we assume that we are - does - in some fundamental way - exist, not changing, and that it is an independent agent behind what we experience. As we have seen the Buddha, however, points out that our sense of self, no matter how “refined” is derived from our experiences, it is a conditioned experience.

The assumption, the radical feeling is that we are in our heart of hearts, in the very core of our being, this self, this “being”, this “I am,” - and this assumption, this radical feeling that this self, this “I am” is an unchanging agent is the fundamental delusion, the base ignorance. The insight that arises from the Dhamma practice allows us to see that this "self" - this “I am” - is both conditioned and conditioning. The self - the “being” - does not exist independently of the rise and fall, the ever-changing flow, of conditions.

The radical insight of the Buddha is that we are not a singular independent self, but we are, rather, a dynamic interdependent process where choice, feelings, sensations, the whole catastrophe plays itself out without a need for an unchanging self, no matter how rarified we imagine the “I am”, the self, the “being” to be. Though there is an intellectual component to this teaching of the Buddha to which we can give assent, it is really a matter of cultivating mindfulness that gives rise to the insight into seeing what we truly are.

". . . the perception of impermanence should be cultivated for the removal of the conceit 'I am.' For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the perception of not-self is established. When one perceives not-self one reaches the removal of the conceit 'I am,' which is called Nibbana here and now." U iv 1.

In the mean time - until we are awakened - we have to deal with this sense of self, this sense of “being”. We can tell it where to get off, but being stubborn, recalcitrant, and primal it won't get off. The sense of self, of “I am”, persists. So, in a very real sense, via the practice of the Dhamma, we cultivate the self, we train it, we tame it via Right View, the precepts and meditative practice, through giving and lovingkindness practice, all of which help thin the walls of delusion of permanence with which we surround the self and by which we build up the sense and idea of “being.” The insight - vipassana - from practice of the Buddha-Dhamma allows us to see the self's actual interdependent nature, which allows us to let go of that sense – delusion -- of self, of being, that we seem to think is so real.

Basically, an unchanging self - a “being” - separate from the khandhas is a silly idea. The idea of an unchanging self - a “being” - of any sort is a silly idea given that it is no thing, capable of doing no thing. And as far as this thread is concerned, such an unchanging “being” cannot feel, manifest or receive compassion.

It is that we are not an unchanging “being” that cannot act or interact, which gives us the possibility of awakening and the possibility of compassion, because we can and do interact with others, seeing that their changing nature is just like ours. We are not independent beings; rather, we are interdependent:

"As I am, so are others;
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.
Sn 705
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by acinteyyo »

:goodpost:
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by cooran »

Hello all,

'The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance with undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohāra-vacana).
........ the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathāgata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25.'
http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/paramattha.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

There's a thread here in the "Discovering Theravada" section I started a while back called "The Not Self Strategy."
In that thread we discussed the distinction between no self and not self. I linked to an article by a Bikkhu that was called "The Not Self Strategy."
Maybe that would be a nice read too, for kannada. This minor difference of one letter in that phrase changes the meaning a lot. I hadn't paid as much attention to my phrasing before that as I do now.

Best,
Drolma

:anjali:
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

Another point that maybe kannada might find helpful?

Anatta doesn't mean non-existence, it means that we don't exist in the way we usually think we exist or feel like we exist. We come to "be" via the process of dependent origination. If anatta is removed from dependent origination it can be a little confusing. But in that context, it makes perfect sense. I'm unsure if this is a proper Theravadan explanation.

Best,
Drolma

:namaste:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by tiltbillings »

Ngawang Drolma wrote:There's a thread here in the "Discovering Theravada" section I started a while back called "The Not Self Strategy."
In that thread we discussed the distinction between no self and not self. I linked to an article by a Bikkhu that was called "The Not Self Strategy."
Maybe that would be a nice read too, for kannada. This minor difference of one letter in that phrase changes the meaning a lot.

Best,
Drolma

:anjali:
It really is not much of a distinction. I am not taken with Ven Thanisarro's point of view. All dhammas are anatta, empty of self, which is to say, on that level of speaking, there is no self to be found.

This is a key text:
SN iv 401: "Ananda, if I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self - were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism. If I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism. If I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self - were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena [dhammas] are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I - being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self - were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"


Bhikkhu Bodhi's note 385: "The Buddha declares that "all phenomena are nonself" (sabbe dhamma anatta), which means to seek a self anywhere one will not find one. Since "all phenomena" includes both conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self." CDB II 1457.
(The Thanisarro thread is still alive, so discussion of his point of view can happen there.)

The two options, as mentioned above in the text of eternalism and annihilationism, are grounded in the assumption of an ontology of being and non-being, an assumption that the Buddha rejects for an “ontology” of becoming (paticcasamuppada), but we also see in this text that anatta is not always used in that context when the Buddha says:”… would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena [dhammas] are not-self anatta?"

Who sees paticcasamuppada sees Dhamma, who sees Dhamma sees paticcasamuppda. - MN 1 190-1.

Seeing the Dhamma is an expression indicating awakening. The word dhamma(s) (plural) could easily and reasonably be substituted for paticcasamuppada, given that components of the various expressions of paticcasamuppada are dhamma.

Who sees dhamma(s) sees Dhamma, who sees Dhamma sees dhamma(s).

On that level, there is no self, anywhere, to be found in anyway.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

Hi Tilt,

Thanks for that clarification. It's very interesting and I like reading these suttas.

:anjali:
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by Jechbi »

Best thought of the thread:
Chris wrote:33. "Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
In this context, taking refuge in oneself is taking refuge in Dhamma. If this notion of taking refuge in oneself is not discussed in context, it's easy to misinterpret what is being said, and what might be implied. There was a similar discussion in a previous thread about taking refuge in kamma. A person put forward without context that "kamma is our refuge." In that thread, I asked for the context.

When I hear the term "refuge," I think Triple Gem. So I think it's wise to tread carefully and understand the context when statements are made about "taking refuge in kamma" or "taking refuge in oneself." Yes, responsibility should be placed squarely where it belongs, and we each have our own work to do. But yes, I think kannada is perfectly justified in seeking to draw out the discussion for the sake of greater context and understanding.
tiltbillings wrote:The classic beginners mistake.
I'm not sure that's quite a fair characterization of kannada's remarks. In one sense, kannada appears to me to be absolutely correct to highlight the potential pitfalls of putting too much emphasis on some notion of "self," without simulteously acknowledging the anatta teaching. I read kannada's remarks as open-minded and cautionary. I don't regard that as a "beginner's mistake."
tiltbillings wrote:Language within the Dhamma is used various.
Yes, exactly, that's the point. And the term "refuge in oneself" seems invite some confusion, because ordinarily we might associate that kind of language with "refuge in Buddha, refuge in Sangha, refuge in Dhamma." So I can understand how a person might respond to the term "refuge in oneself" with some questions regarding context.

A few passages here that I really like:
tiltbillings wrote:The radical insight of the Buddha is that we are not a singular independent self, but we are, rather, a dynamic interdependent process where choice, feelings, sensations, the whole catastrophe plays itself out without a need for an unchanging self, no matter how rarified we imagine the “I am”, the self, the “being” to be. Though there is an intellectual component to this teaching of the Buddha to which we can give assent, it is really a matter of cultivating mindfulness that gives rise to the insight into seeing what we truly are.

...

In the mean time - until we are awakened - we have to deal with this sense of self, this sense of “being”. We can tell it where to get off, but being stubborn, recalcitrant, and primal it won't get off. The sense of self, of “I am”, persists. So, in a very real sense, via the practice of the Dhamma, we cultivate the self, we train it, we tame it via Right View, the precepts and meditative practice, through giving and lovingkindness practice, all of which help thin the walls of delusion of permanence with which we surround the self and by which we build up the sense and idea of “being.” The insight - vipassana - from practice of the Buddha-Dhamma allows us to see the self's actual interdependent nature, which allows us to let go of that sense – delusion -- of self, of being, that we seem to think is so real.

...

"As I am, so are others;
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.
Sn 705
That is all wonderful.

In my personal opinion, the best way to take refuge in oneself in this context is to be kind to oneself, be gentle with oneself, be patient with oneself. In other words, as much as possible, approach oneself selflessly. Then keep on working, step by step, with adhitthana and viriya for sure, and also with the understanding of the underlying dukkha, anicca and anatta nature of that which we experience. fwiw.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by tiltbillings »

Jechbi wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:The classic beginners mistake.
I'm not sure that's quite a fair characterization of kannada's remarks. In one sense, kannada appears to me to be absolutely correct to highlight the potential pitfalls of putting too much emphasis on some notion of "self," without simulteously acknowledging the anatta teaching. I read kannada's remarks as open-minded and cautionary. I don't regard that as a "beginner's mistake."
I am not sure I would characterize k as a beginner, but the bare statement is not at all uncommon among beginners, which pretty much all I meant by it.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
kannada
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:35 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by kannada »

Ngawang Drolma wrote:There's a thread here in the "Discovering Theravada" section I started a while back called "The Not Self Strategy."
In that thread we discussed the distinction between no self and not self. I linked to an article by a Bikkhu that was called "The Not Self Strategy."
Maybe that would be a nice read too, for kannada. This minor difference of one letter in that phrase changes the meaning a lot. I hadn't paid as much attention to my phrasing before that as I do now.

Best,
Drolma

:anjali:
Hi Drolma,

I appreciate you thinking about my 'education' but I've read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's Not self strategy years ago. I didn't agree with it then and I don't think a re-visitation would change my mind...

Thanks anyway
Just a view - nothing more...
User avatar
imagemarie
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by imagemarie »

Jechbi wrote:Best thought of the thread:
Chris wrote:33. "Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
In this context, taking refuge in oneself is taking refuge in Dhamma. If this notion of taking refuge in oneself is not discussed in context, it's easy to misinterpret what is being said, and what might be implied. There was a similar discussion in a previous thread about taking refuge in kamma. A person put forward without context that "kamma is our refuge." In that thread, I asked for the context.

When I hear the term "refuge," I think Triple Gem. So I think it's wise to tread carefully and understand the context when statements are made about "taking refuge in kamma" or "taking refuge in oneself." Yes, responsibility should be placed squarely where it belongs, and we each have our own work to do. But yes, I think kannada is perfectly justified in seeking to draw out the discussion for the sake of greater context and understanding.
tiltbillings wrote:The classic beginners mistake.
I'm not sure that's quite a fair characterization of kannada's remarks. In one sense, kannada appears to me to be absolutely correct to highlight the potential pitfalls of putting too much emphasis on some notion of "self," without simulteously acknowledging the anatta teaching. I read kannada's remarks as open-minded and cautionary. I don't regard that as a "beginner's mistake."
tiltbillings wrote:Language within the Dhamma is used various.
Yes, exactly, that's the point. And the term "refuge in oneself" seems invite some confusion, because ordinarily we might associate that kind of language with "refuge in Buddha, refuge in Sangha, refuge in Dhamma." So I can understand how a person might respond to the term "refuge in oneself" with some questions regarding context.

A few passages here that I really like:
tiltbillings wrote:The radical insight of the Buddha is that we are not a singular independent self, but we are, rather, a dynamic interdependent process where choice, feelings, sensations, the whole catastrophe plays itself out without a need for an unchanging self, no matter how rarified we imagine the “I am”, the self, the “being” to be. Though there is an intellectual component to this teaching of the Buddha to which we can give assent, it is really a matter of cultivating mindfulness that gives rise to the insight into seeing what we truly are.

...

In the mean time - until we are awakened - we have to deal with this sense of self, this sense of “being”. We can tell it where to get off, but being stubborn, recalcitrant, and primal it won't get off. The sense of self, of “I am”, persists. So, in a very real sense, via the practice of the Dhamma, we cultivate the self, we train it, we tame it via Right View, the precepts and meditative practice, through giving and lovingkindness practice, all of which help thin the walls of delusion of permanence with which we surround the self and by which we build up the sense and idea of “being.” The insight - vipassana - from practice of the Buddha-Dhamma allows us to see the self's actual interdependent nature, which allows us to let go of that sense – delusion -- of self, of being, that we seem to think is so real.

...

"As I am, so are others;
as others are, so am I."
Having thus identified self and others,
harm no one nor have them harmed.
Sn 705
That is all wonderful.

In my personal opinion, the best way to take refuge in oneself in this context is to be kind to oneself, be gentle with oneself, be patient with oneself. In other words, as much as possible, approach oneself selflessly. Then keep on working, step by step, with adhitthana and viriya for sure, and also with the understanding of the underlying dukkha, anicca and anatta nature of that which we experience. fwiw.
:goodpost: Thank-you :smile:
kannada
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:35 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by kannada »

Tilt wrote:<snip>The classic beginners mistake.<snip> I am not sure I would characterize k as a beginner, but the bare statement is not at all uncommon among beginners, which pretty much all I meant by it.
Hi Tilt,

Personally I'm disinterested in people's views of me, but on a forum it can diverge attention away from the topic. My comment to imagemarie was "Who needs a refuge when there is no-one to shelter?" It is not dissimilar to my quote of Achan Chah who says "I live nowhere, there is no place you can find me. I have no age. To have age, you must exist, and to think you exist is already a problem. Don't make problems; then the world has none either. Don't make a self. There's nothing more to say." The good Achaan is certainly no beginner. I am fully aware of the implications of my statements, I am careful to only state what I understand and am willing to expand on those understandings when required if I feel it appropriate.
Chris wrote:the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathāgata) uses without misapprehending them."
I believe I understand what you are saying. Words superimpose conditions on the unconditioned where previously there was none, creating 'thing-ness' (dhammas) at every expression.
Jechbi wrote:I read kannada's remarks as open-minded and cautionary.
Thank you, that was my intention.
Drolma wrote:Another point that maybe kannada might find helpful? Anatta doesn't mean non-existence, it means that we don't exist in the way we usually think we exist or feel like we exist.
Anatta means not (or non) self. A self is an 'existent' (existing as self), not-self is not existence for that self. Shunyata may be easier to understand for you as it is more direct in its negation. Shunyatta (shunya-atta) is derived from shunya (zuunya) means 'zero' atta means 'self' so shunyatta means 'zero-self' (not 'emptiness' as commonly interpreted).

All existents are products of assertion - that is the only way they can exist, definition distinguishes 'this' from 'that'. It is assertion that says 'I exist' for I know myself as 'I'. A tree or a brick do not (cannot) know of themselves as such, it is we who so assert them to be as 'brick' or 'tree'. Contradistinction asserts 'that' as seperate from 'myself' either implicitly or explicitly. 'That' object implies 'this' observer. Where contradistinction ceases both 'that' and 'this' cease to be together. This is a reversion from conditionality to unconditionality. The unconditioned 'arises' when conditionality ceases, just as darkness dissapears on sunrise.

A 'self' is a product of assertion, therein lies its existence. The assertions that constitute this 'self' are founded solely on delusion. Taking refuge in a 'self' is taking refuge in a delusion that owes its existence to its conceptual processes, when these processes cease the 'self' ceases. The Buddha and the Dharma are synonymous, each implies the other. The Dharma means 'as it is' or perhaps more accurately should be 'as is' for an 'it' implies thing-ness. Taking refuge in the Dharma simply means taking refuge in that clarity void of concepts - hopefully that will be your refuge for when those defining concepts cease there is no longer a 'me' to take refuge...

Best wishes to you all...
Just a view - nothing more...
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by tiltbillings »

kannada wrote:
Tilt wrote:<snip>The classic beginners mistake.<snip> I am not sure I would characterize k as a beginner, but the bare statement is not at all uncommon among beginners, which pretty much all I meant by it.
Hi Tilt,

Personally I'm disinterested in people's views of me, but on a forum it can diverge attention away from the topic. My comment to imagemarie was "Who needs a refuge when there is no-one to shelter?" It is not dissimilar to my quote of Achan Chah who says "I live nowhere, there is no place you can find me. I have no age. To have age, you must exist, and to think you exist is already a problem. Don't make problems; then the world has none either. Don't make a self. There's nothing more to say." The good Achaan is certainly no beginner. I am fully aware of the implications of my statements, I am careful to only state what I understand and am willing to expand on those understandings when required if I feel it appropriate.
The beginner's mistake, which is also a mistake made further down the road, is to think we can jump to Ajahn Chah's level. There is a great deal of work in betwixt and between here and there.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: Refuge in Oneself

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

kannada wrote: Hi Drolma,

I appreciate you thinking about my 'education' but I've read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's Not self strategy years ago. I didn't agree with it then and I don't think a re-visitation would change my mind...

Thanks anyway
Hi Kannada,

I've posted my inquiry in the beginner's section, hoping I can get thoughts and teachings.
I'm not a Theravada practitioner. Whatever comes up will come up, I suppose. So thanks for the input.

:anjali:
Post Reply