Brucenkhamen

It's not logical to assert 'if you can't kill the animals, you shouldn't eat meat killed by others'. It's like saying, 'if you can't fill your own teeth, you shouldn't have your teeth repaired.'

I don't do my own dentistry either. Or make my own belts and shoes.

You're right, but I know if I had to be involved in the slaughtering process I couldn't do it, I'd become vegitarian for sure, which I think is the point.

To answer your question (and avoid the other questions it raises), I think there is a possibility some amulets have magical powers.

I'm basing this on something I read in the scriptures which tell about the Buddha and some of his monks exhibiting magical powers (thus giving credence to this whole magic thing).

As to how this is done, I have no idea, except to say it must have something to do with the talent and power of the "magic monk".

That would be people having attained powers, through having developed a very high degree of samadhi.

Inanimate objects aren't sentient beings so can't develop this. I'd be very surprised if there was a scriptual reference to magic inanimate objects or at least one where the Buddha encourages use or reliance in them.

When I hit a dry patch it's often a sign that I've somehow taken a wrong turn somewhere. If this unhappy period continues then it is a sure sign that I'm doing something wrong. The good thing is that my past experience of gaining happiness from the path gives me confidence to make it though the bad periods.

If the Buddhist path provided no happiness then I would abandon it. I would feel that the Buddha had misled me because he promised an escape from suffering which for me equates to happiness - equanimity being a great happiness.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Dry patches are an important part of the path, they enable you to deepen your practice and seperate the men from the boys.

If you read about the lives of any of todays respected teachers they all went through dry patches, or times when the happiness was gone, or the rug was pulled from under them.

But this is probably another topic worthy of it's own thread, we don't want to distract from the riveting subject of magic inanimate objects.

Well my point is that it is search for happiness (or to escape from suffering) that draws people to different paths. It is my view that the Buddha provided a practical means to achieve this. I don't think that it is any coincedence that when people achieve insights it is often accomplished with great happiness. The Buddha himself praised the rapture associated with these states. Of course, the ideal would be to become an arahant, but then again this state is often described in reference to happiness. I suppose though that until we achieve this ourselves it is mere speculation. So for me happiness is a very important part of the path. When I experience happiness from my practice it is often a sign that I'm doing something right. I don't think that the Buddha wanted people to merely repeat his words but to experience things for themselves - see the experience is impermanent for myself but not dismiss it.

All good, and when the time comes and you are going through a dry patch in your practice and the happiness has gone temporarily I'd be willing to bet that you won't say "Sod this I'll go and be a Jehovah's Witness because they always look happy".

Why? because there is more to your path than just being happy, hence my original point "There needs to be more to it than just making people happy."

Huh? You say 'drugs can make people happy.'

I say 'I don't believe that drugs make people happy.'

You say 'I believe that was my point.'

Sorry I don't understand and it's a bit too early in the morning for koans.

My reference to drugs as an example is irrelavent. Chocolate can make you happy, Icecream can make you happy, winning the lottery can make you happy.

The point is happiness is impermanant, subject to conditions, so I don't thaiclan's statement that "I think it is absolutely amazing and fantastic that Buddhism has made millions of people happy, content and peaceful. Ditto Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Paganism" is enough reason to validate a spiritual path.

Not only that but if that happiness is based on ignorance then that's counterproductive, in some cases even dangerous.

Not enough for who? You?

I don't believe that drugs make people happy.

I believe that was my point. Surface happiness is not enough to measure the value of a spiritual practice.

I am encountering Buddhist fanitics that are mostly western and I have noticed have taken up Mahayanan beliefs, mostly Tibetan. There is a connection here but is it with Tibetan religion or politics, is it western ideas blending with Tibetan ideas, I am not sure. I just have noticed the folks that seem most given to emotional outbursts over CCP policy or topics close to this are somehow linked to Tibetan Buddhism. Am I seeing things wrong? What do you guys think?

If you look at the behaviour of the Tibetan followers of the Dalai Lama themselves I think Tibetan Buddhism doesn't encourage this behaviour.

I think there is a blurry line between people practicing Tibetan Buddhism in the West and political activists taking up the Tibetan cause in the West.

I may be wrong on this.

Once we have reached a certain level of enlightenment through actual experience we will automatically know the answers.

Until then (if it ever happens) we can only speculate as we can't possibly understand in our current state of being.

You're absolutely right.

A little speculation doesn't hurt but too much can get in the way of walking the path.

You get me wrong. I think it is absolutely amazing and fantastic that Buddhism has made millions of people happy, content and peaceful. Ditto Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Paganism etc etc etc

Making people happy is not enough, drugs can maske people happy, Ignorance is bliss. There needs to be more to it than just making people happy.

It's those earthly desires that push us to enlightenment as they are in themselves devoid of the ultimate means to happiness. Liberation.

On that point I couldn't agree more.

But Buddhahood is to be found in those self same desires. Hence, "burning the firewood of earthly desires [in our daily practice] summoning up the wisdom-fire of enlightenment."

I like this analogy, the only thing is you appeared to be saying earlier that you burn the firewood but the firewood still remains. When of course the firewood is not so much extinguished as transformed.

It's worth contemplating the Lotus Flower analogy. In so much that it germinates at the bottom of a muddy pool and at the same time blossoms at the top of the pool. In the same way enlightenment is to be found in our eartly desires. Cause and effect. It's only our fundamental darkness or delusions that prevent us from realising this by attempting to seperate one from the other, much in the same way as Christians do the 'Spirit' from the 'Flesh'.

Having found enlightenment by using earthly desires as our teacher do earthly desires continue to lead as as before? I think not.

Oh, and better not to mention the Christians ;-)

In our earthly desires we have the latent form of Buddhahood. Extinguish those then we have nothing to push for the fruition or realisation of that which is innate, or latent in all life states.

Sounds like you are concerned that the Hinayana practitioner would somehow find the magic switch to turn off desires totally when he is nowhere near enlightenment and needs those desires as a teacher. That's ridiculous, nobody has a magic switch to turn off desire so don't worry.

You don't extinguish desire then push to fruition (this is impossible), the process of pushing to fruition gradually makes worldly desire pale in comparison.

I think we are using different words to describe exactly the same thing.

Theravada teaches, as does Mahayana, that desire leads to attachment and attachment to suffering. The difference being that Mahayana does think it either possible nor desirable to extinguish desires as in Theravada. But those (earthly) desires are in themselves enlightenment. There is no seperation between earthly desires and enlightnment.

Well I think your use of the word extinguish is muddying the waters as I don't use it in this context.

So you are saying that in Mahayana and enlightened being still craves chocolate, still hopes to win the lottery, still thinks the grass is greener on the other side, still needs an occasional cigarette, still wants to jack off now and again? and as those (earthly) desires are in themselves enlightenment then not having them would indicate not being enlightened?

If so I'm glad I didn't choose that path.

"Without either cutting off earthly desires or separating themselves from the five desires, they can purify all their senses and wipe away all their offences." T'ient'ai says in Great Concentration and Insight, "The ignorance and dust of desires are enlightenment, and the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana."

Like many Mahayana principles the power lies in the paradox, the ability to turn normal thinking on it's head. Taking statements like these literally would be counter productive in my opinion.

I think it a little more than speculation for a practicioner to be honest - it's a reality experienced in our daily life.are nirvana."

I'm afraid I'm too far away from the enlightenment to know for sure what exactly remains or does not remain in terms of desire, so I must speculate.

To extinguish desire is also to distinguish the will to live.

Yes, hence the end of rebirth.

The point of our practice is to change those earthly desires into desires that will produce the ultimate benefit - to create value in its most meaningful sense. Buddhahood can only be found in out daily lives. It has been said that we are "burning the firewood of earthly desires [in our daily practice] summoning up the wisdom-fire of enlightenment."

We are saying the same thing, here you are talking about transforming the desire into something new. Whether the desire is extinguished or not is just splitting hairs. If you burn firewood is it extinguished or transformed? Well both actually.

Every cause has an affect and every affect has a cause, desire doesn't exist in a vacuum. If desire arises or passes away there is a flow on affect. It just doesn't extinguish into a vacuum, but as far as an enlightened person is concerned I speculate that it's just off the radar.

Although this could take some explaining

earthly desires are enlightenment ( Jpn bonno-soku-bodai )

A Mahayana principle based on the view that earthly desires cannot exist independently on their own; therefore one can attain enlightenment without eliminating earthly desires. This contrasts with the Hinayana* view that extinguishing earthly desires is a prerequisite for enlightenment. According to the Hinayana teachings, earthly desires and enlightenment are two independent and opposing factors, and the two cannot coexist; while the Mahayana teachings reveal that earthly desires are one with and inseparable from enlightenment.

* I use the term Hinayana not as a derogatory term, only as written in the dictionary from where taken.

I don't know what Hinayana teaches but in my understanding Theravada teaches that the closer one gets to enlightenment the less relavent sexual desire becomes.

I don't think that saying it extinguishes is correct, I think it's a physical thing and for it to extinguish the body would need to stop manufacturing sperm. Rather the mind becomes so highly developed and spacious that what once seemed like a strong overwhelming current now seems like a small ripple in comparison.

But we're only speculating.

I talked to an experienced meditation monk about this topic. He says that once a practitioner has reached a certain level in his/her meditation, the sexual urges leave, or rather the energy is transformed through the meditation practices. From then on, the practitioner has full control over his urges.

My wife will be pleased to hear that.

Your contempt at stating an outstanding piece of philosophy as a sideshow really does highlight serious lack of awareness.

I am aware that your high sounding rhetoric is short on substance, are you? That's why I ask you to clarify, to give you the opportunity to explain what you are saying in terms most of us will understand. Now we may still agree to disagree in the end but that's ok.

Of course the easier thing to do would be just to write it of as new age pseudo buddhist psycho-babble and ignore it, but what if there is some substance after all?

I'm surprised a thread on magic amulets gained any traction on this forum at all.

Buddha never said that his path and the splitting of the Buddhist paths into separate yanas is the only viable perfected path.

The Buddha didn't split his path into seperate yanas, people did, there were no seperate yanas until after he died.

It is widely accepted that there are more and they feed and assist each other to some degree in the human experience.

So you are saying there are more yanas than we know about? widely accepted by whom? How do they feed and assist each other to some degree in the human experience? This would be much easier if you'd explain things plainly.

I am here to debate and I am free to talk about subtle energy, not put on a circus for you.

Why would we want to talk about subtle energy? Do you mean it's subtle energy that makes amulets magic? If so please explain how it works.

I'm still waiting on the one anecdote where you put your faith in an amulet, got a good result from it, and how you determined it was the amulet that did it.

Now I'm sure that the world is much much more than we know, however I don't choose to speculate on the unknown.

Don't presume what you feel is relavent in the thread is what everyone wants. Also don't pick up spelling mistakes with others when you have several.

Yes you are right it's not my place to say what should be discussed, and pointing out your spelling mistake was a bit petty on my part.

Can you point me to a good place to read more about attaining Samadhi, and also what the 'next step' is? I would presume it is expanding the tasks that you attain Samadhi with, to the point where you are Samadhi all the time? Or is that what is meant by Samadhi in the first place? (Like I said, I haven't gotten there!!) Or is it more along the lines of acting more in line with the 8fold path?

Samadhi is strengthening your concentration, much like sharpening a tool. It is impermanant and dependant on conditions but with practice you get better at it. Ultimately it can lead to altered states called Jhana.

This is generally not considered to be the goal of practice, the idea is once you have sharpened your tool sufficiently you can then put it to work, use your one pointedness and presence of mind to develop wisdom.

Your tool my already be relatively sharp because of your music and you may find you progress in meditation better than others might.

Here's a couple the websites of a couple of teachers that emphasize concentration practice and a Wikipedia subject on the topic, I hope this gets you started;

http://www.bswa.org/

http://www.leighb.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi

Good post there. This is also one of my questions. Why is sex such a bad thing in Buddhism? For me, it's a gift from God. The relationship I have with my wife is spiritually edifying, she helps me (and I her) on our spiritual paths, why shouldn't it be?

It's not a bad thing in Buddhism, I don't know where you got this idea, I don't see it in the article above. It's bad for monks because monks choose the celibate life, that's what being a monk is, if they didn't want to be celibate they shouldn't have ordained.

For a Buddhist practitioner it's important to fully understand desire, sex is one of our strongest desires, you understand desire by not giving into it, by seeing it objectively and realising you have a choice. Sometimes the not giving in part takes a lot of effort.

For monks though gaining enlightenment is not an easy thing, one must be in top form and totally focussed. Just like an athelete might abstain from sex during training so a monk does to focus his energy, that's the theory anyway.

Huh, isn't Jesus the guy who turned water into wine.

Who were the distressed people he was helping there? Alcoholics?

Wedding guests one assumes.

What would the Buddha have done? I think he would have pointed out that nothing is certain, things don't always go to plan, so instead of relying on me to bail you out all the time learn to deal with disappointment and serve your guests Coca Cola.

I'm afraid I must give in to temptation.

No, no, no, no, no! This is exactly what I mean. People who judge Christianity from their own limited experience! The statement that Jesus is God is typical! Not all Christians believe this, I certainly don't! Nowhere in the bible is this true!

So you are saying that if I flip through my Bible there is nowhere Jesus claims to be the Son of God, and no reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being God? Now I can only assume you must be objecting to him being referred to as God rather than the Son of God but I think that's just splitting hairs.

Also the statement that "The key factor in Christianity is not good acts" So totally untrue and incorrect, if your faith does not manifest itself in good works, your faith is dead. James 2 vv 20-26.

What comes first the faith and conversion experience or the good acts?

I do good acts sometimes, what differentiates me from a Christian that does good acts? I would suggest it's the faith and conversion experience and so this could be described as the key factor, nobody is suggesting Christians shouldn't engage in good acts though.

Christianity is 100% about personal responsibility! Not placing in all in the hands of your God.

I don't know what brand of Christianity you practice but in my extensive experience I've never come across any type of Christianity where this is the case.

Anyway if it were then you wouldn't need God now would you.

And this statement "Buddhism retains its power completely disassociated from history or any personage." What? Do you not believe that Buddha was a real historic character? Think things through before posting!!!.

It's irrelavent whether I believe that the Buddha lived was an historical fact or not. The Buddhist scriptures could have been written my a troop of intoxicated Baboons and it would make no difference. Buddhism is about me applying the practices and techniques here and now and seeing the results.

By contrast if Jesus the Son of God never came to the earth 2000 years ago and preached and died on the Cross for my sins then what's the point in me believing that Jesus the Son of God came to the earth and preached and died on the Cross for my sins? I might be inspired to good works but surely I could do that anyway.

And also, I ask, have you or any of the other posters with no idea about Christianity, actually read the bible with an open mind un-polluted by any orthodox prejudices?

Mods - can we reiterate that to denigrate Christianity is totally off-topic?

This particular thread is about conversion to Buddhism. We can't really talk about conversion to Buddhism without discussing what we converted from. Some of us may have converted from no religion but a lot of us have Christian influences in our past.

I for one spent 8 years deeply involved in a Pentacostal church in my younger days and I'm getting tired of being told I know nothing about Christianity.

Now your particular school may be different but here we are talking about what we have experienced as being common Christian belief and I think CuriousGeorge's post is on the money.

Yes I agree we digress into this topic a tad too much but it's no use crying to the mods, if what you read here offends you then don't read it, most of us are not being disrespectful just critical at times.

I don't know of any sources to point you to. Wat Pah Nanachaat might be a good place to contact as their branch monasteries in the West have established an order of Bhikkunis.

When did this noteworthy event take place? If they did they are pioneering unorthodox practice outside the Vinaya.

In the past I understand they did have 10 precept upasika like the dasa sil mata of sri lanka, but never bhikkuni.

I think officially they take thev 10 precepts but unofficially they practive the full 300 and something Bhikkuni precepts.

Thanks for the lively debate and my very best wishes for creating best from all experiences

Karma for me is a mystical and profound teacher !!

Thank you also for your input.

Kamma is certainly a teacher, I agree. I just don't think it's mystical or particularly profound as it's what we experience every day in the ordinariness of life.

I have to confess although I am not a follower of the Buddhist dharma. I have studied a little, but your ideas seem very limited about the nature of Buddha. How can you begin to concieve that Buddha was an ordinary man without considering the magnitude of the universal creation.

Creation is indeed magnitudinous as you say, but this is not the topic of this forum or thread. The Buddhas teaching is also magnitudinous because of the fact that ordinary people can become what the Buddha was. Now you can turn that to the other side of the coin as in your last paragraph and say we are already Buddhas and don't realise it but in the end that's just a different way of seeing the same thing.

He is ordinary providing you understand fully the ultimate achievement of a sentient sole. Like it or not in the final phases of this amazing achievement they get mastery of the universe including time. They have no boundaries at all in any shape or form. Any boundaries, any discriminatations, misunderstandings, or anything that is not perfectly balanced will prevent them from the ultimate. The body is just a cloak, all experiences and feelings are illusions to assist on the path.

It sounds like you must be pretty close to enlightenment yourself to know all that, BTW it's soul not sole.

I'm fully aware that my knowledge of life the universe and everything is very limited, but rather than muddy the waters with high sounding concepts and speculation about things beyond my understanding I'd rather stick with the things relevant to where I am on the Buddhas path. Hopefully I can explain what little I know in such a way that is useful to the readers on this forum.

Karma as far as Buddha is concerned including short sightedness and everything else conceivable within the framework of cause and effect is described perfectly by Buddha. How can Buddha’s teachings not be perfect? Surely it is the fault of the sentient being with the contracted and limited awareness that is at fault, not the teaching.

You'll have chapter and verse where the Buddha describes it perfectly at your fingertips then ready to quote?

Mind you I agree the Buddhas teaching as he gave it 2500 years ago would have been perfect and if you are alluding to the fact that when written down by sentient beings the message will have become distorted or embellished then we are in agreement.

This is one of the reasons why each of us need to walk the path of discovery ourselves rather than rely on the words of others no matter how spiritual they may sound.

There / was is nothing physical or meta physical that is not Buddha. If you dig into the philosophy and contemplate enough you will realise that you are and have always been a perfected Buddha but your limited awareness severely restricts your ability to realise this truth.

I must admit I like the Mahayana concept that we are already Buddhas and just need to realise it but as mentionmed earlier I just think it's the other side of the same coin that teaches Buddhahood is something we need to obtain. I think both are true but at the end of the day I'll never really know for sure until I get there.

[quote name='ani'

I've always been a bit confused about Luang Por Sodh. Is he part of the big Dhammakaya movement that has the huge Chedi north of Bangkok, and should probably be considered a cult, or is he quite seperate?

The website suggests they're one and the same.

If that's the case I'd steer well clear.

taking what I said in context, about influencing the future, I meant that the best laid plans and all that...the future is unknowable simply because you are not the only influence on that future - other peoples plans (and natural occuarances etc) make it unknowable - sure we can plan for it, we can save and hope the bank doesn't go tits up and loose all our money nor the currency devalued nor eaten up by inflation/taxes etc and thus can assume we will be comfortable in the future, it just a plan - our influence is mostly imagined (sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't - sometimes you win a roulette sometimes you don't, if you can tell me you can therefore influence the balls landing position, I know people that would be interested )[/font]

We are in total agreement here. As long as someone doesn't go to the other extreme and think that because there are so many variables that can affect my future it doesn't matter what I do, this seems to be the prevalining Thai attitude I think.

I'd like to ring in on this ... I'm a professional musician, and I've found that playing music can be the best meditation I've ever done. It has everything to do with knowing yourself, and know what you can do, what you can't do, and gradually erasing what you can't do. ...

Again IMHO, there are things learned mastering something that you just can't get as a jack-of-all trades. At very least, it is its own path. To be able to perform at a high level requires a high level of achievement along buddhist lines.

A very good point.

What you describe would be called in Buddhist terms as Samadhi. A strong positive step in training the heart and mind, though not the ultimate goal of Buddhism.

Is the affect of the intensity of your experience permanant or does it dissipate when you are no longer are practicing? Does it change you from the inside out or does it create a cocoon where the negativities or distractions don't bother you?

The next step is to use that Samadhi to develop the wisdom leading to permanant freedom.

I envy you that you have something that has helped you develop Samadhi because I think it will give you a good boost to your practice.

Big question but as you want proof then I would have to encourage you to plunge into the heavy waters of esoteric world. By far the most illuminating study I have made which covers absolutely everything conceivable and inconceivable is the Pratyabhijna-hrdayam by the Kashmiri sage Kshemaraja.

Sorry, I'm too busy trying to practice the Buddhas parth to awakening, I don't think I can afforc the luxury of sideshows.

Proof is all around you all the time but you don't see it. It is not for other people to prove to you.

It's very easy to make high sounding sweeping statements on life the universe and everything without backing them up because they are so high sounding they don't seem to need backing up. Of course anyone who doesn't agree is just "unable to see it".

All I ask is you to provide just one anecdote where you put your faith in an amulet, got a good result from it, and how you determined it was the amulet that did it.

If you can't do that I'd prefer you desist from high sounding sweeping statements on life the universe and everything and limit the discussion to the Buddhas teachings.