huli

http://www.inebnetwo...h-out-suffering

Another good article from David.

I really enjoyed this article, especially in two respects.

First, the way he explains dukkha as a deluded sense of self which begets a feeling of lack. I used to think that life seemed like a problem to be solved, or something that demanded an explanation, or a vague feeling that something is missing and just out of reach, but I think the feeling of lack expresses this better.

Second, even thought his article is under the banner of the International Network of Engaged Buddhism, I think he correctly puts personal transformation as the main issue. Once that is improved, social behaviors come naturally of their own accord. I know some Buddhists who fret that they are not doing enough social action, seemingly thinking that it contributes to their practice. I see good deeds as a result of personal transformation, not the cause of it.

I've been having a lot of fun at Boy's Blues Bar inside Kalare Market at the north end of Changklan/night bazaar area. It is especially fun on Mondays which is open mike night and many of Boy's exceptionally talented musician friends take turns. Boy is a real friendly and happy Thai who can really make his electric guitar do tricks. It's definitely worth a visit. Music starts about 8:45.

detachment [dɪˈtætʃmənt]

n

1.

indifference to other people or to one's surroundings; aloofness

2.

(Psychology) freedom from self-interest or bias; disinterest

3.

the act of disengaging or separating something

4.

the condition of being disengaged or separated; disconnection

Indifference, aloofness, disinterest, disconnection these are the opposite of Buddhist ideals, Buddhist practise is about being fully interested and connected with ones experience.

So the word you are looking for is non-attachment. This is where you are interested and engaged but not seeking a result that you expect will make you happy, so you are fully involved with what you are experiencing rather than attached to a specific outcome.

So in the case of sports it's simply a case of playing the game for the enjoyment of it, the experience of the process of playing the game is the goal, not the winning.

Brucenkamen

I was kinda taken aback at your statement that detachment and the various synonyms are the opposite of Buddhist ideals.

I have read, and now refer to the Handbook for Mankind by Buddhadasa. In it he refers to insight into the true nature of things as seeing them as unsatisfactory, and worthless, which results in disenchantment and disentanglement. Indeed, "disenchantment develops in proportion to the intensity of the insight."

I am wondering, would you say this is a matter of semantics? Or, might you say that Buddhadasa teaches differently than your understanding? How is non-attachment compatible with your statement that "Buddhist practice is about being fully interested and connected with one's experience"?

It is actually critical to understand this issue.

Thank you

I had Gary's pastrami sandwich last week after reading about Pickles on this forum. The aroma and taste was SMOKED and really wonderful. I enjoyed chatting with him too. It's not a huge sandwich but everything about it is perfect. With the potato salad or cole slaw side, and a big pickle, I felt quite full and satisfied for 240 baht. It takes quite a bit of effort to make smoked pastrami, which he does himself. I'm planning on taking my wife there for dinner one of these days, I have a yearning to try his beef or pork smoked ribs that are the same price.

My wife had the same thing happen at Smile Dental in Pantip Plaza building. The lady dentist was alright but when she needed an extraction she got referred to a guy dentist who was a joke. His pliers kept slipping off her tooth and I couldn't believe how he was digging around her gums trying to get the darn thing out. It finally came out in pieces or so they said. I guess that was just her jawbone that was still sticking up? ahem...I kept expecting him to rock the tooth side to side to loosen it...I was siting right there...then they charged us extra cause it was so hard....

Lastly, I find offensive the title of his column "What would Sid do?" For 2500 years, the Buddha has been known as "the Buddha", the Enlightened One, and not by his given name. I assume that Rinzler is trying to be "cool", but I think it is disrespectful. And even worse that he presumes to call him "Sid", a nickname he created himself. I have never, ever, heard anyone call the Buddha "Sid."

Of recent times I've been listening to a scholar, John Peacock, on the subjects of "Buddhism before Theravada" & "Metta as a Path to Awakening".

John is currently Director of Master of Studies at Oxford University.

He has practiced for 25 years as an ordained Monk, half of which was as a Theravada Monk in Thailand & the rest of the time in the Tibetan tradition.

His work in translating the very early texts of the Buddha has revealed much mis interpretation.

Interestingly, he paints a picture of the Buddha being a jovial character who presented in a light hearted manner, and far from being serious person.

From Johns illustration, I'd say the Buddha would accept Rinzlas reference to a nickname.

Also, the Buddha never referred to himself as Buddha.

He was referred as Bagwan and another respectful title which eludes me for the moment.

Due to Buddhagosas translations in the 5th century Buddhism was given a religious flavor (a word not known during the Buddhas time).

Hence:

• Bhikkhu , translated as Monk, gives a monastic, religious flavor. The actual translation is Beggar/Sharer. This captures the essence of a Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni as one who collects alms food, and who shares surplus food and shares the Dharma in return.
  

• Vihara is translated as a Monastery (residence of monks living in seclusion, bound by religious vows). Far from this illusion, a Vihara is simply a residence or dwelling place of Bhikkhus/Bhikkhunis.
  

Monks and Monasteries give a religious flavor.

Subtle meanings can give a completely different flavor/meaning to what the Buddha was actually teaching.

This religious flavour possibly explains why Western Buddhists might take exception to the notion of being disrespectful to the Buddha.

Hi Rocky,

Thanks for replying to my post.

I think you make many good points. I do agree that any teaching, Buddhist or otherwise, that emphasizes the content of consciousness rather than a revelatory religious belief, is a step in the right direction, at least. Maybe some of Rinzler’s students will get some kind of a positive start from him in this respect.

Like you, I also think there is value in actively spreading Buddhist thought in the world. In America, there is little awareness of it, and I also think it has a great potential to help people. I wouldn’t say to preach it, just to expose people to it. I think that tourists to Thailand should also be told more about real Buddhism when they visit the temples. Open their minds a little anyways.

Regarding Rinzler, and your question for me, it is not exactly that what he says is corrupting, but the lack of attention to basic Buddhism, the 4 Noble Truths, as I said previously. He does not teach turning away from selfish desire, detachment, disillusion, the existence of ignorance, or that kind of thing, so I call his teaching a corruption of Buddhism, more for the lack, than anything. Maybe corruption means a false teaching and this is more of missing the point.?

Which brings up the interesting role of words, and it relates to many of your points. What is Buddhism? Is it whatever someone says it is? Or does it need to include the Noble Truths? What is religion? If there is no God, but a complete world view, is it still a religion? Is Buddhism a religion, or does this just depend on what we mean by religion?

Were the Hindus of Buddha’s time a religion? Why do you say they were not? They had plenty of gods.

I think John Peacock is real interesting too. I listened to some of his audio tapes a while back and I probably ought to listen to some more. I think you must have mentioned him in a prior post on this forum. Someone did anyways.

However, a couple of his impressions that you mention, seem rather specious. Especially to say that Buddha was not a serious person, but was more of a jovial kind of guy. Buddha spent like 45 years traveling and spreading his teaching to the best of his considerable ability when he was already a rich prince. If he was a jovial guy, why wouldn’t he just stay home and party?

Lastly, I’m no expert, but I understand that Buddha referred to himself often as the “Tathagata”. One translation of this from the Sanskrit or Pali is “one who has found the truth” (thanks Wikipedia). He may not have used the term “Buddha”, per se, but there was no question in his mind that he was, in fact, enlightened.

I hope you don’t find my comments contentious, Rocky. I think our discussion of Rinzler has been a lot of fun. I have been persuaded that he might be doing some good, even if I still have reservations. I think this kind of dialogue is ideal for this Buddhist Forum.

Probably everyone who reads this forum has a healthy interest in Buddhism, real Buddhism. It is quite a wonderful philosophy and religion that can fascinate a person. It bothers me when people in America, who have never heard about real Buddhism, get suckered into Rinzler's supposed teaching.

Anyone can come up with platitudes about being aware, being mindful, being kind to yourself, etc etc. However, the core Buddhist tenets are not hidden or debatable and, indeed, Buddha did give mankind the 4 Noble Truths, with the key concepts being suffering, dukkha, its cause, selfish desire, and it's relief, the 8-fold path. I think it is reasonable to use these 4 Noble Truths as a measure if Rinzler is teaching Buddhism, or not.

Since the pursuit of drinking and sex is so well established in NY, would it not be appropriate to point out to his audience the mixed bag of effects that come along with such a lifestyle? Drinking, usually to excess, and lusting after novel sexual trysts which can consume one's attention, are clearly not permanently wonderful, and to notice this is the beginning of true Buddhism. Is this what Rinzler teaches? No, it is not.

Buddha also left 5 precepts for lay people that are basic to advancing on the Buddhist path. Intoxicants and sex are two of these precepts. If a person does not follow these precepts, his mind will be disturbed and unlikely to have any true insight. When drinking makes a person heedless, and then do things he wouldn't otherwise, or be less than aware of what is actually going on, it violates the precept. Yet this state is the very purpose of drinking in this NY crowd. As for sex, Buddha did not forbid it to lay people and if a person has a willing of-age partner where no one is harmed, well, maybe that is OK. But being consumed by lust all the time is just the penultimate in selfish desire, and to point this out would be the Buddhism with the Noble Truths. Is this what Rinzler teaches about drinking and sex? No, it is not.

Comparing this individuals teachings with the Noble Truths and the 5 Precepts, there is nothing to justify the belief that he is teaching Buddhism.

We know that he was raised in the Shambala tradition of drinking and sex, and he was probably conditioned to say what he does. We know that he wrote a book, which puts a Buddha image on the cover alongside bottles of alcohol. We know he gives (only) 2 classes a week, yet will go on a 24 city tour to sell his book, and he "makes a living" off of Buddhism. He is doing a lot of self-promoting. Does he seem like an authentic Buddhist teacher?

Lastly, I find offensive the title of his column "What would Sid do?" For 2500 years, the Buddha has been known as "the Buddha", the Enlightened One, and not by his given name. I assume that Rinzler is trying to be "cool", but I think it is disrespectful. And even worse that he presumes to call him "Sid", a nickname he created himself. I have never, ever, heard anyone call the Buddha "Sid."

It is understandable that Buddha's teachings would be gradually forgotten or corrupted over time. In the present case, it is obvious that Kinsler represents exactly that.

In my humble opinion.

matter and energy have been known to be forms of the same thing for almost 100 years, and it's been proven

also, I believe that on the subatomic level of basic particles, they come into and out of existence in a split second from nothing, seemingly violating Newton's law that everything has a cause, but exactly what this gentleman says

I'm pretty sure that I remember reading that, between men and women, women are more renowned for their ability to multi-task. In the context, this was regarded as something positive. True or not, I can't say. Interesting. Could we say the converse, men are more renowned for their mindfulness? I'll take that...

This reaching out by this individual does not sound like dharma at all, and in this case could hardly be called compassionate.

Just wandering why you form that opinion H?

A cursory look at what he teaches appears to involve "awareness" a major plank of the 8 fold path.

• how to engage mindfully in such activities
  
• know your intention
  
• observing your mind
  
• being gentle to yourself
  
• presence
  

Why l thought Rinzla is compassionate is that if his work encourages awareness.

This has the potential to steer listeners towards the path and ultimately reduce suffering their suffering.

True, awareness is a major component of the 8-fold path, as are right action, right speech, and etc.

Encouraging awareness seems fine and noble, but doesn't it matter, awareness of what? One could apply the 5 noted bullet points to anything, outrageous examples being murder or some kind of corruption. Just because he preaches awareness is not enough, IMO, to say he represents a valid Buddhist viewpoint.

This is why I say, Rocky, that, in my opinion, he misses the mark.

If I'm not mistaken, Buddha already covered taking intoxicants and sex. Since he lived, there have been many who thought they could improve them, like this fellow. Is our world really different from the world that Buddha lived in?

If he's able to motivate people in the right direction, isn't that a good thing?

Sometimes, to get people started on the path, it can be about packaging and presentation.

I often observe false preconceived ideas which are strongly held, when the word "Buddhism" is mentioned.

You can attempt to demystify preconceptions, but people will always revert back to their conditioned memory by association.

When contact occurs (sight, smell, hearing, touch, taste, and mind), we believe we think, but due to a lack of awareness we simply recall a preconditioned memory which we associate with specific external stimuli.

So, instead of investigating, assessing and interpreting what is actually occurring, our beliefs/conditioning lock us into a rigid/fixed view.

Accepting Buddhism is almost an impossibility by the majority due to attachment to their conditioned beliefs.

I wonder what percentage of Thai Visa members spend time in or contribute to the Buddhism sub forum?

Isn't reaching out to those who would normally be dismissive of Dharma a compassionate?

According to the Four Noble Truths, desire is the basis for suffering, and escape from desire is the path to avoid this suffering. Teaching this is "The Right Direction", and nothing else. There is an easily observed desire to take intoxicants and have sex in many people. I would agree that it is possible to drink an alcoholic drink on occasion or have non-harmful sex in lay people, but, let's face it, the urge or desire to drink to heedlessness, and lust after novel sex is more the norm. This is the issue when teaching Buddhism, in any era. There is intense desire associated with these activities in this man's audience.

False preconceived ideas, attachment to conditioned beliefs, lack of awareness, and rigid views certainly do make accepting Buddhism difficult. It has always been thus. That's why it is important to meditate and understand Buddha's teachings.

This reaching out by this individual does not sound like dharma at all, and in this case could hardly be called compassionate.

Anyone not interested in leading a very superficial life tries to understand reality deeper one way or another. Insights of superior beings like Buddha, and the scientific method would both come to mind in this regard. I find it highly significant when there is some agreement between Buddha's teachings and modern science, with one essentially corroborating the other.

I have just finished reading a book called The Matter Myth - Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge our Understanding of Physical Reality by Davies and Gribbin. I admit that I could not envision a lot of what I read concerning the implications of Relativity and Quantum Theories. From what I understand, it's pretty much impossible to envision this stuff for the average person anyways, certainly subatomic reality. But a whole lot has been verified by experiment.

As for the nature of time, it seems that modern science now believes in time itself having a fundamental unit beyond which intervals can not be subdivided. Of, course, it is incredibly small. I remember that Buddha also said that there are discrete mind-moments that are indivisible and likewise incredibly small. How could he see this? What a Superman!

Likewise, in Quantum mechanics, there is the conclusion that the human observer plays a central role in fixing the nature of reality. Look for a wave, you find a wave. Look for a particle, that is what you find. The observer and the observed are actually interwoven, which is not common sense to our preconceived notion of reality. We think of ourselves as separate. Buddha famously said we are really not, and isn't it interesting that science has been able to prove it?

It is not so much that we can see for ourselves what modern science says, but to know that it is said, in an authoritative book, and it agrees with what Buddha said, well, it gives a person some faith that Buddha was right and probably about a lot of other stuff too.

If I'm not mistaken, Buddha already covered taking intoxicants and sex. Since he lived, there have been many who thought they could improve them, like this fellow. Is our world really different from the world that Buddha lived in?

I went to Immigration last Friday to do my 90 day report which I thought was due that day. I'm on a Retirement Visa. I had left and reentered Thailand for a week in November. I was informed that I did not need to 90 day report yet and was given a new 90 day report date based on my date of reentering Thailand. This is my personal experience.

Earlier this year I gave it my best shot to adopt a half lotus position for meditation and I was hoping I would get used to it eventually. It turned out I could only do it sitting on a cushion, plus have cushions under each of my knees. But I was still getting numb and it didn't seem worth it. It was especially hard for my right leg.

Then I decided to just sit in a wooden chair and that was going along fairly well. I was comfortable anyways.

Now I have noticed that my left leg is limber enough to put comfortably up on the chair, and it gives me a more stable feeling. I still have my poor arthritic right leg down with my foot on the floor.

It's kinda weird, I suppose, to have one foot down and one up, but it actually feels more stable than having both feet on the floor. It keeps my butt from sliding forward.

I doubt anyone would recommend this position but it is actually the best I have found considering my right leg is gimpy.

Not unlike the bodhisattva Lokanatha

Wow, that's cool, thanks for posting that. This fellow reportedly guards the Buddhist teachings until the next Buddha appears. I don't think I have ever seen another one leg up and one down posture in a statue or picture. I'm still convinced this is the best posture for me.

I think that some of these statements about belief can not be justified.

Which ones?

One can be aware if he has beliefs, and know that beliefs are harmful, without being fully awakened. This does not necessarily mean professing disbelief. It means to admit that you don't know.

This is true.

It depends on which beliefs as each of us have many, some reasonable and others not so.

We all have different levels of awareness and delusion.

Some people I've witnessed refer to many of their beliefs as the truth, even though they maybe impossible to prove.

I guess the only one that prompted me to reply was the suggestion that beliefs are either held or rejected, but it turns out you agree with that, so...I take it back.

According to some Buddhist teachers and I think Buddhadassa was one of them, the core belief that is present until we are enlightened is that we are somebody, and, yea, I think it would be hard to give that up by just thinking about it. It's basically gonna be hard for most people to even call that a belief in the normal sense.

I really like your use of the concept "witness/observer", and I kinda wish meditation was taught using that term more often as it seems to me to really capture what is being done in an understandable way. In my imperfect humble opinion.

so we agree? there is no God? rebirth and all of the comments show that, actually, we all agree - no God. Not in the personal 'saviour' sense and therefore how can one be 'Buddhist' and have a faith in a 'God'? because that would mean 'God' could save us merely by believing whereas Buddhism teaches us to 'help ourselves' and not rely on 'outside' help in the form of redemption etc.

The Buddha did teach to have an open mind and to experience for oneself.

He also said that we live with mind/body and as such it's much better top focus on this.

The other dimensions will take care of themselves.

So for me, God, or no God is not important.

Choosing one or the other is attachment.

yes maybe that's right but I don't think my friend reasoned it through as you have and I was discussing with her in the context of 'praying' and 'forgiveness' which I'm believe falls under the Law of Karma not the Law of a God

In summary, until awakened we all have beliefs.

Beliefs are rigidity and attachment.

All of us will live with these until we attain a certain amount of insight.

The beauty of practice is that we can cultivate an observer (that which is mindful/aware) which will observe our attachment/conditioning towards God, Jesus or any other belief.

This observer will gain strength and speed and lead to actual experience, insight and eventually awakening.

What that will be cannot be preempted.

Professing belief or disbelief is just the other side of the same coin.

Choosing either will have the same affect.

I think that some of these statements about belief can not be justified. One can be aware if he has beliefs, and know that beliefs are harmful, without being fully awakened. This does not necessarily mean professing disbelief. It means to admit that you don't know.

I hear a lot of people saying that all religions are basically the same (if we are just wise enough to see it). Specifically, Buddhism and Christianity. There is one guy I do respect who said it, and that's the Dalai Lama. I kinda regret he said that, but he has his reasons being on the world stage. However, for the average person, such a statement is not true at all, and it especially harms Buddhism to equate it with a revealed religion with an elaborated belief system. If you don't believe that the Son of God was sent to earth to die for your sins, you are not a Christian, and this has nothing to do with the real world that Buddha explained, and we try to understand.

Yet, in the cloak of their own supposed wisdom, it seems many people end up believing such a thing which leads nowhere.

IMHO. I say, have the personal integrity to follow the Buddhist teaching if it makes sense to you, and quit thinking that worshiping Jesus as well makes you a higher being, it just makes you confused.

This meant that any karmic link was broken and he would not have to suffer the consequences. A result of his having practiced vipassana and shared merits with all beings, including enemies (those we have created karma with in the past).

I know a life of compassion has a positive affect on the compassionate one and those to which the compassion is directed.

Firstly as a way of reducing ones ego, also teaching by example, and by reducing suffering in the world.

__________

Compassion would be by definition purely an individual affair, along the lines of a mental feeling, attitude, or phenomena. A compassionate person gets the personal benefit from that. He/she then goes on to demonstrate behaviors, positive behaviors, that would be a good example to others, and probably benefit others. I see a distinction between the compassion and the behavior.

Likewise "metta" is an attitude that is purely personal, and is for the benefit of the individual only. True, such a person acts wisely and helpfully, but that is just because everyone has to act to be alive, and compassionate/loving people can act no other way.

Not to be splitting hairs, but in my view, compassion is practiced for personal improvement, and actually helping others is something else entirely.

This is purely my view to date, but I am open to dialogue about it. I see this issue as part and parcel of "Engaged Buddhism." Buddha didn't say in the 8 fold path to do this or that to help others, but to refrain from evil activity.

I would be interested in Rocky or Fred's take on this, if they have the time.

______________________

How does practicing Vipassana specifically break karmic links?

I'm not sure the name of it but its a Thai place a little north along the river from the Rimping market (east of the square one). It is both cheap and really good. I usually get Khao Soi (35), Somtam (35), water (10) and this pork in northern curry (50). That is a lot of food and it makes for a good and balanced meal. You can find the place by looking for a large (often crowded) Vietnamese restaurant nearby. Also, in front of the place are usually signs advertising a few dishes - pad Thai and Khao Soi specifically.

Otherwise if I am going to a western place I've long ago given up and now just go to The Dukes. I think it is (easily) worth the extra money - the quality is just so much higher than any other western place I've been to. Frankly I've found the food at every other full blown western place to be supremely mediocre. I also like Mexican, sometimes, though...

wife and I love this place. we went there last night and got a Northern Thai combo set with 5 different main course items in a big round partitioned platter for 139 baht, I believe, with sticky rice being 10 baht. Good wooden tables and chairs, airy, green plants all over, fast service, and the cook really knows what they are doing. I didn't think we could eat it all...but we did. Highly recommended. Park right in front on the street.

Earlier this year I gave it my best shot to adopt a half lotus position for meditation and I was hoping I would get used to it eventually. It turned out I could only do it sitting on a cushion, plus have cushions under each of my knees. But I was still getting numb and it didn't seem worth it. It was especially hard for my right leg.

Then I decided to just sit in a wooden chair and that was going along fairly well. I was comfortable anyways.

Now I have noticed that my left leg is limber enough to put comfortably up on the chair, and it gives me a more stable feeling. I still have my poor arthritic right leg down with my foot on the floor.

It's kinda weird, I suppose, to have one foot down and one up, but it actually feels more stable than having both feet on the floor. It keeps my butt from sliding forward.

I doubt anyone would recommend this position but it is actually the best I have found considering my right leg is gimpy.

Boonmark from AUA is about the best I have ever found.

My teacher at YMCA does private tutoring. I have had her for two group reading and writing classes so far and really like her. She teaches spoken conversation Thai also. I'll be seeing her later today and will ask her if she is interested. If she wants me to, I will PM you with her contact information.

YMCA half way between Santitham Road and Gat Suan Keow shopping mall.

5 week course, Monday, Wednesday, Friday 2 hours each day for less than 2000bht.

Courses start/repeat every 6 weeks.

The teachers are no more incompetent than anywhere else, and it's a good price.

Why spend more money!

The other places want a load of cash up front and are really no better than the YMCA.

I'm in the second Reading and Writing Thai class at YMCA. I'm very pleased with my teacher, classmates, and what I have been able to learn. I plan to keep this up, taking class after class. A couple of years ago, I took the AUA class and ended up dropping out because the teacher was going too fast for me, though not some of the other students.

He opens at 11:30am, except Monday. I talked to him today after visiting the Lost Book Store, which is a fabulous bookstore by the way. He has a new lava stone grill that he's raving about. I'm hoping he has great success with his new restaurant. Anyone who eats there and talks with him will like him a lot. I, too, was a big fan of his corned beef hash breakfasts at the Rose. Have a hearty lunch with Gypsy, and browse the bookstore afterwards, a very pleasant excursion.