Are We Born With Defilements (kilesa)?

[fabianfred]

Many ordinary Thais have a vague or shallow understanding of nirvana and how to reach it....most think it is only for monks or that we must do much merit and some time in the future we will get there......incorrect.

Very good observation, and one that is probably true for most religions. I remember how my grandparents followed Catholicism and all its rites, yet had a very limited understanding of the Church and its deeper beliefs.

One who knows of the existence of nirvana and chooses not to go there probably has an incorrect understanding of what nirvana is and why we should try to reach it. It isn't simply a question of not choosing to go there......even for those who want to reach it....it is a difficult task....requiring constant effort.

Perhaps true. But, if you are living a wonderfully happy and fulfilling life, why would you want to "escape" life?

Not understanding the first noble truth.....that life is suffering....and that being stuck in samsara we can look forward to many lives in states of suffering until we seek an escape

All personal experience from meditation....or life....cannot easily be shown to others....nor provided as proof to them. If i saw a UFO last night I couldn't prove it to anyone....maybe some would believe me...maybe not. If I saw my past lives whilst meditating....I couldn't show this experience to others.... but for me I would have positive proof of the rebirth process. I wouldn't be able to prove it to others....they have to find their own proof. The lazy would just sit back and say "I don't believe you...you prove it to me"

impossible...... until they get off their lazy backsides and start to practice for themselves they will never know anything....and they will be stuck in samsara for a very long time. The buddha could only help a few beings....many were not interested in listening to him.

I agree with much of what you wrote here...until you attribute seeking proof as being "lazy". Perhaps it's not the most pro-active approach, but I wouldn't say that seeking the truth is being lazy. And, what complicates this even more is that people with other belief systems have no reason to belief Buddhist beliefs.

not saying seeking proof is lazy....but not being prepared to do the work necessary to find ones own proof is

[sabaijai]

As with so many things in the Pali Canon, it isn't made clear. It doesn't seem to have any choice in the matter. If there's no choice, can there really be intent? Anyway, it seems to have little relevance to humans trying to attain nibbana.

It would have been nice to have an answer as it would help explain the increased number of individual cittas given the exponential growth in world population.

Then again, there's always the poisoned arrow response, even nicer to remove the arrow first, before investigating how it's made or where it comes from. There are probably an infinite number of questions one could formulate that are unanswered between the front and back covers of the Tipitaka. Not to mention a number of questions that do appear in the books, but for which the answer is 'This questions tends not to edification;' in other words, knowing the answer would not help you reach nibbana.

[Sarathi]

The issue of the new born baby is mentioned in the Suttas, referred to here: http://littlebang.wordpress.com/2009/05/18...-buddha-nature/

At any one moment the mind has only one (or few) objects/feeling etc.. At many times then, and not just when a baby, it will be free from lust, hate etc... but the tendencies still lurk there, and will show when the appropriate stimuli are present. Eg. you might not be thinking of food right now, but if the smell of cooking wafts up perhpas you will become aware of hunger.

Where exactly are our tendencies/kamma stored? This Q was not really addressed by the Buddha and the myriad of schools that arose after his passing along to the present have attempted different answers.

A couple of other points from this thread.

There is an importance placed on hearing about Enlightenment. Yes, it is faith and not knowledge if you want to put it that way. Another way to think of it is stimulating curiosity. But you have to hear about it first before you would direct your mind in the right way (vijja). Thus the disciples were called 'Hearers' (Savaka) and the path starts with 'sound entry' (usually translated as 'stream' entry - but the Pali can be read either way). If you stumble on Enlightenment without first hearing about it you are a Pacceka Buddha, and we are not given any indication of how many of these there might be.

There is virtually no limit to the number of beings in the universe, that might be born human.

The only Path that involves 1000s of lifetimes in the suttas is that of a Buddha, or one of his close followers. The implication is that anyone can attain if they see the method (vijja) . Though of course, some people have more or less 'dust in their eyes'.

It might well, however, take millions of animal lifetimes before one is born as a human in a time when the teaching is still around.

Contrary to popular understanding, being human is no real advantage to practise. You are better off as a deva in the desire realms, since deva's have far greater capacities for understanding Dhamma. Many suttas were directed to devas, and millions of them gained enlightenment as a result. Sometimes the bliss of being a deva is given as the obstacle for their practise and Enlightenment, but this has little substance in the suttas.

A Buddha, however, is always born in the human realm as his final rebirth, presumably so he can teach all levels of beings capable of enlightenment. If he were born a deva, many humans would not hear his teaching.

Naturally, most of these points revolve around the Cosmology of Buddhism, and are thus taken on trust. However, over and over the Buddha said they can be verified directly in meditation.

Ramana Maharshi, by the way, supposedly had an enlightened cow.

[phetaroi]

One who knows of the existence of nirvana and chooses not to go there probably has an incorrect understanding of what nirvana is and why we should try to reach it. It isn't simply a question of not choosing to go there......even for those who want to reach it....it is a difficult task....requiring constant effort.

Perhaps true. But, if you are living a wonderfully happy and fulfilling life, why would you want to "escape" life?

Not understanding the first noble truth.....that life is suffering....and that being stuck in samsara we can look forward to many lives in states of suffering until we seek an escape

All personal experience from meditation....or life....cannot easily be shown to others....nor provided as proof to them. If i saw a UFO last night I couldn't prove it to anyone....maybe some would believe me...maybe not. If I saw my past lives whilst meditating....I couldn't show this experience to others.... but for me I would have positive proof of the rebirth process. I wouldn't be able to prove it to others....they have to find their own proof. The lazy would just sit back and say "I don't believe you...you prove it to me"

impossible...... until they get off their lazy backsides and start to practice for themselves they will never know anything....and they will be stuck in samsara for a very long time. The buddha could only help a few beings....many were not interested in listening to him.

I agree with much of what you wrote here...until you attribute seeking proof as being "lazy". Perhaps it's not the most pro-active approach, but I wouldn't say that seeking the truth is being lazy. And, what complicates this even more is that people with other belief systems have no reason to belief Buddhist beliefs.

not saying seeking proof is lazy....but not being prepared to do the work necessary to find ones own proof is.

It seems to me that you continue to make the assumption that most of life is suffering. And, I do know people who seem to suffer most of the time.

I recently retired. Yesterday, I guess in a not very Buddhist moment, I was driving down the California coast highway as part of a two week trip from the national parks of southern Utah and then Yosemite and Sequoia in California. I was on my way to LAX. Tomorrow I will fly to Thailand on a retirement visa. Not thinking about Buddhism at all, I was reflecting on my life. Not perfect, of course, but on balance satisfying and fulfilling and happy. I achieved my major goals in life, I had an extremely satisfying career. I accept that there are times in life that include sadness and suffering, and I have lived some of those. But for me and many people I know, the suffering portion is relatively small. I try to fulfill following the precepts because it is the moral thing to do. I am undecided about trying to escape life because at this point I do not see life as suffering.

[phetaroi]

A couple of other points from this thread.

There is an importance placed on hearing about Enlightenment. Yes, it is faith and not knowledge if you want to put it that way. Another way to think of it is stimulating curiosity. But you have to hear about it first before you would direct your mind in the right way (vijja). Thus the disciples were called 'Hearers' (Savaka) and the path starts with 'sound entry' (usually translated as 'stream' entry - but the Pali can be read either way). If you stumble on Enlightenment without first hearing about it you are a Pacceka Buddha, and we are not given any indication of how many of these there might be.

The only Path that involves 1000s of lifetimes in the suttas is that of a Buddha, or one of his close followers. The implication is that anyone can attain if they see the method (vijja) . Though of course, some people have more or less 'dust in their eyes'.

It might well, however, take millions of animal lifetimes before one is born as a human in a time when the teaching is still around.

Naturally, most of these points revolve around the Cosmology of Buddhism, and are thus taken on trust. However, over and over the Buddha said they can be verified directly in meditation.

Thank you. Very interesting and thought-provoking.

[fabianfred]

It seems to me that you continue to make the assumption that most of life is suffering. And, I do know people who seem to suffer most of the time.

I recently retired. Yesterday, I guess in a not very Buddhist moment, I was driving down the California coast highway as part of a two week trip from the national parks of southern Utah and then Yosemite and Sequoia in California. I was on my way to LAX. Tomorrow I will fly to Thailand on a retirement visa. Not thinking about Buddhism at all, I was reflecting on my life. Not perfect, of course, but on balance satisfying and fulfilling and happy. I achieved my major goals in life, I had an extremely satisfying career. I accept that there are times in life that include sadness and suffering, and I have lived some of those. But for me and many people I know, the suffering portion is relatively small. I try to fulfill following the precepts because it is the moral thing to do. I am undecided about trying to escape life because at this point I do not see life as suffering.

You and many comfortably off Westerners are content with your lives. As I get older physical ailments get more troublesome. My day has many little irritations and annoyances, and the mental suffering from reading about those whose lives are made miserable by the oppression of the powerful.

All beings exist in the prison of samsara, but do not realise it until a Buddha points it out to them.

If we do not understand the First Noble truth then we shall not be interested in the subsequent Noble Truths and Eightfold Path.

If we do not realise that we are stuck in this huge prison called Samsara, then we shall not seek an escape.... Nirvana.

Those whose lives are without suffering are enjoying them, and see no reason to stop. Rebirth, to them, may be welcome, hoping that they are born in similar circumstances.

Even looking from an entirely materialist viewpoint, the world is changing for the worse. Morals are going, wars more frequent, the global weather is changing....things are not as good as they were in our youth. The next life may be some fifty years in the future when things are even worse than now.

Where are you intending to settle down in Thailand?

[phetaroi]

You and many comfortably off Westerners are content with your lives.

Relatively content. And, keep in mind, that those of us who are relatively content mostly did not just stumble into it. I worked my way through high school and 6 years at the university. My family bordered on the lower/middle class boundary.

As I get older physical ailments get more troublesome.

You and me both.

My day has many little irritations and annoyances, and the mental suffering from reading about those whose lives are made miserable by the oppression of the powerful.

Agreed.

All beings exist in the prison of samsara, but do not realise it until a Buddha points it out to them.

In other words, you're happy and/or content until someone else tells you you're not happy?

Those whose lives are without suffering are enjoying them, and see no reason to stop. Rebirth, to them, may be welcome, hoping that they are born in similar circumstances.

My point, exactly.

Even looking from an entirely materialist viewpoint, the world is changing for the worse. Morals are going, wars more frequent, the global weather is changing....things are not as good as they were in our youth. The next life may be some fifty years in the future when things are even worse than now.

I don't agree that the world is changing for the worse or that morals are "going" or that wars are more frequent. Nor do I agree that things are worse than in our youth.

Where are you intending to settle down in Thailand?

Bangkok for at least a couple of years, after that perhaps Chiang Mai.

[fabianfred]

All beings exist in the prison of samsara, but do not realise it until a Buddha points it out to them.

In other words, you're happy and/or content until someone else tells you you're not happy?

All existence in samsara is subject to the law of impermanence.....

if we try to play Golf without knowing the rules we will make many mistakes and certainly never win a game....life is far more complex...not knowing the laws of dhamma/karma (ignorance) we make many mistakes....this causes rebirth in the lower realms or in poor circumstance in the human realm

"life's a bitch.....then you die"

yes that sounds like a nice joke on all of us............... but it is more serious than that.

the Buddha tried to get everyone to realise that life is indeed suffering, so that we will then try his recipe for avoiding life, and therefore escaping from suffering.

there is only one true freedom.... and that is freedom from suffering.... and the only way to achieve that is to practise vipassana and reach the state of nirvana

we are born and therefore suffering follows (sickness, old age and death) so we must join the deathless to avoid being born

Buddha could see all the past lives and karma of all beings, and he stated that.....'a starting point is not evident'............ we have been trapped in the endless cycle of rebirth (samsara) since beginningless time....... 'surely long enough, monks, to become bored and dissatisfied and to seek an escape'

we may think that our fairly comfortable lives are not all that bad,...................... there are many on this earth whose lives are a constant struggle and those who are continually abused, beaten etc. who may have a different opinion from us................. what we must remember is that we have undoubtably created unwholesome karma in our past lives which has yet to take effect, and that should we be reborn in one of the lower realms then the suffering would be much more intense.

to achieve human rebirth is a difficult thing......... let us not waste it

[phetaroi]

All beings exist in the prison of samsara, but do not realise it until a Buddha points it out to them.

In other words, you're happy and/or content until someone else tells you you're not happy?

All existence in samsara is subject to the law of impermanence.....

if we try to play Golf without knowing the rules we will make many mistakes and certainly never win a game....life is far more complex...not knowing the laws of dhamma/karma (ignorance) we make many mistakes....this causes rebirth in the lower realms or in poor circumstance in the human realm

"life's a bitch.....then you die"

yes that sounds like a nice joke on all of us............... but it is more serious than that.

the Buddha tried to get everyone to realise that life is indeed suffering, so that we will then try his recipe for avoiding life, and therefore escaping from suffering.

there is only one true freedom.... and that is freedom from suffering.... and the only way to achieve that is to practise vipassana and reach the state of nirvana

we are born and therefore suffering follows (sickness, old age and death) so we must join the deathless to avoid being born

Buddha could see all the past lives and karma of all beings, and he stated that.....'a starting point is not evident'............ we have been trapped in the endless cycle of rebirth (samsara) since beginningless time....... 'surely long enough, monks, to become bored and dissatisfied and to seek an escape'

we may think that our fairly comfortable lives are not all that bad,...................... there are many on this earth whose lives are a constant struggle and those who are continually abused, beaten etc. who may have a different opinion from us................. what we must remember is that we have undoubtably created unwholesome karma in our past lives which has yet to take effect, and that should we be reborn in one of the lower realms then the suffering would be much more intense.

to achieve human rebirth is a difficult thing......... let us not waste it

First, I do want to emphasize that I enjoy the give and take of the Buddhist part of this forum. It's one of the few forums on the internet I have found where people remain relatively courteous toward each other...as it should be.

As I read your posts I can see you have thought a lot about your beliefs, and I respect that. There are a lot of cliches I have thought of as I read what you say. For example, I think you and I have very different frames of reference of what the world is, and I don't mean a Buddhist reference versus a...hmmmm...not sure versus what. I would see it as a generally positive view of life versus a generally negative view of life. Some might say that I see life as the glass half full, you see it as the glass half empty.

Over time as I read things attributed to Buddha I have noted them. Some of them may be Buddha's word as expressed in Theravada, or possibly from Mahayana. I am seeking "truth", and I am not willing to close my eyes to either school's thought. As has been attributed to Buddha, and in books I have read published in Thailand by Theravada sources: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." Further, as Buddha indicated, "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others." Another Buddha quote that I have read seems to apply here, as well: "It is better to travel well than to arrive." I take this as meaning that we are all on a path, and it is more important to travel that path in peace and love than to worry only about the destination (in this case, nirvanna).

It seems to me that you focus on samsara. I do not believe that Buddha teaches only that we live in a world of suffering. Did he not say, "We are shaped by our thoughts; we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves"? He also supposedly said, "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world." And, "All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him."

There are many whom have argued that Buddhism is a negative religion. I see focusing only on samsara as negative. We have a live to be lived and we need not live it in constant suffering. Suffering is a part of life; it is not all of life.

The Dalai Lama teaches about the importance of a life of service, and in my view lives that life. He bases it on Buddha's teaching that "A generous heart, kind speech, and a life of service and compassion are the things which renew humanity." My emphasis here is on the phrase "renew humanity".

Everything that you and/or I and/or anyone else conveys in this forum may be wrong. After all, "There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting."

[camerata]

As has been attributed to Buddha, and in books I have read published in Thailand by Theravada sources: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

The Buddha never said this. You're getting the Kalama Sutta garbled. It was a sermon given to non-Buddhists about how to approach the various gurus wandering about in India. In it the Buddha specifically said "Don't go by logical conjecture..." (i.e. "your own reason or common sense"). He said: "When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them." Clearly, he is not telling them to ignore everyone and everything unless it agrees with their own reason.

Further, as Buddha indicated, "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."

Well, he didn't actually say "do not depend on others." He said "Whatever doctrine and discipline taught and made known by me will be your teacher when I am gone." The idea being that we are guided by the Sangha (who should know the doctrine) but we have to do the work ourselves.

Another Buddha quote that I have read seems to apply here, as well: "It is better to travel well than to arrive."

Not a Buddha quote, AFAIK. Do you have a specific scriptural source? It makes little sense considering the goal as stated by the Buddha is nirvana. Most likely the original quote is the famous, "To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive,” by English novelist Robert Louis Stevenson.

If we are going to discuss Buddhism we should at least try and get the quotes accurate.

And if you are really seeking "truth," I'd suggest you read what the (non-Buddhist) Buddhologists, historians and Pali/Sanskrit scholars have to say about the Mahayana Sutras.

[camerata]

I accept that there are times in life that include sadness and suffering, and I have lived some of those. But for me and many people I know, the suffering portion is relatively small. I try to fulfill following the precepts because it is the moral thing to do. I am undecided about trying to escape life because at this point I do not see life as suffering.

The First Noble Truth is not "Life is Suffering" as we often hear, but "There is dukkha." Big difference! Also, "suffering" is not a good translation of "dukkha." Dukkha means dis-ease - anything that makes us feel "not at ease" - which is a large part of life. It's everything from the way you feel when someone calls you an idiot to the way you feel when you've just had both legs amputated.

Even if you're at the extreme end of the bell curve and have had a charmed life, dukkha in the shape of old-age, sickness and death comes to us all, often right out of the blue. Better to be prepared for that when it happens. And if you're about to retire to Thailand... Welcome to Dukkha Central... the Mecca of Dukkha!

[phetaroi]

As has been attributed to Buddha, and in books I have read published in Thailand by Theravada sources: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

The Buddha never said this. You're getting the Kalama Sutta garbled. It was a sermon given to non-Buddhists about how to approach the various gurus wandering about in India. In it the Buddha specifically said "Don't go by logical conjecture..." (i.e. "your own reason or common sense"). He said: "When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them." Clearly, he is not telling them to ignore everyone and everything unless it agrees with their own reason.

Further, as Buddha indicated, "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."

Well, he didn't actually say "do not depend on others." He said "Whatever doctrine and discipline taught and made known by me will be your teacher when I am gone." The idea being that we are guided by the Sangha (who should know the doctrine) but we have to do the work ourselves.

Another Buddha quote that I have read seems to apply here, as well: "It is better to travel well than to arrive."

Not a Buddha quote, AFAIK. Do you have a specific scriptural source? It makes little sense considering the goal as stated by the Buddha is nirvana. Most likely the original quote is the famous, "To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive,” by English novelist Robert Louis Stevenson.

If we are going to discuss Buddhism we should at least try and get the quotes accurate.

And if you are really seeking "truth," I'd suggest you read what the (non-Buddhist) Buddhologists, historians and Pali/Sanskrit scholars have to say about the Mahayana Sutras.

I'm certainly at a disadvantage in this discussion because I am in transit and have no materials with me, other than my lap top. And, I am already aware that you have a total focus on Theravada and appear to reject any teaching by such scholars and Buddhist leaders as the Dalai Lama. Putting a smiley face after a put-down is incongruous if you believe everything is related to karma. Your tone comes across as being an expert. Since you frequently lecture in this forum, I'd be interested in knowing your level of scholarship in Buddhism. Clearly you have a background, what is it?

[agent69]

Naturally, most of these points revolve around the Cosmology of Buddhism, and are thus taken on trust. However, over and over the Buddha said they can be verified directly in meditation.

So true.

Early in my life, I was taught that we had to believe all the Budda's teaching without doubt. That sounded so wrong to me. It sounded like blind faith. I had always been having doubt. Until I was in my early 20s following a book and a few months of meditation sessions, I no longer have doubt. Since that a few more events had consolidated my 'believe'.

Think of it as experiments, all the Budda's teachings are just theories which can be proven by practicing. We cannot say that they are right or wrong unless we follow the exact steps.

All these sad or happy lives will end up with aging, sickness and death. First step a person could take to reach this enlightenment would be realising that all sad or happy lives will at least end up with aging, sickness and death. And these are the sufferings that we have to endure. Then we work our ways toward the enlightenment.

[agent69]

It seems to me that you continue to make the assumption that most of life is suffering. And, I do know people who seem to suffer most of the time.

I recently retired. Yesterday, I guess in a not very Buddhist moment, I was driving down the California coast highway as part of a two week trip from the national parks of southern Utah and then Yosemite and Sequoia in California. I was on my way to LAX. Tomorrow I will fly to Thailand on a retirement visa. Not thinking about Buddhism at all, I was reflecting on my life. Not perfect, of course, but on balance satisfying and fulfilling and happy. I achieved my major goals in life, I had an extremely satisfying career. I accept that there are times in life that include sadness and suffering, and I have lived some of those. But for me and many people I know, the suffering portion is relatively small. I try to fulfill following the precepts because it is the moral thing to do. I am undecided about trying to escape life because at this point I do not see life as suffering.

I was a Buddhist by birth. My parents took me to a number of Buddhist temples almost every week. I grew up with the idea of reincarnation and Buddhist way.

Lots of things happened in my early life. And I had lots of time to digest it in my teenage life. And the thought that I may have to go through most of it again just made me feel tired. With the help of Dhumma, I slowly realised that it was my suffering. All the happy parts of my life are good but they are not all permanent, just the feelings that come and go.

I am not trying to end my life but, instead, trying to make the most out of it. It's the rebirth that I do not want.

[clausewitz]

[As with so many things in the Pali Canon, it isn't made clear. You have to wonder why, in 45 years of teaching, no one ever asked the Buddha if animals create kamma. Or did they ask and the answer was lost?

In the jataka numerous animals make kusala kamma (and some make akusala) .

[camerata]

I'm certainly at a disadvantage in this discussion because I am in transit and have no materials with me, other than my lap top. And, I am already aware that you have a total focus on Theravada and appear to reject any teaching by such scholars and Buddhist leaders as the Dalai Lama. Putting a smiley face after a put-down is incongruous if you believe everything is related to karma. Your tone comes across as being an expert. Since you frequently lecture in this forum, I'd be interested in knowing your level of scholarship in Buddhism. Clearly you have a background, what is it?

If anything I wrote came across as lecturing or a put-down, I apologize. It wasn't meant to be. I don't pretend to be a scholar, but I am interested in truth in the sense of what the Buddha really taught, so I've spent several years studying books both by Buddhists (of all sects) and by historians/linguists - who have no particular doctrinal axe to grind. Most of the really good stuff is not available online, but for what the Buddha actually said, the best online source is accesstoinsight.org. For the whole story of Buddhism, how it started, what the Buddha really taught (as far as we can ascertain), and how different texts were created and developed into various Mahayana sects, the best source is A.K. Warder's Indian Buddhism (limited preview now available on Google Books), followed by Rupert Gethin's The Foundations of Buddhism. For the historical development and spread of Buddhism across Asia to Japan, a good one is The Buddhist Tradition : In India, China and Japan, by William Theodore de Bary.

For most Westerners, I think the attraction of Buddhism is that the important part of it can be proven by practice in this life - no waiting until you're dead for proof. The faith aspect of it starts with the Buddha and his personal achievement. IMO, he was a genius on a par with Einstein, taking the human mind somewhere it had never been before. He was the first person in human history that we know of to achieve a state of no-self and nibbana. Traditionally, he is described as attaining "the three sciences" during his enlightenment, but at any rate it's clear he attained knowledge (the Dhamma) that wasn't known before. So the faith aspect of Buddhism is that since the Buddha was so exceptional and attained new knowledge that could be tested and proven in this life, the supranatural knowledge he also attained must also be true.

Given the above, I think what the Buddha actually taught (principally the suttas and vinaya) is very important, because the knowledge came from his unique enlightenment and buddhahood. It's entirely different from scholar-monks adding their own comments, explanations and poems to the Pali Canon 200 years later (although these may be valuable for different reasons) or developing totally new concepts, sutras and buddhas 600 years later (the historians' opinion, not mine). I don't reject what Mahayana scholars say. If it represents the essence of the Buddha's teaching, that's fine. If it doesn't, that's also fine but it isn't really Buddhism and the results may not be what the Buddha taught. What I do reject is sutras purporting to be sermons by Sakyamuni, the historical Buddha, which historians tell us were created hundreds of years after his death. By all means go in new directions but don't fake it so it seems like it came from the Buddha. Since there are several of these, I feel it's important we get the sources of any "sayings of the Buddha" correct.

It seems to me a lot of Western adopters of Buddhism I've met on the Internet like to project Western individualism onto Buddhism, believing that the Buddha encouraged the development of his teachings into different forms and that we are free to accept any teaching as long as it seems logical to us. But I don't see any support for this in what the Buddha actually taught - not even in the Kalama Sutta. We are all controlled by our monkey mind, our ego, and our ego can easily distort our reason for its own purposes. Also, there's the tendency to make decisions based on the Judeo-Christian principles and "human rights" principles we were brought up with, rather than on Dhammic principles. So it just doesn't make any sense to me to think that the Buddha encouraged us all to go our own way. The idea was to follow his guidelines and cultivate the mind until it automatically inclines towards the Dhamma. And as fabianfred said, once the mind is inclining towards the Dhamma we automatically know the right course of action.

[camerata]

In the jataka numerous animals make kusala kamma (and some make akusala) .

I even found a incident in the suttas where an elephant makes merit by gathering lotus plants from a pond. But the elephant is able to speak and to disappear and reappear in a different place at will, so it seems more like a story illustrating a point than an actual event. I'd prefer to hear that animals can make merit from the Buddha's own lips.

[fabianfred]

I am certainly not miserable because I see constant examples of suffering.

In fact, the locals probably class me as the village idiot, because i go around with a silly grin on my face all the time, and smile at anyone and everyone. I feel as if I have 'The Secret' (not that silly book of the same name) and so am able to understand what is happening around me.

My photography is better because i see beauty in everything and everybody all around me, and have moments of joy rush over me when i realise how lucky i am.

I have never been impressed by things like the Lotus Sutra....the mere recitation of which is supposed to bring us quickly to enlightenment....... sounds far too easy to me.... an escape from all the necessary hard work.

Edited May 25, 2009 by fabianfred

[camerata]

To counter the idea of Buddhism as all doom and gloom, Ajahn Brahm has reformulated the Four Noble Truths for greater impact:

1. Happiness

2. Path to Happiness

3. Unhappiness

4. Cause of Unhappiness

He mentions it in his book Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond.

[clausewitz]

I accept that there are times in life that include sadness and suffering, and I have lived some of those. But for me and many people I know, the suffering portion is relatively small. I try to fulfill following the precepts because it is the moral thing to do. I am undecided about trying to escape life because at this point I do not see life as suffering.

The First Noble Truth is not "Life is Suffering" as we often hear, but "There is dukkha." Big difference! Also, "suffering" is not a good translation of "dukkha." Dukkha means dis-ease - anything that makes us feel "not at ease" - which is a large part of life. It's everything from the way you feel when someone calls you an idiot to the way you feel when you've just had both legs amputated.

Even if you're at the extreme end of the bell curve and have had a charmed life, dukkha in the shape of old-age, sickness and death comes to us all, often right out of the blue. Better to be prepared for that when it happens. And if you're about to retire to Thailand... Welcome to Dukkha Central... the Mecca of Dukkha!

Dukkha also includes pleasant feeling, all of it.

[phetaroi]

If anything I wrote came across as lecturing or a put-down, I apologize. It wasn't meant to be.

And I may have been just a bit on edge myself. Leaving your country for another, even when it's what you want to do very much, is still rather stressful. Now that I'm here (in Thailand) I think I can relax a bit! ;-) Also, please don't read more into my question about your "qualifications" (for wont of a better term). Flat statements online can sound like they have a tone to them, and none was intended in that. But since you do come across as quite knowledgeable -- even when I don't agree with you on something -- I am interested in knowing some background, and I appreicated what you provided.

I don't pretend to be a scholar, but I am interested in truth in the sense of what the Buddha really taught, so I've spent several years studying books both by Buddhists (of all sects) and by historians/linguists - who have no particular doctrinal axe to grind. Most of the really good stuff is not available online, but for what the Buddha actually said, the best online source is accesstoinsight.org.

Thank you for that reference. I've saved it and will begin browsing through it.

For most Westerners, I think the attraction of Buddhism is that the important part of it can be proven by practice in this life - no waiting until you're dead for proof. The faith aspect of it starts with the Buddha and his personal achievement. IMO, he was a genius on a par with Einstein, taking the human mind somewhere it had never been before. He was the first person in human history that we know of to achieve a state of no-self and nibbana. Traditionally, he is described as attaining "the three sciences" during his enlightenment, but at any rate it's clear he attained knowledge (the Dhamma) that wasn't known before. So the faith aspect of Buddhism is that since the Buddha was so exceptional and attained new knowledge that could be tested and proven in this life, the supranatural knowledge he also attained must also be true.

I like your summary here very much, although when you indicate that there is "faith" and say it "must also be true", I think you're on shaky ground. In my view, anything based on faith cannot be proven. If it could you wouldn't be taking it on faith.

Given the above, I think what the Buddha actually taught (principally the suttas and vinaya) is very important, because the knowledge came from his unique enlightenment and buddhahood. It's entirely different from scholar-monks adding their own comments, explanations and poems to the Pali Canon 200 years later (although these may be valuable for different reasons) or developing totally new concepts, sutras and buddhas 600 years later (the historians' opinion, not mine). I don't reject what Mahayana scholars say. If it represents the essence of the Buddha's teaching, that's fine. If it doesn't, that's also fine but it isn't really Buddhism and the results may not be what the Buddha taught.

I guess I fundamentally disagree with you here, whether we are taking about Buddhism or any other religion (and yes, I am aware of the debate about whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosphy). As I have mentioned before, I think there is virtually nothing that doesn't evolve, and I believe that must be true for Buddhist thought. I guess that's where, no matter what the topic, you'd never say I was a fundamentalist.

What I do reject is sutras purporting to be sermons by Sakyamuni, the historical Buddha, which historians tell us were created hundreds of years after his death. By all means go in new directions but don't fake it so it seems like it came from the Buddha. Since there are several of these, I feel it's important we get the sources of any "sayings of the Buddha" correct.

Okay.

It seems to me a lot of Western adopters of Buddhism I've met on the Internet like to project Western individualism onto Buddhism, believing that the Buddha encouraged the development of his teachings into different forms and that we are free to accept any teaching as long as it seems logical to us. But I don't see any support for this in what the Buddha actually taught - not even in the Kalama Sutta. We are all controlled by our monkey mind, our ego, and our ego can easily distort our reason for its own purposes.

I understand what you're saying. I guess where I would differ is that I don't think any religion needs to be a take-it or leave-it situation. In fact, one of the things I appreciate about Buddhism (as compared to, for example, Catholicism) is that when I differ with mainstream thought, no one's going to excommunicate me.

And, if you look at Buddhism as a moral path (separate from its emphasis on nirvanna), if I (or anyone) follows 50% of Buddhist thought, then that person will be better than if he followed none of it. 75%, better yet. And this comes down to my belief that there probably is no one "right" religion, but that all religions are moral codes for societies.

Also, there's the tendency to make decisions based on the Judeo-Christian principles and "human rights" principles we were brought up with, rather than on Dhammic principles.

Well, and that's where I see the value of being open to more than just one religion or philosophy. Over time, mankind has advanced not based on only one religion or moral code.

So it just doesn't make any sense to me to think that the Buddha encouraged us all to go our own way. The idea was to follow his guidelines and cultivate the mind until it automatically inclines towards the Dhamma. And as fabianfred said, once the mind is inclining towards the Dhamma we automatically know the right course of action.

I think where a strong difference comes between the way you and I think is that you follow Buddhism and a means toward your own personal enlightenment. That's great and I admire it. I, on the other hand, focus more on how society uses moral codes to advance, and at the same time how that leads to personal evolution.

Both approaches are admirable, if I may say so, although the focus is different.

Thanks for the continuing dialog!

[camerata]

I accept that there are times in life that include sadness and suffering, and I have lived some of those. But for me and many people I know, the suffering portion is relatively small. I try to fulfill following the precepts because it is the moral thing to do. I am undecided about trying to escape life because at this point I do not see life as suffering.

The First Noble Truth is not "Life is Suffering" as we often hear, but "There is dukkha." Big difference! Also, "suffering" is not a good translation of "dukkha." Dukkha means dis-ease - anything that makes us feel "not at ease" - which is a large part of life. It's everything from the way you feel when someone calls you an idiot to the way you feel when you've just had both legs amputated.

Even if you're at the extreme end of the bell curve and have had a charmed life, dukkha in the shape of old-age, sickness and death comes to us all, often right out of the blue. Better to be prepared for that when it happens. And if you're about to retire to Thailand... Welcome to Dukkha Central... the Mecca of Dukkha!

Sorry, fred, I got the quotes mixed up on this one. It was supposed to be a response to phetaroi's post about suffering in which he mentioned he was coming to settle in Thailand - which, as we know, can be a world of frustration for foreigners.

[camerata]

Dukkha also includes pleasant feeling, all of it.

Yes. When we look at the Big Picture, everything is impermanent and therefore dukkha. From the Pali dictionary:

Dukkha:

1 'pain', painful feeling, which may be bodily and mental see: vedanā

2 'Suffering', 'ill'. As the first of the Four Noble Truths see: sacca and the second of the three characteristics of existence see: ti-lakkhana the term dukkha is not limited to painful experience as under 1, but refers to the unsatisfactory nature and the general insecurity of all conditioned phenomena which, on account of their impermanence, are all liable to suffering, and this includes also pleasurable experience. Hence 'unsatisfactoriness' or 'liability to suffering' would be more adequate renderings, if not for stylistic reasons. Hence the first truth does not deny the existence of pleasurable experience, as is sometimes wrongly assumed.

But it's hard to convince some people that "liability to suffering" is a problem when they are living a trouble-free life... at least until they experience the inevitable old-age and sickness.

[sabaijai]

I don't think it's possible for someone who believes their life scales tip definitively towards happiness to fully appreciate the Buddhist way. But even joy and happiness eventually give way to nibbida - world weariness - the prerequisite for path-fruit attainment.

[Xangsamhua]

What I do reject is sutras purporting to be sermons by Sakyamuni, the historical Buddha, which historians tell us were created hundreds of years after his death.

Thanks for the references, Camerata, and for your clear explanations.

I'm still in the elementary stages of Buddhist studies, so would be grateful if you could briefly say which sutras you have in mind that are wrongly ascribed to the Buddha, but are much later. It will help me when I'm looking at Mahayana writing (e.g. by the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh).

Incidentally, like Phetaroi, I have no objection to doctrinal development. Also, in the days before the concept of intellectual property started to take root (perhaps around the renaissance period in the West), ascribing a text to a great sage or historic figure was quite common. (We have the Gospels, for example, ascribed to early apostles, and several letters ascribed to Paul that he never wrote.)

[phetaroi]

But it's hard to convince some people that "liability to suffering" is a problem when they are living a trouble-free life... at least until they experience the inevitable old-age and sickness.

I come at it from a different perspective. Some degree of suffering is expected in life. You might say it's "part of the deal". And I think many of us accept that.

I do realize that there are increased medical problems with age. It wasn't until I got into my mid-50's that blood pressure became a problem, and for a few months totally out of control. Then, suddenly I began to have problems related to cholesterol. I can't hike as far as I used to due to body aches and exhaustion. And, I am sure more is coming. On the other hand, not everyone does suffer, even at the end of life. I'd love to die like my uncle, who went grocery shopping, reached over to pick up a head of lettuce, and instantly dropped dead. Lucky guy!

And of course, then there's the old joke about the guy who says, "I hope I die like my father -- of a sudden heart attack. Not like the dozens of screaming passengers in the bus he was driving."

[patklang]

Thank god i am not religious

[JimsKnight]

According to Theravada, are we born with defilements? Are we considered as being born with a "pure mind" or not?

We're born imperfect, we die imperfect - such are the ways of life.

[camerata]

I'm still in the elementary stages of Buddhist studies, so would be grateful if you could briefly say which sutras you have in mind that are wrongly ascribed to the Buddha, but are much later. It will help me when I'm looking at Mahayana writing (e.g. by the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh).

There are many of them, according to Peter Harvey. If they begin with "Thus have I heard..." (meaning Ananda heard and memorized it), they are attributed to the historical Buddha. For example, the three sutras of Pure Land Buddhism and the Lotus Sutra, the foundation of Nichiren and (partly) Tendai Buddhism.

Incidentally, like Phetaroi, I have no objection to doctrinal development. Also, in the days before the concept of intellectual property started to take root (perhaps around the renaissance period in the West), ascribing a text to a great sage or historic figure was quite common. (We have the Gospels, for example, ascribed to early apostles, and several letters ascribed to Paul that he never wrote.)

Yes, but if you compose a sutra and implicitly claim it came from Sakyamuni, it's breaking the 2nd precept.

//Correction: This should be the 4th precept, refraining from false speech, not the 2nd.

Edited May 27, 2009 by camerata
Corrected the precept.

[camerata]

I come at it from a different perspective. Some degree of suffering is expected in life. You might say it's "part of the deal". And I think many of us accept that.

Well, Buddhists accept it too. That's why they try to do something about it. But many people can't accept it at all, as we can see from all the TV members who do nothing but complain about Thailand and how it should be different from the way it is.