What Is Is That 'Makes' Someone Choose To Become Bhuddist?

[christiaan]

...

To keep it simple...

Sometimes, as I read your very long writings, I wonder if you would be better served by, indeed, keeping things more simple. It sometimes seems as if you try to make every little aspect of Buddhism extremely complex.

I am also studying Buddhism, by the way not calling myself a student cos to me that implements something different. In studying I can keep more distance from attachments as a student. I not only study Buddhisme, among my books I have the Quran, the Books of the Doctrine and Convenants of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, The Bible, the Jehova Bible, The teachings of Buddha, a translation of the Jaspanese version, and 30 books of Krishnamurti, beside this I have many more books on the subject of religion. Most of them, not all I read. Beside reading the books of Krishnamurti I also did go to some of his talks. I never read or heard someone telling Krishnamurti to keep things simple. But then I am not Krishnamurti, or Buddha, or one other famous Philosopher. On the other hand I have to keep in mind mos people consider the mechanics of a wristwatch to be more complex as the origin, meaning and destination of humanity. And explaining , truly explaining the mechanics of a wristwatch would take the size of a book.

[christiaan]

The decision to become a Buddhist is essentially a meeting of internal needs (to be happy, to relieve stress, etc) with an external catalyst (a Buddhist friend, an interesting book/movie about Buddhism, etc), and that kicks off the automatic decision-making process that weighs up all factors and comes up with the solution.

Exactly that in my case, though I wouldn't call myself a buddhist rather a student of it.

Could I translate this as " The decision to become a Buddha is essentially a meeting of internal needs (to be happy, to relieve stress, etc.) with an external catalyst (Brahman religion, fasting monks, etc) and that kicks off the automatic decision-making proces that weights up all factors and comes up with a solution.

(solution or decission?)

so here "what" is the automatic decission- making proces?

Isn't this the billiard ball story in more sophisticated way told. The ball just being there, in some inner state not (?) moving out of it self, waiting to (accidentally) be hit by an outer source, here called an external catalyst in the form of a friend , book/movie, in fact the billiard player (who is also played him or her self) to set of an automatic process (billiard balls do not move automatic) to come up with some decission within the law of energy of cause and effects like with billiard balls? moving in the same direction line as the in-put energy of the outer source?

And then some people ask me to keep it simple.

[christiaan]

The decision to become a Buddhist is essentially a meeting of internal needs (to be happy, to relieve stress, etc) with an external catalyst (a Buddhist friend, an interesting book/movie about Buddhism, etc), and that kicks off the automatic decision-making process that weighs up all factors and comes up with the solution.

Exactly that in my case, though I wouldn't call myself a buddhist rather a student of it.

Could I translate this as " The decision to become a Buddha is essentially a meeting of internal needs (to be happy, to relieve stress, etc.) with an external catalyst (Brahman religion, fasting monks, etc) and that kicks off the automatic decision-making proces that weights up all factors and comes up with a solution.

(solution or decission?)

so here "what" is the automatic decission- making proces?

Isn't this the billiard ball story in more sophisticated way told. The ball just being there, in some inner state not (?) moving out of it self, waiting to (accidentally) be hit by an outer source, here called an external catalyst in the form of a friend , book/movie, in fact the billiard player (who is also played him or her self) to set of an automatic process (billiard balls do not move automatic) to come up with some decission within the law of energy of cause and effects like with billiard balls? moving in the same direction line as the in-put energy of the outer source?

And then some people ask to keep it simple.

[christiaan]

The decision to become a Buddhist is essentially a meeting of internal needs (to be happy, to relieve stress, etc) with an external catalyst (a Buddhist friend, an interesting book/movie about Buddhism, etc), and that kicks off the automatic decision-making process that weighs up all factors and comes up with the solution.

If I can add a little to this, and it's subsumed in your statement, the internal needs, e.g. "to be happy, to relieve stress, etc", may be more than just emotional ones.

The sense of needing to know what makes most sense, to the extent of our ability to understand, in thinking and speaking about matters of "ultimate concern" may trigger our investigation of Buddhism.

We may be quite happy in conventional terms and not particularly stressed - indeed one of the obstacles for many contemporary people in well-organised and well-resourced societies is that they may not have a strong sense that their life is about "suffering", no matter how we nuance it - but we still may want to know the Buddha's take on the Big Questions, and we may find his essential teachings (and silences) persuasive. This doesn't mean we land on a particular Buddhist square, though, and never move from it.

I am not personally interested in examining what gives rise to this "sense" (of needing to know) or to analyse it. It's just there in some way, though in itself lacking form or duration. It is identified through our responses - asking questions (to ourselves or others), reading books, considering implications, and so on.

I am personally very interested in many many things, not only in Buddhisme and certainly in knowledge, and knowledge about knowledge.

My desire of needing to know (there is no independent sence of needing to know as there is also no independent nose smellling) is pointed at what could make sense, to the extend of my abbility to understand , in thinking and speaking, (words are, in normal health, spoken thoughts) about all matters of life, triggers my investigation of the world and amongst other phenomenons of this world also the phenomenon Buddhism.

I cannot pas the fact that, in contrary to the situation in my country, note well in one of the most Bhuddist countries in the world there is so much suffering on almost all levels of society.

What is the sitaution in my country?

In my country there is still a major christian way of thinking and even when people are not connected anymore to an institutionalised christian religion they still think in the concept of a personality with personal responsibillities towards other persons.

So the culture in my country is organised around this individuality and groups of individualities, being all humans, when in healthy condition, having a self with some level of selfawareness. In their Self they see them self as I.

The judicial system is focussed on the faculties and responsibillities of this I.

So when someone is behaving in such a way that his or her behaviour is hurting or damaging other people individual and group interest they are held

[phetaroi]

...

To keep it simple...

Sometimes, as I read your very long writings, I wonder if you would be better served by, indeed, keeping things more simple. It sometimes seems as if you try to make every little aspect of Buddhism extremely complex.

I am also studying Buddhism, by the way not calling myself a student cos to me that implements something different. In studying I can keep more distance from attachments as a student. I not only study Buddhisme, among my books I have the Quran, the Books of the Doctrine and Convenants of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, The Bible, the Jehova Bible, The teachings of Buddha, a translation of the Jaspanese version, and 30 books of Krishnamurti, beside this I have many more books on the subject of religion. Most of them, not all I read. Beside reading the books of Krishnamurti I also did go to some of his talks. I never read or heard someone telling Krishnamurti to keep things simple. But then I am not Krishnamurti, or Buddha, or one other famous Philosopher. On the other hand I have to keep in mind mos people consider the mechanics of a wristwatch to be more complex as the origin, meaning and destination of humanity. And explaining , truly explaining the mechanics of a wristwatch would take the size of a book.

Look how complex you made a statement about keeping something more simple.

[christiaan]

(continuing) they are held accountable for this and will be corrected in a way that has been agreed by political parties chosen by the people to govern this country.

Becos of this, in this situation, there isn't a lot of suffering in our country. Situations as seen in Thailand are not happening in this country and then I name:

* The large scale corruption/ bribery

* Lack of real democracy

* The inabbillaty to govern the country in a peacefull and stable way

* the irresponsible and immature behaviour of many political figures, showing lack of

responsibillity towards the Thai people mainly being concerned with their own interests.

* the political influence of the military.

* Large scale Criminal behaviour

* the incompetence of the judicial system to have individuals corrected for their irresponsible and damaging behaviour

* The extreem contrast between rich and poor.

* Use of alcohol

* The extreem contrasts in and low quality of education.

* The large scale prostitution

* sexual misconduct to especially young people

* large scale underpayment and overtime work in a country with a high percentage of jobless

people.

* absence of laborunions.

I could name more but I would say this is covering a great deal of the difference in the situation between my country, and most european countries, and Thailand.

I noticed the situation in Thailand causes a lot of suffering for the people living in Thailand and especially the less fortunate people face a lot of suffering.

So the Thai Buddhist 'insight' about suffering are confirmed especially and extra-ordinary by their own culture, in negative contrast to most european cultures.

In a country with such a high percentage of Buddhists and Buddhist monks this would be the last one should expect.

So I am 'investigating' this situation and I do think there is a connection to the awareness, the way of thinking of Thai people that is to be characterised as a kind of, note well, overall Buddhist awareness. And in the Thai way of Buddhism, is the Theravad interpretation of the teachings of Buddha.

I 'investigate' religion in Thailand.

And it looks like it can be characterised as an authoritarian system evolved to a collection of dogma's, based on an interpretation of the teachings of Buddha, turning into a doctrine that cannot and should not be questioned.

So to my opinion it is possible that the fact there is no place for a self, and so no place for selfawareness, no understanding of these, no respect to the individual selfs, contributes to this extra ordinarry suffering situation.

Independent thinking is not teached, educated and stimulated,

I do not want to say my view is perfect, I just tell now this is my view at the moment, I am not attached to it, it is just reflecting a moment in a journey of investigation

[christiaan]

If you are actually interested in the Buddhist approach to this subject rather than expounding your own ideas these articles are good;

http://www.accesstoi...o/notself2.html

http://www.accesstoi...ro/notself.html

This post has been edited by Brucenkhamen: Yesterday, 04:09

This tells there is a Self being an ' I '

It is not possible to deny something not -existing, so by the action of denial the existing is confirmed.

It is by the actions of this self a person can come to enlightment and experience a transformation of the self.

[Brucenkhamen]

This tells there is a Self being an ' I '

No it doesn't, at least it didn't last time I read it so I'd be surprised if it did now.

What it explains is that there is a common misconception that the Buddha taught there is no self and you are just supposed to believe it.

Rather what the Buddha taught was that the path to liberation is to see, reflect on, and relate to the characteristics that we would normally associate as me, I, or mine in terms of these characteristics being not-self.

It is a process of changing our relationship to our experience not a doctrine to be believed.

So it makes questions like "Ok you Buddhist type people you believe there is no self so what is born, so what is it that decides things?" quite irrelevant. In fact these questions are part of the Buddhist practice, to question and deconstruct what we experience as self, so it seems silly to expect a packaged answer on the internet.

It is not possible to deny something not -existing, so by the action of denial the existing is confirmed.

So you are saying if I deny the boggie man exists then the action of denial confirms his existence, yeah that's real logical.

It is by the actions of this self a person can come to enlightment and experience a transformation of the self.

Yes, but the practice is to question "Is what that person perceives to be Me,I,mine really what that person perceives them to be". We all perceive our realiity in a skewed an imperfect way, this is what causes suffering, this is what's called defilement.

[camerata]

so here "what" is the automatic decission- making proces?

It's just electrical signals between neurons in the brain, firing in patterns conditioned by genetics and life experience. There are 100 billion neurons in the brain and the number of possible permutations of brain activity is estimated to exceed the number of elementary particles in the universe, so it isn't hard to imagine that such a computing device could come up with a decision on whether or not becoming a Buddhist would lead to greater happiness. But, as with computer programs, "Garbage In, Garbage Out."

This isn't exactly how classical Buddhism would describe the decision-making process. For that I guess you'd have to study the Abhidhamma.

[christiaan]

christiaan, on 2010-09-03 06:55, said:

It is not possible to deny something not -existing, so by the action of denial the existing is confirmed.

So you are saying if I deny the boggie man exists then the action of denial confirms his existence, yeah that's real logical.

Christiaan:

When people think as logic as you do in this sample of the boggy man then surely a lot of text will need to be used to 'enlight' this proces of thinking.

bog(gy) = an area having a wet, spongy, acidic substrate composed chiefly of sphagnum moss and peat in which characteristic shrubs and herbs and sometimes trees usually grow.

man = a human of male gender

boggy man = a kind of descriptive action based on real and true existing phenomenons.

[camerata]

Typo. Try bogeyman, bogyman, boogerman, boogeyman, boogieman:

"an imaginary evil character of supernatural powers, esp. a mythical hobgoblin supposed to carry off naughty children."

[christiaan]

camerata

automatic decission making proces

It's just electrical signals between neurons in the brain, firing in patterns conditioned by genetics and life experience. There are 100 billion neurons in the brain and the number of possible permutations of brain activity is estimated to exceed the number of elementary particles in the universe, so it isn't hard to imagine that such a computing device could come up with a decision on whether or not becoming a Buddhist would lead to greater happiness. But, as with computer programs, "Garbage In, Garbage Out."

This isn't exactly how classical Buddhism would describe the decision-making process. For that I guess you'd have to study the Abhidhamma.

christiaan:

I imagine what would happen when in my country a religious person would use his religious function, like being a monk in Thailand, to influence young woman to become prostitutes in Bangkok and he would have to face court (in my country you have to) and his actions where proven by witnesses and he would use your explanation to defend himself for court, I would not be surprised he would not be send to prison but to a mental health institution.

But I think you are just explaining that when you or I - being independent spirits in an independent body make a decission, you your decission and me my decission, the decission making is also manifest in a lot of physical processes. Ofcourse it is, who would deny this? But the fact that this is actual happening is not telling there is no Self, no You, no I active.

The explanation you use looks like all things going on in a complex machine (a machine that never will be responsible and accountable for his actions) but it is not a machine like thing since we as an independent you and as an independent I built and programmed this machine with our non physical, spiritual qualities.

Like the builder is responsible for the actions of the machine, (look to the oil problem in the Gulf near Louisiana) we are responsible for the actions we bring into the world. The judicial systems in modern countries, for this, see people responsible and acountable for 100% after they reached a certain age and so: level of awareness. Being aware, or not being aware of your actions at the moment a person committed those actions is a very important issue in court. So fortunately in countries were Self awareness exists and is respected there is lesser chaos as in some other countries were a culture is not evolved to this situation.

Edited September 3, 2010 by camerata
Fixed quotes.

[Brucenkhamen]

Typo. Try bogeyman, bogyman, boogerman, boogeyman, boogieman:

"an imaginary evil character of supernatural powers, esp. a mythical hobgoblin supposed to carry off naughty children."

You're onto it, I can't say I've ever seen such an indepth analysis of my typoese before now though

[camerata]

But I think you are just explaining that when you or I - being independent spirits in an independent body make a decission, you your decission and me my decission, the decission making is also manifest in a lot of physical processes. Ofcourse it is, who would deny this? But the fact that this is actual happening is not telling there is no Self, no You, no I active.

I wasn't implying there is an independent spirit making decisions. I said external events cause a decision-making process to be activated without any kind of agent involved. This is how Buddhism sees it. That doesn't mean one would use it as an excuse to avoid legal responsibility, because it wouldn't be practical and society would not accept it. You can label this process a "self" if you want to, but that is precisely what the Buddha told us not to do. It may feel like a self, but we don't control it.

Very little of our mind was built with conscious intention. It's like an iceberg with the submerged part representing our genetic programming and the subconscious tendencies socialized into us by parents, teachers and others. What the Buddha taught us was how to reconfigure all that subconscious stuff so that the end result is greater happiness, less suffering.

I would say the idea of my decisions and actions being mostly controlled by subconscious behavioural traits that were implanted into me is quite frightening, and is a major factor in my continuing to practise Dhamma.

[orchis]

The decision to become a Buddhist is essentially a meeting of internal needs (to be happy, to relieve stress, etc) with an external catalyst (a Buddhist friend, an interesting book/movie about Buddhism, etc), and that kicks off the automatic decision-making process that weighs up all factors and comes up with the solution.

Exactly that in my case, though I wouldn't call myself a buddhist rather a student of it.

Could I translate this as " The decision to become a Buddha is essentially a meeting of internal needs (to be happy, to relieve stress, etc.) with an external catalyst (Brahman religion, fasting monks, etc) and that kicks off the automatic decision-making proces that weights up all factors and comes up with a solution.

(solution or decission?)

so here "what" is the automatic decission- making proces?

Isn't this the billiard ball story in more sophisticated way told. The ball just being there, in some inner state not (?) moving out of it self, waiting to (accidentally) be hit by an outer source, here called an external catalyst in the form of a friend , book/movie, in fact the billiard player (who is also played him or her self) to set of an automatic process (billiard balls do not move automatic) to come up with some decission within the law of energy of cause and effects like with billiard balls? moving in the same direction line as the in-put energy of the outer source?

And then some people ask me to keep it simple.

oh, well.

[christiaan]

Maybe it could be helpfull to look at the situation from an other direction.

We have a furniture builder, I know one, he is very capable in his craft and makes near perfect to perfect furniture and his products are bought by very rich people.

In his life he gained knowledge. He gained knowledge by a lot of efforts.

He studied the laws of the craft of furniture building, and this means by out of free will giving attention to these laws and craft he became aware of them an made them his own.

He studied about the existence of specific materials, the use and characteristics of it, materials like al kind of species of wood, tools, glues, hardware, metals, plastics, paints, varnish, woodoils, and so on.

He choosed to do so. He everyday again choose to continue to do so.

This road of learning about all this was and is his road of becoming aware of everything related to his professsion.

Then he practiced and was trained in practice of furnituremaking. This all was also a proces of becoming aware. In the beginning he was not good but with his evolving knowledge and abbillities he became better and better. Many things he did learn in a slow conscious proces of practicing now have become by his personal efforts, almost automatic processes. But besides this he, in time, developed a new way of finishing furniture, a time consuming one, with astonishing effects highly apreciated by customers.

He designs furniture and his designs are very much apreciated.

When I see a cabinet made by him there are some things to discover:.

The cabinet he designs and makes is always a unique cabinet, one will not find any other similar as that in the world.

The cabinet is the manifestation of the personal qualities of him, and not of any other person.

It is the manifestation of his personal choice, his knowledge, his abbillity and his crafstmanship.

It is by that the manifestation of his awareness, and not only of just awareness, but of selfawareness, cos , since he left school long time ago and is working in his independent way, it is the manifestation of a selfteaching and selfdeveloping crafstman, learning in awareness in the actions of crafstmanship.

As a crafstman he is an independent worker and designer.

When I look at his furniture I see they are not build by the characteristics of woods, they are not build by the characteristcs of the tools, the hardware or finishing materials.

It is not build by his genetic heritage, nor is it build by the law of cause and effect, it is not built by a proces.

It are no electrical signals between neurons in the brain, firing in patterns conditioned by genitics and life experience (cause and effect) building cabinets, as it are also not the muscles that built cabinets. (As long as one can recognise the difference between digital and mechanical machines and humans)

Genes, characteristics, ideas, processes, monkeys , do not build cabinets....... humans do, and only humans do....even when machines do since they are built by humans to do so.

His furniture is build by the aware use of the characteristics, laws, specifications, processes, techniques, physical abillities, experience and all other things involved. It is also build by the aware use of selfawareness

When he would not be able to see a a fundamental distinction between the qualities of materials, processes, characteristics, physical abbillities and potentials involved in building furniture he would never have been, or could have been or even become a furniturebuilder.

When he would not have been capable to see the apparent distinctions that exists in the world between all the phenomenons he meets in building furniture, but would have categorised all of them as absurd and deluding thoughts and desires he would never have been able to build furniture, as other crafstman in that situation would not have been able to build monasteries for monks.

So at the end he can say I build this cabinet, I built it out of my free choice, out of my freedom to choose between materials, techniques and processes. I built it with awareness, I built it with by awareness gained knowledge. I built it in selfawareness.

And this I is not a proces it is a human with selfawareness.

And I say It is impossible to become a crafstman like this without selfawareness.

Just like it is impossible to become enlighted without selfawareness.

This is life on earth, this is life in material existence.

This life is a different life compared to life in complete spiritual existence.

Becos in that state there are other laws, there is another situation of awareness.

There it could be right to say what Buddha told about being in a complete spiritual state but in my view it is a dellusion to project or mix this spiritual state onto the material world in wich we live, in imported aspects separated from spiritualty.

It is impossible to deny the self, since we are all, at our best at this time in the evolution of the world, in a state of selfawareness, we can observe our selfs, being different, living inside material existence, from other material phenomenons in this world, even from other selfs living in this world.

We can observe our own inner feelings, thoughts, desires, fears, happiness, enclosed within our selfs so nobody will know anything specific about them as long as we not disclose this to the outer world. As long as we not open our self to other selfs.

We, in contrary cannot observe the inner feelings, thoughts, desires, fears and so on as long as other I's do not disclose tem to us.

Even when talking and writing about conditioning and telling we are conditioned, it are the selfs that are categorised to be conditioned.

To use all the time the words I, me, myself, mine, and tell this is just a matter of labelling, a proces of dealing with an illusionair world is an illusion within itself. I would question this as a dishonest practice. Why stepping in a world that is an illusionair world, denying it at the same time, and then being a Buddhist, a man dedicated to the truth at the same time? I would call that a state of delusion.

And I would say it is an unreal act to deny the origin, the manifestation, the meaning, the importance and the future from the I away just becos there is written and told Buddha teached to do so. When people do so they just do out of personal preference becos they in most cases recognise these writings as to be similar with their toughts or feelings. Life is not an accepting of ' for us convenient 'truths' and peacefull personal happiness, life is a journey into future, a future we can learn to know and adept to with an investigating questioning mind that can bring us awareness about this future.

[cardholder]

Maybe it could be helpfull to look at the situation from an other direction.

Methinks you have too much time on your hands.

[Brucenkhamen]

Methinks you have too much time on your hands.

Indeed, I think you are correct.

Christiaan, any chance of you summarising the main points of your previous post? What exactly are you trying to achieve?

Wise words from Canukamuck; "Usually those with superior understanding/wisdom need not talk forever on a minor point with copious text but instead have the ability to illuminate with observation."

[phetaroi]

(continuing) they are held accountable for this and will be corrected in a way that has been agreed by political parties chosen by the people to govern this country.

Becos of this, in this situation, there isn't a lot of suffering in our country. Situations as seen in Thailand are not happening in this country and then I name:

* The large scale corruption/ bribery

* Lack of real democracy

* The inabbillaty to govern the country in a peacefull and stable way

* the irresponsible and immature behaviour of many political figures, showing lack of

responsibillity towards the Thai people mainly being concerned with their own interests.

* the political influence of the military.

* Large scale Criminal behaviour

* the incompetence of the judicial system to have individuals corrected for their irresponsible and damaging behaviour

* The extreem contrast between rich and poor.

* Use of alcohol

* The extreem contrasts in and low quality of education.

* The large scale prostitution

* sexual misconduct to especially young people

* large scale underpayment and overtime work in a country with a high percentage of jobless

people.

* absence of laborunions.

I could name more but I would say this is covering a great deal of the difference in the situation between my country, and most european countries, and Thailand.

I noticed the situation in Thailand causes a lot of suffering for the people living in Thailand and especially the less fortunate people face a lot of suffering.

So the Thai Buddhist 'insight' about suffering are confirmed especially and extra-ordinary by their own culture, in negative contrast to most european cultures.

In a country with such a high percentage of Buddhists and Buddhist monks this would be the last one should expect.

So I am 'investigating' this situation and I do think there is a connection to the awareness, the way of thinking of Thai people that is to be characterised as a kind of, note well, overall Buddhist awareness. And in the Thai way of Buddhism, is the Theravad interpretation of the teachings of Buddha.

I 'investigate' religion in Thailand.

And it looks like it can be characterised as an authoritarian system evolved to a collection of dogma's, based on an interpretation of the teachings of Buddha, turning into a doctrine that cannot and should not be questioned.

So to my opinion it is possible that the fact there is no place for a self, and so no place for selfawareness, no understanding of these, no respect to the individual selfs, contributes to this extra ordinarry suffering situation.

Independent thinking is not teached, educated and stimulated,

I do not want to say my view is perfect, I just tell now this is my view at the moment, I am not attached to it, it is just reflecting a moment in a journey of investigation

As my Thai friends have said to me on occasion: "You think too mutt!"

[sabaijai]

Christiaan seems to imply that people living in European countries suffer less than Thais. I don't think that material development necessarily means less suffering. There are some who would argue the opposite, in fact.

I think it's fallacious to attempt to correlate religion with one's impression of a people's happiness. A simple correlation tells us nothing. In fact I'm not really sure how you gauge how much someone is suffering in comparison with another person or population. Appearances can be deceiving. Statistics tell us about exterior conditions, but nothing about the interior.

Personally I feel that Thais in general are a happier lot than most Europeans. Whether Buddhism has anything to do with it either way, I don't know. I've always thought the comparatively stronger sense of family explained it, but who knows? I could be wrong, but most Thais I know who have lived or travelled in Europe have been more than happy to return to their homeland.

But really - Are they happy, are they not happy? Are you happy? Hard to say.

My impression is that despite your toying around with philosophical questions, Christiaan, you experience pretty much the same amount of dukkha as any other unenlightened person. Ajahn Chah used to say that he believed Westerners suffered more than Thais, generally speaking, but that that meant they had greater potential for happiness, propelled by dukkha to practice.

Your remarks (and Thai-bashing remarks deleted from previous posts) suggest you have some sort of beef with Thailand, the Thai people and Thai Buddhism that causes you to believe they suffer more than you do, and to find fault with them for suffering more. Nothing wrong with criticising, but to condemn the whole package, wholesale, is a bit harsh, don't you think? One could argue that most Western countries have just as much corruption - at higher levels, of course - as Thailand. The sex trade exists worldwide, including its abusive side.

[Joop50]

Christiaan,

You seem to have many questions wich seems you need to ventilate on this board. It occurs me you seem to have even much more answers.

Perhaps you should start with a basic question: Who (or what) am I? A hint, to find out, you can scratch-out what you are not.

Or where Zen bhuddists meditate on, "What is my original face before I was concepted?"

[NotYetArahan]

When I went for my first retreat and came for the daily interview to the monk I used to ask questions (in the beginning). The answer was always to go back to my meditation pillow and continue practising.

[Xangsamhua]

When I went for my first retreat and came for the daily interview to the monk I used to ask questions (in the beginning). The answer was always to go back to my meditation pillow and continue practising.

And did that help?

[NotYetArahan]

When I went for my first retreat and came for the daily interview to the monk I used to ask questions (in the beginning). The answer was always to go back to my meditation pillow and continue practising.

And did that help?

I expected this question somehow.

Although it was frustrating to be send back to the cushion, it was good to just do the retreat concentrating on the practice and leave alone the mental acrobatics.

Also nowadays I can not get too interested in the theoreticalies but concentrate as good as possible on the mindfulnes practice which brings "easy living". I think a balance is required between knowledge from practice and knowledge from learning. In my case I am still more eager to practice than to study.

This varies per person of course.

[Xangsamhua]

When I went for my first retreat and came for the daily interview to the monk I used to ask questions (in the beginning). The answer was always to go back to my meditation pillow and continue practising.

And did that help?

I expected this question somehow.

Although it was frustrating to be send back to the cushion, it was good to just do the retreat concentrating on the practice and leave alone the mental acrobatics.

Also nowadays I can not get too interested in the theoreticalies but concentrate as good as possible on the mindfulnes practice which brings "easy living". I think a balance is required between knowledge from practice and knowledge from learning. In my case I am still more eager to practice than to study.

This varies per person of course.

Well, it's a pretty predictable question. You asked some questions in the cognitive domain, which were seen as valueless or irrelevant in the circumstances, and you were sent back to the non-cognitive domain.

Over time it appears that you regard the cognitive domain as of little value, so your "practice" is only informed by "practice". Is that right? Is that what you have been "taught"?

There has been some comment on other threads about the tendency of Thai monks to dismiss any cognitive investigation and refer questioners back to meditation practice. Some posters appear more sympathetic to this approach; others argue that there is a cognitive, theoretical or "doctrinal" side to Dhamma which should not be ignored, even though nirvana will not be attained by logic.

Westerners, in particular, especially those who have not spent much time in Thailand, find the dismissal of cognition unsatisfying. Perhaps it's the confusing role and function of ego in Buddhist teaching and practice. Seeing ourselves as entities beyond our experiences and seeking to penetrate the nature of reality by conceptualization is regarded as egocentric and deluded. Unfortunately, for humans to deny the ego as an agent is practically impossible, even if necessary. Hence the contradictoriness of Zen, for example. I've been re-reading a book called, oxymoronically, "Understanding Zen", in which the authors deny the reality of concepts in 169 pages of relentlessly conceptual discourse, drawing on the conceptual heritage of both Western and Eastern writers to support their view. Fortunately, they recognize and acknowledge the absurdity of what they're doing, but Zen is so liberatingly absurd, isn't it?

If, however, one acknowledges a role for cognition, for the critical analysis and logical comparison of propositions within the Dhamma and outside it, as Stephen Batchelor, for example, proclaims, then there is more to Dhamma than just sitting and attaining para-cognitive levels of consciousness, while not denying the value and importance of these practices (after all, the Buddha and his disciples spent a lot of time on them, but they lived in a different world - few of them had access to texts). I think of the Vajrayana monk, Matthieu Ricard, who has written books on philosophy, science, happiness (a product of the 8-fold path, including sitting meditation) and, recently, on the importance of meditation. His example suggests that there is a place for balance in Buddhist practice - not just meditation.

[Brucenkhamen]

Well, it's a pretty predictable question. You asked some questions in the cognitive domain, which were seen as valueless or irrelevant in the circumstances, and you were sent back to the non-cognitive domain.

Over time it appears that you regard the cognitive domain as of little value, so your "practice" is only informed by "practice". Is that right? Is that what you have been "taught"?

I don't think it's just a matter of asking questions in the cognitive domain that are seen as valueless or irrelevant in the circumstances, it's not just the circumstances but also a consideration of the purpose of Buddhist practice.

Buddhist practice is about the cessation of suffering and was never really designed to answer all of lifes big questions, of course for centuries Buddhists have been trying to do just that.

The cognitive domain has it's place, one needs to practice intelligently by reflecting upon and understanding what is going on. One needs to ask though whether it serves the purpose of practice or distracts from practice and leads down the garden path, I think this thread has shown a good example of what happens when one has too much of the latter.

[rockyysdt]

Buddhist practice is about the cessation of suffering and was never really designed to answer all of lifes big questions, of course for centuries Buddhists have been trying to do just that.

I agree with what you say, but speaking on a cognitive level, I would hope the end result reveals a little more than just cessation of suffering.

Cessation of suffering from cessation of re birth could equate to permanent death, as one could say, there is no suffering in non existence.

If there is no re birth then either that's it, or there's something else.

Not having experienced, or remember experiencing extremes of suffering, I'm inclined to say, it's better to have lived with the highs and lows (suffering) of life, than never have existed at all.This would also apply in re birth states.

Edited September 10, 2010 by rockyysdt

[yellow1red1]

taking a moment to contemplate/reflect; one has done good

10 times; done 10 good

1000 times; 1000

7 times per day - 7

always - perfection

Meditate while working, walking, sitting in the songtaew........... waking / sleeping

... talking to friends.......... typing

That is the meaning of 'balance'.

[phetaroi]

Buddhist practice is about the cessation of suffering and was never really designed to answer all of lifes big questions, of course for centuries Buddhists have been trying to do just that.

For me, that statement of yours is the most intriguing of anything that has been written in this thread...and for me it comes at just the right time.

I don't think the OP knows what he wants the answer to his question to be, but he seems to know in what form he wants the answer to be. Unfortunately, that doesn't lead him to either the place he wants to go, or to the "right" place. I think it leads him to a place of frustration.

So for me, for the time being, I'm going to let Buddhism take care of certain aspects of my life, and continue to explore other belief structures for other aspects of life.

[Xangsamhua]

Buddhist practice is about the cessation of suffering and was never really designed to answer all of lifes big questions, of course for centuries Buddhists have been trying to do just that.

For me, that statement of yours is the most intriguing of anything that has been written in this thread...and for me it comes at just the right time.

I don't think the OP knows what he wants the answer to his question to be, but he seems to know in what form he wants the answer to be. Unfortunately, that doesn't lead him to either the place he wants to go, or to the "right" place. I think it leads him to a place of frustration.

So for me, for the time being, I'm going to let Buddhism take care of certain aspects of my life, and continue to explore other belief structures for other aspects of life.

Interesting comments, Vince, and I hope you are making progress in your personal journey. However, I suspect that, unless we set our face against the Big Questions - studiously ignore them - then any recommendation as to how to eliminate suffering is going to lead to them. And although we can't really answer the Really Big Questions - about infinity, the contingency of existence, etc - nevertheless we can gain benefit - a reduction in frustration - if we keep following the logic to its utmost.

I'm skeptical that the Buddha attained his awakening purely by sitting, and I doubt he spent 45 years post-enlightenment simply telling people to go back to their meditation pillow. I believe he spent a lot of time both before and after enlightenment listening to views and expounding them. You and I know that a good teacher never stops being a student and I suspect the Buddha - sublime teacher that he may have been - didn't stop listening to the views of others and contesting them in, I hope, an exploratory manner. We should not think, either, that the other teachers during the Buddha's long life simply sat on their hands and repeated everything they'd said and heard from the past. At least some would have come up with a new angle on things and this would have been of interest to the Buddha.

Although it's good to meditate and then to reflect on what's happened and try to understand it, I'd be surprised if that's all there is to Dhamma - cogitation rather than cognition (in the sense of informed reasoning). Simply by teaching, especially when the first condition he gave for progress is "right view", the Buddha entered the arena or marketplace of ideas, concepts, questions and contestation. To argue that meditation is really all it's all about is not Buddhism, in my view. One doesn't have to be a Buddhist to be a meditator. Meditation-alone, or above-all, doesn't look to me like Buddhism at all - it looks more like yoga without atman.