Wednesday, October 3, 2012

SUFFERING and Its TRANSFORMATION by Bhante G - April 2002

Sharing the following email with you:

A talk given by the Most Venerable Henepola Gunaratana Mahathera to a Catholic audience in the USA on Understanding Suffering and Training Oneself to become free of the bonds to the Concept of "I", Self or Ego.

Mahinda Gunasekera


http://www.monasticdialog.org/a.php?id=389&cn=0

Venerable Henepola Gunaratana Thera (Bhante G.) is President of the Bhavana Society and abbot of its monastery in West Virginia.

SUFFERING and Its TRANSFORMATION  by Bhante G  - April 2002


Page 1 of 2
William Skudlarek: The second presentation this evening, “Suffering and Its Transformation,” will be given by Bhante Henepola Gunaratana. He was ordained at the age of twelve as a Buddhist monk at a small temple in Malandeniya Village in Kurunegala District in Sri Lanka. At the age of twenty, he was given high ordination in Kandy, and subsequently he was sent to India for five years of missionary work for the Mahabodhi Society, serving the Harijana (untouchable) people in Sanchi, Delhi, and Bombay, and then later spent ten more years as a missionary in Malaysia. Bhante Gunaratana came to the United States in 1968 to serve as General Secretary of the Buddhist Vihara Society of Washington D.C., and in 1980 he was appointed president of that society. During his time in this country, he earned a Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, and Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy from the American University. Bhante Gunaratana is now president of the Bhavana Society, and abbot of the monastery in West Virginia in the Shenandoah Valley, about 100 miles west of Washington, D.C., and he continues to teach meditation and conduct retreats worldwide.

Henepola Gunaratana (Bhante G.): I am very pleased to be here to share our views of suffering. Suffering is the one common denominator of all living beings. However, some people wonder why we have selected this subject at this time in our human history, because, for some people, suffering is not that much of a problem. Because of modern technology, we have discovered various ways to combat suffering, prolong our life, overcome sicknesses, and deal with poverty, sanitation, and so forth. With all this, some might say that we don’t have to talk about suffering.

Suffering, however, is not something that exists at one time and not at another. In spite of modern technology, science, and all kinds of creative knowledge, suffering continues to exist as it did thousands of years ago. It can never be eliminated from the world.

We may think that we want to stop falling sick; and when we are healthy we think that we won’t fall sick. But can we stop falling sick? Can we stop growing old? That which comes to existence grows old. Can we stop the sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair caused by separation from loved ones? Then there are those feelings caused by not getting what one wants or getting what one does not want. There are two tragedies in life: one is to get what one wants; the other is to get what one wants. Both are equally tragic, because when you’ve got what you want, you have another kind of suffering caused by needing to protect and safeguard what you have, and then you have to fight—verbally, physically, or mentally—to protect what you’ve got.

We talk about all kind of rings—wedding rings, engagement rings, earrings. But there is one ring that we all equally share, whether we are Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, or no religion. All living things have one ring. That is suffering. When we look around, there are so many things that we don’t want, that we don’t like, and still we are immersed in the situation. We have to live. We witness crimes, wars, killing, and all kind of things that we don’t want to hear or know about, let alone experience. But we simply cannot avoid them or stop them forever.

In his wonderful speech, Father Thomas gave us the gist of what suffering means to all existing things, human and nonhuman. When it comes to human beings, as we know, nobody is born with a big smile. We all cry. We cry because we are separated from our mother’s comfortable womb where everything is cozy and provided for us. We don’t have to do anything except stay there. However, we are thrust into this world, and at that moment we start crying. This crying continues all our life. We may not hear it, but the cry is going on. We cry for so many gallons of milk, so many yards of cloth, so many thousands of papers, books, magazines, pills, food, etc. From the moment we are born until we die, we cry. This first crying at our birth is symbolic of the crying for things that we cry for for the rest of our life.

The more we emerge into the world, the more beings we come across. The more beings there are, the more cries there are—because everybody is crying for the same thing: limited resources. And our cries continue to increase. Being ignorant of the reason for our crying, our pain and suffering, we might think that if we changed certain situations or conditions, we might be able to stop our pain and suffering. Thus, if we are lonely we believe we need a companion, thinking that that will make us happy. But the companion is not going to make us happy; the companion might make us even more miserable! Then not having the companion seems preferable, so we separate and try to live apart, and that adds more suffering. So you reunite….

I remember a man telling me, “Bhante G., I married six times. The first time I married, I was miserable and unhappy, because my wife didn’t like me because I was impatient, so I got divorced. I married again. The second time, she was impatient and I divorced her. The third time I married, I was arrogant and full of anger, so we got divorced. The fourth time we married, she was angry and we got divorced. The fifth time we married, I had extramarital affairs, and my wife didn’t like, so we got divorced. The sixth time, she had extramarital affairs, and I didn’t like it, so we got divorced. Bhante G.,” he said. “The seventh time, I am going to have a perfect marriage.” Here is the crux of the matter. No matter what we get, where we go, what we do, or how we think, suffering continues to exist at the very bottom as a root in our existence. Why? Because we do not understand it. Understanding suffering is essential if we are to do something about it. Just as when we are sick, we may continue to suffer from the sickness and not know what to do unless we find out on the one hand that we are sick and on the other, if we are sick, some sort of cure. Now, if somebody thinks that he is not sick and continues to suffer from the sickness, he will never get cured. If somebody knows that he is sick, then finds a way to seek some help to be free from sickness, then he will get better.

Our suffering has two causes. One is insatiable greed. Greed can never be satisfied. It perpetuates and increases our suffering. No matter what we get, we want more, and therefore we continue to suffer. The second cause, which is even more important, is ignorance of suffering. And these two combine and work together. In suffering, the greed exists because of ignorance, the ignorance of suffering itself. Father Keating said that it is because of our ego that we suffer. I would like to say one more word in addition. Buddhists call all the five aggregates of existence suffering. What exists is nothing but suffering. This is a very radical statement. Some people may not even like to hear the word, suffering. Suffering exists because of our clinging or attachment to self. This is what we call sankara. Sankara refers to things that come into existence through causes and conditions. Anything that comes to existence—particularly ideas and mental states—through causes and conditions is called sankara. Sankara we may best perceive through the word “onion.”

I use the word “onion” because it has a very beautiful philosophical meaning. An onion itself doesn’t have that, but the word “onion” does. Onion is spelled by O-N with I in the middle, and then O-N. That means “on,” with I in the middle, and then “on” again. On and on with I in the middle. That means we go on and on and on because I is in the middle. That is “onion.” So long as we are attached to this “I” in the middle of the onion, suffering continues to exist. Because of attachment, clinging to this concept of I, we go on and on suffering. This is ignorance. We need to recognize ignorance is a mere concept, not something that permanently exists. Until we recognize that, we continue to suffer.

Therefore, on the one hand, we are attached to this nonexisting I. On the other hand, we do not understand the very deep meaning of this concept of “I.” So we continue to suffer. Thomas Keating mentioned our fixed ideas come from the childhood stage of our life. Self-identity is a very big thing in Western psychology, and the West does everything to promote it. Rather than trying to make us understand what it is, without knowing what it isor whether it exists or not, we try to promote it and continue to suffer.

Let me give you one example of my own life. When I was little boy, about six or seven years old, in front of my house there was a little compound that was full of sand. I sat down and drew a beautiful pumpkin in the sand with my fingers and I began to admire it. I was attached to it. While I was enjoying it, my sister, who was a few years older than me and a very naughty girl, erased the picture. I got angry. I suffered a great deal. I wanted to attack her. I looked around and found a block of wood. Even though I could hardly lift it, I managed to lift it and chase after her. She ran through the kitchen, hoping to open the kitchen door and run out. Unfortunately for her, the kitchen door was locked. She stopped. I took that block of wood and threw it at her; and it hit her foot and her big toenail came out. She was crying and weeping and making a big commotion. To this day, my sister still has that scar on her big toe. Purely because of my ignorance and attachment to something that did not exist I created suffering. And I suffer even now when I think about it.

Website by Booklight, Inc. Copyright © 2012, Monastic Dialogue

Friends, our suffering is deeply rooted in our ignorance and attachment. Since suffering is the universal common denominator of all living beings, it is not possible for one individual or several individuals to eliminate it from the face of earth. But our understanding of the basic principle of suffering also brings us a way at least to minimize our suffering within a limited area. That means that, when I try to eliminate my suffering in that most positive way, I can influence my friends, relatives, and my circle of associates to a certain degree. That is what we call loving-friendliness or compassion.

When we do not have loving-friendliness or compassion, we easily alienate each other and don’t have a common bond. If the suffering is universal, there has to be a universal cure. If I practice something to eliminate or minimize my suffering, by the same token I would be able to help others to reduce their suffering through the medium of loving-friendliness. Sometimes people use the word “loving-kindness” to describe what I am talking about. I use the word “loving-friendliness” because that is what it is. That is the translation of the word metta. Metta comes from the word, mitta. Mitta means “friend.” Metta means “friendliness.” When we feel friendly toward ourselves, we cannot feel unfriendly toward others.

We all know, according to the Golden Rule in Christianity, that we should do what we would like others to do to us. I would like to be happy and peaceful. I would like to minimize my suffering. If I love myself, I don’t do anything to hurt me. I do everything possible to minimize my suffering if I love myself. Similarly, I will do anything to help others minimize their suffering. First, therefore, I have to learn how to minimize my suffering, and then help others to minimize their suffering. Thus, we have three kinds of thoughts to cultivate within ourselves in order to minimize our suffering. First, we have to understand suffering thoroughly and our attachment to the nonexisting, superficial, imaginary concept of self. Then, through understanding the nonexistence of this self itself, we may begin to let go of the self. This is the number one thought we have to cultivate—the thought of letting go of this attachment to the self. This is what I sometimes call generosity.

Generosity does not mean sharing material things with others or our energies or skills with others. Sharing things with others is one aspect of generosity. Real generosity is called nikkhan. Nikkhan means letting go of the attachment to self and all sorts of external as well as internal things. Another word for such activity is selflessness—cultivating the thought of selflessness—what you might call renunciation, the letting go of things. Renunciation is a major feature in all religious traditions, but fundamentally the basic meaning of renunciation is renouncing our own attachment to our own nonexisting concept of self. The self is a concept, and we are very much attached to that concept. Letting go of that concept from its root is the real meaning of true generosity or true renunciation. This is the first thing we have to cultivate.

The second thought we have to cultivate to transcend or transform our suffering is the thought of friendliness as opposed to hatred. When we have friendliness, even in a very limited area with a limited number of people, to that degree we can reduce or minimize a certain amount of suffering among that circle. This is called boundless practice. It transcends all religions, cultures, traditions, geographical boundaries, and all limitations. Everything is transcended when we cultivate this thought of loving-friendliness. Loving-friendliness is fundamental in all the high religions in the world. (By “high” religions I mean the religions that value and respect living beings.) This is the fundamental principle of all high religions: To love all living beings and respect them in a very basic way.

The third thought we have to cultivate is the compassion that arises from the thought of loving-friendliness. The first thing we must do is to understand universal suffering and not only individual suffering. Suffering is a universal principle and common denominator of all existing things. Therefore, we have to treat all living beings with the thought of loving-friendliness and compassion in order to reduce suffering. Then we try to understand the root of suffering—greed and ignorance—and cultivate thoughts that can begin to transcend our suffering and make our life relatively comfortable and peaceful.

People sometimes ask: “What is the purpose of life? We are just thrust into the world, and we just live without purpose.” All living beings have one purpose—to be peaceful and happy. Everything we do in our life we do to make us peaceful and happy. Nobody does anything to make life miserable or unhappy. Everything everybody deliberately or purposely does is done in order to make oneself happy. We cannot count the things we do from childhood on to make ourselves happy. Yet, are we happy? Not yet. We are still working on it! Why? Because no matter what we do to make ourselves happy, until we do the right thing, we never will. The right thing to do to make ourselves happy is to gain understanding and get rid of our ignorance. The right thing is to understand the root of suffering, which is greed. Once we understand this, then we can cultivate the thoughts of generosity, friendliness, and compassion. All of the papers in this conference have brought out some aspect of suffering. And in all of the papers at root are the principles of greed and ignorance. Friends, thank you very much for your patient attention, and I look forward to hearing other wonderful speeches delivered by my colleagues.

William Skudlarek: Thank you very much for your words to us this evening. We didn’t think of a formal closing for tonight’s session, but I thought that maybe what the Catholic monastics could do for the benefit of us all tonight is to sing the Marian Antiphon of the Easter season, Regina Coeli.

[Regina Coeli sung.]

Good night and thank you.
 
 
---

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Sharing the following email with you:


From :  Mahinda Gunasekera

Two young ladies from Toronto graduated with science degrees from the University of Toronto and worked for a couple of years to earn enough money to pay off their student loans, after which they proceeded to the Mahamevna Monastery in Sri Lanka.  After a little over one year they were among the 11 to receive their Ten Precept Trainee Nun (Anagarikaa) ordination in Sri Lanka in April 2012.  There were five university grads among them. One of the young ladies had been married, but gave up her lay life opting for the renunciate's path.  In fact her husband too had similarly given up the lay life and was a trainee Samanera Monk at the Mahamevna Monastery in Polgahawela, Sri Lanka.   

The links to the videos covering the ordination ceremony held in Sri Lanka are given below.  It was a beautiful ceremony conducted by the Chief Monk of the Mahamevna Monastery, Ven. Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thera, with the renunciates paying their respects to their parents, and each one receiving a new robe (white for Anagarikaa Nun) from their respective parents along with an alms bowl, and thereafter formally taking the ten precepts. The ceremony was conducted in Pali and Sinhala.

There are probably as much as 500 ordained Bhikkus and 50-75 Nuns who joined the order under the auspices of the Mahamevna Monastery.  The vast majority of them are young ranging in age from 20-30 years.  They are very disciplined and abide by the Vinaya Rules, including the observation of the bi-weekly 'Pathimokha' or recitation of the Vinaya Rules at the Mahamevna (monasteries) Asapuwas.

With Metta,

Mahinda Gunasekera

The 2 girls from Canada are in this. First Sil Manee Video - Dushyanthi from Matara & I think the 4th or the 5th is Buddika. Its very nice.
--

Monday, December 12, 2011

Thw World of Buddhism: Unity in Diversity

Sharing the following email with you:


Professor Y. Karunadasa delivered an erudite lecture on the 3rd of November 2011 on the topic ' THE WORLD OF BUDDHISM: UNITY IN DIVERSITY' to mark the occasion of the commemoration of the 112th birth anniversary of Professor G.P. Malalasekara, eminent Buddhist Scholar, in the Auditorium of the All Ceylon Buddhist Congress. The function was organized by the World Fellowship of Buddhists, Sri Lanka Centre. The WFB was founded by Professor Malalasekara in 1950.

Prof. Y. Karunadasa graduated with First Class Honours from the University of Ceylon in 1958 and obtained his Ph.D. from the University of London in 1963. He is a Profesor Emeritus of the University of Kelaniya and a former director of its Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist Studies. He has served as a Visiting Professor at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, as Numata Chair Professor at the University of Calgary, and as Visiting Professor at the Universtiy of Toronto. Currently he is a Visiting Profesor at the University of Hong Kong.
............................. ...............................................................................

THE WORLD OF BUDDHISM: UNITY IN DIVERSITY

The vision that inspired Professor G. P. Malalasekara in establishing

the World Fellowship of Buddhists

by

Professor Y. Karunadasa

As we all know, during its long history of over 2500 years, Buddhism gave rise to a large number of schools and sub-schools, sects and sub-sects. Today we find them all comprised within three great Buddhist traditions prevailing in three major regions in the continent of Asia: Theravada Buddhism in South Asia, Vajrayana Buddhism in North Asia, and Mahayana Buddhism in East Asia.

It is worth examining why what the Buddha taught gave rise to a wide variety of Buddhist schools and sects? One reason that comes to mind is the clearly expressed idea that the Dhamma, the corpus of the Buddha’s teachings, is a means to an end and not an end unto itself. In his well known discourse on the Parable of the Raft, the Buddha compared his Dhamma to a raft. It is for the purpose of crossing over and not to be grasped as a theory. The Dhamma has only instrumental value. Its value is relative, relative to the realization of the goal.

As an extension to this idea, it also came to be recognized that the Dhamma as a means can be presented in many ways, from many different perspectives. There is no one fixed way of presenting the Dhamma which is valid for all times and climes. The idea behind this is that what is true and therefore what conforms to actuality need not be repeated in the same way as a holy hymn or a sacred mantra. The Dhamma is not something esoteric and mystical. As the Buddha says, the more one elaborates it, the more it shines (vivato virocati).

In connection with this what we need to remember here is that the Dhamma is not actuality as such. Rather, it is a description of actuality. It is a conceptual-theoretical model presented through the symbolic medium of language. There can be many such conceptual-theoretical models depending on the different perspectives one adopts in presenting the Dhamma. However, the validity of each will be determined by its ability to lead us to the goal: from bondage to freedom, from ignorance to wisdom, from our present human predicament to full emancipation.

We find this situation beautifully illustrated in a Chinese Buddhist saying that the Dhamma is like a finger pointing to the moon. This analogy has many implications. One implication is that any finger can be pointed to the moon. What matters is not the finger as such but whether it is properly pointed so that we can see the moon. Another implication is that if we keep on looking only at the finger we will not see the moon. Nor can we see the moon without looking at the finger, either.

We can therefore approach different schools of Buddhist thought as different fingers pointing to the same moon. If we approach them in this manner then we need to identify their common denominator, the most fundamental doctrine that unites them all? This is a matter on which we don’t have to speculate. For the Buddha himself as well as all schools of Buddhist thought identify it as the Buddhist doctrine of the denial of soul/self/ego (anatta).

From its very beginning Buddhism was fully aware that the doctrine of the denial of soul was not shared by any other contemporary religion or philosophy. We find this clearly articulated in an early Buddhist discourse. Here the Buddha refers to four kinds of clinging: clinging to sense-pleasures, clinging to speculative views, clinging to mere rites and rituals in the belief that they lead to liberation, and the clinging to the notion of self. The discourse goes on to say there could be other religious teachers who would recognize only some of the four kinds of clinging, and that at best they might teach the overcoming of the first three forms of clinging. What they cannot teach, because they have not comprehended this for themselves, is the overcoming of clinging to the notion of self, for this, the last type of clinging, is the subtlest and the most elusive of the group. The title given to this discourse is the Shorter Discourse on the Lion’s Roar. Clearly it is intended to show that the Buddha’s declaration of the denial of soul is “bold and thunderous like a veritable lion’s roar in the spiritual domain” (Ven. Bhikkhu Nanamoli).

That the notion of no-self is the most crucial doctrine that separates Buddhism from all other religions came to be recognized in the subsequent schools of Buddhist thought as well. Acarya Yasomitra, a savant of the Sautrantika School of Buddhism (5th c. C. E.) categorically asserts: “In the whole world there is no other religious teacher who proclaims a doctrine of non-self”. We find this same idea echoed by Acariya Buddhaghosa, the great commentator of Theravada Buddhism when he says: “The knowledge of non-self is the province of none but a Buddha” (Vibhanga Commentary, 5th c. C. E.).

If there is one doctrine which is unique to Buddhism, it is the doctrine of non-self. If there is a doctrine which is unanimously accepted by all Buddhist schools, whether they come under Theravada, Vajrayana, or Mahayana, it is the doctrine of non-self. If there is a doctrine which, while uniting all schools of Buddhist thought, separates Buddhism from all other religions and philosophies, it is again the doctrine of non-self. The whole world of Buddhist thought is, in fact, a sustained critique of the belief in self, the belief that there is a separate individualized self entity which is impervious to all change.

If we can thus establish the transcendental unity of Buddhism on the basis of the Buddhist doctrine of non-self, we can also establish it on the basis of Buddhism’s final goal as well. When Maha Pajapati Gotami, the foster mother of the Buddha, wanted to know how one could separate the Dhamma from what is not the Dhamma, the Buddha said: Whatever that leads to the cessation of greed (raga), aversion (dosa), and delusion (moha) is the Dhamma, and that whatever that leads away from it is not the Dhamma. The Buddha compares greed, aversion, and delusion to three fires with which the unenlightened living beings are constantly being consumed. In point of fact, the final goal of Buddhism, which is Nibbana, is not some kind of ineffable mystical experience, but to lead a life free from greed, aversion , and delusion.

This, in fact, is the goal common to all schools of Buddhist thought, although it came to be described in different ways and from different perspectives.

What we have observed so far should show why what the Buddha taught gave rise to a wide variety of Buddhist schools and interpretative traditions in the continent of Asia. Another question that arises here is why what the Buddha taught came to be communicated through many Asian languages and dialects. Apart from the well known classical languages such as Pali, Prakrit, Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan and Mongolian, in the lost civilization of Central Asia alone Buddhist manuscripts in about twelve indigenous languages have been discovered. The reason for this “multi-lingualism” is that from its very beginning Buddhism did not entertain the notion of a “holy language.” In point of fact, when it was suggested to the Buddha that his teachings should be rendered into the elitist language of Sanskrit, the Buddha did not endorse it and enjoined that each individual could learn the Dhamma in his/her own language (sakaya-nirutti).

From the Buddhist perspective, thus, the Dhamma as well as the language through which it is communicated, are both means to an end, not an end unto itself. The net result of this situation is what we would like to introduce as Buddhist pluralism, a pluralism that we can see whether we examine Buddhism as a religion, as a philosophy, or as a culture.

One area where we can see Buddhist pluralism is in the very idea of the Buddhahood. According to Buddhism there had been a number of Buddhas in the remote past and there will be a number of Buddhas in the distant future. The idea behind this is that Buddhahood is not the monopoly of one individual, but is accessible to all. What is more, the idea of a number of Buddhas ensures continuity of the opportunities for emancipation for all living beings at all times. Buddhism recognizes the immensity of time and the vastness of space and the existence of an countless number of world-systems. Considered in this cosmic context, to speak of one Buddha for all time and space is, to say the least, extremely parochial.

Another area where we can see Buddhist pluralism is in the Buddhist canonical literature (Tripitaka). If a Buddhist were asked, where do we get the teachings of the Buddha, he would say it is in the Buddhist Canon (Tripitaka). Since there are four Buddhist Canons, one in Pali, one in Chinese, and one in Tibetan, and one in Mongolian, he will have to specify to which Buddhist Canon he is referring. If he were to say, for example, it is the Pali Canon, again the reply is not specific enough because the Pali Canon has many volumes containing the teachings of the Buddha. If he is asked to specify one particular volume or book in the Pali Canon which contains all Buddhist teachings in a summary form he will fail to identify such a volume or book. Buddhism could be the only religion with no single canonical work which contains all what the Buddha taught.

Another aspect of Buddhist pluralism we can also see in the Sangha, the fraternity of monks and nuns. The Sangha, as we all know, is the Buddhist monastic organization. It could perhaps be the oldest social organization in the world, having the oldest constitution. If the Buddhist monastic organization exhibits many elements of pluralism the reason for this is that it was not intended to be a pyramid-like organization, a hierarchical organization, where at the top you find a supreme head. It is not centralized. Its principle of organization is not perpendicular and vertical, but horizontal and linear. This allows for diversity within the Sangha organization as we find it in Japan, China, Tibet, Mongolia, Sri Lanka and other Theravada countries.

The best example of what we call Buddhist pluralism we can see in Buddhist culture. What we want to stress here is that when Buddhism was introduced to a particular country it did not level down that country’s cultural diversity in order to develop some kind of mono-culture. The various Buddhist countries in the continent of Asia bear evidence to this. The Buddhist culture in Japan, for example, is different from the Buddhist culture in Thailand, and both from that of Sri Lanka.

What we need to remember here is that Buddhism is not a culture-bound religion. Like a bird that leaves one cage and flies to another, Buddhism can go from one country to another leaving behind its cultural baggage.

If Buddhism did not level down cultural diversity, the main reason for this is that Buddhism’s social philosophy does not unnecessarily interfere with the personal lives of its followers. We never hear of a Buddhist Food, a Buddhist Medicine, a Buddhist Dress, or a Buddhist Marriage, or a Buddhist way of disposing the dead. Why? Because these are things that change from time to time and from country to country. Therefore Buddhism does not superimpose on the individual a rigid and totalitarian social philosophy which is valid for all time.

In concluding this speech we would like to draw your attention to another important aspect of Buddhist thinking. It is that as a religion Buddhism does not say that what is good and noble is confined to the words of the Buddha. In this connection a Mahayana Buddhist book says: “What is said by the Buddha is well-said. What is well-said is said by the Buddha.” The first sentence is clear. What the second sentence means is that if there is anything well-said in any other religion, philosophy, or ideology, that too is said by the Buddha, in the sense that Buddhism endorses all that is good and noble from wherever it comes.

End


--

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

The Five Buddhist Precepts

Sharing the following email with you:

Buddhist precepts and Mindfulness Trainings have been circulated by a Sri Lankan Catholic named Kingsley Abraham who is currently studying the Buddhist Teachings.

May he realize the Noble Dhamma and become free of all suffering as soon as possible.

With Metta,
Mahinda


From Kingsley Abraham:


The five precepts (pansil) are a condensed form of Buddhist ethical practice.


They are often compared with the ten commandments of Christianity. However, the precepts are different in two respects:

First, they are to be taken as recommendations, not commandments. This means the individual is encouraged to use his/her own intelligence to apply these rules in the best possible way.

Second, it is the spirit of the precepts -not the text- that counts, hence, the guidelines for ethical conduct must be seen in the larger context of the Eightfold Path.


Here are the five precepts:

I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from ...

1. ...harming living beings.

2. ...taking things not freely given.

3. ...sexual misconduct.

4. ...false speech.

5. ...intoxicating drinks and drugs causing heedlessness.

(The above is from the book The Word of the Buddha, authored by Nyanatolika Maha Thera, The Buddhist Publication Society, 1971)


The Five Mindfulness Trainings -

(By Thich Nhat Hanh Thero, European Institute of Applied Buddhism)

(1) First Training-

Aware of the suffering caused by the destruction of life, I am committed to cultivating compassion and learning ways to protect the lives of people, animals, plants, and minerals. I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to condone any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, and in my way of life.

(2) Second Training-

Aware of the suffering caused by exploitation, social injustice, stealing, and oppression, I am committed to cultivate loving kindness and learn ways to work for the well-being of people, animals, plants, and minerals. I am committed to practice generosity by sharing my time, energy, and material resources with those who are in real need. I am determined not to steal and not to possess anything that should belong to others. I will respect the property of others, but I will prevent others from profiting from human suffering or the suffering of other species on Earth.

(3) Third Training-

Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct.

(4) Fourth Training-

Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful speech and the inability to listen to others, I am committed to cultivate loving speech and deep listening in order to bring joy and happiness to others and relieve others of their suffering. Knowing that words can create happiness or suffering, I am committed to learn to speak truthfully, with words that inspire self-confidence, joy, and hope. I am determined not to spread news that I do not know to be certain and not to criticise or condemn things of which I am not sure. I will refrain from uttering words that can cause division or discord, or that can cause the family or the community to break. I will make all efforts to reconcile and resolve all conflicts, however small.

(5) Fifth Training-

Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful consumption, I am committed to cultivate good health, both physical and mental, for myself, my family, and my society by practising mindful eating, drinking, and consuming. I am committed to ingest only items that preserve peace, well-being, and joy in my body, in my consciousness, and in the collective body and consciousness of my family and society. I am determined not to use alcohol or any other intoxicant or to ingest foods or other items that contain toxins, such as certain TV programs, magazines, books, films, and conversations. I am aware that to damage my body or my consciousness with these poisons is to betray my ancestors, my parents, my society, and future generations. I will work to transform violence, fear, anger, and confusion in myself and in society by practising a diet for myself and for society. I understand that a proper diet is crucial for self-transformation and for the transformation of society.

--

Monday, November 28, 2011

UT: Dec 1 & 2 "Toru Funayama Lectures"

In case you are interested:

The University of Toronto / McMaster University Yehan Numata Buddhist Studies Program

Presents

Tōru Funayama (Kyoto University)

Professor Tōru Funayama has been described as a Buddhological renaissance man because of the breadth of his knowledge about Buddhism in India, Tibet, China and Japan. He has published six books and more than 50 articles or book chapters dealing with Indian philosophy, the linguistic features of texts translated from Sanskrit into Chinese, Chinese biographies of Buddhist monks, lay Buddhist practice in China, and Chinese philosophy in the fifth and sixth centuries. He has taught at various universities in Japan (including Koyasan University, Kyushu University, Otani University, Ryukoku University, University of Tokyo, and Tsukuba University) and abroad (including Harvard, Heidelberg, Leiden, and Stanford).

“Kamalaśīla's View on Yogic Perception and the Bodhisattva Path"

Thursday, December 1, 3-5 pm

University of Toronto Reading Group Session

Department for the Study of Religion (170 St George St.), Room 317

“Mahāyāna Vinaya? Aspirations for the composition of a Vinaya for bodhisattvas in India and China”

Friday, December 2, 4-6 pm

University Hall 122, McMaster University

ABSTRACT: As is clearly evident from Chinese Buddhist catalogs, medieval Chinese Buddhists accepted the view of a "Mahāyāna Vinaya" (dasheng lü). On the other hand, we know that such a vinaya never existed in the history of Indian Buddhism. Is this idea a result of Chinese misunderstanding? Naturally this question is also concerned with Sinification of Buddhism. In this talk, I will attempt to explore the origin and development of this notion with a special focus on the Scripture of Brahma's Net (Fanwang jing). By referring to internal evidence, I want to point out that this well-known apocryphal sutra played a critical role for the establishment of the term dasheng lü in China. Further, I want to verify that basically the same idea, if not entirely identical, is found in the Skt. Bodhisattvabhūmi, the most significant text for bodhisattva precepts in India, in order to claim that early Yogacarins wished to establish a Mahāyāna equivalent of the orthodox Vinaya in India and that such an intention was more emphasized by the composition of the Scripture of Brahma's Net in China.


For reading group materials and questions, please contact frances.garrett@utoronto.ca


------------ The content of this message does not represent the views or opinions of the University of Toronto.---------------

--

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

UT: Numata Buddhist Studies Events with Michelle Wang, Nov 10-11

In case you are interested:


The University of Toronto/McMaster University Numata Buddhist Studies Program

Presents

Michelle Wang, Georgetown University

Reflections of the Garbhadhātu Maṇḍala at Dunhuang



Thursday, November 10, 4-6 pm

University Hall 122

McMaster University



ABSTRACT: To date, much of the scholarship on esoteric Buddhist art at Dunhuang has privileged iconographical elements that are associated with the Vajradhātu Maṇḍala. While there are good reasons for this, what I propose to do in my paper is to consider as well iconographical elements that are associated with the Garbhadhātu Maṇḍala, in particular, those that may be observed in mural and portable paintings dating to the Tang Dynasty. One portion of the Mahāvairocana Sūtra exists from the Dunhuang manuscripts. What I propose, however, is not that there is evidence of a full Garbhadhātu Maṇḍala in Dunhuang of the type seen in Heian Japan, but rather selective assemblages of deities that represent the three families of the Garbhadhātu Maṇḍala.



“Changing Conceptions of ‘Maṇḍala’ in Tang China: Ritual and the Role of Images"

University of Toronto Reading Group Session

Friday, November 11, 3-5 pm

East Asian Studies Department, Robarts Library



For reading group materials and questions, please contact

frances.garrett@utoronto.ca or see http://buddhiststudies.chass.utoronto.ca/


------------------------- The content of this message does not represent the views or opinions of the University of Toronto. ------------------------------------------

--