.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
VincentRJ
-
Posts
2,305 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by VincentRJ
-
-
I cannot take this form of religion seriously whilst it has temples dripping with gold leaf amid the poverty of its congregation.
Remember, gold is one of the most permanent substances we have. It doesn't corrode or tarnish and can last indefinitely. Since Buddhists are very aware of the principle of impermanence, gold must be a great attraction for them, since it's relatively permanent.
-
What a sturdy dwelling, passed on from generation to generation. Doesn't that tend to contradict the Buddhist idea of 'impermanence'?
-
Mind is a very cunning animal. Hence so much flag waving and wind blowing. Does not want to leave the boat!!
Close your eyes and you will see clearly. Cease to listen and you will hear the truth. Be silent and your heart will sing. Lao Tzu . To me, another Buddha .
It's interesting that Gautama and Lao Tzu could have been contemporaries. Unfortunately, the historical facts relating to both of these philosopher/gurus are greatly lacking. We can't be sure if either of them really existed as individual identities during a specific period in history, as described in the earliest texts. They are quite likely composite characters, as are most characters depicted in works of fiction.On the other hand, I suppose one could make a valid point within the context of ideas that describe the ego and personality as an illusion, that the accuracy of historical information relating to Lao Tzu and the Buddha should not be an issue. It's all an illusion, and the purpose of the teachings is to enable one to become aware of this. -
but isn't it quite possible that thousands of individuals, perhaps millions, throughout the ages, and including the present times, have achieved the same, or similar states of enlightenment as Gautama did?
Don't you think then the world would be a better place?
Isn't it also likely that Gautama's social status as the son of a king, or ruling chieftain, would have had some bearing on the decision of later rulers to promote Gautama as the founder of a new religion?
As he wasn't a Brahmin, therefore not destined for a religious life, then I'd imagine this would count against him.
That Gautama is reported as being initially reluctant to teach his methods, possibly because he didn't think his teachings would be understood and therefore might result in his wasting his time, and possibly because he realised his innovative teachings might be too much in conflict with the existing Hindu beliefs of the times, is an interesting aspect to contemplate.
If it's really true that Gautama was initially reluctant to spread his teachings orally, through travelling on foot presumably, throughout the region, then how many other enlightened people, within that Hindu context, have decided that they will not be persuaded to teach their methods?
Not really, anybody contemplating a huge undertaking is going to pause and consider whether that's what they really want, ask any parent.
How many people do you think contemplated developing a computer operating system but decided against it? perhaps we should install one of those systems. It's only relevant if you want to follow the teachings of one of those teachers that never taught, and how would you go about that?
Sorry for this late response to your comments about mine, Bruce. I felt at the time it might be pointless engaging in yet more speculation, something which Gautama would, reportedly, not have approved of.However, I recently came across the following reference to Ashoka in a Wikipedia article, which rather shocked me, and got me thinking again about Gautama's initial reluctance to teach his methods."The ancient texts Ashokavadana and the Diviyavadana mention that the Buddhist king Ashoka ordered killings of several nirgranthas or Jain monks after being informed that two (only two) nirgranthas had drawn pictures depicting the Buddha bowing at the feet of Mahavira."If this is historically accurate, it provides an insight into the barbarity of the times. Mahavira and Gautama Buddha were contemporaries, although Mahavira might have been senior. Jainism and Buddhism seem to have much in common, including the principle of non-violence. Ashoka's grandfather, King Chandragupta, was apparently a Jain by faith.In view of this great sensitivity about religious matters in India at that time, and the potential dire consequences for anyone who promoted a view which was different to that held by those currently in power, it seems reasonable to suppose that Gautama's initial reluctance to teach his views was not only due to an awareness of the practical difficulties of getting his teachings understood through the use of the current terminology of the times, but the potential counterproductive consequences of violence and killing during arguments about whose views are right.I therefore deduce that Gautama's status as a prince would have had some bearing on his decision to teach his own views on such religiously sensitive matters, and would have given him a degree of confidence that others of a lower status in society would not have had, despite their possibly achieving a similar degree of enlightenment.I don't find your counter-argument convincing, that the world would be a better place (than it currently is) if it is the case that countless other individuals throughout history have achieved a similar degree of enlightenment as Gautama did, but through other methods, each slightly different at the individual level.This is where matters become pure speculation. The world might indeed be a better place than it otherwise would have been, as a result of the relatively minor influence of countless thousands of individuals who reached enlightenment in the past, but decided not to teach their methods. The influence of such enlightened people might have been rather subtle, and their influence unidentifiable as a result of their anonymity. Therefore we can never know what the world would have been like if such enlightened people had never existed.I rest my case. -
I'm only speculating here of course, but isn't it quite possible that thousands of individuals, perhaps millions, throughout the ages, and including the present times, have achieved the same, or similar states of enlightenment as Gautama did?If it's really true that Gautama was initially reluctant to spread his teachings orally, through travelling on foot presumably, throughout the region, then how many other enlightened people, within that Hindu context, have decided that they will not be persuaded to teach their methods?
I think you missed my point (difficult in a 2 dimensional forum).
What I meant was that "the probability of you or I duplicating his performance would be infinitesimally improbable", includes developing Dhamma as well as practicing it successfully.
If we developed the teaching then we would know what the original teaching was.
I find the term 'duplicating his performance' a bit off-putting with too much implication of servility and servitude. I tend to think that because each individual is different, with a different background and different conditioning and formative experiences, the path to enlightenment will also be different, at least to some degree, although the goal might be the same.Gautama's path and methodology would unavoidably have been strongly influenced by the Hindu traditions of the times. Nobody lives in a vacuum. -
except buddhadassa didnt say that
I value your input AJ.
What didn't Buddhadasa say?
he didnt categorically deny rebirth
The impression I get, from references to his teachings, is that he redefined the concept so that 'rebirth' might apply, more sensibly in the minds of some, to the arising of new thoughts within a current life.However, I suspect you are correct that he didn't categorically deny that the same term could also apply to a literal, physical rebirth into the beginning of another physical life form. To deny that possibility would not only have been very contentious, but also irrational.It's generally impossible to prove that something cannot exist, within a very large context like the universe, without having the accompanying knowledge and certainty of absolutely everything that can and does exist in the universe. This is why it's impossible to prove there is no Creator God. -
Hi Rocky,I don't find some of these arguments convincing. Gautama didn't have the benefit of the Dharma whilst he was searching for 'Enlightenment'. He presumably worked things out for himself, presumably using the same principles that he later taught to the Kalamas after he'd attained enlightenment.
Why don't you find some these arguments convincing?
Isn't the fact that, Guatama didn't have the benefit of Dharma, irrelevant to our path?
If you think in terms of a bell curve graph illustrating probability of "developing and successfully practicing a path to Awakening", Gautama turned out to be the most probable (succeeded) in our human sample.
I suspect the probability of you or I duplicating his performance would be infinitesimally improbable.
I'm only speculating here of course, but isn't it quite possible that thousands of individuals, perhaps millions, throughout the ages, and including the present times, have achieved the same, or similar states of enlightenment as Gautama did?Isn't it possible, and even likely, that Siddhartha Gautama of the Shakya clan, was the one chosen to be promoted into a new religion later, after his death, because he had been persuaded during his lifetime to try to teach his techniques of reaching enlightenment, something he was initially reluctant to do, and as a result gained some fame and some followers during his fairly long life?Isn't it also likely that Gautama's social status as the son of a king, or ruling chieftain, would have had some bearing on the decision of later rulers to promote Gautama as the founder of a new religion?That Gautama is reported as being initially reluctant to teach his methods, possibly because he didn't think his teachings would be understood and therefore might result in his wasting his time, and possibly because he realised his innovative teachings might be too much in conflict with the existing Hindu beliefs of the times, is an interesting aspect to contemplate.If it's really true that Gautama was initially reluctant to spread his teachings orally, through travelling on foot presumably, throughout the region, then how many other enlightened people, within that Hindu context, have decided that they will not be persuaded to teach their methods?If you remove Hindi/Brahman tainting, according to Bikkhu Buddhadasa, you'll also only have one crack it it (this life).
Phew! That's a relief! If I don't become 'awakened' in this life, then never mind. When I die, that's the end. No need to worry about it.However, joke aside, such thoughts lead me to the realisation of how important the concept of Karma and Reincarnation is for Buddhism. If one removes such concepts, surely one weakens the religion, just as removing the concepts of everlasting heaven and hell in Christianity would weaken the power and effectiveness of Christianity as a religion. -
One major reason why I'm attracted towards Buddhism at the philosophical level is because I've come across anecdotes, analogies, teachings and advice in the Buddhist scriptures which simply make sense to me and which appear to be wise.However, sometimes certain concepts in the scriptures do not make sense and create doubt in my mind. How does one deal with this situation?Fortunately, the Pali Canon addresses such problems, in the form of the Kalama Sutta, which is purported to be advice delivered by the Buddha to a group of skeptical villagers whom he encountered during his travels.Here it is. The Kalama Sutta, Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, Pali Canon.1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.2. Do not believe in something because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or part of a culture.3. Do not believe in something because a scripture says it is so.4. Do not believe in something because you believe a God has inspired it.5. Do not believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so.6. Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so.7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.8. Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.In the light of this teaching, why would anyone be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism? Surely it's only the truth and wisdom of the teaching that matters.Is not everything conflated with everything else to some degree, even if that degree of conflation is sometimes very small?
Hi Vincent.
One should be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism for two reasons.
1. Bikkhu Bhuddadasa confirms that practice without the true knowledge of Dharma (what the Buddha actually taught) is useless.
The Buddha himself talked about two well respected yogis whose tutelage he came under.
They taught him well, but as their knowledge involved the belief that purified "citta" (atman, self, I) was the goal, fell short of Awakening.
They weren't aware that a very small amount of "kilisa" (defilement) remains.
Without true Dharma, one cannot break past this barrier and smash ego.
Critical parts of the Buddhas teachings were tainted.
A certain sect even secretly distributed some of its controversial teachings so they could later say theirs was the way as several sources could be found.
This explains why there are about 5 or 6 versions of Anatta, and why many followers remain confused on the subject.
2. Testing for oneself is fine, but real true insights, if they exist, may take 30 - 40 years of dedicated/reclusive practice.
One could say, sacrificing ones life in order to test for yourself.
Hi Rocky,I don't find some of these arguments convincing. Gautama didn't have the benefit of the Dharma whilst he was searching for 'Enlightenment'. He presumably worked things out for himself, presumably using the same principles that he later taught to the Kalamas after he'd attained enlightenment.However, I agree there is some confusion about the Hindu concepts of reincarnation and the Buddhist concepts of rebirth.From what I gather, both Christian and Hindu mythology assert the existence of a permanent 'self-type entity' or 'soul' that exists after death and which, in the case of Hinduism, is reborn into another life-form, and in the case of Christianity, dwells permanently in Heaven or Hell, or perhaps some temporary limbo.Buddhism seems to promote a concept of 'non-self', Anatta, which I understand to mean, 'no permanent self', and therefore no 'self' that can survive death and be reborn.Of course, the self must exist temporarily as an identity, otherwise we couldn't write emails or make references to deceased monks like Bikkhu Bhuddadasa.The problem with the concept of 'no soul' or 'no permanent self', is in understanding how it is possible for rebirth, or some type of reincarnation to take place. What 'energy' is it that could survive physical death and result in, or connect with, a new birth?The modern, rationalist and Western explanation is that the term 'rebirth' applies to new thoughts that continually arise in this current lifetime, rather than the physical rebirth of new babies or animals.Because I'm a Westerner with a rationalist background, the explanation that rebirth refers to new thoughts, and/or new states of mind, or changed and reformed attitudes and so on, makes sense to me.On the other hand, the more we know, the more we (should) realize how little we know. Our current state of scientific knowledge implies that 95% of the combined matter and energy in the universe is invisible and undetectable. We call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy.How can one therefore be certain, in the light of this huge discrepancy between what can be observed with the best scientific instruments, and what is claimed by science to be totally invisible, that there is no energy of some description, that our best instruments cannot detect, which continues after death and is reborn into another life-form?I have to remain agnostic on this issue. -
One major reason why I'm attracted towards Buddhism at the philosophical level is because I've come across anecdotes, analogies, teachings and advice in the Buddhist scriptures which simply make sense to me and which appear to be wise.However, sometimes certain concepts in the scriptures do not make sense and create doubt in my mind. How does one deal with this situation?Fortunately, the Pali Canon addresses such problems, in the form of the Kalama Sutta, which is purported to be advice delivered by the Buddha to a group of skeptical villagers whom he encountered during his travels.Here it is. The Kalama Sutta, Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, Pali Canon.1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.2. Do not believe in something because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or part of a culture.3. Do not believe in something because a scripture says it is so.4. Do not believe in something because you believe a God has inspired it.5. Do not believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so.6. Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so.7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.8. Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.In the light of this teaching, why would anyone be concerned that Buddhism might be conflated with Hinduism? Surely it's only the truth and wisdom of the teaching that matters.Is not everything conflated with everything else to some degree, even if that degree of conflation is sometimes very small?Why should one be concerned or worried that approximately 96% of the human genome is identical to that of a chimpanzee?Or even more surprising, that 90% of our genes match those of a mouse, and 40% match those of a fruit fly, and about 18% match those of the annoying weeds that we spray or pull up from our garden.Of course, I should mention, in case I've caused confusion here, that these percentages of genes that are identical in plants, animals and humans, and even worms in the ground, may be used differently by the different organisms.A good analogy I've come across is to compare genes with musical instruments. Whilst the musical instruments may be identical, the music that is played will not be identical.
-
Of course Buddhism is conflated with Hinduism. How could it not be. If it wasn't, that would be a true miracle.
Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Gautama Buddha was a Hindu. They both criticised the practices of their times and culture, and they both strived for something better.
Others later created a new religion from the 'remembered' teachings. The nature and distortions of those newly created religions would no doubt have served the 'power' purposes of the emperors or rulers who promulgated the new religions.
'Power' is the essential ingredient in human affairs, rather than unbiased, objective truth.
-
I would agree that anyone who had a psychotic break during intensive mefitation had to have had significant pysch problems to start with snd this was just a precipitating event. Without it, quite likely something else would have tipped the balance sooner or later.
Still a very bad idea to have it happen as it is profoundly disruptive for the other mefitators.
I agree. The subject of this thread is an example of the difficulties and limitations of the so-called scientific disciplines of psychology and psychiatry.
Only the present is real. We can't go back in time to repeat the events that have already taken place, and relive our life whilst changing certain aspects of our behaviour to see how certain outcomes are different, and then identify with any certainty the causes of the previous outcomes.
The 'hard' disciplines of Physics and Chemistry, dealing with inanimate matter, are in a different category. Experiments in the laboratory can be repeated as often as we like, changing just one ingredient or one factor with each experiment in order to observe the changed outcome, so that we can be certain that one specific factor is related to one specific changed outcome.
-
There is also the question of intellectual awareness.
Let's say physically a tree has fallen. It would be through only human recognition that such an event happened.
Is the tree aware it has fallen? Does "nature" know it?
There may be cosmic events in and outside our four dimension universe (ie., black matter) which cannot be detected by the human intellect. But they are no less reality.
To my way of thinking, such events which cannot be detected by human observation, cannot be real until they are observed or experienced in some way. They are matters of speculation only, like the existence of a creator God.
However, sometimes certain theoretical scientists have predicted that certain things should exist according to existing theories, then other scientists have begun searching for evidence of the predicted existence of such things.
Sometimes they succeed in their search, but often not. The famous physicist/mathematician, Paul Dirac, postulated in the late 1920's that antimatter should exist, according to the mathematical formulas related to quantum theory. His initial reaction was to keep silent about his hypothesis, in order to protect his own reputation. He knew that mathematics could sometimes lead one to absurd conclusions.
However, some friends persuaded Paul that someone else might arrive at a similar conclusion, sooner or later, and get the credit or reward for being the first to propose such a hypothesis, so Paul risked his reputation and delivered a lecture explaining why anti-matter should exist.
A few years later the existence of the positron was discovered (an electron with a positive charge), then progressively, over the years, other anti-particles were discovered, or detected.
-
All laws of science, whatever the discipline, exist only in the human mind, and the nature and quality of such laws are influenced by the nature and quality of the human mind.
A reality which is independent and separate from the mind, is a reality which we can know nothing about.
It is ego, pride, vanity, delusional thinking and ignorance, which lead many people to assume that what they perceive through their senses (sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell etc) and interpret through their brain, is actual and absolute reality.
A very simple analogy is the greenness of a leaf. We should all understand that the color green is just a sensation in the human mind. The leaf is not 'actually' green. It has a property of reflecting a particular wave length of light which the 'normal' human brain interprets as green. The color-blind person may not interpret the leaf as green, just as many different species of animal may not interpret it as green.
Just as the sensation of greenness of the leaf will vary according to the proportion of 'so-called green' wavelengths in the source of the light being reflected, that sensation of 'greenness' will also vary according to individual genetic make-up.
It's a great tragedy of the human condition that so many people who seem to have accepted what they have individually interpreted as an absolute and undeniable reality, will fight to the death to preserve that illusion.
Buddhism, at its deepest level, seems to have intuitively understood this issue, which is why I have such respect for the religion at a philosophical level.
-
Connda,Interesting to read about your experiences in temples where monks seemed to be obsessed with money, and the laity obsessed with signs of merit that their donations might provide.I wonder if the Santi Asoke community at Ubon Ratchathani would qualify as a true forest monastery.
Apparently, the monks in the Santi Asoke communities do not accept any donations from the laity. Money is provided through the sale of organically grown food to the local community at good-value prices.
-
I think that you have misunderstood what a role of a father is. I am not talking about financial support. I am talking about the fact that one needs their parents. Having your father leave you and not be in your life hurts. Do you actually think that his wife and child were happy for the 20 years he was gone? They did suffer his leaving for certain. His family was neglected by him for over 20 years. That suffering ended when they found him and followed his teachings, but still doesn't negate the fact that he wasn't there for them.
I think you've misunderstood what the role of a father would have been in the culture and environment of those times in Northern India, particularly considering that Gautama's family were the ruling class and that Gautama would have been expected to become a warrior, the consequences of which could have been far more disastrous for his wife and child if he had been killed in battle.It's not just a matter of financial support. One should also take into consideration the role of the extended family in those days, as well as the proliferation of servants and nannies. I imagine that his wife and child would have been in constant contact with uncles, aunts and cousins, all living within the walls of the palace, except when they were away attending to some insurrection, or administrative matter.If you were a child who was missing his father because he'd been away for a few years, which story would you like to hear from your mother.(1) Your father has been away fighting, my dear. He's leading an army to protect our kingdom from the rebellious tribes in the north. I hope he's okay, but we don't really know.or (2) Your father was very concerned about the suffering of our people outside of the palace, my dear. He decided to try and find a solution, so has been away for the past few years leading the ascetic life and consulting with holy men. I'm sure he'll be okay and will soon return when he's found the answers he's searching for.Also, as the story goes, Gautama's son, Rahula, never knew his father until Gautama returned from his wanderings when his son was 8 years old. Gautama was away for 6 or 7 years before he became enlightened. On speaking to his son for the first time, at the age of 8, Gautama had him ordained as a novice. I don't know where you got the 20 years from. -
Don't you think that it is a little ironic that when the Buddha left his family to end suffering, he actually was causing the suffering of his wife and child?
Of course once he attained enlightenment (if you have faith that he did) his path ended their suffering, but still doesn't take away from the fact that he abandoned his child and left him without a father.
I wonder how many people would follow someone's advice today who did the same thing.
I think you've misunderstood the circumstances of the times and are applying a modern situation of a father going out to work to support his family, and then withdrawing his support, for whatever reason, and leaving his family to be supported by charities or the government safety net.That wasn't Gautama Buddha's situation. He was raised in a palace, in the lap of luxury, surrounded by servants who would attend to any issue at any time.My impression from reading the stories of that situation 2,500 years ago, is that Gautama and his family was so cosseted, with every whim being attended to, that the shock that Gautama received when seeing the real world outside of the palace for the first time was so great, the suffering and hardship of ordinary people he'd been protected from, he decided he had to do something to find a solution.Since in those days there wasn't an effective medical profession, becoming a doctor wasn't a realistic option, so he decided to follow the path of the traditional ascetics or gurus who were the current experts in such matters, in India at that time.His wife and child would have been perfectly safe and well taken care of whilst Gautama was experimenting with various ascetic methods, like fasting to the extreme. -
One can have plans for the future. However, if the implementation of such plans, which must always take place in the present, cause worry and concern and frustration, (in short, suffering), then my advice would be forget it. Get yourself another plan, the implementation of which brings joy, peace and satisfaction in the present.
Or say your doctor tells you you have cancer and in two weeks you will hear the results if it is treatable or not. How many Buddhists will succeed in not suffer any worrying in these two weeks? It will be a long two weeks. It would be great if we had the tools to measure the mental worrying of a person. It would be a nice experiment (but maybe an unethical experiment, I admit that immediately) to measure the mental worrying of an experience Buddhist who just had heard he needs to wait two weeks for hearing if his cancer means dead in a few months, or can be treated. Would we in these two weeks not measure any significant mental rise in worrying? If we will measure a rise already with him, then what will we measure with the average Buddhist in a Buddhist country? I am very pessimistic. Only the most capable in meditation will maybe overcome the worry and not feel anything.
I think the main point here is that Buddhism specifically address such issues, offers an explanation for the cause of our worries and suffering, and provides detailed procedures on how to free ourselves from such suffering, and fears of the future, and unfulfilled expectations.How successful any particular Buddhist has been in achieving such goals is another issue. I'm not saying it's easy. There are no doubt certain individuals who do not claim to be Buddhist, yet have a calmness of mind which would free them from worry about the effects of a cancer diagnosis, for example.There are no doubt other individuals who have been practicing monks for a number of years, yet on diagnosis of cancer feel worried, perhaps because they were hoping to achieve some higher degree of enlightenment in this lifetime and feel that their hopes have been dashed if they are soon to die of cancer. Who knows! This is perhaps mere speculation; not advised by Gautama Buddha.The point is, there's a lot of rational philosophy in Buddhism, and practical advice that seems to work in this lifetime, regardless of any belief in reincarnation. -
Within the 'micro' view, that rebirth refers to new thoughts or states of mind in this life, the merit that is earned by filling the monk's bowl each morning, would presumably take effect in this life. What's wrong with that?I tend to think that the general happiness and friendliness of many Thai people who are often living in relative poverty, is partly explained by this regular practice of giving food to monks. I think the monks must also benefit from the personal interaction with the local population, as they go on their rounds each morning, not to mention the physical exercise they get, which is necessary for good health.
Nothing is wrong with giving food to monks, also not in the micro view. But I thought in the new interpretation the concept of Karma in the spiritual sense, that giving to monks gives you EXTRA credit compared to say giving to a homeless person, also does not exist anymore. I mean there is no spiritual guarantee if you give each day to a monk you will not die one hour later in a car accident at age 20. That guarantee was not there already, but in the old view you could use that Karma you had saved for a better next life.
As I understand, part of the Buddhist concept of giving (dana) is that the amount of merit gained by the giving will vary according to 3 main factors. (1) the quality of the donor's motive when giving, (2) the spritual purity of the recipient, and (3) the size and significance of the gift.These principles all make sense at a practical level within the 'micro' context of a single life. For example, if a person gives only with the motive of gaining fame, public attention and praise for himself, then it is only logical that less merit will be gained, within the context of Buddhist ideals of humility, compassion and egolessness. Or, if a person throws money at a beggar just to get rid of him because he's a nuisance, then less merit will be gained.The significance of giving to a person of spiritual purity, also makes sense at a practical, micro level, if one interprets spiritual purity as being worthy and honest. One presumes that a monk is developing a special kind awareness, understanding and compassion as a result of his abstemious and minimalist lifestyle, and is therefore, when called upon, able to provide some sort of guidance and helpful advice to members of the local population when such people have some particular problem of suffering.Also what does Buddhism mean with living in the 'now'. You must always take the future into account. You need to save money now for your pension. You need to work now to earn money to pay your rent. How can you only live in the now? Most people can not risk such an attitude. Buddhism can however help you - as I see it - in dealing with some bad luck in your life. To overcome it easier, to not be too let own by it. But only living each day in the NOW and not care or worry at all about tomorrow is very dangerous.
What you've described above is the widespread, misguided attitude which Buddhist teachings attempt to dispel. There is only the 'now'. To infuse the 'now' with worries and concerns about the future, is to reduce your quality of life, which is always experienced in the 'now'. How can anyone function efficiently and happily if the mind is always distracted by worries about the future?I don't mean, of course, that one should not learn from the past and act sensibly. One should always try to act sensibly in the present, in accordance with the circumstances, and in accordance with your understanding of the situation, and with full mindfulness and concentration.One can have plans for the future. However, if the implementation of such plans, which must always take place in the present, cause worry and concern and frustration, (in short, suffering), then my advice would be forget it. Get yourself another plan, the implementation of which brings joy, peace and satisfaction in the present. -
Thanks. Clear. I understand know why the Buddha could know that rebirth and the realms don't actually exist, but didn't tell because it would be too new for the people at that time and not serve the purpose of learning to end suffering.
But if rebirth doesn't exist then what happens in the new interpretation after you die? You are gone and it is like before you were born (so you are not here anymore and you do not know you are not here anymore)? No matter how you have lived your life? So in the new interpretation Buddhism is just a philosophy of how to live your life NOW to have less suffering NOW?
The importance of striving to live in the present has been raised a few times before on this forum. It seems to be another example of some of the wisdom in the Buddhist teachings. There is only the present. There is only the 'NOW'.Everything we do and everything we experience occurs in the present moment. The mistakes of the past have passed. If we learn from such mistakes, the learning always takes place in the present. If we worry about the future, such worrying takes place only in the present. If we prepare for the future, such preparations always take place in the present.What is in the new interpretation to purpose of giving food to monks, pray in Temple? Why is that all still needed? If you just use the meditation techniques and understand to philosophy that craving is suffering, then you do not need all these 'religious' extras to lessen your suffering in this, your only, life. I think the new interpretation will lead to the end of monk-hood (because why support them, there is no next life, so why give food to them?) and the temples. The new interpretation doesn't make it a religion anymore. Just a moral code and some insight how to try to lessen suffering in your ONLY life, namely THIS one.
Perhaps the average Thai woman who places food in the monk's alms bowl each morning imagines she will 'make merit' and be reborn as a male. That's the 'macro' view, consistent with the concept of actual rebirth or reincarnation.Within the 'micro' view, that rebirth refers to new thoughts or states of mind in this life, the merit that is earned by filling the monk's bowl each morning, would presumably take effect in this life. What's wrong with that?Are you implying that any benefit flowing from one's actions that occur only in this life are not worth bothering with, and that it's only what happens in the next life that matters? That's hardly living in the present.I imagine there would be emotional and psychological benefits experienced in this life, which result from a regular practice of 'giving' in such a direct and personal way as placing food in a monk's bowl. Most of us have given money to various charities, but that act of giving is much more impersonal. One often doesn't know how the money will be used. Perhaps it will be used corruptly, or wasted due to inefficiency.By giving on such a regular and personal basis, I can imagine that one could destroy those acquisitive impulses that will often lead to further suffering, eventually. I tend to think that the general happiness and friendliness of many Thai people who are often living in relative poverty, is partly explained by this regular practice of giving food to monks. I think the monks must also benefit from the personal interaction with the local population, as they go on their rounds each morning, not to mention the physical exercise they get, which is necessary for good health. -
A more acceptable interpretation (for some of us) is that the term 'former lives' refers to former 'states of mind' or former thoughts within this life. We know that thoughts arise and pass, to be replaced by new thoughts in a continuous process of change. It's not difficult to appreciate that an arising of a new thought could be described as a 'birth'.
Buddha also believed in the realms of rebirth. In god like beings and spirits. In this new rebirth interpretation, do these realms and godlike beings still exist or are these realms abolished in the new way of understanding?
They represent statesbof mind like depression (hell) or happiness (heaven) to name two extremes.
Interesting new interpretation. Makes it more acceptable for people who grew up in the West.
You do wonder if that is what the Buddha meant why did he formulate it in such a way that his disciples AND EVERY BUDDHIST WHO EVER LIVED UNTILL NOW interpreted it apparently wrongly? It was for 2500 years interpreted as an actual rebirth namely and the realms as actual realms. So all Buddhists who ever lived till now have got it wrong? Even the Buddha's own disciples?
Strange the Buddha didn't explain that clearer to his disciples. I think the Buddha therefor did believe in actual rebirth and in actual realms. Else how to explain that for 2500 years Buddhism was interpreted wrongly?
Do these people with these modern insights have ideas about that too?
You might be surprised to learn that the Buddhist scriptures have already addressed such problems, that is, the problem of a teaching, idea or concept making sense and seeming credible to a particular audience who might be skeptical, for whatever reason.It is claimed in the Pali Canon (Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, for those interested) that the Buddha, whilst travelling and teaching after his enlightenment, came across the village of Kesaputta in Northern India where he was greeted by a clan of people known as the Kalamas.These Kalamas were very skeptical people because they had experienced frequent visits from various holy men in the past, each offering different teachings which were often in conflict with what other holy men had said. The Kalamas wanted to know whose teaching they should follow or accept and how they could be sure that one particular teaching was true, or at least truer than another.The advice that the Buddha gave to these people is known as the Kalama Sutta, and it's advice which is clearly intended for those who are skeptical, which would have to include, I imagine, many modern Westerners, all atheists, and most people with a general scientific background.Here it is. The Kalama Sutta, organised into 8 main points like the 8 fold path.1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.2. Do not believe in something merely because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or a part of a culture.3. Do not believe in something merely because a scripture says it is so.4. Do not believe in something merely because you believe a God has inspired it.5. Do not believe in something merely because a teacher tells you it is so.6. Do not believe in something merely because the authorities say it is so.7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.8. Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.I've added and repeated the word 'merely' for the sake of clarification, because some people might think the advice, "Don't believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so", is a bit crazy, because education and believing what qualified teachers say is such a vital part of modern life, and people have to pass exams.My understanding here is that the core message of the Kalama Sutta is in 'not accepting anything as true without thinking about it and giving it due consideration', which is a concept that sits well with those who are familiar with the principles of modern science.Also, using a bit of imagination, it should not be difficult to appreciate that any teacher or preacher who lived 2,500 years ago would have needed to use terms and concepts that were familiar to his audience, otherwise what he said would sound like gobbledegook. The Buddha's position on the existence of a Creator God would have been controversial in India at the time. To extend such controversy by also casting doubt on the existence of all god-like creatures and spirits, might have been too much for the relatively primitive people of the times who were steeped in beliefs in all sorts of magic and personal gods. What purpose would it have served to completely alienate one's audience! -
there remains a deep core of profound logic, common sense and wise practical advice which can have strong appeal to the atheist and the rationalist.
I agree. And I feel that too. I mean it's core ethics are very reasonable. if everyone where to live like that the world would be a better place.
But if you strip it of karma, rebirth, rituals, holy statues, relics, then what you have left is not really a religion anymore. But just some common sense statements about how to live your life.
Buddhism is often considered, at its core, to be more of a philosophy than a religion.But the same goes for Christianity. Strip away the idea Jesus was resurrected, that there is a God, that Jesus was the son of God, and the New Testament has a morality which is not that bad. Which also can appeal to the atheist and the rationalist.
I think the difference is, if one strips away such concepts as a Creator God and that Jesus is the son of God, one is left with nothing that is uniquely Christian. For example, the phrases, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself" are not uniquely Christian. They're often referred to as the 'Golden Rule' and such concepts have a long history that predates Christianity, although sometimes the wording is slightly different. Confucius is claimed to have said, "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." In Buddhism, the translation of a similar concept is, "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." -
Now I ask you, who in his right mind would want to follow or support a wrong understanding, a wrong thought, engage in wrong speech, wrong actions, wrong livelihood or wrong occupations, misguided effort, wrong mindfulness and inappropriate concentration on wrong things?
No-one. if you put it like this than 100% of the world population is a Buddhist. Which they are not.
.
Not at all. It's clear that a significant percentage of the world population are not in their 'right mind' and are not able to exercise much common sense, otherwise there wouldn't be so much trouble in the world.As mentioned before, on the one hand Buddhism has all the characteristics of any religion, in the sense that it has adapted to and catered to the inherent need that many people seem to have for a belief in the miraculous and the magical, and the existence of invisible deities (or external spiritual forces) which can respond to their prayers and requests.On the other hand, when the outward, visible, religious attributes of Buddhism, with its revered statues, rituals and ceremonies, are stripped of their mumbo jumbo, there remains a deep core of profound logic, common sense and wise practical advice which can have strong appeal to the atheist and the rationalist.I can understand your wondering what the average Thai might think of the meaning of the religious rituals they participate in, but I suspect their views will sometimes be incoherent and will often vary significantly depending on their class or status in society, and their background and education. -
I presume that once an individual lice has been reborn as an individual monkey, the monkey will continue to be reborn as a monkey, in the usual cycle of Samsara, until something unusual occurs, such as the monkey sharing a meal with a starving monk. Such monkey will then gain so much merit, it might be reborn as a human. Okay!
Nice theory :-)
But it can not be true. Because animals who share food with a human, that is so extremely rare, that your theory means effectively that once reborn as animal there is no escape anymore. Most animals (insects for example in a rain forest) never ever encounter a human.
Sharing food with a human was merely one example that I suggested as a possible way that a monkey might be reborn as a human. It seems no more unreasonable than the story that a lice can be reborn as a monkey if it infests the head of a Bodhisattva. Your imagination is the limit here.I think anyone who does not follow the 8 fold path is not a Buddhist at all. I mean it is THE CORE of the religion.
The 8 fold path is not only the core of the Buddhist religion but the core of all common sense.Here is the 8 fold path in essence.1. Right Understanding (Samma ditthi)2. Right Thought (Samma sankappa)3. Right Speech (Samma vaca)4. Right Action (Samma kammanta)5. Right Livelihood (Samma ajiva)6. Right Effort (Samma vayama)7. Right Mindfulness (Samma sati)8. Right Concentration (Samma samadhi)Now I ask you, who in his right mind would want to follow or support a wrong understanding, a wrong thought, engage in wrong speech, wrong actions, wrong livelihood or wrong occupations, misguided effort, wrong mindfulness and inappropriate concentration on wrong things? -
All those monkeys at the Swayambhunath temple are reincarnations of the most honoured lice.
Nice legend. But how I understand now Buddhism when you are reborn in a heavenly realm the lifespan is very very long. But when a lice is reborn as a monkey his lifespan in that new life is just the lifespan of a monkey. I don't know how long that is, 40 years? So does this mean these lice for hundreds of years are getting reborn again and again as monkey? They must have had extremely bad Karma in their pre-lice years. But that can not be, because if you really have super bad karma you end up in a hell realm. Not the animal realm.
Why do they not get the chance of being reborn again in the human realm so they have the opportunity to reach Enlightenment?
I presume that once an individual lice has been reborn as an individual monkey, the monkey will continue to be reborn as a monkey, in the usual cycle of Samsara, until something unusual occurs, such as the monkey sharing a meal with a starving monk. Such monkey will then gain so much merit, it might be reborn as a human. Okay!
On the other hand, if the monkey is very aggressive and bites and infects a young human child who dies as a result, then such monkey will likely be reborn again as a lice. Okay!I'm just speculating, of course.
A Buddhist story
in Buddhism
Posted