Survey on 911 tragedy (Buddhist perspective)

 

This came via email:

 

Hi there Justin, and “Sawasdee Kha” as we say in my home country of Thailand (although I live in the USA now).

This is Srisuda Hongthai from The Buddha Garden and I wanted you to know that we are conducting a survey on Buddhism in the ten years since the 9/11 Tragedies. I don't know what impacts the 9/11 attacks had on your home country of Malaysia. But here in the USA, many people found solace in the teachings of Buddhism after 9/11. The survey is at:

http://www.thebuddhagarden.com/911survey/

Wouldn’t it be great to know why so many people become interested in Buddhism after the 9/11 attacks? Does Buddhism still play a role in their lives ten years after the attacks? How do the attitudes of new Buddhists differ from those who were Buddhists before 9/11?

No matter how long you have been interested in Buddhism, we encourage you to take this survey yourself. The fact that you DON'T live here in the USA is even better, since it will help to add diversity to the responses.

We also kindly ask that you will join other webmasters like you by telling your readers about the survey and encouraging them to take it as well. You would be doing a great service to the Dharma community.

Will you kindly let us know if you will be joining hundreds of like-minded bloggers and webmasters by linking to the survey, or mentioning it on FaceBook or Twitter?

Thank you, and Sawasdee Kha,

Srisuda Hongthai
The Buddha Garden

Harder to teach Buddhism to a Westerner?

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 stereotype 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. 　

Don't worry be happy. Enjoy your movie.

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 ridding 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.

Training The Mind (Part 2 of 2)

Question : (Unedited)

By the way, what do you think of Vipassana meditation cause I'm thinking of participating in a ten-day course of Vipassana meditation this year. Some people say that Vipassana is difficult.
I also heard of Natural Stress Relief, what do you think about it, if you ever heard of it?
thanks

My comment:

Hi L,

First, if you have to pay a fee, then do not go. 　Buddhist meditation conducted by true Buddhists should be free. As for "Natural Stress Relief" I think it sounds very commercial! 　

As I said before, there are as many types of meditation as there are sandwiches. 　As for Buddhist meditation, there are two relevant suttas explaining meditation by the Buddha. They are briefly described below, with references where you can click for details.

The most relevant is the Anapanasati Sutta.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anapanasati_sutta)
This sutta points out the method to calm our mind by being mindful of our breathing. Another good reference is here:
(http://www.dhammasukha.org/Study/Books/Pdf/anapana-%203-2003.pdf)

With a certain level of this mindfulness and focus, the mind achieves full concentration or samadhi 　　　(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi). 　At this level, the mind experiences tranquility which is Samatha. 　And the resulting experience from this state of mind is 　mental rapture or absorption which is called jhana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhana). The mind is now ready for further training to experience true insight into the true nature of things, vipassana 　　　　(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana). 　The practice of Vipassana is based on the "Foundation of mindfulness Sutta" or Satipathana Sutta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satipatthana_Sutta).

So you see, the whole process is pretty complicating; and added to differing interpretations, it becomes mind boggling. 　As far as I am concerned, I practise Anapanasati which is mindfulness of breathing, and let the rest takes its course. 　It's that simple and easy!! 　To summarize: To achieve concentration is just like a person learning to drive a car; he needs full concentration to maneuver the car safely; this is samadhi. 　After a while he gains experience and can be relaxed while driving; this is samatha. 　Later, while concentrating and relaxing on his driving he can even enjoy the scenery around him and also engage in conversation; this is vipassana. 　Later he may become over-confidence and the danger comes!

As a parting comment, please remember that the above is my personal interpretation to the best of my experience and knowledge. 　There will be others who will disagree with me. 　So, please remember the Buddha's advice: use your own intelligence and common sense to decide.

Smile from justinchoo :-)

Training the mind (Part 1 0f 2)

QUESTION: (Unedited)

Hello, how are you?

I'd like to ask you about meditation.
I've noticed that there can be either internal or external meditation. Some people proclaim that it's better to keep your eyes open while meditating, others to keep them closed and focus on your inner world, to watch what appears in front of your eyes when they are closed. Which is better according to you? Which one do you practice?

Thank You!

My comment:

 Hi L,


In Buddhist meditation, the normal thing to do is to meditate with closed eyes. 　Of course the problem with this is that we quite often fall asleep. 　It is with diligent and effort that we practise through, irrespective of results. 　Of course with eyes slightly open, the problem of sleeping through is minimized. 　Certain spiritual groups practise it, and one of them is Brahmakumaris (http://www.brahmakumaris.com/).

I have personally practised Brahmakumaris method; but the object of their meditation is different.

Coming back to Buddhist meditation, the object is two fold. 　First to tame the wandering mind, then to train the mind to see the true nature of things and feelings. 　It is commonly treated as two separate types, namely tranquility meditation (Samatha), and insight meditation (Vipassana). 　My personal interpretation is that I will need tranquil mind in order to achieve insight. 　As far as I am concerned, I just meditate to stay focused or "one-pointedness" and let "nature" takes over. 　I feel that if one can project the mind to focus on one point for a long period, then one will experience insight. 　

Please remember, meditation is a very "controversial" subject. 　But I am just happy doing what I feel benefits me.

Smile from justinchoo :-)

A Pleasant Conversation (Part 4 of 4)

Question : (Unedited)
Hi again,
I hope you are fine.

You have said “The appearance of a Buddha is very very rare.  When the Dhamma or universal truth is lost, then a Buddha will appear and re-discover it.  This will take an unimaginable long period of time...an aeon or several aeons.”
The Buddha was a human being and he was able to see and experience the Dhamma straightly. Why do you say that the Dhamma can be seen or experienced only after it is lost? According to your saying, the Dhamma is a natural and universal law (or a combination of laws) like (Force = Mass * Acceleration). This law can be experienced and proved by any scientist now. It isn't necessary that the law disappears and then it can be proven again. If the Dhamma is a natural and universal law and in fact we define it this way then it should be experiencable at any time, any place. The Dhamma is the central teachings of the Buddha and according to Venerable S.Dhammika
“There are aspects of Buddhism that would not fit into science but the central teachings of Buddhism, the Four Noble Truths, most certainly would. Buddhism dispenses with the concept of a Supreme Being, as does science, and explains the origins and workings of the universe in terms of natural laws. All of this certainly exhibits a scientific spirit. Once again, the Buddha's constant advice that we should not blindly believe but rather question, examine, inquire and rely on our own experience, has a definite scientific ring to it. He says:
"Do not go by revelation or tradition, DO NOT GO by rumor, or the SACRED SCRIPTURES, do not go by hearsay or mere logic, do not go by bias towards a notion or by another person's seeming ability and do not go by the idea 'He is our teacher'. But when you yourself know that a thing is good, that it is not blamable, that it is praised by the wise and when practiced and observed that it leads to happiness, and then follow that thing."
A.I, 188
So we could say that although Buddhism is not entirely scientific, it certainly has a strong scientific overtone and is certainly more scientific than any other religion."
Taken from: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda01.htm

According to Buddha's saying we should not follow Dhamma only because Buddha has taught it to us. We should continue to follow it after seeing and experiencing that it is true and it leads to happiness.

You have said “To be liberated, one need not have to become a Buddha. 　As I said if one is completely rid of greed, hatred and delusion, then the person has cut away the craving of attachment, there are no more rebirths. 　During this period where the Dhamma has been revealed, there will not be any Buddha. 　We need only to practice his teachings to gain liberation; such a person is called an arahat (arahant), in English for lack of a better term, "a saint". 　The Buddha had revealed the way to liberation. 　It is up to the person whether to practice it or not.”
To Become a Buddha means to be awakened to the Truth (Dhamma). Obviously Ven.S.Dhammika disagrees with you on this point because he says
“The name Buddhism comes from the word 'budhi' which means 'to wake up' and thus Buddhism is the philosophy of awakening.”
And because Buddhism is a practical philosophy, its goal is to awaken people to Dhamma. You yourself certainly know that knowing by seeing or experiencing is different from knowing by just-hearing. And if Buddhism is scientific according to what Ven.S.Dhammika said, its central teaching (the Dhamma) should be experiencable by everyone who practices it.

A Somehow New Question
Imagine a person who is practicing Buddha's teaching. How can he become sure if he has reached Nirvana or not? I mean what's the sign of reaching Nirvana for a person who practices Buddha's teaching? How will he feel like after reaching Nirvana? Isn't reaching Nirvana simultaneous with reaching some special knowledge?

Anyway I really thank you for your answers.

My comment:
Hi A,

<>
The "Dhamma" in this context means the Four Noble Truths. 　According to the Buddha, these Four Noble Truths were known before but through time, they were "lost and forgotten". 　It will happen again and in the distant future as well. 　What I mean is that when the Dhamma is lost again, it will then take a Buddha to rediscover this Truth when the conditions are right. At present the Dhamma is here for us to follow. (Ven Dhammika is a very learned monk but a little "controversial" amongst the Theravada community.) 　He was quoting the famous and popular Kalama Sutta, "the freedom of enquiry".

<>
Buddhism is more scientific than any science. 　What scientists are just discovering had been revealed by the Buddha. 　Especially in the science of "mind and consciousness" Western science is still in the dark ages. 　In the field of the cosmos, astro physicists are just peeping through the mysteries of the universe; whereas the Buddha had already explained the evolution of the universe.

<>
"Buddha" means "The Fully Awakened One". "Buddha" and "Budhi" come from the Pali root word "Budh" meaning "to awaken". 　Apart from that a Buddha is a very "special" being. 　It takes a person aeons of difficult spiritual cultivation and having passed through 10 types of "perfection". (Refer here for deatis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramita). 　　

<>
You are correct.

<>

I will be lying to you if I claim I can answer this question. 　Unless the person has attained liberation, how can anyone know? 　As you are aware, it is through realization and attainment. 　If I have not gained this realization and attainment, I cannot know. 　Only in theory and "book knowledge" that we can just conjecture what it is like to attain Nibbana. As I said before, the best bet is to assume that when one is completely rid of greed, hatred and delusion (the three roots of evil), can one assume that one has attained liberation.

A Pleasant Conversation (Part 3 of 4)

Question (Unedited)

Hi again my dear friend,
I hope you are fine. Let`s go straight to the discussion.

In our last discussion you said

That is why he WAS the Buddha. 　He need not have to govern a country!!
I don`t understand. I didn`t say that Buddha needed to govern a country. I said if he was to govern a country how would he have ruled that country? It`s strange to me, you are making governing a country like a taboo. What`s wrong with governing a country? Or maybe Buddhists think that a country doesn`t need a governor?
I myself think if the government acts in proper ways, most of the problems of people will never even come to be.

You have said The monks are the GUARDIANCE and TEACHERS of the Dhamma (Buddha's teachings).
I ask If they are the guardiance of Dhamma why aren`t they allowed to defend themselves and Dhamma when the government wants to destroy them?

You have said 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.
The final goal of those who follow Buddhism is to reach nirvana. If a lay person defends himself then he will create bad kamma for himself. Then this action is opposite to the final goal. Thus, Buddhist wisdom tells you not to defend yourself.

You have said It is not unwholesome to save the life. It is unwholesome to kill. 　In the final analysis one has to use WISDOM to decide. 　It is not a clear-cut yes/no option.

Imagine a situation in which a criminal is beating an innocent person. You have two choices ahead of yourself. You may either pass away or stay to defend the innocent person. If you pass away you have lowered your spirituality [I mean the Brahma-Vihara, the Karuna (Compassion)] and thus you have caused bad kamma. If you defend that innocent, according to your saying, you will again cause bad kamma for yourself. In conclusion, in both choices you will cause bad kamma for yourself and bad kamma is inevitable. What should one do in these situations?

Like Hindus and Jainists, Buddhists believe in ahimsa, the compassionate principle of not harming others. Many Buddhist scriptures provide examples of ahimsa in practice.
For example, five years after becoming enlightened, Siddhartha returned to his home town. His mother's

tribe, the Koliyans, was at war with the father's tribe, the Shakyas, because of a dispute over irrigation water for their farms. Siddhartha interposed himself as a battle was about to begin. He explained to them that water was not worth the life of even a single person, and the war ended.
One question: If they hadn`t come to an agreement, what would Siddhartha have done then? Don`t you agree that by acting so, Siddhartha showed his interset in taking part in politics? (I mean to use his power in politics in order to spread the Dhamma and peace like what Ashoka did.)

One text from the TherevAda Pali Canon (originally written in Pali, a Sanskrit dialect, in ancient India) tells of a king who refused to resist invaders. He threw open the gates of the city, were captured, and thrown in a dungeon. In the dungeon, he focused his mind on kind thoughts toward his captor. As a result, the captor was seized by so much physical pain that he released the king, who regained his throne.

The weight of Buddhist scriptures favors a pacifist understanding of ahimsa.
Mahayana's Upaya-kaushalya sutra (Skillful Means) tells the story of a Bodhisattva who saved hundreds of people by killing a murderous thief.
Other Mahayana scriptures explain that such a defensive killing prevents the murderer from bringing more bad karma on himself, and creates good karma for the defender, providing that the defender acts in the spirit of compassion.

One question: Doesn`t the Therevada Tradition of Buddhism agree with Mahayana in this case?

The Brahmajala Sutra is a Mahayana text providing ten major rules and fortyeight minor rules of good conduct. The very first rule prohibits killing. But other rules requires Buddhists to protect all living things and to protect the Buddha, the Sangha (the Buddhist community), and the Dharma (law or teaching). So Buddhists have interpreted the Brahmajala Sutra to require them to use force when necessary to protect...............

My comment:

Hi A,

You certainly is very persistent to get a "yes" or "no" answer. 　It is very difficult to make a stand like that. 　I must admit that what I commented were just my understanding of the Buddha's teachings. 　I may be wrong and stand corrected. 　I am here to share my understanding of the Buddha's teachings. 　It does not mean that I am a real expert at it, although this site use the term "Expert". 　Let's keep it as friendly discussions and hope we can learn from each other.

<>
I wholeheartedly agree with you. 　I never said otherwise. 　What I inferred was that if we wanted to be involved with worldly affairs then we had to live a layman's life and not to become a monk.

<>
It is in the Vinaya rules...227 rules for monks.

<>
If you study my comments carefully, you would notice that there are two separate issues: protecting self and action against others. 　We must also bear in mind the workings of kamma. 　Our previous bad kamma may be the cause of our present problems. 　There may be other ways to resolve our problems. 　"Life and death" situations are mostly hypothetical assumptions. 　Most of us are fortunate enough not to have to face such scenario.


<>
You have to decide for yourself.


<>
My first paragraph stands.


<>
Such question will never be "satisfactorilly" answered.

 One question: What`s the idea of TTB about the rule for protecting all living beings in Mahayana?
I practise according to the Theravada tradition. 　I am in no position to comment on Mahayana text. 　By the way the (Theravada) Tipitakka has a "Brahmajala Sutta" (click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmajala_sutta).

Well, this much I can comment. 　If you are happy with them, you are most welcome to post further questions. 　By the way, may I know where you are located?