Those that consider the different realms as a metaphor for the realm of human experience and only that are a minority. The suttas contradict their view.
Nicolas wrote:Those that consider the different realms as a metaphor for the realm of human experience and only that are a minority. The suttas contradict their view.
I read the suttas and I also regard Ajahn Sumedho as one of my teachers - and that's working fine for me.
We must all do whatever we think is meaningful for our own progress.
[When this was said, the Blessed One responded:] "I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by travelling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
[From AN 4.45 -Rohitassa Sutta, Thanissaro, ATI ]
This 'world' or 'cosmos' (loka) obviously includes all the heavens and hells, all thirty-one planes divided into the three realms.
How can ones development of the path lead to the cessation of the cosmos?
Only if this cosmos is only an imaginative construction in the first place.
horse trainer sutta, this sutta is about how Buddha used different methods to teach a variety of people Then Kesi the horsetrainer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him: "You, Kesi, are a trained man, a trainer of tamable horses. And how do you train a tamable horse?"
"Lord, I train a tamable horse [sometimes] with gentleness, [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness & harshness."
"And if a tamable horse doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, Kesi, what do you do?"
"If a tamable horse doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild and harsh training, lord, then I kill it. Why is that? [I think:] 'Don't let this be a disgrace to my lineage of teachers.' But the Blessed One, lord, is the unexcelled trainer of tamable people. How do you train a tamable person?"
"Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness, [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness & harshness.
"In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such are human beings.'
"In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'
"In using gentleness & harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such are the devas. Such are human beings. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'"
"And if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, what do you do?"
"If a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then I kill him, Kesi."
"But it's not proper for our Blessed One to take life! And yet the Blessed One just said, 'I kill him, Kesi.'"
"It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life. But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing."
"Yes, lord, wouldn't one be totally destroyed if the Tathagata doesn't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing!
"Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life."
Take care of mindfulness and mindfulness will take care of you.
From: The Foundations of Buddhism - Rupert Gethin - OUP -1998.
"The key to understanding the Buddhist cosmological scheme lies in the principle of the equivalence of cosmology and psychology. I mean by this that in the traditional understanding the various realms of existence relate rather closely to certain commonly (and not so commonly) experienced states of mind. In fact Buddhist cosmology is at once a map of different realms of existence and a description of all possible experiences." [page 119]
"The Buddhist cosmological account represents the complete description of the conditioned world - the whirling circle (vatta) of samsara." [p. 126]
My comment: The Buddhist cosmological account represents the complete description of the world which we have constructed for ourselves.
Here's an excerpt from Richard Gombrich's "Kindness and Compassion as means to Nirvana in Early Buddhism"...
Fully developed Buddhist cosmology holds that above the world in which we human beings are at home, there are six heavens inhabited by gods; and above them again are heavens of a more rarefied kind inhabited by Brahmas, who are thus super-gods. Even above these heavens there are planes inhabited only by meditating minds.
Most, perhaps all, of this cosmology can be unpacked by the historian as a reification of various metaphors. That Brahma is above ordinary gods is a brahminical tenet found in the Upanishads, including the very texts to which we can show that the Buddha was reacting.
The fully developed Buddhist cosmology does appear within the canon, but I am extremely sceptical about whether it can be ascribed to the Buddha himself. I am sceptical not only because of the way that the details can be accounted for as a historical development; to show such interest in the structure of the universe goes against the Buddha’s explicit message.
The world, he said, lies within this fathom-long human carcass; indeed, there are many texts in which he discourages speculation about or even interest in the physical universe; we should concentrate on our experience of life here and now.
Did professor Gombrich posit a reason why the ancient monks who recited the tipitika would have added all the hundreds of suttas depicting other realms and attributed them to the Buddha?
This is from page 4 of the transcript of a Sunday Dhamma Talk on Radio Thailand on 28th September 2008, by Ven. Phra Anil Dhammasakiyo.
He's talking about a book which had been previously written by the then 95 year old Supreme Patriarch of Thailand H.H.Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara. (Head of the Buddhist monks in Thailand).
As we are so familiar, in religious sphere, the concept of heaven and hell is a very prominent belief. In many cases, it becomes the goal of religious practice itself.
On this very subject, His Holiness critically analyses that the very concept and belief of heaven and hell in Buddhism is a cultural influence of indigenous culture and belief. He states: (I quote) "the subject of cosmology appeared in Buddhism is clearly can be seen that it is not ‘Buddhist teaching’ at all but an ancient geography.
The concept and belief about it was included in Buddhist Canon merely because of strong influence of popular belief of the time. Later Commentaries further explain about heaven and hell in a greater detail distant itself from the original teaching of the Buddha. If Buddhism teaches such belief on heaven and hell it would not be Buddhism at all but an ancient geography. Buddha wouldn’t be the Buddha who delivered the Noble Truth and ‘timeless’ message for mankind." (end of the quote)
He then shows in his teaching that the concept of heaven and hell in Buddhism are in fact symbolic, representing the quality of mind and spirituality instead. One can be in heaven and hell in this very earth and life. No need to wait until one dies.
Nicolas wrote:Those that consider the different realms as a metaphor for the realm of human experience and only that are a minority. The suttas contradict their view.
Strange how they use the very same suttas to make their arguments
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Aloka wrote:This is from page 4 of the transcript of a Sunday Dhamma Talk on Radio Thailand on 28th September 2008, by Ven. Phra Anil Dhammasakiyo.
He's talking about a book which had been previously written by the then 95 year old Supreme Patriarch of Thailand H.H.Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara. (Head of the Buddhist monks in Thailand).
As we are so familiar, in religious sphere, the concept of heaven and hell is a very prominent belief. In many cases, it becomes the goal of religious practice itself.
On this very subject, His Holiness critically analyses that the very concept and belief of heaven and hell in Buddhism is a cultural influence of indigenous culture and belief. He states: (I quote) "the subject of cosmology appeared in Buddhism is clearly can be seen that it is not ‘Buddhist teaching’ at all but an ancient geography.
The concept and belief about it was included in Buddhist Canon merely because of strong influence of popular belief of the time. Later Commentaries further explain about heaven and hell in a greater detail distant itself from the original teaching of the Buddha. If Buddhism teaches such belief on heaven and hell it would not be Buddhism at all but an ancient geography. Buddha wouldn’t be the Buddha who delivered the Noble Truth and ‘timeless’ message for mankind." (end of the quote)
He then shows in his teaching that the concept of heaven and hell in Buddhism are in fact symbolic, representing the quality of mind and spirituality instead. One can be in heaven and hell in this very earth and life. No need to wait until one dies.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
On another forum you posted this same quote and someone responded to it: http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.co ... #post63941
The supreme patriarch does not deny "literal" rebirth, he merely emphasizes that focusing on the here-and-now is more important.
clw_uk wrote:Strange how they use the very same suttas to make their arguments
So far, as waterchan and many others have pointed out here and in other topics, the suttas are extremely clear. Please re-read MN 60 for example and let me know how it can possibly be interpreted differently.
Since the Kalama sutta has also been thrown around, here's a quote from it:
Kalama sutta wrote:
One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:
1. 'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.'
2. 'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.'
3. 'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?'
4. 'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.'
How is this to be interpreted if "world after death" here is to be interpreted in a metaphorical / human mind-moment way?
Your link to my website to a topic from 2 years ago was about one of the Supreme Patriarchs meeting a pope, and it was a different Patriarch to the Patriarch in my quote posted here - (which is mentioned by the other poster in the topic. ) The document I quoted from in my previous post here, certainly wasn't a fake and It was about different realms, its not about rebirth . There also used to be a Thai website available with the same Supreme Patriarch's views on the different realms, but I can't seem to find it any more. Anyway, the fact that a poster in a topic elsewhere 2 years ago hadn't read the book from the link, is hardly of any particular significance.
The fact remains, that there are plenty of people who interpret the different realms as mental states, including in Tibetan Buddhism which I practised prior to Theravada.
In the link that I provided, your original post was about the pope, but I was linking to user ngodngam's response, which includes some text by the same Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara (cf. http://www.nkgen.com/3001.htm, the page that user references).
I'm not saying your quote is a fake. My interpretation of it is about the specifics of heaven & hell (specific detailed descriptions), which are indeed not essential. What I deem of importance is the existence of "afterlife" (which here I use to refer to "literal" rebirth, so as not to use the word "rebirth" which could lead to varying interpretations). I see the quote as urging us to focus on the here-and-now, not to think in terms of the future and the past, but to be focused in the present and practice now, but not denying "afterlife".
I still haven't seen anyone interpret MN 60 (or that quote I just posted from the Kalama sutta) based on a mind-moment-only interpretation of rebirth. Clearly these suttas reference "afterlife" (in the meaning that I defined above).
It would be helpful if someone could list a number of people who have this interpretation, for future reference. Maybe a list could be added to the big rebirth thread so the positions of notorious monks/scholars could be made easily accessible.
From my perspective, the Buddha taught "literal" rebirth, or at least the Pali canon contains teachings referring to "literal" rebirth. My issue is not with others' views but with others pointing at the Pali canon and saying "this does not teach literal rebirth". Such "literalist" interpretations are the standard, orthodox interpretations.
