Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lal:
Even I was waiting for a reply. Much of it is as I was expecting.
“…. and some people who cultivate jhanas are able to recall past lives. Some can extend that to many past lives, and even births in other realms”.
What of the possibility of the memory of them (past lives) being triggered by the experience of ‘deja’ vu’ when visiting certain places or meeting certain people? (I remember reading a post where this is mentioned.) I have experienced this, and not only in childhood. Would it be that we had actually been there or known those people before, or rather, or more likely, that the feeling arises due to the similiarity of what we see now to what we had experienced in a previous life? – like when we meet somebody who reminds us of somebody else because of their similar appearance?
On some occasions I am taken by the moment, like I ‘stop in my tracks’ with the feeling: yes, I have said this before, now he/she will say this; and he/she will say exactly those words. It feels that the moment is being RE-lived.
thank you
y not
Lal:
In my case it is a combination of both.I have the feeling this cannot help Inflib (Donna) at all, and had it even before, so perhaps I should not have mentioned it.
Inflib (Donna):
I understand. The part about the lives of Bikkhunis I had no idea of.
“…I prepared them for my departure. I’ve been ready to leave this life, (either in body or a move to monastery) many times.” ” I prepared them for my departure”…Same with me, but only just recently. I do not consider moving to a monastery or going into seclusion seriously because my health does not allow it. So only the other case applies to me. Hence the sense of urgency.with Metta,
y not
Sybe:
Yes, please do. Looking forward.
Meanwhile I will follow the leads you have given..For now I can only say that it looks to me that fear may have more to do with lobha (in a very subtle sense)than dosa, in the way of there being advantage, or happiness, or a ‘good return’ to oneself in ..” DOING the right thing. TELLING something which needs to be told. MAKING contact with somebody while that would be appropriate. MAKING that important step while you feel inside one needs to make that step.”
Because, the right thing for whom? That is, the right or good or beneficial results in the long term , for whom ?; for the other or for oneself? If one feels that the other will be all the better for it that that thing is not done, that contact is not made, that that important step is not taken… one feels this to be ultruism of the highest order….or, or.. could it be just an excuse to give ground to and thus justify that fear?
thank you
y not
Sybe:
This is interesting.
“. there are mentioned four ways of going wrong; chandagati, dosagati, mohagati and BHAYAgati. It are ways to express how we, or mind, takes a wrong way/route under the influence of greed, hate, delusion and FEAR.”
(My Capitals).The introduction (to my mind) of the elememt of fear is new to me to the extent of its occurence in the Suttas as an indication of its leading, or otherwise, to Nibbana. Quoting you furher:
“.. Bhayagati is going wrong due to fear, due to shiness, due to lack of selfconfidence, due to nerves, being timid etc. What needs to be done in a certain situation is not done because of that bhayagati, the influence of fear on the mind and behaviour. I feel this is happening a lot.” Now then, whence ( woher?) this fear? And how to remove it?
And….” I feel this is happening a lot?” Do you mean you feel it is happening all around you? In you? Or both?Many years ago these two words popped into my mind; Atyatar Bhayam. Or Adhyatar Bhayam, or Adhiyatar Bhayam. I am sure you get the sound of it. I knew from Sanskrit that Bhayam means fear, or from fear or having to do with fear either as a cause or as an effect. I tried searchibg for clues about what the first could possibly mean, but except for Adhi (higher, best, unsurpassed, utmost etc) I made no headway.
Where exactly in the Suttas are these FOUR agatis mentioned,if I may ask?
y not
.Inflib (Donna):
Now suppose for a minute that your craving were, not for cookies or for something that you enjoy by yourself, but for the well-being in the Ariya sense of the word, for someone who is dear to you, say a daughter. Of course, in that case, ‘craving’ would not be the word; I would say it could be described as a kind of ‘personalized’ Metta coupled with, as far as you are concerned, kama raga to a degree, because you yourself are deriving ‘pleasure'(albeit NOT A SENSE PLEASURE) from it,from trying to help her on, and from the attachment. For attachment it certainly is, no doubt about that. I do not know what the right word for it is in BuddhaDhamma. In English it would translate into something like: an irresistible loving/kindness compulsion.
In such a case, let us say you were at the Sotapanna stage, and your daughter is not ( of course, you have no way of knowing that for certain; but that being so, you cannot assume that she is ), and she does not reach that Stage despite all your efforts, would you be willing to sacrifice your own progress on the Path and return to the human realm just for the purpose of ‘having another go at it’ next time around, or as many times as would be necessary for her to reach the Sotapanna Stage(at least)? Even here, there is no way of telling whether the two of you would be reborn here at the same time for that to become even possible. But you know wwhat I mean.
Metta
y not
Donna:
You seek other ways how to teach Dhamma to young people. You say:
–“I guess working it in everyday terms/words/examples actually does help.” I rarely go beyond this.My own daughters, two, have 4 sons between the two of them, the eldest being 5 years. So you will know, surely, their hands (the girls’) are always full. There is hardly ever time to go into such matters. BUT when the situation presents itself I indicate by example, sometimes saying something that requires going a bit into it in order to ‘get it’, at other times by physical behaviour – for instance, if asked ‘Would you like some more of this soup (or whatever it is)? , I would reply: ‘ have the others had’?
On a couple of occasions we touched upon rebirth, the vastness or of the Universe, other civilizations ‘out there’,astronomy ( I had built a 10″ reflector in the 80’s) – and the elder one had walked through the tube(!) after I had assembled it -I remember that… things like that. But bringing Dhamma concepts in, such as we find here – I feel I would be ‘pushing’ more than they have time to consider seriously.
So this is not much of an advice. I just wanted to share my experience of (the little of) it with you.
I admire your love and commitment
Metta
y not
Hello there Donna:
Will go through those soon. I just want to thank you even
before doing that, just for taking the time.I will let you know later
metta
y not
Lal:
Thank you.
That is what I meant by ..”When I come across some inconsistency I go on to see whether the inconsistency is only an apparent one” – perhaps I should have continued: In Buddha Dhamma I have never found it to be (inconsistent). I thought that this implication would be obvious.
What needs conemplating on (in my case, at least) is that even alobha, adosa and amoha need to be overcome. Aiming for the highest seems daunting at times seeing the task at hand and my tendencey is to settle for a lesser goal, one which is, or appears to be, within reach:( your “… One acts with amoha and cultivates dasa punna kamma and dasa kusala kamma, and those lead to rebirths in the higher realms, where there is less suffering.” in # 2.) The dangers and suffering there are accepted as inevitable in the scheme of Buddhadhamma,on Shradda and to some extent on the intellectual level too. But they are NOT SEEN. This is why I said elsewhere ‘..well, a long way to go’- nearly accepting my present limitations.
“….but I am not sure how many people pay attention to these key points.” Attention is there. It is the application of them, or ‘making them one’s own’ which is the difficult bit. And it is useless, worse than useless moreover, to lie to oneself.
grateful as ever,
y not
Johnny said:
“…..the javana power emits energy from the mana indriya. That energy can transmit to “ten thousand world systems” like ours.”
“…..that according to Buddha Dhamma, we are all alone in this Universe. Is multiverse implied here?”
When I come across some inconsistency I go on to see whether the inconsistency is only an apparent one. Go Lal’s post above, 29 Apr 5:08:
“…One can only work to cleanse one’s own mind.” I had the idea in my own thought-words before reading this, thus: we are alone in the sense that each must do one’s own striving oneself, even though- IT MUST FOLLOW-that a lot of Metta and pattidana is constantly reaching us (if we make ourselves open to it) from the beings in millions of planetary systems in this galaxy alone, to say nothing of those beings in the billions of other galaxies, and that is taking only this universe into account. Various Buddhas, innumerable ones, have spread the Dhamma everywhere – this planet cannot be in any way special.The ‘excess’ that we thus accumulate in us we then throw back out for the benefit of all without distinction. If (partly) with distinction, a way will have to be found to ‘concentrate’ it and direct it so that it reaches one or other specific being anywhere. Of course the other or others will have to be open to it, collectively or individually – but I know no way of ‘forcing’ the other/s to open up to it, or for it to force its way into the other/s.
y not
Firewns:
“… or merely a form of silabbata-paramaso?”, you ask ,in reference to circumambulation.
The following may be( perhaps only remotely) connected:
I have had a Buddha head statue for 10 years or so. It stands on a shelf in the room opposite where I usually am in contemplation/meditation, among other things. I hardly ever look at it – only perhaps when the shelf needs wiping etc.. When I am contemplating some Dhamma concept and a stray obstructing thought comes AT THE BEGINNING, it is THEN that I look at the statue, i.e. to get me back on track. This is its only use.
So in no way am I ‘paying respect’ to the statue, nor even thinking of the Buddha Himself, per se,…only a reminder of the Teaching. But here I must say that from earliest childhood I was not only averse to all kinds of images, rites , rituals, celebrations and symbolism of any kind, religious, social, or cultural, but actually REPULSED by such.
So in my case, the third Samyojana was a walk over from the very start. The other two in the first group of three took some doing mainly because of the partly incorrect or outrightly wrong renedering into English in popular Buddhist texts.
y not
Lal:
- ‘ For example, suppose a thought comes to the mind about a person who insulted you or did some wrong to you. What do you do?’-
Taken by the first question, I had forgotten all about this second one’. Sorry.
Now I can say that the insult or harsh words do not affect me any more. My mind goes: If there was any hatred, it was in him/her. Rather I feel compassion for him/her having this fire of hatred for me, if he/she still has it. I certainly will not ‘hate back’. In a more general sense:
one is reaponsible for what one does,( by body, speech and mind) not for what one is done to. The philosophical side to it comes easier to me by nature, but I will admit that the moral and therefore the Dhamma aspect, when that takes over, is much more effective.y not
Hello all:
Does anyone have a clue as to who/what is at work (my post 23rd April) last 2 para’s. perhaps someone has had similar experiences; does not have to be an answer
thanks
y not
A comment on Siebe’s e-mail to Lal:
The tack that works for me, by far most times but not exactly always, is the contemplation of the futility of it: ‘this indulgence (in sensual pleasure, lustful intentions even) have you not done it for long enough?
How better are you for it all now? Contemplate on some Dhamma topic, any will do.’ Leave the scene, as it were.I do not mean to ‘correct’ Siebe in any way. It is in fact an elaboration or a refinement to his method numbered 1. – or even only a re-statement of it in my own words.
y not
