A Pleasant Conversation (Part 2 of 4)

QUESTION: (Unedited)

Hi again my dear friend,
I am very happy to see your answer. You know, I had been looking for someone whom I can ask my questions about Buddhism for two years and now i`m very happy that I have finally found you.
After reading your answer, i`ve come to these conclusions, if any of my conclusions are wrong, please correct them:
1. Monks in NO conditions are allowed to kill (or act as apposed to the ten percepts) which means:
They are not allowed to defend themselves or their families (father, mother, sister or brother) against the murderers. They are not allowed to defend their country (If another country attacks their country, they only sit and watch or maybe also feel sorry for the people who have been killed.)
2. Lay people are in different conditions. Their actions on this matter (self-defense) can be optional. This means that if they want to be completely free from pain, they should kill nobody in any condition. (For example if a killer comes to his/her house and wants to kill him/her or his/her mother, if he/she wants to be free from pain (or reach nirvana), he/she should not defend him/her self or his/her mother.) But if they are ready to tolerate different pains, they are allowed to defend themselves or their countries. Because kamma will punish them for defending their family or their country.

Now, new questions have come to my mind.

You have said: â

€œThe Buddha did not COMMAND his followers NOT to break precepts. It is generally translated as "I undertake to observe the precept".”

I think putting “undertake” instead of “command”, is playing with words. To be honest with ourselves we must accept that Buddha said that if you want to reach nirvana, this is the way and you must act not opposed to the five percepts. If you do so, you won`t reach nirvana.

You have said: “Killing is unwholesome. The act of killing means a being has to die due to this act of killing. The law of kamma is amoral. It does not take mitigation for a lesser crime.”
I think the percept of kamma is going “immoral” instead of “amoral” in this case.
If, by killing a person you will be able to save the life of someone else why should that killing bring bad kamma for you? In fact that killing can even be called “wholesome”.

You have said: “As lay Buddhists, we are always confronted with this conflict of principles against the onslaught of worldly evils. That was ................................

My comment:

Hi A,

Welcome back.

Your last comment first: about quoting Tipitaka. 　I am sorry I am not skilled in interpreting and quoting the Tipitaka. 　What I share with you are mostly from the books I read and from the talks delivered by learned Buddhist speakers, especially by my late teacher, the Ven Dhammananda (http://www.ksridhammananda.com).

<<1. Monks in NO conditions are allowed to kill ...>>
Please remember in Buddhism there are no such terms as "MUST" or "ALLOWED". 　The Buddha merely lead us to the path of truth, embodied in the Noble Eightfold Path. 　It is up to us whether to follow or not. 　No one is forced to obey any commandment.  If a person wishes to live as he likes, then he does not have to be a monk.

<<2. Lay people are in different conditions. Their actions on this matter (self-defense) can be optional....>>
As lay people we have to lead a balanced life based on wisdom. 　The wisdom to weigh the facts and consequences and then to make the best of the choices.


<>
By just following the five precepts, one will experience a happier life, but not reach Nibbana. 　One will have to cultivate much much more to attain salvation. 　


<< The law of kamma is amoral. It does not take mitigation for a lesser crime....>>
It is like elctricity, if you touch a life-wire you are dead. 　The reason(s) for your touching is irrelevent.

<>
If they want to fight the government, they just need to disrobe. 　No one is forcing them to be monks; but to be monks then they will have to keep their precepts strictly without any compromise.
"Self-defence" is a natural instinct of all life forms. 　As I said before, the reasons may be justified, but the act is a different issue. 　You may have saved your own life; but in the process you have killed one or many. 　That is why it is a very unsatisfactory condition to exist in this world...The First Noble Truth...Dukkha.

<>
That is why he WAS the Buddha. 　He did not have to govern a country!!

<>
Monks (genuine monks) are the holy order of the Buddha. 　They are the GUARDIANCE and TEACHERS of the Dhamma.  That is their "profession".  They "produce" peace of mind and contentment in  life. 

A Pleasant Conversation (Part 1 of 4)

Question : (Unedited)

Hello dear,
I hope you are fine. It`s a great chance that I can ask you my questions. My first question is as follows:

Where is the place of

“Self-Defense” and “Self-Country Defense” and “Self-Family Defense” in the Theravada Tradition of Buddhism (TTB)? If we divide actions in 5th categories, which category will be the place of “Self-Defense” in TTB? Here are the 5th categories:

1. Optional: Whether it is done or not doesn’t have anything to do with TTB.
2. Recommended: It is better to be done.
3. Abominable: It is better not to be done.
4. Obligatory: It must be done.
5. Illegal: It must never be done.

This question came to my mind when I was reading these verses of Dhamma-padda :

For never does hatred cease by hatred in this world. Hatred ceases only by non-hatred. This is an eternal law. Verse No.5

All people tremble at the prospect of punishment. All people fear death.Behave others as if you are behaving yourself, don`t kill and don`t cause others to kill. Verse No.129

Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered are unhappy. Those who have given up both victory and defeat are content and happy. Verse No.201

The sages who injure no one and who always control their bodies—they will go to the unchangeable place where they will suffer no more. Verse No.225

He is not noble who injures living beings. One is so called because he is harmless towards all living beings. Verse No.270

Patiently shall I endure abuse as the elephant in battle endures the arrow sent from the bow, for there are many, indeed, who lack virtue. Verse No.320

The ones I call indeed brahmans who, though innocent offense, endure abuse, beating, and bonds

—who have patience as their force and strength as their army. Verse No.399

The ones I call indeed brahmans who are tolerant among the intolerant, mild among the violent, and free from greed among the greedy. Verse No.406

Besides these verses, there is another verse that forbids selling weapons for lay people: Anguttara-Nikaya V, Sutta 177

To put simple, my question is, in which conditions Buddhists are allowed to break the SIKKHAPADA [I mean panca-sila(the Five Moral Order for lay people)]

My comment:

Hi A,

Welcome. 　It is also with great pleasure that I am given a chance to try to answer your questions. 　May I take it that your question is in your last sentence:

<>


The Buddha did not COMMAND his followers NOT to break precepts. It is generally translated as "I undertake to observe the precept".

Take the example of the first precept which states that one should REFRAIN from killing. Killing is unwholesome. The act of killing means a being has to die due to this act of killing. The law of kamma is amoral. It does not take mitigation for a lesser crime. As lay Buddhists, we are always confronted with this conflict of principles against the onslaught of worldly evils. That was why the Buddha encouraged his followers to become monks to be "away" from the worldly evils. As monks they are required to keep their precepts strictly without compromise. That is the type of life that monks have decided to live by. This means that they will not commit any killing for whatever reason. However, for us lay people we have to be wise to weigh circumstances and to balance our worldly lives with our spiritual values. It is difficult as well as controversial. The Buddha encouraged us to use our common sense and human intelligence to live a practical life. The question here is whether an unwholesome act can be for the better good of the other parties. For example, if killing an aedes mosquito could save the lives of many humans, then we have to use our wisdom to decide. However, the act of killing will produce an unwholesome result now or in the future. Are we prepared to face the consequences for the better good of others? Also, we have to take into considerations of the nature of the life that we have taken. Is this life that we have taken beneficial to society; what is its life span? If that life is not beneficial and its life span is also very short, then the bad effect is much less than otherwise.

The universal law holds supreme. 　An unwholesome act will produce corresponding unwholesome consequence now or in future. 　Wholesome lifestyle will generate wholesome consequences. 　It is our responsibility to live right and make effort to maintain this wholesome way of life; and hopefully there will be less chance that we have to commit unwholesome acts. 　The five precepts are like a protective fence, when effectively guarded, harm will not come our way. 　

Life is like that

Question : (Unedited)

what does buddhism say about evil in the world?... why is there evil in the world?

My comment:

Hi T,

It is in the first Noble Truth..."that existence is unsatisfactory" (Dukkha)

It is the very nature of this world...everything is impermanent, everything is unsatisfactory because of this impermanence, and everything is a reflection of the true nature of this existence which is of no substance. 　These are the three characteristics of existence...impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality 　(Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta).

It is just like asking the following questions:
Why do all the hospitals have sick people?
Why do all jails have prisoners?

The cycle of existence

Question :(Unedited)
do buddhists believe in evolutionism or creationism ?.... im guessing evolutionism because the orgin of the world that buddha tought is that life evolved from simple to complex organisms over millions of years?

My comment:

Our present existence is but a cycle of "creation, evolution, and destruction". 　In astronomy, scientists could observe this "phenomenon" of creation, evolution and destruction of planets and stars. 　There is no beginning and end. 　It is a perpetual cycle. 　It has been like this in time immemorial and will be likewise forever, ad infinitum.

Within one cycle, there is the "creation" of world systems. 　Life appears from other planes of existence and evolves. 　The cycle will again go through the stages of "creation, evolution, dissolution, and destruction".

At this point in time, countless world systems go through the different phases of this cycle of existence. 　Ask any astro scientist and he will confirm this truth. 　The Buddha, with his mind power (omniscience) could see through all these phenomena.

Origin of humans

Question : (Unedited)

what do buddhists believe about the orgin of people... what do buddhits say about where people came from into this world?

My comment:

Hi L,

There is a discourse where the Buddha explained the "evolution" or the "beginning" of life. 　However this "beginning" was just the beginning of endless cycles of existence stretching for an unimaginable and incalculable long periods of time; for lack of a better word it is called an aeon for one such cycle. 　Unless you are familiar with Buddhist teachings, you are not going to believe this. 　

Be that as it may, the story goes like this: 　Long long ago, luminous beings having descended to earth from a higher plane of existence, found that on the surface of the planet was a layer of very aromatic substance. 　They decided to taste it and subsequently were addicted to it. 　After a long time they lost their luminosity and supernatural powers, and their forms evolved into what we are today. 　This was the result of having tasted the "forbidden elixir"....sounds familiar??

Can you teach Buddhism to a Caucasian?

Question : (Unedited)

I heard someone say it is harder to teach Buddhism to a Westerner, Why is that?

My comment:

Hi W,

For someone new to Buddhism, it is like a first-time traveller discovering new and strange places, some totally alien and opposed to one's experiences. 　Buddhist doctrines will be totally alien to a stereotyped Caucasian who has been brought up in a Christian environment. 　This is because Buddhist concepts are very different from Christian doctrines. 　It will take some time for him to think "outside the box" and experience a paradigm shift in order to appreciate and understand what the Buddha taught.

A stereotyped Western mindset in terms of religion is that there must be a creator god and the devil; a hell and a heaven; punishment and reward by god. 　Everything is centred on the fear of this all-powerful and all-knowing god. 　This is the greatest hindrance to a Western mind to understand the teachings of the Buddha. 　It is a "religious shock" to learn that Buddhism is totally different from Christianity. 　So long as the Western mindset is not changed, this person will have difficulty learning Buddhism. 　The only way is to leave aside all the indoctrinated ideas and set oneself to learn Buddhism with an "open mind".

On the positive side, once the Westerner begins to understand Buddhism, he can practise better than an Asian. 　Asians are afffected by their ingrained superstitions and the fear of ghosts. 　

Unchecked desire

Question : (Unedited)

Can you help understand what the Buddhist definition of "desire" is?

If I desire to watch a movie and enjoyed it, will it lead to suffering?

Thanks.

My comment:

Hi W,

Thank you for asking me.

We can say that the teachings of the Buddha are of 2 levels. 　One is for the lay people. 　The other is for those who pursue the ultimate release or salvation, generally refers to monks and nuns. 　The teachings are no different, but the intensity of practice and realization is different. 　If we really want to seek ultimate release or salvation it is very difficult to live as worldly persons because being worldly we are subject to worldly problems, worldly needs, and worldly temptations. 　

As a worldly person you would agree with me that it is impossible to live without the necessities of human comfort (and a little bit of sensual gratification). 　The Buddha's contention is not so much of riding material possessions or depriving oneself of any form of sense gratifications, but not to be over crazy with our desires. 　We practise a lifestyle of CONTENTMENT with what we already have. 　This does not prevent us from further improving our material well being, or enjoying ourselves. 　The skill in right-living is to be contented here and now. 　Otherwise, we will be like crazy fools chasing after more and more material gains and sense desires without ends.

These sensual desires are unquenchable. 　It is the very nature of physical senses. 　Take for example, hunger. 　Once the hunger is satisfied with intake of food; the process of depletion starts, and after some time one feels hungry again. 　Another aspect of sense desire is the stronger feeling of craving. 　One's craving to satisfy one's desire is itself a catalyst to crave for more. 　When this craving goes unchecked, one becomes crazy! 　So the option is opened to anyone who follows the Buddha's teachings: 　to continue feeding these desires with more craving, or to come to one's senses to reduce this crazy cycle of on-going "madness".

It is important to understand that the Buddha never asked us to live a layman's life like zombies. 　We must have the wisdom to live a skilful life with moderation, to enjoy and be peaceful and be happy.

Please enjoy your movies and other happy activities!!

Hope this clears your doubt.