Buddha talked to Acharn Mun?

[tiltbillings]

Though I posted this elsewhere, it likely will have something to say in this thread as well:

Something of interest concerning visions of the Buddha from Paul William’s BUDDHIST THOUGHT, PAGES 108-111. There is, in this discussion on meditative aspects of the origins of the Mahayana that are of interest when looking at claim by Maha Bua about himself and Ajahn Mun.

One, and perhaps one of the few defining dimensions of Mahayana Buddhism is a vision and understanding of the Buddha as not really dead but still around. When stated and accepted this understanding entailed that Buddhism itself had the potential to change in the light of a continuing revelation.

It is indeed possible that the suggestion that the Buddha is still around may have been (in part) a response to particular visions in meditation, perhaps associated with meditation practices involving visualising the Buddha and known as buddhanusmrti (‘recollection of the Buddha’). We know that such practices were popular from a very early period, and that one of the results of these practices is that the meditator feels as if in the presence of the Buddha himself (Williams 1989:30, 217–20; Harrison 1978). In the Pratyutpanna Sutra, translated into Chinese by Lokaksema and studied by Paul Harrison, we find details of a visualisation practice in which the meditator visualises Buddha Amitayus in his ‘Pure Land’ (Buddha Field; q.v.) in the West, for twenty-four hours a day, for a whole week. After that, the sutra says, the meditator may have a vision of Amitayus, and receive new teachings not before heard. Moreover these new teachings the meditator is exhorted to transmit and expound to mankind.

It seems certain that a text like the Pratyutpanna Sutra (and perhaps other early Mahayana texts associated with Pure Lands and buddhanusmrti) describes practices which can lead to revelatory visions, and the Pratyutpanna Sutra itself advocates the promulgation of the teachings thus received. But while visions can occur in meditation, the occurrence of visions—messages apparently from a Buddha—does not explain why someone would take those messages seriously. Indeed the Buddhist tradition in general has tended to be very cautious, even dismissive, concerning visions seen in meditation. Of course, if it is correct that for many centuries there were very few followers of Mahayana in classical India, then the problem becomes less acute. But certainly some people took these revelations seriously, and those who took them seriously were sometimes great scholars. It is often said that the standard view of early Buddhism is that after the death of a Buddha he is beyond reference or recall, significantly and religiously dead. From such a perspective the idea of seeing a living Buddha in meditation is problematic. One way round this would be to claim that the Buddha visualised is simply a Buddha who has for one reason or another not yet died.

That would be to adopt a strategy of doctrinal reconciliation. As we shall see, this is indeed a strategy commonly adopted in Mahayana sources. But recent work by Gregory Schopen suggests that the atmosphere in Buddhist circles in Ancient India may have been at least emotionally more receptive to the idea that a dead Buddha is still around than was previously realised. Schopen has argued on archaeological and inscriptional grounds that the Buddha’s relics, preserved after his death in stupas, were felt to be the Buddha himself. The Buddha was thought in some sense to be still present in his relics and even in spots associated with his life (Schopen 1987a, 1990, 1994). Through his relics the Buddha was also treated as if present in the monastery, and was treated legally by the monastery and apparently by the wider community as a person with inalienable property rights. Schopen has shown that in day to day life the Buddha was felt very much to be present among the monks, if invisible.

Perhaps it was little wonder, then, that certain monks, inspired by the common meditation practice of ‘recollection of the Buddha’, buddhanusmrti, felt the genuineness of their visions of him and what had been revealed to them. Thus they arrived at the possibility of a continuing revelation and of course new sutras. Little wonder too, then, that eventually we find in some circles forms of religiosity developed centred on the supremacy of Buddhahood above all alternative goals. This religiosity focused too on the great compassion of one who remains present, transcending even death, helping sentient beings. It encouraged the need to attain a palpable immortality through becoming oneself a Buddha. In becoming a Buddha Sakyamuni, after all, is said to have triumphed over the Evil One, the ‘Devil’, Mara. The etymology of this name shows him to be the personification of death. Little wonder then that we also find in the meantime participation in ‘Pure Land’ cults, a need to see the Buddha if not in this life in meditation, then after death through rebirth in his presence in the Pure Land where he still dwells.

Thus it seems clear from early Mahayana texts that through meditation it was felt to be possible by some Buddhist practitioners to meet with a still-living Buddha and receive new teachings, receive perhaps the Mahayana sutras themselves. That some people actually took this possibility seriously may well have been prompted by a feeling on the one hand of sadness that the age of the living presence of the Buddha as a physical being had passed. But it was also prompted by an awareness of his continuing if rather invisible presence in the monastery, as relics imbued with the qualities of Buddhahood, the dharmakaya. These are themes that we shall meet again.

[Mkoll]

In the Pratyutpanna Sutra, translated into Chinese by Lokaksema and studied by Paul Harrison, we find details of a visualisation practice in which the meditator visualises Buddha Amitayus in his ‘Pure Land’ (Buddha Field; q.v.) in the West, for twenty-four hours a day, for a whole week. After that, the sutra says, the meditator may have a vision of Amitayus, and receive new teachings not before heard. Moreover these new teachings the meditator is exhorted to transmit and expound to mankind.

Am I understanding that correctly? Staying up for 7 days straight practicing visualizations? No wonder someone would get visions doing that: sleep deprivation can cause hallucinations. Even less surprising is that the object of the hallucination here relates to what the mind has been focusing on during that whole time.

[tiltbillings]

In the Pratyutpanna Sutra, translated into Chinese by Lokaksema and studied by Paul Harrison, we find details of a visualisation practice in which the meditator visualises Buddha Amitayus in his ‘Pure Land’ (Buddha Field; q.v.) in the West, for twenty-four hours a day, for a whole week. After that, the sutra says, the meditator may have a vision of Amitayus, and receive new teachings not before heard. Moreover these new teachings the meditator is exhorted to transmit and expound to mankind.

Am I understanding that correctly? Staying up for 7 days straight practicing visualizations? No wonder someone would get visions doing that: sleep deprivation can cause hallucinations. Even less surprising is that the object of the hallucination here relates to what the mind has been focusing on during that whole time.

Also, it is worth noting that with the levels of concentration experienced in jhana, visions can be cultivated.

[MisterRunon]

I don't have much to add to this topic.. but on a related note, I want to mention that sometimes I feel as if by the time I end up leaving this site, I do it knowing less than I originally knew.

[tiltbillings]

I don't have much to add to this topic.. but on a related note, I want to mention that sometimes I feel as if by the time I end up leaving this site, I do it knowing less than I originally knew.

I turned 66 last month, and speaking from experience your feeling is something that will, if you are lucky, increase with age. As Dylan said: "Ah, but I was so much older then/I'm younger than that now."

[Alex123]

The experiences and teachings of great meditating monks is fine, but which one(s)? Some have different and contradicting teachings.

Those who did the most effort and those who you want to be like (those who display qualities that you like).

[jan fessel]

I am very grateful to all participants for this thread that has been surprising and highly educational for me to read.

[DGDC]

VINAYA
The Four Disrobing Offences

Ajahn Brahmavamso

"The four transgressions which incur a Parajika, the penalty of automatic disrobal, are as follows:

1. Engaging in sexual intercourse with another being of either sex.
2. Stealing something of value (which includes smuggling, cheating or deliberately avoiding payment of a tax).

3. Purposely killing a human being or encouraging him or her to commit suicide (this includes inciting another to murder somebody and it also includes convincing a woman to have an abortion.

4. Boasting that one has realised a high spiritual attainment, knowing that one is lying. For example, claiming to be enlightened, to be Maitreya Buddha, to have entered Jhana (deep meditation-ecstasy) or that one can read minds when one knows that one hasn't reached any of these states.

Should any monk or nun do any of these then you may know them as no longer holding the status of Buddhist monk or nun. They must disrobe. Should they attempt to hide their transgression and not disrobe then it is said that the bad karma produced is extreme indeed!

In these four disrobing offences there is no excuse for ignorance. In a story related in the Buddhist scriptures [1], a newly ordained monk who had not as yet been instructed in the Vinaya was cajoled by his former wife into having sexual intercourse with her. When he told the other monks of this, they approached the Buddha and asked what should be done. The Buddha decreed that the offending monk had to disrobe and in future all monks were to be told of the Four Things Not to be Done, the four Parajika, immediately after they have been ordained. Indeed, instructing the new monk in these four rules has now become part of the Ordination Ceremony itself. So there can be no excuse!"

The Vinaya rules given above were applicable to BHIKKUS at the time of the Lord. They are no more. The bhikkhus of today are sammutisangha. I am not aware of the rules they follow.

Achan Muns statement is a transgression of rule 4 only if he were a "BHIKKHU". But then, all those who talk publicly about such rules are parajika.

Vinaya rules vanished with the first split of Sangha (historically speaking). Dhamma would have vanished earlier.

Today is an Uposatha day.
May you get a chance to see a future Lord (Bhagava) and listen to him and learn Lord's Dhamma (Bhagavata Dhammo).

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Achan Muns statement is a transgression of rule 4 only if he were a "Bhikkhu". But then, all those who talk publicly about such rules are parajika.

I wonder where you heard this myth?

Ajahn Mun's statement would be a transgression of parājikā rule 4 only if it were untrue, and if he knew it to be untrue.

Any bhikkhu who makes claims to one who is not ordained about superior human states such as jhāna, psychic powers, magga, or phala, if it is true, or if he believes it to be true although it is not true, is guilty only of an offence requiring confession to another bhikkhu. He is not defeated, and is still a bhikkhu.

All bhikkhus who were lawfully ordained in this Buddha sāsana are true bhikkhus, not just bhikkhus by convention (samutti bhikkhu). The Vinaya rules laid down by the Buddha still apply to us all, though many rules are not followed in practice by most bhikkhus nowadays. That is, they break the rules on a daily basis, often without even being aware that such and such an action is contrary to the rules that they should be following.

A bhikkhu who is guilty of an offence of defeat, but who has not admitted it, is still a bhikkhu by convention (samutti bhikkhu), by virtue of wearing the robes, and other outward signs. See Legal Status of Immoral (defeated) Monks

[DGDC]

Bhikkhu Pesala
I read about Achan Mun in the book Patipada, I think, by Achan Mahaboowa. There is no disrespect whatsoever of Acharn Mun. I have the highest respect for him as a yogi. However, he is not a member of the Sangha defined by 'Supatipanno bhagavato savakasangho...'

No one ca see Lord Buddha or Arahants after their 'parinibbana without remainder.'

Thank you for the reply.DGDC

[ttliic]

Although not necessarily an issue here, it's important to realise often things don't translate well, or are translated badly. So that what one person meant in another language, can have other connotations when translated into English. When Thai news is translated in English, often the words of a politician can be made to look quite outrageous just through selecting particular English words to use by those with a particular agenda.

[Ordinaryperson]

How did the Lord Buddha talk to Acharn Mun?

Perhaps while the latter was undergoing an hallucination or pleasant snooze.

• “Bhikkhus, just as when the stalk of a bunch of mangoes has been cut, all the mangoes on it go with it, just so the Tathāgata’s link with becoming has been cut. As long as the body subsists, devas and humans will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of the life-span, devas and humans will see him no more.”
  — Brahmajāla Sutta

Bhante,

I just had a quick read of the Brahmajala Sutta from here:

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Brahmajala_Sutta
and
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html

From my understanding of the above explanations Buddha was explaining the wrong view of "eternal self" (also other wrongs). i.e. Self as in the concept of reincarnation perhaps according to the understanding of other religious sects in those days rather than rebirth .

However, when this is link to Acharn Mun "conversation" with Buddha(s) etc I do not think that you can interpret that as "Buddha external self". i.e. Gotama Buddha passed away long time ago in our realm then reincarnated in another realm to appear before Acharn Mun referring to himself as the same Gotama Buddha again ... (edit: I am using the word "reincarnated" to demonstrate the assumption of other religious belief of the concept of reincarnation" and the way readers read into Acharn Mun conversation to assume eternal self of Buddha)

As far as my understanding from biography of Acharn Mun, the author merely mentioned that Buddha(s) visited Acharn Mun. Which Buddha? Nobody knows because in the biography the author did not mention present (I am referring to the last few know ones) or past Buddha but merely Buddha. The term Buddha, in my understanding, could be plural too as Gotama Buddha is not the only Buddha there is.

Also Acharn Mun communicated with devas, nagas Arahants etc via deep meditation and according to the author Acharn Mun would set aside few hours a day for meditation and beings from other realms would "set up an appointment to visit him" (my own modern day layman description).

Therefore, the assumption that Acharn Mun was speaking to the same Gotama Buddha is inaccurate. Also the assumption that Buddha, Arahants, Devas appeared in person (physical person) is also inaccurate as Acharn Mun spoke to all of them during his deep meditation.

My understanding is that in Brahmajala Sutta, Buddha was explaining that the same Gotama Buddha could not be found after "the breaking-up of the body" with the consistency of no-self etc, hence Gotama Buddha no longer exist i.e. you cannot find Gotama Buddha anymore which is right. But my understanding is that Gotama Buddha might become other Buddha or whatever label we give him after that ... (I am still using the term Buddha because I do not know how to describe Buddha beyond 31 planes of existence as the Buddha we know now was once in human realm i.e. in 31 planes of existence)

Yes, our definition or understanding is that Buddha does not exist in the 31 planes of existence as he has escaped the cycle of rebirth. (a term from 31 planes of existence defining or referring to a person who has escaped cycle of rebirth yet still residing in human realm ... am referring to Gotama Buddha)

My interpretation is that if we apply the concept of rebirth in consistency with Buddha's explanation then he would be reborn beyond 31 planes of existence is that not? Gotama Buddha is not longer in existence in 31 planes of existence. I agree. Yet, Gotama Buddha might reborn as Buddha (not the same as in no-self) beyond 31 planes of existence which I agree too.

My question is why can't Buddha visit his worthy disciple(s) (in this case Acharn Mun) from time to time when his disciple(s) was near escaping the cycle of rebirth? (Gotama Buddha in human realm is now different Buddha beyong 31 planes of existence - not the same Buddha but Buddha nevertheless)

I am Not referring to the same Gotama Buddha because he passed away long time ago or to assume the same Gotama Buddha in other realm visited Acharn Mun is also inaccurate. However, other Buddha(s) I am not surprised but I am sure everyone will ask for proof ...

Therefore, I do not see any inconsistency in the author's description of Acharn Mun experience.

If the discussion is about strict monastic rules then I guess I shall leave it to others to discuss but my rationalisation of the above is exactly that ...

Correct me if I am wrong and if Bhante and others have any alternative interpretations I want to hear from all of you.

Yet Ajahn Mun did see him, so it is claimed. Assuming that the reported experience did not occur in a dream but in the ajahn’s waking hours, then we can call it an apparitional experience. But since Ajahn Mun (as reported by Ajahn Maha Bua) did not take it as an apparition, but really believed that Gotama Buddha and his disciples were coming to pay him a courtesy call, it was an apparition that deceived him. And that, by definition, would be an hallucination.

No, in the book the author describes Acharn Mun saw or spoke to Buddha during meditation. No apparition of sort.

Question: Do Paccekabuddhas follow certain rules set?

[identification]

How did the Lord Buddha talk to Acharn Mun?

Perhaps while the latter was undergoing an hallucination or pleasant snooze.

• “Bhikkhus, just as when the stalk of a bunch of mangoes has been cut, all the mangoes on it go with it, just so the Tathāgata’s link with becoming has been cut. As long as the body subsists, devas and humans will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of the life-span, devas and humans will see him no more.”
  — Brahmajāla Sutta

It says devas and humans, not Arahants. Also the Buddha could be referring to the gross physical body or mind and not the primordial citta. This is also an English translation.

Imagine the verbal beat down and the buckets of kilesa tears that would fill the monastery if anyone tried to get at Luangta with anything like this. Just visualize all the kilesa arms and legs lying around the monastery after being thoroughly thrashed by Luangta in debate. Does anyone actually think they could ever go to Luangta with some black ink on paper and say look Luangta! You see you're wrong! Without being completely embarrassed and annihilated. It's easy to argue with an Ajahn that isn't here to defend himself.

[Dhammanando]

• “Bhikkhus, just as when the stalk of a bunch of mangoes has been cut, all the mangoes on it go with it, just so the Tathāgata’s link with becoming has been cut. As long as the body subsists, devas and humans will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of the life-span, devas and humans will see him no more.”
  — Brahmajāla Sutta

It says devas and humans, not Arahants.

And?

As far as I know, attaining arahatta is represented in the Suttas as a purely purgative event. Is it your belief that arahatta will cause the sprouting of a new sense faculty or cognitive faculty, allowing one to see dead arahants whose bodies have broken up? Is such a thing mentioned anywhere in the Suttas?

Also the Buddha could be referring to the gross physical body or mind and not the primordial citta. This is also an English translation.

I suppose the Buddha could if this supposed "primordial citta" was a part of his doctrine. But there's no good reason to think that it was. And if you click on MikeNZ's links to Ajahn Sujāto's blog you'll see there are plenty of reasons to think that it wasn't.

[identification]

I suppose the Buddha could if this supposed "primordial citta" was a part of his doctrine. But there's no good reason to think that it was.

Thanks for the response

"Consciousness without surface, without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing.
Here long & short,
coarse & fine,
fair & foul,
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the stopping
of [sensory] consciousness,
each is here brought to an end.
DN 11"

"‘There is, monks, that dimension where there is neither earth nor water,
nor fire nor wind, nor dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension
of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor
dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, nor this world, nor
the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither
coming, nor going, nor stasis, nor passing away, nor arising: without
stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just
this, is the end of stress.’
Ud 8:1"


"‘Consciousness without surface, without end, radiant all around, is not
experienced through the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the
radiance of fire, the windiness of wind, the divinity of devas [and so on
through a list of the various levels of godhood to] the allness of the All.’
MN 49"

Guess what else has no end? "The citta does
not arise or pass away; it is never born and never dies. Ultimately, the
“knowing nature” of the citta is timeless, boundless and radiant, but
this true nature is obscured by the defilements (kilesas) within it." Uncommon Wisdom, pg 280

"If the six senses & their objects—sometimes called the six spheres of contact—
constitute the All, is there anything beyond the All?

Ven. MahaKotthita: ‘With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six
spheres of contact [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is
it the case that there is anything else?’
Ven. Sariputta: ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’
Ven. MahaKotthita: ‘With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six
spheres of contact, is it the case that there is not anything else?’
Ven. Sariputta: ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’
Ven. MahaKotthita: ‘…is it the case that there both is & is not anything
else?’
Ven. Sariputta: ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’
Ven. MahaKotthita: ‘…is it the case that there neither is nor is not
anything else?’
Ven. Sariputta: ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’
Ven. MahaKotthita: ‘Being asked… if there is anything else, you say,
“Don’t say that, my friend.” Being asked… if there is not anything
else…if there both is & is not anything else… if there neither is nor is
not anything else, you say, “Don’t say that, my friend.” Now, how is
the meaning of this statement to be understood?’
Ven. Sariputta: ‘Saying, “… is it the case that there is anything else… is it
the case that there is not anything else… is it the case that there both is
& is not anything else… is it the case that there neither is nor is not
anything else?” objectifies the non-objectified. However far the six
spheres of contact go, that is how far objectification goes. However far
objectification goes, that is how far the six spheres of contact go. With
the remainderless fading & stopping of the six spheres of contact, there
comes to be the stopping of objectification, the stilling of
objectification.’
AN 4:173
The dimension of non-objectification, although it may not be described, may
be realized through direct experience.
‘Monks, that dimension should be experienced where the eye [vision]
stops and the perception [label] of form fades. That dimension should be
experienced where the ear stops and the perception of sound fades…
where the nose stops and the perception of aroma fades… where the
tongue stops and the perception of flavor fades… where the body stops
and the perception of tactile sensation fades… where the intellect stops
and the perception of idea/phenomenon fades: That dimension should be
experienced.’
SN 35:117"

It can't be described with words or concepts. Guess what else can't be described with words or concepts "In fact, the true nature of the citta cannot be expressed in words or concepts." Uncommon wisdom, pg 246"

But identification, doesn't the Buddha describe enlightenment as the fire going out? Here's something from Phra Ajaan Fuang Jotiko. "—to the
effect that the mind released is like fire that has gone out: The fire is not
annihilated, he said, but is still there, diffused in the air; it simply no longer
latches on to any fuel. " In the Buddha's time fire was considered immortal and eternal. Refer to Bhikku Thanissaro's book "Like a fire unbound"

‘Freed, disjoined, & released from ten things, the Tathagata dwells with
unrestricted awareness, Vahuna. Which ten? Freed, disjoined, & released
from form… feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness…
birth… aging… death… stress*… defilement, he dwells with unrestricted
awareness. Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and
growing in the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water
adhering to it, in the same way the Tathagata—freed, disjoined, & released
from these ten things—dwells with unrestricted awareness. AN 10:81

What is it that is released from the five aggregates and dwells with unrestricted awareness? The five aggregates? Come on.

Honestly, the primordial Citta, the awareness that has no end, is obvious. How do you think your five aggregates were created? The Buddha described the process as starting with ignorance. If you do not believe in the primordial Citta, then that means you believe ignorance is in the mind? What else could you believe? But the Buddha says ignorance was what led to the creation of the five aggregates (Which includes the mind). So in other words, ignorance was there before the mind. How do you explain this? How could ignorance exist without the mind if there wasn't something outside the five aggregates for it to exist inside of. The kilesas, as taught in the Thai forest tradition, exist inside the primordial citta, not the mind. The primordial Citta is like the missing piece of the Buddha Dharma. It completes the whole thing, and makes it make sense. Without the primordial Citta becoming an Arahant is committing suicide. It's killing yourself. This is one of the two extremes. The deathless Citta is beyond the two extremes of Eternalism and Nihilism.

"It is not existent - even the Victorious Ones do not see it.
It is not nonexistent - it is the basis of all samsara and nirvana.
This is not a contradiction, but the middle path of unity.
May the ultimate nature of phenomena, limitless mind beyond extremes, be realized."

"All Buddhas and all beings in the world are nothing but the single citta. Outside this single citta nothing at all exists. The single citta, free from the conventional self, is something that was not made and is something, which cannot be destroyed. It is not a thing with color, such as green or yellow and has neither form nor appearance. It is not included in existing things or non-existing things. One cannot have the view that it is something new or old, longer short, large or small because it is beyond all limitations, beyond all measuring, beyond labels, beyond leaving a trace and beyond all comparisons." - Ajahn Dune Atulo

Not only is it pretty obvious, but the Ajahns tell us we can experience it directly for ourselves and they teach us how to. What else do people want.

Ajahn Mun and Luangta are legends. Ajahn Mun resurrected the Thai Vipassana method of meditation partly made possible by VISIONS that he received and Luangta stained his monk robes with blood meditating like a champion 12 hours a day without changing his posture. LEGENDS. If people want to disagree with them and think Nirvana, the highest happiness, is an empty nothingness that you go to after you kill your five aggregates, then good luck with that. Personally seems a bit dull to me. But to each their own I guess. The highest happiness = non existence? Alrighty

And before anyone says Identification the suttas you quoted aren't talking about the primordial Citta they are talking about"insert my opinion here about what they are really talking about" don't worry, we know you have your own interpretation of the suttas and that you think your interpretation is the true and correct one. Don't need to tell me about how you think the dimension the Buddha talks about is some kind of dimension of empty nothingness that you experience after you finally become enlightened (spiritual suicide) I got it. But let me remind you, the Buddha said he taught the deathless, not the dead. Some people's view of enlightenment is literally the polar opposite of the deathless, it is death itself. The ultimate death. The ceasing of the five aggregates. And if you believe everything is the five aggregates, that is death, not the deathless. Deathless = dead? What? The Primordial Citta is deathless.

"In a world become blind, I beat the drum of the deathless" - Buddha