VincentRJ

22 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

How does Buddhadasa's tendency affect you, in particular, your practice (Eightfold Path)?

What do you put off as a result of Buddhadasa's tendencies?

Hi rocky,

How does it affect me? I guess he provokes within me a sense of compassion for him because, despite his great learning and understanding of Buddhism, he seems to be so flawed at a fundamental level. He can't even control his appetite. That's so sad.

I don't put anything off as a result of Buddhadasa's tendencies. My style of meditation is closer the style of the slightly heretical Santi Asoke Buddhist communities who practise meditation with eyes wide open whilst engaging in their daily work in a natural environment.

The Eightfold path is a no-brainer. Who on earth would think that Wrong speech, Wrong action, Wrong livelihood, and so on, is preferable to Right speech, Right action, Right livelihood?

The usefulness of the 8-fold path is to provide a list of important issues for one to consider and think about, using the methodology set out in the Kalama Sutta.

Welcome back from your retreat, Rocky (assuming you have been on another retreat).

I was beginning to think that this section of the forum had been killed off, and that I was partly responsible because of my argumentative style of sound and sytematic reasoning.

I'll begin by addressing your following point:

Whether influenced by genetics, environment, or both, the fact Buddhadassa had tendency towards obesity, has nothing to do with his teachings.

First, it's a major principle of Buddhism that everything is related, at least to some degree, through processes of cause and effect. It therefore follows that Buddhadasa's tendency towards obesity would reasonably have had at least something to do with his teachings, and would have influenced his teachings in at least some way and to some degree, however insignificant that degree might be.

It might require a major research project to determine in what way Buddhadassa's tendency towards obesity had influenced his teachings, and in what way his teachings, or thought processes at the basis of his teachings, had influenced his eating habits, as a result of his specific emphasis on, and interpretation of, certain aspects of the Buddha's teachings.

For example, I would guess that Buddhadasa would not have placed much emphasis on the following quotes, attributed to the Buddha.

"The Buddha gave this reflection: "Properly considering alms-food, I use it: not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on weight, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival and continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the chaste life, (thinking) I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) and not create new feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, and live in comfort."

"Monks, I do not eat in the evening. Because I avoid eating in the evening, I am in good health, light, energetic, and live comfortably. You, too, monks, avoid eating in the evening, and you will have good health."

To dismiss the teachings of one who does not look the part is a significant mistake.

I would never dismiss the entire teachings of someone who doesn't look the part, Rocky. However, in this case of Buddhadasa, for the reasons given above, some warning bells might start ringing.

If I'm studying Maths, or Physics, and the teacher is overweight, I would consider that issue to be irrelevant to the subject. However, if I were to visit a medical doctor as a result of some blood pressure or heart problem, and the doctor was obese, I would probably lose confidence in his diagnosis and recommendations, and seek a second opinion. Physician, heal thyself.

The Kalama Sutta is an excellent guide for ones life.

Great care is needed however not to use it as an excuse not to fully engage in a prescribed practice.

The Kalama Sutta can render one fixed in the cerebral/theoretical, with little time left for actual practice/experience/insight.

Finding out for oneself relies on a little faith in order to engage in appropriate levels of practice needed to expose a kernel of insight.

Anchoring oneself in the Kalama Sutta can lock one into a circular path from which there is no escape.

I believe the following quotes are from KALAMA SUTTA, HELP US! by Buddhadasa. The highlights in bold are mine.

"If one follows the principle of the Kalama Sutta, one will have independent knowledge and reason with which to understand the meaning and truth of ideas and propositions heard for the first time. For example, when one hears that greed, hatred, and delusion are dangerous and evil, one understands thoroughly and instantly, because one already knows through personal experience what these things are like. One believes in oneself rather than in the speaker. The way of practice is the same in other cases. If a statement is about something one has never seen or known before, one should try to understand or get to know it first. Then one can consider whether or not to accept the newly received teaching or advice. One must not accept something just because one believes in the speaker. One should take one's time, even if it means dying before finding out. The Kalama Sutta can protect one from becoming the intellectual slave of others, even on the highest levels."

There's a problem every time a new kind of medicine comes out and gets advertised up and down all over the place. Should we offer ourselves as guinea pigs to test it, out of belief in the advertisements? Or should we wait until we have sufficient reason to try just a little of it first, to see if it truly gives good results, before fully relying on it? We should respond to new statements and teachings as we respond to new medicines, by depending on the principles in the Kalama Sutta as a true refuge.

The Kalama Sutta requires us to have wisdom before having faith. If one wants to have faith come first, then let it be the faith which begins with wisdom, not faith which comes from ignorance. The same holds true in the principle of the Noble Eightfold Path: Take wisdom or right understanding as the starting point, then let faith grow out of that wisdom or right understanding. That is the only safe approach. We ought never to believe blindly immediately upon hearing something, nor should we be forced to believe out of fear, bribery, and the like."

I'm very much in agreement with the above points from Buddhadasa.　

The Dalai Lama has a great sense of humour.

That sounds like quite an adventure, Camerata. Many people would probably enjoy such a trip regardless of any attachment to Buddhism. (Oops! non-attachment, I meant, or did I?)

Tibet is the one country I've always wished to visit, but have been put off by the restrictive Chinese regulations.

In 1964 I freely trekked in Nepal, visiting Tibetan Refugee camps and sleeping in the local villagers' houses because there were no hotels in those days.

I almost joined a group of Tibetans who were travelling back to Tibet to gather more refugees, but decided against the idea, partly due to a fear of being caught by the Chinese military, and partly because I was running out of film for my camera, and would not be able to fully document my experiences.

However, I do have a few photos of those Tibetan refugees in Nepal. Here's one of an anonymous monk or lama taken 52 years ago. Does anyone know his name?

The tragic part of all this is also the apparent inability of people to protect themselves from such flooding events which are a fairly regular occurence in Thailand during the monsoon period.

I recall vividly, when I first visited Thailand 54 years ago at the age of 20, I rented a cheap dwelling of the sort inhabited by the local poor people. Access was along an elevated, wooden walkway. It was quite an adventure accessing my rented dwelling during the worst part of the monsoon. Even the elevated walkway was flooded, but fortunately not my dwelling. But I was there for only one season.

Excellent video! Ajahn Brahm is very positive and has a great sense of humour. He does a good job at removing the fear of dying.

17 hours ago, soalbundy said:

300 Baht a ton ? surely a typo, the worst prices this year from the private sector was 6,000 Baht a ton

Yes. It must be a typo. 300 baht per ton is ridiculously cheap. Even 3,000 baht would be ridiculously cheap.

Here's an extract from the Bangkok Post:

Kneeling and sobbing before a top commerce ministry official, a Phichit farmer appealed to the government Sunday to help growers suffering from the fall in rice prices to 5,000 baht a tonne, the lowest level in decades.

Meanwhile, CP Thai Rice Company Limited Deputy Managing Director Trairat Udonsiyothin said he had made a deal with rice farmers where his company would buy their grains at 300 baht per ton if they meet the requirements. Trairat said the price the company offers to farmers is higher than other buyers in the country.

Wow! 300 baht for a whole ton of rice. That's just 1 baht for 3.3 kg.

Of course, I assume that doesn't include processing. Does it cost more to process the rice than grow the rice?

If that rice is given the minimum processing, to keep it 'brown rice', it would be tremendous value; both nutritious and cheap.

21 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

imprecise and unclear? I was thinking more along the lines of deliberately argumentative and a waste of my time

I would be thinking more along the lines of informative, rather than argumentative. However, to be precise, 'argumentative' has two general meanings. The first one that probably most people think of is, quarrelsome and disputatious. Is that what you mean?

The second meaning of argumentative is, 'using or characterized by systematic reasoning'. If this second meaning is what you had in mind, then I agree. I try to use the highest standards of argumentative rigour.

22 hours ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

You're serious? Tendencies which are passed on by someone for whose actions I am not responsible impact my karma? The standard definition of karma is "where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect)". That is, we are responsible for our own karma. Our karma is not dependent on the intent and actions of another individual. 

I think you need to read up on the differences between the Hindu/Tibetan concept of Reincarnation and the Theravada Buddhist concept of Rebirth.

The following article explains the different views quite well.

http://sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Differences_between_Rebirth_and_Reincarnation.html

In short, according to one interpretation of rebirth, there is no individual identity or personality that is carried forward to a new life. Therevada Buddhism denies the idea of the continuity of a fixed self or person. What is carried forward to a new life is a karmic 'storehouse' of motivations and tendencies.

However, the people who wrote the first texts explaining the Buddhist concepts of Karma and Rebirth had no knowledge of the human genome, but we do. We now know that genes are the true storehouse of tendencies and motivations, especially when one includes the recent research on the processes of 'transgenerational epigenetic inheritance'.

18 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

what you say requires compassion? interesting

 

Seems I've fallen into the trap of being imprecise and unclear.

I was referring to your comment 'what you do or do not think is immaterial to me', as a very compassionate attitude, with a hint of sarcasm of course.

20 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

what you do or do not think is immaterial to me

Very compassionate, like a true Buddhist!

17 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

not to you at least. lost interest

You poor dear! I think you should try to be more inquiring.

On ‎30‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 7:53 AM, thai3 said:

Fairy tales, there is no karma or re birth.

By what process of logic do you arrive at that conclusion?

We know from history that the behaviour of people in general have consequences for future generations. One war leads to another war. Actions in this life always have consequences for future lives, whether it's the action of just a few powerful individuals, or widespread cultural behaviour.

For example, climate change alarmists are worried about the effects on future generations of increases in the CO2 levels in our atmosphere, which are due to our current cultural behaviour of getting our energy requirements from fossil fuels.

Even if one believes that the effects of increased CO2 levels are greatly exaggerated, there are still the undeniable effects of pollution and smog from car exhaust fumes and the burning of coal, especially in countries with poor emission controls.

The science of genetics is in its infancy. We thought we'd cracked the human genome a few decades ago by identifying just 2% of our genes which are protein-encoding. The rest of the non-encoding genome was assumed to be 'junk' DNA, a relic from our distant evolutionary past.

Geneticists are now beginning to understand that this non-encoding DNA is not junk, and has some influence on our health.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/12/19/only-two-percent-of-genome-codes-for-genes-so-whats-the-rest-for/

Other recent developments have taken place in the science of 'epigenetics', which is the study of 'heritable changes in gene expression (active versus inactive genes) that does not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence — a change in phenotype without a change in genotype — which in turn affects how cells read the genes.'

For a long time, as far back as I remember, it was assumed that no type of behaviour in a current life can alter a person's genetic make-up in such a way that the consequences of such behaviour could be passed on to future generations.

It now seems this is no longer thought to be true. There is a process called 'transgenerational epigenetic inheritance', which refers to all types of influences that the parent’s life experiences can have on their offspring, from mutations caused by drug use, or exposure to certain environments, or even physical trauma.

This process of 'transgenerational epigenetic inheritance' sounds quite compatible with the Buddhist notion of Karma and Rebirth, especially if one interprets Rebirth as referring to tendencies which are passed on, rather than an identity, personality or soul.

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/02/have-researchers-cracked-the-case-for-past-life-memories/

On ‎30‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 8:27 AM, AYJAYDEE said:

I can only speak for mine

 I see! Nothing new to say then.

On ‎29‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 4:00 PM, AYJAYDEE said:

well you just convinced me of the waste of time and energy this has been!! my god!!

Do you mean my time, or your time?

6 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

if Buddhadassa tells me not to worry about that and live according to the 5 precepts and to enter  the eightfold path , then that is more than enough for me. 

Whereas I'm a great fan of the Kalama Sutta, and even expand upon it in line with modern theories of science.

To be honest (as I always am) I'm a bit put off by Buddhadassa's tendency towards obesity. It implies a failing at a very basic level; a lack of control of his desires in respect of his appetite for food.

6 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

As to rebirth, it is merely the continuation of energy in a new and different guise without the need for an unchanging permanent soul or personality . And that is enough for me , I am content knowing that if I live my life so as to minimize greed, aversion and delusion in this life of moment to moment births and deaths then, if there is actual new being rebirth, I'll be in good shape and if there isn't  I will have lived wisely and that is enough.

Sounds like a reasonable position to take, and probably very comforting. 

I would not argue against attempts to minimize  any 'bad' types of behaviour in one's life. That's only sensible, if nothing else.
However, there might be seen to be a flaw in such a position for a Buddhist.  A  lack of an accurate understanding of the true nature of a Karmic reality in which some sort of energy has been modified in this life due to certain types of good behaviour, and is passed on to a new physical birth, might result in disadvantageous consequences for the individual.

Without an understanding of how such a process works, one might unwittingly and mistakenly believe that certain types of behaviour in this life will favour some improved circumstances in a future life, if it turns out that Karma and physical Rebirth are connected.
If you are wrong about the nature of which types of behaviour work the most efficiently with regards to Karmic reality, because you haven't investigated it, because you've given it low priority, you might end up going backwards. 

Then in some future life, in a thousand years' time, when you are actually able to recall all your past physical lives, you might realize how you've wasted so many opportunities to improve your future lives because you assumed that investigating such matters of physical rebirth was a waste of time. 

But don't worry about it. I'm partly joking. 

On 10/27/2016 at 9:48 AM, AYJAYDEE said:

just because its inconceivable to you doesnt mean it couldnt happen. the two slit experimental result is inconceivable to me but it happens

I agree that because something is inconceivable to me, it does not follow that  that thing (event or phenomena) cannot exist or occur and therefore cannot be be conceivable to someone else. I'm not so arrogant as to think otherwise, because I am, after all, a humble Buddhist. 

However, it is also the case that simply because something is conceivable to a number of people, even a large number of people, it does not follow that that thing or event must therefore exist in reality, as described.

Generally, when we are faced with choices between the conceivable and the inconceivable, as we often are throughout life, many of us tend to opt for the conceivable. Wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, we'd all be living in a land of fairy tales. 

The two-slit experiment, and lots of other effects often referred to as 'quantum weirdness', are unable to be explained in terms of classical, or Newtonian science, because such classical systems tend not to take into consideration the effect that the 'act of observation' has on the observed phenomena.
In other words, there's a cultural tendency, which is also embedded in common language, to treat the observer as completely separate from and independent of the object or phenomenon being observed.

When examining relatively large objects, the effect of the observer is usually so minuscule it can be ignored.
However, when examining the behaviour of such tiny particles as photons of light, we have to destroy the photons or transform them in order to observe them. There's no way we can observe the trajectory of a photon as we can observe the trajectory of a mosquito, bird, or a plane, because we have no access to significantly tinier particles than photons that could be used to bounce off the photon being observed, without drastically changing the photon.

This is the concept that makes sense to me and which I think is also consistent with basic Buddhist principles at the philosophical level, such as the law of cause and effect.

Now, Ajaydee, if you can clearly explain to me how it might be possible for anyone to recall their past lives in all their detail, as Gautama is claimed to have done whilst under the Bodhi Tree, whilst simultaneously claiming that  ego, self, soul, personality, etc. are all an illusion, it would be much appreciated. I shall then be able to 'conceive' how that might be possible. After that, perhaps you could also explain the distinction between Rebirth and Reincarnation. 

I should add that what has promted this question in the title of this thread, is the confusion I see in the distinction between Reincarnation and Rebirth.

The Hindu concept of reincarnation implies a permanent identity that is transmitted from one biological birth to the next biological birth. Stories in the Pali Canon recount how Gautama recalled his past lives in all their detail, during his night under the Bodhi tree.

It's inconceivable how anyone could recall a past life without the existence of some sort of durable identity, whether one calls it a soul or a personality, or something else.

Tendencies and attitudes are impersonal. If the concept of rebirth in Buddhism relates only to certain tendencies, affected by our actions in this life, then doesn't that diminish the social power of the concept of Karma?

If I behave badly in this life, it's nonsense to say that I might be reborn as a dog or a cow, because there's no 'I', or personality, or identity that is reborn. It's just a tendency of behaviour, which is more in accord with the behaviour of a more primitive animal, that is reborn.

If it were the case that someone were to retain his human identity whilst being reborn as a cow, it might feel like hell. However, I haven't noticed that cows seem particularly disturbed. They seem quite peaceful.

In other words, if there's no soul, personality or durable identity that is reborn, then why worry about it or even give it any thought?

17 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

He shouldn't say no one. I know at least three, Rod Bucknell, Santikaro and me.

Good point, which illustrates the ever-pervasive problem of interpretation, whether one is reading one's own language, or attempting to translate a foreign or extinct language into one's own language.

I proof-read the extract I quoted because I saw that the grammar was a bit off, and some sentences were a bit confusing. Perhaps I should have mentioned that.

The quote in question, as it appeared on the website, is as follows:

'No-one word describe a simple act of generosity as a ‘skilful deed,’ and who has ever heard of a boy scout doing his ‘skilful deed for the day?’

Is the intended meaning, 'No single word describes a simple act of generosity as a 'skilful deed'? That didn't make sense to me because 'skilful deed' is two words. So I made a rational interpretation that the intended meaning was, 'No-one describes...'

Was I right or wrong? I'm always willing to admit my errors.

22 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

perhaps because it wasn't an accurate translation. But if Buddhist Masters tell me that , in the usage being discussed, the word has moral connotations, then why would I not believe them? The fact that a word translates into YOUR language in a way that brings tradesmen to mind is hardly the fault of the original word.

I think this is yet another example of the Pali word (in this case 'kusala') not have a precise English equivalent. It's no-one's fault. It's just how things are, and is something we should be aware of.

It seems I'm not the only one who found the use of the word 'skilful' a bit odd in certain Buddhist texts. Searching the internet I came across the following, relevant comment from http://www.buddhivihara.org/kusala-and-akusala-as-criteria-of-buddhist-ethics/

To quote:

"There is a problem with using ‘skilful’ as a translation of kusala . That is, the English word ‘skilful’ does not extend in English to both moral and technical commendation as the word kusala does in its Pali.

As Keown has rightly pointed out, ‘Skilful’ denotes approval in the technical sense only and does not figure at all in the vocabulary of moral discourse in English.

No-one describes a simple act of generosity as a ‘skilful deed’, and who has ever heard of a boy scout doing his ‘skilful deed for the day?’ Instead, one naturally speaks of ‘good’ or ‘virtuous’ deeds.

While ‘skilful’ may be a perfectly correct translation of kusala when the term appears in a technical context (for instance, a skilful artisan), it is forced and awkward in a moral one. In English the natural way of describing the moral state of an Arahat is as ‘endowed with virtues’ (sampannakusala) and of the ‘highest virtue’ or of the ‘highest skill'. On the other hand, skilful is an attribute of a master-craftsman, not a saint."

At least I have now learned what the original Pali word is, that is often translated as skilful.

I've noticed on this forum and other Buddhist forums a problem in accepting the concept of Karma and Rebirth literally. For the scientifically-minded atheist, there's a way out. One acceptable interpretation is that rebirth really refers to the arising of new thoughts (and/or attitudes) in this lifetime, and that the Buddhist scriptures that imply otherwise are just distortions of the Buddha's 'true' teachings, probably due to the influence of the cultural background of Hindu Reincarnation beliefs, sometimes referred to as Hindu contamination.

My personal view is that there is some merit in the Buddha's 'amendment' of the Hindu theory of reincarnation. In other words, it represents some degree of progress towards what we now understand about the genetic characteristics that are carried forward to future generations, and the way in which cultural behaviour has had an influence on what genes are carried forward.

We often tend to hear the mantra, 'nature or nurture'. There's a modern concept that what we are (our personality, skills, achievements, and so on) is a combination of our genetic characteristics and cultural background.

In one lifetime we don't expect to change our genetic make-up, at least not without the intervention of a genetic specialist. However, over many lifetimes, the genetic characteristics of human individuals will change as a result of cultural influences, so our current state of affairs is in part due to a gradual change in our genetic characteristics, and in part due to our behaviour in past lives.

For example, 10,000 years ago, most people would have died from lactose intolerance if cows' milk was a part of their diet. Now, only a relatively few suffer from lactose intolerance.

The following article addresses such issues, but unless you are willing to pay for the full article, you will have to be satisfied with the abstract, as I am, because I'm a poor Buddhist.

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v11/n2/full/nrg2734.html

"Researchers from diverse backgrounds are converging on the view that human evolution has been shaped by gene–culture interactions. Theoretical biologists have used population genetic models to demonstrate that cultural processes can have a profound effect on human evolution, and anthropologists are investigating cultural practices that modify current selection. These findings are supported by recent analyses of human genetic variation, which reveal that hundreds of genes have been subject to recent positive selection, often in response to human activities. Here, we collate these data, highlighting the considerable potential for cross-disciplinary exchange to provide novel insights into how culture has shaped the human genome."

19 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

I tend to follow Buddhadassa's ideas ie: concentrate on what I CAN observe and know, the moment to moment birth and dying of  everyday life and IF actual rebirth takes place later, so be it, I lived this life skillfully and  If not, I lived this life skillfully.

Ah! Skillfully! That's a very broad term, often associated with tradesmen, such as bricklayers, or musicians, such as pianists.

Whatever one does, being skilful at it tends to ensure success, even if one is burgling a house or robbing a bank, or killing one's enemy.

I've often been a pit puzzled by the use of skilful in Buddhist translations, because it has no moral connotations for me.

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 10:53 AM, AYJAYDEE said:

I cannot ask myself what he meant because he wrote nothing down. and the people that finally did write down what they THOUGHT he said were influenced by the times they lived in.

That's a very reasonable position to take. As I see it, there's a strong and natural tendency for everyone, when interpreting anything that is encountered through the senses, including the reading of historical texts and even the recall of personal memories, to always interpret what they sense (see, hear, taste, smell and touch) in accordance with their own individual experiences, knowledge, understanding, biases, prejudices, and general conditioning. How could it be otherwise?

The lure of these Buddhist concepts of Nirvana and Enlightenment, at least for me, is the interesting possibility of being able to attain an experience, resulting from a stillness of mind, which is uncontaminated, or at least relatively uncontaminated by the usual conditioned prejudices, biases, fears and suppressed attitudes that are a normal state of affairs for most of us.

Whether or not there exists in reality some sort of spiritual essense that is transmitted from past lives to future lives seems to me to fall into the same category as the impractical, unproductive speculation on the existence of a Creator God, which Buddhist teachings avoid addressing.

However, the Buddhist concept of the rebirth of a 'spiritual essence' which comprises certain tendencies and attitudes only, which are continuously subject to change, rather than a permanent soul or personality, is an interesting distinction which is more in line with modern evolutionary science and genetics.