Ask A Buddhist II

[Vouthon]

You know I was once in a bar with some friends called, “The Fat Buddha” and someone kept insisting that the Buddha was the fat monk, even though I insisted “No - that is Butai, a Chinese monk who carries a hemp-sack and who was informally known as the ‘Laughing Buddha’ because of his cheery personality and compassion. He isn’t the founder of Buddhism!”

Why is this misbelief so all pervasive in the West?

Who started it?

 

[Bakmoon]

In that sense, what is the essence of one’s self? What makes me the “me” and not someone else? Is it the neurological tissue? But in that sense, when I die I can’t be reborn ever again, unless the molecules that today compose my neurons are rearranged exactly the same way once again. Or there’s an essence of the “me” inside myself that interacts with my neurons?

It is the continuity of experience from moment to moment, and this continuous stream of mental events continues after death. In that sense you are the same person.

 

[Bakmoon]

Brother Bakmoon

I wonder if you could tell me anything further about “nimitas”, the lights which people begin to see as they enter into deep contemplation/meditation. What are they? I am presuming that it cannot be actual light but rather our mind represents this state as a show of lights.

What exactly are these mental phenomena?

I suppose there are many people who have experienced patterns of light while in a meditative state. It happened to me once, actually, when I was around 14.

I remember the experience vividly, and I spoke about it on another thread a few months ago, actually.

A kind poster on that thread suggested that I read some of Saint Teresa of Avila’s works and “diagnosed” what had been wrong with me. She wrote:

Here is what I wrote on that other thread (a while before you joined the forum) - could this be linked to any known mental phenomena, images or forms which appear during meditation?

I still do not know whether I had made myself lapse into some self-automated “state of mind” like a person does when they go on hallucinagenic drugs, or whether it was something different.

I remember feeling initially so light, free and at peace - but then increasingly afraid.

I was seeing circular, amoeboid, or tunnel-like patterns and had the sensation of being “pulled” into them as if it were a tunnel. I felt myself increasingly lose control of and awareness of my body, which was what made me feel terrified.

What I personally found strange about my experience is that when I had it, even though I was perfectly healthy, I feared that if I allowed this tunnel to pull me in that I would die.

I cannot for the life of me though imagine why I would have had such an experience. It seemed to come from nowhere in me and was such a shock compared to the pleasant, peaceful way I had been feeling just before I had it. I had merely been through an intense prayer session and yet, what an odd and frightening thing to have happen?

Whether it came from my imagination or what, I never wanted to - nor did ever - experience it again.

I see such experiences as a distraction from our ultimate aim - spiritual imperfections that must be purged from us. This is the work of the Dark Night that St. John of the Cross describes. Therefore we are not to desire, seek or long for such an experience.

The most profound experience of God is that of “no experience” at all, or nothingness, where we come to know Him in the darkness of pure unknowing and awareness, free of all mental images or thoughts and at rest in stillness.

Clearly with all those coloured, concentric lights I wasn’t there and am still a long way off!

Your experience sounds like a classic description of the events leading up to the first Jhana. There is the arising of a rapturous ecstatic sensation in the body, which in Pali is called “Piti”. There are several types of Piti that can arise, but I’m not quite sure what kind it was. But everything sound very typical of a Pre-Jhanic or Jhanic experience, particularly the sudden sense of fear, as Piti can be quite intense at times. The appearance of lights is also quite common at that stage as well.

In the First Jhana itself, things are a bit more controlled. The Piti of the first Jhana is joyous, but not explosive, and the mind becomes balanced and calm. Here is the Classical descriptions of the four Jhanas from the Suttas, which is repeated many times in the texts:
DN 2 From the Samaññaphala Sutta:

"Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman’s apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates… this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.

…

"Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation — internal assurance. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. Just like a lake with spring-water welling up from within, having no inflow from the east, west, north, or south, and with the skies supplying abundant showers time and again, so that the cool fount of water welling up from within the lake would permeate and pervade, suffuse and fill it with cool waters, there being no part of the lake unpervaded by the cool waters; even so, the monk permeates… this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born of composure.

…

"And furthermore, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, ‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the pleasure divested of rapture. Just as in a lotus pond, some of the lotuses, born and growing in the water, stay immersed in the water and flourish without standing up out of the water, so that they are permeated and pervaded, suffused and filled with cool water from their roots to their tips, and nothing of those lotuses would be unpervaded with cool water; even so, the monk permeates… this very body with the pleasure divested of rapture. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded with pleasure divested of rapture.

…

"And furthermore, with the abandoning of pleasure and stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation and distress — he enters and remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity and mindfulness, neither-pleasure nor stress. He sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. Just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth so that there would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness.

accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

The commentaries and the Visuddhimagga describe in more detail the events leading up to Jhana, but your experience certainly sounds like it is one of them.

 

[Bakmoon]

See that doesn’t answer the question. Only begs it. You assume this to be true but there is no inherent reason for it in your world view.

It is begging the question to say that happiness is by definition better than unhappiness?

 

[farpinho]

By the time you get to episode III, you need a snappy title to keep the punters rolling in. I suggest:

Ask a Buddhist III: The Karma Continues



rossum

LOL!

 

[notself]

Why is suffering inherently bad from a Buddhist world view?

I think you may be talking about Dukkha, a word that is difficult to translate from the Pali.

Although it is often translated as suffering, it can also be translated as unsatisfactory or stress. Wanting things to remain the same is stress. Wanting things to be different than they are is stress. Separation from the loved is stress. Clinging to the pleasant is stress. Aversion for the unpleasant is stress.

There are reasons for stress. The reasons are clinging and aversion. There is a way to end stress. The way to end stress is the Noble Eightfold Path which is divided into three groups, morality, concentration, and wisdom.

Morality consists of Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood.
Concentration consists of Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration
Wisdom consists of Right View and Right Resolve.

Living a life of equanimity is much preferable to living a life of stress.

 

[farpinho]

Speaking of Buddhism, Donald Alexander Mackenzie, a Scottish journalist developed the theory that Buddhists were in Britain and Scandinavia long before the spread of Christianity using these evidences:

1. The Gundestrup bowl “on which the Celtic god, Cernunnos, is postured like a typical Buddha”.
2. Gaulish coins with seated figures like Buddha.
3. The testimony of Asoka who launched Buddhist activities into Europe.
4. Origen’s statement of Buddhist doctrines in ancient Britain.

I don’t know if he’s right or not, but found it interesting to mention in the forum, I’ll leave this to the most experienced people in the subject here.

 

[patrick457]

Speaking of Buddhism, Donald Alexander Mackenzie, a Scottish journalist developed the theory that Buddhists were in Britain and Scandinavia long before the spread of Christianity using these evidences:

1. The Gundestrup bowl “on which the Celtic god, Cernunnos, is postured like a typical Buddha”.
2. Gaulish coins with seated figures like Buddha.

I don’t think that a seated with legs crossed position automatically means Buddhism. There’s a representation of a figure coming from the Indus Valley Civilization (predating the Indo-Aryans) which has more of a similarity to this representation of Cernunnos methinks.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)



Pashupati (‘lord of creatures’) seals

http://webspace.webring.com/people/li/indianpaganism/guncerncloseup.gif
Cernunnos

The Pashupati seals are sometimes interpreted (though not without controversy) as a prototypical figure for the later Hindu deity Shiva (who is mainly derived from the Vedic storm deity Rudra, who had the euphemistic epithet of shiva ‘auspicious’ among scores of other names) and/or a representation of a precursor of yoga.

1. The testimony of Asoka who launched Buddhist activities into Europe.

It is true that Alexander the Great’s conquests exposed Europeans to Eastern philosophies like Buddhism (the Greco-Buddhism of what is now Afghanistan, Pakistan and northwest India), and that Ashoka sought to actively propagate it in faraway places (including the Hellenistic world) by sending monks, but whether these missionaries reached the Celts is a matter of speculation.

1. Origen’s statement of Buddhist doctrines in ancient Britain.

??

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

It is begging the question to say that happiness is by definition better than unhappiness?

Yes it is. Why are our standards the right ones? Why do we have authority to say such things?

 

[patrick457]

BTW, I’d like to ask permission from the OP to give a sort of description of Vedic Brahmanism (the ancestor of Hinduism) and the ascetic non-Vedic shramana movements that existed alongside it (the ancestor of Jainism and Buddhism). For a little historical background.

 

[Bakmoon]

BTW, I’d like to ask permission from the OP to give a sort of description of Vedic Brahmanism (the ancestor of Hinduism) and the ascetic non-Vedic shramana movements that existed alongside it (the ancestor of Jainism and Buddhism). For a little historical background.

Feel free. I think it would be very good to illustrate the important differences in origin to better understand the context of both religions.

 

[Bakmoon]

Yes it is. Why are our standards the right ones? Why do we have authority to say such things?

Well then I have no other answer than to say that it is a basic axiom.

Let’s turn the question the other way and see how Christianity can answer it. How can one know that it is better to enjoy God in Heaven than it is to suffer totally in Hell?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Well then I have no other answer than to say that it is a basic axiom.

Let’s turn the question the other way and see how Christianity can answer it. How can one know that it is better to enjoy God in Heaven than it is to suffer totally in Hell?

Because we were created with that intent and to stray from that intent is to turn against our most inner desires of a need for love, a need for reconcilation with the one who loved us so much that he created us and gave us life. God is the justifier in this scheme since he is eternal his decrees are logically superior to that of any mere finite imagination.

His powerful eternal loving presence is better than bearing witness to that presence but through shame never at all recognising ones fallen state, ones need for him.

That being said, its not an axiom as some people consider suffering good. The masochist considers the suffering of others good with no counter ideas. So it hardly seems like its self evident. only that its more preferable becuase msot of us don’t want to feel pain or suffering, doesn’t mean the majority of us are right though.

 

[Bakmoon]

Because we were created with that intent and to stray from that intent is to turn against our most inner desires of a need for love, a need for reconcilation with the one who loved us so much that he created us and gave us life. God is the justifier in this scheme since he is eternal his decrees are logically superior to that of any mere finite imagination.

His powerful eternal loving presence is better than bearing witness to that presence but through shame never at all recognising ones fallen state, ones need for him.

That being said, its not an axiom as some people consider suffering good. The masochist considers the suffering of others good with no counter ideas. So it hardly seems like its self evident. only that its more preferable becuase msot of us don’t want to feel pain or suffering, doesn’t mean the majority of us are right though.

But why does the will of the creator define what is good?

[Edit] Rather, what I mean is, why is it better to act in accord with the will of the creator than to not do so?

 

[JoeBowen7]

Buddhism rejects a belief in a creator, by the way.

How did the universe come into being, according to Buddhism? Many scientists go with the Big Bang (plus inflation) theory which posits a beginning to the universe. Are you sure you want to reject a belief in a creator of the universe, or would you rather say that Buddhism does not give a solid answer one way or the other.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

But why does the will of the creator define what is good?

[Edit] Rather, what I mean is, why is it better to act in accord with the will of the creator than to not do so?

Because an eternal will which has always existed, is greater finite than any will which it caused. Or could it be said that an eternal entity is wrong? And if we say this on what basis do we say anything is right or wrong?

 

[Bakmoon]

How did the universe come into being, according to Buddhism? Many scientists go with the Big Bang (plus inflation) theory which posits a beginning to the universe. Are you sure you want to reject a belief in a creator of the universe, or would you rather say that Buddhism does not give a solid answer one way or the other.

The oldest strata of Pali Buddhist scriptures clearly reject a belief in the existence of a creator God. As to the question in regards to the origin of the universe, it isn’t a matter directly touched on in the scriptures, but something that is talked about in the ancient commentaries. The commentaries posit that the universe undergoes periods of expansion and contraction, infinitely. In modern scientific terms, this would correspond to the big bang being caused by a big crunch caused by a big bang caused by a big crunch ad infinitum.

 

[Bakmoon]

Because an eternal will which has always existed, is greater finite than any will which it caused. Or could it be said that an eternal entity is wrong? And if we say this on what basis do we say anything is right or wrong?

How does it follow that because the eternal will is greater than any finite will which is caused by it, it is better to obey such a will than to not do so?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

How does it follow that because the eternal will is greater than any finite will which is caused by it, it is better to obey such a will than to not do so?

Because an eternal will which is consistent, not subject to whims and change, completely transcendant must be better than ours. Otherwise we have to insist on mere arbitrarily. That no one is right or wrong, its merely what I think. The Pagans who committed infanticide were neither right nor wrong. The Christians who believed in ressurection are neither right or wrong.

It does seem to follow that an eternal and consistent will, must be right as opposed to a created will which has limited knowledge. And I’m taking for granted here as I think it logically neccesitates it that an eternal will (person) would have all knowledge, especially in this case, the case of the omnipresent God.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The oldest strata of Pali Buddhist scriptures clearly reject a belief in the existence of a creator God. As to the question in regards to the origin of the universe, it isn’t a matter directly touched on in the scriptures, but something that is talked about in the ancient commentaries. The commentaries posit that the universe undergoes periods of expansion and contraction, infinitely. In modern scientific terms, this would correspond to the big bang being caused by a big crunch caused by a big bang caused by a big crunch ad infinitum.

An Idea which has little backing it up. Only theory. The picture as it stands now is that our universe is expanding and it expands at an excellerated rate. We have little reason to posit that it will “crunch” scientifically, but perhaps on some atheistic hope.