Brucenkhamen

This is to some, the "deep end" of religion. (Did the Buddha influence Jesus ?)

I follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah, prophet-founder of renewed religion known as the Baha'i Faith.

For those who are unaware, and with absolutely no intention of entering into dispute with anyone, allow me to tell you that Baha'is hold the Lord Buddha in the very highest reverence possible.

They also have a very clear understanding of the intimate relationship between the Lord Buddha and Jesus the Christ as well as a firm understanding of the nature of Maitrya Buddha.

If you would like an explanation, may I respectfully suggest that you check out "The Oneness of the Prophets", a principal tenent of the Baha'i Faith.

As I have been respectful to the forum readers, I ask that you kindly return similar respect to my posting by avoiding contest and contention.

Check it out. You might find answers to the question .

Chock dee !

Why would you expect us to be anything else but respectful?

What I'd be interested to know is how important is this "intimate relationship between the Lord Buddha and Jesus the Christ as well as a firm understanding of the nature of Maitrya Buddha" in the Baha'i faith.

Not so much from the point of view of what is believed but whether holding fast to such a belief is important in Baha'i. Is faith based belief important in Baha'i or are such ideas presented in way that gives you freedom to accept, investigate, or reject as you progress along in your spiritual development?

Does it really matter whether this teacher influenced that teacher as an historical fact? does it matter whether you believe it or not? with evidence or not?

Surely with whatever path you follow the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

If one gives food that needs to be cooked before eating, for example rice, should one not in fact give it in cooked form?

Yes.

You can donate uncooked food to the monastery though, the lay people who look after the kitchen will deal with it You shouldn't put it in a monks bowl as you don't know whether that monk is undergoing the practice of living only on the food put in his bowl, unlikely unless he's a forest monk though.

in relation to Brucen and Chownah's post (above) does that mean that it's more a case of living each moment as it exists as opposed to worrying about thinking you have a 'self'. I sort of get that if I'm on the right track but I then don't understand if I say to my friend 'oh you know what I'm like' - does it mean that I actually don't have personality traits?

Personality is I think a result of kamma. Because you've done things a certain way in the past, reacted in certain ways, had certain charateristics, you've created the conditions for similar patterns to arise in the future. Each moment is conditioned by the previous moments and personality isn't exempt from that.

In the same way inanimate objects have certain charateristics that repeat according to patterns over time, leaves are like this, water is like that... nobody would say leaves or water has a personality though.

One interpretation of anatta is that you will never be able to find anything that can truly be considered to be self.....BUT....the Buddha advised that we should have NO doctrine of self...and to me (and to some others) it seems that to say that there is no self really is having a doctrine of self...so....perhaps the best thing to do is to try to get to the point that the concept of self does not even arise as a concept. I know this doesn't really help in answering your question about how to accomplish this but I thought I would post it as yet another fairly commnly held view of what anatta is all about.

Sounds like a good approach to me. Holding onto a fixed view that "No Self means x" seems like it ould be counterproductive me as it's a difficult concept to understand intellectually. Which is why I think it's better to use it as a question mark with which to examine reality rather than a doctine to beleived.

So what do you guys say the self is?

Is it a mental codification - a summary that is accorded a status apart from its components- composed of all those things that the mind relates to the satisfaction of its own needs?

That in reality there isn't one.

Do animals have a 'self'? Do plants? Do amoeba? And what happens to the self when the amoeba splits in two? Does each of the 'offspring' have a self? And what happened then, to the original's 'self'?

Well if humans don't have one I think it's safe to assume amoebas don't either.

Is it perhaps better to see the self as impermanent, as in dependent origination? One of my first teachers in BKK and I started a discussion group there and she started a discussion called 'meditation on a Bkk bus' - in which it was discussed that one can 'practise' in the 'real' world as well as while being a monk. But I am thinking of how to practise Anatta in the 'real' world - does that make sense...?

Yes, I think if one observes the characteristics of what you assume to be self arise and pass away often enough one is less likely to identify with the self a something that is distict seperate and permanant.

I'm a bit rusty and would appreciate the members of this forum discussing this topic as, when I studied Buddhism many years ago I always had trouble understanding how to unattach from my 'self'. Especially when the world/society/friends etc see s as a 'self' with specific characteristics - Seonai who likes Italian food, doesn't like violence and wears outlandish clothes for example

Firstly there are a couple, probably more than a couple, of different interpretations of this. The first is that there is no self... period.. zip... nada.

The second one, that I favour, is that there is no distinct and seperate self, in that while there is something we identify as a self on the conceptual level it is totally interdependant with the environment it lives in. So it's something that exists as part of a whole not something that exists independantly of it's environment.

Either way trying to understand no-self while immersed in the world of self and other is a bit like a fish trying to understand no-water.

Look upon it as a question mark that you can use to examine and investigate your experience with, rather than a doctrine to be beleived or understood.

It sounds like you are saying that the Buddha's teachings are irrelevant for suffering people. This seems strange to me because it is exactly suffering people that the Buddha addressed with his teachings.

The Buddhas teachings are about gaining freedom from suffering, the monks rules are an aid for monks to make that happen.

As a country Burma is saturated in the Buddhas teaching. The thing is I don't believe the Buddha laid down these rules so a nation of some of his most devout followers would get stuck with over 60 years of brutal military dictatorship.

I have said all along that the monks were walking for 'change' and that I agree that they should have done this as it has raised the world's attention to the matter. I personally don't think it is relevant to discuss whether it was an action in line with the Buddha's teachings as many of the monks rules are out of date and I believe these particular monks see their country's people in a desperate situation, therefore an act which appears 'desperate' was necessary

Well said.

You know fellas I think we're going about this all wrong, we shouldn't try to discredit it rather work out how to use it to our advantage.

If the Buddha prophesied the coming of Jesus then obviously he's a prophet of God, right up there with the likes of Moses and John the Baptist.

So next time a Christian is on your case about following the ways of the devil you can whip out a copy of this pamphlet and provide proof you are following a prophet of God, may work with Muslims too.

Maybe this means we can have enlightenment and salvation too.

There's a lot more about Maitreya in Mahayana sutras, which is where I think this bogus text was adapted from.

Yes, odds of a genuine lost Mahayana scripture being found in the storeroom of Theravada Chiang Mai Wat in 1954 are...

where's the nearest lottery shop?

The third precept I think gives you pause to look at your sexual drive objectively.

Do you really need sex right now? Why? What happens if you don't follow your urge? or delay it? Is it that important?

I don't think there is anything wrong consesual sex between two adults who have no commitments to third parties as long as there is no liklihood of one getting hurt.

Like if one is drunk and may regret it in the morning, or one is in love while the other just wants a fling, or one has a transmittable disease which could infect the other, or one is currently abstaining for spiritual purposes. These kinds of situations can definately result in someone getting hurt so I would say would be against the precept.

Maybe not fully sold out to Buddhist world view would be a better description of the man. But since Buddhism embraces the concept of investigating and meditating on what you believe. It must also embrace the idea that someone can choose for themselves what truth is. In that vein, he must have been a very good Buddhist indeed, because he chose his path by what he believed, not just because it was the way it is always done.

I think garro was referring to the fact that he believed a pamphlet of duboius authenticity, rather than his finding a new faith.

Personally I applaud him for casting off traditions that he found weren't working for him for something else that made his spiritual path alive. People who choose their path themselves rather than following that laid out by their environment or their parents follow their path with much more energy and conviction.

While I'm not impressed with some forms of Cristianity, there are others that are definately preferable to the animism that is followed as a sorry excuse for Buddhism around much of Thailand.

In other words better to be a good Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/whatever than a bad Buddhist.

I doubt that he could have been much of a Buddhist monk if he fell for such obvious nonsense.

That's just my opinion though.

Sounds like he'd be in the majority of Buddhist monks in Thailand then.

Having had a quick read of the quote in the pamphlet I'd have to say my first thought is reminds me of the Book of Mormon.

By that I mean it pretends to be old but refers to the importance of merit making in a way that is very 20th century Thai.

I'm no scholar of the Pali Canon but the style an much of the wording and many of the references of this pamphlet are very inconsistant with with the scriptures that date back to the Buddhas time. I guess it could have been a very loose paraphrase written by a Christian but then you'd think a Christian would have been aware of the importance of recording the chapter and verse it came from, rather than the name of the person who gave him permission to copy it.

So as far as you know, does the writer of the pamphlet claim that it was lost for 2500 years and discovered in 1954 by Somsak Smith preserved in time written on gold tablets in a cave?

Or, does he have a reference in the Pali Canon that I can look up to verify it's authenticity?

So what do you think of it Maxi101?

I must say that I used to admire modern day Christian missionaries (those of the colonial era are a different story) as people of deep selflessness and conviction, but some of the things I hear about their antics in Thailand paint them as quite a dishonest breed.

These are the practices that would exempt Buddhism from the denunciation Dawkins reserves for 'religions'. Would the 'myriad Buddhist practices' you refer to further exempt it- or would they place Buddhism squarely in the company of those religions for whom Dawkins reserves his venom?

The practices that he describes sounds like he is confusing Trancendental Meditation with Buddhism, I suppose not too difficult to do if one hasn't done any research into the various philosophies that have come out of India, he did state at the beginning he knew little about Buddhism after all.

I'm a bit concerned that he seems to think trance inducing effects could be a positive thing. Maybe I understand the word trance differently but I understand it as some kind of hypnoses in which one loses awareness and I guess the ability to come out of it freely. I see no value in that to a Buddhist, can you see any value to an athiest? Unless of course one is using it to quit smoking I guess.

So after having read that I couldn't possibly comment on what he might think may or may not exempt Buddhism from his venom, and don't really care.

States that are desirable as a result of intensive Buddhist meditation are states of heightened awareness in which one is intensely aware of what is arising and passing away through the six sense doors from moment to moment. Contrary to a trance it is difficult to maintain these states and one can easily fall out of them with the subtlest attempts to manipulate or react to ones experience. This is equally true of both Insight and Concentration practices the main difference is the latter is more focussed on one aspect of what is being experienced.

The purpose of this heightened awareness is like when a scientist puts something under a microscope, you see things broken down to the smallest level, you observe whats really happening, and when you see that you understand the experiences you have in your day to day life much more clearly.

As you can probably imagine any belief in god is irrelevant to the process, maybe we get some marks for that?

Buddhism does require a certain amount of 'beliefs' - that is, Right View (essentially, that there is karma and rebirth), and faith in Buddha (that there is enlightenment), Dhamma (Natural Law) , Sangha (Disciples can attain enlightenment)

I may be splitting hairs but you don't necessarily have to hold any of the above as beliefs, again I refer to the Kalama Sutta, I see them more as hypotheses or assumptions.

The kind of belief you need in Buddhism is along the lines of "I followed the Buddhas teaching and did x, the result was y so it worked the way he said it would, on the strength of that I'll carry on and do z as my confidence in where I'm heading is growing".

That does,'t mean to say faith based belief has no place, but a Buddhist practitioner should always be willing to challenge and look deeper into things that could crystallize into rigid beliefs.

But I think that in this discussion- there are too many ambiguous words being used- ie- what is 'God' in the sense that the 'new atheists' (no different than the 'old atheists') use it. What is Buddhism? What is a 'Buddhist'? What is an 'atheist'? And what is 'religion'?

I have no problem with any of the definitions you've put forward... so carry on.

A I know little about Buddhism, meditation as a kind of mental

discipline to manipulate your mind in beneficial directions, I could

easily imagine. In reciting a mantra in a repetitive way - it's

entirely plausible to me that might have some sort of trance-inducing

effects which could even be beneficial. "

The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins (2006) pg 37:

While a small minority of the myriad Buddhist practices might be descibed in this way it sounds like Dawkins understanding of Buddhism is very shallow indeed.

So, is this in line with the Buddha's teachings or not. This topic is about whether actions taken by monks is in accord with the Buddha's teacings. All that you have given us is political analysis. This is not a forum for politics....it is a forum for Buddhism. Can you give us some insight about how the Buddha's teaching relate to this?

I'd be interested to know about the reported act of the monks turning over their bowls to the government and military officials, the idea being that they were not worthy to give alms to the monks.

Does anybody know if there is anything in the teachings on this? has there been any precedent for it? It's obviously taken a long time for the monks to take this stand so not entered into lightly.

From what I've seen in Thailand powerful and selfish people who exploit others like to use giving to the monks as a way to "buy their way back into heaven", no reason to suppose Burma is any different. If the monks are continuing to refuse alms from them maybe they'll get the message.

As Chownah says we aren't looking at if or why they did it so much as what are the teachings that support the act.

Brucenkhamen, I respectfully disagree. I'm an atheist, and to me "atheist" means that I have taken a stand. I say there is no God. But if someone can offer me proof that He exists, instead of blind faith and wishful thinking, I am open to considering it. But the discussion must be based on fact.

Sounds like you are an agnostic athiest then, as am I. I fail to see the usefulness of adding a belief system to Buddhist practice, but that doesn't mean to say I'll always see things that way nor criticise those that do.

re my statement about scientifically proving that God is at play: this was in response to "when things arise that could be explained in spiritual terms you don't reject them immediately because you're an athiest, but examine them scientifically".

Yes, but that statement didn't mention the word "god".

Re 'you are on your own'- I meant this in terms of the idea that there is a personal God helping you when needed and as He sees fit. And ultimately, even though you may find support and encouragement from the fellowship that Buddhism encourages- it is your Karma- and yours alone that determines your progress. Nothing they- or 'God'- can do to change that. They can affect it but you are the one who ultimately makes the choices. The old saw, you live alone and you die alone. Like a cancer patient- you may find solace in the companionship of others so afflicted- but ultimately the progress and treatment of your cancer has nothing to do with anyone (unless you believe in God) beyond the moral support that they offer YOU to make the right choices and the treatment options your doctor offers. But how well your cells respond to those treatment options is determined by your cells ultimately). And ultimately, it is you who makes the choices and you who takes the consequences you alone who experiences the highs and lows of life.

I agree with what you are saying here.

Without those, those practices are effective- as - true- but I don't think that a person can claim to be a Buddhist and ignore or reject the philosophy that gives rise to the need for those practices.

The Buddha makes no such demands, so who are you to demand it of his followers? Refer to the Kalama Sutta on what the Buddha says on whether you should accept or reject his philosophy.

It's like if somebody is taking medicine that will eventually cure them do you have to deny them painkillers in the meantime. If a god belief dulls someones pain as they slowly tread the path of awakening I'm not going to be the one tospoil it for them.

It's not about just following a set menu of truths, truth is universal, you can learn truth about the human existance from anything you encounter in your day to day lives.. but only if your mind is open.

It would be like a someone following the teachings of Christ (which, surprisingly, many atheists do) but not accepting his divinity- or the concept of Christ as a personal saviour. Would that person be a Christian?

That's not really for me to judge, and why should I care?

In my (admittedly limited) understanding of Buddhism- it is a antidote to atheism. It is a way by which those who can not hope for divine guidance and help, can still attain ultimate peace through their own efforts.

Interesting thought.

Trying to understand your point of view you seem to be assuming that the only definition of God or the supernatural is the judeo-christian one, with all the creation and salvation stuff that goes with it. As far as I'm aware that world view wasn't present in North India during the Buddhas time, and it certainly doesn't have a monopoly in the world of non-athiesm now.

You also haven't considered the main point of my original post, that an open mind is more conducive to Buddhist practice than a closed one, the same is true for science. It's therefore better to not have a fixed view, especially on topics that are irrelevant anyway.

So how have you found having a point view fixed on athiesm has helped you in practicing the Buddhist path?

In the first place, I don't think the supernatural can be 'proved' to exist- not by science- since the domain of science is natural law. And by definition, God is beyond natural law. (Previous attemtps to do so have led to the 'god of the gaps' approach which is most definitely not science).

I'm not sure what this is in response to, it doesn't appear to be in reply to anything in my post.

But I also think that Buddhism -with its core emphasis on the notion that you are completely alone in your quest to aleviate suffering- exists with the assumption that no divine figure will or can come to your aid.

Buddhism does not say you are completely alone, it encourages you to seek the support of other like minded practitioners, though certainly it encourages you to take responsibility for your own development, which is probably what you are alluding to. There is also a sense that if you purify your own mind you benefit those around you and society as a whole, as you are not creating suffering for yourself and for others. So certainly you are not alone.

So to be agnostic about the existance of a god who can be petitioned through prayer and who can intercede in the events of man- would have to lead to being agnostic about Buddhism.

Either it's all up to you (as Buddhism claims) or it's not.

Why?

One is a system of beliefs, the other a system of techniques and guiding principles.

If the Buddhist says there MAY be a personal god (and I am using atheism here to refer to a personal, intercessionary God) then he is also saying that Buddhism -or the type of Buddhism that emphasises rational thought and behavior, MAY not be the way to attaining peace.

Again why? You seem to be taking a very black and white stance and ignoring the shades of grey in between. Your statement is like saying if you don't like Toyotas then you MUST like Hondas, not necessariily so.

But would you not agree that the ideal Buddhist world would be a world of atheists? Atheists who had accepted that the teachings of Buddhism are the best way to provide the meaning and relief from despair that deism used to- before they became atheists?

I would have said the ideal Buddhist world would be a world of agnostics.

Athiesm implies that what you believe/understand is set in stone, it's decided, that part of your mind is now closed. A partially closed mind is counter productive to Buddhist practice, doesn't matter whether it's closed because of theism, or athiesm, or animistic Thai pseudo Buddhist ritual.

Better to maintain a skeptical openness of mind so that when things arise that could be explained in spiritual terms you don't reject them immediately because you're an athiest, but examine them scientifically to gain further insight into your human experience.

Is it bad for Buddhism as a whole?

Buddhism can fade away or be forgotten but the truth can never be lost.

Isn't Buddhism just a vehicle or a way?

Surely it’s the destination that is more important?

Very true.

Interesting how Buddhism seems unconcerned about things that other religions might brand as heresy and in less benevolent times would have lead to people being burnt at the stake.

Yes it is against the monks rules. I've never seen even the most lax monks ask strangers for money in s way, money is usually given to the monastery at monastic ceremonies.

If a monk asks you for money he is not a good monk so tell your wife she won't get any merit.

If they have a lay person with them to handle the money you could give it to them, but even so they should never ask for it unless you've invited them to tell you what they might need.