Buddhism And Free Will

[camerata]

OK, I see what you are saying. So freedom is not freedom to act, rather freedom from being affected.

I think being enlightened would seriously inhibit your actions though.

In the context of "free will" we are talking primarily about the freedom to make moral decisions without interference. Ajahn Jagaro's point is that since we are conditioned by craving since birth (and before birth) we are never truly free to make a decision without the influence of craving/self-interest until we become arahants.

[Xangsamhua]

Note the words themselves - liberation is a synonym for freedom. - Ajahn Jagaro, True Freedom

Ajahn Jagaro is talking about freedom in a broader sense than the "freedom" to act according to one's own will rather than in a manner determined by conditions over which one has no control.

Of course, the broader question of "what is freedom?" coupled with "what is 'will'?" does require resolution before one can discuss the subsidiary question of "what is freedom of the will?". However, it is easier and perhaps more coherent for us to talk about "free will" in contrast to "condition-determined behaviour" than to go into the broader issues, a discussion that will inevitably lead on to questions about the "self", contingency, causation, origination and, perhaps, infinity.

It would not really matter to Buddhists if one had free will or not if Buddhism did not in fact have a moral law, karma, that determines one's destiny on the basis of one's acts and intentions judged morally, even though reason and morality may be seen as identical. And destiny may be either or both a future life or the next moment in this one. In a sense, the discussion over will is a discussion about karma rather than freedom.

But let's think about Ajahn Jagaro's view of "freedom".

Ajahn Jagaro asserts that freedom is liberation – "liberation is a synonym for freedom". I would question that. I was in Vientiane in 1975 when the city was "liberated": freedom did not result, unless one thinks of freedom as freedom from liberty. One can be liberated, but not free. A prisoner on the run is not free. Liberation is release from a condition viewed negatively – oppression, incarceration, poverty, illness, ignorance – but freedom is more than that.

Freedom can be thought of in two ways – negative freedom (the liberating dimension), "freedom from", and "positive freedom" (the enabling dimension"), "freedom to". The former I have discussed in the previous paragraph; the latter refers to freedom to actualize one's self, to lead a healthy and fulfilling life, to be free to pursue one's own vision of happiness (and to alter course if the vision changes). In political terms, positive freedom is understood as "entitlement".

In respect to freedom of the will to choose a course of action, it looks like we are talking about positive freedom (freedom to choose, decide), not Ajahn Jagaro's negative freedom (liberation). However, negative freedom is also a component in that one can only choose freely among different possible acts if one is liberated from the conditions that have brought oneself and the context together – conditions perhaps infinite in origin and extent and the result of inexorable processes generated by the laws of causation (if those laws in fact hold, at least in the macro-contextual sense).

Ajahn Jagaro acknowledges that we are not yet free, either in the negative or positive sense, because we are afflicted by craving and desire. However, in his view, to be liberated from these afflictions, we must make a choice, and we must make it through willpower: "Our heart, our mind, is the place where the enslavement ultimately begins and ends. This is where we have the ultimate choice." (Jagaro: True Freedom). And so we are back where we started with the question, "Do we have the freedom of will to make this choice or is it effectively made for us by the causes and conditions that have led up to it?" I suspect we can't answer this question satisfactorily. It requires an act of faith.

[Joop50]

If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth,

were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced

that it was travelling its way of its own accord.

So would a Being, adowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence,

watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion

that he was acting according to his own free will.

(Albert Einstein)

[rockyysdt]

Then, there are many ways to enlightenment. If you like to follow the way of Theravada Buddhism, go ahead nothing wrong with that..

But it is as far as I know, not a direct way.

Out of interest what makes Theravada Buddhism indirect and therefore not the best practice to choose?

I understand Theravada is aligned with what the Buddha actually taught, Zen and others coming much later.

Dzogchen is known as the direct way. Zen (or Chinese Chan) is also recommendable.

Enlightenment is not allocated to Bhuddism. Even Christianity littered many enlightend persons. (google Anthony de Mello)

And somethimes it happen just like that to someone.

What specifically makes Dzogchen & Zen more direct and preferable to Theravada?

[Joop50]

Then, there are many ways to enlightenment. If you like to follow the way of Theravada Buddhism, go ahead nothing wrong with that..

But it is as far as I know, not a direct way.

Out of interest what makes Theravada Buddhism indirect and therefore not the best practice to choose?

I understand Theravada is aligned with what the Buddha actually taught, Zen and others coming much later.

Dzogchen is known as the direct way. Zen (or Chinese Chan) is also recommendable.

Enlightenment is not allocated to Bhuddism. Even Christianity littered many enlightend persons. (google Anthony de Mello)

And somethimes it happen just like that to someone.

What specifically makes Dzogchen & Zen more direct and preferable to Theravada?

Isn't it so that Theravada is more a religion instead of a way to enligtenment?

Didn't He only spoke about his experiences, teaching his readings?.

I don't believe the Buddha established any form of Buddhism.

Dzogchen is a path at once simple and profound, one that can be integrated with ordinary life and practiced anywhere.

The Dzogchen teachings focus on three terms: View, Meditation, and Action.

To see directly the absolute state of our mind is the View;

the way of stabilizing that View and making it an unbroken experience is Meditation;

and integrating that View into our daily life is what is meant by Action.

Dzogchen is one of several approaches to nondualism.

(Wikepedia)

Zen is younger indeed but it has many technics to see the Thruth right away.

There is need to know and understand all the works of Theravada for enlightenment.

When I talk to monks here they always suggest to study the books.

In 90 A.B.B. (After Buddha's Birth), eight years after Buddha's Parirnirvana, the first emanation of the Buddha, Padmasambhava, came into this world and received the complete teaching from many enlightened masters. Padmasambhava taught the Dzogchen Khandro Nyingthig to numerous beings in India's eight great sacred places and China, and introduced and spread Buddhism throughout Tibet.

(www.dzogchenlineage.org)

Not so much older isn't it

I hope you see I talk about Enlightenment not religion.

[camerata]

If you read the original words of the Buddha in the suttas of the Pali Canon (which is the foundation of Theravada Buddhism) you'll see he taught a direct path to enlightenment in this life. Many of his disciples became enlightened while he was alive. The technique is summarized as the Noble Eightfold Path. Basically, it's up to the individual whether they want to follow it to enlightenment in this life or not. If you can find a monk to teach you the method, that's great. If you can't, you'll have to read the texts yourself and get help where you can.

In Theravada, the way to enlightenment is not really presented as a "long path" or a "short path" as it is in Mahayana, but anyone who puts off making the effort until some future life is obviously choosing not to take the shortest path available.

[rockyysdt]

Isn't it so that Theravada is more a religion instead of a way to enligtenment?

Many have turned Buddhism into a religion, but I thought the Buddha taught it as a practice with the ultimate goal of enlightenment.

Those who treat it as a religion don't follow what the Buddha actually taught.

The 4 Noble Truths & the Eightfold Path captures its essence. The Pali Canon being the detailed text.

Dzogchen is a path at once simple and profound, one that can be integrated with ordinary life and practiced anywhere.

The Dzogchen teachings focus on three terms: View, Meditation, and Action.

To see directly the absolute state of our mind is the View;

the way of stabilizing that View and making it an unbroken experience is Meditation;

and integrating that View into our daily life is what is meant by Action.

Dzogchen is one of several approaches to nondualism.

(Wikepedia)

Zen is younger indeed but it has many technics to see the Thruth right away.

There is need to know and understand all the works of Theravada for enlightenment.

When I talk to monks here they always suggest to study the books.

In 90 A.B.B. (After Buddha's Birth), eight years after Buddha's Parirnirvana, the first emanation of the Buddha, Padmasambhava, came into this world and received the complete teaching from many enlightened masters. Padmasambhava taught the Dzogchen Khandro Nyingthig to numerous beings in India's eight great sacred places and China, and introduced and spread Buddhism throughout Tibet.

(www.dzogchenlineage.org)

Not so much older isn't it

I understand there can be many paths which will lead to the same place.

Perhaps Dzogchen & Zen are the same thing but with different packaging.

Traveling on a path to enlightenment can take considerable time & effort.

Its important we choose well as we might end up running out of time.

At the moment I like Theravada Buddhism as it's as close as you can get to what the Buddha taught.

As the Buddha is the source, intuition tells me that one can't go wrong following his teachings.

Naturally I will look for personal experience and try to travel with an open mind.

I hope you see I talk about Enlightenment not religion.

Assuming enlightenment for many might be difficult to achieve if at all.

The best encouragement to continue on the path is through positive personal experience.

Until that occurs learning more about what we are striving for and sharing these thoughts can encourage many to continue until their experience overtakes their need to analytically understand.

Edited September 27, 2010 by rockyysdt

[christiaan]

My mind nor my ego is an imposter.

They are both 'stepstones' in a development to become more and more human.

My mind, being the activity of thinking, is my tool, my mind is not some other persons tool, it is mine and it makes me understand all aspects of life.

The special characteristic of my mind, my thinking activity, is that I can observe the proces of thinking, that is in contrary to my activity of seeing by my eyes of wich I never can see the proces of seeing.

Because my thinking is reflective, I can think and be aware of my thinking and this self aware thinking is the manifestation of my higher spiritual Self.

In aware thinking I am, I am in aware thinking.

Animals do not have this faculty and that is why we call an animal an animal, sometimes when acting people not seem to be aware of their thinking, of thoughts anyhow, they are named to be "like animals"

This is the present situation of human life on earth,

The fact that all material existing life on earth is of one and the same origin so that everything is in fact one and the same, does not change the reality and the actuality of life in a material existence as we have to deal with now on earth.

When I empty my mind, it is most of the time done by my I, by me.

In "emptynes" I am still aware, I am still present, "observing" without ego and without condition.

I would not deny nor confirm every person is enlighted, because it depends on the used meaning of the concept enlightment.

Enlightment is certainly not allocated to any religion in specific but in my view it is connected to the spiritual development of the human.

When enlightment is understand as a concept of being free from conditioning, caused by a physical life on earth, dead will bring a state of enlightment.

In death we are only awareness, not physical anymore, and submitted to the laws of the spiritual world.

Enlightment is often regarded by people as "knowing more" as 'normal' people.

In this view Aristoteles was 'enlighted' and his awareness with regard to logic did never turn out to become a religion.

The more we develop, the more we develop our 'knowledge' , the more we develop in acting out of this knowledge and love, the more we have spirituality enter our I , our life, the more free, the more enlighted we will become.

[camerata]

I assume that kamma as experienced in the realm of common animals implies that this realm is generated by and generates kamma vipaka. If not, it would be a fixed state to which the law of kamma does not apply.

My monastic source says there is no clear answer on this. On the one hand, it is popularly believed and taught in Thailand that you cannot create new kamma outside of the human realm ("One reason is that devas can have everything they want so they cannot make merit. hel_l realm beings are suffering too much to make good or bad actions."), on the other, this view doesn't seem to be supported by the scriptures.

[dutchguest]

My ideas about karma in the animal world:In my view if a tiger kills an other animal for food or for protection of himself or his family he is not accumulating karma, or any residue is left because of this act. This is his nature and he is acting according to the laws of his nature. This is the way things are, things go. There are no moral implications. The act is not good or bad, nor for himself, nor for his victims. Any notions of good or bad comes from humans.

If the tiger kills an other animal for any any other reason, for example an idea in his mind that the other animal does not belong to the right nation or religion, he is not acting according to his nature and he should feel something has gone wrong. I don't think such things happen in the animal world. These are acts that are conditioned by culture, not by nature. And they have social and psychological karmic consequences in that same (cultural) field. Culture creates good and bad.

If a person is enlightened and the mind empty he is beyond any cultural conditioning, there is no good or bad but he is beyond this dualism. The person can not act out of a certain conditioning and can not accumulate karma, he can not act like a conditioned, programmed robot but can only give a spontaneous, creative, here and now response in a certain situation. It means he is beyond the social accepted ideas of good and bad, which are rather superficial, accidental and arbitrary. He intuitively judges every situation in all his aspects on its own merits without any preconceived ideas of good and bad and acts accordingly. Animals are before any good and bad notions, buddhas are past.

Edited September 28, 2010 by dutchguest

[Joop50]

Avoiding the discovery what and who we really are, seems mainly to come from the deeply rooted feeling that a serious research will mean the death of something to which we cling to conscientiously. This ' something 'is the idea we have of ourselves, our personality, the ego and the by personality filtered reality. If we are able to let go the filtered reality and the ' I don't know ' accept as a fact, all the energy wich is directed outward in searching for an answer become to be free, and there will be space. Space for what it's life and our nature. Be free from dispositions, free from expectations, with anopen-heartedness to the unprecedented.

When there are no thoughts there is contentment. No thoughts means no desires either. Therefore, there is a state of desireless-ness. (Try not to think for one second, be honest, can you?)

Another point is to be aware of your desire, not to ignore it or to get frustrated. It is human.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Joop50

[phetaroi]

In the ultimate sense there is only one type of person who is truly free. No-one, nothing, no place, no condition, can ever enslave that type of person. We call such a person an enlightened being, a liberated being. Note the words themselves - liberation is a synonym for freedom. In the ultimate sense we refer to such a person as a liberated one, one who has attained to liberation, one who has attained to freedom. No person or situation can ever enslave such a mind or condition it, sending it up to heaven or down to hel_l, or cause it to get lost in craving, aversion or confusion. That mind we call the liberated mind.

[...]

It is very important to understand that we are as yet not free. Though we live in a society that is free in the conventional sense, we are not free, because our minds are not yet free. As long as we are unenlightened, we are all afflicted by craving and desire, wanting and thirst, the need to have this or that. Is your mind free when it is still afflicted by such movements, such compulsions, such obsessions? Can you say you are free when things can make you angry and miserable, when people can make you experience hatred and irritation, when situations can make you depressed and miserable? Can you say that you are free? Of course not. If you were free you would certainly not experience any of these negative states.

[...]

Our heart, our mind, is the place where the enslavement ultimately begins and ends. This is where we have the ultimate choice. We cannot control all external conditions, it's not possible. As I said, even enlightened people can be incarcerated, crippled and restricted externally. They can't control everything; but the mind, that is a different matter.

Internally, there is a choice, but very few can claim that right and make that choice. It requires training, and only when the training is complete does one have ultimate freedom.

- Ajahn Jagaro, True Freedom

The only thing that I would add is that your posting is not about a universal view of being free, but rather a Buddhist view of being free.

[sabaijai]

Is there a universal view of being free?

[christiaan]

Being unaware is being unfree.

Being aware is being free.

The level or state of being free is in accordance with the level or state of awareness.

Awareness is awareness.

Total awareness is an awareness within the and being a living reality and manifestation of spirituality, in an ongoing dynamic transformation.

Every individual will and has to make his or her own specific individual journey into awareness.

In a process of transcending life human at some point will come to an autonomous existence living by his spirit out of his inner spirit, not submitted or depending on any political, economical, social or religious system, philosophy, training or any other subtle force from 'outside'.

With wisdom about and action regarding compassion and love we not only have to take care we can make this journey but also all other creatures in this world can.

In becoming free we 'create' freedom, freedom for ourselfs and other existence.

[canuckamuck]

I think the short answer here is that Buddhism requires free will because there is no other way in which to succeed rather than to make the right choices. If it were any other way what would be the point of practice?

[Joop50]

Isn't it so that Theravada is more a religion instead of a way to enligtenment?

Many have turned Buddhism into a religion, but I thought the Buddha taught it as a practice with the ultimate goal of enlightenment.

Those who treat it as a religion don't follow what the Buddha actually taught.

The 4 Noble Truths & the Eightfold Path captures its essence. The Pali Canon being the detailed text.

Dzogchen is a path at once simple and profound, one that can be integrated with ordinary life and practiced anywhere.

The Dzogchen teachings focus on three terms: View, Meditation, and Action.

To see directly the absolute state of our mind is the View;

the way of stabilizing that View and making it an unbroken experience is Meditation;

and integrating that View into our daily life is what is meant by Action.

Dzogchen is one of several approaches to nondualism.

(Wikepedia)

Zen is younger indeed but it has many technics to see the Thruth right away.

There is need to know and understand all the works of Theravada for enlightenment.

When I talk to monks here they always suggest to study the books.

In 90 A.B.B. (After Buddha's Birth), eight years after Buddha's Parirnirvana, the first emanation of the Buddha, Padmasambhava, came into this world and received the complete teaching from many enlightened masters. Padmasambhava taught the Dzogchen Khandro Nyingthig to numerous beings in India's eight great sacred places and China, and introduced and spread Buddhism throughout Tibet.

(www.dzogchenlineage.org)

Not so much older isn't it

I understand there can be many paths which will lead to the same place.

Perhaps Dzogchen & Zen are the same thing but with different packaging.

Traveling on a path to enlightenment can take considerable time & effort.

Its important we choose well as we might end up running out of time.

At the moment I like Theravada Buddhism as it's as close as you can get to what the Buddha taught.

As the Buddha is the source, intuition tells me that one can't go wrong following his teachings.

Naturally I will look for personal experience and try to travel with an open mind.

I hope you see I talk about Enlightenment not religion.

Assuming enlightenment for many might be difficult to achieve if at all.

The best encouragement to continue on the path is through positive personal experience.

Until that occurs learning more about what we are striving for and sharing these thoughts can encourage many to continue until their experience overtakes their need to analytically understand.

I am touched by the way you write.

You have an open mind, while my writings are somewhat nag.

There where my writings are quit arrogant sometimes, you find a more compassionable style.

Thank you you remind me.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Joop50

[rockyysdt]

my writings are somewhat nag.

There where my writings are quit arrogant sometimes, you find a more compassionable style.

Thank you you remind me.

Not at all Joop.

You have passion and conviction.

I enjoy reading your posts which l find encouraging and, importantly, which focus on practice.

Without practice it's all academic.

Edited September 30, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

my writings are somewhat nag.

There where my writings are quit arrogant sometimes, you find a more compassionable style.

Thank you you remind me.

Not at all Joop.

You have passion and conviction.

I enjoy reading your posts which l find encouraging and, importantly, which focus on practice.

Without practice it's all academic.

Theory informs practice; practice informs theory.

No one "practices" in a theoretical vacuum. And theory uninformed by practice is ungrounded.

The Blessed Lord has said this [to Mara]: "Evil One, I will not take Nibbana until I have monks and disciples who are trained, skilled, learned, knowers of the Dhamma, trained in conformity with the Dhamma, correctly trained and walking in the path of the Dhamma, who will pass on what they have gained from their teacher, teach it, declare it, establish it, expound it, analyse it, make it clear; till they shall be able by means of the Dhamma to refute false teachings that have arisen, and teach the Dhamma of wondrous effect."

Mahaparinibbana Sutta: Sutta 16, Digha Nikaya, Wisdom Publications, 1995, p. 246, (translated by Maurice Walshe).

Edited September 30, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[Joop50]

Is there a universal view of being free?

Perhaps death is the ultimate liberation.

But because we are living human beings, there are insights to freedom.

There are many views/aspects on freedom from many nondual or Buddhist teachers.

Some examples:

It is in the absolute surrender of all conditions and requirements that Liberation is discovered to be who and what you are.

Then the love and wisdom that flows out of you has a liberating effect on others.

The biggest challenge for most spiritual seekers is to surrender their self importance, and see the emptiness of their own personal story.

It is your personal story that you need to awaken from in order to be free.

To give up being either ignorant or enlightened is the mark of liberation and allows you to treat others as your Self.

What I am describing is the birth of true Love.

Adyashanti.

There is something more beautiful, more grand, more wonderful, than you could ever imagine, that exists within you, which is the substratum of all existence.

Yet in order to feel this joy, this bliss, in order to find total freedom from life's so-called burdens, you have to dig for yourself. You have to give up something.

You can't stay the way you are, with the same disposition. the same values, the same preconceived ideas, the same concepts and be free.

You cannot do this. You have to do an about face and totally give up all your ideas about what life is, totally surrender your ego, your mind, your body.

Just Being is enough. Not being this, not being that. Just Being

The Secret to Peace of mind is to not identify with anything other than your True Self. (Awareness/Consiousness is meant here. Joop)

Robert Adams

Edited September 30, 2010 by Joop50

[christiaan]

I think the short answer here is that Buddhism requires free will because there is no other way in which to succeed rather than to make the right choices. If it were any other way what would be the point of practice?

In my opinion you are quite right with this.

[christiaan]

I would say it could be quite confusing for many 'lay people' to read some contributions or parts of contributions.

To make more clear what I mean I will gather some texts and it could be enlightening for some readers to read some views with regard to this.

There is just eating when you are hungry and sleep when you are sleeping and so on.

To lay people such a story could be a story about a horse, or maybe, more impressing, a sloth.

How to explain lay people this is a story concerning the human?

[christiaan]

(Some text was lost in adding, so more complete now again)

When lay people would read some contributions overhere, or parts of it, it could turn out to be quite confusing to them.

To illustrate this I have gathered some texts out of contributions overhere and maybe it could be 'enlightning' when there would be some views contributed in response to this.

There is no I. There is no self, no ego. There are no thoughts. Thoughts are illusions made up by the mind that is an illusion itself. There is no freedom. There is just being. There is just cause and effect. A conditioned state of being. There is eating when feel hungry and sleeping when feel sleepy. The ultimate liberation - of this state - is death.

Reading these lines as they are collected, a lay person could think this is a story about animal existence like being a horse, or, more impressing, a sloth

How to explain to ' lay people' this story is concerning the human?

[dutchguest]

I will try to describe how I see freedom in a more concrete way in a persons life. I begin with my damma thought of the day:

"Discipline that comes from the outside makes a robot of you, discipline that comes out of yourself makes you free".

In the beginning of life the learning proces is more a question of conditioning a blanc mind with ideas from the outside. It is one-way traffic. The impulses come mainly from the outside, and the focus is on external goals: learning words, a language, getting schooldiploma's, a good job etc. Eventually for religion the same pattern: being baptised, going to the church, saying prayers, reading the bible. It all comes from the outside without you being questioned about it or being able to understand what it all means. This formal conditioning is mostly experienced as a duty, things you have to do not out of inner conviction but out of social pressure.

This may all be necessary to a certain degree to be able to function in a certain society but if there is no more you become a thoughtless robot. This way you can become rich, respectable and succesfull in the world. On the outside you may look welladapted and happy but it is all plastic. You may have the illusion you are living, that you are free but it would be better to say you are lived and can only act like a programmed robot.

[Xangsamhua]

When lay people would read some contributions overhere, or parts of it, it could turn out to be quite confusing to them.

To illustrate this I have gathered some texts out of contributions overhere and maybe it could be 'enlightning' when there would be some views contributed in response to this.

There is no I. There is no self, no ego. There are no thoughts. Thoughts are illusions made up by the mind that is an illusion itself. There is no freedom. There is just being. There is just cause and effect. A conditioned state of being. There is eating when feel hungry and sleeping when feel sleepy. The ultimate liberation - of this state - is death.

No I, no self, no ego, no thoughts ... just "being", etc? This is nihilism, not Buddhism. The Buddha, as I understand, did not teach that there is no I, or that there is no self, but that these things cannot be found as essences. There is no essential I or essential self; however, there is identity in relative terms, as a dynamic compound of all the components (aggregates) that comprise a human being.

As to whether there is an essence (an entity or state that just is) that grounds existence as experienced by animate beings, the Buddha was skeptical, but preferred not to get into metaphysical discussion about essences or about the boundless, timeless or endless as he thought that such discussion was distracting and fruitless, at least for his monks and lay followers.

Subsequent Buddhist sages developed and explored the notion of emptiness (sunyata) as a corollary of non-Self (anatta) and impermanence (anicca), but this is not the same as nothingness. At this point in the search for the ultimate we can only go further by speculation. If emptiness is absence of phenomena (dharmas), but is not nothing (after all, we are here), then what can it be? If we call it Spirit, that implies a spiritual ground underpinning emptiness, and that requires an act of faith. So we can either make that act of faith or suspend our speculations in favour of what we can conclude with evidence.

The statement, "There is eating when feel hungry and sleeping when feel sleepy", I suggest comes from the following Zen koan:

One day a Vinaya master asked a Zen master:

-How should one practice Tao?

The Zen master replied:

-Eat when you are hungry, sleep when you are tired.

The Vinaya master said:

-Most people do that.

The Zen master explained:

-No, no, not so. When they eat, they do not want to just eat but think of this or that;

when they go to sleep, they do not want to just sleep but think of this or that.

Zen has substantial roots in Taoism, as seen in this koan, and a core teaching of Taoism is wu-wei, translated as non-action. Conformity with the Tao (the fundamental principle of the universe, pure being), is attained by passivity, non-action. The sage who discourages action and striving or the emperor who does not intervene in the processes of social life will lead people to happiness. I think this is what the koan is affirming. The Taoist and some Zen approaches to life are passive, but not mindlessly so. Comparison with horses and dogs is not appropriate; the Zen master or Taoist sage knows what he/she is doing, even though most Westerners would find it hard to accept.

Edited October 3, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[christiaan]

To write about human existence as if it is a life a lay person could think it could be about life of animals is inapropriate. But we cannot make out what other people think only what we write ourself.

Allthough I am not of the same view I understand the meaning and explanation of the Koan.

In my view teaching, becoming aware, is action.

Then there is only non-action in relation to other area's of existence.

The action action is in the individual, in the faculties of awareness and all connected to it. As I told, a complete deaf, blind and dumb human probably, certainly at those times , could not come to enlightment in the way teached and talked about in the early times of history.

This shows all our senses have to be active for knowing the world and life.

It was my point to show some way of writing is just - near - nihilism and no Buddhism.

Maybe at the time Buddha lived and teached the Self was not so essential, I think it was not very essential then.

But now we are 2500 years further on in history and the Self, the I has become more and more important and has become more and more essential in humanity and it will continue to be more and more essential in future.

And then I do not mean the ego.

If people do not do justice to the self , to the I in the human existence, they will loose connection to human reality at this moment and will not have anymore in the future. That is - for me- one reason, why an interpretation of Buddhism that doesnot see the I of the human to be essential in human individual existence, will loose ground in the world and will in itself be not essential anymore in the future.

That is related to my insertion in the topic of Buddhisme. When in Thailand there would be more appreciation, respect and care for the essence of the I of all Thai individuals, live in Thailand would remarkably improve.

[dutchguest]

It was my point to show some way of writing is just - near - nihilism and no Buddhism.

That is related to my insertion in the topic of Buddhisme. When in Thailand there would be more appreciation, respect and care for the essence of the I of all Thai individuals, live in Thailand would remarkably improve.

Some people may sound nihilist to you, to me you sound more like a missionary then a buddhist. A spiritual world has nothing to do with buddhism i.m.o. and it looks like you are continuously trying to convert other forummembers to believe in this strange world.

And you seem to have the even bigger task of saving Thailand by imposing all kind of western values.

A buddhist tries not to judge others and to mind his own mind.

I see in Thailand more friendly and relaxed faces then in the west and I think the west can learn a lot from Thailand at the moment.

[sabaijai]

-How should one practice Tao?

The Zen master replied:

-Eat when you are hungry, sleep when you are tired.

The Vinaya master said:

-Most people do that.

The Zen master explained:

-No, no, not so. When they eat, they do not want to just eat but think of this or that;

when they go to sleep, they do not want to just sleep but think of this or that.

This is also the core teaching of Theravada Buddhism, ie, satipatthana - mindfulness development.

[Joop50]

How can That what is always present and what never can be made to an object, ever be transferred by someone(or text) to someone else? No certain text is the truth –apparently that is also meant for this writing. It remains a matter of a circling motion over and over again, and at the same time, a willingness to look right across the circling, which allow to take place immediate recognition.

The usefulness of working with morethan one input (Buddhism, Nonduality, Tao, and so on) is, you can see even better that That ( the Ultimate Truth) precedes all wording.That all wording remains the circling motion and that every entrance, including your ' own ' is continued to a certain limit.

A well-known example of this phenomenon is the Buddhist story about the elephant that was groped in different places by a few blind men. One person named a leg, the other the trunk, and yet another the tusks.They gave as a result, completely different descriptions of one known fact. It may that, to get closer to the reality of (in this case) the elephant, all persons are stand to benefit from some of the descriptions of others.

Of course we have to be careful with that what we are trying to convey, happens in the right way.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Joop50

[christiaan]

i.m.o. buddhisme has a lot to do with spirituality.

Selfawareness and knowledge is not material in any way, self awareness and knowledge is spirituality.

And then I am not even talking about Buddhist awareness and knowledge but just awareness and knowledge, because Buddhisme doesnot have the patent to awareness and knowledge.

And then Enlightment is at least non material...........................................................

When it is,......... just send a picture or a movie of it.

I am no missionary, because I have no mission to convert anybody, I just now participate in a dialogue as anyone else overhere with my opinion as others do

And I just have my own opinion about: a buddhist tries not too judge other and just mind his own mind.

I will not recall certain parts of " Broken Buddha" to write how Buddhists can behave, I have done before.

This doesnot mean I like to generalise Buddhists, but on the other hand do not generalise Buddhists by telling they do not judge and just mind their own mind.

Even Buddha had some clear opinions that could well be explained as judgements.

I also see many friendly faces in Thailand, not only in Thailand, I have seen this from Chinese , Taiwanese, Japanese, Vietnamese.

I just happen to know why you so often see so many friendly smiling faces in Asia.

That is cultural and I could explain here why but all people realy interested in Asian culture and traditions will already know, so most people, overhere now.

I do not think Thailand has a lot to fear with regard to imposed values of western culture. It could be even an insult of Thai culture to even suggest the Thai would allow imposing of western values to Thai culture.

Buddha however was no Thai and his teaching with regard to compassion and love were not specific 'cultural' but extremely universal.

And so I do not think to impose the value of compassion and love as teached by Buddha in actions of compassion and love within Thai society would become a problem.

I think actions out of the wisdom - knowledge - awareness - of compassion and love would make Thai people more free.

I happen to know a number of Thai that are not, but they are friendly, relaxing, smiling and................... suffering people.

[lungmi]

There is no I. There is no self, no ego. There are no thoughts. Thoughts are illusions made up by the mind that is an illusion itself. There is no freedom. There is just being. There is just cause and effect. A conditioned state of being. There is eating when feel hungry and sleeping when feel sleepy. The ultimate liberation - of this state - is death.

No I, no self, no ego, no thoughts ... just "being", etc? This is nihilism, not Buddhism. The Buddha, as I understand, did not teach that there is no I, or that there is no self, but that these things cannot be found as essences. There is no essential I or essential self; however, there is identity in relative terms, as a dynamic compound of all the components (aggregates) that comprise a human being.

Dualistic argumention. You are wrong and right at the same time.