What Justifications Are There For Discrimination Against Physical Deformities In Buddhism

[phetaroi]

But then you have your own customized philosophy/religion, adjusted to what suits you, rather than the teaching of the Buddha. The benefit of not adjusting the core items is that you are following a tried-and-true (for 2,500 years) method with known results. Once you do a mix-and-match job, there's no guarantee of success (where success is defined as cessation of suffering). I guess it depends on what one considers "core items," though.

But in a sense, I thought that's what real Buddhism was...the personal journey, rather than the organizational journey.

[camerata]

But then you have your own customized philosophy/religion, adjusted to what suits you, rather than the teaching of the Buddha. The benefit of not adjusting the core items is that you are following a tried-and-true (for 2,500 years) method with known results. Once you do a mix-and-match job, there's no guarantee of success (where success is defined as cessation of suffering). I guess it depends on what one considers "core items," though.

But in a sense, I thought that's what real Buddhism was...the personal journey, rather than the organizational journey.

Sure, but it's a journey based on the Buddha's teachings, not mixing in your own "items of belief." Then it becomes more like New Age.

[phetaroi]

But then you have your own customized philosophy/religion, adjusted to what suits you, rather than the teaching of the Buddha. The benefit of not adjusting the core items is that you are following a tried-and-true (for 2,500 years) method with known results. Once you do a mix-and-match job, there's no guarantee of success (where success is defined as cessation of suffering). I guess it depends on what one considers "core items," though.

But in a sense, I thought that's what real Buddhism was...the personal journey, rather than the organizational journey.

Sure, but it's a journey based on the Buddha's teachings, not mixing in your own "items of belief." Then it becomes more like New Age.

I don't agree with you here. What you are really saying is, "Just do what the Sangha says. Don't think for yourself."

[Brucenkhamen]

The father of a Thai friend of mine lost his legs in a motorcycle accident, he ordained as a monk and has been living as one ever since.

At the monastery I ordained at there was a monk who had lost several toes.

I know a western monk who is overtly gay. This is probably not unusual for Thai monks but as it was a westerners monastery he said there was a bit of discussion with the senior monks before they agreed to ordain him.

I'm sure there are many other examples where these rules have been broken or bent in Thailand.

I think it depends on whether the abbot feels the candidate will fit in and the reasons for his motivation to ordain.

[camerata]

I don't agree with you here. What you are really saying is, "Just do what the Sangha says. Don't think for yourself."

No, I'm saying if you want the results the Buddha promised, do (i.e. test) what the Buddha says. Once you incorporate teachings from other sources or adjust things for your own convenience, there's no guarantee of success. You can still focus on the teachings that seem most relevant to you and you can still ignore anything that on the balance of probability didn't come from the Buddha.

[phetaroi]

I don't agree with you here. What you are really saying is, "Just do what the Sangha says. Don't think for yourself."

No, I'm saying if you want the results the Buddha promised, do (i.e. test) what the Buddha says. Once you incorporate teachings from other sources or adjust things for your own convenience, there's no guarantee of success. You can still focus on the teachings that seem most relevant to you and you can still ignore anything that on the balance of probability didn't come from the Buddha.

First, I do so enjoy your posts. I would never want you to think I was "arguing".

Explained this way -- love it, agree with it, can buy into it.

[momosan]

No, I'm saying if you want the results the Buddha promised, do (i.e. test) what the Buddha says. Once you incorporate teachings from other sources or adjust things for your own convenience, there's no guarantee of success. You can still focus on the teachings that seem most relevant to you and you can still ignore anything that on the balance of probability didn't come from the Buddha.

I don't think he promised anyone anything. He only gave the groundwork for those willing to follow. In all things he has repeatedly said one must question before belief can exist and wisdom can prosper into a clear understanding. Blind faith in anything is beneficial to no one. The core teachings is what I believe to be true BUT those teachings are from a wee bit ago and thus some of the situations we can encounter in modern life will require a little incorporating of our own wisdom with those from the core teachings. It's about staying true to the very core of the teachings and keeping it close at hand to apply to new problems that pop up in everyday situations.

[chutai]

I don't think he promised anyone anything. He only gave the groundwork for those willing to follow. In all things he has repeatedly said one must question before belief can exist and wisdom can prosper into a clear understanding. Blind faith in anything is beneficial to no one. The core teachings is what I believe to be true BUT those teachings are from a wee bit ago and thus some of the situations we can encounter in modern life will require a little incorporating of our own wisdom with those from the core teachings. It's about staying true to the very core of the teachings and keeping it close at hand to apply to new problems that pop up in everyday situations.

I have no problem with this whatsoever, or another that has answered in the same vein. Buddhism, if anything is fluid and adaptable, or it's nothing. Shakyamuni Buddha himself used expedient means in the early Cannons in order to meet the capabilities and understanding of those he taught the Dharma. Which we must understand were in the main those who were taught and practiced previously from within the Brahmanistic religion.

There is no need to take on an eclectic approach to Buddhism in order to make it relevant, accessible and adaptable to modern life. Nor is there need to stay within a rigid and formulistic code of practice that wears like an ill-fitting suit of cloths. This is not what Shakyamuni Buddha intended. Indeed, if we were to follow his advice to accept nothing on face value, or because it is written in the scriptures or taught by any guru; but to test for ourselves to see if it makes us happy and is condusive to a good conscience , then we'd find much of what sincerely motivated friend camerata is seeking to uphold is far from being what the Buddha intended. Above all Buddhism is a means to Liberation in the here and now and also a means to Perfect Enlightenment. But in being so it needs to be of significant relevance to contemporary culture and the future development of a life-affirming global consciousness.

I recommend the reading of this booklet (below) in PDF format which, I believe, will at the very least open ones eye to that which in all probability hasn't been encountered before;

http://everlife.org/pdf/SLS-Legacy-01.pdf

Rely on the Law, and not upon persons.

Rely on the meaning [of the teachings] and not upon the words.

Rely on wisdom and not upon discriminating thinking.

Rely on sutras that are complete and final

and not on those that are not complete and final.

The Nirvana Sutra

[camerata]

then we'd find much of what sincerely motivated friend camerata is seeking to uphold is far from being what the Buddha intended.

I think you've misunderstood my point. What exactly is it you think I'm trying to uphold that is so far from the Buddha's intention?

If someone wants to hang pyramids from the ceiling or put crystals under their pillow, that's fine and may have beneficial results, but it's unlikely to get them to nirvana, which is what the Buddha and his disciples demonstrated was possible by following the Eightfold Path.

What momosan initially said was: "Of those core items should there be something that goes against what I feel is right I will adjust them to become something to which I would feel more comfortable in practicing in my own life. And into that mix I put in my own items of belief and wisdom garnered from my own existence." In other words, changing the core principles is fine if we are not comfortable with them. Now compare that with what Thanissaro Bhikkhu (among others) says: "One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings."

Changing the core principles of the Eightfold Path is a lot different from changing a few minor Vinaya rules that were designed for monks living in a tropical climate 2500 years ago. But the justification about disabilities that harry is seeking isn't a "Buddhist position," it's a Thai Sangha position, so the justification has to come from the Sangha. And from what Bruce says, people with disabilities are being ordained in some temples. As usual in Thailand there is always a way round the rules.

[camerata]

I don't think he promised anyone anything. He only gave the groundwork for those willing to follow.

But he did attain himself in this life the very thing he said we all can attain. That's as close to a guarantee as you can get, and very different from the "guarantee after death" that you get from other religions, including Buddhism's Pure Land sect.

In all things he has repeatedly said one must question before belief can exist and wisdom can prosper into a clear understanding. Blind faith in anything is beneficial to no one.

OK, but no one has mentioned blind faith so far. The way I see it, you take the Buddha's teaching as a hypothesis to be proven, and you test it. If it works, you continue to the next level. If it doesn't, you either figure out what you did wrong or you quit being a Buddhist. It's like an experiment - you carry it out in a neutral mode rather than in the belief it will work.

Just so I'm not misunderstanding you, can you give me an example your own items of belief that you practise along with Buddhism?

The core teachings is what I believe to be true BUT those teachings are from a wee bit ago and thus some of the situations we can encounter in modern life will require a little incorporating of our own wisdom with those from the core teachings. It's about staying true to the very core of the teachings and keeping it close at hand to apply to new problems that pop up in everyday situations.

That's pretty much how I see it. The core teachings (specifically about an end to suffering) aren't ever invalid, but they don't cover the specifics of all possible situations. So, along with what we learn from our practice, we use them as our guide in dealing with all problems we encounter.

[phetaroi]

What momosan initially said was: "Of those core items should there be something that goes against what I feel is right I will adjust them to become something to which I would feel more comfortable in practicing in my own life. And into that mix I put in my own items of belief and wisdom garnered from my own existence." In other words, changing the core principles is fine if we are not comfortable with them. Now compare that with what Thanissaro Bhikkhu (among others) says: "One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings."

I think you are misinterpreting what momosan said. In my readings, Theravada tradition emphasies heeding the advice of the Elders, but considers it to be advice. Then that must be coupled with evaluation by oneself as the second test to determine the truth.

[bankei]

A few points

Someone mentioned discrimination against women. In what way? There was originally a order of nuns, and there still is, though it had died out, it is now being revived in Thailand - or introduced.

Gays. I don't think there is any restrictions on the ordination of homosexuals as monks as long as they haven't had the cut.

Sickness and deformities are discriminated against in terms of ordination. probably, as mentioned, to stop people seeking ordination just for the support - though this happens everyday in Thailand with men ordaining just for the easy life.

But remember those sick and deformed could still ordain if they find monks willing to ordain them. Those ordaining could suffer minor infringements of the vinaya, but the ordinations would still be valid.

The ordinand also has the option to lie, where not visable, I think their ordination would still be valid. There are plenty of monks out there who must have lied about the question regarding debt, or parental permission. But this is probably not a good start to your life as a monk.

[phetaroi]

OK, but no one has mentioned blind faith so far. The way I see it, you take the Buddha's teaching as a hypothesis to be proven, and you test it. If it works, you continue to the next level. If it doesn't, you either figure out what you did wrong or you quit being a Buddhist. It's like an experiment - you carry it out in a neutral mode rather than in the belief it will work.

Just so I'm not misunderstanding you, can you give me an example your own items of belief that you practise along with Buddhism?

I'm glad you mentioned blind faith. We, as Buddhists, also have blind faith. Can you prove to me that Gautama Buddha existed? Can you prove to me he entered into Nirvanna? Can you prove to me that the things that are attributed to him were actually said by him? No to all of these questions and more. Certain basics we accept on blind faith.

If something you do in the name of Buddhism doesn't work you either figure out what you did wrong or you quite being a Buddhist????? I have NEVER read anything like that before. In fact, I have read quite the opposite-- that Theravada Buddhism emphasizes considering the "advice" of the wise (and that included Buddha and the other Elders) and that then you evaluate the situation for yourself as the other test of what is true.

An example of a belief I practice alongside Buddhism: I believe that Jesus was a teacher sent by God...as was Buddha...and certain others. In fact, in a conversation with an elderly monk at a major temple in Chiang Mai, I was told there was absolutely no contradiction in this.

[camerata]

I think you are misinterpreting what momosan said. In my readings, Theravada tradition emphasies heeding the advice of the Elders, but considers it to be advice. Then that must be coupled with evaluation by oneself as the second test to determine the truth.

Momosan did later modify what he said to a point where I agreed with him. Initially, he sounded like he was mixing in non-Buddhist beliefs with Buddhism for the convenience of his daily needs. For those who use that approach (and I've come across many), as well as those who keep switching from one school of Buddhism to another, I have an analogy: If you are looking for water and you dig a hundred shallow holes, you'll never find it. But if you dig one, deep hole, you'll find it.

But I haven't mentioned following the advice of the Elders. The way to nibbana is set out in the Pali Canon. If we seek that goal, I think we should follow and test the advice given there by the Buddha. The fact that we are encouraged to test the techniques given by the Buddha rather than slavishly following them because they came from him is what distinguishes Buddhism from other systems. So, if by "evaluation" you mean testing what the Buddha said by practising it, I agree.

[camerata]

I'm glad you mentioned blind faith. We, as Buddhists, also have blind faith. Can you prove to me that Gautama Buddha existed? Can you prove to me he entered into Nirvanna? Can you prove to me that the things that are attributed to him were actually said by him? No to all of these questions and more. Certain basics we accept on blind faith.

I don't have any blind faith. Does it matter if Sakyamuni existed? No. The scholars say if he didn't, the core of the Pali Canon was written by one exceptional man. So someone existed, but in any case it's the teachings that matter and whether they work. Does nirvana exist? By logical extrapolation, we can see that if we keep on reducing the sense of self, we can arrive at a point where there is no self and we are one with everything else. I can easily imagine how that would be an end to mental suffering and an end to the fear of death, i.e. the Deathless, as described by the Buddha. Some of the things attributed to the Buddha were obviously not said by him - the Pali/Sanskrit linguists tell us this - but when you look at the core principles about elimination of suffering, it isn't difficult to figure out the texts that don't correspond with that.

Can you prove to me that Einstein was right and E=MC2? No, you believe it because eminent scientists with no reason to lie tell us it is true and tell us they've done experiments that prove it. Much of what we live by involves some kind of confidence in things which we ourselves haven't experienced or can't understand. But if you studied hard enough for long enough you could probably solve the equations. Similarly, if you practise long enough, diligently enough and correctly, you can attain an end to suffering in this life. This is very different from blind faith, where someone tells you you'll go to heaven after you die, and you believe it without being able to test it.

If something you do in the name of Buddhism doesn't work you either figure out what you did wrong or you quite being a Buddhist????? I have NEVER read anything like that before. In fact, I have read quite the opposite-- that Theravada Buddhism emphasizes considering the "advice" of the wise (and that included Buddha and the other Elders) and that then you evaluate the situation for yourself as the other test of what is true.

You haven't read it before because it's my opinion. If you test the Buddha's techniques (correctly!) and they fail, why would you want to continue with Buddhism? I'm not interested in what is "true," I'm interested in what brings results, and you get results from practising. If you're referring to the part of the Kalama Sutta that is often considered "the Buddha's charter of free inquiry," it's worth remembering that the Kalamas were not followers of the Buddha and so he was just giving general advice on how to evaluate the teachings of other gurus. He wasn't expounding the Dhamma.

An example of a belief I practice alongside Buddhism: I believe that Jesus was a teacher sent by God...as was Buddha...and certain others. In fact, in a conversation with an elderly monk at a major temple in Chiang Mai, I was told there was absolutely no contradiction in this.

Well, our views are a long way apart then. My view is that everything regarding the elimination of suffering depends on the cultivation of our own mind, and I don't see any need for God in that. I'm not much interested in what happens after I die because (as Ajahn Sumedho says) it's all speculation. The important thing is living in the present moment. But I guess we all choose our own path.

[phetaroi]

But I haven't mentioned following the advice of the Elders. The way to nibbana is set out in the Pali Canon. If we seek that goal, I think we should follow and test the advice given there by the Buddha. The fact that we are encouraged to test the techniques given by the Buddha rather than slavishly following them because they came from him is what distinguishes Buddhism from other systems. So, if by "evaluation" you mean testing what the Buddha said by practising it, I agree.

We are coming closer to agreement. I note that you say that we should "test the advice given there by the Buddha". I can agree with that, and I believe that the great majority of the time we will find the Buddha's advice to be correct. And we appear to agree on the wisdom of "testing what the Buddha said by practising it...."

[phetaroi]

I don't have any blind faith. Does it matter if Sakyamuni existed? No. The scholars say if he didn't, the core of the Pali Canon was written by one exceptional man. So someone existed, but in any case it's the teachings that matter and whether they work.

Agreed.

Does nirvana exist? By logical extrapolation, we can see that if we keep on reducing the sense of self, we can arrive at a point where there is no self and we are one with everything else. I can easily imagine how that would be an end to mental suffering and an end to the fear of death, i.e. the Deathless, as described by the Buddha.

I sense some blind faith here. Well. perhaps not blind faith...but faith. At least something not proven. Which is okay in my view.

Some of the things attributed to the Buddha were obviously not said by him - the Pali/Sanskrit linguists tell us this - but when you look at the core principles about elimination of suffering, it isn't difficult to figure out the texts that don't correspond with that.

Can you prove to me that Einstein was right and E=MC2? No, you believe it because eminent scientists with no reason to lie tell us it is true and tell us they've done experiments that prove it. Much of what we live by involves some kind of confidence in things which we ourselves haven't experienced or can't understand. But if you studied hard enough for long enough you could probably solve the equations.

Although it may be an issue of semantics, I would call this "having faith" in the intelligence and wisdom of those scientists. I don't think that having faith necessarily is limited to religious concepts.

Similarly, if you practise long enough, diligently enough and correctly, you can attain an end to suffering in this life. This is very different from blind faith, where someone tells you you'll go to heaven after you die, and you believe it without being able to test it.

Where I disagree here is that (I assume ) you have not yet achieved nirvanna, therefore you have not completed your testing of the concept. I see this as a degree of faith.

You haven't read it before because it's my opinion. If you test the Buddha's techniques (correctly!) and they fail, why would you want to continue with Buddhism?

If I tested his techniques and they mostly failed, then no, I probably wouldn't "want" to be a Buddhist, but I still might include some aspects of Buddhism in my life. I don't believe it's all or nothing. If I tested his techniques and some failed I would assume first that perahps I practiced them incorrectly or that, like all humans, he goofed occasionally.

I'm not interested in what is "true," I'm interested in what brings results, and you get results from practising.

I find this an odd statement. I don't see the difference in this context.

If you're referring to the part of the Kalama Sutta that is often considered "the Buddha's charter of free inquiry," it's worth remembering that the Kalamas were not followers of the Buddha and so he was just giving general advice on how to evaluate the teachings of other gurus. He wasn't expounding the Dhamma.

I don't know about this yet.

An example of a belief I practice alongside Buddhism: I believe that Jesus was a teacher sent by God...as was Buddha...and certain others. In fact, in a conversation with an elderly monk at a major temple in Chiang Mai, I was told there was absolutely no contradiction in this.

Well, our views are a long way apart then. My view is that everything regarding the elimination of suffering depends on the cultivation of our own mind, and I don't see any need for God in that. I'm not much interested in what happens after I die because (as Ajahn Sumedho says) it's all speculation. The important thing is living in the present moment. But I guess we all choose our own path.

And I think that's okay that we're far apart on this. I hope you understand that I am truly enjoying our discussion and learning from it.

[camerata]

Where I disagree here is that (I assume ) you have not yet achieved nirvanna, therefore you have not completed your testing of the concept. I see this as a degree of faith.

But when I start a new job I have not actually done that job before. There's a degree of faith that I can do it. When an Olympic high-jumper beats the world record, he had never done it before and neither had anyone else. Even more faith involved. The whole of human endeavor runs on the kind of faith we are talking about. The key point is that these activities can be done, and nirvana can be attained. This is very different from blind faith, believing in something that can never be achieved, never be verified, never be experienced in our current lifetime.

I'm not interested in what is "true," I'm interested in what brings results, and you get results from practising.

I find this an odd statement. I don't see the difference in this context.

Sorry, I was just trying to emphasize that IMO testing the Buddha's teachings doesn't always lead to some absolute truth. Although I guess that if the practice delivers the expected result it can be considered to be a "true" teaching.

If you're referring to the part of the Kalama Sutta that is often considered "the Buddha's charter of free inquiry," it's worth remembering that the Kalamas were not followers of the Buddha and so he was just giving general advice on how to evaluate the teachings of other gurus. He wasn't expounding the Dhamma.

I don't know about this yet.

You mentioned getting the advice of the wise and then evaluating a situation for yourself, which sounded like you were referring to the Kalama Sutta. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu says: "Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise."

And I think that's okay that we're far apart on this. I hope you understand that I am truly enjoying our discussion and learning from it.

Sure. Incidentally, isn't the belief that God sent Jesus, the Buddha, and other prophets to teach us a core belief of the Baha'i religion?

[sabaijai]

I think it's helpful to stand back, once in awhile, and notice how preoccupied people become with proliferations on topics like these when they don't actually practice anything related to Buddhism. It's as if they want to stand outside the institution and cast stones, without actually entering, sitting down and practicing and then seeing if there might be anything in their object of criticism that might be remotely justifiable.

While an intellectual or academic justification/refutation might be momentarily satisfying, far more satisfying would be actual fruit of practice. From that position inside, one might actually be able to act cooperatively in some way to remove any perceived injustice.

Likewise with the picking and choosing. Until the mind is free of conditioning, all your picking and choosing is conditioned by habituation, genetics and so on. All the Buddha taught was how the mind works. To find out for yourself how it works, you have to do what he did. It's not a matter of faith, it's simply that there is no other way to find out what he knew.

You're sitting right here. Since the moment you emerged from the womb, every visitor that's ever come to call has arrived right here. No matter how often they come, they always come to this same spot, right here. Knowing them all, the Buddha's awareness sits alone, firm and unshakeable. Those visitors journey here seeking to exert influence, to condition and sway your mind in various ways. When they succeed in getting the mind entangled in their issues, psychological states arise. Whatever the issue is, wherever it seems to be leading, just forget it - it doesn't matter. Simply know who the guests are as they arrive. Once they've dropped by they will find that there's only one chair, and as long as you're occupying it they will have no place to sit down. They come thinking to fill your ear with gossip, but this time there's no room for them to sit. Next time they come there will also be no chair free. No matter how many times these chattering visitors show up, they always meet the same fellow sitting in the same spot. You haven't budged from that chair. How long do you think they will continue to put up with this situation? In just speaking to them you get to know them thoroughly. Everyone and everything you've ever known since you began to experience the world will come for a visit. Simply observing and being aware right here is enough to see the Dhamma entirely. You discuss, observe and contemplate by yourself.

This is how to discuss Dhamma. I don't know how to talk about anything else. I can continue on speaking in this fashion, but in the end it's nothing but talking and listening. I'd recommend you actually go and do the practice. --Ajan Chah, Unshakeable Peace

[phetaroi]

But when I start a new job I have not actually done that job before. There's a degree of faith that I can do it. When an Olympic high-jumper beats the world record, he had never done it before and neither had anyone else. Even more faith involved. The whole of human endeavor runs on the kind of faith we are talking about. The key point is that these activities can be done, and nirvana can be attained. This is very different from blind faith, believing in something that can never be achieved, never be verified, never be experienced in our current lifetime.

But you don't know that nirvanna can be attained. You have heard about it from others, who also have not achieved it. So you have blind faith it is real. And remember, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with blind faith...sometimes...to a degree.

Incidentally, isn't the belief that God sent Jesus, the Buddha, and other prophets to teach us a core belief of the Baha'i religion?

Not sure.

[McPhong]

The Commentaries are opinions of monks who were writing long after the Buddha was gone. As Ven Thanissaro says, "the point of the prohibitions is to keep the bhikkhus from being burdened with looking after those who are a burden or an embarrassment to their families."

The monks wouldn't be able to achieve their goal of becoming enlightened if everyone dumped their disabled family members at the monastery and left the monks to look after them. IMO, it's a matter of practicality. Just look at the way people dump unwanted pets at the nearby monastery, making it difficult for the monks to meditate because of the noise.

Funny... serving others especially those less fortunate or cast away by society or family would seem to be one of the most ultimate acts of selflessness & compassion.

[phetaroi]

The Commentaries are opinions of monks who were writing long after the Buddha was gone. As Ven Thanissaro says, "the point of the prohibitions is to keep the bhikkhus from being burdened with looking after those who are a burden or an embarrassment to their families."

The monks wouldn't be able to achieve their goal of becoming enlightened if everyone dumped their disabled family members at the monastery and left the monks to look after them. IMO, it's a matter of practicality. Just look at the way people dump unwanted pets at the nearby monastery, making it difficult for the monks to meditate because of the noise.

Funny... serving others especially those less fortunate or cast away by society or family would seem to be one of the most ultimate acts of selflessness & compassion.

I agree with you. So I began searching and found "The 37 Practices Of A Bodhisattva" by Thogme Zangpo -- a 14th century Tibetan monk. In it he said:

"If Sravakas as well as Pratyekabuddhas, who work towards Nirvana for merely themselves,

Exert so much effort fulfilling their purpose that were there in flames they'd not stray from their goal,

Then how much more energy must be expended by those of us working for everyone's sake;

Enlightenment calls for the most perserverance - the Sons of the Buddhas all practise this way."

There are several ways to interpret this or different aspects of it. When I read the part about working toward Nirvanna "for merely themselves", it says to me that if one is only doing that it is very selfish. I think also of the Dalai Lama Foundation, which has as one of its goals "to increase awareness of the many ways we can all be of service to others."

The current Dalai Lama wrote the following:

"...I am convinced that it is essential that we cultivate a sense of what I call Universal Responsibility. This may not be an exact translation of the Tibetan term I have in mind, chi sem, which means, literally, universal (chi) consciousness (sem). Although the notion of responsibility is implied rather than explicit in the Tibetan, it is definitely there...What is entailed...[is] a reorientation of our heart and mind away from self and toward others. To develop a sense of universal responsibility;of the universal dimension of our every act and of the equal right of all others to happiness and not to suffer--is to develop an attitude of mind whereby, when we see an opportunity to benefit others, we will take it in preference to merely looking after our own narrow interests. Of course we care about what is beyond our scope--we accept it as part of nature and concern ourselves with doing what we can. An important benefit of developing such a sense of universal responsibility is that it helps us become sensitive to all others--not just those closest to us. We come to see the need to care especially for those members of the human family who suffer most. We recognize the need to avoid causing divisiveness among our fellow human beings. And we become aware of the overwhelming importance of contentment."

[camerata]

I agree with you. So I began searching and found "The 37 Practices Of A Bodhisattva" by Thogme Zangpo -- a 14th century Tibetan monk. In it he said:

"If Sravakas as well as Pratyekabuddhas, who work towards Nirvana for merely themselves,

Exert so much effort fulfilling their purpose that were there in flames they'd not stray from their goal,

Then how much more energy must be expended by those of us working for everyone's sake;

Enlightenment calls for the most perserverance - the Sons of the Buddhas all practise this way."

This just goes back to the old topic of the fundamental differences between Theravada and Mahayana, which we've done several times before. It's probably better in a separate topic if you really want to pursue it. It's a big subject.

[camerata]

Funny... serving others especially those less fortunate or cast away by society or family would seem to be one of the most ultimate acts of selflessness & compassion.

It's not strange when you look at how the Buddha set up the Sangha and what the goal was. A monk is supposed to be deconstructing the "self" (i.e. what we imagine to be a self/soul) over the years until there is no self at all (i.e. nirvana, the goal). This is very different from the meaning of the English word "selfless." Lots of people in modern society are selfless and compassionate, but they aren't arahants.

The original Sangha was supposed to be homeless, almost possessionless, and totally dependent on the laity. They were supposed to be wandering in the forests and meditating under trees (a tradition carried on in Thailand by some monks up until recent decades). In this situation it would have been impossible for them to care for society's cast-offs.

Here's a modern example of what happens when a monk starts serving the laity in ways other than teaching the Dhamma. In the book, Phra Farang, the author gets pulled into teaching English classes because he's the only farang in the area. After a while he is spending so much time teaching English that he has no time for meditation. In the end he disrobes and starts a charity sponsoring poor kids' education.

[phetaroi]

The original Sangha was supposed to be homeless, almost possessionless, and totally dependent on the laity. They were supposed to be wandering in the forests and meditating under trees (a tradition carried on in Thailand by some monks up until recent decades). In this situation it would have been impossible for them to care for society's cast-offs.

Here's a modern example of what happens when a monk starts serving the laity in ways other than teaching the Dhamma. In the book, Phra Farang, the author gets pulled into teaching English classes because he's the only farang in the area. After a while he is spending so much time teaching English that he has no time for meditation. In the end he disrobes and starts a charity sponsoring poor kids' education.

First, you are wonderful poster and moderator. So do not take my debating points as negative.

Having said that, I note that many of your sentences in the above message have the word "was", past tense. Considering the context, I understand that, but I also must again point out that all things evolve. Buddhism actually points that out, and there is no reason to think that like all other things, that Buddhism should not also evolve.

In terms of the monk that found he had no time for meditation because he was teaching so much English, I would say that is poor planning on his part. For example, had he taught English only in the morning hours, along with alms collecting, eating, cleaning himself, and so forth, that would still have left him at least 9 hour per day to meditate, and frankly, when I see monks there is a lot of leisure, non-meditation time.

You may not believe in God, but I often remember something someone said: God gives you all the time you need to do what is really important. It is up to you to manage your time to accomplish it.

[camerata]

Having said that, I note that many of your sentences in the above message have the word "was", past tense. Considering the context, I understand that, but I also must again point out that all things evolve. Buddhism actually points that out, and there is no reason to think that like all other things, that Buddhism should not also evolve.

If you want the results the Buddha offered, you have to follow the Buddha's teachings. "Buddhism" these days is generally not the teachings of the Buddha as we know them from the Pali Canon, so you may get some good results from the various branches of Buddhism, but not exactly the results the Buddha offered. It's up to each one of us to decide what we want. The Buddha never said that all things evolve, he said that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. The Dharma is unconditioned so it never changes. But what the Pali Canon says is that the teachings will eventually be lost (or perhaps corrupted beyond recognition), and when they are lost completely the conditions will be ripe for a new buddha to appear and rediscover the Dharma.

I have never seen any evidence at all that the Buddha expected his teachings to evolve into very different forms. Quite the opposite, in fact. He took a very strong stance against anyone creating a schism in the Sangha (they would be boiled for an aeon in he11 ). He also said that after he died, the Sangha could change minor rules of the Vinaya if they needed to - in other words, they couldn't change most of it. So, to me, his intent was clearly to avoid the inevitable corruption of the Dharma/Vinaya by the unenlightened while not making the rules absolutely rigid. Yet within 100 years of his passing, the Mahasangha were already trying to lower the bar for arahantship and pretty soon new sects were proliferating.

The reason we get so many questions of the "Why do Thais do or not do such-and-such?" here is because doctrinal Theravada is as close to the Pali Canon teachings as any of the established sects get, but the Thai Sangha doesn't put much of it into practice for the monks and the laity practise at the lower levels of merit-making and generosity. So it's hard to actually see the results that we should be seeing. The closest you get, IMO, is the Thai Forest Tradition, which is why it is popular with foreigners.

[phetaroi]

Having said that, I note that many of your sentences in the above message have the word "was", past tense. Considering the context, I understand that, but I also must again point out that all things evolve. Buddhism actually points that out, and there is no reason to think that like all other things, that Buddhism should not also evolve.

If you want the results the Buddha offered, you have to follow the Buddha's teachings. "Buddhism" these days is generally not the teachings of the Buddha as we know them from the Pali Canon, so you may get some good results from the various branches of Buddhism, but not exactly the results the Buddha offered. It's up to each one of us to decide what we want. The Buddha never said that all things evolve, he said that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent. The Dharma is unconditioned so it never changes. But what the Pali Canon says is that the teachings will eventually be lost (or perhaps corrupted beyond recognition), and when they are lost completely the conditions will be ripe for a new buddha to appear and rediscover the Dharma.

I have never seen any evidence at all that the Buddha expected his teachings to evolve into very different forms. Quite the opposite, in fact. He took a very strong stance against anyone creating a schism in the Sangha (they would be boiled for an aeon in he11 ). He also said that after he died, the Sangha could change minor rules of the Vinaya if they needed to - in other words, they couldn't change most of it. So, to me, his intent was clearly to avoid the inevitable corruption of the Dharma/Vinaya by the unenlightened while not making the rules absolutely rigid. Yet within 100 years of his passing, the Mahasangha were already trying to lower the bar for arahantship and pretty soon new sects were proliferating.

The reason we get so many questions of the "Why do Thais do or not do such-and-such?" here is because doctrinal Theravada is as close to the Pali Canon teachings as any of the established sects get, but the Thai Sangha doesn't put much of it into practice for the monks and the laity practise at the lower levels of merit-making and generosity. So it's hard to actually see the results that we should be seeing. The closest you get, IMO, is the Thai Forest Tradition, which is why it is popular with foreigners.

I respect your point of view, although I see it as dogmatic (the most basic definition of the word; don't read more into it).

[momosan]

We had small lecture today that had really nothing to do about Dhamma. But this little fable was mention by the guy giving the lecture to get some of his points across. It's not the exact same fable as the one given but the points are the same.

Once upon a time there was a stupid man who loved very much his beautiful wife. However, she had no true love for him. In the meantime, she associated herself surreptitiously with another man. Burning with lecherous passions, she wanted to leave her husband to be with her lover. She secretly told an old woman, "After my departure, I would like you to place a woman's corpse in my house. You then tell my husband that I'm dead."

The old woman did what she was told. She told the husband shortly after his return that his wife passed away. He went to see the corpse and believed it was that of his own wife. He grieved and wept bitterly. He gathered a great deal of wood and oil together for the cremation. Then he put the ashes into a bag and had it with him day and night.

Shortly after, the wife got tired of her lover. She came back and told her husband, "I'm your wife."

The husband answered, "My wife died a long time ago. Who are you to lie to me that you are my wife?"

The husband refused to believe her, in spite of her repeated explanations.

So are the heretics who, having learned the heretical doctrine, confusedly stick to it with all their soul and take the doctrine to be the right one without altering their mind forever. Thus they will be unable to believe, accept or keep any other creed even it is an orthodox one.

He also mentioned another which I'll paraphrase myself: The Dhamma is the vessel for which we use to cross from one side of the river to the other. On the other side we would find our enlightenment. But once we have crossed should we then continue the journey by trying to carry the boat on our back? No, we wouldn't. Because now the boat itself has become a burden which must too be left behind.

There are people who can see across that river and understand what is beyond even without having to be there. Even though they may not have ever heard of a single teaching from ANY school of thought. Even though they may be 5 years old or 90. Some people have this inherent insight. Then there are those who couldn't even get to the river in the first place even with a hand drawn map and detailed verbal instructions.

Should they both be painted within the same stroke using the same brush? If the first chose to just simple swim across without a vessel is he less enlightened than the second? Or if he build a vessel himself using his own wisdom is that vessel any less capable?

[phetaroi]

I respect your point of view, although I see it as dogmatic (the most basic definition of the word; don't read more into it).

I think I'd like to expand on this now that I have a little more time.

I know that Wikipedia has its critics, and rightfully so. But I also find that it's an awfully good starting point for many topics. And, note that I said starting point. As with any topic it covers, it is not the be-all and end-all.

I like how it opens its section about Buddhism: "Buddhism is a family of beliefs and practices considered by most to be a religion^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#cite_note-0} and is based on the teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama".

Overs the centuries, one of the things that has so harmed many religions is the emphasis on schisms. While some a major and perhaps are logical -- for example, the schism that split Protestants from Catholicism, others are of a lesser degree.

On this website there is an overwhelming emphasis on Theravada Buddhism, which is logical since that is the most common branch of Buddhism in Thailand...by far. But let's keep in mind that the Abbot of Wat Saket, who is the Active Supreme Patriarch of Thailand, is a member of the World Buddhist Sangha Council. One of the main purposes of that Council is to reunify Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. The Council unanimously approved the following basic points as uniting the two schisms:

1. The Buddha is our only Master (teacher and guide)
   
2. We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Saṅgha (the Three Jewels)
   
3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.
   
4. We consider that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom (prajñā) leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth
   
5. We accept the Four Noble Truths, namely duḥkha, the arising of duḥkha, the cessation of duḥkha, and the path leading to the cessation of duḥkha; and the law of cause and effect (pratītyasamutpāda)
   
6. All conditioned things (saṃskāra) are impermanent (anitya) and duḥkha, and that all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anātma) (see trilaksana).
   
7. We accept the thirty-seven qualities conducive to enlightenment (bodhipakṣadharma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha leading to Enlightenment.
   
8. There are three ways of attaining bodhi or Enlightenment: namely as a disciple (śrāvaka), as a pratyekabuddha and as a samyaksambuddha (perfectly and fully enlightened Buddha). We accept it as the highest, noblest, and most heroic to follow the career of a Bodhisattva and to become a samyaksambuddha in order to save others.
   
9. We admit that in different countries there are differences regarding Buddhist beliefs and practices. These external forms and expressions should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.
   

Point number 9 is especially relevant.

My overall point here is that as Theravada Buddhists, we should also learn from Mahayana Buddhism. After all, we are seeking the truth, and no group has discovered all there is.

[BlueTerrace]

From talking with monks, my understanding is that a person cannot be ordained if they are missing a limb or are otherwise permanently inured. Can anyone confirm if this is true, and if so provide an explanation for why this would prevent one from becoming a monk?

My apologies if this has been covered in other threads