Best I can do for a Halloween sutta.

SN 19.1: Aṭṭhisutta: A Skeleton

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha, in the Bamboo Grove, the squirrels’ feeding ground.

Now at that time Venerable Lakkhaṇa and Venerable Mahāmoggallāna were staying on the Vulture’s Peak Mountain. Then Mahāmoggallāna robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe, went to Lakkhaṇa and said to him, “Come, Reverend Lakkhaṇa, let’s enter Rājagaha for alms.”

“Yes, reverend,” Lakkhaṇa replied.

As Mahāmoggallāna was descending from Vulture’s Peak Mountain he smiled at a certain spot. So Lakkhaṇa said to Mahāmoggallāna, “What is the cause, Reverend Moggallāna, what is the reason you smiled?”

“Reverend Lakkhaṇa, it’s the wrong time for this question. Ask me when we’re in the Buddha’s presence.”

Then Lakkhaṇa and Mahāmoggallāna wandered for alms in Rājagaha. After the meal, on their return from almsround, they went to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. Lakkhaṇa said to Mahāmoggallāna:

“Just now, as Mahāmoggallāna was descending from Vulture’s Peak Mountain he smiled at a certain spot. What is the cause, Reverend Moggallāna, what is the reason you smiled?”

“Just now, reverend, as I was descending from Vulture’s Peak Mountain I saw a skeleton flying through the air. Vultures, crows, and hawks kept chasing it, pecking, clawing, and stabbing it in the ribs as it screeched in pain. It occurred to me: ‘Oh, how incredible, how amazing! That there can be such a sentient being, such an entity, such an incarnation!’”

Then the Buddha said to the mendicants:

“Mendicants, there are disciples who live full of vision and knowledge, since a disciple knows, sees, and witnesses such a thing.

Formerly, I too saw that being, but I did not speak of it. For if I had spoken of it others would not have believed me, which would be for their lasting harm and suffering.

That being used to be a cattle butcher right here in Rājagaha. As a result of that deed he burned in hell for many years, many hundreds, many thousands, many hundreds of thousands of years. Now he experiences the residual result of that deed in such an incarnation.”

Hello,

I respect all of these three teachers. But I can’t really tell the difference jn there meditation path. I also don’t really understand the difference in there teaching style.

Could anyone experienced or know a lot about these ajahns tell me the subtle differences between these teachers?

I’m looking to choose a specific teacher to follow.

Thank you so much.

Curious how people apply Thai forest style meditation in there lives. Why do you particularly like this method?

"They've seen a mode of practice which they find inspiring, and then they can often times eat that inspiration. That's the kind of phrase that sometimes comes to mind: eating the feeling; eating the inspiration."

"What's much more interesting is what they point out to you about what you can do to improve your practice, about what you can do to gain in wholesome qualities. And some of the ways these teachers point these things out is really creative, really excellent, and leaves a really lasting impression. And that's what's valuable, to the extent that one can learn these flaws in one's character, and learn how to overcome them. Especially, what's very good about the way these teachers point these things out is they wait and do it in such a way that one sees for oneself how one has been grabbing on to things how one has been cultivating qualities that actually cause one to suffer."

YouTube video, Bhante Joe, ≈ 18:30 min.

Info: This ovāda discusses the purpose one should have in meeting inspiring monks. It discusses how one should seek to meet inspiring figures to take on their good qualities. One shouldn't seek to meet them just to feel inspired.

(Although this is from Sri Lanka, it also refers to meetings with Thai Forest Ajaans, and so I believe it's relevant here)

Hello!

I would like to ask what is the difference between those three. I have already found out the differences between Theravada and Early Buddhism, I even came across a long list of differences between both. It is Thai Forest that still puzzles me a little. Is it something in the middle between Early Buddhism and Theravada? As I understand it, Thai Forest follows more strictly the Vinaya and seems to encompass a more complete meditation practice, which includes both concentration and insight practices. But does it also adhere to other teachings beyond the Dhamma and Vinaya, such as those found in the Abhidhamma?

I think I have mostly been learning from Thai Forest teachers, but I would like to know how it does position itself, in relation to those other two approaches.

Thanks in advance for any insights.

Cunda Sutta (AN 6:46)

On one occasion Ven. Mahā Cunda was staying among the Cetis in Sañjāti. There he addressed the monks, “Friend monks!”

“Yes, friend,” the monks responded to him.

Ven. Mahā Cunda said, “Friends, there is the case where Dhamma-devotee monks [those devoted to memorizing and analyzing the Dhamma] disparage jhāna monks, saying, ‘These people are absorbed and besorbed in jhāna, saying, “We are absorbed, we are absorbed.” But why, indeed, are they absorbed? For what purpose are they absorbed? How are they absorbed?’ In that, the Dhamma-devotee monks do not shine brightly, and the jhāna monks do not shine brightly. That is not practicing for the welfare of the masses, for the happiness of the masses, for the good of the masses, nor for the welfare & happiness of devas & human beings.

“And further, there is the case where jhāna monks disparage Dhamma-devotee monks, saying, ‘These people say, “We are Dhamma-devotees, we are Dhamma-devotees,’ but they are excitable, boisterous, unsteady, mouthy, loose in their talk, muddled in their mindfulness, unalert, unconcentrated, their minds wandering, their senses uncontrolled. Why, indeed, are they Dhamma devotees? For what purpose are they Dhamma devotees? How are they Dhamma devotees?’ In that, the jhāna monks do not shine brightly, and the Dhamma-devotee monks do not shine brightly. That is not practicing for the welfare of the masses, for the happiness of the masses, for the good of the masses, nor for the welfare & happiness of devas & human beings.

“And further, there is the case where Dhamma-devotee monks praise only Dhamma-devotee monks, and not jhāna monks. In that, the Dhamma-devotee monks do not shine brightly, and the jhāna monks do not shine brightly. That is not practicing for the welfare of the masses, for the happiness of the masses, for the good of the masses, nor for the welfare & happiness of devas & human beings.

“And further, there is the case where jhāna monks praise only jhāna monks, and not Dhamma-devotee monks. In that, the jhāna monks do not shine brightly, and the Dhamma-devotee monks do not shine brightly. That is not practicing for the welfare of the masses, for the happiness of the masses, for the good of the masses, nor for the welfare & happiness of devas & human beings.

“Thus, friends, you should train yourselves: ‘Being Dhamma-devotee monks, we will speak in praise of jhāna monks.’ That’s how you should train yourselves. Why is that? Because these are amazing people, hard to find in the world: those who dwell touching the deathless element with the body.^1

“And thus, friends, you should train yourselves: ‘Being jhāna monks, we will speak in praise of Dhamma-devotee monks.’ That’s how you should train yourselves. Why is that? Because these are amazing people, hard to find in the world: those who penetrate with discernment statements of profound meaning.”

Note

1. AN 9:43 and 44 make a distinction between touching a meditative dimension with the body and knowing it with discernment. In both cases, the experience is direct and personal, and in both it leads to the ending of the mental effluents. Thus, “touching with the body” seems to have a more precise meaning than simple personal experience. It could mean that there is a somatic aspect to the experience or that the awareness of the deathless occupies the same fullness of awareness that had been occupied by the body.

See also: DN 15; AN 5:73; AN 9:43—45; AN 10:24; Dhp 259

1. How far has your meditation developed by practicing the Buddho and breath meditation? Are monks with 10+ years still doing just Buddho practice?

2. Is the practice meant to give us a reminder of the Buddha?

3. When do I know to let go of Buddho and be with breath?

4. Buddho is meant to be the knower. Did Ajahns on a deeper level try to tell us to put our attention on the wittness rather than the mental world "buddho" which points to that?

Thank you.

"If you want to stop mental illness, illness such as fear, guilt, grief, anxiety,

you have to eat good food. Good mental food.

Where is the best mental restaurant in Perth? Dhammaloka centre on a Friday night.

Here you eat health food for the mind. Dhamma it's called....

If you only eat junk food for the mind by watching movies or the

TV looking at the bill, then haha, I know what you get up to."

Audio (≈57 minutes)