Brucenkhamen

Without such references to a specific standard or ideal, a description that something has a temperature of 40 degrees would be meaningless unless we had experienced the sensation of a 40 degrees temperature.

Just as the ideal of a world without unfairness is meaningless unless one has experienced it.

To fix it by effectively trying to escape from life (or the wheel of life), on the grounds that there will always be some degree of suffering, however mild, seems a bit extreme, doesn't it!

How does this complete escape from the cycle of life fit in with the Buddha's teaching of the Middle Way, that is, everything in moderation?

The escape from samsara/life world view that the Buddha integrated from the Jain teachings doesn't seem so meaningful to people who haven't grown up with it I think. I don't know about other people but I'm more interested in experiencing freedom from suffering in the lifetime that I am familiar with.

Can you give me some examples of modern situations in modern, developed societies being as unfair as they have always been? Are you referring to the horrors of wars?

Surely it's a no brainer... Some people are rich, others are poor. Some are beautiful, others are ugly. Some live a long life, others die before their time... need I go on?

To be aware that some condition, or state of affairs, is not fair, one has to be aware of what fairness is. Something that is 'not fair' is 'not fair' only in relation to something that is fair.

Fairness is an ideal and a concept, you're measuring reality against that ideal, measuring how it is against how it should be is Dukkha.

I'm alive. You're alive. We are both part of life. If we are aware of what fairness and unfairness means, then we have to conclude that life is both fair and unfair.

However, having become aware that certain conditions are unfair, is it not reasonable and rational to strive to change them and make them less unfair. I'm sure those Kalamas from the village of Kesaputta would have agreed with me.

Yes we can reduce unfairness in how structure our society and live our lives, western democracies have reduced unfairness in many areas compared with the monarchies and dictatorships of the past for example but many areas are still as unfair as they always have been. We can't eliminate unfairness as it's an underlying principle, we can't replace reality with an ideal, the mature thing is to play the hand you've been dealt to the best of your ability.

What I'm questioning is the fairness of a system or philosophy that promotes a way of life as being the only method of achieving the most prized goal in life (escape from the wheel of life), when such a way of life, to effectively escape from life, has to exclude for practical reasons the majority of the population who are required to feed and house those who choose to strive to achieve that ultimate goal of enlightenment.

Life isn't fair, if one sees the Dukkha pervasive in life I don't think one would expect life to be fair.

Do you think it unfair that everyone can't be a doctor or everyone can't be a lawyer? Only if someone is prepared to make the sacrifices in terms of time, money, effort, and giving up the other things one could be doing is it possible.

The path to awakening is no different, you get out of it what you are prepared to put into it.

There's no doubt that freeing the mind from hatred, greed and delusion, is beneficial for oneself and others. However, when one applies that same standard of critical thought to the issues of complete abstinence from sex and even the accidental killing of worms in the soil should one attempt to till the earth, then it's difficult to understand how that could be good for oneself and others, the emphasis being on 'others' with an assumption that 'others' means 'all others', rather than select groups of 'others'.

It might be good for oneself if one decides to live the life of a monk, and it might be good for other select groups leading a life-style similar to that of a Buddhist monk, but it cannot be good for everyone, because, as you've pointed out, lots of people have to continue having sex, killing worms and having children in order to support that select group that is trying to achieve the highest goal of 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Why is someone else's choice not to have sex any business of yours? or mine? People are free to choose that lifestyle or not, it's their business. Sure in traditional Asian cultures young men are coerced to ordain for cultural reasons (usually temporarily), but I don't think there is the evidence the Buddha encouraged such a practice.

If someone is serious about their practice and wants to simplify their life all power to them I say, and if they find they don't like it they are free to return to householder life so I don't see the problem here.

Nobody ever died due to lack of sexual intercourse or from lack of killing worms.

I'm just trying to get my head around this apparent irrationality of a teaching that claims to show how to reach an ideal state of affairs, or most joyous state of mind, at a widespread religious level that (I imagine) is intended to apply to everyone, yet is reliant upon the reality that most members of the religion are not going to strive to achieve that ideal state of affairs.

I think you are taking an idealist position and Im taking a pragmatist position.

If you look at the Buddha portrayed in the Pali Canon I think he is very much a pragmatist whereas if you look at Mahayana Buddhism there is a lot more idealism, for example you can delay your enlightenment until youve saved everybody else... you can get more idealistic than that.

Perhaps this is just the difficulty that Westerners face, who don't accept the reality of Karma and Rebirth. In my original post I raised this issue that Buddhism, without the belief in Karma and Rebirth, seems to lend itself to descriptions of nihilism, whereas traditional Buddhism doesn't seem to fit into this category because Karma and Rebirth will ensure that there is a constant supply of lower forms of life which are reborn as humans.

These teachings can be really problematic if you interpret them in a subjective individualistic kind of way, especially in light of the teachings of Anatta. However the way I see it is that its not personal rather its that the underlying principle of life is cyclical and a constantly changing array of causes and conditions We are all in this together and everything I do has an affect however little if not on me then on the people around me or those in the future. The important point is to put care and attention into my current actions rather than speculate about the future or high minded ideals.

Can we assume that the trillions upon trillions of lower life-forms, including microbes in the soil as well as cockroaches, birds and cows, are all instinctively striving to be reborn as a higher form of life? Is this ancient concept of Karma perhaps equivalent (very roughly) to the Darwinian theory of Evolution?

You can assume all you like but if these assumptions dont indicate or affect how I should live my life and practice here and now I cant use them so I dont care.

You don't need painkillers or a cure if you have avoided suffering in the first instance. Surely that's clear. Having failed to avoid the suffering, painkillers can be a part of the cure if they reduce inflammation, which Ibuprofen is claimed to do, for example, although I admit I tend to favour natural remedies for any ailment, including quieting the mind through meditation.

But the point is you cant avoid suffering, just like you cant avoid gravity. You can avoid specific instances of suffering, you can minimise suffering on an ongoing basis but you cant avoid it as a characteristic of being alive.

Perhaps I'm being too literal here in my response to your comments. I would prefer to treat any cancer by 'doing nothing', that is, completely relax and not even bother to eat. There's a lot of scientific evidence that shows that serious fasting for long periods can kill cancer.

Our body knows how to deal with a shortage of food. Cancer cells don't. They'll starve to death before you do. Unfortunately, only those on the Buddhist path, or similar, are likely to have the will-power to refrain from eating for a significant period.

If you are ever in the position to prove your theory that would be quite the medical breakthrough.

Perhaps my use of the word Nihilism is not the best choice of words. I'm using it because of its etymological meaning of "nothing at all". I'm associating it with a philosophical or religious outlook that promotes an ideal model of behaviour requiring a complete abstinence from sexual activity for the best chance of success, and perhaps the only chance of success, according to Theravada Buddhist tradition..

If someone has dedicated their life to the path than I think the lack of sexual activity is a very small price to pay. The lack of family and children is a much bigger price to pay but the simplification of your life releases an incredible amount of time and energy.

The same is true if you dedicate your life to something else, like saving the whales for example, its the dedicating your life that counts. The thing is that its a choice.

In other words, if everyone were to strive to behave in that ideal way according to this philosophy, and were successful, the human race would become extinct.

Furthermore, such a philosophy implies that the only reason we continue to survive and proliferate is because of 'unenlightened' or bad behaviour in previous lives. What word would you use to describe this state of affairs?

And if pigs could fly the airlines would become extinct. Its never going to happen and the Buddha never expected it to happen which is why he setup a symbiotic relationship between the sangha and the laity.

The word I'd use for this state of affairs is nature or instinct.

Surely trying to avoid suffering in the first instance is the best strategy. Of course, if you have failed to avoid suffering, for whatever reason, then you have to face up to it, try to understand it and let go of it.

That would be true if Dukkha were the cause, but its the symptom, we need a cure not painkillers.

Just like cancer Dukkha and its causes left to its own devices will continue to snowball and multiply so one needs to eradicate the tumor rather than just minimise it.

It's frequently stated in Buddhism that 'birth' is suffering. You can avoid introducing that suffering by not having children. There's where the nihilism comes into play.

What you call Nihilism Id call birth control, a lot of people choose not to have children because they know it is hard work, that doesnt make them Nihilists as most go on to live productive lives.

I think Nihilism would be not acknowledging your children as being relevant or worthy of your care or attention.

I'm getting a strong sense of duality in your reply, that is, the concept that one is either suffering or one is not suffering.

Surely there are countless degrees of suffering ranging from unbearable suffering, which results in one passing out, to very mild discomfort or anxiety which might be considered as insignificant in relation to even the very moderate pleasures of life. (The Middle Way).

I would consider my own suffering to be in that category of very mild.

All forms of Dukkha are Dukkha, it doesn't matter whether they are intense or mild as the point is that Dukkha is a human condition and there is a solution.

I don't see what duality has to do with it, every concept when defined excludes everything outside of that definition, can you give an example of a non-dual definition of thing/concept?

If birth is suffering, why would any person attempting to achieve enlightenment or the cessation of suffering, want to introduce yet more suffering by having children? Isn't this a form of nihilism?

If your child comes home from school and says maths is boring why would you want to introduce more suffering by sending them back to school?

Because this is how life works, you dont solve the problem of Dukkha by avoiding it you solve it by facing up to it, understanding it and letting go of it.

I dont see any connection with Nihilism.

Note that giving up sexual activity is an implied requirement.

Seems reasonable, though there is no indication at what point in the path this may need to take place, some people do it after their children have left the nest for example.

That's an interesting distinction; is Nirvana the goal or merely the result or byproduct of the cessation of suffering?

Cessation of suffering is one of the characteristics of Nibbana, I'd say the most important one to the degree that they are virtually synonymous.

If the goal is only to escape suffering, then surely long before one has reached those very heightened states of full enlightenment or Nirvana, most of one's suffering will have dissipated and therefore the incentive to continue long sessions of meditation will be reduced.

Given the above this doesn't make sense.

I wonder if the two go hand in hand, like carrot and stick, suffering being the stick and the carrot being the claimed and fanciful descriptions of the joys of enlightenment or Nirvana.

What fanciful descriptions are these? I think you are relying too much on folk Buddhism. Here are some examples of how the Buddha is recorded as having described it...

When, brahmin, one experiences the remainderless destruction of lust, the remainderless destruction of hatred, and the remainderless destruction of delusion, it is in this way, too, that nibbāna is directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise. - AN 3.55

There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned. - Ud 8.3

All foolish individuals, O king, take pleasure in The senses and in the objects of sense, find delight in them, continue to cleave to them. Hence are they carried down by that flood (of human passions), they are not set free from birth, old age, and death, from grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despairthey are not set free, I say, from suffering. But the wise, O king, the disciple of the noble ones, neither takes pleasure in those things, nor finds delight in them, nor continues cleaving to them. And inasmuch as he does not, in him craving ceases, and by the cessation of craving grasping ceases, and by the cessation of grasping becoming ceases, and when becoming has ceased birth ceases, and with its cessation birth, old age, and death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair cease to exist. Thus is the cessation brought about, the end of all that aggregation of pain. Thus is it that cessation is Nirvāṇa. - Mil 3.4 8

If one accepts that the surest way of achieving a state of Nirvana in this life is to abstain from all sexual activity, avoid killing all forms of life, and to spend most of one's time sitting down meditating, and spending little time attending to practical worldly matters because it's all an illusion, then the spread and success of Buddhist ideals would surely lead to the extinction of the human race. Is that not a form of nihilism?

I dont see what this view has to do with Nihilism, and the Buddha never taught that practical worldly matters are all an illusion, if that were the case then there would be no need to renounce them as illusions can just be ignored.

Buddhism also doesnt teach that achieving Nibbana is not possible for householders. In India at the Buddhas time there was already a culture of spiritual seekers giving up the householder life and living off the generosity of others. The Buddha just leveraged this tradition when he setup the monastic sangha as he knew for most people living a subsitance life in those days they would have little spare time to devote to the practice. Nowadays we have annual leave and generally only work a 40 hour week so it is more possible to have a householder life and a spiritual life as well, though its pretty hard to get a good balance.

There was never any indication that everybody should become monks and nuns, obviously it would never work as who would be left to support them, so as you say It's not going to happen, so its irrelevant.

I don't know where you get the idea that I suggest any aspect of mental activity can be outside of the mind.

Because you said the mind is just thoughts, so I can only assume you are saying all the rest of mental activity is outside of the mind.

then we can legitimately say that these different kinds of mental activity are all just thoughts,

See like that, I think if you can't see the difference between thoughts and other mental activity you haven't been paying attention. However I suspect what you are really saying is that all mental activity has the same characteristic that is clearly evident in thoughts ie that it is constantly arising and passing away.

But how can a little self find the true Self. This Self or Buddha Nature is already what you are.

Everything in this post I find pretty consistent with Buddhism, at least in the way I understand and practice it, except for the above.

Yes self view creates separation from objects and world the world around us

However creating a view about a bigger and better self that if I can somehow realise it then everything will be all wonderful the way it is supposed to be is not the answer. Its replacing a small problem with a big problem, this is I think why the Buddha so strongly denied this view. It creates an even bigger duality than the current one, the separation between me and this godlike pantheistic True Self collective that I need to somehow re-merge with. Its probably not the way advanced practitioners understand it but its the picture painted by the words used.

As you say its just a case of revealing what is already there, so to me this means there is no need to personify it as personification just creates separation.

Buddhanature is less problematic, as it is not personified, not a self. Though from what Ive heard the idea came about when texts were translated into Chinese and Chinese grammer required a particle to be added -nature to make it grammatically correct.

I am not saying we should totally ignore these texts, but we should question their veracity for the reasons I gave. But what is important really? What can be said about what is needed to discover your true nature is very little. You don't need to be familiar with reams and reams of scriptures unless you are a scholar of historical Buddhism. If you look at some of the influential teachers in the Theravada tradition such as Ajahn Chah, he spoke in very simple terms about what you need to do for liberation.

I dont have a problem with this, I follow this approach myself, however if we want to talk about Buddhism in a collaborative way on the internet we have to use words, and it is helpful to be familiar with how these words are used in the context of Buddhist practice.

Is there more to mind than mental states? If you think there is, that is pure conjecture, a concept, which is itself just a thought appearing and disappearing. Mind is just a series of thoughts.

This is not consistent with Buddhist definitions. Surely you are familiar with the five aggregates; material form, feelings, perception, mental formations, and sensory consciousness. The first is physical, the last four mental and this is the mind so it is a lot more than just thoughts, actually I think these four dont adequately fully describe the mind.

So if you think the mind is just thoughts either you havent been paying attention or you are assuming that some of this mental activity is outside of the mind, I dont think such a view would be helpful in any Buddhist practice.

But for the spiritually advanced or receptive, what Buddha said in the Mahaparunanirvana Sutra about the true Self as being what you are represented his highest teaching. And to know that one has to repeatedly experience the one pointedness of samadhi in order to become free of attachment and identification with the personal self.

You can believe you are a little self that needs to find your true self if you want to but the idea is not supported by the original teachings and I think the idea is just creating a nonexistent dualism between big self and little self that is not needed. Its creating a problem in order to justify the solution.

Wouldnt it be better to talk about something where there is hope of agreement?

I questioned the translation of bhavana as mental cultivation because it is misleading as it can suggest a practice which is conceptual in nature rather than about direct knowing.

Cultivation suggests to me digging up, aerating, fertilising, and preparing. Meditation suggests to me pondering and contemplating but we use the word as its commonly used in English. I think youll find my interpretations more in line with the dictionary and etymology.

It doesn't matter how active your life is, you do not run out of the resource that is always available within. You can practice mindfulness in almost every situation. You don't have to devote hours a day to sitting practice.

Good advice.

So let is by all means utilize from Buddhist teachings that which can be tested and verified through direct experience and not quibble about words. The minute you start saying this is a Buddhist forum and these are acceptable words and terminology, you are distancing yourself from the truth which cannot be spoken.

... and the minute you imply you know better than texts passed down over 2500 years and form the only historically based record we have of what was said 2500 years ago you distance yourself from the tradition of practice that you are discussing.

I think most people are aware that "mental" means of the mind (as opposed to materiality) and that there is more to the mind than thoughts or mental states. So to suggest that mental cultivation means cultivating more mental states is just being dismissive for the sake of being dismissive, I'm not sure whether there is a point beyond that.

Can you explain the difference in meaning between the synonyms meditation and bhavana (mental cultivation) and how the latter leads to more mental states and the former presumably doesn't. Can you explain as you suggest we should do how you tested and verified through direct experience that mental cultivation leads to more mental states.

I think (unfortunately a mental state) that both you and TRD are on the same page but appear to differ due to attachment to "words".

You're right.

Of course as we're on a Buddhist forum Buddhist terminology shouldn't be a problem for most people I'd have thought.

The mind/soil analogy isn't a very good analogy.

I'm sure the Buddha would be surprised to hear he got it so wrong.

Thoughts beget more thoughts. Soil doesn't beget more soil.

Mental cultivation does not involve the cultivation of thoughts, you described the process quite well in your previous post.

It's interesting that you're happy to use the word "meditation"... old English/French for "contemplation; devout preoccupation; devotions, prayer," from Old French meditacion "thought, reflection, study", while failing to grasp the a quite simple meaning of a metaphor used by the Buddha.

What I am referring to is awareness that is just aware of itself without an object. This one pointedness of mind is called samadhi in both Buddhist and Hindu Vedic traditions and should be at the core of meditation practice.

... and this meditation practice is called citta bhavana, literally "mental cultivation" in English.

Mental cultivation won't lead to anything except more mental states.

Mental cultivation doesn't lead to more mental states, just as soil cultivation doesn't lead to more soil.

Do you have the names of the places in Malaysia?

http://www.mbmcmalaysia.org/ They have a bit of chanting before the meals and at the end of the day but that's about it.

http://www.sasanarakkha.org/ I've heard good things about this place but don't know if it meets your citeria.

http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/country.php?country_id=48 You might find something suitable here.

Most of the Burmese centres don't expect foreign meditators to get involved in this, there are some in Malaysia if you don't want to go to Myanmar.

Insight meditation centres in the West don't have it.

In Thailand though it's usually expected to some degree the only place I can think of that doesn't have it is Wat Kow Tahm.

I doubt the concept of seculat Buddhism exists in Thailand.

The Zen-ish group Green Papaya Sangha might be your best bet http://greenpapayasangha.org/

You'll probably find several options in the monastery and retreat centre thread

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/41645-a-guide-to-buddhist-monasteriesmeditation-centresstudy-groups/

What purpose is there in renunciation, adoption of a simple life style, wearing robe & bowl, keeping 227 precepts, and then proceed to practice for a negligible period and then quit?

Good post. Some excellent points.

10 days is far too short to be a monk, youll spend all of your time learning how to wear your robes, handle your vbowl, etiqutee and chants and then it will be over and then it will take a month for your hair and eyebrows to grow back.

There are plenty of monasteries and retreat centre that cater for foreigners who want to do meditation retreats or just live in a monastery for a while, it would be a better use of your time.

Coffee is classed as a medicine so can be stored by a monk and taken after noon as long as it's without milk.

However depending on how strict the monastery is you can't just make yourself a cup whenever you feel like it, you'll probably have to wait until it's offered or until a group shared afternoon tea.

One can detox from coffee addiction within a couple of days. Honestly if something this trivial is a stumbling block monastic life is not for you.