Dear Bhante,

> Hey Rod Bucknall, that sounds like a scholar :)

So ? What's the problem ? Shall I start saying "Hey, that sounds like a
non-scholar" every time you mention the name of somebody who sounds like a
non-scholar ?

> Okay, then by Theravada standards that would be a peta. Still semantics.

I disagree.

> Well, I never like it when the conversations starts off with "rather than
> blindly accept received dogmas..." but I'll take the bite this time... I
> refuse to be swayed by this type of comment, my friend.

It may not be true of you, but I find that people who react in this way are
in fact rather insecure in their beliefs and avoid anything which might be
unsettling or challenging. You will know best if this is true, either now
or when you become a little more mature. Have you ever ascertained any of
the Dharma by personal experience or do you just accept what the Theravadin
tradition teaches ?

> Your experiences are no more valid to me than these Buddha God
> worshippers' experiences of the Buddha God.

Cheap jibe ! I could say in reply that your understanding of the Dharma is
no more valid to me than these Buddha God worshippers' understanding of the
Dharma. Altogether a rather stupid, immature thing to say, n'est pas ?

> Are you a Buddha? No. The Buddha was, though...

So show me where the Buddha explicitly denies an antaraabhava, please.

> What is at stake? The millions of people who rely on these texts for
> their
> peace and happiness and meditation practice. If people start doubting
> this
> or that teaching over some meditative experience, they might start
> doubting
> more important teachings like nibbaana, or just give up in their confusion
> over what is the real teaching of the Buddha.

Wow ! You really sound like a Christian here ! Have you always been a
Buddhist or are you a convert ? Since the Buddha nowhere denies an
antaraabhava, I don't see what the problem is. Jhana practice is an
accepted part of Buddhist practice, so if people cultivate these and
generate a manomaya-kaya with dibba-cakkhu, are they to deny the reality of
what they then happen to perceive ?

> I don't see reason to adopt your terms, as they are clearly dealt with in
> the pali tipitaka under different but equally usable terms.

Fine, if your version of the Dharma meets your current needs but I truly
hope you do not get an unpleasant surprise one day. If I am wrong or
deluded about the antaraabhava, then I do not lose anything when I die since
I shall, hopefully, nevertheless die with a kusala-citta.

> In fact, though you still haven't answered my question

In fact, I was not even aware that you had asked me personally a question.
Please ask again if I have overlooked it.

> Yuttadogma

I like it ! Yoked to dogma !

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge