VincentRJ

In the present day, when monks act more as a priesthood than as ascetics, you'd think impeccable behaviour wouldn't be so important, but it is.

Camerata,

I think it's the other way around. When a person is an ascetic, then 'perceived' impeccable behaviour by others is not important.

However, when a religion has been established with a priesthood, then impeccable behaviour becomes of great significance.

If you look at the Vinaya, many of the rules seem to be aimed at ensuring a flawless image for the sangha. You can't just be pure - you have to be seen to be pure. This wasn't always because of criticism from the laity, it was sometimes due to malicious criticism from rival sects. I recall reading that some of the more extreme Vinaya rules are thought to be a response to criticism from the Jains.

Yes. That does appear to be the case, which is not something that appeals to me. 'Keeping up appearances', and being concerned about what others might think, is a constant worry and activity of modern life. One presumes that someone who is genuinely interested in Buddhism and considering leading the life of a monk, would want to escape from such concerns. Yet it seems that one set of rules has been replaced by another set of rules.

Nevertheless, I can see there is a practical reason for such rules, or at least there was a practical reason that that was relevant during the times of the Buddha. When a group of people is totally dependent for their very survival on charitable hand-outs from individual working people, then what those working people might think of the group, whether rightly or wrongly, could affect the survival of the group.

I'm reminded here of the recent deposition of an Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull of the same party.

After such an event there is a great deal of analysis in search of the reasons behind the downfall, and one political commentator has been quick to publish a book detailing the reasons.

It seems that Tony Abbott was considered by members of his own party to have been far too dependent on his female 'Chief of Staff', Peta Credlin.

The book reveals that both Tony Abbot and Peta Credlin were individually warned by another female senator that there was a deep concern among many Liberal members of parliament that they were having an 'affair'.

The senator is reported to have told them:

'Politics is about perceptions.

'Rightly or wrongly, the perception is that you are sleeping with your chief of staff. That's the perception, and you need to deal with it.

'I am here because I care about you, and I care about your family, and I feel I need to tell you the truth, the brutal truth. This is what your colleagues really think.'

Of course, neither of them acted on that advice. Tony Abbot could have sacked his Chief of Staff, or Peta Credlin could simply have resigned in the interests of the party.

We've had a number of discussions on this forum as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. It's probably both, but it now seems it's also politics.

The seventh Confession offence arose when Ven. Udaayin went to visit lay supporters. He sat close to the mother of the family at the front door, teaching her Dhamma in a quiet, confidential manner, and then approached the daughter-in-law who was by the side door and spoke to her in the same way. Both women mistakenly thought that he was flirting with the other, and criticized him, saying that Dhamma should be given in a clear and open way. As a result the Buddha eventually laid down that:

◊ One can see from the origin of this rule that the point (again) is not that women cannot be taught Dhamma but that it should be done in a way that is completely open and above misinterpretation.

Thanks for the clarification, Camerata. I generally understood that this particular rule would have related to the perilous situation that might develop if a Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni were to spend too much time alone, considering that sexual relations are forbidden.

However, I'm still puzzled that Buddhist rules of behaviour should be influenced and modified in accordance with a possible misinterpretation by the ignorant.

Isn't it a principle of Buddhist teachings that the mind continuously play tricks on us, and what we consider to be reality is really a misinterpretation to some degree, unless we are 'enlightened'?

Apparently it's 227; that does sound familiar:

http://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227.htm

This part gets a little strange; I never learned them when I was a monk (which was 8 years ago now). They covered the main ones with me, or seemed to; it would be hard to narrow down what "main ones" really means. I suspect some of the behavior code monks obey really aren't actually rules, the general manner, or the convention that you never wai first to anyone, etc.

The reason for that was simple enough; they sent the new monks, or temporary monks, to informal classes on what not to do, but as a foreigner I wasn't going to catch that training in Thai language, and they weren't going to translate it for me. It's hard to say to what extent the average Thai has already picked up the background of those rules. Of course they know they're not supposed to touch women and can't eat after noon but I'm not sure how many of the others would be familiar.

Some of the rules they don't really follow. We've covered the background on #17 and #18 of the nissagiyas, not to accept or use money, and they sort of do that, to a limited extent. #1 on that list, not to keep an extra robe for more than 10 days at a time, they would also routinely ignore. Essentially all the rest they really do practice, but some of those get a little vague. One says to only shower twice a month, unless dirty, but that's open to judgement, and monks tend to keep clean now.

One of the other new monks, the temporary, two-week duration kind, told me it was against those rules to smell a flower, and I asked a senior monk and he said it wasn't. I just read the list and nothing about that is on there. I didn't see a rule about not drinking while standing either, which the other monks said you can't do; funny how those minor rules inconsistencies might work out.

Hi Honu,

That last paragraph is very strange. It gives the impression if there is more than one woman, and if the monk or any of the women continue to change their seating positions, then the monk can continue teaching indefinitely.

Remember, Gautama is sometimes criticised for leaving his wife and baby to search for a solution to the extreme suffering he witnessed outside of his palace. In a modern Western society with abundant social services, we don't have that motivation of witnessing extreme suffering. Perhaps that's the problem, regarding the motivation of Westermers to follow the Buddhist path.

I think I should perhaps try to clarify that point. There's a great lack of detailed accounts of the social conditions that prevailed during the times of the Buddha, perhaps due to a lack of preserved writings, or even a capacity to write. We have a general, historical understanding that there was a caste system in place, apparently introduced by an Aryan migration from Eastern Europe into India (sometimes described as an invasion, but this is not certain).

We also have historical evidence that between the 7th and 5th centuries BCE there were dramatic changes taking place in India, politically and economically. The large number of small, tribal groups or states (about 16 of them) were gradually being 'amalgamated' into 4 major states, no doubt with a lot of fighting and consequent pillaging, rape and killing of innocent women and children.

Siddhartha belonged to a small warrior-caste tribe, the Sakyas, which was not completely independent and was apparently dominated by the larger Kausala state further south. Who knows what sort of fighting and atrocities took place between these two tribes?

The point I'm trying to make here is that the social conditions outside of Gautama's palace were probably absolutely awful. The story that Gautama witnessed, on journeys outside his father's palace, an old man, a sick man, a dead man and a wandering mendicant, must be very sanitised and simplified versions of what Gautama really witnessed.

Using my imagination (and worldly experience) he probably saw women and children screaming in agony, people lying by the road-side suffering from terrible diseases for which there was no cure at the time, and old people who were not just old but who had to continue working in order to survive, despite their back problems and poor health.

In other words, the disparity between the life inside the palace of a warrior-caste tribe, and the life of ordinary people outside of the palace, was probably far more extreme than the differences today between the life of the Queen of England and the life of ordinary people outside of Buckingham Palace, in terms of suffering.

The motivation for Gautama to leave his wife and child to search for a solution to such awful conditions must surely have been far greater than the current motivation of most Westerners, who are interested in Buddhism, to become a full-time monk in Thailand.

Rocky,

Surely the problem is in (1) not being able to discern what are the bad habits that we have, and (2), having discerned them, or become aware of them, not being able to control them or relinquish them.

For example, I used to smoke for a number of years, but eventually succeeded in giving up the habit, after many tries. The motive was a concern for my health.

I just wondered, since you've mentioned this uncontrollable aspect of conditioning a few times, if there is a specific problem relating to your own conditioning, which you find insurmountable in respect to your Buddhist activities, and which you could share with us.

　

My problems revolve mainly around:

Finding excuses not to practice.

Working far to hard.

Making myself always available to assist family and friends with their practical issues.

Having Dependents who rely on my income placing further pressure on my life.

Everyone will have their own mix of conditioning (excuses).

Rocky,

Finding excuses not to practices gives the impression you don't really want to practice, and therefore try to rationalise or justify your lack of practice with all sorts of excuses.

Surely, if you really wanted to practice meditation, you would find excuses not to make yourself always available to assist your family, friends and dependents.

Remember, Gautama is sometimes criticised for leaving his wife and baby to search for a solution to the extreme suffering he witnessed outside of his palace.

In a modern Western society with abundant social services, we don't have that motivation of witnessing extreme suffering. Perhaps that's the problem, regarding the motivation of Westermers to follow the Buddhist path.

Hi Vincent.

Conditioning is vital to our survival.

Our problem is that we each carry a unique mix with some good and some not so good habits.

Rocky,

Surely the problem is in (1) not being able to discern what are the bad habits that we have, and (2), having discerned them, or become aware of them, not being able to control them or relinquish them.

For example, I used to smoke for a number of years, but eventually succeeded in giving up the habit, after many tries. The motive was a concern for my health.

I just wondered, since you've mentioned this uncontrollable aspect of conditioning a few times, if there is a specific problem relating to your own conditioning, which you find insurmountable in respect to your Buddhist activities, and which you could share with us.

Which of your habits would you drop, if you knew for a fact that you will be Re Born for eternity, suffering in all manner of ways, without Awakening?

This sort of question appears to be an 'oxymoron'. From my rational perspective, it doesn't seem possible, logical or even sensible, that anyone could know for a fact that he would be reborn for eternity, suffering in all manner of ways, without also being 'awakened'. The 'awakening' is surely the realisation of the fact.

Rebirth and karma may seem logical (craving pushes one into the next life etc), but they depend on unproven/unprovable premises that a mechanism exists that enables them to work. This is no different from theistic religions that claim - seemingly logically - that the patterns found in nature suggest a Creator.

Rather than claiming that Buddhism is logical, I think it is better to promote the ways it is unique, i.e. that the goal of nibbana/nirvana can be attained in this lifetime, and that the techniques used result in a positive and continuous development of the mind.

Rebirth can be proven to yourself . But you have to understand dependent origination and if you fully understand that then you can prove rebirth and karma ...to yourself .

This is what the Buddha taught.

In my attempts to establish continuous Awareness or Mindfulness, I have observed conditioning both in myself and in others which virtually is next to impossible to overcome.

Practice of the 8 Fold Path includes the need to overcome deeply ingrained habits in most of us.

I am seeing colleagues on a daily basis locked in their personal jails.

Jails with invisible bars, built of rigid habit.

Simply knowing Dependent Origination will not reveal insight or proof of Re Birth.

Such an insight can only come from personal experience gained through dedicated practice.

A practice extremely difficult to build up to or maintain, given our personal jails.

Hi Rocky,

It would be interesting, and perhaps even useful, if you could give us some specific examples of your impossible-to-get-rid-of conditioning which you think might be hampering your progress.

The obvious ones for most people are sexual desire, an appetite for tasty food without due consideration for it's wholesomeness, and the pursuit and acquisition of wealth and fame which appeal to vanity and ego.

A certain degree of conditioning is necessary for survival, is it not? I speak English because I have been conditioned to speak English. I have a certain belief in rationality and common sense, which I think must affect my decisions and activities in life. Am I 'imprisoned' by my views of rationality? Would it be useful, or serve any good purpose, if I were to discard such conditioning?

I've often found intriguing the Eastern tradition of the ascetic who sometimes gives up all possessions, and sometimes even all clothes, and goes wandering completely naked (in India); and the Buddhist ascetic who sometimes lives alone in a cave for many years.

These are extreme examples of the measures that some people take to rid themselves of all concerns and conditioning, in pursuit of that ineffable goal of unconditioned bliss.

However, whilst still alive such people are surely still dependent upon conditioning. They need food to continue living and they are dependent on the cultural conditioning of others to provide that food.

Ever visited the 1000-year-old Angkor Wat? Yes.

I've visited the Angkor Wat region many times and have taken a great number of photos over the years. It's interesting how the culture gradually changed from Hinduism to Buddhism during the course of the Khmer civilization, over several centuries.

Those ruins in Cambodia are the most amazing ruins in the world. I'd continue to visit the place were it not for the proliferation of Chinese tourists getting in the way and continually taking 'selfies'.

Yes. this seemed to be the main objection by the (obviously) Hindu objector. I understand if one actually is a devout Hindu, then any description that infers that Hindu beliefs are a 'pollution', would tend to inspire anger.

Buddhism can transcend such anger.

Camerata,

I read that inflammatory post and was considering a reply. When I returned to the site to reply, I discovered you'd deleted the post. Fair enough! You have your rules and standards, but I'm disappointed that I cannot reply directly, in a Buddhistic and equanimous manner.

I was going to make the point that one of the stories relating to the Buddha was his response to insults.

I'll paraphrase the story as I remember it. Whilst the Buddha was on his wanderings, visiting various villages to teach his message, he came across another traveller who insulted him along the lines (paraphrasing here), "So you're another of these useless, religious teachers, spouting a load of rubbish!"

Instead of geting angry, the Buddha calmly asked his abuser, if a person were to make a present to someone who rejected the present, and refused to accept it, who would own the present?

The abuser agreed that he would still own the present. The Buddha replied, likewise I do not accept your insult. It's yours. You keeps it.

That's the sort of teaching I find useful and even revelatory.

You and me both!

I just read a book about an American guy who practised zazen meditation at a Zen monastery in a small town in Japan in the 70s. The local and foreign monks there, who were all very serious about meditation, were all knocking back the sake whenever they had the chance - even the one who experienced satori after a relatively short time. They weren't allowed to meditate if they had alcohol in their blood, but one wonders how they made any progress. The Theravada view is that successful meditation depends on sila.

I don't know what my personal answer is.

All I can say is that there is precious little time left as it passes before me at a very rapid rate.

Hi Rocky,

I'd say that this sense of urgency about reaching some state of Nirvana or enlightenment in this lifetime, which you've expressed a few times on this forum, is an obstacle in itself.

Our concepts of time are very much a part of our conditioning, which we should try to free ourselves from, in accordance with Buddhist teachings.

If rebirth is real, you've got all the time in the world to achieve your goal. If rebirth is not real, but just a fanciful notion, then it doesn't matter if you don't reach your concept of an ultimate goal in this life, because there are no consequences for you when you pass away.

The main issue is to do the best you can in this life, in accordance with those Buddhist precepts which make sense to you, and accept the outcome with equanimity.

There is no reason for us to think that the rebirth takes place after death (our physical death). There is no reason for us to think that we have another life after our bodies die.

I would say. Hell is here. Heaven is here. We are reborn throughout out this life. I would say we have more reason to believe that than anything else. Who knows, maybe after we die there will be another life. But we have no reason to believe that.

All we know right now, in this moment, is: we have one life with different states of existence right here (heaven/hell) and we can be "reborn" into different states depending on what we do (cause/effect). If you want to call that "different lives" OK.

I don't think we have any real reason to believe that there is anything else after this life and I think we have every reason to believe, as Rocky says, we have just one crack at it.

I have to disagree. There is reason to think that rebirth takes place, but there is no scientific proof that it takes place. There is a distinction between those two situations.

The following very detailed article on the work of Dr Ian Stevenson, who was a psychiatrist who worked for the University of Virginia School of Medicine for 50 years, implies that reincarnation might be a reality. However, more controlled research needs to be done, which is difficult, expensive and sometimes unethical and impractical when it's required to put human beings in a completely controlled environment, like rats in a cage.

http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/research/ian-stevenson.html

I tend to be atheistic with regard to the existence of an all-powerful creator god, but agnostic with regard to the concept of reincarnation or rebirth. Perhaps I'll use this thread as an opportunity to explain why, if that's okay with Camerata who started the thread.

We understand from modern science that there is always a cause and effect, however tiny that effect might be, and that such effects are consistent with so-called laws of physics.

However, when it comes to justice and retribution in all societies on Earth, in this lifetime, there is a ridiculous degree of inconsistency, depending on culture and tradition. In some societies, the punishment for adultery was stoning to death. In modern Australia, it's no big deal. The parties involved might get a separation or divorce, or might make up and continue with their lives together. Much more civilized than stoning to death.

Not only do the consequences of misdemeanours, unethical behaviour and crimes vary considerably in different cultures, according to man-made laws, but corruption and/or incompetence seems wide-spread, sometimes resulting in people losing their lives for crimes they did not commit. Nobody knows how many people have been hanged or electrocuted in countries with the death penalty, for crimes which they did not commit. But we know there are some.

Karma, which includes the concept of physical rebirth, can appeal to some of us, including myself, because it could rationally and reasonably have the qualities of a 'natural' and 'objective' cause and effect process, in relation to human behaviour, according to the objective laws of some future Physics or other scientific discipline which are not yet understood.

Science is always exploring the unknown. What we don't know far, far, far exceeds what we do know.

I've mentioned the current situation regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy on this forum a few times, because I think it highlights so clearly the limitations of our scientific knowledge.

According to our observations of the universe, with our best telescopes in relation to our best scientific theories, 95% of the matter and energy that surrounds us is totally invisible and undetectable by any scientific instruments. What a huge discrepancy!

When the major religions of the world were created, people in those days had little understanding the vastness of the universe, no awareness of the existence of the elctromagnetic spectrum which includes many frequencies of a similar nature to light, but of a different wave length, such as radio waves, and no understanding even of the extent of the land masses on the planet earth.

After a few centuries of scientific endeavour, we have now come to the stage where we think we might have reasonably well understood the nature of 5% of the matter and energy in the universe. That's progress, but it sure leaves room for the existence of Karma and Rebirth, don't you think?

the calcified pineal gland is another important issue

big subject!

Ah! The third eye. That's not something I've investigated much.

I have a wholesome diet, regular exercise and periods of quietude or meditation, so I don't feel I have to worry about the future. But I'm not fanatical about it. I still occasionally enjoy a glass or two of wine.

The very notion that one will be reborn into better circumstances for a second, third and fourth try, and so on, if one behaves well in this life, could contribute to a calming effect that actually results in one achieving full awakening in this life.

Although there are similarities, the example of an examination is completely different.

The student doesn't die, and has time to improve.

Quite so, which is why I qualified my analogy as follows...."imagine the concern and worry that a young person might experience if he were told that he had only one crack at passing his exams, and if he failed, that would detrimentally affect his career for the rest of his life, and that there was nothing he could do about it."

Of course, the reality is, if one fails in an exam, or in any endeavour, one can try again as often as one likes, if one is sufficiently motivated and circumstances permit. There are lots of examples of elderly people beginning a university course, or even doing a PhD in their 70's, 80's and even 90's.

My impression is that achieving a state of Buddhist enlightenment or Nirvana might be a lot more difficult, for most of us, than getting a university degree, but that's just speculation.

The puzzle for me is, why would anyone be concerned about not achieving enlightenment, or freedom from the 'wheel of life', if one doesn't believe in the reality of the 'wheel of life', or the reality of reincarnation, or rebirth.

If one is suffering in some way, unhappy, depressed or angry for whatever reason, there are lots of remedies to try. I happen to prefer natural remedies, probably as a result of my upbringing and conditioning. I have a faith in the natural intelligence of the body to fix its own problems, if we allow it to.

I'm suspicious of much of our modern medical intervention. I see it often as just a solution for people who don't want to change their lifestyle, which is often the root cause of the problem. The food industry and the medical industry seem to be in cahoots in this regard.

On the other hand, I see the quietening of the mind through Buddhist meditation practices, or through Hatha Yoga practices, as a natural, pure and clean remedy for problems in general, as is periodic fasting.

However, I hope I'm not creating the impression that I'm not grateful for modern medical advances. I am grateful. There are many situations in which modern medical procedures transcend natural processes and save lives. They would include serious accidents, genetic disorders, and infections from unfamiliar viruses and bacteria which the body's immune system is not used to.

On the other hand, the part of Rocky & Vincent which is impermanent and Conditioned expires upon death.That which is Re Born shares the same lineage but is not Rocky or Vincent, otherwise they would be permanent.It is the impermanent & conditioned aspect of us which makes us who we are.This is all we know.There maybe a permanent and unconditioned aspect, but we are not conscious of it and to our impermanent & conditioned consciousness, it may as well be a symbiont.There is no place in Nibanna for Rocky & Vincent (conditioned & impermanent) only that which is unconditioned and permanent.

You raise some problematical questions from a philosophical perspective, Rocky. The Buddhist notion that everything is impermanent and subject to 'cause and effect', or 'conditioning', resonates with the modern scientific view. We understand from science that nothing is truly permanent. However, the degrees of permanency can vary wildly.

In Lamington National Park near Brisbane, Australia, one can see Antarctic Beech Trees growing in the same location that they grew 180 million years ago in Gondwanaland, which was located in the Antarctic before the land mass broke up, forming Australia, South America and South Africa.

The trees that you see today are not 180 million years old, of course. The oldest is maybe only 12,000 years old. But they're being reborn or reincarnated in approximately the same location, despite the continental drift. They don't have individual names like Rocky or Vincent, but they are still the same species of tree, apparently.

http://oltw.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/12000-year-old-antarctic-beech.html

hey, a very interesting topic, this

im not surprised that it hasnt been brought up before. why? in thailand food and

the pleasure it gives is so important. one could say the whole life revolves around eating and drinking

in the temples, fasting is hardly ever mentioned, very very few have fasted--even 1 or 2 days

its considered a wrong thing to do. a monk decides to fast.......is given no support, no encouragement

people will ask why you fasting? and one has to spend 10 minutes telling them it cleans you out, good

for the body, good for the mind. they still dont get it. you dont like the food we offer?

nobody wants to see monks fasting

in my opinion, half of the stuff that comes up, the stuff that has to be endured......is uneccessary

the denatured, chemically laden, processed junk food that we eat creates a whole pile of feelings,

emotions, tiredness, laziness, hyperativity, sickness, pain and foggy awareness. plus at times

we are driven to distraction. no peace in the body

wasnt it Buddhadasa Bhikkhu that said........if the body is not peaceful, the mind will not concentrate

what we consume is critical. progress is largely determined by it. im talking generally, the vast amount

of cases. of course progress can be made dispite what one eats.

in this modern chemical and processed world, the neccessity of a thorough cleanout every 6-12 months

is a must, imo

when stuck in practice, how many of you wonder if its anything to do with a polluted body?

Hi jikwan,

Glad you find the topic interesting, and I agree completely that the pleasure of eating tasty food is considered to be a very important part of life for most people in most societies. Depriving oneself of the pleasures of eating, whether temporarily for the purpose of fasting, or as a result of changing one's diet to a healthy and wholesome diet without the alluring taste of sugar, fats, salt, spices and artificial taste enhancers, seems to be too difficult for most people.

However, for those interested in leading a Buddhist lifestyle, an inability to control one's appetite for tasty food, could be a huge obstacle to progress, in my opinion, as well as an obstacle to a healthy life without the necessity of frequent visits to the doctor.

Rocky,

To expand upon this obstacle that could result from a sense of urgency that one has only 'one crack at' reaching a state of enlightenment, imagine the concern and worry that a young person might experience if he were told that he had only one crack at passing his exams, and if he failed, that would detrimentally affect his career for the rest of his life, and that there was nothing he could do about it.

That situation might motivate the person to work much harder to ensure he never failed an exam, but such motivation would not be appropriate for the purposes of reaching a state of elimination of all worries, fears, and even every thought.

The very notion that one will be reborn into better circumstances for a second, third and fourth try, and so on, if one behaves well in this life, could contribute to a calming effect that actually results in one achieving full awakening in this life.

You and me both!

I just read a book about an American guy who practised zazen meditation at a Zen monastery in a small town in Japan in the 70s. The local and foreign monks there, who were all very serious about meditation, were all knocking back the sake whenever they had the chance - even the one who experienced satori after a relatively short time. They weren't allowed to meditate if they had alcohol in their blood, but one wonders how they made any progress. The Theravada view is that successful meditation depends on sila.

I don't know what my personal answer is.

All I can say is that there is precious little time left as it passes before me at a very rapid rate.

Hi Rocky,

I'd say that this sense of urgency about reaching some state of Nirvana or enlightenment in this lifetime, which you've expressed a few times on this forum, is an obstacle in itself.

Our concepts of time are very much a part of our conditioning, which we should try to free ourselves from, in accordance with Buddhist teachings.

If rebirth is real, you've got all the time in the world to achieve your goal. If rebirth is not real, but just a fanciful notion, then it doesn't matter if you don't reach your concept of an ultimate goal in this life, because there are no consequences for you when you pass away.

The main issue is to do the best you can in this life, in accordance with those Buddhist precepts which make sense to you, and accept the outcome with equanimity.

If what we are taught is correct, that Vincent and Rocky, as we know them, are impermanent and conditioned, and subject to change and expiry, then Vincent & Rocky only have one crack (at) it.

I'm not sure I fully agree on that point, Rocky. The general Buddhist concept, as I understand it, is that we have many cracks at it, through the processes of rebirth. We are not aware of our previous lives until we become enlightened.

According to the Pali Canon, Gautama recalled thousands of previous lives during his night under the Bodhi tree, prior to full enlightenment. I presume such clarity of thought which would enable such recalls would also be required for the experience of Nirvana.

Now I understand that it can be quite comforting for science-oriented Westerners to accept the Buddhadasa view that the concept of rebirth is a metaphor for previous thoughts and states-of-mind that have occurred in this lifetime.

But let's face it, such a view diminishes the grandeur and mystique of Buddhism. It also raises doubts about the reality of these mysterious states of mind described as Nirvana or unconditioned bliss. Are these perhaps also metaphors for just an unusually calm and peaceful state of mind which can be achieved through a variety of methods?

You and me both!

I just read a book about an American guy who practised zazen meditation at a Zen monastery in a small town in Japan in the 70s. The local and foreign monks there, who were all very serious about meditation, were all knocking back the sake whenever they had the chance - even the one who experienced satori after a relatively short time. They weren't allowed to meditate if they had alcohol in their blood, but one wonders how they made any progress. The Theravada view is that successful meditation depends on sila.

I don't know what my personal answer is.

All I can say is that there is precious little time left as it passes before me at a very rapid rate.

Hi Rocky,

I'd say that this sense of urgency about reaching some state of Nirvana or enlightenment in this lifetime, which you've expressed a few times on this forum, is an obstacle in itself.

Our concepts of time are very much a part of our conditioning, which we should try to free ourselves from, in accordance with Buddhist teachings.

If rebirth is real, you've got all the time in the world to achieve your goal. If rebirth is not real, but just a fanciful notion, then it doesn't matter if you don't reach your concept of an ultimate goal in this life, because there are no consequences for you when you pass away.

The main issue is to do the best you can in this life, in accordance with those Buddhist precepts which make sense to you, and accept the outcome with equanimity.

"Science was invented in the west. But, had it been invented in the east, had it been invented in both places at the same time, I bet you it would have risen faster in the east then it did in the west. That’s my hypothesis."

The above statement could be considered controversial. We tend to think that science originated in ancient Greece during the times of Euclid, Archimedes, Aristotle and so on. However, the true scientific methodology of experimental testing to either prove or falsify a theory or hypothesis, probably originated in the Middle East.

The first true scientists was probably a Muslim with the name of Ibn Al Haytham, (or Alhacen, and later Alhazen).
He was born in Iraq in 965 AD, and died about 1040 AD in Cairo.

You can read all about him at http://www.ibnalhaytham.com/discover/who-was-ibn-al-haytham/

I have to confess, Rocky, that my primary motivation for fasting is for the health benefits rather than the spiritual benefits, although I believe that both are connected.

I haven't yet fasted often enough nor meditated often enough during periods of fasting and non-fasting to be able to discern a clear difference and make a reliable comparison, but this is something I hope to be able to work on, in the future.

At present, I can't help wondering if the effects of the extreme fasting that Gautama did prior to his enlightenment, at least partially contributed to his subsequent enlightenment as a result of the biological changes that took place in his mind and body during those extreme periods of fasting.

After he began eating again, many defective cells that his body would have consumed as food, as a result of the body's natural and instinctive drive to survive, would gradually have been replaced with healthy and fully-functioning cells. Also, if it's true that the body creates new neurons and synapses during periods of prolonged fasting, in its attempt to help the mind recognize, discern and discover new sources of food essential for the person's survival, then it's reasonable to presume that the Buddha would have experienced a partially new and revitalized body and mind after recovering from his prolonged period of fasting.

It's also reasonable to presume or deduce that this new and revitalized state of mind would have contributed towards, and perhaps even been essential for Gautama's subsequent enlightenment.

This is just a hypothesis, but it makes sense to me. However, I would not recommend that anyone try to emulate this part of Gautama's experiment on his path to enlightenment. The Buddha's later principle of 'moderation' should also apply to fasting.

Agreed, this is speculation.

My thoughts are that he ended up choosing the middle way.

Not over eating, but eating mindfully, purely to sustain his body.

Rocky, I think part of the speculation is a result of the unreliability of the historical accounts relating to Gautama's activities during his periods of fasting. Accounts of his eating just one grain of rice a day for long periods, seem a bit absurd.

However, Gautama's advice to adopt the 'middle way' is very sound and I think appropriate for many modern-day activities, particularly if they are new activities which we are not used to, such as taking up jogging after spending half a life of little exercise but excessive eating, or trying out fasting as a remedy for obesity.

There is also the situation to be taken into account, that modern circumstances are different to those that the Buddha would have experienced. For example, all food would presumably have been truly organically grown, with no application of artificial fertilizers and noxious pesticides, and the water drunk, whilst being contaminated with natural bacteria, would not have been sterilized with toxic chemicals such as chlorine, ozone and hydrogen peroxide etc. Any fish eaten would not have been contaminated with heavy metals, and food in general would not have been subjected to the heavy processing which is applied to many modern foods with added fructose, preservatives and taste enhancers.

One of the benefits of periodic fasting is to detoxify the body from the accumulation of these unnatural, modern food additives, which the people who lived during the times of the Buddha would not have been exposed to. Even a simple bowl of unprocessed brown rice would have been far more sustainable in those days than the modern white rice that Thais place in the monks' alms bowls.

Hi Rocky,

I frequently eat just one meal a day, and never more than two. I began occasional fasting a couple of years ago after reading about the research on the health benefits, which I find quite exciting.

So far, I've fasted 3 or 4 times for a full two-day period, once for a full three-day period, and just recently for almost a 4-day period, or to be precise, 92 hours, 4 hours short of a full 4 days.

During this recent 4-day fast, I was pleased that I had enough energy to go for a walk and a bit of a jog in the evening of the first day after a fairly normal day's activity. During the 2nd and 3rd days I had enough energy to do a bit of heavy work in the garden pulling up tall weeds and shovelling and spreading top soil. (Hope I didn't kill any worms. )

During the 4th day I began to feel a significant lack of energy, but surprisingly I didn't feel any particularly uncomfortable hunger pangs and felt I could have continued fasting for 5 days at least, if I hadn't made a previous commitment to have dinner with a friend.

During the whole period I felt quite relaxed and did a bit of meditating, concentrating on my breath. I look forward to the next time I have the opportunity to fast at my hideaway retreat. Hopefully I'll have more time to meditate and I'll try to extend my fast for 5 days.

By the way, when I fast I don't take any food whatsoever, nor any fruit juice, tea, vitamins or pills of any description. I drink only water.

I envy your situation.

Is your weight stable?

How did you find meditation during fasting vs meditation at other times?

I have to confess, Rocky, that my primary motivation for fasting is for the health benefits rather than the spiritual benefits, although I believe that both are connected.

I haven't yet fasted often enough nor meditated often enough during periods of fasting and non-fasting to be able to discern a clear difference and make a reliable comparison, but this is something I hope to be able to work on, in the future.

At present, I can't help wondering if the effects of the extreme fasting that Gautama did prior to his enlightenment, at least partially contributed to his subsequent enlightenment as a result of the biological changes that took place in his mind and body during those extreme periods of fasting.

After he began eating again, many defective cells that his body would have consumed as food, as a result of the body's natural and instinctive drive to survive, would gradually have been replaced with healthy and fully-functioning cells. Also, if it's true that the body creates new neurons and synapses during periods of prolonged fasting, in its attempt to help the mind recognize, discern and discover new sources of food essential for the person's survival, then it's reasonable to presume that the Buddha would have experienced a partially new and revitalized body and mind after recovering from his prolonged period of fasting.

It's also reasonable to presume or deduce that this new and revitalized state of mind would have contributed towards, and perhaps even been essential for Gautama's subsequent enlightenment.

This is just a hypothesis, but it makes sense to me. However, I would not recommend that anyone try to emulate this part of Gautama's experiment on his path to enlightenment. The Buddha's later principle of 'moderation' should also apply to fasting.

Interesting article, Camerata. Thanks.

The main obstacle to meditation is the busy lifestyle that most of us lead, with a perpetual list of things that need to be done or attended to, causing a continuous degree of concern and worry, whether great or small. The Meditation Retreat should help to isolate us from this normally busy environment, allowing for easier meditation, I imagine.

However, I've never attended a commercially organised Meditation Retreat. I've got my own hideaway, and I'm inherently reluctant to submit myself to other people's rules. Perhaps my ego is too big.

I don't think ego is so much of a problem as being used to a high degree of control over our personal lives. It then becomes difficult to relinquish that control. That's certainly the main reason I never ordained for the traditional 3 months. It's even more difficult if one has an introvert personality. A cave in the jungle, yes, cooped up with 20 monks, no!

Yes. Perhaps that's true. I also can't reconcile what I imagine to be a Buddhist goal of control over oneself and one's desires, (which I am managing quite well, but not perfect), with the submission to the rule of others or the rules of a monastic order.

I find with shorter meditation retreats there are too many distractions. Not enough room for walking meditation, aircon too cold, tuk-tuks revving outside, etc.

I can imagine that would be the case. I'm thankful that I have my own little forest retreat, which is a few acres of land in the Australia bush. It's peaceful and quiet and I'm able to feel at one with nature. Nevertheless, I do have a few chores to attend to regularly, since I grow my own food, and I have an accumulation of old possessions and junk which I need to sort out and take to the rubbish dump, so I'm fairly busy, but at my own pace.

Hi V.

I can attest to fasting and reducing meals to once a day.

I conduct a 4 day fast once a year.

I also attend an annual retreat in which, on most days, there are two meal sittings (before noon), culminating in one meal per day.

I found that the amount of food consumed in a sitting is critical to ones ability to concentrate.

Eat too much and concentration is extremely difficult.

I would rarely fill my bowl more than halfway.

I summarize the digestive process as: Ingestion, digestion, assimilation, & elimination.

My mornings would begin at 4.00am.

I will drink 600ml of water and follow this with an elimination session (evacuation), and then I would bathe.

Group Sitting Meditation commences after 4.30am.

Some of my deepest and most profound Samadhi experiences have been during this early period.

With a gut emptied of toxins and waste, the body feels relaxed and the mind calm and alert.

A perfect state from which to practice Concentration & Awareness.

Some retreatants were observed consuming 2 or 3 large filled bowls at a sitting.

For them there would be no meditation, entering deep states of drowsiness whilst their bodies attempted to digest what they had over consumed.

Limiting consumption to one meal a day and ensuring an early quality bout of elimination will set you up with the ideal conditions for quality practice.

Unfortunately most have no awareness on the impact of their bodies and their minds from consumption anchored in desire rather than for sustenance.

Hi Rocky,

I frequently eat just one meal a day, and never more than two. I began occasional fasting a couple of years ago after reading about the research on the health benefits, which I find quite exciting.

So far, I've fasted 3 or 4 times for a full two-day period, once for a full three-day period, and just recently for almost a 4-day period, or to be precise, 92 hours, 4 hours short of a full 4 days.

During this recent 4-day fast, I was pleased that I had enough energy to go for a walk and a bit of a jog in the evening of the first day after a fairly normal day's activity. During the 2nd and 3rd days I had enough energy to do a bit of heavy work in the garden pulling up tall weeds and shovelling and spreading top soil. (Hope I didn't kill any worms. )

During the 4th day I began to feel a significant lack of energy, but surprisingly I didn't feel any particularly uncomfortable hunger pangs and felt I could have continued fasting for 5 days at least, if I hadn't made a previous commitment to have dinner with a friend.

During the whole period I felt quite relaxed and did a bit of meditating, concentrating on my breath. I look forward to the next time I have the opportunity to fast at my hideaway retreat. Hopefully I'll have more time to meditate and I'll try to extend my fast for 5 days.

By the way, when I fast I don't take any food whatsoever, nor any fruit juice, tea, vitamins or pills of any description. I drink only water.

and an omnipotent God debunked by LOGIC.

As nothing has been or can be proven beyond life, this is an illogical statement.

It is just as possible that there is an omnipotent God, as it is possible that the state of Nirvana exists.

Logic doesn't come into it.

That beyond Samsara cannot be governed by logic as we know it.

I agree, Rocky. Well put.

I don't see what are you trying to say have any relationships with Buddhism or what is true or false.

If all or more older religions believe in a Creator, the more it proved that the AdaM and Eve part was created later to fool people. All these beliefs in a Creator God was not debunked by science or logic. Only AdaM and Eve story was debunked by science and an omnipotent God debunked by LOGIC. No matter how the story evolved, we know now that who ever created the Adam and Eve part is up to no good since it's proven fake.

What is not logical is to claim that the Adam and Eve story was created to fool people. If that were true, it would imply that the writers of the Adam and Eve story had some pre-knowledge of the processes of evolution and knew that what they were writing was not true.

I see no evidence for this. The writers of the Adam and Eve story probably had no thoughts at all of any theory of evolution. A scam results when a person knows that what he is promoting is not true.

The Abrahamic religion evolved long before the concept of the scientific method existed. I have no reason to suppose that the writers of the Adam and Eve story did not whole-heartedly believe in what they were writing. Do you have any reason to doubt that, Only1? If so, please give your reasons.