What happens to the food believers put in front of statues?

[VincentRJ]

Now I ask you, who in his right mind would want to follow or support a wrong understanding, a wrong thought, engage in wrong speech, wrong actions, wrong livelihood or wrong occupations, misguided effort, wrong mindfulness and inappropriate concentration on wrong things?

No-one. if you put it like this than 100% of the world population is a Buddhist. Which they are not.

.

Not at all. It's clear that a significant percentage of the world population are not in their 'right mind' and are not able to exercise much common sense, otherwise there wouldn't be so much trouble in the world.

As mentioned before, on the one hand Buddhism has all the characteristics of any religion, in the sense that it has adapted to and catered to the inherent need that many people seem to have for a belief in the miraculous and the magical, and the existence of invisible deities (or external spiritual forces) which can respond to their prayers and requests.

On the other hand, when the outward, visible, religious attributes of Buddhism, with its revered statues, rituals and ceremonies, are stripped of their mumbo jumbo, there remains a deep core of profound logic, common sense and wise practical advice which can have strong appeal to the atheist and the rationalist.

I can understand your wondering what the average Thai might think of the meaning of the religious rituals they participate in, but I suspect their views will sometimes be incoherent and will often vary significantly depending on their class or status in society, and their background and education.

[Goosood]

there remains a deep core of profound logic, common sense and wise practical advice which can have strong appeal to the atheist and the rationalist.

I agree. And I feel that too. I mean it's core ethics are very reasonable. if everyone where to live like that the world would be a better place.

But if you strip it of karma, rebirth, rituals, holy statues, relics, then what you have left is not really a religion anymore. But just some common sense statements about how to live your life.

But the same goes for Christianity. Strip away the idea Jesus was resurrected, that there is a God, that Jesus was the son of God, and the New Testament has a morality which is not that bad. Which also can appeal to the atheist and the rationalist.

Yet these never will call themselves a Christian after doing all this stripping. But some of them have no issue calling themselves a Buddhist after stripping that religion of it's more supernatural parts.

Why don't they call themselves a Christian (after some stripping)?

I remain an extreme skeptic. An agnost (bounding on atheism). The mystery of consciousness however keeps me open to the idea there is room for something spiritual/supernatural

[partington]

there remains a deep core of profound logic, common sense and wise practical advice which can have strong appeal to the atheist and the rationalist.

I agree. And I feel that too. I mean it's core ethics are very reasonable. if everyone where to live like that the world would be a better place.

But if you strip it of karma, rebirth, rituals, holy statues, relics, then what you have left is not really a religion anymore. But just some common sense statements about how to live your life.

But the same goes for Christianity. Strip away the idea Jesus was resurrected, that there is a God, that Jesus was the son of God, and the New Testament has a morality which is not that bad. Which also can appeal to the atheist and the rationalist.

Yet these never will call themselves a Christian after doing all this stripping. But some of them have no issue calling themselves a Buddhist after stripping that religion of it's more supernatural parts.

Why don't they call themselves a Christian (after some stripping)?

I remain an extreme skeptic. An agnost (bounding on atheism). The mystery of consciousness however keeps me open to the idea there is room for something spiritual/supernatural

I like the way you think. Perhaps it's the mathematical brain.

I think the reason for those who have stripped away the supernatural from Christianity not calling themselves Christians is that most adherents of Christianity firmly believe that the thing that saves you from hell and defines the religion is not doing the good deeds and living correctly, but is the actual faith-based act of accepting Jesus as the Son of God.

At least this is what most Americans who are Christians believe - that's what the born-again business is all about-you are 'saved' by this act of acceptance or rebirth. This is also why you can get to heaven with a (genuine) death bed conversion and no good acts at all, after a life of absolute devilry...

[VincentRJ]

there remains a deep core of profound logic, common sense and wise practical advice which can have strong appeal to the atheist and the rationalist.

I agree. And I feel that too. I mean it's core ethics are very reasonable. if everyone where to live like that the world would be a better place.

But if you strip it of karma, rebirth, rituals, holy statues, relics, then what you have left is not really a religion anymore. But just some common sense statements about how to live your life.

Buddhism is often considered, at its core, to be more of a philosophy than a religion.

But the same goes for Christianity. Strip away the idea Jesus was resurrected, that there is a God, that Jesus was the son of God, and the New Testament has a morality which is not that bad. Which also can appeal to the atheist and the rationalist.

I think the difference is, if one strips away such concepts as a Creator God and that Jesus is the son of God, one is left with nothing that is uniquely Christian. For example, the phrases, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself" are not uniquely Christian. They're often referred to as the 'Golden Rule' and such concepts have a long history that predates Christianity, although sometimes the wording is slightly different. Confucius is claimed to have said, "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." In Buddhism, the translation of a similar concept is, "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."

[Mr Somtam]

A more acceptable interpretation (for some of us) is that the term 'former lives' refers to former 'states of mind' or former thoughts within this life. We know that thoughts arise and pass, to be replaced by new thoughts in a continuous process of change. It's not difficult to appreciate that an arising of a new thought could be described as a 'birth'.

Buddha also believed in the realms of rebirth. In god like beings and spirits. In this new rebirth interpretation, do these realms and godlike beings still exist or are these realms abolished in the new way of understanding?

They represent statesbof mind like depression (hell) or happiness (heaven) to name two extremes.

[Goosood]

A more acceptable interpretation (for some of us) is that the term 'former lives' refers to former 'states of mind' or former thoughts within this life. We know that thoughts arise and pass, to be replaced by new thoughts in a continuous process of change. It's not difficult to appreciate that an arising of a new thought could be described as a 'birth'.

Buddha also believed in the realms of rebirth. In god like beings and spirits. In this new rebirth interpretation, do these realms and godlike beings still exist or are these realms abolished in the new way of understanding?

They represent statesbof mind like depression (hell) or happiness (heaven) to name two extremes.

Interesting new interpretation. Makes it more acceptable for people who grew up in the West.

You do wonder if that is what the Buddha meant why did he formulate it in such a way that his disciples AND EVERY BUDDHIST WHO EVER LIVED UNTILL NOW interpreted it apparently wrongly? It was for 2500 years interpreted as an actual rebirth namely and the realms as actual realms. So all Buddhists who ever lived till now have got it wrong? Even the Buddha's own disciples?

Strange the Buddha didn't explain that clearer to his disciples. I think the Buddha therefor did believe in actual rebirth and in actual realms. Else how to explain that for 2500 years Buddhism was interpreted wrongly?

Do these people with these modern insights have ideas about that too?

Edited May 17, 2015 by Goosood

[partington]

A more acceptable interpretation (for some of us) is that the term 'former lives' refers to former 'states of mind' or former thoughts within this life. We know that thoughts arise and pass, to be replaced by new thoughts in a continuous process of change. It's not difficult to appreciate that an arising of a new thought could be described as a 'birth'.

Buddha also believed in the realms of rebirth. In god like beings and spirits. In this new rebirth interpretation, do these realms and godlike beings still exist or are these realms abolished in the new way of understanding?

They represent statesbof mind like depression (hell) or happiness (heaven) to name two extremes.

Interesting new interpretation. Makes it more acceptable for people who grew up in the West.

You do wonder if that is what the Buddha meant why did he formulate it in such a way that his disciples AND EVERY BUDDHIST WHO EVER LIVED UNTILL NOW interpreted it apparently wrongly? It was for 2500 years interpreted as an actual rebirth namely and the realms as actual realms. So all Buddhists who ever lived till now have got it wrong? Even the Buddha's own disciples?

Strange the Buddha didn't explain that clearer to his disciples. I think the Buddha therefor did believe in actual rebirth and in actual realms. Else how to explain that for 2500 years Buddhism was interpreted wrongly?

Do these people with these modern insights have ideas about that too?

I have watched, on one of the Thai Buddhist monk channels on Thai TV, a genuine- looking, middle-aged buddhist monk giving a sermon, to an audience that seem to be accepting his statements reverentially, and with a great deal of respect.

For some reason there was a subtitled translation in English of what he was saying. He was giving a very involved, concrete and detailed account of why a lay person who had consulted him recently was suffering from a serious facial skin rash.

He recounted in some detail how that person, in a previous past life, (that he- the monk - somehow was able to see and describe) while in the course of committing some criminal act had killed a bee that was stinging him on the face. The story went on for some time, was very involved and detailed, and was clearly not the least bit symbolic. This monk was telling the person and his audience about rather detailed activities that had gone on in another body, at another time, that was affecting the new body and life that this person had currently been born into, in very specific and concrete ways.

He was telling this (to me completely deranged-sounding) story in a flat almost bored monotone, as if it was not unusual at all to be making these claims.

From this experience alone I am 100% certain that at least one sect of Buddhist monks believe that people living today have had other lives in other bodies in the past, and that this is literally true.

There was no conceivable way that this very long sermon could have been meant symbolically. It was astounding to watch these claims being made in such a matter of fact way.

I have no idea whether this channel was a genuine accredited Buddhist religious communication , or the sensationalist equivalent of the sort of childish horoscope channels that you see often on Thai TV. However to my uneducated eye, how the monk and the audience were acting seemed sincere, and expressed with seriousness and respect...

[VincentRJ]

A more acceptable interpretation (for some of us) is that the term 'former lives' refers to former 'states of mind' or former thoughts within this life. We know that thoughts arise and pass, to be replaced by new thoughts in a continuous process of change. It's not difficult to appreciate that an arising of a new thought could be described as a 'birth'.

Buddha also believed in the realms of rebirth. In god like beings and spirits. In this new rebirth interpretation, do these realms and godlike beings still exist or are these realms abolished in the new way of understanding?

They represent statesbof mind like depression (hell) or happiness (heaven) to name two extremes.

Interesting new interpretation. Makes it more acceptable for people who grew up in the West.

You do wonder if that is what the Buddha meant why did he formulate it in such a way that his disciples AND EVERY BUDDHIST WHO EVER LIVED UNTILL NOW interpreted it apparently wrongly? It was for 2500 years interpreted as an actual rebirth namely and the realms as actual realms. So all Buddhists who ever lived till now have got it wrong? Even the Buddha's own disciples?

Strange the Buddha didn't explain that clearer to his disciples. I think the Buddha therefor did believe in actual rebirth and in actual realms. Else how to explain that for 2500 years Buddhism was interpreted wrongly?

Do these people with these modern insights have ideas about that too?

You might be surprised to learn that the Buddhist scriptures have already addressed such problems, that is, the problem of a teaching, idea or concept making sense and seeming credible to a particular audience who might be skeptical, for whatever reason.

It is claimed in the Pali Canon (Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, for those interested) that the Buddha, whilst travelling and teaching after his enlightenment, came across the village of Kesaputta in Northern India where he was greeted by a clan of people known as the Kalamas.

These Kalamas were very skeptical people because they had experienced frequent visits from various holy men in the past, each offering different teachings which were often in conflict with what other holy men had said. The Kalamas wanted to know whose teaching they should follow or accept and how they could be sure that one particular teaching was true, or at least truer than another.

The advice that the Buddha gave to these people is known as the Kalama Sutta, and it's advice which is clearly intended for those who are skeptical, which would have to include, I imagine, many modern Westerners, all atheists, and most people with a general scientific background.

Here it is. The Kalama Sutta, organised into 8 main points like the 8 fold path.

1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.

2. Do not believe in something merely because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or a part of a culture.

3. Do not believe in something merely because a scripture says it is so.

4. Do not believe in something merely because you believe a God has inspired it.

5. Do not believe in something merely because a teacher tells you it is so.

6. Do not believe in something merely because the authorities say it is so.

7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.

8. 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.

I've added and repeated the word 'merely' for the sake of clarification, because some people might think the advice, "Don't believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so", is a bit crazy, because education and believing what qualified teachers say is such a vital part of modern life, and people have to pass exams.

My understanding here is that the core message of the Kalama Sutta is in 'not accepting anything as true without thinking about it and giving it due consideration', which is a concept that sits well with those who are familiar with the principles of modern science.

Also, using a bit of imagination, it should not be difficult to appreciate that any teacher or preacher who lived 2,500 years ago would have needed to use terms and concepts that were familiar to his audience, otherwise what he said would sound like gobbledegook. The Buddha's position on the existence of a Creator God would have been controversial in India at the time. To extend such controversy by also casting doubt on the existence of all god-like creatures and spirits, might have been too much for the relatively primitive people of the times who were steeped in beliefs in all sorts of magic and personal gods. What purpose would it have served to completely alienate one's audience!

[Mr Somtam]

A more acceptable interpretation (for some of us) is that the term 'former lives' refers to former 'states of mind' or former thoughts within this life. We know that thoughts arise and pass, to be replaced by new thoughts in a continuous process of change. It's not difficult to appreciate that an arising of a new thought could be described as a 'birth'.

Buddha also believed in the realms of rebirth. In god like beings and spirits. In this new rebirth interpretation, do these realms and godlike beings still exist or are these realms abolished in the new way of understanding?

They represent statesbof mind like depression (hell) or happiness (heaven) to name two extremes.

Interesting new interpretation. Makes it more acceptable for people who grew up in the West.

You do wonder if that is what the Buddha meant why did he formulate it in such a way that his disciples AND EVERY BUDDHIST WHO EVER LIVED UNTILL NOW interpreted it apparently wrongly? It was for 2500 years interpreted as an actual rebirth namely and the realms as actual realms. So all Buddhists who ever lived till now have got it wrong? Even the Buddha's own disciples?

Strange the Buddha didn't explain that clearer to his disciples. I think the Buddha therefor did believe in actual rebirth and in actual realms. Else how to explain that for 2500 years Buddhism was interpreted wrongly?

Do these people with these modern insights have ideas about that too?

There have always been Buddhists who don't believe in reincanation. Or who don't see it as relevant to ending suffering. The buddha was teaching how to end suffering here and now. Reincarnation, exsistence of a god, the size of the universe etc. Etc. are nice philosophical matters but of NO value at all concerning the buddhas teaching, ie how to end suffering. Also the notion of anatta does not allow a immortal spirit to reincarnate in the normal (hindu) way. Thai spiritualism is, like another poster said, a lot of animism mixed with hinduism with a very itty bitty buddha flavour.

[Mr Somtam]

And the buddha himself never wrote anything down, so it is impossible to tell what excactly his word were...

Read some ajahn Chah or other forest tradition book and things will be a lot clearer.

But the average Thai is not a forest monk of course.

[Goosood]

Thanks. Clear. I understand know why the Buddha could know that rebirth and the realms don't actually exist, but didn't tell because it would be too new for the people at that time and not serve the purpose of learning to end suffering.

But if rebirth doesn't exist then what happens in the new interpretation after you die? You are gone and it is like before you were born (so you are not here anymore and you do not know you are not here anymore)? No matter how you have lived your life? So in the new interpretation Buddhism is just a philosophy of how to live your life NOW to have less suffering NOW?

Fact remains that for 2500 years all Buddhist (well 95% of them?) did believe in reincarnation and only gave food to monks and prayed to get better Karma for their NEXT life.

What is in the new interpretation the purpose of giving food to monks, pray in Temple? Why is that all still needed? If you just use the meditation techniques and understand to philosophy that craving is suffering, then you do not need all these 'religious' extras to lessen your suffering in this, your only, life. I think the new interpretation will lead to the end of monk-hood (because why support them, there is no next life, so why give food to them?) and the temples. The new interpretation doesn't make it a religion anymore. Just a moral code and some insight how to try to lessen suffering in your ONLY life, namely THIS one.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Goosood

[Goosood]

I forgot : maybe it would have been better if the Buddha had told the truth from the start. Because by not doing so hasn't he caused a lot more suffering? How many past Buddhist have not suffered mentally because they were worried about their next life? If they had known no matter what you do THIS your ONLY life, suffering will only come in that life. No hell realm.

I think not telling truth has added to a lot of mental suffering for Buddhists in the last 2500 years. What if they all had known there is no next life and no hell realm?

Edited May 18, 2015 by Goosood

[VincentRJ]

Thanks. Clear. I understand know why the Buddha could know that rebirth and the realms don't actually exist, but didn't tell because it would be too new for the people at that time and not serve the purpose of learning to end suffering.

But if rebirth doesn't exist then what happens in the new interpretation after you die? You are gone and it is like before you were born (so you are not here anymore and you do not know you are not here anymore)? No matter how you have lived your life? So in the new interpretation Buddhism is just a philosophy of how to live your life NOW to have less suffering NOW?

The importance of striving to live in the present has been raised a few times before on this forum. It seems to be another example of some of the wisdom in the Buddhist teachings. There is only the present. There is only the 'NOW'.

Everything we do and everything we experience occurs in the present moment. The mistakes of the past have passed. If we learn from such mistakes, the learning always takes place in the present. If we worry about the future, such worrying takes place only in the present. If we prepare for the future, such preparations always take place in the present.

What is in the new interpretation to purpose of giving food to monks, pray in Temple? Why is that all still needed? If you just use the meditation techniques and understand to philosophy that craving is suffering, then you do not need all these 'religious' extras to lessen your suffering in this, your only, life. I think the new interpretation will lead to the end of monk-hood (because why support them, there is no next life, so why give food to them?) and the temples. The new interpretation doesn't make it a religion anymore. Just a moral code and some insight how to try to lessen suffering in your ONLY life, namely THIS one.

Perhaps the average Thai woman who places food in the monk's alms bowl each morning imagines she will 'make merit' and be reborn as a male. That's the 'macro' view, consistent with the concept of actual rebirth or reincarnation.

Within the 'micro' view, that rebirth refers to new thoughts or states of mind in this life, the merit that is earned by filling the monk's bowl each morning, would presumably take effect in this life. What's wrong with that?

Are you implying that any benefit flowing from one's actions that occur only in this life are not worth bothering with, and that it's only what happens in the next life that matters? That's hardly living in the present.

I imagine there would be emotional and psychological benefits experienced in this life, which result from a regular practice of 'giving' in such a direct and personal way as placing food in a monk's bowl. Most of us have given money to various charities, but that act of giving is much more impersonal. One often doesn't know how the money will be used. Perhaps it will be used corruptly, or wasted due to inefficiency.

By giving on such a regular and personal basis, I can imagine that one could destroy those acquisitive impulses that will often lead to further suffering, eventually. I tend to think that the general happiness and friendliness of many Thai people who are often living in relative poverty, is partly explained by this regular practice of giving food to monks. I think the monks must also benefit from the personal interaction with the local population, as they go on their rounds each morning, not to mention the physical exercise they get, which is necessary for good health.

[Mr Somtam]

The laypeople give material things to the monks, the monks give back spiritual things: explaining the teachings, support in difficult times etc. Etc. I think it also reminds them every day that they are members of the community, they can not isolate themselves because they can not grow their own food or make money for food.

[Goosood]

Within the 'micro' view, that rebirth refers to new thoughts or states of mind in this life, the merit that is earned by filling the monk's bowl each morning, would presumably take effect in this life. What's wrong with that?

I tend to think that the general happiness and friendliness of many Thai people who are often living in relative poverty, is partly explained by this regular practice of giving food to monks. I think the monks must also benefit from the personal interaction with the local population, as they go on their rounds each morning, not to mention the physical exercise they get, which is necessary for good health.

Nothing is wrong with giving food to monks, also not in the micro view. But I thought in the new interpretation the concept of Karma in the spiritual sense, that giving to monks gives you EXTRA credit compared to say giving to a homeless person, also does not exist anymore. I mean there is no spiritual guarantee if you give each day to a monk you will not die one hour later in a car accident at age 20. That guarantee was not there already, but in the old view you could use that Karma you had saved for a better next life.

In the new 'micro' view it should not matter if you give to monks or other charities. I think if you have 100 dollars to give and the choice is between all kind of charities or between Buddhist monks that this will mean the monks will get less than they do now, because many Buddhist will in the micro view opt than for another charity. That is why I think the new view when widely accepted means the end of monk hood. And why still go to Temple if there is no god/spirit/Buddha who listens to your prayers? It is pointless to utter prayers if no-one listens (under the assumptions that it is the reason why the average Thai goes to a temple: to ask for a favour from Buddha; he will not do that in the new interpretation because that says there is no after life, so also not for the Buddha, he is not somewhere else now.). Thats why I think if the new view is widely accepted it will mean the end for the Temples.

Also what does Buddhism mean with living in the 'now'. You must always take the future into account. You need to save money now for your pension. You need to work now to earn money to pay your rent. How can you only live in the now? Most people can not risk such an attitude. Buddhism can however help you - as I see it - in dealing with some bad luck in your life. To overcome it easier, to not be too let own by it. But only living each day in the NOW and not care or worry at all about tomorrow is very dangerous.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Goosood

[Mr Somtam]

You can live in the present moment AND prepair for the future you know...

[faraday]

I think that it means to concentrate on the present moment & to not 'live' in the past.

Not worry about what is going to happen, but also to be mindful of the future.

[VincentRJ]

Within the 'micro' view, that rebirth refers to new thoughts or states of mind in this life, the merit that is earned by filling the monk's bowl each morning, would presumably take effect in this life. What's wrong with that?

I tend to think that the general happiness and friendliness of many Thai people who are often living in relative poverty, is partly explained by this regular practice of giving food to monks. I think the monks must also benefit from the personal interaction with the local population, as they go on their rounds each morning, not to mention the physical exercise they get, which is necessary for good health.

Nothing is wrong with giving food to monks, also not in the micro view. But I thought in the new interpretation the concept of Karma in the spiritual sense, that giving to monks gives you EXTRA credit compared to say giving to a homeless person, also does not exist anymore. I mean there is no spiritual guarantee if you give each day to a monk you will not die one hour later in a car accident at age 20. That guarantee was not there already, but in the old view you could use that Karma you had saved for a better next life.

As I understand, part of the Buddhist concept of giving (dana) is that the amount of merit gained by the giving will vary according to 3 main factors. (1) the quality of the donor's motive when giving, (2) the spritual purity of the recipient, and (3) the size and significance of the gift.

These principles all make sense at a practical level within the 'micro' context of a single life. For example, if a person gives only with the motive of gaining fame, public attention and praise for himself, then it is only logical that less merit will be gained, within the context of Buddhist ideals of humility, compassion and egolessness. Or, if a person throws money at a beggar just to get rid of him because he's a nuisance, then less merit will be gained.

The significance of giving to a person of spiritual purity, also makes sense at a practical, micro level, if one interprets spiritual purity as being worthy and honest. One presumes that a monk is developing a special kind awareness, understanding and compassion as a result of his abstemious and minimalist lifestyle, and is therefore, when called upon, able to provide some sort of guidance and helpful advice to members of the local population when such people have some particular problem of suffering.

Also what does Buddhism mean with living in the 'now'. You must always take the future into account. You need to save money now for your pension. You need to work now to earn money to pay your rent. How can you only live in the now? Most people can not risk such an attitude. Buddhism can however help you - as I see it - in dealing with some bad luck in your life. To overcome it easier, to not be too let own by it. But only living each day in the NOW and not care or worry at all about tomorrow is very dangerous.

What you've described above is the widespread, misguided attitude which Buddhist teachings attempt to dispel. There is only the 'now'. To infuse the 'now' with worries and concerns about the future, is to reduce your quality of life, which is always experienced in the 'now'. How can anyone function efficiently and happily if the mind is always distracted by worries about the future?

I don't mean, of course, that one should not learn from the past and act sensibly. One should always try to act sensibly in the present, in accordance with the circumstances, and in accordance with your understanding of the situation, and with full mindfulness and concentration.

One can have plans for the future. However, if the implementation of such plans, which must always take place in the present, cause worry and concern and frustration, (in short, suffering), then my advice would be forget it. Get yourself another plan, the implementation of which brings joy, peace and satisfaction in the present.

[Goosood]

One can have plans for the future. However, if the implementation of such plans, which must always take place in the present, cause worry and concern and frustration, (in short, suffering), then my advice would be forget it. Get yourself another plan, the implementation of which brings joy, peace and satisfaction in the present.

Ok. Then it is clear. Living in the now means only try not to suffer now, don't let you be put down about worries for the future, enjoy life as it is now, it doesn't mean you can not make plans for the future. Ok. Clear.

But it is a hard thing to accomplish. Say your pension is in stocks. You are 1 year before retirement and the stock market collapses. It requires quite some effort not be worried then NOW how the market will be in one year because then you need to sell your stocks to buy the pension.

Or say your doctor tells you you have cancer and in two weeks you will hear the results if it is treatable or not. How many Buddhists will succeed in not suffer any worrying in these two weeks? It will be a long two weeks. It would be great if we had the tools to measure the mental worrying of a person. It would be a nice experiment (but maybe an unethical experiment, I admit that immediately) to measure the mental worrying of an experience Buddhist who just had heard he needs to wait two weeks for hearing if his cancer means dead in a few months, or can be treated. Would we in these two weeks not measure any significant mental rise in worrying? If we will measure a rise already with him, then what will we measure with the average Buddhist in a Buddhist country? I am very pessimistic. Only the most capable in meditation will maybe overcome the worry and not feel anything.

[zeichen]

"it doesn't mean you can not make plans for the future. Ok. Clear."

Depends because "plans" also implies a specific outcome and since we cannot control outcome that will lead to suffering. Expectations distract from the event.

"How many Buddhists will succeed in not suffer any worrying in these two weeks?" Not many because not many Buddhist actually achieve enlightenment.

If you have accepted both outcomes, then you wouldn't suffer. If you hold onto the ideal of "self", then you will suffer greatly. If life and death are the same to you, then why would your death cause you suffering. If we are still holding onto desires, then we suffer.

"But it is a hard thing to accomplish. Say your pension is in stocks. You are 1 year before retirement and the stock market collapses. It requires quite some effort not be worried then NOW how the market will be in one year because then you need to sell your stocks to buy the pension"

This should just be deleted because it entirely defeats the purpose. Your plans are about material gain and worries about material needs for the future. Even Christians are taught this kind of worrying is pointless.

[Mr Somtam]

A famous Ajahn of the forest tradition who's name I do not remember (Ajahn Lee perhaps?) was told he had terminal cancer by his doctor. He just laughed and said mai pen rai...

[zeichen]

"He just laughed and said mai pen rai..."

But no one knows what was in his mind and internal suffering. A friend of mine was shot in the head with a 22 and said "somethn' bit me" a stupid quote from Forest Gump. Doesn't mean that he really didn't feel any pain or wasn't worried.

I also think that many people say what they think is expected of them, not really what they truly feel. I am a cynic and a pessimist by nature it is hard for me to believe in people at face value.

[VincentRJ]

One can have plans for the future. However, if the implementation of such plans, which must always take place in the present, cause worry and concern and frustration, (in short, suffering), then my advice would be forget it. Get yourself another plan, the implementation of which brings joy, peace and satisfaction in the present.

Or say your doctor tells you you have cancer and in two weeks you will hear the results if it is treatable or not. How many Buddhists will succeed in not suffer any worrying in these two weeks? It will be a long two weeks. It would be great if we had the tools to measure the mental worrying of a person. It would be a nice experiment (but maybe an unethical experiment, I admit that immediately) to measure the mental worrying of an experience Buddhist who just had heard he needs to wait two weeks for hearing if his cancer means dead in a few months, or can be treated. Would we in these two weeks not measure any significant mental rise in worrying? If we will measure a rise already with him, then what will we measure with the average Buddhist in a Buddhist country? I am very pessimistic. Only the most capable in meditation will maybe overcome the worry and not feel anything.

I think the main point here is that Buddhism specifically address such issues, offers an explanation for the cause of our worries and suffering, and provides detailed procedures on how to free ourselves from such suffering, and fears of the future, and unfulfilled expectations.

How successful any particular Buddhist has been in achieving such goals is another issue. I'm not saying it's easy. There are no doubt certain individuals who do not claim to be Buddhist, yet have a calmness of mind which would free them from worry about the effects of a cancer diagnosis, for example.

There are no doubt other individuals who have been practicing monks for a number of years, yet on diagnosis of cancer feel worried, perhaps because they were hoping to achieve some higher degree of enlightenment in this lifetime and feel that their hopes have been dashed if they are soon to die of cancer. Who knows! This is perhaps mere speculation; not advised by Gautama Buddha.

The point is, there's a lot of rational philosophy in Buddhism, and practical advice that seems to work in this lifetime, regardless of any belief in reincarnation.

[zeichen]

Don't you think that it is a little ironic that when the Buddha left his family to end suffering, he actually was causing the suffering of his wife and child?

Of course once he attained enlightenment (if you have faith that he did) his path ended their suffering, but still doesn't take away from the fact that he abandoned his child and left him without a father.

I wonder how many people would follow someone's advice today who did the same thing.

[VincentRJ]

Don't you think that it is a little ironic that when the Buddha left his family to end suffering, he actually was causing the suffering of his wife and child?

Of course once he attained enlightenment (if you have faith that he did) his path ended their suffering, but still doesn't take away from the fact that he abandoned his child and left him without a father.

I wonder how many people would follow someone's advice today who did the same thing.

I think you've misunderstood the circumstances of the times and are applying a modern situation of a father going out to work to support his family, and then withdrawing his support, for whatever reason, and leaving his family to be supported by charities or the government safety net.

That wasn't Gautama Buddha's situation. He was raised in a palace, in the lap of luxury, surrounded by servants who would attend to any issue at any time.

My impression from reading the stories of that situation 2,500 years ago, is that Gautama and his family was so cosseted, with every whim being attended to, that the shock that Gautama received when seeing the real world outside of the palace for the first time was so great, the suffering and hardship of ordinary people he'd been protected from, he decided he had to do something to find a solution.

Since in those days there wasn't an effective medical profession, becoming a doctor wasn't a realistic option, so he decided to follow the path of the traditional ascetics or gurus who were the current experts in such matters, in India at that time.

His wife and child would have been perfectly safe and well taken care of whilst Gautama was experimenting with various ascetic methods, like fasting to the extreme.

[zeichen]

"I think you've misunderstood the circumstances of the times and are applying a modern situation of a father"

I think that you have misunderstood what a role of a father is. I am not talking about financial support. I am talking about the fact that one needs their parents. Having your father leave you and not be in your life hurts. Do you actually think that his wife and child were happy for the 20 years he was gone? They did suffer his leaving for certain. His family was neglected by him for over 20 years. That suffering ended when they found him and followed his teachings, but still doesn't negate the fact that he wasn't there for them.

I am just saying that we overlook when the end justifies the means.

You are making excuses and defending that. If he didn't achieve enlightenment and reach his desired goal, would you still be supportive of his leaving his family?

[camerata]

The point is, there's a lot of rational philosophy in Buddhism, and practical advice that seems to work in this lifetime, regardless of any belief in reincarnation.

+1

[VincentRJ]

I think that you have misunderstood what a role of a father is. I am not talking about financial support. I am talking about the fact that one needs their parents. Having your father leave you and not be in your life hurts. Do you actually think that his wife and child were happy for the 20 years he was gone? They did suffer his leaving for certain. His family was neglected by him for over 20 years. That suffering ended when they found him and followed his teachings, but still doesn't negate the fact that he wasn't there for them.

I think you've misunderstood what the role of a father would have been in the culture and environment of those times in Northern India, particularly considering that Gautama's family were the ruling class and that Gautama would have been expected to become a warrior, the consequences of which could have been far more disastrous for his wife and child if he had been killed in battle.

It's not just a matter of financial support. One should also take into consideration the role of the extended family in those days, as well as the proliferation of servants and nannies. I imagine that his wife and child would have been in constant contact with uncles, aunts and cousins, all living within the walls of the palace, except when they were away attending to some insurrection, or administrative matter.

If you were a child who was missing his father because he'd been away for a few years, which story would you like to hear from your mother.

(1) Your father has been away fighting, my dear. He's leading an army to protect our kingdom from the rebellious tribes in the north. I hope he's okay, but we don't really know.

or (2) Your father was very concerned about the suffering of our people outside of the palace, my dear. He decided to try and find a solution, so has been away for the past few years leading the ascetic life and consulting with holy men. I'm sure he'll be okay and will soon return when he's found the answers he's searching for.

Also, as the story goes, Gautama's son, Rahula, never knew his father until Gautama returned from his wanderings when his son was 8 years old. Gautama was away for 6 or 7 years before he became enlightened. On speaking to his son for the first time, at the age of 8, Gautama had him ordained as a novice. I don't know where you got the 20 years from.

[Mr Somtam]

Yihaa, full on fault finding! Just what the buddha would have liked! Does it lessen any suffering?

[AYJAYDEE]

you are asking these questions not to learn anything but to make your own points. very insincere.