What Is Born?

[fabianfred]

Knowledge isn't wisdom either....there are too many people with lots of knowledge but it is often just useless wordly knowledge.

[canuckamuck]

Having is not, but seeing them is.

Becos seeing the world of living ideas is enlightment

No because they are just ideas not discernment

[canuckamuck]

Knowledge isn't wisdom either....there are too many people with lots of knowledge but it is often just useless wordly knowledge.

I agree with this, and sometimes what we think is knowledge is just fantasy and avoidance of reality.

[Xangsamhua]

Knowledge isn't wisdom either....there are too many people with lots of knowledge but it is often just useless wordly knowledge.

Agree 100% that knowledge doesn't equal wisdom, but knowledge itself is neither useful nor useless until subject to intention. In fact, generally I would think knowledge (where it is actually knowledge, not some false assumption) is valuable, and if applied to the cessation of suffering via the destruction of the poisons, it is knowledge wisely used. Am I right?

To go on a bit, the question of what is actually knowledge is not simply answered and is the question at the basis of Epistemology. The Logical Positivists took the matter to the point of absurdity by arguing that, really, only analytic propositions (tautologies, e.g. "a bachelor is an unmarried man") constitute undeniable knowledge. Kant had allowed for some exceptions to this, I think mainly in regard to mathematical propositions, which he referred to as a priori knowledge, and which, when extended to theological propositions, enabled Kant to avoid the ecclesiastical censorship of his time. Popper introduced the idea of falsifiability as a condition for validity rather than just verifiability, as the latter depends on other propositions, which in turn rely on evidence that may not be verifiable, and so on. If it's impossible for a proposition to be demonstrated to be false (e.g. God created/didn't create the universe) then it is not knowledge, but speculation or faith. Of course much depends on definition of terms.

It seems that the Buddha identified knowledge as that which by experience could be shown to eliminate suffering and harm. Other than that I'm not sure that the Buddha, being a practical teacher rather than a philosopher, went into epistemological questions much. That kind of discussion was taken up by his followers over the centuries, and then with more attention to what makes knowledge possible (i.e. the nature of consciousness and phenomena and their relationship to each other and all other phenomena - Indra's Net) rather than how one discerns between valid propositions and invalid ones.

I don't know how valid what I've said above is, but it's what seems so to me at this stage of my journey.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[mauGR1]

Knowledge isn't wisdom either....there are too many people with lots of knowledge but it is often just useless wordly knowledge.

Agree 100% that knowledge doesn't equal wisdom, but knowledge itself is neither useful nor useless until subject to intention. In fact, generally I would think knowledge (where it is actually knowledge, not some false assumption) is valuable, and if applied to the cessation of suffering via the destruction of the poisons, it is knowledge wisely used. Am I right?

To go on a bit, the question of what is actually knowledge is not simply answered and is the question at the basis of Epistemology. The Logical Positivists took the matter to the point of absurdity by arguing that, really, only analytic propositions (tautologies, e.g. "a bachelor is an unmarried man") constitute undeniable knowledge. Kant had allowed for some exceptions to this, I think mainly in regard to mathematical propositions, which he referred to as a priori knowledge, and which, when extended to theological propositions, enabled Kant to avoid the ecclesiastical censorship of his time. Popper introduced the idea of falsifiability as a condition for validity rather than just verifiability, as the latter depends on other propositions, which in turn rely on evidence that may not be verifiable, and so on. If it's impossible for a proposition to be demonstrated to be false (e.g. God created/didn't create the universe) then it is not knowledge, but speculation or faith. Of course much depends on definition of terms.

It seems that the Buddha identified knowledge as that which by experience could be shown to eliminate suffering and harm. Other than that I'm not sure that the Buddha, being a practical teacher rather than a philosopher, went into epistemological questions much. That kind of discussion was taken up by his followers over the centuries, and then with more attention to what makes knowledge possible (i.e. the nature of consciousness and phenomena and their relationship to each other and all other phenomena - Indra's Net) rather than how one discerns between valid propositions and invalid ones.

I don't know how valid what I've said above is, but it's what seems so to me at this stage of my journey.

Very good posts in my opinion, i would like to add, sorry if i am pedantic,that to ask a human being to describe the invisible realms, it's more or less like to ask an ant to describe a Jumbo Jet.

Our senses are not perfect, nor our words, just to think about the concept of "infinite" makes me dizzy.

[IMA_FARANG]

Think of it like this:

High up in the mountains is a frozen glacier. The snow falls on it and it grows. The ice moves downhill slowly, until some of it melts, and it becomes a small stream. The stream grows, joining with other streams as they flow down the mountain. After a while the streams come together into a river. The river flows across the land until it reaches the ocean. The heat of the sun evaporates the water from the ocean, until it again comes to the mountain and falls again as snow on the glacier.

So when was the water born?

Do you see that you are asking the wrong question, when is this born and when is that begun? Everything is a cycle, a turning of the wheel that does not turn.

It is your mind, the mind of delusion, that devides and sets apart. All that is only an illusion generated by your Ego mind. Nothing began, nothing ended, it is only one unchanging cycle in which eveything just is as it always is and always will be.

If you really understood that, you would not ask meaningless questions. But you won't listen to me anyhow, will you?

After all, what do I know?

[fabianfred]

After all, what do I know?

looks like you know more than most of us... :jap:

[christiaan]

ima farang I would say a long story just to enter the question in your story : when was water born? At some point - when the spiritual world was coming to a material existence - water was 'born' after it was 'born' it showed it can transform into 4 'ways' of existence influenced by environment, these 4 'bodies' of water form a cycle in movement. So in your thought about water you only point at a cycle within the material world. Your story about water itself has nothing to do with the question why water was born, With regard to your story your question should be: How did water became manifest after it was born?

And why would it be a wrong question to ask when water was born, as we have to witness at the same time millions of people and animals are born everyday again and again?

Everything is a never ending cycle?

And Buddha did teach about ending the cycle of rebirth............?

And water is no part of birth and rebirth, plants also are not?

I think it is very interesting to see that topic: Wrong Questions.

Knowledge starts with having questions, and there are no wrong questions, only wrong answers. The world changed in very important area of life by people starting to have questions.

But Buddha prescribed not to have questions with regard to some subjects and people who are charmed by their ego to 'knowledge based on authority' just follow the rules as they see as rules?

Well lets put it this way, Buddha inspires me not to be limited in having questions and to withstand the temptations to accept facts or rules based on authority.

I do not object when people choose to follow rules telling them not to have certain as they see 'forbidden' questions, but when it starts to become an action of repressing with regard to actions of other people this makes me think of the repression we can see in history and actual everyday life by goverments and institutionalised religions. But the act of repression, it starts in the human soul.

[christiaan]

Having is not, but seeing them is.

Becos seeing the world of living ideas is enlightment

No because they are just ideas not discernment

The enlighted world , as seen by Buddha and many other people is the world of living ideas. The spiritual world is the world of living ideas. The 'journey of life' to actualy see the world of living ideas is a journey in 'living' questions, many questions, having border experienses, and practice discernment.

In seeing the world of living ideas, as we call : a ' state of enlightment' there is no discernment active anymore. Just the spiritual word of living ideas.

[christiaan]

Knowledge isn't wisdom either....there are too many people with lots of knowledge but it is often just useless wordly knowledge.

I agree with this, and sometimes what we think is knowledge is just fantasy and avoidance of reality.

Can we come to wisdom without knowledge?

Am I right when I see this road: asking questions can bring knowledge, gaining knowledge can bring wisdom, and wisdom could bring a person to enlightment?

Am I right when I recognise this road within the life and teachings of Buddha?

And yes, yes of course there is more involved, but to me this is the path of unawareness, to awareness up to high awareness.

[rockyysdt]

Can we come to wisdom without knowledge?

Am I right when I see this road: asking questions can bring knowledge, gaining knowledge can bring wisdom, and wisdom could bring a person to enlightment?

Am I right when I recognise this road within the life and teachings of Buddha?

And yes, yes of course there is more involved, but to me this is the path of unawareness, to awareness up to high awareness.

That's the problem christiaan.

No one here is capable of answering your questions.

Even if someone were to answer them, we would not have the ability to comprehend the answer.

There are no words & deeds which could ever describe Nirvana except by personal experience.

The only way one can have those questions answered is to become enlightened.

Achieving enlightenment may require your full time dedication to practice, perhaps over several lifetimes if not a millennium.

Anyone amongst us who is enlightened will never reveal themselves.

To do so would be egotistical & achieve nothing in respect to the progress of others.

To become enlightened is our evolutionary path, however due the insurmountable obstacles in our path very few amongst us achieve this pinnacle.

The spirit realm, if it exists, is just another phase of our suffering and although more powerful than the human state, we remain conditioned & impermanent.

The only thing an enlightened being amongst us will do, is to live their life with natural loving kindness & guide others in their practice.

To me Buddhism is not about believing this or that, but by practicing & through practice experiencing the answers.

Whilst on this path we must be vigilant of ego which leads us along false paths.

Edited August 8, 2010 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

Rockyysdt. You are right we cannot describe Nirvana. even enlighted persons cannot describe Nirvana, even when they would like to do so. Nirvana cannot be expressed by words.

So that is why I did not go into the experience of Nirvana in my question.

the question is: Am I right when I see this road: asking questions can bring knowledge, gaining knowledge can bring wisdom, and wisdom could bring a person to enlightment? (without pondering about the possibility to express the experience of Nirvana in words, in spoken language)

The question is about the 'road' not the goal.

[rockyysdt]

Rockyysdt. You are right we cannot describe Nirvana. even enlighted persons cannot describe Nirvana, even when they would like to do so. Nirvana cannot be expressed by words.

So that is why I did not go into the experience of Nirvana in my question.

the question is: Am I right when I see this road: asking questions can bring knowledge, gaining knowledge can bring wisdom, and wisdom could bring a person to enlightment? (without pondering about the possibility to express the experience of Nirvana in words, in spoken language)

The question is about the 'road' not the goal.

I thought your question was "what is born" not "the road"?.

To know what is born one would need to be enlightened.

"The road" has already been written (four noble truths & eightfold path).

All you need are teachers who have progressed down this "road" for guidance.

The esoteric questions are unanswerable.

Even the Buddha would not comment on such things preferring to allow each seeker to experience for themselves.

I must sign off now to continue my practice.

[Xangsamhua]

I used to work in Catholic Education, and I remember going to a conference at which one of the workshops was titled: "If Catholic Education is the answer, what is the question?" Although I didn't attend that workshop so don't know the answer to the question (i.e. what is the question to which Catholic Education is the answer?), the title has stayed in my memory. Why? Because any proposition assumes a prior question, and if the proposition makes sense, then the question should make sense too. But what if the question is something like "Why is there something and not nothing?"

This question makes sense grammatically; it makes sense semantically and, in a way it seems to be a legitimate question. After all it is the question that led to belief in gods, first causes, timelessness and boundlessness, etc. in the first place. But if these answers cannot in any way be either demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt or falsifiable by reference to possible events (e.g. the classical assumption that all swans are white by the discovery of black swans in the late 17th century), can the question be said to be a reasonable question? In fact, can it be said to be a question at all in any substantial sense if it is known that the answer can't be substantiated?

I liked ImaFarang's illustration very much. I also liked Christiaan's response and counter-question: "How did water become manifest after it was born?". However, unless I accept Plato's world of Forms that pre-exist and underpin their manifestation in particular phenomena, I would have to put Christiaan's question in the category of "pseudo-questions" - questions to which there are no legitimate answers, only speculation. And if I provided an answer, e.g. "because God created water and sustains it in existence according to natural laws for which God is also responsible",then what, to one who hadn't heard it, might the question be? It could be "How does water come to exist?". In effect, this would mean the same as "How does water come to be born?", not "What is born that enables water to be manifested?" The latter question assumes its own response, i.e. some pure and presumably unborn form that is manifested as water. Nothing is born in this case, which to me justifies ImaFarang's illustration.

[christiaan]

yes Rockyysdt ,

sometimes things mix up in the forum.

I think you are right when speaking out of traditional Buddhism, as if time stopped centuries ago.

This is your story, your road, your way of life.

Within my experience awareness in the world is gradually shifting to higher awareness over some period of time now.

Mainly in the western world.

There have been and are more enlighted people and teachers beside Buddha and as I wrote in another topic fortunately modern teachers guide people (and should guide people) to become aware and develop the personal mental and spiritual faculties so they will become their own masters and teachers.

I am studying Buddhisme as it is now. Very interesting to do. With the traditional Buddhisme present in Asia,Thailand, we can observe there is actually a lot of unnecessary corruption , suffering, poverty and abuse happening overthere.

While at the same time in western countries, Europe, there is almost no Buddhism influencing society and at the same time, by some awareness (higher awareness as in asia?) the situation of persons is much and much and much better as in Asia, Thailand.

The differences in social systems (and their outcomes) between Thailand and my countrie one could call heartbreaking differences and when someone would tell many, many things happening in Thailand are in fact a degradation of human dignity I probably would agree.

Yesterday I asked a Thai friend about her Buddhist education. The answer was it is part of schooleducation and tradition. She also told she did not like Buddhism as she learned to know in her life in Thailand.

We overhere also live together with a Vietnamese Buddhist for 5 years now. I can witness all the rituals all the habbits of Buddhist life all thes years and I do respect this very much in some way. Today I asked her what she knows about Buddhisme. Well, she did not know where I was talking about when I mentioned the four noble truths, the eightfold path and so on.

About awareness in Asia and asking questions.

Maybe traditional Buddhism can continue as it is in Asia-Thailand because people ask no questions (have no questionbutton) or,....are not allowed to ask questions.

I would not go to apply this story to Thailand now but I have to admit sometimes I have to think about the saying: one can know about the tree when meeting the fruits.

[christiaan]

I used to work in Catholic Education, and I remember going to a conference at which one of the workshops was titled: "If Catholic Education is the answer, what is the question?" Although I didn't attend that workshop so don't know the answer to the question (i.e. what is the question to which Catholic Education is the answer?), the title has stayed in my memory. Why? Because any proposition assumes a prior question, and if the proposition makes sense, then the question should make sense too. But what if the question is something like "Why is there something and not nothing?"

This question makes sense grammatically; it makes sense semantically and, in a way it seems to be a legitimate question. After all it is the question that led to belief in gods, first causes, timelessness and boundlessness, etc. in the first place. But if these answers cannot in any way be either demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt or falsifiable by reference to possible events (e.g. the classical assumption that all swans are white by the discovery of black swans in the late 17th century), can the question be said to be a reasonable question? In fact, can it be said to be a question at all in any substantial sense if it is known that the answer can't be substantiated?

I liked ImaFarang's illustration very much. I also liked Christiaan's response and counter-question: "How did water become manifest after it was born?". However, unless I accept Plato's world of Forms that pre-exist and underpin their manifestation in particular phenomena, I would have to put Christiaan's question in the category of "pseudo-questions" - questions to which there are no legitimate answers, only speculation. And if I provided an answer, e.g. "because God created water and sustains it in existence according to natural laws for which God is also responsible",then what, to one who hadn't heard it, might the question be? It could be "How does water come to exist?". In effect, this would mean the same as "How does water come to be born?", not "What is born that enables water to be manifested?" The latter question assumes its own response, i.e. some pure and presumably unborn form that is manifested as water. Nothing is born in this case, which to me justifies ImaFarang's illustration.

Everyone can and wil handle a question conform the available awareness.

When somebody would ask me: Why is there something and not nothing? I would ask: what something do you mean?

A question is in fact the apearance of an idea in language. With my question I ask for the idea within the apearance.

When the other person would tell me: it is just a question, it has nothing to do with something real, I would answer: then you are talking about nothing all the time and you have answered your question your self.

We fool our self when we assume when somebody is telling about (using the word) something, the word it selfs tells there is some thing, but with awareness we see with this word 'something' in this question nothing is meant. That is the reality of this question. Be aware.

When a person did or does not reach the enlighted awareness the world of matter - so also water -, does exist as a living idea in the spiritual world, the awareness is limited to: I only believe in what I see , feel, smell, touch and so on, in fact ; material awareness. When having only this material awareness one could only speculate and call the questions and answers of people with high awareness speculations.

It is very much to apreciate when people tell they only talk out of material awareness when they do so, because it shows honesty.

I think this is far much better as to believe in other - religious ?- options just because that is convenient to do for the far future, or just out of some desire out of the ego. People can get attached to wise teachings.

I wonder, continuing the method of reasoning as read above, the way Buddhism is manifest in the world today is proving it leads to 'some life' without suffering, rebirth and so on. I think, compared to life in a western European country, the average munk in Thailand suffers more as the avarage person in an European country. But, it is possible when a lower awareness is the case they do not suffer as much as an average western would do being a munk in Thailand.

The idea that living the life as a munk, according to the teachings of Buddha leads to a life full of happiness and without any suffering and rebirth is speculation also, the fact that a few munks seem to do, where not being reborn is not prooved, could by others also be called a delusion, caused by the fact that the person in the delusion caused this state

of mind by rejecting almost any responsibillity to take care the own life (and other peoples life) in the material way supported by other person or persons taking over this responsibllity for him or her .

[rockyysdt]

About awareness in Asia and asking questions.

Maybe traditional Buddhism can continue as it is in Asia-Thailand because people ask no questions (have no question button) or, are not allowed to ask questions.

Hi christiaan.

You can call me rocky if you wish. Please accept my apology if my posts give the impression I'm against the asking of questions.

My purpose is far from this but aimed at offering a view point on the questions posed.

I think you are right when speaking out of traditional Buddhism, as if time stopped centuries ago.

I am studying Buddhisme as it is now.

This sounds interesting to me.

What would you describe as the difference between traditional Buddhism & Buddhism as it is today?

With the traditional Buddhisme present in Asia,Thailand, we can observe there is actually a lot of unnecessary corruption , suffering, poverty and abuse happening over there.

There a many reasons why this is so in Thailand, but I believe it's mainly due to the fact that Buddhism, as the Buddha taught, is not actually practiced by the majority of those claiming to be Buddhist. What is taught & practiced is a conglomeration of Animism, Buddhism & superstition. Also many of those who are taught correctly simply do not regularly practice which is essential with such a path.

If most Thai Buddhists studied Buddhism as the Buddha taught, & practiced without fail on a daily basis you'd find a completely different situation in this country.

I don't think there is anything wrong with traditional Buddhist teaching, but rather failure to adopt it.

While at the same time in western countries, Europe, there is almost no Buddhism influencing society and at the same time, by some awareness (higher awareness as in asia?) the situation of persons is much and much and much better as in Asia, Thailand.

The differences in social systems (and their outcomes) between Thailand and my countrie one could call heartbreaking differences and when someone would tell many, many things happening in Thailand are in fact a degradation of human dignity I probably would agree.

Can l ask which is your country?

Awareness can have many meanings.

If you are referring to social awareness (concern for fellow man, conservation, peace & charity) many in the west have progressed in this regard.

I suspect the reason for this is not so much due to "practice" but rather due to a far better educated population.

The reason why such social awareness may not be as advanced in Thailand may be due to a combination of poverty & lack of education opportunities.

When we speak of self awareness or Mindfulness in Buddhist terms, we're speaking of a level of awareness through regular practice which can bring about deep personal experience and ultimately enlightenment for some.

I welcome your posts but also enjoy responding if l have valid points.

Edited August 9, 2010 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I used to work in Catholic Education, and I remember going to a conference at which one of the workshops was titled: "If Catholic Education is the answer, what is the question?" Although I didn't attend that workshop so don't know the answer to the question (i.e. what is the question to which Catholic Education is the answer?), the title has stayed in my memory. Why? Because any proposition assumes a prior question, and if the proposition makes sense, then the question should make sense too. But what if the question is something like "Why is there something and not nothing?"

This question makes sense grammatically; it makes sense semantically and, in a way it seems to be a legitimate question. After all it is the question that led to belief in gods, first causes, timelessness and boundlessness, etc. in the first place. But if these answers cannot in any way be either demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt or falsifiable by reference to possible events (e.g. the classical assumption that all swans are white by the discovery of black swans in the late 17th century), can the question be said to be a reasonable question? In fact, can it be said to be a question at all in any substantial sense if it is known that the answer can't be substantiated?

I liked ImaFarang's illustration very much. I also liked Christiaan's response and counter-question: "How did water become manifest after it was born?". However, unless I accept Plato's world of Forms that pre-exist and underpin their manifestation in particular phenomena, I would have to put Christiaan's question in the category of "pseudo-questions" - questions to which there are no legitimate answers, only speculation. And if I provided an answer, e.g. "because God created water and sustains it in existence according to natural laws for which God is also responsible",then what, to one who hadn't heard it, might the question be? It could be "How does water come to exist?". In effect, this would mean the same as "How does water come to be born?", not "What is born that enables water to be manifested?" The latter question assumes its own response, i.e. some pure and presumably unborn form that is manifested as water. Nothing is born in this case, which to me justifies Ima Farang's illustration.

Hi X.

Points well made.

I hope I haven't come across as being against the asking of questions or answers especially esoteric. I have asked many of them myself over time.

I suppose it wasn't so much the origination of water but rather our "origination" & "what is born", a thing we could only ever unskillfully speculate on.

My position comes from the knowledge that regular, faithful practice could yield these answers & yet l and countless others stumble or fall form the path.

All of us are in danger of becoming attached to the idea rather than the practice. I can see this in myself & l see it in others.

I use the Buddhist Forum, literature & retreats to inspire myself to continue with practice.

I hope posters will better understand my posts with this background.

Edited August 9, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Responding to Christiaan:

When somebody would ask me: Why is there something and not nothing? I would ask: what something do you mean?

I think "something" is a fully inclusive category. It doesn't need to be defined. Its antonym is "nothing". Something must be some thing, material, non-material, mental, spiritual or whatever. Usually we think of phenomena. It would be legitimate to probe the meaning of "phenomenon/phenomena". But there is no need to probe the meaning of "something". We would be getting into angels on pinheads territory.

We fool our self when we assume when somebody is telling about (using the word) something, the word it selfs tells there is some thing, but with awareness we see with this word 'something' in this question nothing is meant. That is the reality of this question. Be aware.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that "something" is "nothing"? Or are you assuming that if someone refers to "something", they are referring to a material entity?

When having only this material awareness one could only speculate and call the questions and answers of people with high awareness speculations.

Once again, I don't really know what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that posters in the Buddhism forum are simple materialists? I think all posters are aware of the doctrines of impermanence (anicca) and non-self (anatta). I think they all know of sunyatta (emptiness) and are aware of the epigram, "Emptiness is form; form is emptiness". They know about dependent co-arising and interdependence, so they are unlikely to be crude materialists. However, students of Buddhism are also familiar with the difference between relative truth and absolute truth, and much of what we talk about in everyday conversation, e.g. about the "self", is about relativities, not absolutes; hence one talks about "water" or other phenomena as if they were cohesive entities with an enduring core - we talk about ourselves this way - but we know that there is nothing enduring or permanent there in an absolute sense.

Christiaan, you've come on the board recently with a lot of questions about ontology and other matters, but I'm not sure whether your intention is to learn more about Buddhism or to contest it. If the latter, then I would like to know what you are contesting it with. In one of your earlier posts you recommended a book by an Anthroposophist author, so I could assume you are coming from an Anthroposophist position, and much of what you say seems to reflect Neoplatonist philosophy, to which I gather Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy's founder, was most sympathetic. I'm quite interested to learn more about Anthroposophy, and the ways in which it may connect with Buddhism, but if you are going to contest Buddhism with Anthroposophical views or Neoplatonist views I'd like you to be open and tell us where you're coming from philosophically.

[christiaan]

In fact it is very simple. As I wrote in the beginning I have been visiting Thailand (and several other countries in Asia) and I will go back there, maybe live there for some time. I did learn to know some Thai people and their life history. I also did learn to know about Thailand, its history and the actual events happening in Thailand.

I am a positive curious person, I always ask questions about many things I meet in life.

Learning to know about what I told here above I was shocked. The situation of Thailand differs very much from the situations I know about in the European countries.

So I like to learn about Thai society, Thai awareness, Buddhisme in Thailand, Buddhisme in general.

And in the short time I am writing and reading I have learned a lot about all these subjects, also thanks to the contributors.

I visited a temple in Thailand this year and had a conversation with a munk, he was western, I think from the UK. There was a big festival taking place, there were many people coming for different rituals. Talking about Buddhism, this man - when I remembered well he was a munk for about 7 or 8 years at that time - told me; some Buddhist munks visiting Thailand , coming from Korea, told when they left : Buddhisme in Thailand is a joke.

The man himself had about the same opinion.

I had some question in that direction, by this experience they only becamer stronger.

As my background: I have been raised Catholic, I have no academic background, I have, among other things, been working with autistic children/adolescents.

I have no intentions to contest with anything I only have the intention to develop awareness. And I am, coming from awareness, from the awareness I have. I have mentioned Georg Kuhlewind and since long time he is an important inspiration to me . So I am open about where I come from. I always have been interested in religions, especially the Bible and philosophies

I have read many books from Rudolf Steiner.

I have read many books and visited talks of Krishnamurti shortly before he died.

I did not know much about Buddhisme, but I am learning fast.

To know where I stand at this moment it may be interesting to tell where I stand now in my awareness of Buddhisme and Thailand. ( Although it is not about me but what to learn in observing.)

In my view there seem to be in general a low awareness in Thailand especially selfawareness.

Thailand is a very traditional country and authority and not insight, in almost every aspect of life, also religion, seems to dominate the ways of Thai society, up an down.

The educational system - school- is based on authority and not insight.

Thai are not learned to think for themself and make their choice of religion for themself.

Thai in fact are not free with regard to important aspects of life.

I was thinking, for what I know about Buddhism, Buddhisme should be the 'answer' the dissolving of the problematic situation of Thailand, especially with regard to the degradation of human dignity as I have witnessed.

But the facts shows it is not.

Maybe that is my main question: Why is Buddhisme not solving the problems of Thailand?

And I think it is quite legitimate to have this question since there is told and written: almost all population in Thailand is Buddhist.

There are yellows , reds, and probably all other colours in politics, but almost every Thai is Buddhist.

So this is a very different question as to ask why communism is not solving the problems in France.

First I was thinking Buddhisme itself could possibly be one of the causes of the problems in Thailand, but now, at this point I (still ) think (as before) low awareness and low selfawareness are one of the main 'causes' of the problems in Thailand.

-------

When I would think posters in this forum are simple materialist, (however why not complicated materialists ?) , I would make a big mistake, since it would suggest I know about the posters.

I only know about contributions to the forum.

When I would know the posters are materialists (and as I wrote I cannot know) I pobably would tell so.

When you write that all posters are aware of the doctrines (?) of anicca and anatta and they all know

and are aware of the epigram: Emptiness is form: form is emptiness, and they know about dependent co-arising and interdependence and by this unlikely can be crude materialists , then in my mind the question arise, do all posters also know that the mind, the actual brain originate from thinking and not like the scientist make us 'materially' believe: the brain produces thought? (I think Georg Kuhlewind wrote in one of his books) and as you see I cannot 'leave ' this question and so I write it down here.

Becos Buddhisme is all about questions and awareness.

------

With the question; Why Is there something and not nothing , I now realise I took this question in another way as it was written, so my reaction in fact was not apllicable to the real question. I am sorry for this. It was a good illustration in its context but in the essence not important for further discussion, (all though I do think it could be an interesting question to discuss about (in some other forum) )

The contribution of Ima_Farang was only about the material cycle of water on earth. With regard to water this story tells only about material awareness. Here the cycle as Buddha told about is applied to the material cycle of water. In my awareness, water is the manifestation of a spiritual reality, a living idea, and to me the cycle of water includes the existence of water as a living idea within the spiritual world.

With regard to the birth of water I had some very interesting books explaining the origin - coming out of the spiritual world - and 'the birth of water. These book got lost and I miss this very much becos it is the best I have ever read about the creation of the world. It was written by an engineer and in my view it was no speculation. I could reproduce some of the contents of this book but it would take a lot of writing. So I pass on this for now. So , anyone can think about this what he or she likes to think but to me that is no pseudo question since it has a legitimate answer for me.

Rudolf Stener did write about Buddhisme, probably not that much.

At the moment I cannot remember I read anything about Buddhisme specific from Rudolf Steiner.

He has written some interesting things about Asia, he wrote about china that it would have been the best when the western world would not have interfered in any way with this country.

In my view that would have been the best for Thailand too, but who am I?

But I have read some of what Rudolf Steiner has written about Buddha and when I remember well

Buddha, as a historical personallity and as a spirit, is to him, one of the highest in the spiritual world.

In the view of Rudolf Steiner Christ however is the ' Key Figure ' - the Logos - , in the evolution of mankind

Since independent thinking (especially about the proces of thinking and not the results - thoughts 'make' the brainsubstance) is very important in my view and George Kuhlewind, a good teacher in this, my source of inspiration at the moment is especially Kuhlewind.

(I excuse for my poor English I am not a native english speaker, but self educated.)

[Xangsamhua]

Thank you, Christiaan for your most interesting clarifications.

As I said in an earlier post, I have put one of George Kuhlewinde's books in the cart for my next Amazon order.

I think, unless you speak and read Thai well, It's hard to learn a lot about Dharma in Thailand. Of course, a form or forms of Buddhism are practiced at the popular level that may vary substantially from the main themes and emphases of the Buddha's teaching, but they constitute a form of Buddhism nonetheless. They're just not a form that Westerners are usually seeking and ones in which they will feel alien. The international monastic community, Wat Nong Pah Pong, under Ajarn Chah was exceptional, as is Wat Suan Mokh - exemplars of serious dhamma practice that reach out to non-Thais.

If you are in Western Europe, I would suggest a week's stay at Plum Village (Le Village des Pruniers), Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh's community near Bordeaux. You will learn a lot about dhamma in practice there (and it's very relaxing).

You mentioned the authoritarianism and traditionalism of Thai education. Well it varies. At the higher education level, some lecturers are insistent that their students frame questions and adopt a critical inquiry approach, perhaps more at postgraduate than undergraduate level, but they have to be very careful. In some respects Thailand is a closed society and academics can be and have been punished for being too critical in some areas. This may be changing. There is much concern at the moment, however, over the implementation of the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA) and its implications for Thai education in a borderless competitive environment. What can Thai educators do to ensure that the best response is made and Thai students benefit from the internationalisation of education in the region? Loss of some control over what is offered to Thai students may impact on what they learn and how they learn. This in turn will impact on current forms and practices of Thai Buddhism, as we know that the modernization (or postmodernization) of education has weakened the position of traditional religion where this occurs. In Thailand it could lead to a more developed, higher form of Buddhism (as it did to a degree in response to Western challenges in the 19th century, resulting in the Dhammayutika sect, Sangha reform and more attention to study of the Pali texts), with a reduction in shamanism, supernaturalism and formalism. Buddhism as taught by the Buddha and developed, especially (IMHO) in some Mahayana traditions since his time, has nothing to fear from or hide from higher forms of knowledge and advanced critical inquiry.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[christiaan]

Hello rocky,

Writing on a forum is something very special. It is a way of communicating without all other forms of communicating. No gestures, no eye contact and so on. So then the words have to speak. And this is not easy to do. Especially when one is not educated in English as me, so I have to look for a lot of words in google language.

In writing it is possible a certain formulation can be received different as it was send.

This is due to language and cultures.

On this forum I however do not worry much about being offended since I am a little prejudiced in thinking all posters are interested in buddhisme and so decent people.

And so I more worry about myself, I can be confronting with my remarks and contributions but I do not wish to offend people. But sometimes, the conversation can be a little though.

I very much apreciate all posters contributions and so I also apreciate yours. It is a good experience being able to offer eachother points of view, and so I very much like to thank you and all others for using this forum as it is done. I realy have learned a lot in just two weeks about Buddhisme.

You aks were I come from but I am sorry I cannot tell. I am in some unimportant important way - becos of my profession - a kind of public figure and very easy to find on the internet, when just combining some facts, and it is told one should take care the 'anonymity'

Allthough I am in no way afraid any of the posters overhere would abuse information.

But I can tell you I come from Europe and in winter it can be cold overhere.

In an overview I would say Buddhisme as it came to existence by the last Buddha is tremendous important for humanity. It is and it will be for long time. At the time of Buddha and even more before that, people still lived in a spiritual kind of culture on earth. Very opposite to the culture we have to deal with at the moment in, for instance Europe and America. At those day there where no stockmarkets, but temples

The world we live in is a material culture, a money culture. Banks and offices are the high buildings now, not the temples and churches. And the God of humanity now is : money

People at that time lived within the spiritual awarenes in a more dreaming way. By the life of Siddharta we can see someone coming to awareness in asking questions, So when I look at the figure of Buddha I sometimes think (excuse me for doing so) he must have been one of the most selfaware people at that time, probably even the only one. He had the very high abillity to ask his questions, to hold them and to start selfdevelopment. I would say you can only start selfdevelopment when you do have a certain selfawareness.

With this developing selfawareness he was able to learn to know the world of wisdom in a direct way.

And with direct I mean direct. Not by words, not by concepts, not as a 'me', not as an ego,.

In learning to know directly the world of wisdom he became one with it to some level.

I would say the world of wisdom probably revealed to him what it could reveal to a human at that time.

To explain this I would say in a very limited sample: when you see your brother still a baby you will see him as a baby, only 30 years later you can see him as an adult and he still is your brother

(I however do not mean to tell by this sample the world of wisdom was a baby at that time)

Buddha not only came to experience in a direct way this world of wisdom he also was able to speak out his experiences by his awareness and faculties in language.

I think, but that is some kind of assumption since not everything is known, all Buddha said was truth. Truth with a tremendous importance for humanity. But it was truth for that time. This does not mean this truth at any point became untrue or a lie, it means in the continuing evolution of the world, of humanity, of the spiritual world, more was added to this truth and so the truth transformed. Truth is on earth also always related to time and space. Everything transforms, also the truth transforms, but within this truth transformed and transforming the truth of Buddha is enclosed forever.

One can near this also in another way, in about 3000 years another Buddha will arise, but just try to imagine, - that is a wonderfull spiritual excersise - , try to imagine Buddha would live now, and you can go to meet him and talk to him, do you think he now would tell you exactly the same thing as 2500 years ago??

Some things would not have changed , like the four noble truths and the eightfold path but many other things would have changed but in the essence still include the old teachings.

What was revealed to Buddha: the world of wisdom.

In fact the laws of the world of wisdom.

What is the difference with Buddhisme now?

Within the 2500 years the world developed further in many ways , I would say in all ways.

We have developed in material way, in scientific way, in physical way, in social way , just name it, what is still the same?

We have changed, transformed as humans to individuals with selfawareness.

With regard to this it is interesting to listen to the talk of Bhikku Bodhi, telling about growing individualisme and its consequences for the future. He tells about a transforming of society into the future. The whole humanity will individualise and this has never happened before in evolution of mankind.

So this is a new phenomenon in the world. Where does it come from?

(With regard to this the question arise in my mind, when talking about cycles, what is the cycle of life of a mobile handheld computer?)

In the 2500 years many very important things happened, and without naming them all now, we did arrived with the world of wisdom in the world of love.

By this I mean as in the time of Buddha , since the time of Buddha, by the life of Buddha, wisdom became something within the awareness of the human, something within the faculties of life of human, now we have come also into a life, an awareness where in we beside by wisdom also can be inspired by love, love can come in to the faculty of human also.

This means we not withdraw anymore from the world to come to learn to know the full actuality of wisdom and its laws by detachment of the ego and personal enlightment, we now can turn to the world and within wisdom choose to sacrifice our Self out of the faculty for love to make the future come true.

When I am in China, Vietnam and Thailand, I can visit many beautifull temples (not in China due to the days of Mao) can witness spiritual peace and detachment, but everytime I come home I feel I missed something very important and then I realise: I missed love, real love, love at work. In Thailand, with low awareness, the opposit, the caricature of real love is at work: low sexual moral, widespread largescale prostitution.

Love that only work out of selfaware wise people sacrificing their Self to make the other Self come true. This sacrificing is direct experience, is not being attached in any way to the past.

Modern Buddhisme (the proces of transforming is characterised as engaged Buddhisme) in my view is Buddhisme transformed by interdependent action between humans and the spiritual world in realising the world of wisdom and the world of love in interdependent human action to make the future come true.

.

I hope I was able to point out at some differences.

-----------------------------

To go into some of your remarks.

I do not think awareness can have many meanings, awareness is awareness.

One can direct awareness to certain areas, and certain experiences can have different impacts on an individual person and by this can have a meaning different as another experience, but awareness is awareness.

The progression in the west is becos there is a higher selfawareness.

It is very interesting to look at this becos you refer to education.

2000 years ago there was the oldest university in the world in Nandala just imagine 2000 teachers (am I right?) teaching overthere!!!

At that time they tell Many European cultures where more like running bears , no cities, no real houses, not even a primary school, they were barbarians.

So a question could be: Why did Asia come to a standstill and Europe (America mainly is/was Europe) in such progress?

And this happened after Buddha came into the world!

It is interesting when you speak of awareness.

In other terms, lets say in material terms, I realy would advice you to read the biography of Nikola Tesla. He probably has been the greatest inventor in modern history, maybe even of all times.

He in fact should have become the most rich person in all history of mankind due to his inventions.

Read his biography and maybe you will understand why I sometimes think Tesla was some kind of material Buddha, in opposite to a spiritual Buddha, by wich I mean he was realy very high enlighted in material matters.

He discovered material phenomena the scientist (fortunately) still never have comprehend after his dead.

And just take notice how he came to his enlighted experiences.

Reading this, people can learn about the world of wisdom, learn about awareness, very high enlighted awareness. in modern time.

Thank you very much for your attention and I will apreciate your responding

[sabaijai]

I have to agree with Xangsamhua. WIthout understanding Thai well, it's not really possible, and certainly not fair, to judge either individual or collective attainments in Thailand.

There are many very wise, exceptional dhamma teachers here. So much so that I have the opposite problem you do. When I'm away from Thailand for more than a few weeks, I find that I miss the wisdom here, however institutionalised and distorted it may, at times, be.

BTW prostitution may be just as widespread in most Western countries as it is in Thailand, just less visible. According to End Child Prostitution And Trafficking (ECPAT) there are proportionately more underage sex workers in the USA than in Thailand, for example.

Is prostitution more visible because of or in spite of Buddhism? One can speculate, but I don't see how one can ever settle that question in any objective manner. No matter how famous you may be.

Edited August 10, 2010 by sabaijai

[christiaan]

Well sabaijai, I think we will agree that being famous is no part of settling any problems as we are talking about here. I also think no poster here probably is famous.

I think one has to be carefull judging aspects of a country one does not know very well and of wich one does not speak the language. On the other hand, for developed people , even without language the facts speak their language too.

Looking at the prostitution it is also the way this phenomenon presents it self in Thailand. I have seen a video with stripping drunk woman, at some festival, the title of the video did not warn before, and there where young children sitting in the front row. In my country you would realy have a big problem with such a happening and even a video, a BIG problem, I can tell you. I think in most European countries prostitution as it is in Thailand you cannot find.

This is the prostitution as you can expect in a poor country.

I do not write this as a judgement of Tthai society. It is an observation. I am not thinking about Thailand as being a more worse country as most other countries. And looking to the worse sides of Thailand one thing is quite obvious; in being the worse in the Thai way, Thai are specialised in damaging themself, the damage to other countries is very very limited, Even the history shows.

I do not think prostitution is the phenomenon as it is because of or in psite of Buddhism, I did wrote in a country as Buddhist as Thailand is, where children are teached about Buddhism at school, one would not expect this phenomenon to be as it is.

Looking at the young boys and girls inside this business, I cannot help to think what are these youngsters doing there having in mind: children very much respect and obey their Buddhist (?) parents

I can agree with you that it is very difficult to find wisdom in western societies. I live here and even for me this is difficult and I am fortunate my situation gives opportunities to take care this. But when strange people would ask me for the way in this, I realy think that would be very difficult.

In western society the wisdom has gone into the world of matter; material science, technics, products, logistics, communication, entertainment , government affairs and more of this.

Well with help of this forum we can all learn about Thailand and Buddhisme and awareness.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Christiaan.

Regarding what is born you'll find an interesting thread on Reincarnation or more precisely Re Birth.

http://www.thaivisa....-reincarnation/

Basically another member summarized the successful ascension of a Bhikkhu as follows:

To summarize, he is firmly mindful of the fact that only Dhammas exist (not a soul, a self or I). That mindfulness is just for gaining insight (vipassana) and mindfulness progressively. Being detached from craving and wrong views he dwells without clinging to anything in the world. Thus, bhikkhus, in this way a bhikkhu dwells perceiving again and again the Four Noble Truths as just the Four Noble Truths.

Another poster writes:

On further investigation you may start to see there never really was a you existing in the first place.

And another:

Many people misunderstand the no-self, non-self thing and believe that it means there is no self at all. What it actually means is that there is no permanent unchanging self (like a soul).

And yet another:

A monk has three duties...to study, practice and teach the Dhamma. If he only studies and teaches he is not using practice to confirm the truth of what he has studied and could be passing on.

Edited August 11, 2010 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

rocky ,

thanks very much.

I could write a lot about this subject but that is not easy to do becos it is ofcourse not easy to explain this in just a few words.

I see a soul, and I see an I in human life.

Primary autistic children do have what Buddhists call an ego, but they do not have selfawareness and speak about themself in the second person.

If I would be autistic I would not say: I tell, but : Chistiaan tells.

In that situation I would use the surname becos I was conditioned to do so.( As I learned 'my' autistic pupils).

I had an autistic young man to take care of for about 6 years, when I shaved of my beard (it happened about 3 times) he did not recognised me anymore and asked me who I was. When I told him another name as my actual name he always became very very confused. (I did to see if i could 'wake' him up.)

In early days of history even humans did not refer to themself with I. Jus take the name Johnsson being Johns son and that is not even long time ago.

As far as I know the indians in north america did not have this personal self awareness.

So the I of the human spirit came to live on earth when the awareness grew to selfawareness.

I do not think the I as I see it is no part of buddhist teachings and I do not think the I as I see it is something opposite to Buddha's teachings, I have some feeling there is some misunderstanding becos of a certain interpretation and the desire to keep 'teachings' as they are learned to not to confuse the ego.

When the time is there I would like to take the chance to shine some more light to this.

I thank you for your specific information. Very helpfull.

[yellow1red1]

T + T = E

Disharmony is the ultimate Requirement. Thought and Time, in variance with each other, manufacture Existence. Without the struggle between these two supreme Elements, there would be Nothing; no birth, no universes, no air, no fire, no earth, no water, no histories, no futures, no interludes, no relativity.

This Formula is the song that all music tries to play.

We are part of the Storm and, rarely, a break in the clouds.

[sabaijai]

rocky ,

thanks very much.

I could write a lot about this subject but that is not easy to do becos it is ofcourse not easy to explain this in just a few words.

I see a soul, and I see an I in human life.

Primary autistic children do have what Buddhists call an ego, but they do not have selfawareness and speak about themself in the second person.

If I would be autistic I would not say: I tell, but : Chistiaan tells.

In that situation I would use the surname becos I was conditioned to do so.( As I learned 'my' autistic pupils).

I had an autistic young man to take care of for about 6 years, when I shaved of my beard (it happened about 3 times) he did not recognised me anymore and asked me who I was. When I told him another name as my actual name he always became very very confused. (I did to see if i could 'wake' him up.)

In early days of history even humans did not refer to themself with I. Jus take the name Johnsson being Johns son and that is not even long time ago.

As far as I know the indians in north america did not have this personal self awareness.

So the I of the human spirit came to live on earth when the awareness grew to selfawareness.

I do not think the I as I see it is no part of buddhist teachings and I do not think the I as I see it is something opposite to Buddha's teachings, I have some feeling there is some misunderstanding becos of a certain interpretation and the desire to keep 'teachings' as they are learned to not to confuse the ego.

When the time is there I would like to take the chance to shine some more light to this.

I thank you for your specific information. Very helpfull.

Thais rarely refer to themselves as 'I' in everyday conversation either.

Edited August 31, 2010 by sabaijai
spelling

[christiaan]

What : (part of) This ...does not ?

[camerata]

It's a typo. It should read "Thais rarely refer to themselves as...". Monks, for example, use the word attama, meaning "soulless."