Several

Me too. Provided it avoids going the way of the evangelical monotheists (to avoid specifying any other religion) who to me cheapen their faiths with some theatrical antics.

One monk here asked me if I thought that broadcasting 'Buddha songs' like the chri..er...carpentry enthusiasts would spread the Dhamma to a younger audience. Personally I disagree. Dhamma is not entertainment and its value should come from deepening ones appreciation of the experience of this life and ultimately liberation from our suffering.

Plus the media has its fill of questionble content. Offsetting that with Dhamma can only be a good thing.

I have tried to consider the word enlightenment as 'to reduce weight' rather than 'to illuminate'. I know its just wordplay but it does seem that the work involves unburdening and reduction as opposed to addition. Letting go rather than aquiring. Is this why merit is not an enlightenment factor? The desire for merit itself being a hinderance?

Matter is energy in a bound form. Everything is energy in varying states.

That is not accurate at all ..... and as far as conservation goes it's both, and while you can change matter to energy and energy to matter everything is not a varying state of energy. Thier are both Laws of conservation of energy and matter.

Because most things have energy does not mean they are energy in some varying state.

And please do a little research on your own before trying to argue the point because I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining more of this. Or responing to symantical or Non Scientificly accepted arguments.

I could be wrong. I was once before. But I can't think of anything that does not have an energetic aspect. I mean even a shadow is visible because it is a lack of energy in an area. But I don't mind being wrong because thats how you learn. Science frequently forgets it is searching for answers and simply assumes is has them all or is 'very close'. Read any scientific litetature from a hundred years ago and it makes all kinds of absolute statements about things that have since been disproven. What makes you think today is any different? I find science very interesting but it is based on the assumtion that there are immutable laws of the universe without, as far as I know, proof. What makes a law is that scientists find the explaination aesthetically pleasing. Now that may be good enough for many but to me it sounds like another faith. A universal organising force that nobody can prove the existence of. So I'm only as concerned with 'scientifically accepted' arguments as with others. Science is an evolving part of the picture, it is not the entire gallery. But hey, I'm quite willing to be wrong. The truth outweighs the ego.

You have no right to tell people what they can say and how they can express themselves. You can give constructive answers or opinions, or you can choose not to answer if you dislike the direction of the argument. I only stated what I had heard and that seems to be true. I am not looking for an argument, so I will reaserch what you say tomorrow.

Right now it would take too much energy.

Point taken ..... The reason I said accepted science is otherwise we are discussing something closer to an idea that has not even reached the hypothesis stage of even being testable let alone tested , I didn't mean to anger you , sorry for that , ..... What makes a Scientific Law is not that it's pleasing it's that it has been elevated from the hypothesis stage of being testable to actually being tested and found to be true , Science literature is one thing Science Laws are another, you won't find any Laws that have been disproven , it's a common misconception for example that Newtons laws of motion were found to be wrong by Einstien.

Another common example would be people who say that the improvement or increased complexity of the Earth proves the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, that basicly says things deteriorate unless you fix them wrong, because the earth has become increasingly more complex since the first single cell as opposed to deterioratiing , but they skip the part of the Law that says "in a closed system" and the earth is not a closed system and not what the Law is talking about. ( It's a common argument people use to both disprove that and prove God had to do it at the same time )

But as a point of fact it's impossible to have a Law of science without proof and while most have been enhanced by looking at different states than the person who made the origional was even talking about with exceptions or comframations thats what has always happened they are enhanced to include things in addition to the origional you will not find any Laws that have been found to be wrong .... as of yet.... and while I understand anything may be possible I am just not into talking about how things that have been proven to be true might not be.

As I stated just because most everything has energy or an aspect of energy doesnt make it energy according to the defenition , we need to have a foundation to comunicate and we can't just make up our own defnitions as we go along and i'm not saying you are either ..... but to say for example because an object at absolute zero that would be void of energy, could be heated back up and therefore has an aspect of energy, makes it energy, is just not how the word is correctly used and is an absurd statement from a Scientific point of view because absolute zero is the lack of all energy. Your definition that things that lack energy have an aspect of energy is true ..... the aspect is .... they lack energy as you stated and therfore have none ! Having no money might be an aspect of money but it is NOT money it's the absence of it.

I hope I explained it well enough but probabbly not and thats cool ..... sorry for the first I like talking about this kind of thing I was just tired at the time.

No worries my friend. You have encouraged me to reserch things more before I post, and I like your reply. Including the one above about the observer. Always found that fascinating.

So, it's all good.

Welcome indeed fellow Phra!

I am glad you have ‘come out’ and do hope you stick around sharing ideas and knowledge. The band of foreign Monks here on TV is small but we are happy.

My Ajahn gave me a CD of his lectures in English then said ‘when you listen to them all you will understand’ that’s been my teaching (from my Ajahn at least) so far. The .Net and follow Monks on TV have helped me many times so for me it’s been invaluable in my development.

Get ready to get flamed by lap people for admitting you were given Cable TV as Hookedondharma says we are ‘expected’ to live in caves with only a candle!

As with everything it’s about intention n. A good resource can be used with bad intention does that make the resource bad or the person using it?

It’s now 2012 or should I say 2555 times have changed and the Internet has opened up so many resources IMO unless you have supreme understanding shouldn’t we be allowed to find the information that isn’t given to us?

The computer I have is my own (Oh dear attachment has raised its ugly head!) but I intend to leave it at the temple when I leave as a thank you gift for everything I have been taught.

IMO if TV and Internet was around when Lord Buddha was alive I am sure he would of loved it as he would have been able to teach so many more people then he was physically able to. Imagine having access to the estimated 1.6 BILLION Internet users out there that’s sure is a large audience.

It’s here to stay and as long as the teacher’s intention so what if the student needs to use the toilet. Now if it was the teacher on the toilet giving Dhamma talks I think we would have a problem!

Don't see much waffling in your post its all good.

Again welcome and we look forward to talking to you more.

Phra Para

What I say is go to for it.

Used correctly, the internet can unlock a wealth of resource, opportunity, and knowledge.

Things which might take others half a lifetime to uncover using traditional methods.

The heart of this subject was discussed on an earlier thread:

http://www.thaivisa....avada-buddhism/

"The personality, attitudes and the behaviour of the two great elders not only shaped the history of the Sasana at its formative years but also it continues to do so even at present. As we saw earlier all the traditional modes of monastic life of the Sangha such as, gamavasi and arannavasi (busy life of social service in the city vs solitary and meditative life in the forest), dhammakathika and pamsukulika (life of comfort and ease vs life of austerity characterized by wearing rag-robes and feeding on alms-food), and ganthadhura and vipassanadhura (life of erudition and learnedness vs life of contemplative practice) may well be traced back to Ananda and Maha Kassapa respectively.

As the earlier thread goes: The ideal disciple of the Buddha is one who strikes a balance between these two poles, a feat by no means looking easy.

If you spend your entire monastic life collecting knowledge and networking, you will miss the practice phase.

Once you have amassed your knowledge you must put this into practice during your solitary and meditative phase.

If you accept the enormous task of mastering the Four Tetrads (16 Steps) of Anapanasiti on your path you to Awakening, you will need to devote a considerable amount of your available life before death arrives.

A Theravadan Retreat Coordinator recently confided in me that, conservatively, 90% of Monks mismanage their time.

I agree completely brother. One discpline should guide and inform the other. For me it is avoidance of technology as a trap. That I can waste time on a computer and be one of the 90%. But I have always had that niggling voice in my mind saying 'you will die. Time is short. What are you going to do about it?'

Finding this forum is helping me to focus. We all know its like being a panda in a zoo when you are the only Phra Farang around, and having little discourse with other monks can be alienating. Good for practice, but we are brothers. The Sangha. We should support and advise each other. Its a great advantage for me to be able to read back through the posts and get replies to the ones I leave.

So its technology as the new medium, but the message is an old one. I bet some of the original Phra Farangs wish they could have had easy access to the words of simmilar seekers.

Thanks again brothers.

Matter is energy in a bound form. Everything is energy in varying states.

That is not accurate at all ..... and as far as conservation goes it's both, and while you can change matter to energy and energy to matter everything is not a varying state of energy. Thier are both Laws of conservation of energy and matter.

Because most things have energy does not mean they are energy in some varying state.

And please do a little research on your own before trying to argue the point because I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining more of this. Or responing to symantical or Non Scientificly accepted arguments.

I could be wrong. I was once before. But I can't think of anything that does not have an energetic aspect. I mean even a shadow is visible because it is a lack of energy in an area. But I don't mind being wrong because thats how you learn. Science frequently forgets it is searching for answers and simply assumes is has them all or is 'very close'. Read any scientific litetature from a hundred years ago and it makes all kinds of absolute statements about things that have since been disproven. What makes you think today is any different? I find science very interesting but it is based on the assumtion that there are immutable laws of the universe without, as far as I know, proof. What makes a law is that scientists find the explaination aesthetically pleasing. Now that may be good enough for many but to me it sounds like another faith. A universal organising force that nobody can prove the existence of. So I'm only as concerned with 'scientifically accepted' arguments as with others. Science is an evolving part of the picture, it is not the entire gallery. But hey, I'm quite willing to be wrong. The truth outweighs the ego.

You have no right to tell people what they can say and how they can express themselves. You can give constructive answers or opinions, or you can choose not to answer if you dislike the direction of the argument. I only stated what I had heard and that seems to be true. I am not looking for an argument, so I will reaserch what you say tomorrow.

Right now it would take too much energy.

I am sorry but it seems to me that soon a monk will be presented with an ATM scanner instead of an alms bowl and shown his well appointed computer linked meditation room.

It may eventually happen. And it is sad that individuals take advantage of the institutions they are part of, but it happens in every organisation in the world. Charity, government, science, business and school yards at playtime. Theres probably an eskimo chiselling ice of his neighbor's igloo right now.

Of course the worst violations are those carried out by religion. Who can you trust if not us?

But we do not become monks because we are perfect already. We get sick, we are required to travel and we need ink for our pens. Giving to monks is a way for lay people to aquire merit when they have busy lives. Tecnology allows them to communicate with us for the same reason.

The tech itself is not a problem. Buddha used all manner of esoteric means at his disposal to transmit Dhamma. It is attachment to the things themselves that leads to craving and suffering.

At this monastery we don't get much. I rarely see more than 300 baht a month. We grow rice and have a rubber plantation underway so we can be more self suffucient. We feed and care for over 40 abandoned dogs and we help the sick with traditional herbal medicine. We are a long way from anywhere, so we need technology to stay in touch with the outside world, though it was three weeks before I heard about Osama.

I think you should understand that it is a few bad apples tainting the name of Buddhism. And if we don't move with the times we will be left behind. We're not Amish.

Thank you Huli. Yes it is hard sometimes but I am resolved to make the best I can of this time here. Its all a learning experience. And I will consider what you wrote. I'll post more if I think of anything right to say.

See? That last post was directed towards Para for his kind reply, but I fluffed it and it came out as a general post. I've got a lot to learn about technology. When did I become one of those old blokes who doesn't undersrand this new-fangled contraption?

Thanks Brother. I probably shouldn't be speculating on what Buddha would have done. You are right, the Dhamma could have been spread even more widely than it has been.

Many of my old friends on social networks are surprised at my becoming a monk, and I in turn am surprised by some of them expressing an interest in Buddhism and wanting to know more about it. I guess some westerners have had media or travel exposure to Buddhism but have no practical knowledge of it. Explaining a bit about Kamma seemed to be the most popular topic. So technology has been good in that way.

As for the tv, its gone to a better home. It was all in Thai anyway so mai khao jai. Flame on, yoms. I don't mind.

I find right speech to be a deep subject to consider. In the first post something was said about speaking was for the benefit of the listener, but as I am fighting an uphill struggle (not always successfully) to maintain right speech it requires mindfulness and knowledge, the aquisition of which are beneficial to me.

Also there is difficulty with speaking pleasantly and truthfully at the same time. Living in a small monastery exposes one to others who can be immature, selfish and socially myopic. The quiet word won't cross the language barrier and saying nothing will not improve matters for either party.

And there is a major conundrum for me when a senior monk is making totally inaccurate assumptions and advising action completely against the teachings. How do you tell him he is wrong?

Right speech, therefore, is a work that will only be perfected with enlightenment as was said in another post. But it is a work we cannot neglect regardless. It must come from right thought, right view and right effort. Ours IS to reason why and to do or die.

I hope I said that right.

Matter is energy in a bound form. Everything is energy in varying states.

Hello Brother. My first ever post on any forum. This one seems appropriate. I find technology is one of the few frustrations I have now I am in robes. It is a vital resource for learning as my 'teacher' seems to believe that telling me nothing is the way. But tech itself rarely lives up to the hype. So I need it, but it can also be a hindrance.

I work towards not needing it as I have abandoned so many other things. Really I would say that it (owning tech) depends on the individual monk. If one is detached from it then all is good, but if one relies on it then it opens the way to a multitude of distractions.

My teacher gave me cable tv which I found a bit odd. Another monk arrived and he's only here til pansa so I gave it to him. I was given a desktop computer which really helps with study but I want to reach a certain point then give it to my teacher. I also have a smartphone which does everything I need and is less distracting than the computer, but I still play the odd game.

Personally I am not sure the Lord Buddha would have approved of any of this. We can indeed communicate Dhamma, but we have no idea if the recipient is paying attention. They could be on the toilet saying 'yes bhante'. I have seen quite a few monks talking to or texting their waiting girlfriends and whenever I get a call they believe the same of me, which I find sad.

Maybe I should treat access to tech like eating. Once a day before midday.

Sorry for waffling. Solitude has made me verbose.