> > 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 ?

Yes, please do so. And while you're at it, please tell me more about Mr.
Bucknall's background qualifications.

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

That's okay, I'm not Buddha.

> > 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 ?

Yes, I have ascertained some of the Dhamma by personal experience. That is
why I accept what the Theravadin tradition teaches. But then, I think that
is no way to argue, because I will say that my experience accords with the
Pali Canon, and you will say that yours accords with the Tibetan Book of the
Dead, and we'll be like monks fighting over whether the Buddha taught three
kinds of feelings or five. No purpose.

Please, try to refrain from such language as "when you become a little more
mature." It is rhetorical and serves no good purpose in debate, especially
in front of such a large group of people. If you don't agree with my
arguments, please point out where they are invalid without including such
personally depreciative statements. I would ask for the moderator's
comments on this as well.

> > 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 ?

I think you misunderstand... I'm not sure if you are calling ME stupid and
immature, or just your reply. Your experience is your experience, and it
has shown you something. How you interpret that is up to you. Your
experiences are based on ultimate reality, but your conjectures are based on
conceptual reality. That is why they are not valid to me. If you told me
that when you enter these states that feelings arise and sights and sounds
and thoughts, then I would say, yes that accords with my experience as well.
When we enter into the realm of concepts, invariably, your words are the
same to me as the Buddha God worshippers, who say that what they see and
hear and feel is the God Buddha.

> > Are you a Buddha? No. The Buddha was, though...
> So show me where the Buddha explicitly denies an antaraabhava, please.

How can I? You don't subscribe to the same texts that I do... The Buddha
taught, according to the Three Pali Canon, that what you are describing is
either a person not yet dead or a peta.

> > 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 ?

The Buddha never denied the existence of a horned-hare as far as I've
read... In fact, what you call an antaraabhava is probably, as I've noted,
a peta. See the Vinaya, 1st Parajika:

"At one time a certain bhikkhu went to the charnel ground and took hold of
discarded cloth on a body not yet decomposed. The spirit of the dead one was
dwelling in the body. It said to the bhikkhu, 'Honored sir, don't take hold
of my cloak.' The bhikkhu, ignoring it, went off (with the cloak). The body,
arising, followed closely on the heels of the bhikkhu until the bhikkhu,
entering the vihara, closed the door, and the body fell down right there."

What you call this is up to you, but I think "antaraabhava" is improper
according to the Three Pali Canon. It is easy for me, because I stick to
one set of useful texts, and practice according to them. I think it is a
problem that you have so many texts to choose from, none of which you really
trust. Like the king when he eats - so many dishes, none of them
familiar...

I'm glad you think I can get along with the Christians. I've been
practicing :) "The only way to Jesus is through God! But do you know what
Jesus is? Do you know what God is?" I'm a true born-again Buddhist :)

> > 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.

Thank you. Please feel free to point out any shortcomings in my version of
the dhamma that might lead me to such an unpleasant surprise. I too hope
you stop insulting people on public forums so you then can easily die with a
kusala-citta :D But if you really are wrong or deluded, that may not happen
so easily...

> > 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.

Sorry, it was more of a general question, which seems to have slipped out of
every reply to my posts by you or Ven. Kumara. Now I'll put it to you
directly:

Dear Mr. Stephen Hodge,

I have a question for you directly. I do hope you will answer it at your
earliest opportunity, rather than just answering the rest of my post and
leaving this question unanswered:

The term "antarabhava" seems less than usable, because it is clearly just
another bhava, not in-between anything. Why do you call it an antaraabhava
when it is clearly a bhava?

> > Yuttadogma
> I like it ! Yoked to dogma !

Thanks, I thought of it myself, stupid as I am. :) But I don't think it
means "yoked to dogma"; that would be "dogmayutta". I think Yuttadogma
means "one who has one's religious beliefs all yoked and ready to go". :)

Peace,

Truthiswithin

PS Apologies in advance for any immaturity. Just trying to keep things
light and happy.