Why is it so difficult to reach Nibbana?

[VincentRJ]

A monk doesn't get to choose...he eats what he is given....and that is only enough to sustain...not for pleasure..

Health is improved by not over eating.... and by meditation. A monk in the forest uses the dhamma to cure sickness. He either gets better or dies....simple. Dying during practice is preferable to a long useless life.

Fabianfred,

I agree in part. One shouldn't eat purely for pleasure, as most overweight and obese people do. But one should always strive to eat wholesome and nutritious food, sufficient to sustain oneself but no more, and sufficient to provide the vitamins, minerals and fibre required for a healthy existence, because doing so will lengthen one's life, or at least allow one to suffer fewer illnesses, and will surely increase one's chances of being reborn into a higher plane, if one is on the Noble Eightfold Path, or will at least reduce the number of rebirths required before one reaches Nibbana.

As I mentioned before, not getting to chose what I eat would be a serious deterrent to my becoming a monk because I am already enlightened regarding the importance of diet and exercise for one's wellbeing. I know what is wholesome and not wholesome regarding food. I have dispelled my ignorance on such matters.

Polishing rice, which is a fairly modern process involving machinery, involves the removal of several very thin layers of wholesome bran which is full of nutrients, vitamins, minerals and protein, and which is very healthy to eat. White rice did not exist during the lifetime of Gautama Buddha.

In the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha advises the Kalamas to pay attention to the wise but also to test for themselves, and to enquire and investigate for themselves the teachings of the wise to determine if the recommendations are good for themselves and for others.

Therefore, I urge all you Bhikkhus to investigate the wholesome properties of brown rice, and the unwholesome properties of white rice.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/john-cavanagh-and-robin-broad/the-story-of-refined-white-rice

Sure, a glass of wine with a meal is OK.... but it is the ability to stop and say 'that is enough' which alcohol weakens. On a very hot day there is nothing more thirst quenching than a glass of shandy ( half beer, half lemonade) ...but I never have more than one.

Absolutely! If there were no medical evidence that wine in moderation can be beneficial, and prolong one's life, I wouldn't touch it at all. However, quenching one's thirst with beer and lemonade is not always recommended. Plain water is usually much better, provided the water is clean. However, if the choice were between 'shandy' and 'tap water' in Thailand, then shandy would be the lesser of two evils.

[trd]

You are attaching far too much importance on whether or not you have a body. Your body gets sick and dies. It might be today or in twenty years time. So what? What difference does it make to you?

[rockyysdt]

The ego is certainly the most difficult thing to destroy. A Sotapanna knows the reality of non-self but has not eliminated the ego. That is the final thing an Arahant does before attaining to that state.

Rocky... I am still here because I do not expect to practice diligently enough to attain Arahant in this lifetime, but would rather attain stream-entry, and then return to the human realm another seven lives to try and teach those who want to know about the truth.

( I have to chuckle sometimes when i see your posts Rocky... you like to slip in that word 'attached'...implying that anyone with differing views to you are attached to them... in a negative way...)

Negative not intended Fred.

It's just that I'm very sensitive to belief.

For example, your belief is having a huge impact on your practice and consequently any result.

In your case you have backed off the pedal, with the mental comfort that you'll be taken care of in future re births.

The fruit your path bears may not align with your beliefs.

I'm really big on the Buddha's recommendations in which he asks us to examine for ourselves.

To hang ones hat on every word that is attributed to the Buddha might not be healthy.

Especially when we know much may have been added/embellished since his passing.

To firmly (sorry about this verb) attach, without an open mind is to become rigid and inflexible.

Practice is about letting go of attachment and discovering what is, not taking with you a firm, fixed view.

Of the three positions I illustrated, doesn't "Those who are open to all but attached to none" allow you to resonate with the Dharma close to your heart, whilst at the same time offer flexibility?

Shouldn't you be taking responsibility to diligently practice the knowledge which has been given to you, without placing a glass ceiling above you?

Edited May 12, 2014 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Taking good care of one's health is surely very important, and that includes eating nutritious and wholesome food. Whenever I've considered trying the lifestyle of a Buddhist monk in Thailand, I've been partly put off by the prevalence of white rice. I always try to avoid eating white rice because I believe it is a scientific fact that brown rice is better for one's health.

Living on one meal a day would be no problem, but rice is a major part of the diet in Thailand. I don't believe the Buddha would have eaten refined and processed white rice.

Oops! Double post. You can see I'm rather concerned about my good health.

Hi Vincent.

I'm still confused as to which part of the Buddhas teachings you align with.

Perhaps if these were concisely summarized, we might find very little difference.

In terms of being a Monk, this was of greater value 2,500 years ago when, unless one was wealthy, most toiled the land to eek out a living.

Agrarian people would have had very little time or energy to pursue any level of practice.

The benefit of being ordained allowed one to be fed by the people whilst devoting ones time to practice.

Now, in the 21st century, if motivated, one could pursue a life of practice with far more ease that in past eras.

There are many informal Sanghas springing up all around the world, and with modern communication (www) you can track down informal teaches to assist.

Even here at Thai Visa we have quite a number of travelers, all with something to offer.

In fact, for many, Monkhood doesn't necessarily provide the magic bullet.

Some have reported quite the opposite.

So, if you are serious, you could clarify your views of what the Buddha taught, what your motives are, and then fashion a path which fits into your current life (dependents).

In time, regular practice without attachment may lead to insights & wisdom.

NB: At Wat Suan Mokkh, whole, unpolished rice was a regular staple.

I only needed small portions as it was very filling.

NB2: Once in the habit of one meal a day there are many benefits.

Evacuating the gut, early in the morning does wonders for ones levels of mental clarity.

The opposite makes one sluggish, with low levels of energy and concentration.

It also takes you away from where most are headed (obesity), with its associated problems.

Edited May 12, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Vincent, here's something for you to contemplate when you have a few moments.

“There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned.

If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome,

unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here

from the born, become, made, and conditioned.

But because there is an unborn, unbecome,

unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape

from the born, become, made, and conditioned.”

UDĀNA 8.3

TATIYANIBBĀNASUTTAṂ 73

The Third Discourse about Nibbāna

[VincentRJ]

I'm still confused as to which part of the Buddhas teachings you align with. Perhaps if these were concisely summarized, we might find very little difference.

That's a good, but difficult question, Rockystd. Answering it will also help me to clarify my own (illusory!!) thoughts on the subject. However, I fear that a full answer would be as long as a book, so I'll try to be brief.

I think Buddhism appeals to both my practical, down-to-earth nature, as well as my philosophical and enquiring mind. The first aspect of Buddhism that appeals to me is its teaching that the existence of a single, creator, all-powerful God can be nothing more than idle speculation. I find it interesting that Confucius was also of a similar opinion.

My impression, as a consequence of this Buddhist attitude towards the existence of an all-powerful God, is that there is a greater emphasis in Buddhism on taking responsibility for one's own salvation through various practices and understanding, which are explained in great detail in the Pali Canon and other scriptures. Since there is no Almighty God who can intervene in human affairs, to whom one can appeal or pray, this emphasis on personal responsibility, and working things out for oneself, suits my practical nature.

I like to feel in charge of myself, although I also appreciate that in making such a statement one can tie oneself in linguistic knots because Buddhism teaches that the self is an illusion. What does it mean to be in charge of an illusion!!

I resolve these linguistic problems by applying principles of common sense. Many statements about all sorts of things can become meaningless after applying the well-known technique of 'reductio ad absurdum', that is, pushing the argument's premises or conclusions to their logical limits to show how ridiculous the consequences would be, thus disproving or discrediting the argument.

For example, if everything is an illusion (or at least the mind and all our thoughts are illusions) then it follows, reductio ad absurdum, that the teachings of the Buddha are an illusion, and all our concepts of Nibbana, the unmanifest now, and Trd's concepts of the 'unborn, unbecome, unmade and unconditioned' are also illusions.

On this basis, the child at school could tell the teacher, "I'm not going to learn anything because I believe that everything you are teaching me is an illusion."

Of course, Buddhist monks probably avoid this dilemma by claiming that everything is an illusion except the Buddha-dharma.

My own personal view, at this particular stage in my life, is that everything contains elements of both illusion and reality, and that these states both coexist. Choosing which illusion to accept or reject, and trying to make a distinction between what is illusion and what is reality, is the challenge of life.

　

For example, I think it's a very worthwhile pursuit to learn how to control emotions of anger, hatred, greed, frustration and desire, etc, rather than allow the situations or people that have provoked such emotions to control me. Understanding that my ego, my self-awareness, my opinion of myself and so on, have elements of illusion and fiction, helps me to control such emotions.

However, as I continue to live in the world, driving a motor car, maintaining a house, taking photographs, and writing comments such as this one on the internet, I make an assumption that there is a physical reality at any given moment in time which I should not consider to be an illusion, for my own safety and wellbeing. I'm in no hurry to depart from this world.

Hope I've succeeded in clarifying my views.

[trd]

>........and Trd's concepts of the 'unborn, unbecome, unmade and unconditioned' are also illusions>

Just felt to the need to clarify that these concepts you attributed to me were in fact the words of Buddha, not mine, as you will see from the source reference.

[rockyysdt]

I think l can help you move forward with your position.

"Illusion is not really the right word to explain what we are.

The reality is that we are very real.

A better description would be that our mind/ego is conditioned and impermanent.

It's is forever changing. You are different to what you were 10 years ago.

Also, if you were raised by Chineze parents on another continent, your ego/mind would differ to what it currently is.

Practice allows one to stop the chatter of mind allowing you to become in touch with what is described as permant and unconditioned.

Further, getting to such a state does not destroy mind. You simply no longer associate with it. Almost like possessing several languages. You use the one which serves you best whilst retaining the other (mind) for occasions when it may be required.

Does this assist you to progress?

In summary practice is about growing awareness to very deep levels and experiencing what is.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rockyysdt]

For example, I think it's a very worthwhile pursuit to learn how to control emotions of anger, hatred, greed, frustration and desire, etc, rather than allow the situations or people that have provoked such emotions to control me. Understanding that my ego, my self-awareness, my opinion of myself and so on, have elements of illusion and fiction, helps me to control such emotions.

However, as I continue to live in the world, driving a motor car, maintaining a house, taking photographs, and writing comments such as this one on the internet, I make an assumption that there is a physical reality at any given moment in time which I should not consider to be an illusion, for my own safety and wellbeing. I'm in no hurry to depart from this world.

Hope I've succeeded in clarifying my views.

I wouldn't call it controlling emotions.

It begins with awareness.

Awareness, initially at a coarse level, will allow you to mindfully observe your thoughts, feelings, breathing & body.

Regular meditation enhances your concentration levels and gives you calm, poise, & clarity of mind.

Awareness or Mindfulness allows you to observe yourself.

With Mindfulness & Meditation, eventually you no longer react and/or overreact to lifes situations.

Your breath remains deeper & more natural, and your body is more relaxed.

You will be able to break chains of negative thought which might normally occupy hours or even days of your life.

This further allows you to become free of negative feelings which when allowed to go on, may bring about depression.

Regular Meditation & Mindfulness will infuse your consciousness with a state which already exists.

A state so calm and blissful, that it will allow you to simply be.

A state which will give you personal experience of what we are talking about.

A state which will bring wisdom & knowledge.

A state which does not destroy the mind but simply uses the mind when necessary.

You will eventually shed your ego which is a construct as you will no longer identify with it.

Anylizing ones personal ego is a very good exercise and a good start in working yourself at.

Why do you behave in certain ways, andf how did these beliefs/responses come about originally?

Example: Some have low self esteem and behave in ways to illicit praise & acceptance.

The variations and combinations of ego are limitless.

If you shed low self esteem then your particualr ego becomes less relevant.

Edited May 13, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

In a response to my point about the importance of meditation practice, Vincent said:

>I think I'm reasonably capable of observing my own thoughts, and understanding the guidelines on meditative techniques that are available in many books.<

Does that sentence sound like a practice underpinned by committment, diligence, frequency of practice, discipline, a thirst for truth and knowledge, an unbending and unwavering search for that beyond mere mind and body? I think not. The reality is that this is the case with most people and although Fabianfred is absolutely correct that we have been given a great opportunity, the fact is that few take it.

Compare that one sentence, which is almost dismissive and patronising in tone, with the reams of conceptual stuff that Vincent writes about this and that, and you can see the scale of the task when it comes to telling someone the simple truth that to turn the attention back to awareness is the key. Most won't believe it. It seems far easier to cling to the familiarity of the ego identification that perpetuates suffering. And what does Vincent have to say about suffering. Well he's doing alright actually. He doesn't need a psychiatrist or a Guru. Perhaps he thinks suffering is when your house is burning down or someone is beating you up or has run off with your wife. Vincent is suffering from the moment he wakes up in the morning. He feels uncomfortable because he said the wrong thing to someone the day before, he is worried about his job, he feels uncomfortable in a certain social situation, he feels sad for no reason, he feels happy for no reason, he worries about getting old, he is fearful about death. This is suffering and it happens every minute of the day. You may be consciously aware of it at. At times you may not.

You can tell Vincent he is not the movie images projected on the screen which change and come and go. You can tell him that you are really the screen itself, unchanging, untainted and unblemished by the images projected onto it. You can say it a million times and it will make no difference. It will remain a mere concept. When you see him, you will say, did you know that you are really the screen, and not the image, and he will say, Yes of course, I understand that. But he will not understand it as the direct knowledge that will set him free.

So what to do? Although I never tire of helping when and where I can, there has to be a willingness to accept some things at face value. If I say that correct meditation practice is the way, all you have to do is to try it, to just test it for yourself. It's not a question of belief. The only way to learn how to ride a bicycle is to try and ride a bicycle. If you succeed in riding the bicycle, it will be self evident. You will not need to believe anymore that you can ride a bicyle. If you are unwilling to try and ride a bicyle, then you will forever be speculating on how to ride a bicycle, indeed if it as at all possible to ride a bicycle. You will never know.

[VincentRJ]

I think l can help you move forward with your position.

"Illusion is not really the right word to explain what we are.

The reality is that we are very real.

A better description would be that our mind/ego is conditioned and impermanent.

It's is forever changing. You are different to what you were 10 years ago.

Also, if you were raised by Chineze parents on another continent, your ego/mind would differ to what it currently is.

Practice allows one to stop the chatter of mind allowing you to become in touch with what is described as permant and unconditioned.

Further, getting to such a state does not destroy mind. You simply no longer associate with it. Almost like possessing several languages. You use the one which serves you best whilst retaining the other (mind) for occasions when it may be required.

Does this assist you to progress?

In summary practice is about growing awareness to very deep levels and experiencing what is.

Rockyystd,

You make some good points with which I completely agree. However, I have been aware of the reality, or the logic, of these points for a long time. They are not new to me.

It's very clear that just about everything in this universe is impermanent to a varying degree, not just the mind and the ego. Some things last for only a short time, like a leaf on a tree. Some things last a bit longer, such as the average human life. During that life there is constant change, even when people stubbornly cling on to what they imagine is the same belief throughout their life.

However, some material things, such as a gold coin, may last for thousands of years; and of course, atoms are usually forever. I suspect that Gautama Buddha did not know about atoms. Right?

The conditioning of our views (personality, thoughts, ego, and mind), through upbringing, background, culture, and education, is a very important consideration to be be aware of.

So often when I have discussions with religious people, whether Buddhist, Jews, Christian or Moslem, I get a sense that such people are not really consciously aware that that the reason they are Moslem, or Christian, is because they were born into a Moslem or Christian family and culture, and not because they have impartially considered the merits of all the alternative religions, and chosen Islam, or whatever, on the basis that it best meets their requirements.

A significant, related process which is often overlooked in this context, is the extension of this principle to the founders of the various religions. Were the views and the teachings of the founders of the major religions not also conditioned by the culture and conditions that prevailed at that time they lived? Should we not be aware of those conditions before we can fully understand what the Buddha, or Jesus Christ, were about?

The problem here, of course, is that History doesn't dwell upon the lives and conditions of ordinary people. We don't even know for sure what Indo-Aryan dialect Gautama spoke. It's a fairly safe bet that Gauatama did not speak Pali. The consensus appears to be that he spoke Magadhi Prakrit.

When I first heard the basic story of Buddha's early life, as a prince who had lived a sheltered life in a palace until, one day, he was confronted with the awful reality of life outside the palace, the sickness, the suffering, and the frailty of the stooped and elderly who would soon die, I was impressed with the credibility of the story, and could empathize with Buddha's situation because I was travelling in India at the time and witnessing with some horror the beggars and the homeless, with amputated limbs and open sores, lining the streets in Varanasi and Calcutta.

I couldn't help wondering how much more awful life might have been in that region of India about 2,500 years ago. When I later read some amplifications of that basic story of Buddha's early life, that there had been a prophesy prior to his birth that he would become either a great ruler or a holy man, and that his father had deliberately protected the young Gautama from the unpleasant realities of life outside the palace in order to reduce the risk of Gautama taking up the life of a holy man, then the story became even more credible.

When I first encountered the extreme poverty and suffering in India, I was partially prepared for it. Whilst I had never witnessed such sights back in England, I'd read history at school and had seen news reports of horrors and atrocities on TV and in the Cinema. I knew such events were a part of the human condition.

However, Gautama as a young man obviously didn't have the benefit of radio and TV, and probably also didn't have the benefit of factual and documentary history lessons. If his father was deliberately protecting him from the harsh realities of life in every possible way, then I can understand how traumatized Gautama must have felt when he first encountered those scenes of ordinary life outside of the palace, in an era with no antibiotics, painkillers, or hospital services, or even any understanding of general hygiene.

The reason I mention this, is because I have always been troubled by a certain perception of nihilism that I see in Buddhism, in the sense that life is meaningless and that nothing in the world has a real existence.

I see yet another example of this nihilism in Trd's response to my own, very sensible, concerns about physical health. He writes, "You are attaching far too much importance on whether or not you have a body. Your body gets sick and dies. It might be today or in twenty years time. So what? What difference does it make to you?"

It's like he's saying, "Life is so awful, why do you want to prolong it?"

For the benefit of Trd, let me add, I'm not aware of any suffering or significant discomfort in my body or mind. I'm not ill at ease in company. I have no worries about my job, because I'm retired and completely free to follow my own path, and I'm not in the habit of insulting people with incorrect speech and then worrying about it later. Okay!

[trd]

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm

[trd]

Vincent, when you come to realise that your true nature is stillness, pure unbounded, unconditioned awareness, emptiness, call it what you will, when you truly know that you are not the body or mind, then you will discover that the expression of life, although impermanent, as it unfolds from stillness is nothing but pure joy. It is the total fullfillment of all possible desires contained in the ever present moment. Even the most mundane and ordinarly has a freshness and vibrancy which is complete within itself. Do I sound like someone who cannot bear to prolong it?

[VincentRJ]

Vincent, when you come to realise that your true nature is stillness, pure unbounded, unconditioned awareness, emptiness, call it what you will, when you truly know that you are not the body or mind, then you will discover that the expression of life, although impermanent, as it unfolds from stillness is nothing but pure joy. It is the total fullfillment of all possible desires contained in the ever present moment. Even the most mundane and ordinarly has a freshness and vibrancy which is complete within itself. Do I sound like someone who cannot bear to prolong it?

Not here you don't. I was referring to your previous post in which you expressed little concern about longevity. "Everyone eventually dies, so what does it matter if one dies to day or in twenty years' time."

You've now changed your tune, which is good.

[trd]

No I haven't changed my tune. I stand by my statement. If the expression of life is enjoyed but without attachment, then what does it matter whether you live or die as there is no person to own this life. How will the health of your body now be of concern in a thousand years. In terms of your true transcendent nature, that time in a thousand years is also exactly the same time as this present moment.

[VincentRJ]

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm

Trd,

I've read your link to the article on Eternalism and Nihilism, and I have to remind you that I've already written in this thread that I do not believe in a creator God in the sky, nor fanciful notions of heavenly realms and demi-gods, so my use of the term Nihilism in relation to Buddhism refers to the sense of a pointlessness of life with body and mind because all is an illusion.

That there might be a vestige of a memory of previous lives in every human DNA, is a remote possibility which I don't completely dismiss.

The Buddha attributed the major cause of all our suffering to ignorance. With increasing scientific knowledge, we should now realise that the more we know, the more we should be aware of the scale of our ignorance.

About 15 years ago, we thought we had cracked the human genome. We have about 30,000 genes that code for proteins. The rest of the DNA, about 95% of it, was considered to be junk DNA, serving no purpose; just a relic from our evolutionary past.

However, we are now beginning to understand that this 'so-called' junk DNA does indeed serve some purpose. We've still got a lot of work to do.

I would also contest the following statement from your linked article on Eternalism and Nihilism.

"Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever."

This is simply not true, according to modern science. Atoms, such as hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron, copper and so on, exist forever. The stuff we are made of, at the most basic level, exists forever.

Following is a link from me, describing Nihilism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

[VincentRJ]

No I haven't changed my tune. I stand by my statement. If the expression of life is enjoyed but without attachment, then what does it matter whether you live or die as there is no person to own this life. How will the health of your body now be of concern in a thousand years. In terms of your true transcendent nature, that time in a thousand years is also exactly the same time as this present moment.

Sorry! I have no belief in, or know of no evidence to support a notion of disembodied life. Even the smallest forms of life, such as bacteria and viruses, which are completely invisible to the naked eye, have a molecular basis consisting of permanent atoms which last forever.

[trd]

So you are a nihilist which Buddhism is not. If you think you cease to exist when the body is given up, then I have to wonder what you are doing in this forum. Every thought, every action is a state of becoming. Birth and death are just another state of becoming.

Edited May 16, 2014 by trd

[trd]

Are you saying that for you, Buddhism is just a way of applying some useful psychological techniques and behaviourisms to make the best of life until the end when your atoms are turned into compost or ashes and you as a living being are extinguished forever. Is that your belief? It would help to understand where you are coming from because that's the message I seem to be picking up from your previous posts.

[VincentRJ]

Are you saying that for you, Buddhism is just a way of applying some useful psychological techniques and behaviourisms to make the best of life until the end when your atoms are turned into compost or ashes and you as a living being are extinguished forever. Is that your belief? It would help to understand where you are coming from because that's the message I seem to be picking up from your previous posts.

Not quite. There are usually certain things that continue after a person dies. They might be children and grandchildren, or ideas, sayings and teachings, or photographic records and paintings, or musical compositions such as a Beethoven symphony, or in general, memories in the (illusory!!) minds of others who are still alive.

Even what I now write here, on Thai Visa, might continue to exist on some computer hard drive, after I die. Whether it does or doesn't will be of little consequence to me, I suspect.

The main point as I see it, is to make the most of this opportunity one has been given for life. Making the most of it, in my (illusory!!) opinion involves 'right understanding' on many levels, one of which is right understanding about diet and keeping the body fit.

I should also add, to avoid any confusion, that I see a big difference between the permanence of the stuff from which we are composed, such as atoms of various types, and life itself. It is the various forms of life which are impermanent, so I accept that the Buddhist concept of impermanence, or Anicca, is correct in so far as it applies to all forms of life and all compound constructions, such as the houses we build and the cars we drive.

However, the degree of such impermanence can vary enormously depending the species of life-form we are considering and the type of compound construction. For example, the oldest known tree is a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine, located in North America. According to the ring count it's over 5,000 years old. This tree would already have been fully mature and very old at the time of Gautama's birth, and it's still alive today.

Another creature which appears to have an amazing lifespan is a particular species of jellyfish. It's sometimes referred to as the 'immortal jellyfish' because potentially it could live forever through a process of regeneration, provided it didn't get sick, or eaten by a predator.

Here are the details. http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/immortal-jellyfish-does-it-really-live-forever

[trd]

OK. I understand you now. Interesting, but it's not Buddhism. There must be other forums around that cater more for your interests.

[VincentRJ]

OK. I understand you now. Interesting, but it's not Buddhism. There must be other forums around that cater more for your interests.

Is Buddhism one, agreed-upon thing? There are different sects of Buddhism with different emphases and differing attitudes. Those who need to believe in the miraculous, can find them in Buddhism. Those who are more philosophical can find words of wisdom in Buddhism, to contemplate upon, meditate upon or simply think about.

I mentioned near the beginning of this thread that I was mighty impressed by the Kalama Sutta, which I came across recently for the first time. Of course, everything requires an interpretation, but I interpret that last point in the Kalama Sutta, namely; "Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others", with an emphasis on the part in bold. In other words, don't even accept uncritically what is praised by the wise, without testing it for yourself.

[trd]

A Look at the Kalama Sutta

by Bhikkhu Bodhi

The discourse has been described as "the Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry," and though the discourse certainly does counter the decrees of dogmatism and blind faith with a vigorous call for free investigation, it is problematic whether the sutta can support all the positions that have been ascribed to it. On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker's kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.

But does the Kalama Sutta really justify such views? Or do we meet in these claims just another set of variations on that egregious old tendency to interpret the Dhamma according to whatever notions are congenial to oneself - or to those to whom one is preaching? Let us take as careful a look at the Kalama Sutta as the limited space allotted to this essay will allow, remembering that in order to understand the Buddha's utterances correctly it is essential to take account of his own intentions in making them.

The passage that has been cited so often runs as follows: "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon bias towards a notion pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher.' When you yourselves know: 'These things are bad, blamable, censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them. When you yourselves know: 'These things are good, blameless, praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."

Now this passage, like everything else spoken by the Buddha, has been stated in a specific context - with a particular audience and situation in view - and thus must be understood in relation to that context. The Kalamas, citizens of the town of Kesaputta, had been visited by religious teachers of divergent views, each of whom would propound his own doctrines and tear down the doctrines of his predecessors. This left the Kalamas perplexed, and thus when "the recluse Gotama," reputed to be an Awakened One, arrived in their township, they approached him in the hope that he might be able to dispel their confusion. From the subsequent development of the sutta, it is clear that the issues that perplexed them were the reality of rebirth and kammic retribution for good and evil deeds.

The Buddha begins by assuring the Kalamas that under such circumstances it is proper for them to doubt, an assurance which encourages free inquiry. He next speaks the passage quoted above, advising the Kalamas to abandon those things they know for themselves to be bad and to undertake those things they know for themselves to be good. This advice can be dangerous if given to those whose ethical sense is undeveloped, and we can thus assume that the Buddha regarded the Kalamas as people of refined moral sensitivity. In any case he did not leave them wholly to their own resources, but by questioning them led them to see that greed, hate and delusion, being conducive to harm and suffering for oneself and others, are to be abandoned, and their opposites, being beneficial to all, are to be developed.

The Buddha next explains that a "noble disciple, devoid of covetousness and ill will, undeluded" dwells pervading the world with boundless loving-kindness, compassion, appreciative joy and equanimity. Thus purified of hate and malice, he enjoys here and now four "solaces": If there is an afterlife and kammic result, then he will undergo a pleasant rebirth, while if there is none he still lives happily here and now; if evil results befall an evil-doer, then no evil will befall him, and if evil results do not befall an evil-doer, then he is purified anyway. With this the Kalamas express their appreciation of the Buddha's discourse and go for refuge to the Triple Gem.

Now does the Kalama Sutta suggest, as is often held, that a follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the criterion for judging the Buddha's utterances and for rejecting what cannot be squared with it? It is true the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the start of the discourse, were not the Buddha's disciples. They approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their doubts, but they did not come to him as the Tathagata, the Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress and to final liberation.

Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of contemplation based upon them. These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who "have gained faith in the Tathagata" and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them. The Kalamas, however, at the start of the discourse are not yet fertile soil for him to sow the seeds of his liberating message. Still confused by the conflicting claims to which they have been exposed, they are not yet clear even about the groundwork of morality.

Nevertheless, after advising the Kalamas not to rely upon established tradition, abstract reasoning, and charismatic gurus, the Buddha proposes to them a teaching that is immediately verifiable and capable of laying a firm foundation for a life of moral discipline and mental purification . He shows that whether or not there be another life after death, a life of moral restraint and of love and compassion for all beings brings its own intrinsic rewards here and now, a happiness and sense of inward security far superior to the fragile pleasures that can be won by violating moral principles and indulging the mind's desires. For those who are not concerned to look further, who are not prepared to adopt any convictions about a future life and worlds beyond the present one, such a teaching will ensure their present welfare and their safe passage to a pleasant rebirth - provided they do not fall into the wrong view of denying an afterlife and kammic causation.

However, for those whose vision is capable of widening to encompass the broader horizons of our existence. this teaching given to the Kalamas points beyond its immediate implications to the very core of the Dhamma. For the three states brought forth for examination by the Buddha - greed, hate and delusion - are not merely grounds of wrong conduct or moral stains upon the mind. Within his teaching's own framework they are the root defilements -- the primary causes of all bondage and suffering - and the entire practice of the Dhamma can be viewed as the task of eradicating these evil roots by developing to perfection their antidotes -- dispassion, kindness and wisdom.

Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance. We begin with an immediately verifiable teaching whose validity can be attested by anyone with the moral integrity to follow it through to its conclusions, namely, that the defilements cause harm and suffering both personal and social, that their removal brings peace and happiness, and that the practices taught by the Buddha are effective means for achieving their removal. By putting this teaching to a personal test, with only a provisional trust in the Buddha as one's collateral, one eventually arrives at a firmer, experientially grounded confidence in the liberating and purifying power of the Dhamma. This increased confidence in the teaching brings along a deepened faith in the Buddha as teacher, and thus disposes one to accept on trust those principles he enunciates that are relevant to the quest for awakening, even when they lie beyond one's own capacity for verification. This, in fact, marks the acquisition of right view, in its preliminary role as the forerunner of the entire Noble Eightfold Path.

Partly in reaction to dogmatic religion, partly in subservience to the reigning paradigm of objective scientific knowledge, it has become fashionable to hold, by appeal to the Kalama Sutta, that the Buddha's teaching dispenses with faith and formulated doctrine and asks us to accept only what we can personally verify. This interpretation of the sutta, however, forgets that the advice the Buddha gave the Kalamas was contingent upon the understanding that they were not yet prepared to place faith in him and his doctrine; it also forgets that the sutta omits, for that very reason, all mention of right view and of the entire perspective that opens up when right view is acquired. It offers instead the most reasonable counsel on wholesome living possible when the issue of ultimate beliefs has been

put into brackets.

What can be justly maintained is that those aspects of the Buddha's teaching that come within the purview of our ordinary experience can be personally confirmed within experience, and that this confirmation provides a sound basis for placing faith in those aspects of the teaching that necessarily transcend ordinary experience. Faith in the Buddha's teaching is never regarded as an end in itself nor as a sufficient guarantee of liberation, but only as the starting point for an evolving process of inner transformation that comes to fulfillment in personal insight. But in order for this insight to exercise a truly liberative function, it must unfold in the context of an accurate grasp of the essential truths concerning our situation in the world and the domain where deliverance is to be sought. These truths have been imparted to us by the Buddha out of his own profound comprehension of the human condition. To accept them in trust after careful consideration is to set foot on a journey which transforms faith into wisdom, confidence into certainty, and culminates in liberation from suffering.

[VincentRJ]

Trd,

Thanks for the detailed comments on the Kalama Sutta. I've come across similar comments before, and I have to say I get the impression that some sort of 'apology' for the Buddha's words are being expressed here.

I'll concentrate on just one extract from that commentary, which I think gets to the gist of the matter.

Now this passage, like everything else spoken by the Buddha, has been stated in a specific context - with a particular audience and situation in view - and thus must be understood in relation to that context. The Kalamas, citizens of the town of Kesaputta, had been visited by religious teachers of divergent views, each of whom would propound his own doctrines and tear down the doctrines of his predecessors. This left the Kalamas perplexed, and thus when "the recluse Gotama," reputed to be an Awakened One, arrived in their township, they approached him in the hope that he might be able to dispel their confusion. From the subsequent development of the sutta, it is clear that the issues that perplexed them were the reality of rebirth and kammic retribution for good and evil deeds.

Let's consider the first part: "Now this passage, like everything else spoken by the Buddha, has been stated in a specific context - with a particular audience and situation in view - and thus must be understood in relation to that context."

I agree completely, but this situation doesn't only apply to passages spoken by the Buddha. Everything, without exception, is spoken, or written, in a specific context with a particular audience and situation in view. This is a universal principle which we need to be aware of, to fully understand anything.

Let's consider the next sentence: "The Kalamas, citizens of the town of Kesaputta, had been visited by religious teachers of divergent views, each of whom would propound his own doctrines and tear down the doctrines of his predecessors."

Are not all those living today in a similar situation to the Kalamas? The Kalamas may have been visited by a few sages expressing divergent, Hindu-style beliefs and practices. However, people today are visited by a huge number of divergent views on religion and science, through the internet, radio and TV channels, books and education. The Kalamas had it easy in this respect.

Let's consider the last sentence: "From the subsequent development of the sutta, it is clear that the issues that perplexed them were the reality of rebirth and kammic retribution for good and evil deeds."

And this still perplexes many of us today. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that these concepts of Kamma and Reincarnation predate the life of Buddha. There is some evidence, or scholarly opinion, that such ideas even go back to the Stone Age, or around 1200 BC.

Let me ask you, Trd, do you have personal experiences or recollections of previous lives? I can see that a belief in such ideas could be a great incentive for good behaviour.

[rockyysdt]

Is Buddhism one, agreed-upon thing? There are different sects of Buddhism with different emphases and differing attitudes. Those who need to believe in the miraculous, can find them in Buddhism. Those who are more philosophical can find words of wisdom in Buddhism, to contemplate upon, meditate upon or simply think about.

I mentioned near the beginning of this thread that I was mighty impressed by the Kalama Sutta, which I came across recently for the first time. Of course, everything requires an interpretation, but I interpret that last point in the Kalama Sutta, namely; "Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others", with an emphasis on the part in bold. In other words, don't even accept uncritically what is praised by the wise, without testing it for yourself.

Hi Vincent.

I too see things in life through science & clear thinking.

On previous posts I've also illustrated other views on what the Buddha was possibly about.

Was he surrounded by a society deeply conditioned by religious beliefs (Brahmanism etc) in which every facet of ones life from birth to death was already set out?

I society lacking in any kind of awareness of reality.

Did the Buddha frame his teaching around the beliefs of the day in order for them to understand, without necessarily believing in the religion of the day?

In future wrtings was he taken out of context?

Had he stumbled across a practice (Meditation & Mindfulness) in which one could see his own conditioning and how to overcome its negative aspects?

Was he able to achieve a hidden level of awareness which is innate in all of us, but never experienced?

By latching onto much said and written of the Buddha including in this forum, has your mind turned you against what may very well turn out to be the most profound thing you in your life.

Was the Buddha playing a joke on the religious, without spelling out his beliefs when he quoted the rigveda Nasadiya Sukta in which one can only conclude that things of the metaphysical is beyond the physical?

Much better to explore that which is of the physical.

Of the metaphysical, the poem concludes: "he knows - or maybe even he does not know".

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,

There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.

What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping

Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there was neither death nor immortality

nor was there then the torch of night and day.

The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.

There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.

All this was only unillumined water.

That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,

arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it -

that was the primal seed, born of the mind.

The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom

know that which is is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,

and know what was above, and what below.

Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.

Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say

Whence it all came, and how creation happened?

the gods themselves are later than creation,

so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,

he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,

he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,

he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

To me the eightfold path is not about religion but about practice.

Buddhism is about practice.

Practice of awareness & what actually is.

Those among us who live by scientific principle must agree that the only way to scientifically test the teaching is to practice.

Everything else is speculation.

What one uncovers through actual experience will unfold of its own accord.

So in summary, will you practice Awareness, Meditation & limit unethical conduct?

If not, are you concerned you may lose your ego/mind?

Edited May 16, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

Selective quoting. That's as old as the hills! How about quoting the last paragraph of the article?

[camerata]

One off-topic post has been deleted. The difficulties in attaining nibbana is an interesting topic, so let's not digress.

[VincentRJ]

Selective quoting. That's as old as the hills! How about quoting the last paragraph of the article?

Selective quoting is the norm, and usually essential for sound practical reasons. If I were to comment on the entire Pali Canon, without very, very selective quoting, my comments might also need to be about 45 volumes long, or even longer.

However, I'll try to address the last paragraph with the consistency of my usual approach.

(1) First sentence: "What can be justly maintained is that those aspects of the Buddha's teaching that come within the purview of our ordinary experience can be personally confirmed within experience, and that this confirmation provides a sound basis for placing faith in those aspects of the teaching that necessarily transcend ordinary experience."

Now how does this conform with your earlier assertions, Trd, that the 8 stages of the Eightfold Path could be practiced all at once?

Do you remember on page 2 of this thread, I made the following statement: "For example, we have the 'Noble Eightfold Path' which consists of a graded series of stages, namely:

(1) Right view (2) Right aspiration (3) Right speech (4) Right action (5) Right livelihood (6) Right effort (7) Right mindfulness, and (8) Right concentration."

Your response was, "What makes you think the Eightfold path is graded. Why not all at once?" A few other posters seemed to agree.

Now I'm perfectly at ease with the idea that there is a natural progression in all studies, whether religious or not, from the basics to the more advanced, as long as there are no sudden leaps from the ordinary, the rational and the commonsensical.....to the out-of-this-world, fantastical and magical. It's then I become a little uneasy and skeptical.

(2) Second sentence: "Faith in the Buddha's teaching is never regarded as an end in itself nor as a sufficient guarantee of liberation, but only as the starting point for an evolving process of inner transformation that comes to fulfillment in personal insight."

I thought the starting point was mentioned in the first sentence, that is, "those aspects of the Buddha's teaching that come within the purview of our ordinary experience."

(3) Third sentence: "But in order for this insight to exercise a truly liberative function, it must unfold in the context of an accurate grasp of the essential truths concerning our situation in the world and the domain where deliverance is to be sought."

The first part: "must unfold in the context of an accurate grasp of the essential truths concerning our situation in the world", I accept as true. That seems reasonable and logical to me.

However, the second part of that sentence, "and the domain where deliverance is to be sought", seems to involve one of those sudden leaps from the natural to the supernatural, which makes me a bit uneasy.

(4) Fourth sentence: "These truths have been imparted to us by the Buddha out of his own profound comprehension of the human condition."

I accept that with no problems. No criticism here.

(5) Fifth sentence: "To accept them in trust after careful consideration is to set foot on a journey which transforms faith into wisdom, confidence into certainty, and culminates in liberation from suffering."

One would hope that is true, but how is the truth demonstrated? Does a person who has been liberated from suffering have rays of light emanating from his head? Suffering is a personal thing.

I once had an accident, falling on a slippery slope and fracturing my wrist. My arm was placed in plaster for a while, and during various visits to the hospital, I was asked on a few occasions how I would rate the pain, on a scale of 1 to 10. I felt completely unable to do so. I actually told the Physiotherapist that I had no experience of what the maximum threshold of pain would be like at 10. But using my imagination, having read stories of people under torture, being burned alive, being torn limb from limb, and TV dramas such as The Midwives, which show in graphic detail the screaming of women during childbirth, I made a guess that my pain would have been about 0.5 to 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. Perhaps I should have exaggerated the pain, but I'm very honest.

[trd]

Let me just ask you a simple and direct question. As I understand it, the attainment of nibbana is at the core of Buddha's teachings. Indeed it is the title of this thread. So let me ask you. If you fail to attain in this lifetime, would you consider it to be "Game Over".

[VincentRJ]

Let me just ask you a simple and direct question. As I understand it, the attainment of nibbana is at the core of Buddha's teachings. Indeed it is the title of this thread. So let me ask you. If you fail to attain in this lifetime, would you consider it to be "Game Over".

Oops! I seem to have made my previous post 3 times, no doubt as a result of the slowness of my computer. Apologies to the moderators.

I have no knowledge of life after death, Trd. Just as the Buddha is reported as saying there is no point in speculating on the existence of an all-powerful, creator God, I also say there is no point in speculating on the existence of Kamma and Reincarnation. That's why I asked you earlier if you had had any experience yourself, of previous lives.