Thai Forest Tradition

Welcome to the forum, drs8!

“..when this attachment to the body lessens to a degree, you become Sotapanna. And when this attachment lessens more and that is Sakrudagami. And once the whole attachment to the body completely gone, this person becomes Anagami.”
Of course this is wrong.

Even to attain the Sotapanna stage, one needs to remove not only sakkaya ditthi, but also, vicikicca and silabbata paramasa; see, “Sakkāya Ditthi is Personality (Me) View?“.

Furthermore, contemplation of the 32 body parts only helps partially in removing sakkaya ditthi. Sakkaya or “sath” + “kaya” means one takes not only one’s body to be “good” but also one’s actions in accumulating things in this world to be “good” and “beneficial”. Kaya can mean body and actions.

We can also see this clearly in the Satipatthana sutta. Kāyānupassanā is only one of four anupassana, and contemplation of the 32 body parts is only part of Kāyānupassanā; see “Maha Satipatthana Sutta“.

One becomes a Sotapanna by comprehending the fruitlessness of doing “apayagami immoral things” to gain sense pleasures. Then one has reduced kamaccanda, vyapada, and moha to kama raga, patigha, and avijja levels.

One becomes a Sakadagami by attenuating kama raga (specifically removing vatthu kama) and patigha. Then one becomes an Anagami by removing all kama raga and patigha. In both stages, avijja is also reduced.

Finally, one becomes an Arahant by removing the higher five samyojana of rupa raga , arupa raga, mana, uddacca, and avijja; see, “Dasa Samyōjana – Bonds in Rebirth Process“.

So, it is easy to see that one cannot even become a Sotapanna by just doing the contemplation the 32 body parts.

I am not familiar with the Thai Forest tradition or Ven Ajahn Mun’s biography. Are you certain that this is all they do (contemplation the 32 body parts)?

hello drs8!

Welcome

What comes to my mind is: have these masters stated specifically that they have attained one or other of the 4 stages of Nibbana?

I ask this because if they have,and declared it because they honestly believe that they have, then,at the worst, they are only postponing their stay in samsara by not grasping the true Dhamma. If they are lying,and know that they are lying, then the consequences will me much much worse for them than they can ever be for adherents of the Tradition who accept it.

y not

Hi drs8,

You said that you feel a bit scared to completely stop following the Thai tradition.

I don’t think you should feel “scared” per say. From the bit i know about the Thai monks it is not a doctrine where you will be admonished or reprimanded for any reason. However that does not mean that you should stop following it either.

Most of the monks around where I live are from or influenced by that tradition and I too went to those monasteries before being exposed to this Dhamma. I feel that what is explained in puredhamma.net is a much more complete path to nibbana as opposed to others. So i don’t follow the breath meditation etc. that is taught there. However I still frequent those monasteries as they too helped me get to this point, in some way or the other.

I do attend sermons and talks at those temples, and the more I listen the more I feel that what is explained here in puredhamma is the way forward.

We should also remember that in the end, those monks too are monks ordained as Sangha in the Buddha Sasana and hence we should pay respects to them and attend to their needs as lay followers. As to whether they are ariya or anariya is something that we can never know for sure.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

All these great teachers seem not to realise the true meanings of anicca, dukkha, anatta. For that reason they cannot grasp the message of the Buddha and they make things complicated.

(By the way I remember that Lal said, an Arahant hardly smiles/laughs. But these monks do smile on many photos.)

The fact becomes more significant if they smile or laugh FOR photos(that is, if they pose), as distinct for them being ‘caught’smiling or laughing on photos.

y not

In the Buddhas time there was period where there was a schism between the monks where different theories put forward by the different groups of monks on why their group was better than the others. One of the disciples (I think it was Visakha) came and asked the Buddha which group she should offer arms to and whose advice to take as she was in a contrary. The Buddha explained that she could offer arms etc. to all those monks. He also told that she should listen to what they say and if she doesn’t believe in anything simply to put it aside.

In another instance, a man told the Buddha that he offers dhana and takes advice only from a certain group of monks (those who live in forests etc.). The Buddha told the man that he, being a lay person, has no right to judge someone in robes and to come to conclusions which monk is more righteous / pious etc.

I can’t remember the exact suttas but thought they were relevant to this discussion.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

@drs8
1. Those statements sound like those intriguing Zen verses. Basically no one really understands them, but they sound deep and important!
For example, “The mind sent outside is the origination of suffering”. What does that mean? “Mind sent outside” of what?

1. Buddha Dhamma is simple at the core. Our sufferings arise because we engage in dasa akusala. We just need to get rid of them gradually, BUT that involves learning Dhamma. The most important one of the dasa akusala is micca ditthi, and that is removed in two stages: (i) getting rid of 10 types of micca ditthi, and (ii) comprehending Tilakkhana, in that order.

When one takes care of micca ditthi, that will greatly help reducing the tendency to do those types of akusala done by the body and speech.

1. Buddha Dhamma, however, can go to very deep levels; see, for example, “Abhidhamma” and “Nāma & Rūpa to Nāmarūpa“

Furthermore, unlike Zen or those statements above, such deep Dhamma CAN BE understood if one’s mind is relatively free of dasa akusala (especially micca ditthi).

4.Regarding the issue of following teachers who may not be teaching the true version of Dhamma (of course inadvertently): It is best to attend to them as before as time permits, and may be even discuss some of these issues and see what they think about “other (possibly better) explanations”. I have tried to do that to some extent, but don’t do that anymore. I just leave it for anyone interested to visit the website and take whatever things they find useful.

The bottom line is that one should focus on making progress on the Path (we have only a limited time in this life to make use of, before we get too old). One should take whatever useful information one can get from anyone or anywhere. However, it could be waste of time to try to listen to “everyone”. Somethings you can definitely rule out and not worry about any more. Otherwise, one will be stuck at the same place. If one path seems to accelerate the progress (yes, one should be able to see that one is making progress), one should spend more time on that. And that could be different for different people.

Hi drs8

I myself am familiar with the Thai Forest tradition and read Ajahn Mun’s biography, albeit several years ago. I share your feelings inasmuch that I feel that many of the Thai forest ajahns are fully enlightened (or at least highly attained Ariyas) and many of their teachings resonated with me in the past, but I don’t completely agree with (or understand) some their explanations of Dhamma. One of the issues for me was that many of the Dhutanga monks seemed larger than life as there are many anecdotes about their fantastic exploits through the harsh jungles, abhinna powers and ascetic lifestyles that an ordinary person will probably never experience personally, let alone live up to. I felt that things like jhanas, forest austerities, abhinna powers, etc. were over-emphasized while there were not enough clear explanations about Dhamma. It wasn’t until I came across the monks Ajahn Buddhadasa, Acariya Thoon Khippapanyo and finally PureDhamma that I felt that I had some real clarity. It was Acariya Thoon in particular that really struck a chord with me. In his books he would repeatedly emphasize the need for WISDOM and correct understanding as opposed to attaining deep states of meditative absorption and repeatedly asks where in the Tipitaka it says that “[such and such an individual attained such and such jhana and then became a stream enterer, or an anagami]” or what have you. It doesn’t. He would go on to say that in almost all of the suttas it describes individuals attaining Path Knowledge upon listening to a discourse or being given some kind of lesson, and not all Ariyas were great meditation masters. I think the confusion set in because Ajahn Mun and many of his disciples were very accomplished meditators and practiced the forest austerities to a high degree, so that made it seem like those things were essential to making progress when, in reality, they don’t necessarily have anything to do with UNDERSTANDING Dhamma.

That being said, I don’t think you should throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. If there are teachings from the Thai ajahns that still make sense to you then you shouldn’t throw them out completely just because you don’t agree with every single thing they say. On the other hand, if you feel that you’ve really outgrown them then I think it’s okay to move on.

Something to bear in mind when reading Dhamma books of Thai ajahns; most of these books aren’t actually written by the monks themselves, but are English translations of sermons that the monks originally spoke in Thai. It’s important to take what’s said with a grain of salt and take into consideration things like cultural context, the audience being spoken to, speaking meaning versus a literal English translation and so on. In the case of Luang Por Chah describing Anicca as “not sure” his meaning probably wasn’t that if someone hits you then pain isn’t a sure thing, but more likely that he meant “not sure” as something like “not reliable”, “not dependable”, or “not sustainable”, which is much closer to the real meaning of Anicca. He most likely wanted people to understand that it’s not a sure thing that things will stay the same forever. That’s the part that’s “not sure”.

For anyone who is interested, the explanation that drs8 provided of the Four Noble Truths is a quote from the book “Gifts He Left Behind”, a collection of short quotes, discussions and anecdotes of the monk Luang Pu Dune. This is what I think he meant by each statement:

1. “The mind sent outside is the origination of suffering”

He is probably describing Tanha, i.e. the mind going “outside” and chasing after things, desiring or craving for them.

1. “The result of the mind sent outside is the origination of suffering.”

Basically the same as the first statement. People suffer as they are agitated by their cravings for things in the world, run into obstacles in an attempt to acquire these things, create bad kamma if they do immoral things to get what they desire or are disappointed if they get what they want but it doesn’t meet their expectations or last as long as they’d like it to.

1. “The mind seeing the mind is the path.”

He is probably referring to the mind dismantling cravings by contemplating and observing how such cravings arise due to cause and effect,(i.e. how a certain craving is the CAUSE for future suffering) thus unraveling the kilesas and slowly freeing oneself from dukkha.

1. “The result of the mind seeing the mind is cessation of suffering.”

Same as the previous statement. As an individual’s understanding of the cause and effect relationship between craving and suffering grows, the idea of craving things will become more nonsensical or absurd. The mind will lose interest in it and as a result one will be free of the suffering that naturally follows such cravings.

Hi drs8,

I found a sutta that may be relevant to this discussion on how to deal with theros or teachers one followed prior to being exposed to the true Buddha dhamma.

In the Udumbarika Sutta https://suttacentral.net/dn25/en/sujato the Buddha explains the dhamma to an ascetic from a different tradition and after the said ascetic accepts the Buddha’s teachings, the Buddha says the following;

“Nigrodha, you might think: ‘The ascetic Gotama speaks like this because he wants pupils.’ But you should not see it like this. Let your teacher remain your teacher.

You might think: ‘The ascetic Gotama speaks like this because he wants us to give up our recitation.’ But you should not see it like this. Let your recitation remain as it is.

You might think: ‘The ascetic Gotama speaks like this because he wants us to give up our livelihood.’ But you should not see it like this. Let your livelihood remain as it is.

You might think: ‘The ascetic Gotama speaks like this because he wants us to start doing things that are unskilful and considered unskilful in our tradition.’ But you should not see it like this. Let those things that are unskilful and considered unskilful in your tradition remain as they are.

You might think: ‘The ascetic Gotama speaks like this because he wants us to stop doing things that are skilful and considered skilful in our tradition.’ But you should not see it like this. Let those things that are skilful and considered skilful in your tradition remain as they are.”

But the Lord Buddha said that only 2 people can know what degree of enlightenment a person has accomplished: the person himself or a Buddha…
And I never saw anyone from the Thai Forest Tradition (or other Theravada tradition, say what degree of enlightenment has reached…). Did you saw it?
(Except for the Ven. Waharaka Abayarathanalankara Thero)
Am i wrong???

As for the attainment of Thai Ajahns, yes as for my knowledge two of them declare in the public. They even gave real details on how they travel on this path.

If you are interested check these out.

1. Ajahn Mahaboowa
Magga, Phala, and Nibbana

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.abhayagiri.org/media/books/maha_boowa_arahattamagga_arahattaphala.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiNiLGa7LP1AhVa63MBHXV0BJkQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw28CSccNJPFn5pyaJx_3QKf

Autobiography of Ajahn Dtun

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.abhayagiri.org/books/637-the-autobiography-and-dhamma-teachings-of-ajahn-dtun&ved=2ahUKEwjZ6re27bP1AhUgILcAHdpoBT4QFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0Du1NCnymrXr8ixsSMkmGQ

@DSR8, Sorry to hear you lost faith with Thai Forest Tradition. My experience with them is very different.

When I read this thread I realized you all have grasped only the surface of their teachings. Otherwise you would not have this discussion here isn’t it?
Someone here mention Arahath are not smiling ? I wonder what planet they are living to have that kind of strange view. They are human beings too.

As you all know, method and techniques of Thai Forest Tradition has been tested and proven over and over and they all got the same results from Ajahn Mun to present day Ajahns like Ajahn Dtun. Although method is simple and straightforward not easy to follow through. Some one has to have consistent effort until the end. Of course someone have to have some kind of spiritual parami to meet with them and understand what they teach, and put it in to practice without any doubts.

Remember the the story of Lord Buddha, just after awakening on the way he met one Brahmin. When Brahmin asked Lord Buddha who was his teacher. Buddha replied that he awoken by him self and He is the Buddha ( Can’t remember the exact text but it goes along these lines ). Then the Brahmin shook his head and left. So he lost the golden opportunity. In the past these things happened just like present day not much difference.

Yes, Lord Buddha taught many methods to many individuals. Almost all got results. He had the capacity to do so. Hence we got all his teachings. Why Thai Ajahn says all those teaching not working these days. Answer is pretty simple. Why didn’t we born at Buddha’s time and meet with him ? Got the teachings and got the the job done? Because our spiritual parami was not sufficient at that time. So we are here now talking about the past glory. And try to match that. This is the point they emphasize heavily on body, death, asuba contemplations to lessen our attachments to the body first. Because we are really screwed up with this as a result of our huge amount of Kilesa. This is the best method suitable for present day.

Someone here mentioned that Thai masters have not read tipitaka? Well, in Buddha’s time numerous monks and nuns attained arahathship without seen any Thripitaka?Or single pitaka ? Don’t they ?
They studied their body and mind that worked for them in the past then why that shouldn’t work at present as Thai Ajahn says. In Ajahn Dutn’s case, he knew how to practice up to certain level even without a teacher because of his past lives practises.

In my opinion, by reading whole lot you don’t get anywhere because you know all the teachings but don’t know which one suit to your temperament and then don’t know how to apply it

There was a Sri Lankan who compiled a book. Because Thai Ajahn’s don’t talk about suttas. He investigated this and found out their teachings are closely connected to Buddha’s scriptures. You can read by yourself.

You can get it here…

https://buddhistuniversity.net/content/booklets/path-of-practice_watugala-chula

You have to understand the differences between intelligence and the wisdom. Yes people are very intelligent these days but we have no WISDOM compared to our old counterparts. Old days they had very simple minds so easy to work on these natural states of mind. Usually I heard Thai Ajans pointing out these days intelligence is intelligence of Kilesa. This WISDOM is not, understanding the literal meaning of Anichcha Dukka Anatta as you discussed here. The real WIDOM is really seen and experience through your MIND. What they say is, without a real practice you can’t possibly experience it. Just like a simple Sri Lankan village folk talking about how snow falling and the experience in mount Himalayas?? Can you imagine how that thing compare to the realiy?

The problem with us these days we get mixed up with magga and phala. Simple way to say this, imagine we have to walk from Colombo to Kandy. Instead of walking to Kelaniya Bridge, First we sit down and start talking about Kadugannawa and Kandy without giving any interest to Kelaniya bridge and peliyagoda which is our immediate towns. In the end path become too difficult, confused and giving up.

As for the attainment of Thai Ajahns, yes as for my knowledge two of them declare in the public. They even gave real details on how they travel on this path.

If you are interested check these out.

1. Ajahn Mahaboowa
Magga, Phala, and Nibbana

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.abhayagiri.org/media/books/maha_boowa_arahattamagga_arahattaphala.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiNiLGa7LP1AhVa63MBHXV0BJkQFnoECA8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw28CSccNJPFn5pyaJx_3QKf

Autobiography of Ajahn Dtun

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.abhayagiri.org/books/637-the-autobiography-and-dhamma-teachings-of-ajahn-dtun&ved=2ahUKEwjZ6re27bP1AhUgILcAHdpoBT4QFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0Du1NCnymrXr8ixsSMkmGQ

As for the rest of the Ajahns, if you can tap in to Thai Forest monks inside circle not hard to get information. I heard In Ajahn Dtun’s case recently Luangpor Tui requested him to write his Biography to include in a museum of great Thai Ajahns who lived there since the time of Ajahn Mun. Luangpor Tui was given this responsibility by the current Sangharaja in Thailand. In cases, any of you happen to be in Thailand, worth going there and have a look. It is call Wat Amaro near chonburi and there are about more than 30 great monks with their photos and biographies.

Not sure you notice this, there are many claimed to be Arahants here in Sri Lanka including Ven. Waharaka and Ven. Samanthabadra. But among them and their disciples they disparage each other even some chased away from Nikaya or Sangha. Contrary to this Thai Forest monks they recognize each other’s achievements and whole Thai Sangha unanimously have their high regards for these monks. Don’t you think this is strange here in Sri Lanka.

As for the support for Thai Sangha, don’t worry they only need simple requisites such as food, lodging, clothing, medicine. They are pretty much look after by Thai communities in Thailand and around the world. Since I see how respectful and generous Thais are we can’t even match them. Point is you support them or not doesn’t impact them but only you.

Remember that story of King Pasenadi, He asked Buddha where he should give his gifts? Buddha said “you can give where your faith is” Then he asked Buddha where can he get more merits for his gifts then Buddha said ” That is a different question to get higher merits you have to give to Brahmins who are pure.” So you get what you asked for. Decision is yours. Don’t worry too much of giving but put more efforts to correct your views first.

Someone here also mentions Thai Ajans say when you get JANA that is it you know by your self. Sorry I never heard this, in fact they never give that important to JANA either. They say if you have them use them. If not make your mind peaceful as much you can then investigate. They really emphasize on Sathi, Pannya then Samadhi and contemplation. Even I heard they say the real vipassana is things seen as they are through your mind when Swabawa dhamma manifest.

Check these out..

Is Samadhi same as JHANA practice

About kanika and upachara Samadhi

Differences between mundane understanding and realisation

Differences between Magga and Phala

Lastly don’t forget Buddha’s advice on how to know who is teaching you the real path. Read the Kalama Sutta. When you practice that teaching or method, if you know for your self your attachments lessen and if you know your self greed, anger, delusion getting reduce then follow that path. If this work for you and when you look back you will see you were on the path of Sila Samadhi Pannya.

Good luck DSR8, hope I didn’t confuse you more.

Is Dhamma one or many? It is one. In other words, the world is a particular way and it is only that way. Therefore, either someone will have a correct understanding of Dhamma or they won’t. In the event that they have the correct understanding, they will be on the noble path and eventually attain Nibbana. If they don’t have an accurate understanding of Dhamma, it will not be possible for them to attain Nibbana (you can’t solve a problem if you don’t understand what the problem is).

As such, I can’t help but feel that discussions about specific traditions, lineages and teachers often miss this critical point. So as pedantic as this may sound, if a tradition or teacher claims their tradition or teachings can lead to Nibbana, strictly speaking, they are wrong – only an accurate understanding of Dhamma does that.

This isn’t to suggest that there will be no traditions with practitioners who are ariyas, rather, if they are, it’s because they’ve comprehended Dhamma.

@Dawson, I agreed with you. There is one path to achieve realisation. Buddha taught the way to achieve Nibbana. Which is eight fold path. In short Sila, Samadhi, Panya. As far as I understand he thought one path. One Nibbana.

But these days there are so many interpretations for Nibbana and the path among different teachers and their students. So is the doubt and confusion.

Either they will get it right or they will get it really wrong. Nothing in between.

Unfortunately these traditions are later additions.

NN99: Does your teacher translate anicca as impermanence?

Lal, He just use “Anichcha”. How ever English speakers translate as “changing nature of things” or “impermanent nature of all things’

“impermanent nature of all things’”

That says all. Please don’t post any more videos. I will remove them.

Suwapath wewa NN99,

Before coming across this website and Ven. Waharaka Thero teachings, I studied, learned and practiced the Thai Forest tradition for about 2-3 years. I can’t say I put 100% effort into it, but I did put some effort and did give it a good go.

You mentioned about some of us losing faith in the Thai Forest, as well you give a little talk about wisdom and intelligence. I can’t speak for others, but I stop practicing the Thai Forest tradition not because I lost faith in the tradition, but after learning from this website and through my own understanding/knowing/seeing I noticed that there are many inconsistencies with in regards to the teachings of the dhamma by the “popularly” taught Theravada Buddhism out there which includes the Thai Forest Tradition. In my opinion/view, if one really “have the “wisdom”, they would be able to see/discern these inconsistencies in the teachings. Although it’s possible that I could be bias or deluded, but when I contemplate/reflect/discern on the dhamma that’s taught by Ven. Waharaka Thero and his followers / disciples (including the website here). The core / most important teachings of the dhamma, I’m not able to find any major flaws or inconsistencies that would hide or lead one astray from the path to Nibbana, while I can’t say that with the teachings that’s being disseminated in the “popularly” taught Theravada Buddhism out there.

NN99 you mentioned that “English speakers” translate Anichcha as “changing nature of things” or “impermanent nature of all things’, I’m pretty sure most of your teachers as well. Okay, I’m sure you and many others should at least know this line. “yadaniccam tam dukkham, yam dukkham tadanattā”. We’ll just use yadaniccam tam dukkham part. I’m not sure if you would agree with me on this, but I will use the translation of “What is anicca leads dukkha (suffering)”.

So if we use the translation that I mentioned for the line “Yadaniccam tam dukkham” and your mention of “English speakers” translation of Anicca as “changing nature of things” or “impermanent nature of all things’. Then we should get something like this in English.
“The changing nature of things or impermanent nature of all things (Anicca) leads suffering (dukkha).

#1. Let me ask you, the changing nature of things or impermanent nature of all things, does that “always” lead to suffering? I look forward to your answer on this question.

In regards to your mention about some Ajahn’s attaining Arahanthood in the or “your” Thai Forest tradition. There are some major red flags that I want to point out. To start off, although I can’t confirm some of these things being mentioned, after all it’s being said by others, but I still want to bring some them up.

This was mentioned in a forum, I can’t verify the accuracy of this statement.

“Ajahn Jayasaro (who appears to be no slouch) expressed the common view in a video that Maha was a arahant or, more specifically, was the go-to monk to confirm claims to arahantship.” #2. If this is true, can you see where the issue with this is?

#3. This is something that I confirmed, was that Ajahn Mahaboowa was involved with politics. I’m not exactly sure what time frame/period he was involved with politics, but from my own understanding/knowing/seeing of the dhamma, no Arahants, heck not even anagami’s or even possibly sakagami’s would even get involved with politics. I believe for those whom had attained Magga phala would understand this, especially those at the higher levels.

I can’t confirm the accuracy of these statements as this is from Ajahn Maha Bua Wikipedia page. But it mentions about Ajahn Maha Bua basic teachings on citta.

Wiki page

“Bua observes the essential enduring truth of the sentient being as constituted of the indestructible reality of the citta (heart/mind), which is characterized by the attribute of Awareness or Knowingness. This citta, which is intrinsically bright, clear, and aware, gets superficially tangled up in samsara but ultimately cannot be destroyed by any samsaric phenomenon. Although Bua is often at pains to emphasise the need for meditation upon the non-Self (anatta), he also points out that the citta, while getting caught up in the vortex of conditioned phenomena, is not subject to destruction as are those things which are impermanent, suffering, and non-Self (anicca, dukkha, anatta). The citta is ultimately not beholden to these laws of conditioned existence. The citta is bright, radiant, and deathless, and is its own independent reality.”

Okay . . . So I could be mistaken about this or I could be reading all this incorrectly, but is it just me or does that sentence say that Citta’s are caught up in the vortex of conditioned but at the same time is it’s own independent reality? #4. Maybe I’m not reading this or understanding this correctly, but if citta’s are in the vortex of conditioned, how can they be it’s own independent reality? From what I understood about the dhamma, only Nibbana is the independent reality since there’s no citta, rupa, or cetasika’s, while those 3 things belong to this world. . .

From the same line . . .

“he also points out that the citta, while getting caught up in the vortex of conditioned phenomena, is not subject to destruction as are those things which are impermanent, suffering, and non-Self (anicca, dukkha, anatta). The citta is ultimately not beholden to these laws of conditioned existence.”

WHAT?!?! Did I read this or understood this correctly? That citta’s “are not subject to destruction which are anicca, dukkha, anatta and the citta is not beholden to these laws” ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
#5. NN99 did I get this right? Do you agree or disagree with that citta’s are not beholden to the laws of anicca, dukkha, anatta?

#6. I can’t confirm the subtitles in this youtube video but from 1:30 – 3:33 of the video . .

Any issues with what is being said here?

“This WISDOM is not, understanding the literal meaning of Anichcha Dukka Anatta as you discussed here. The real WIDOM is really seen and experience through your MIND. What they say is, without a real practice you can’t possibly experience it.”

#7. NN99, what do you think is the reason why a Buddha comes into this world? Can one that’s not a Buddha and not taught by someone that knows what is “real” in this world, know what is real? So . . . you’re saying that one does not need to understand the literal meanings of “Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta” but the real wisdom is to really see and experience through our minds. So what is that we need to see and experience through our minds to gain this “real wisdom” that your mentioning? As well, what is this “real wisdom”?

@Lal, Wow!! Such strong views and opinions !!! Is that Lord Buddha’s way?
Well, I am not going to waste my time here.

Bye

NN99: Lord Buddha’s way is to get rid of wrong views. Not to spread wrong views and wrong interpretations.

I just realized that you may not have even read my posts on why anicca does not mean impermanence.
– If you like you can read them here:
Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta