Consulting ariya devas in other realms

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

May I know where can I find that information about Ajahn Mun discussing this issue? (which chapter?)

Page 71 of his Biography, The Sāvaka Arahants.

[DarwidHalim]

Thanks Bhikku Pesala. I found it.

Interesting.

[mikenz66]

There are some interesting comments here:
Deva worship in Buddhism, Bhikku Ñānānanda (Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero)
http://www.buddhavision.com/ebook_collection.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Mike

[manas]

I would be very wary of anyone who claims to communicate with devas, or if a deva contacted me and tried to tell me something. How would you know it was a deva and not a māra?

That's a good point, Bhante. I'm a loong way off from having such an ability (which was why I was enquiring of others here), but I was thinking that if one had gone beyond the fourth jhana into psychic powers, one might be a better judge of character also, particularly if one had the ability to read a mind with goodwill, compared with a mind with ill-will etc. One could examine the being before one, in this way also. But gosh this is so far off in practical terms, it's just conjecture.

To decide if the advice is good or bad, you would have to rely on your own intuitive wisdom, just as you do when hearing advice from human beings. IMO it is better to rely on studying the texts carefully, e.g.

A Brief Discourse to Gotamī or the Eight Thoughts of a Great Man

Thanks for the links, Bhante. I will follow them up.

manas.

[Rui Sousa]

According the the Kevatta Sutta DN.11 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html) a certain monk tried to ask a question to the Devas, and in the end was directed to the Buddha. It is interesting to see that the Devas in the Great Brahma realm could not answer the monk's question, and were all deluded thinking the Great Brahma was the creator.

I Imagine that if I was able to have a conversation with a forest deva, the conversation might not be about the Dhamma, more likelly on who lovelly the trees are and who beautifull the litle rabbits are.

Metta

[manas]

there are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people who are posting online their conversations with beings presenting themselves as 'ariya devas' and not much of what is said sounds even remotely like the Dhamma as we know it here. i would think attempting to do something like that without a very high level of mastery could be quite dangerous.

I have heard some people talk about conversations with 'Alien' beings, some corporeal and others made of light, but as you mention, what those beings were claimed to have actually said, often sounded like wishy-washy New-Age jargon, and was possibly more indicative of the beliefs of the one listening. I was certainly not hoping for that, but rather a 'real, bona fide' Buddhist Deva, and it's not that I would seek to be his/her student, no; rather, I would, for example, see if I could get clarification on which texts are closer to what the Buddha actually taught, and which are 'later additions'. The kind of things that someone who was alive and remembers that historical time directly, would be able to answer. (Since we now have people such as -------- and Peacock undertaking a kind of 'secularization' of Buddhism, and claiming that they are just trying to be more authentic than the vast majority of us have been, over the last few thousand years. It would be nice to be able to put the doubts which such recent scholarship raises to rest, decisively, one way or the other.)

manas.

[tiltbillings]

(Since we now have people such as Gombrich and Peacock undertaking a kind of 'secularization' of Buddhism,

Gombrich?

[manas]

(Since we now have people such as Gombrich and Peacock undertaking a kind of 'secularization' of Buddhism,

Gombrich?

Hi Tilt,

I have just been listening to a lecture by Peacock where he seems to imply that the 'original' Teaching of the Buddha didn't include the teaching of re-arising of consciousness into the next life, dependent of kamma. I was assuming that -------- similarly might hold that view, since as far as I know he believes in 'the finality of physical death'. So yes, I did kind of lump them both together as attempting some kind of secularization, but I'm happy to retract that regarding -------, if you know more about his position. I only know what i heard in the few videos that have been posted here on DW lately, and I must admit it is a little disturbing to hear Peacock say that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth according to kamma, when one had just spent many years trying to get one's heart & mind around just that possibility, out of a growing conviction in the suttas.


kind regards,
manas.

[mikenz66]

Hi Manas,

One thing to note is that Gombrich is somewhat different from Peacock and Batchelor in that he doesn't claim to be a practising Buddhist. He is, instead, a distinguished scholar and admirer of the Buddha.

In What the Buddha Thought Gombrich discusses the Buddha's teaching on rebirth in great detail, and in relationship to Brahmin and Jain views. While in some case he makes some arguments for interpretations that are different from standard Theravada interpretations, I don't see him dismissing rebirth.


Mike

[manas]

Tilt, mike,

Oops - yes I meant to say 'Peacock and Batchelor', not Gombrich. I got muddled due to extreme tiredness. I actually can't recall why I was confusing Batchelor with Gombrich, but this was a total mistake on my part.

I appreciate you both pointing the error out courteously.
'
manas.