How does Karma and Rebirth relate to modern theories of Evolution

[camerata]

Some off-topic posts have been deleted.

[VincentRJ]

Welcome back from your retreat, Rocky (assuming you have been on another retreat).

 

I was beginning to think that this section of the forum had been killed off, and that I was partly responsible because of my argumentative style of sound and sytematic reasoning.

 

I'll begin by addressing your following point:

Whether influenced by genetics, environment, or both, the fact Buddhadassa had tendency towards obesity, has nothing to do with his teachings.

 

First, it's a major principle of Buddhism that everything is related, at least to some degree, through processes of cause and effect. It therefore follows that Buddhadasa's tendency towards obesity would reasonably have had at least something to do with his teachings, and would have influenced his teachings in at least some way and to some degree, however insignificant that degree might be.

 

It might require a major research project to determine in what way Buddhadassa's tendency towards obesity had influenced his teachings, and in what way his teachings, or thought processes at the basis of his teachings, had influenced his eating habits, as a result of his specific emphasis on, and interpretation of, certain aspects of the Buddha's teachings.

 

For example, I would guess that Buddhadasa would not have placed much emphasis on the following quotes, attributed to the Buddha.

"The Buddha gave this reflection: "Properly considering alms-food, I use it: not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on weight, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival and continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the chaste life, (thinking) I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) and not create new feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, and live in comfort."

 

"Monks, I do not eat in the evening. Because I avoid eating in the evening, I am in good health, light, energetic, and live comfortably. You, too, monks, avoid eating in the evening, and you will have good health."

 

To dismiss the teachings of one who does not look the part is a significant mistake.

 

I would never dismiss the entire teachings of someone who doesn't look the part, Rocky. However, in this case of Buddhadasa, for the reasons given above, some warning bells might start ringing.

If I'm studying Maths, or Physics, and the teacher is overweight, I would consider that issue to be irrelevant to the subject. However, if I were to visit a medical doctor as a result of some blood pressure or heart problem, and the doctor was obese, I would probably lose confidence in his diagnosis and recommendations, and seek a second opinion. Physician, heal thyself.

　

The Kalama Sutta is an excellent guide for ones life.

Great care is needed however not to use it as an excuse not to fully engage in a prescribed practice.

The Kalama Sutta can render one fixed in the cerebral/theoretical, with little time left for actual practice/experience/insight.

Finding out for oneself relies on a little faith in order to engage in appropriate levels of practice needed to expose a kernel of insight.

Anchoring oneself in the Kalama Sutta can lock one into a circular path from which there is no escape.

 

I believe the following quotes are from KALAMA SUTTA, HELP US! by Buddhadasa. The highlights in bold are mine.

 

"If one follows the principle of the Kalama Sutta, one will have independent knowledge and reason with which to understand the meaning and truth of ideas and propositions heard for the first time. For example, when one hears that greed, hatred, and delusion are dangerous and evil, one understands thoroughly and instantly, because one already knows through personal experience what these things are like. One believes in oneself rather than in the speaker. The way of practice is the same in other cases. If a statement is about something one has never seen or known before, one should try to understand or get to know it first. Then one can consider whether or not to accept the newly received teaching or advice. One must not accept something just because one believes in the speaker. One should take one's time, even if it means dying before finding out. The Kalama Sutta can protect one from becoming the intellectual slave of others, even on the highest levels."

 

There's a problem every time a new kind of medicine comes out and gets advertised up and down all over the place. Should we offer ourselves as guinea pigs to test it, out of belief in the advertisements? Or should we wait until we have sufficient reason to try just a little of it first, to see if it truly gives good results, before fully relying on it? We should respond to new statements and teachings as we respond to new medicines, by depending on the principles in the Kalama Sutta as a true refuge.

 

The Kalama Sutta requires us to have wisdom before having faith. If one wants to have faith come first, then let it be the faith which begins with wisdom, not faith which comes from ignorance. The same holds true in the principle of the Noble Eightfold Path: Take wisdom or right understanding as the starting point, then let faith grow out of that wisdom or right understanding. That is the only safe approach. We ought never to believe blindly immediately upon hearing something, nor should we be forced to believe out of fear, bribery, and the like."

 

I'm very much in agreement with the above points from Buddhadasa.　

[rockyysdt]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Welcome back from your retreat, Rocky (assuming you have been on another retreat).

 

First, it's a major principle of Buddhism that everything is related, at least to some degree, through processes of cause and effect. It therefore follows that Buddhadasa's tendency towards obesity would reasonably have had at least something to do with his teachings, and would have influenced his teachings in at least some way and to some degree, however insignificant that degree might be.

 

It might require a major research project to determine in what way Buddhadassa's tendency towards obesity had influenced his teachings, and in what way his teachings, or thought processes at the basis of his teachings, had influenced his eating habits, as a result of his specific emphasis on, and interpretation of, certain aspects of the Buddha's teachings.

 

For example, I would guess that Buddhadasa would not have placed much emphasis on the following quotes, attributed to the Buddha.

"The Buddha gave this reflection: "Properly considering alms-food, I use it: not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on weight, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival and continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the chaste life, (thinking) I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) and not create new feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, and live in comfort."

 

"Monks, I do not eat in the evening. Because I avoid eating in the evening, I am in good health, light, energetic, and live comfortably. You, too, monks, avoid eating in the evening, and you will have good health."

 

Hi Vincent.

 

Thank you for the welcome.

 

Life is one big retreat.  :)

 

I'm thinking that my earlier post should have read:

 

Quote:  Vincent:  To be honest (as I always am) I'm a bit put off by Buddhadassa's tendency towards obesity. It implies a failing at a very basic level; a lack of control of his desires in respect of his appetite for food.

 

How does Buddhadasa's tendency affect you, in particular, your practice (Eightfold Path)?

What do you put off as a result of Buddhadasa's tendencies?

[rockyysdt]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I believe the following quotes are from KALAMA SUTTA, HELP US! by Buddhadasa. The highlights in bold are mine.

 

"If one follows the principle of the Kalama Sutta, one will have independent knowledge and reason with which to understand the meaning and truth of ideas and propositions heard for the first time. For example, when one hears that greed, hatred, and delusion are dangerous and evil, one understands thoroughly and instantly, because one already knows through personal experience what these things are like. One believes in oneself rather than in the speaker. The way of practice is the same in other cases. If a statement is about something one has never seen or known before, one should try to understand or get to know it first. Then one can consider whether or not to accept the newly received teaching or advice. One must not accept something just because one believes in the speaker. One should take one's time, even if it means dying before finding out. The Kalama Sutta can protect one from becoming the intellectual slave of others, even on the highest levels."

 

There's a problem every time a new kind of medicine comes out and gets advertised up and down all over the place. Should we offer ourselves as guinea pigs to test it, out of belief in the advertisements? Or should we wait until we have sufficient reason to try just a little of it first, to see if it truly gives good results, before fully relying on it? We should respond to new statements and teachings as we respond to new medicines, by depending on the principles in the Kalama Sutta as a true refuge.

 

The Kalama Sutta requires us to have wisdom before having faith. If one wants to have faith come first, then let it be the faith which begins with wisdom, not faith which comes from ignorance. The same holds true in the principle of the Noble Eightfold Path: Take wisdom or right understanding as the starting point, then let faith grow out of that wisdom or right understanding. That is the only safe approach. We ought never to believe blindly immediately upon hearing something, nor should we be forced to believe out of fear, bribery, and the like."

 

I'm very much in agreement with the above points from Buddhadasa.　

 

The Kalama Sutta is definitely an excellent guide for ones life. 

 

Given that we'll both be dead before science is able prove the Buddhas teachings, if at all, then isn't the proof you seek not possible for you?

 

The only other way of determining whether the Buddhas teaching is true requires a significant level of practice in order to generate personal insight.

 

Without proof at the starting point does this preclude you from earnestly  practicing the Eightfold Path to a necessary level?

Edited March 14, 2017 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

How does Buddhadasa's tendency affect you, in particular, your practice (Eightfold Path)?

What do you put off as a result of Buddhadasa's tendencies?

Hi rocky,

How does it affect me? I guess he provokes within me a sense of compassion for him because, despite his great learning and understanding of Buddhism, he seems to be so flawed at a fundamental level. He can't even control his appetite. That's so sad.

 

I don't put anything off as a result of Buddhadasa's tendencies. My style of meditation is closer the style of the slightly heretical Santi Asoke Buddhist communities who practise meditation with eyes wide open whilst engaging in their daily work in a natural environment.

 

The Eightfold path is a no-brainer. Who on earth would think that Wrong speech, Wrong action, Wrong livelihood, and so on, is preferable to Right speech, Right action, Right livelihood?

The usefulness of the 8-fold path is to provide a list of important issues for one to consider and think about, using the methodology set out in the Kalama Sutta.

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

 

The Kalama Sutta is definitely an excellent guide for ones life. 

 

Given that we'll both be dead before science is able prove the Buddhas teachings, if at all, then isn't the proof you seek not possible for you?

 

The only other way of determining whether the Buddhas teaching is true requires a significant level of practice in order to generate personal insight.

 

Without proof at the starting point does this preclude you from earnestly  practicing the Eightfold Path to a necessary level?

There is no ultimate proof in science. What we consider to be proof is merely a current consistency between practice and/or observation, and theory. When new practices and observations cease to conform to current theories, as they always seem to do eventually, according to the history of science, then we have to modify or change our theories.

 

I simply try to do the best I can in the circumstances, and go with the flow. I don't worry about whether I'll achieve Nirvana or some highly enlightened state of mind before I die. I'm more concerned with the present.

[rockyysdt]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

There is no ultimate proof in science. What we consider to be proof is merely a current consistency between practice and/or observation, and theory. When new practices and observations cease to conform to current theories, as they always seem to do eventually, according to the history of science, then we have to modify or change our theories.

 

I simply try to do the best I can in the circumstances, and go with the flow. I don't worry about whether I'll achieve Nirvana or some highly enlightened state of mind before I die. I'm more concerned with the present.

Well answered.  

 

Generally based on your postings, I had the impression that you needed proof before dedicating yourself to solid practice.

 

 

The only thing I'd work on is perhaps to eliminate the word "try" in, I simply try to do the best I can.

 

I was taught that when one uses the word try, they're setting themselves up for failure.

 

What are your thoughts on affirming, I" simply do the best I can" ?

[rockyysdt]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Hi rocky,

How does it affect me? I guess he provokes within me a sense of compassion for him because, despite his great learning and understanding of Buddhism, he seems to be so flawed at a fundamental level. He can't even control his appetite. That's so sad.

 

I'm not so sure Vincent.

 

On an earlier trip to Chiang Mai, I was lucky enough to meet and have lunch with an earlier contributor to this forum.

He took me to his favorite Vegetarian Restaurant and we selected some of his favorite dishes for me to try.

 

We covered many topics over lunch including the phenomenon of some Monks observed living like vagrants.

 

He indicated that one of these Monks was known to be Awakened.

As this individual was not involved in a teaching, and that all attachments had completely extinguished, then life as we know offered him no interest.

 

The Ven Buddhadasa may have also shed his worldly attachment, focusing exclusively on growing his legacy (Watt Suan Mokkh, International Retreat & Hermitage"), with no regard to his body, which he new was not him.

[rockyysdt]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I don't put anything off as a result of Buddhadasa's tendencies. My style of meditation is closer the style of the slightly heretical Santi Asoke Buddhist communities who practise meditation with eyes wide open whilst engaging in their daily work in a natural environment.

 

Why do you say this is heretical?

 

You've described Right Mindfulness:

 

Right Mindfulness (samyak-smṛti / sammā-sati) in the Sacca-vibhanga Sutta is explained as follows:

And what is right mindfulness?

Here the monk remains contemplating the body as body, resolute, aware and mindful, having put aside worldly desire and sadness;
he remains contemplating feelings as feelings;
he remains contemplating mental states as mental states;
he remains contemplating mental objects as mental objects, resolute, aware and mindful, having put aside worldly desire and sadness;
This is called right mindfulness.

One of the Eightfold Path.

 

The other part which is specified is Right Concentration, which allows you to achieve deep Samadhi.

 

And what is right concentration?

Here, the monk, detached from sense-desires, detached from unwholesome states, enters and remains in the first jhana (level of concentration, Sanskrit: dhyāna), in which there is applied and sustained thinking, together with joy and pleasure born of detachment;
[ii] And through the subsiding of applied and sustained thinking, with the gaining of inner stillness and oneness of mind, he enters and remains in the second jhana, which is without applied and sustained thinking, and in which there are joy and pleasure born of concentration;
[iii] And through the fading of joy, he remains equanimous, mindful and aware, and he experiences in his body the pleasure of which the Noble Ones say: "equanimous, mindful and dwelling in pleasure", and thus he enters and remains in the third jhana;
[iv] And through the giving up of pleasure and pain, and through the previous disappearance of happiness and sadness, he enters and remains in the fourth jhana, which is without pleasure and pain, and in which there is pure equanimity and mindfulness.
This is called right concentration.

 

This is the Sitting Meditation.

 

Both are important, but if you're regularly practicing Mindfulness you're leagues in front of most.

Edited March 15, 2017 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

20 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

Why do you say this is heretical?

 

You've described Right Mindfulness:

 

Hi Rocky,
Actually I wasn't referring specifically to the practice of 'mindfulness with open eyes' as being heretical. It's the over all practices of the Santi Asoke groups which tend to be heretical, because they do not accept cash donations, do not build giant Buddha statues, work to support themselves, ordain women as nuns, and are all strict vegans.

 

They tend to poke fun at the more conventional forest monks who sit for long periods doing nothing. An analogy they use to explain why they do not practise this formal, 'sitting still with eyes closed' meditation (at least for long periods), is as follows:

 

"If the bottle is kept still the sediment settles at the bottom of the bottle and the water appears clear. In other words, defilements are not seen. As the bottle is shaken the water becomes clouded with sediment. In a similar way the meditator’s problems and defilements reappear once he/she stops meditating."
 

"Asoke members do not use sitting meditation (zazen) except to unwind at the end of a busy day. An essential feature of Asoke practice is that mindfulness arises from focus on daily tasks rather than concentration on a meditative object."

 

If anyone's interested, the following rather long pdf covers the groups beliefs and practices quite well.
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/New Buddhist Movements In Thailand_Mackenzie.pdf
 

[VincentRJ]

20 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

I was taught that when one uses the word try, they're setting themselves up for failure.

 

What are your thoughts on affirming, "I simply do the best I can" ?

Good point. Common words always have connotations. If one tends to associate the word 'try' with struggle and endurance, then it's not the best choice. Shall we say, "I have an intention to do the best I can." 

[rockyysdt]

55 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Hi Rocky,
Actually I wasn't referring specifically to the practice of 'mindfulness with open eyes' as being heretical. It's the over all practices of the Santi Asoke groups which tend to be heretical, because they do not accept cash donations, do not build giant Buddha statues, work to support themselves, ordain women as nuns, and are all strict vegans.

 

They tend to poke fun at the more conventional forest monks who sit for long periods doing nothing. An analogy they use to explain why they do not practise this formal, 'sitting still with eyes closed' meditation (at least for long periods), is as follows:

 

"If the bottle is kept still the sediment settles at the bottom of the bottle and the water appears clear. In other words, defilements are not seen. As the bottle is shaken the water becomes clouded with sediment. In a similar way the meditator’s problems and defilements reappear once he/she stops meditating."
 

"Asoke members do not use sitting meditation (zazen) except to unwind at the end of a busy day. An essential feature of Asoke practice is that mindfulness arises from focus on daily tasks rather than concentration on a meditative object."

 

If anyone's interested, the following rather long pdf covers the groups beliefs and practices quite well.
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/New Buddhist Movements In Thailand_Mackenzie.pdf
 

The positive attributes (highlighted above) are very good practices.

 

In terms of practice of exclusively practicing Right Mindfulness but ignoring Right Concentration, I feel goes against the Buddhas teaching.

 

The Buddha, in the Eighfold Path, specifically includes Right Mindfulness (Samma sati) & Right Concentration (Samma samadhi).

 

If one exclusively practices Right Mindfulness they'll probably have their hands full achieving mastery its mastery, but to drop Right Concentration is to ignore the Eightfold Path.

 

All parts of the practice have been hand picked by the Buddha.

 

The sand settling at the bottom sounds impressive, but I don't think there is any science to relate it to defilements and how they operate?

[VincentRJ]

On ‎15‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 10:59 PM, rockyysdt said:

The positive attributes (highlighted above) are very good practices.

 

In terms of practice of exclusively practicing Right Mindfulness but ignoring Right Concentration, I feel goes against the Buddhas teaching.

 

The Buddha, in the Eighfold Path, specifically includes Right Mindfulness (Samma sati) & Right Concentration (Samma samadhi).

 

If one exclusively practices Right Mindfulness they'll probably have their hands full achieving mastery its mastery, but to drop Right Concentration is to ignore the Eightfold Path.

 

All parts of the practice have been hand picked by the Buddha.

 

The sand settling at the bottom sounds impressive, but I don't think there is any science to relate it to defilements and how they operate?

C'mon now, Rocky. We don't really know what the Buddha actually said because there existed no writing in India in those days. Everything was passed down by memory for a few centuries, with the added difficulties of changing and evolving spoken languages. Those memories, as flawed as they might have been, were finally translated into Pali, a language which Buddha didn't speak, about 400 years after the death of the Buddha.

 

About 2 thousand-plus years later, we are now reading translations from the written interpretations of ancient cultures, which might not accurately represent what the Buddha said, into the modern language of English, with its modern connotations to almost every word, and its associations with scientific knowledge which was not available to the Buddha, or those who wrote down his teaching centuries later.

 

This is why the Kalama Sutta is such an essential teaching. It doesn't really matter to me (in a practical sense) whether the advice of the Kalama Sutta is a true representation of what the Buddha actually said, because the advice, whoever might have been the true author, makes complete sense to me.

 

My impression is, the Santi Asoke movement has resulted from an undeniable awareness of the corruption and/or un-buddhist practices in the established traditional Sangha in Thailand where the temple hierarchy and organisations receive huge amounts of donations from poor people trying to make merit, whilst the monks and abbots sometimes (or often) have an easy time lounging around, doing nothing, and sometimes even overindulge in freely available food.

 

I don't think the Santi Asoke monks ignore 'Right Concentration', sitting down doing nothing for hours on end. They just give it less emphasis, and give more emphasis to productive work so they don't have to 'feed off the poor'.

[VincentRJ]

 

Edited March 19, 2017 by VincentRJ
Duplication of post

[rockyysdt]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

C'mon now, Rocky. We don't really know what the Buddha actually said because there existed no writing in India in those days. Everything was passed down by memory for a few centuries, with the added difficulties of changing and evolving spoken languages. Those memories, as flawed as they might have been, were finally translated into Pali, a language which Buddha didn't speak, about 400 years after the death of the Buddha.

 

 

My impression is, the Santi Asoke movement has resulted from an undeniable awareness of the corruption and/or un-buddhist practices in the established traditional Sangha in Thailand where the temple hierarchy and organisations receive huge amounts of donations from poor people trying to make merit, whilst the monks and abbots sometimes (or often) have an easy time lounging around, doing nothing, and sometimes even overindulge in freely available food.

 

I don't think the Santi Asoke monks ignore 'Right Concentration', sitting down doing nothing for hours on end. They just give it less emphasis, and give more emphasis to productive work so they don't have to 'feed off the poor'.

 

Doesn't, the requirement for  "Right Concentration",  fit into his teaching of achieving awareness of the 4 Jhanas?

In other words, if he taught the need to progress ones awareness of the four Jhanas, then he must have prescribed Right Concentration.

 

 

Quote:

And what is right concentration?

Here, the monk, detached from sense-desires, detached from unwholesome states, enters and remains in the first jhana (level of concentration, Sanskrit: dhyāna), in which there is applied and sustained thinking, together with joy and pleasure born of detachment;
[ii] And through the subsiding of applied and sustained thinking, with the gaining of inner stillness and oneness of mind, he enters and remains in the second jhana, which is without applied and sustained thinking, and in which there are joy and pleasure born of concentration;
[iii] And through the fading of joy, he remains equanimous, mindful and aware, and he experiences in his body the pleasure of which the Noble Ones say: "equanimous, mindful and dwelling in pleasure", and thus he enters and remains in the third jhana;
[iv] And through the giving up of pleasure and pain, and through the previous disappearance of happiness and sadness, he enters and remains in the fourth jhana, which is without pleasure and pain, and in which there is pure equanimity and mindfulness.
This is called right concentration.

Right concentration meditative in Buddhism is a state of awareness without any object or subject, and ultimately unto nothingness and emptiness.

 

I do like the model Santi Asoke Monks ascribe to in which they sustain themselves with productive work rather than living off the poor community.

 

We do agree that many misuse the robes as a front for an easy life.

Such people do incalculable damage, not only to themselves, but to the name of Buddhism.

But aren't there many adherents of Buddhism who don't misuse their position, putting the resources made available to them towards faithful endeavor?

 

My understanding is that the level of Samadhi required to get to the 4th Jhana requires quite a bit of ones day.

It was the Buddha who was quoted as having said that the prescribed practice required full time application for most to be successful.

I think with the Santi Asoke work ethos, they maybe treading a fine line between achieving Awakening vs a Naturalist Lifestyle.

 

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the latter, but this is not the same as achieving the state of Awakening. 

Edited March 19, 2017 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 2:28 AM, rockyysdt said:

 

Doesn't, the requirement for  "Right Concentration",  fit into his teaching of achieving awareness of the 4 Jhanas?

In other words, if he taught the need to progress ones awareness of the four Jhanas, then he must have prescribed Right Concentration.

My understanding is that the level of Samadhi required to get to the 4th Jhana requires quite a bit of ones day.

It was the Buddha who was quoted as having said that the prescribed practice required full time application for most to be successful.

I think with the Santi Asoke work ethos, they maybe treading a fine line between achieving Awakening vs a Naturalist Lifestyle.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the latter, but this is not the same as achieving the state of Awakening. 

Who knows, Rocky. One can't get inside the mind of another person in order to compare his state of enlightenment with one's own. I tend to think such categories as 'Four Noble Truths', 'Eightfold Path', 'Four Jhanas', and so on, are very simplistic, like titles of a book.

 

I imagine the reality is, there is more of a continuum, and a gradual change, sometimes back and forth, between each of these stages. Although I accept that one can have sudden illuminations.

 

'Right Concentration' is obviously something that is right, and is a state of mind that everyone should attempt to achieve during any task or work one is involved in, if only for the sake of avoiding accidents.

 

Whether or not the Santi Asoke approach can be a more successful approach to achieving full enlightenment, is not something I can be certain about. I guess one of the reasons I find the Santi Asoke approach to Buddhism interesting, is because I've always felt there was something wrong with a system that segregated an elite section of the population from the processes of earning a living, or supporting themselves at even the most basic level. Santi Asoke addresses this issue.

 

Another issue they address is the eating of meat. As I understand, the Buddha's (purported) advice was that a monk could eat meat, provided he was not aware that the animal source of the meat had not been killed for the express purpose of feeding him through offerings to his alms bowl.

 

This is a very disingenuous argument. One can imagine there might be many people who regularly drop food into the monks alms bowl in order to gain merit, but who also prepare for this daily event by cooking more food and killing more chickens. Such people are obviously not going to inform the monks, as they drop pieces of chicken ino their alms bowls, "I killed an extra chicken today, especially for you, dear monks."

 

The Santi Asoke people solve this dilemma by insisting on total vegetarianism. They have one up on Buddhadasa in this respect.

 

I've tried to find the basis for Bodhiraksa's (the founder of the Santi Asoke movement) criticism of Buddhadasa. I eventually found another, slighty more detail reference to that criticism in the following article by Marja-Leena Heikkilä-Horn.

http://www.asoke.info/bunniyom/openeyes.marja_leena4.html

 

"Bodhiraksa criticises Buddhadasa's methods of teaching for being "unrealistic", since there is no real practice and no way to identify the results. The results of Buddhadasa are only words and, among his followers, there are no concrete examples of detachment, unlike the detachment which can be seen amongst the Asoke followers. Bodhiraksa criticises the forest-dwelling meditation monks for being "too extreme", being "beyond Buddhism". Bodhiraksa emphasises that the Asoke group does not want to escape from the world in the way that the forest monks do."

 

However, I should also mention that:

"The Asoke also share Buddhadasa's social orientation and social criticism. Their criticism of consumerism, wasting money and resources while forgetting the ordinary Thai people does not differ radically from Prayudh Payutto's comments on modernisation, Westernisation and the Thai state. In that sense, they are not more "political" than some other leading monks."

[rockyysdt]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Who knows, Rocky. One can't get inside the mind of another person in order to compare his state of enlightenment with one's own. I tend to think such categories as 'Four Noble Truths', 'Eightfold Path', 'Four Jhanas', and so on, are very simplistic, like titles of a book.

 

I imagine the reality is, there is more of a continuum, and a gradual change, sometimes back and forth, between each of these stages. Although I accept that one can have sudden illuminations.

 

'Right Concentration' is obviously something that is right, and is a state of mind that everyone should attempt to achieve during any task or work one is involved in, if only for the sake of avoiding accidents.

 

Whether or not the Santi Asoke approach can be a more successful approach to achieving full enlightenment, is not something I can be certain about. I guess one of the reasons I find the Santi Asoke approach to Buddhism interesting, is because I've always felt there was something wrong with a system that segregated an elite section of the population from the processes of earning a living, or supporting themselves at even the most basic level. Santi Asoke addresses this issue.

 

Another issue they address is the eating of meat. As I understand, the Buddha's (purported) advice was that a monk could eat meat, provided he was not aware that the animal source of the meat had not been killed for the express purpose of feeding him through offerings to his alms bowl.

 

This is a very disingenuous argument. One can imagine there might be many people who regularly drop food into the monks alms bowl in order to gain merit, but who also prepare for this daily event by cooking more food and killing more chickens. Such people are obviously not going to inform the monks, as they drop pieces of chicken ino their alms bowls, "I killed an extra chicken today, especially for you, dear monks."

 

The Santi Asoke people solve this dilemma by insisting on total vegetarianism. They have one up on Buddhadasa in this respect.

 

I've tried to find the basis for Bodhiraksa's (the founder of the Santi Asoke movement) criticism of Buddhadasa. I eventually found another, slighty more detail reference to that criticism in the following article by Marja-Leena Heikkilä-Horn.

http://www.asoke.info/bunniyom/openeyes.marja_leena4.html

 

"Bodhiraksa criticises Buddhadasa's methods of teaching for being "unrealistic", since there is no real practice and no way to identify the results. The results of Buddhadasa are only words and, among his followers, there are no concrete examples of detachment, unlike the detachment which can be seen amongst the Asoke followers. Bodhiraksa criticises the forest-dwelling meditation monks for being "too extreme", being "beyond Buddhism". Bodhiraksa emphasises that the Asoke group does not want to escape from the world in the way that the forest monks do."

 

However, I should also mention that:

"The Asoke also share Buddhadasa's social orientation and social criticism. Their criticism of consumerism, wasting money and resources while forgetting the ordinary Thai people does not differ radically from Prayudh Payutto's comments on modernisation, Westernisation and the Thai state. In that sense, they are not more "political" than some other leading monks."

 

It's interesting to read that Marja-Leena Heikkilä-Horn says: I do not think we can reach the highest level in this life, but we have to try.

 

In other words the Santi Asoke teaching is that adherents must try for the ultimate goal in this life.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

On ‎20‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 0:21 AM, rockyysdt said:

 

It's interesting to read that Marja-Leena Heikkilä-Horn says: I do not think we can reach the highest level in this life, but we have to try.

 

In other words the Santi Asoke teaching is that adherents must try for the ultimate goal in this life.

 

 

Rocky,

I guess we're all trying for some type of 'ultimate' goal, whether that be economic security and freedom from all debt, or great wealth and power over others, or becoming the fastest runner or swimmer in the Olympic Games, or climbing the highest mountain, or gaining a PhD in a particular subject, and so on.

 

It's the dissatisfaction with such goals, and disappointments with the results, that perhaps lead certain people to adopt the more simple, austere, but natural lifestyle of Buddhism, with the promise that achieving complete control over one's own mind, thoughts and desires, etc, can result in far greater joys than those experienced by people exposed to the mayhem of modern, economic lifestyles.

[rockyysdt]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Rocky,

I guess we're all trying for some type of 'ultimate' goal, whether that be economic security and freedom from all debt, or great wealth and power over others, or becoming the fastest runner or swimmer in the Olympic Games, or climbing the highest mountain, or gaining a PhD in a particular subject, and so on.

 

It's the dissatisfaction with such goals, and disappointments with the results, that perhaps lead certain people to adopt the more simple, austere, but natural lifestyle of Buddhism, with the promise that achieving complete control over one's own mind, thoughts and desires, etc, can result in far greater joys than those experienced by people exposed to the mayhem of modern, economic lifestyles.

 

My preoccupation of late is peoples motives, and in this case peoples motives which cause them to be drawn to Buddhism.

 

I find most people already have a formed view, and in the case of Buddhism, a formed view of what Buddhism is.

 

In many cases their formed view of what Buddhism is significantly differs from the Buddha's basic teachings.

 

 

If their formed opinion of what Buddhism is aligns with their personal preferences, then they'll be drawn to it.

 

This might include such things as:

Vegetarianism.

Ethical lifestyle.

Philosophy rather than religion.

 

 

 

My other observation is that one's first impression/experience is very powerful.

 

Even when something or someone turns out to be quite different, people automatically return to a first impressions picture  or view.

This is part of the auto view/response rather than functioning in the moment.

 

I've been fortunate enough to have imparted very good first impressions on a couple of key people in my employment.

I'm sadly turned out to be short of the first impressions I gave, but the power of these first impressions has kept me afloat.  :)

 

 

You can teach a person, what the Buddha actually was teaching, but if this differs from a persons conditioned view of it, they'll gradually revery to their earlier (first impression/experience) views over time.

 

People can change but most don't.

Everyone is set in stone.

This is why most will not Awaken.

 

You've described this ultimate goal as a difficult achievement, something beyond achieving or worrying about.

 

My contention is that our predisposition to our deeply ingrained conditioning (habits & beliefs) is our anchor.

 

Awakening is simple but our conditioning holds us back.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by rockyysdt

[Fleafreethree]

Quote

One acceptable interpretation is that rebirth really refers to the arising of new thoughts (and/or attitudes) in this lifetime, and that the Buddhist scriptures that imply otherwise are just distortions of the Buddha's 'true' teachings,

 

You want to get rid of the only evidence you have of what the Buddha taught (though presumably only get rid of those bits which are incompatible with the views of modern science) and instead make some supposition about what he  'really' believed based on....something other than the textual record. Having read some of the suttas which deal with reincarnation, the Buddha's beliefs seem fairly straightforward and unless there is compelling evidence to think that this is all invention by later editors (something which I haven't seen) then, assuming the Buddhist claims are straightforward truth claims about the world, you have a simple choice to make: choose between a pre-modern and a modern account of the world (and between those two, that's hardly a difficult decision).

[VincentRJ]

On ‎21‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 1:04 AM, rockyysdt said:

 

My preoccupation of late is peoples motives, and in this case peoples motives which cause them to be drawn to Buddhism.

 

I find most people already have a formed view, and in the case of Buddhism, a formed view of what Buddhism is.

 

In many cases their formed view of what Buddhism is significantly differs from the Buddha's basic teachings.

 

If their formed opinion of what Buddhism is aligns with their personal preferences, then they'll be drawn to it.

 

This might include such things as:

Vegetarianism.

Ethical lifestyle.

Philosophy rather than religion.

 

My other observation is that one's first impression/experience is very powerful.

 

Even when something or someone turns out to be quite different, people automatically return to a first impressions picture  or view.

This is part of the auto view/response rather than functioning in the moment.

 

Interesting points, Rocky. However, speaking for myself, I have difficulty in identifying any first impression about Buddhism that was very powerful. My first memory, in relation to Buddhism, is when a school colleague, during the weekly scripture lessons at school in the U.K., was asked by the teacher to give a brief talk to the class,on a religion other than Christianity. He chose Buddhism, and would probably have spoken about that basic story of Buddha coming out of his palace for the first time and being shocked at the suffering he witnessed. However, I can't remember the details of that student's talk, and I can't remember being particularly impressed in a way that motivated me to do further research on the subject at the time.

 

The next impression of Buddhism I remember is just a few years later, around the age of 20, when I was travelling in India on a tight budget, travelling 3rd class on the trains, and being saddened, but also amazed and perplexed at the degree of poverty, homelessness and suffering. The thought occurred to me, if India is like this in the 20th century, what would it have been like 2,500 years ago during the times of the Buddha? Could it have been even worse?

 

At this time, whilst still in India, I began to read a few texts on Buddhism, and recall being particulary puzzled by the concept of 'ceasing all thought processes' to achieve Nirvana. I'd come out of the U.K. where I'd been exposed to constant pressure to study hard and constantly think, in order to pass exams and get a good career. Yet here is a religion which is describing the ultimate goal as a cessation of all thought, which appears to be the opposite of my conditioning.

 

After travelling through India to Madras, where I got on an ocean liner to Penang and then hitchhicked up to Bangkok, my next impression of Buddhism was when I taught English to a class of monks at Wat Mahatat in Bangkok. I was teaching in return for free accommodation, because I was essentially broke, but I was impressed with the general niceness and friendliness of the monks, and the Thai people in general.

 

I spent 14 months in Thailand, earning a living giving private English tuition (even though I had no qualifications as a teacher), and during that time I was constantly impressed by the apparent happiness and friendliness of the Thai people who were in general so much poorer than people in the U.K. who seemed more miserable in general than the Thais were, despite their greater wealth. I now think that this attitude is directly related to the teaching of Buddhism, but at the time I don't recall thinking much about that connection.

 

After I left Thailand and got on with my life in developed countries, eventually emigrating to Australia, Buddhism didn't occupy my thoughts much, although, because of my philosophical interests, I was always aware of the connection between Buddhists concepts of 'cause and effect' and the scientific methodology, and the more difficult concept that what we perceive through our senses is not objective reality, but our own interpretation of that reality in accordance with individual characheristics and the more general characteristics of the Homo Sapiens biology.

 

For example, a leaf isn't really green. We have a sensation in our mind, according to our biology, that interprets certain wave lengths of light that are reflected from the leaf, as the color green. We then project that sensation of greenness, which exists only in our own minds, onto the leaf and say 'the leaf is green'.

 

My interest in Buddhism was renewed when I stumbled across the Kalama Sutta just a few years ago, probably because of the widespread dissemination of free information on the internet, and also because of my association with Rod Bucknell who is a Buddhist scholar with a few published books. (He had his 80th birthday a few days ago. I hope he lives much longer than the Buddha.   )

 

I tend to think my strongest impression of Buddhism might have been my reading of the Kalama Sutta for the first time, but that definitely was not my first impression of Buddhism.

Edited March 22, 2017 by VincentRJ

[rockyysdt]

On 22/03/2017 at 0:33 PM, VincentRJ said:

 

I tend to think my strongest impression of Buddhism might have been my reading of the Kalama Sutta for the first time, but that definitely was not my first impression of Buddhism.

In your case, these first impressions or early conditioning I refer to relate to your lifestyle and leanings, and that Buddhism appeared to align with these and hence your attraction to Buddhism, not the other way around.  :)

[VincentRJ]

21 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

In your case, these first impressions or early conditioning I refer to relate to your lifestyle and leanings, and that Buddhism appeared to align with these and hence your attraction to Buddhism, not the other way around.  :)

Maybe so, but I suspect my general interest in philosophical matters and my rejection of the Creator God concept of Christianity at an early age, would have set the ground for a degree of receptivity to Buddhist concepts that I became aware of as a result of my wandering lifestyle in my early 20's.

 

On the other hand, the impracticality of the lifestyle of the Theravadin monks, and their total dependence on hand-outs from the working populations, never seemed quite right to me.

I couldn't quite get around the apparent contradiction between the obvious truths of the 8-fold path, of right livelihood, right action, right effort and so on, and the concept of a group of monks who are not only totally dependent upon working people for their survival in terms of food donations, but often live in temple compounds next to glittering, gold-plated, expensive ornaments, built and paid for by the working class. It just didn't seem right.

 

I guess that's why I'm more attracted to the Santi Asoke interpretation of Buddhism.

[rockyysdt]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Maybe so, but I suspect my general interest in philosophical matters and my rejection of the Creator God concept of Christianity at an early age, would have set the ground for a degree of receptivity to Buddhist concepts that I became aware of as a result of my wandering lifestyle in my early 20's.

 

On the other hand, the impracticality of the lifestyle of the Theravadin monks, and their total dependence on hand-outs from the working populations, never seemed quite right to me.

I couldn't quite get around the apparent contradiction between the obvious truths of the 8-fold path, of right livelihood, right action, right effort and so on, and the concept of a group of monks who are not only totally dependent upon working people for their survival in terms of food donations, but often live in temple compounds next to glittering, gold-plated, expensive ornaments, built and paid for by the working class. It just didn't seem right.

 

I guess that's why I'm more attracted to the Santi Asoke interpretation of Buddhism.

 

I view it a little differently.

 

If you use the pyramid model, the bulk of the billions out there will take just short of eternity before they might Awaken, while a few at any given time will succeed.

 

The same model can be used for Monks vs everyone else.

As the general population far out numbers full time Monks on the planet, then isn't there enough resource to go around?

Sure some give more, and more than they can afford in comparison to others, but what is their motive?

Are they doing it to garner good luck?

If they are then isn't this a form of Greed & Aversion, not to mention Delusion?

 

The Buddha realized that the effort to become fully Awakened required most of ones time and effort and so began the Bikkhu/ni path.

 

What you're referring to (Theravadin monks often live in temple compounds next to glittering, gold-plated, expensive ornaments, built and paid for by the working class) is an example of Greed & Aversion.

 

I don't think we should discredit a system based on its misuse.

 

If indeed the Buddhas teachings are based in fact, then those who misuse their positions will be sewing considerable Kharma and its unstoppable fruit, Vipaka.

At the very least they'll definitely not succeed in any kind of Awakening.

They will effectively have wasted their lives.

 

Those who spend all their spare resource over giving for good luck will also be wasting their resource and end up stuck in Samsara.

There is no substitute for practice.

 

Although Santi Asoke are beyond reproach on much that they advocate, perhaps they might be missing the point when it comes to Right Concentration & Right Livelihood.

 

The Buddha new that not everyone in the world good practice.

If everyone did there would be mass starvation to begin with.

 

For the average person who needed to feed his family the Buddha gave hope and a beginning with Right Action, Right Livelihood, & Right Speech.

Edited March 23, 2017 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

On ‎23‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 4:41 AM, rockyysdt said:

I view it a little differently.

 

If you use the pyramid model, the bulk of the billions out there will take just short of eternity before they might Awaken, while a few at any given time will succeed.

 

The Buddha realized that the effort to become fully Awakened required most of ones time and effort and so began the Bikkhu/ni path.

 

The Buddha new that not everyone in the world good practice.

If everyone did there would be mass starvation to begin with.

 

 

Rocky,

I thought you had accepted the Buddhadasa concept that Rebirth does not refer to another physical life in the future but a renewal of thought processes in this life.

 

If we assume this to be true, and that the traditional Buddhist view of Rebirth is just a cultural influence of Vedic Reincarnation which the Buddha had to include in his teachings, although in some modified form, in order to effectively communicate with his audience, then doesn't it follow that this life, in the present, is the only one that counts, for each individual?

 

In other words, the options are, if you want to give yourself the best chance of enlightenment, and perhaps the only chance of enlightenment because this current life is the only life you'll have, and also because enlightenment requires most of one's time and effort, then the vast bulk of Buddhist populations are excluded, in reality, from ever achieving enlightenment.

 

Without a belief in physical Rebirth, and a belief that one will continue to get many more chances to reach Nirvana in future lives, then the current traditional system of monks living off the poor, doesn't seem entirely ethical. Do you get my logic? (based on the Kalama Sutta    )

 

For the average person who needed to feed his family the Buddha gave hope and a beginning with Right Action, Right Livelihood, & Right Speech.

 

And also the hope of a continuation of countless more chances in the future as one is physically reborn. This is surely a very essential and necessary part of the traditional Buddhist system.

[rockyysdt]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Rocky,

I thought you had accepted the Buddhadasa concept that Rebirth does not refer to another physical life in the future but a renewal of thought processes in this life.

 

As the Buddhadasa concept (Rebirth moment to moment), is within the relm of current science then I accept it, but I'm open to Rebirth beyond.

 

To say it does not exist is as difficult to prove as saying that it does.

 

But, as said by many, attachment to that which is beyond our ability to comprehend is best left alone.

 

All will be revealed with successful practice.

Edited March 24, 2017 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

But, as said by many, attachment to that which is beyond our ability to comprehend is best left alone.

 

All will be revealed with successful practice.

Rocky,

Was Buddhadasa's practice successful? Was all revealed to him, that Rebirth was from moment to moment?

[rockyysdt]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Rocky,

Was Buddhadasa's practice successful? Was all revealed to him, that Rebirth was from moment to moment?

 

Aren't all Awakenings personal experiences?

 

 

[Damrongsak]

"Aren't all Awakenings personal experiences? "

 

And awhile back:  "ceasing all thought processes "

 

Many years ago as a teenager, I was very upset over something.  Locked myself in the bathroom and stared at myself in the mirror.  I wanted nothing less than to cease existing. I wanted nothingness, peace.  Then a thought popped up that there cannot be nothing because nothing is something.  It short-circuited my brain, complete cessation of thought.  It was like a jolt of electricity. Maybe like a Zen Koan. I was never the same and it has affected my whole life. 

 

As a result, I am humble and respectful, but I do not pretend to know anything beyond the possibilities.

[rockyysdt]

5 hours ago, Damrongsak said:

"Aren't all Awakenings personal experiences? "

 

And awhile back:  "ceasing all thought processes "

 

Many years ago as a teenager, I was very upset over something.  Locked myself in the bathroom and stared at myself in the mirror.  I wanted nothing less than to cease existing. I wanted nothingness, peace.  Then a thought popped up that there cannot be nothing because nothing is something.  It short-circuited my brain, complete cessation of thought.  It was like a jolt of electricity. Maybe like a Zen Koan. I was never the same and it has affected my whole life. 

 

As a result, I am humble and respectful, but I do not pretend to know anything beyond the possibilities.

Nice experience D.

 

Mine was similar.

 

Six days into a 10 day retreat.

 

Try as I might, I just couldn't successfully meditate (first Jhana).

 

I gave in and simply focused on my posture and breath.

 

Bingo, that delicate state you alluded to revealed itself.

 

It isn't something, & it isn't nothingness.

 

A conscious state without thought.

 

It has several levels (very exciting).