huli

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?

Enlightenment is not the 100% correct translation, 'awakening' is correct because there is no 'illumination' by a higher authority (Gods, Devas etc.)

'The desire for merit itself being a hinderance?' -Yes, 'meritmaking' is outside the 'Dhana" (Generosity) Teaching of the Buddha.

Do the good job with the best intention and forget the results concerning "karma-points". "Tambun" to buy a good "kamma" is the most misused term in Thai Buddhism, it's a moneymaking machine.

I too find the connection between tamboon and the desire for good karma to be at odds.

I did read somewhere that the first stage of virtue for a lay person is to be compassionate and generous, these two. Not for any selfish reason (like desire for good karma) but because they are conductive to the selfless living that is the Buddhist Path.

Tamboon is supposed to be an opportunity to be generous, that's all, IMO.

I can't really see what a Buddhist Philosophy of Evolution would be, unless a person equates karma with evolution.

As far as consciousness goes, didn't Buddha say it is one of the 5 aggregates, and that consciousness is dependent on having an intact body and mind to exist? It is a property of the individual according to Buddha, it seems to me.

In Theravada, consciousness is equated to cognizance, an activity of the mind. In Mahayana, at least in some schools, consciousness underpins mental activity. It may be manifested or unmanifested as phenomena. It may be regarded as the primordial nature of being or as fundamental and total awareness - the "reality body of the Buddha", Dharmakaya (if I understand it right). It seems remarkably close to Brahman.

If I am not mistaken, the Hindu belief is that there exists a universal consciousness, and we are each a part of this or, more correctly, are, as Atman is to Brahman. This is absolutely not a teaching of Buddha, to whom consciousness is only individual and fleeting. As you note, it seems the Mahayana have reverted back towards the Hindu as far as "consciousness" goes.

And Brahman seems remarkably close to God The Father, but Xangsamhua would know more about that.

The overall trend is for most religions to frame a human life in a big comprehensive picture of deities or consciousness, which is probably appealing because it strengthens the individual ego. In Buddhism as I understand it, the only issue is the individual human mind.

Almost three years ago, I entered Thailand on a Retirement O-A visa with only a one-way ticket in. I was never asked to produce an open ticket out.

I can't really see what a Buddhist Philosophy of Evolution would be, unless a person equates karma with evolution.

As far as consciousness goes, didn't Buddha say it is one of the 5 aggregates, and that consciousness is dependent on having an intact body and mind to exist? It is a property of the individual according to Buddha, it seems to me.

Has anyone had any success with the electrical/electronic repellents? Some work by ultra sound other by electro magnetism. Most review I have read rubbished them.

Thanks

Graham

one can imagine the suffering of the cockroach when electrically repelled, even if its life is not taken

the question would be, is this acceptable to your conscience?

There is an outdoor stadium behind Kalare Market off Changklan night bazaar area that billed as Kawila-lives-on. It is 400 for a regular night of maybe 7 fights, often with 2 farang Thai fights, which I enjoy most. No bars or bar girls, canned Chang is only beer for sale. Fights are Tuesday and Friday at 9pm, actually 9:30pm. I have been to Tae Pae and Loi Kroh many times, this is the best by far. It is worth checking out.

this is a Buddhist Forum, not a Jain Forum

I interpret the first precept to not kill any living creature.

1. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.

Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

Abstinence from killing is something many Buddhists have in common with Jains.

Graham

You have tons of cockroaches in your kitchen, and this bothers you, probably because of the hygienic and aesthetic aspects, hence your post. I can understand your wish to never kill any living thing, and there are no doubt some Buddhists or others who similarly wish to abstain 100% from ever killing anything.

You are asking here for tips on how to get rid of bugs in your world without killing them. If you don't want to kill them, why not just love them?

Life is suffering for all conditioned things, including bugs.

I found this interesting thought on a Taoist thing - makes me wonder.

The reason that god must be

absolute and this means oneness, omnipotence, omniscience, and

omnipresence. Naturally, anything separate and distinct would not

satisfy this criteria. If there was a god and a world that god created,

then there wold be two things - and god could not be considered

absolute. If there were an absolute god, there could not be anything

separate from god.

Everything is god. We are also god. However, we fail to realize this.

Why? Because we look for god outside of ourselves. We make the mistake

of taking ourselves as the viewer and then seek god as the object of our

examinations. Unfortunately, everything we perceive is tainted by our

subjectivity, and anything that we define ad god “out there”cannot be

god because it is not absolute. All you’ve found is something that

exists in relation to your perceptions.

You are god. The only way to confirm this is to remove the barrier of

subjectivity that prevents you from realizing your essential oneness

with all things.

The reason that god must be

absolute and this means oneness, omnipotence, omniscience, and

omnipresence. Naturally, anything separate and distinct would not

satisfy this criteria. If there was a god and a world that god created,

then there wold be two things - and god could not be considered

absolute. If there were an absolute god, there could not be anything

separate from god.

Everything is god. We are also god. However, we fail to realize this.

Why? Because we look for god outside of ourselves. We make the mistake

of taking ourselves as the viewer and then seek god as the object of our

examinations. Unfortunately, everything we perceive is tainted by our

subjectivity, and anything that we define ad god “out there”cannot be

god because it is not absolute. All you’ve found is something that

exists in relation to your perceptions.

You are god. The only way to confirm this is to remove the barrier of

subjectivity that prevents you from realizing your essential oneness

with all things.

whether there is no god, and no you

or you are one with God

or you are God

it's the same thing, really

all 3 views describe a non-dualistic reality

which is key

Think this should be in Real Estate, Housing or General

I put it in this forum as it concerns the first precept, to me at least. I attempt to kill no living creatures, even the most foul

this is a Buddhist Forum, not a Jain Forum

Lol. Yes, another of the great unmentionables. I have other questions that get frowned on too. Ah well. I don't mind the posture, it gives relief to my aching knees to change around from half lotus fter a while, I just can't find any precedent for it. I thought it might be swastika pose but no. Mysteries of Thai Buddhism.

+1

I screwed my left knee up in the gym many years ago and struggle with sitting on the floor statioinary for any length of time. I meditate sitting on a chair which I know doesn't conform but IMO meditation is about the act not looking the part.....

My right knee is damaged and I gave up on sitting half-lotus to sit on a chair also. However, I can put my left leg up on the chair very comfortably, keeping my right foot on the floor. It gives the added tripod feeling without the pain in the right knee. It's more stable than plain chair-sitting IMO.

Depends on what you need - if you only need plans drawn according to your ideas any architect will do - they all charge differently though. I at the end went with the local OrBorDor's office architect who charged me less than half of what other architects asked - he was very slow though. And the nice thing is they are also the ones who issue your building permit - which came together with the final plan.

Every OrBorDor office has an architect in charge of building permits surely none of them will turn down the opportunity to make some extra income on the side - of course you don't go there as a Farang - sent a Thai to do the negotiating for the price first - it saved me more than 40.000 Baht..

That's what my wife and I did. We almost went to an advertized architect, but then we asked a neighbor what he did building his almost new house, and he referred us to the government gentleman who issues the permits. We had a fairly detailed sketch of what we wanted to end up with to give him. We had about 3 meetings with him, he addressed all our concerns and came up with the blueprints to submit to basically himself and/or the contractor. The total cost was 30K baht, paid for in installments as he did the work. It was all done straight away within a few weeks and all the approvals by like 7 guys were included in the price. No waiting for approvals, they all seem to work together on side-jobs! We were nothing but pleased with the deal and how it worked out. The contractor was not very good at reading the blueprints, however, got to keep on top of that.

Several.You mentioned in a post,that you "do intend to quit (again)" Smoking,that is.Bear with me,when I will tell you how I managed to do it after thousands of failed attemt.Perhaps it also will shed some light over my previous posts.My father got fed up beeing beaten and left home 13 year old.Started work in a factory.When he was 35,he was in an accident and lost his right leg above the knee.Couple of years later,his young wife,my mother,died of cancer,and he was left with 3 small children,which he singelhanded cared for.All the time,and all his life,he never missed a day in his workplace and he never,ever complained.He made it all seem so easy...Now to my point; I asked him once,how he could manage all this and he told me,that already when he left his home,he started to train his thoughts.Sometimes he tried to keep the same thought for a long time,sometimes the opposite,to keep his brain "emty",with no thoughts at all.So,everytime some bad,unwellcome thoughts entered his brain,he just dismissed them;didn`t let them take root. With this in mind,one day,when again I wanted to quit smoking,I used this method,and to my amazement,it worked! It is now 35 years ago,and I never,even once,missed it (the smoking)I am not saying,that this is for everybody,but this method,of controlling your thoughts,has helped me in many difficult situations.Perhaps this story can inspire somebody.

I had a similar experience. I couldn't quit smoking. I tried every evening to quit, but sooner or later I smoked the next day, then told myself I would quit again "tomorrow". Anyways, I was reading Freedom From the Known by Krishnamurti and he described a dying to memories, and I got the idea of dying to smoking. I imagined myself dying to the urge to smoke, and I didn't let this urge become established, even if it popped into my mind.

After the mental and physical habit portion was overcome, in a couple of weeks, I had to develop a permanent hating of smoking in order to make quitting permanent.

I will never forget the quote in this book by Krishnamurti "Freedom from the known is death, and then you are living." It wasn't this quote that inspired me, but the discussion just prior to it.

For what it's worth...I'm not sure the moderator wants this to turn into a stop smoking forum...but I wanted to add my experience to the prior post, and I am of the opinion that Krishnamurti was Buddha-like, at the least

Much (maybe all) of physics is based on the big bang theory as being the point of creation and understanding the unfolding thereof will give greater knowledge of the nature of the universe. But isn't the creation one of the questions that should not be asked by monks? Or am I mistaken? Is it not a problem to hear a scientific explaination as long as we don't ponder it too long? What do you think.

Ah, the Acintita Sutta. One of my favourites! I don't know if only by monks though. As a layperson pondering over things like this sent my mind out of balance, so-to-speak.

I never heard that Buddha said those things in the Acinitita Sutta. As one example, there has been a lot of discussion on this Forum about exactly how karma works if there is actually no self. The search for this answer causes "madness and vexation". haha

By all means, don't ask about where the world came from either! (Unless you are a scientist, but even then the answer will just be descriptive)

We probably ought to remember this Sutta more often.

In the Acintita Sutta the Buddha is focused on "conjecture", i.e. "speculation" regarding something that can't be verified. People who don't like theory and exhort us to focus on practice may be attracted to this sutta as a proof-text, and with some justification, as the Buddha was quite hostile to the sterile and highly speculative conjecture some brahmins of his time engaged in.

However, the pursuit of a theory of existence (ontology and cosmology) is hardly contrary to the practice of dhamma. The theory of kamma, if you take it just a bit beyond the "actions have consequences" level and link it to a proposition that one's kamma must be worked out over lives, is a powerful ontology and moral philosophy that simply begs so many questions that not to explore them reduces the Buddhadhamma to a kind of self-help, personal development regime.

When I studied "Systematic Theology" as a unit in my theology degree, I was confronted with what I think the Buddha would regard as conjecture, and I'd agree with him. People write whole books on whether God can suffer or whether God is entirely transcendent or also immanent, etc, all of which is mere conjecture (unless you have a prior belief that the scriptures reveal God's word on this, which I certainly didn't). However, to analyse the theory underpinning the Buddha's teaching, as the Abhidhammists did and the Madhyamaka and Yogacara philosophers did, is not only inevitable, it acknowledges that the Buddha was not just a kind of ancient Antony Robbins or Wayne Dyer, but a teacher grounded in a view of the cosmos and human life that gave direction to his teaching. As soon as the Buddha opened his mouth and gave his first sermon at Isipathana he made ontological claims (in respect to the eightfold path - "right" thought, "right" action and so on) that he developed later and which led to anicca (impermanence) and anatta (no-self) that simply cry out for examination.

It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. One can turn one's back on investigation (one may have a disposition against that sort of thing anyway), but to do so diminishes one's credibility in any discussion on anything other than the purely practical (if there is such a thing).

It is an honor to have you reply to my post Xangsamhua

if you wouldn't mind, could I make the following comments in the spirit of dialogue?

I am surprised to hear you say that the pursuit of a theory of existence is not contrary to the practice of dhamma. Any theory of existence will forever be debatable, it seems to me. Also, no such theory was presented by Buddha, who held nothing back, it is said. Therefore, any such theory or discussion can not claim to be Buddhist.

I did look up the meaning of ontological, and, by my reading, it means statements made about "being", which would not necessarily involve theories of existence, though of course they could. Buddha's teaching on Right action, was ontological in nature, true, but was without any reference to a theory of existence, having a concrete definition.

Buddhism has always been seen as short on including a complete theory of existence, having no answer for where the universe came from, for example. However, it seems to me that one can examine impermanence, or no-self as universal characteristics without such a theory. I don't find that calling Buddhism a self-help, personal development regime, a philosophy, or merely practical, diminishes it.

I can imagine that such a seasoned and agile mind such as yours would be eager for more than what Buddha taught, but he had his reasons, and his recorded words in the Acintita Sutta are pretty much to the point, it seems to me.

I can not say I am convinced that speculative conjecture has changed all that much since Buddha's time.

thanks again

with all due respect

Huli

I'm defeated by this phraseology, the OP mentions the word nun, Huli says they don't exist, can someone clarify?

The word nun is probably more than anything just borrowed from the Catholics as a rough translation by farangs. However, it is useful for us, if not exact.

Huli did not say nuns do not exist, he said he did not think there were any nuns on this Forum, and since none have responded, he may be right.

Thanks for that, what would be the correct term for a nun? Are they held in the same esteem as Catholic nuns? Is their role effectively the same as Catholic nuns?

Hi Blether,

Some of the other comments above explain specifically about these Buddhist women in white. I wouldn't know how to compare them actually to Catholic nuns, except they are religious women who wear a distinguishing uniform of sorts. I would imagine the esteem given them or nuns is all over the board, so hard to answer that question. I don't think their role can be called similar to nuns, but you can draw your own conclusions from the posts above.

In retrospect, it may have been a mistake to call them nuns.

I'm defeated by this phraseology, the OP mentions the word nun, Huli says they don't exist, can someone clarify?

The word nun is probably more than anything just borrowed from the Catholics as a rough translation by farangs. However, it is useful for us, if not exact.

Huli did not say nuns do not exist, he said he did not think there were any nuns on this Forum, and since none have responded, he may be right.

Much (maybe all) of physics is based on the big bang theory as being the point of creation and understanding the unfolding thereof will give greater knowledge of the nature of the universe. But isn't the creation one of the questions that should not be asked by monks? Or am I mistaken? Is it not a problem to hear a scientific explaination as long as we don't ponder it too long? What do you think.

Ah, the Acintita Sutta. One of my favourites! I don't know if only by monks though. As a layperson pondering over things like this sent my mind out of balance, so-to-speak.

I never heard that Buddha said those things in the Acinitita Sutta. As one example, there has been a lot of discussion on this Forum about exactly how karma works if there is actually no self. The search for this answer causes "madness and vexation". haha

By all means, don't ask about where the world came from either! (Unless you are a scientist, but even then the answer will just be descriptive)

We probably ought to remember this Sutta more often.

These jokes about the Buddha being fat of course refer to the "laughing Buddha," who isn't a Buddha at all. There was one on the series Finder the other night, something like: "You're an over-achiever. Unfortunately, like the Buddha, you're an over-eater too." It's kind of weird that many in the West think the Buddha is a grinning fat guy with beads round his neck.

yesterday I was at a Japanese restaurant in Chiang Mai. They had the Buddha shrine with both a Thai Buddha image and one of the fat, laughing fellow. The Thai Buddha image was towards the back in the middle with the other one more to the front on the side. They were both gold color. The Thai one was slightly higher. My wife and I both noticed the inclusion of the fat fellow. I have also seen them on temple grounds, I think because of a hefty donation by perhaps a Japanese or Chinese. My wife says the fat Buddha originates in China, named "Pasankajai". Like many of the Mahayana inventions, I don't care for him. They ought to charge those guys for disrespecting Buddhism.

There's been some discussion recently in the education media about the importance of self-esteem. Over the past 40 years, much teaching practice has been driven, at least in part, by a belief that teachers must be sensitive to children's self-esteem. They mustn't do anything that threatens a child's self-esteem and sense of value in the community. Well, as you could see coming, there's now a growing acknowledgement that this has all gone overboard.

Many children have not been sufficiently challenged, have not been required to self-examine, have not been accountable for their performance or behaviour, have not been taught that there are standards that they must learn to abide by. The study of self-esteem among criminals in fact revealed that many have an excess of it, to the extent that they believe they are entitled to much more of the world's goods than they have and are prepared to satisfy this sense of entitlement by criminal and violent behaviour. A realistic understanding of their status and entitlements from an early age, reinforced at school, may have kept them to more reasonable modus operandi in life.

It is very interesting to read your comments on self-esteem. I think that the importance of self-esteem as discussed in the west is in sharp contrast to Buddhist principals. The place of self-esteem vis-a-vis the conditioning that Rocky wrote about in his OP would probably be fertile ground for discussion also.

The typical western view is that getting what we desire is the ultimate in a happy life. It could be that high self-esteem is part of this getting what we want. However, and as you mention with criminals, high self-esteem can drive desire and selfishness to excess and pathology. Rather than being the basis of a healthy personality, high self-esteem is not necessarily so.

.

Western Psychology posits that, if nothing else, we are someone, and necessarily have a self-image, and we won't be happy if we have a lousy image of ourself, so we should have a good one. I really can't find too much fault with that, unless we are Enlightened maybe. If we are moral, and generous, and compassionate, we will get a joy out of it, and feel good about ourselves, i.e. high self-esteem. I note that all of those qualities are practiced in the social milieu. This is in contrast to selfish desire. As far as I know, Western Psychology does not make this distinction, nor do Western religions reject high self-esteem that is founded on getting what you want. Donald Trump has a high self-esteem because he got all kind of stuff he wanted. Good for him. That is one problem he doesn't have, low self-esteem.

The Buddhist position, that emphasis on the self is bad, is in stark contrast to the glorification of the self which is the theme in the West. I have often wondered about self-esteem. Somehow, it just seems like a phony veneer, but as long as we have an image about ourself, might as well have a good one, I suppose.

Mr. RealDeal,

IMO, Buddha's teachings and modern physics have in common, as I noted in my OP, that there are discrete time or mind moments, and there is no indivisible, separate human self. It seems to me that both of these concepts are difficult to understand and communicate, in both paradigms.

We both seem to have a keen interest in Modern Physics. However, if I may say so, I don't think this Buddhist Forum is the place for purely physics discussions. The members want to read about Buddhist stuff. I am not a moderator, or anybody's boss, but I did write the OP and you did address me directly in one of your posts, so I want to say that.

Do you agree that Buddha's teachings and observations in his prescientific era seem to resonate with many of the theories in modern physics?

regards

Huli

There certainly seem to be a lot of occasions where rough or unpleasant speech seems acceptable in society. Parents, military officers, and Buddhist abbots (as previously mentioned) make their points unpleasantly and emphatically, but it is acceptable to all concerned, largely because of the superior role of the speaker. In all of these cases, the speaker has a right to expect some action of the listener.

In normal conversation, we don't have any right to expect another to follow our lead, even if we think they would be better off to do so. We can only say what is true and useful in a pleasant way, and they will do what they will do.

The situation of a married couple, or common-law situation, I think, falls somewhere in between. Certainly a husband or wife has some right to expect standards of behavior of the other. Should such expectations be spoken nicely, and then not effective, typically it is repeated in a loud voice for emphasis, and then may be taken as offensive/unpleasant on that account by the other. It boils down to, do you have the right to tell me what to do?

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.

Well said, and I think you have described the main difficulty with Right Speech quite well. It is not that difficult to limit ourselves to true and useful speech, at least in our perception of what is true and useful. But to say only what is pleasant to hear?

I think that perhaps it is good to consider that if the listener finds our speech to be unpleasant, or very unpleasant especially, they are not usually going to listen to what we have to say. And why bother with speech that creates only antagonism, and then nothing useful?

There are a lot of selfish people out there, but that is part of this life to figure out how to deal with them and not disturb our own tranquility.

So, basically, we have no choice but to try to figure out how to get our point across sweetly. It is interesting that this kind of communication is embedded in Thai culture and, who knows, maybe it has it's roots in Buddha's admonition about Right Speech.

If we can't do it sweetly, I would suggest we might as well look at the problem as unsolvable.

There is also the fact that sometimes we feel a strong urge to tell someone off. Until, I suppose we are enlightened, as you say.

I commend you for living in a monastery. I hope you can find a way to overcome or cope with the problems you describe. I see you haven't made many posts. I hope you will keep posting. I enjoyed your post.

Hi Rocky,

You really got me thinking.

As I understand your statement, it follows that, since we all have different conditioning, we will always have some different opinions.

However, it seems apparent to me that much discourse, such as this forum, is intended to change another's opinion, in spite of their conditioning.

I think that there are such things as correct views or opinions, and incorrect views or opinions. Further, it is possible to correct one's opinions if they are incorrect. This personal transformation could result from a logical dialogue, or self-examination, but would be impossible in either case if the attachment to the incorrect conditioned views or opinions is too strong.

Opinions can not be just the result of different conditioning, they are subject to other factors also. But I do agree with you that much opinion is just conditioning.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I've been examining conditioning quite a bit.

I do quite a lot of observation of others and their life interactions.

Our conditioning is probably partly environmental and partly genetic.

Perhaps even influenced by the fruits of Kharma.

Things I've noted:

• Most people have already made up their minds and do not listen in an open manner.
  
• Rather than be open, discussion is directed towards convincing the other of their view.
  
• The depth and type of Conditioning controls ones level of inflexibility.
  

My personal "opinion " is that ones ability to overcome conditioning relates directly to ones ability to succeed in practicing Dharma successfully in this life.

Our obstacles are our conditioning.

Our conditioning for most is inescapable.

First obstacle is awareness of your conditioning.

Second obstacle is being able to escape from its control.

Most aren't aware and therefore cannot even contemplate escaping.

I used to think about "determinism", the idea that people are destined to follow their conditioning, and that is all.

However, if that is true, there is no such thing as free will, or insight, no Path leading to improvement in a person, or any qualitative difference in people. So, I reject Determinism.

But, I agree with you, for many people, that is all there is.

I would hope, not us....

Individuals conditioning will always lead to differences of opinion.

Hi Rocky,

You really got me thinking.

As I understand your statement, it follows that, since we all have different conditioning, we will always have some different opinions.

However, it seems apparent to me that much discourse, such as this forum, is intended to change another's opinion, in spite of their conditioning.

I think that there are such things as correct views or opinions, and incorrect views or opinions. Further, it is possible to correct one's opinions if they are incorrect. This personal transformation could result from a logical dialogue, or self-examination, but would be impossible in either case if the attachment to the incorrect conditioned views or opinions is too strong.

Opinions can not be just the result of different conditioning, they are subject to other factors also. But I do agree with you that much opinion is just conditioning.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

CMT,

I really appreciate you keeping me informed about special nights at BBBar.

If you can, post a little earlier would you?

thanks

Huli