Absolute Bliss: A Poetic Translation of Buddhadasa’s Teaching by u/badassbuddhistTH

https://fb.watch/xylXSH7Dwh/

[Google Translates:]

อย่ายึดมั่นในพระรัตนตรัยอย่างผิดๆ "คนบางคนสงสัยต่อไปว่า เราต้องยึดมั่นถือมั่น เช่น จะต้องยึดมั่นถือมั่นในพระพุทธเจ้า ยึดมั่นถือมั่นในพระธรรม ยึดมั่นถือมั่นในพระสงฆ์กันอย่างนี้อยู่ทั่ว ๆ ไป เมื่อใครมาบอกว่าไม่ให้ยึดมั่นอะไรก็กลัว หรือเข้าใจไม่ได้ หรือในที่สุดก็ไม่เชื่อ เพราะจะยึดมั่นถือมั่นในสิ่งที่เขารักเขาพอใจ หรือเขาเห็นว่าจะเป็นที่พึ่งได้เสมอไป นั้นมันก็เป็นการถูกต้องแค่นิดเดียว พึงทำความเข้าใจว่า #การถึง กับ #การยึดมั่นถือมั่น นั้นไม่เหมือนกัน เมื่อเราพูดว่า พุทธัง สรณัง คัจฉามิ ข้าพเจ้าถึงพระพุทธเจ้าเป็นสรณะ อย่างนี้ไม่ได้หมายความว่าให้ยึดมั่นถือมั่นพระพุทธเจ้าว่าเป็นตัวเราหรือของเรา แม้จะพูดว่าให้ถือเอาพระพุทธเจ้าเป็นสรณะ เป็นที่พึ่ง ก็มีความหมายว่า #ให้ถือเอาเป็นตัวอย่างในการที่จะไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่นอะไร 

"Some people continue to wonder if we need to hold on to the Buddha, to hold on to the Dharma, to hold on to the monks, when someone tells us not to hold on to anything, we are afraid, or we don't understand, or we don't believe in it because we want to hold on to what we love, what we are satisfied with, or what we see as reliable. Understand that [#]reaching and [#]clinging are not the same. When we say, "Buddha, Saranang, Kajchami, I have attained the Buddha's Nirvana. This does not mean that we should hold on to the Buddha as ourselves or ours. Even if we say that we should regard the Buddha as a refuge, it means that [#] should be taken as an example of not clinging to anything. 

พระพุทธเจ้าที่แท้จริงนั้น คือตัวความไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่นนั่นเอง เมื่อผู้ใดมีจิตใจไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่นอะไรเป็นตัวตนหรือเป็นของตน เมื่อนั้นชื่อว่ามีพระพุทธเจ้าอยู่กับผู้นั้นหรืออยู่ในจิตใจของผู้นั้น คือจิตที่ไม่มีความยึดมั่นถือมั่นนั่นแหละเป็นพระพุทธเจ้า สังเกตดูให้ดีเถิดจะเห็นว่า เมื่อจิตของเราไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่นอะไรว่าเป็นตัวเราหรือเป็นของเราแล้ว ในขณะนั้นจิตมีความบริสุทธิ์ที่สุด ในขณะนั้นจิตมีความสว่างไสวที่สุด ในขณะนั้นจิตมีความสงบเย็นหรือเป็นสุขที่สุด พอเกิดความยึดมั่นถือมั่นอะไรเข้ามา จิตนั้นก็เร่าร้อนที่สุด สกปรกที่สุด มืดมัวที่สุด และเป็นทุกข์ที่สุด ดังนั้นจิตที่ไม่มีความยึดมั่นถือมั่นในขณะนั้นแหละ เป็นจิตที่ถึงพระพุทธเจ้า หรือมีพระพุทธเจ้าเป็นสรณะ เป็นที่พึ่งอย่างแท้จริง แต่คนไม่เข้าใจอาการอันนี้ ก็ไปเดาสุ่มเอาว่าเราจะต้องยึดมั่นถือมั่นพระพุทธเจ้าเป็นของเรา เป็นที่พึ่งแก่เราไป

The true Buddha is the non-attachment itself. When a person has a mind that does not hold on to anything as his or her own. Then it is called having the Buddha with that person or in the mind of that person, that is, the mind that does not have attachment, that is the Buddha. Notice carefully, you will see that when our mind does not hold on to anything that is us or ours, we will not be able to do anything about it. At that moment, the mind is at its purest. At that moment, the mind is the brightest. At that time, the mind is calmest or happiest. When something is clinging to it, the mind is the most passionate. The dirtiest Therefore, the mind that does not have attachment at that time is the mind that reaches the Buddha or has the Buddha as the true refuge, but people who do not understand this symptom go to random guess that we must hold on to the Buddha as ours. It is a refuge for us.

ทั้งที่ไม่รู้ว่าจะเป็นที่พึ่งได้อย่างไร ก็เลยตกอยู่ในฐานะที่โง่เขลาอย่างน่าเวทนาสงสาร แม้จะเข้าวัดรับศีล ฟังเทศน์ ให้ทานมาสักกี่ปีกี่สิบปี ก็ยังห่างไกลต่อพระพุทธเจ้าอยู่นั่นเอง เพราะฉะนั้นจึงต้องร้องตะโกนเป็นนกแก้วนกขุนทองเรื่อยไปว่า พุทธัง สรณัง คัจฉามิ เป็นต้น โดยไม่มีความหมายอะไรเลย นี่แหละคือโทษของการที่ไม่เข้าใจคำว่าไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่น เพราะฉะนั้น ขอให้เข้าใจเสียใหม่ให้ถูกต้องตามตัวหนังสือเหล่านี้ว่า เราถึงพระพุทธเจ้าเป็นสรณะนั้น ก็คือถึงการที่มีจิตไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่นเป็นที่พึ่ง หรือว่าเราถึงพระธรรมเป็นสรณะนั้น ก็คือการถึงภาวะที่ไม่มีความยึดมั่นถือมั่นเป็นที่พึ่ง หรือแม้ว่าเราถึงพระสงฆ์เป็นที่พึ่งเป็นสรณะนั้น ก็คือเราถึงหมู่บุคคลที่ไม่มีความยึดมั่นถือมั่น และเราจะต้องทำให้เหมือนเขาด้วย เป็นที่พึ่ง รวมหมดด้วยกันทั้ง ๓ สรณะนี้ก็อยู่ตรงที่มีจิตที่บริสุทธิ์ สะอาด ปราศจากความยึดมั่นถือมั่นนั่นเอง เป็นเครื่องอำนวยความสุขให้แก่เรา

Even though they don't know how to be helped, they fall into a pitiful stupid position. Even though they go to the temple to receive the precepts and listen to the sermons. How many years or decades have you been eating, you are still far from the Buddha. Therefore, they have to keep shouting like a golden parrot, "Buddha, Saranang, Kachami, etc.", without any meaning. Therefore, let's understand correctly according to these texts: that we have attained the Buddhahood as a refuge, that is, that we have attained a state of non-attachment to the Buddha, or that we have attained the Dharma as a refuge, that is, that is, that we have attained a state of non-attachment to the refuge, or even if we reach the monks as refuge, that is, we are to a group of people who do not have attachment, and we must also make them like them, as a refuge, all of these three states are in the place where we have a pure, pure, and devoid of attachment, which is the enabler of happiness for us, and the enablement of purity, cleanliness, clarity, clarity, and calm for us.

เป็นเครื่องอำนวยความบริสุทธิ์ ความสะอาด ความสว่างไสวแจ่มแจ้งสงบเย็นให้แก่เรา นั่นคือความหมายของคำว่า พระพุทธ พระธรรม พระสงฆ์ ที่แท้จริง" พุทธทาสภิกขุ #สวนโมกข์กรุงเทพ #สร้างสรรค์สังคมรมณีย์

That is the meaning of the word Buddha, Dharma, and true monk." Bhikkhu Buddha [#]Bangkok Mokkh Park [#]Creating a Romnee Society

[End of the text]

Reply #1

[Buddhadasa] The true Buddha is the non-attachment itself.

The non-attachment is only a part of the Dhamma. It's not the entirety of the Dhamma.

"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them. [Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves]

Reply #2

[Buddhadasa] When we say, "Buddha, Saranang, Kajchami, I have attained the Buddha's Nirvana. This does not mean that we should hold on to the Buddha as ourselves or ours. Even if we say that we should regard the Buddha as a refuge, it means that [#] should be taken as an example of not clinging to anything. 

An arahant does not cling.

A putthujanna does. We can't just stop clinging before achieving the goal.

It is incorrect to teach laypeople not to cling to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha who are their refuges. They must cling to their refuges until they attain sotapattiphala.

That is compared with how someone crossing the ocean must cling to something, which floats and can save his life.

Reply #3

[Buddhadasa] keep shouting like a golden parrot, "Buddha, Saranang, Kachami, etc.", without any meaning. 

They are ordinary laypeople, with little learned knowledge of the Dhamma.

The Sangha as their teacher should explain with kindness that they would understand the true meanings and purposes of the Dhamma.

mindset of a "Dhamma" teacher - Google Search

Absolute Bliss: A Poetic Translation of Buddhadasa’s Teaching by u/badassbuddhistTH

https://fb.watch/xylXSH7Dwh/

[Google Translates:]

อย่ายึดมั่นในพระรัตนตรัยอย่างผิดๆ "คนบางคนสงสัยต่อไปว่า เราต้องยึดมั่นถือมั่น เช่น จะต้องยึดมั่นถือมั่นในพระพุทธเจ้า ยึดมั่นถือมั่นในพระธรรม ยึดมั่นถือมั่นในพระสงฆ์กันอย่างนี้อยู่ทั่ว ๆ ไป เมื่อใครมาบอกว่าไม่ให้ยึดมั่นอะไรก็กลัว หรือเข้าใจไม่ได้ หรือในที่สุดก็ไม่เชื่อ เพราะจะยึดมั่นถือมั่นในสิ่งที่เขารักเขาพอใจ หรือเขาเห็นว่าจะเป็นที่พึ่งได้เสมอไป นั้นมันก็เป็นการถูกต้องแค่นิดเดียว พึงทำความเข้าใจว่า #การถึง กับ #การยึดมั่นถือมั่น นั้นไม่เหมือนกัน เมื่อเราพูดว่า พุทธัง สรณัง คัจฉามิ ข้าพเจ้าถึงพระพุทธเจ้าเป็นสรณะ อย่างนี้ไม่ได้หมายความว่าให้ยึดมั่นถือมั่นพระพุทธเจ้าว่าเป็นตัวเราหรือของเรา แม้จะพูดว่าให้ถือเอาพระพุทธเจ้าเป็นสรณะ เป็นที่พึ่ง ก็มีความหมายว่า #ให้ถือเอาเป็นตัวอย่างในการที่จะไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่นอะไร 

"Some people continue to wonder if we need to hold on to the Buddha, to hold on to the Dharma, to hold on to the monks, when someone tells us not to hold on to anything, we are afraid, or we don't understand, or we don't believe in it because we want to hold on to what we love, what we are satisfied with, or what we see as reliable. Understand that [#]reaching and [#]clinging are not the same. When we say, "Buddha, Saranang, Kajchami, I have attained the Buddha's Nirvana. This does not mean that we should hold on to the Buddha as ourselves or ours. Even if we say that we should regard the Buddha as a refuge, it means that [#] should be taken as an example of not clinging to anything. 

พระพุทธเจ้าที่แท้จริงนั้น คือตัวความไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่นนั่นเอง เมื่อผู้ใดมีจิตใจไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่นอะไรเป็นตัวตนหรือเป็นของตน เมื่อนั้นชื่อว่ามีพระพุทธเจ้าอยู่กับผู้นั้นหรืออยู่ในจิตใจของผู้นั้น คือจิตที่ไม่มีความยึดมั่นถือมั่นนั่นแหละเป็นพระพุทธเจ้า สังเกตดูให้ดีเถิดจะเห็นว่า เมื่อจิตของเราไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่นอะไรว่าเป็นตัวเราหรือเป็นของเราแล้ว ในขณะนั้นจิตมีความบริสุทธิ์ที่สุด ในขณะนั้นจิตมีความสว่างไสวที่สุด ในขณะนั้นจิตมีความสงบเย็นหรือเป็นสุขที่สุด พอเกิดความยึดมั่นถือมั่นอะไรเข้ามา จิตนั้นก็เร่าร้อนที่สุด สกปรกที่สุด มืดมัวที่สุด และเป็นทุกข์ที่สุด ดังนั้นจิตที่ไม่มีความยึดมั่นถือมั่นในขณะนั้นแหละ เป็นจิตที่ถึงพระพุทธเจ้า หรือมีพระพุทธเจ้าเป็นสรณะ เป็นที่พึ่งอย่างแท้จริง แต่คนไม่เข้าใจอาการอันนี้ ก็ไปเดาสุ่มเอาว่าเราจะต้องยึดมั่นถือมั่นพระพุทธเจ้าเป็นของเรา เป็นที่พึ่งแก่เราไป

The true Buddha is the non-attachment itself. When a person has a mind that does not hold on to anything as his or her own. Then it is called having the Buddha with that person or in the mind of that person, that is, the mind that does not have attachment, that is the Buddha. Notice carefully, you will see that when our mind does not hold on to anything that is us or ours, we will not be able to do anything about it. At that moment, the mind is at its purest. At that moment, the mind is the brightest. At that time, the mind is calmest or happiest. When something is clinging to it, the mind is the most passionate. The dirtiest Therefore, the mind that does not have attachment at that time is the mind that reaches the Buddha or has the Buddha as the true refuge, but people who do not understand this symptom go to random guess that we must hold on to the Buddha as ours. It is a refuge for us.

ทั้งที่ไม่รู้ว่าจะเป็นที่พึ่งได้อย่างไร ก็เลยตกอยู่ในฐานะที่โง่เขลาอย่างน่าเวทนาสงสาร แม้จะเข้าวัดรับศีล ฟังเทศน์ ให้ทานมาสักกี่ปีกี่สิบปี ก็ยังห่างไกลต่อพระพุทธเจ้าอยู่นั่นเอง เพราะฉะนั้นจึงต้องร้องตะโกนเป็นนกแก้วนกขุนทองเรื่อยไปว่า พุทธัง สรณัง คัจฉามิ เป็นต้น โดยไม่มีความหมายอะไรเลย นี่แหละคือโทษของการที่ไม่เข้าใจคำว่าไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่น เพราะฉะนั้น ขอให้เข้าใจเสียใหม่ให้ถูกต้องตามตัวหนังสือเหล่านี้ว่า เราถึงพระพุทธเจ้าเป็นสรณะนั้น ก็คือถึงการที่มีจิตไม่ยึดมั่นถือมั่นเป็นที่พึ่ง หรือว่าเราถึงพระธรรมเป็นสรณะนั้น ก็คือการถึงภาวะที่ไม่มีความยึดมั่นถือมั่นเป็นที่พึ่ง หรือแม้ว่าเราถึงพระสงฆ์เป็นที่พึ่งเป็นสรณะนั้น ก็คือเราถึงหมู่บุคคลที่ไม่มีความยึดมั่นถือมั่น และเราจะต้องทำให้เหมือนเขาด้วย เป็นที่พึ่ง รวมหมดด้วยกันทั้ง ๓ สรณะนี้ก็อยู่ตรงที่มีจิตที่บริสุทธิ์ สะอาด ปราศจากความยึดมั่นถือมั่นนั่นเอง เป็นเครื่องอำนวยความสุขให้แก่เรา

Even though they don't know how to be helped, they fall into a pitiful stupid position. Even though they go to the temple to receive the precepts and listen to the sermons. How many years or decades have you been eating, you are still far from the Buddha. Therefore, they have to keep shouting like a golden parrot, "Buddha, Saranang, Kachami, etc.", without any meaning. Therefore, let's understand correctly according to these texts: that we have attained the Buddhahood as a refuge, that is, that we have attained a state of non-attachment to the Buddha, or that we have attained the Dharma as a refuge, that is, that is, that we have attained a state of non-attachment to the refuge, or even if we reach the monks as refuge, that is, we are to a group of people who do not have attachment, and we must also make them like them, as a refuge, all of these three states are in the place where we have a pure, pure, and devoid of attachment, which is the enabler of happiness for us, and the enablement of purity, cleanliness, clarity, clarity, and calm for us.

เป็นเครื่องอำนวยความบริสุทธิ์ ความสะอาด ความสว่างไสวแจ่มแจ้งสงบเย็นให้แก่เรา นั่นคือความหมายของคำว่า พระพุทธ พระธรรม พระสงฆ์ ที่แท้จริง" พุทธทาสภิกขุ #สวนโมกข์กรุงเทพ #สร้างสรรค์สังคมรมณีย์

That is the meaning of the word Buddha, Dharma, and true monk." Bhikkhu Buddha [#]Bangkok Mokkh Park [#]Creating a Romnee Society

I am relatively new to Buddhism, and recently, there is a question in my mind. The doctrine of Dependent Origination makes a lot of sense to me, the idea that all phenomena in the universe are devoid of a fixed and permanent "self" and that all phenomena are dependent on something in order to arise. This sounds logical, but when we look at energy, we know that it cannot be created, nor destroyed, and this might present an apparent contradiction.

However, I have a personal interpretation that I don't know will fit or not into the ideology of Buddhism.

I think that Dependent Origination only applies to conditioned realities i.e., while energy might be eternal, the forms that are manifested by it as a result are undoubtedly dynamic and constantly changing. While I know that the Buddha did not seek to speak directly on what Nibbana is, could it not be possible that this intrinsic nature of energy, what lies underneath all these changing forms, is what Nibbana actually is? Not in the sense that it is a "self" of any kind, but perhaps that once we have seen beyond all of the conditioned realities, there is only this one unconditioned reality that is left, and perhaps it is something akin to how we understand energy?

I apologise if I am completely on the wrong track here, and I am open to learning and being corrected by those more knowledgeable than I. 🙏

The Story of Cunda, the Goldsmith’s Son [Part 30]

Then after staying at the town of Bhoga for as long as He wished, the Buddha said to the Venerable Ānanda: “Come, Ānanda, let us go to Pāvā.”

“Very well, Venerable Sir,” assented Ānanda. And the Buddha, accompanied by His large following of bhikkhus, went to Pāvā where He dwelled in the Mango grove monastery donated by Cunda, the goldsmith’s son.

(Cunda, the goldsmith’s son, was a very rich man. From his earlier meeting with the Buddha, he had benefited from His discourse and become a Stream-Winner. He built a big monastery in his mango grove and donated it to the Buddha. This was the last time the Buddha resided at the monastery.)

[...]

(Herein, the Pāli word for tender pork (sūkara maddava), is interpreted by some teachers as soft rice boiled with fine differently-tasting cow’s milk, while others also say that it means a special food prepared with some delicious and highly nutritive concoction called rasāyana. They say that Cunda had this special meal prepared for the Buddha in the belief that it would not cause the passing away of the Buddha.)

[...]

(It should be noted here that the dysentery came upon the Buddha not on account of Cunda’s food offering. It is meant here that the affliction came merely subsequent to the meal but not because of it. As a matter of fact, Cunda’s specially prepared meal strengthened the Buddha. If not for Cunda’s highly nourishing food, the Buddha would not be able to withstand the onslaught of the severe illness.

Thanks to Cunda’s tender pork meal, the Buddha found strength to journey to Kusināgara on foot.)

Venerable Lokanātha (Salvatore Natale Cioffi, Cervinara 1897 - Maymyo 1966) was the first Italian to receive Buddhist monastic ordination, in 1925 in Burma; little known in our country, he is remembered and held in the highest regard in the East. This first detailed biography offers a portrayal of the human and spiritual profile of one of the most singular personalities of the 20th century. The work retraces the life of Lokanātha, his moral conduct, teachings, and his humanitarian and intellectual commitment. The extraordinary initiatives he undertook are recalled, such as the journey on foot and without money that led him from Italy to India. An inexhaustible energy and a "visionary" vocation drove the venerable monk to spread the Buddhist message and practice across Asia, the United States, and Europe.

((Source: Diana Edizioni))

Since Theravada doesn't encourage worship of god/s and dieties, I was wondering if you still believe or allow for some connections with God or a God? I don't mean God in a religious sense per se, but more of a universal/everything kind of way. Do you still feel a connection to oneness, to God, to a higher source? Or do you not bother with this line of thinking and focus on the precepts, the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path?

Edited to add... The responses are interesting here, some seem offended by the asking of a simple question and some have a very 1 dimensional view of god so it seems they are unable to answer the question in a real way, when you are only thinking of god in a religious sense then I can understand your response, but as I've said above I'm speaking of a universal being, no judgements, no rules, a very open, kind and loving god, not one from the "holy" texts.

Who seems to be best at explaining things / seems to know what they're talking about / knows what they are doing.

I am talking about the online ones like Thanissaro, Sujato, Jayasaro, etc.

Explain why that is.

The Buddhist approach to killing and harming beings is quite clear. It is prohibited. Consuming animals and animal products is not though, at least in precision. Theravadin Buddhist monks are traditionally in favor of consuming animals and animal products as long as they know they are not prepared particularly for them. If they are offered meat, yogurt, or cheese on their alms round, they should accept without being picky.

At some monasteries (it is not clear which school), we've heard that meal is prepared at the monastery and meat is bought from stores. For a monk on alms round who is being offered meat to eat as sustenance is fairly convenient and plausible. However, is it as fair when applied to a monastery that buys meat from a store or supermarket to prepare a meal or a lay person who buys from a store or a supermarket to prepare a meal at home? A well-known monk (name unknown) once heard saying that he could go to a store and buy meat, there was nothing wrong with it since he didn't kill the animal nor saw it being killed and so forth.

Does the alms round plausibility work here to justify this statement and the said situations? We all know how the modern farming industry has almost no regard for the well-being of animals. It's a cruel business and relies on demands to sustain itself. One buys chicken, minced meat, pork, and the like at a supermarket they contribute to the demand. Today, as opposed to The Buddha’s time, animals are slaughtered in mass without any compassion for their sentience. Isn't the argument 'I can buy it because I didn't see the animal being killed and it wasn't killed for me' out of place? As if to use what The Buddha or texts said thousands of years ago to buy meat without discernment. It is fair to say that it does not apply here. Aren't you contributing to the cruelty by paying someone who pays someone else to do the cruelty for them?

Also, we've heard some other monks who say when you eat meat intention is matter. That you don't think of a dead animal, you eat mindfully. There are some implications for such statements but attention should be paid to the suffering of animals. If the lay community contributes to monasteries and to monks on their alms round, shouldn't they be advised to adhere to a vegetarian diet and offer vegetarian food to monks instead of contributing to the businesses that cause suffering to animals?

Thank you for reading, please don't hesitate to contribute.

In religions, particularly Abrahamic ones, faith, and belief are considered of paramount importance. However, particularly the latter is widely criticized among people who repudiate religions and consider rituals and rites to be rooted in ignorance, fear, and projections. Most atheists presumably hold a similar perspective. Regardless, one could suggest that these rituals and rites influence the mind quite significantly. On the contrary, a rigidly rational mind, by viewing phenomena in terms of strict, rational rules, is liable to fall prey to the mechanisms of said rigidity.

The extreme evolution of such a mind could be the notion of nihilism. The question is: could that be the reason Buddhism, though without concepts such as God and the afterlife, despite proclaiming no self, has rites and rituals? If an atheist practices Buddhism without rites, rituals, and the obvious one: faith; and rigidly dismisses anything that they can't prove by reasoning, where would this attitude lead them? Would they advance significantly in their practice? The answer seems to be no but improvement is certainly available.

So would that mean rituals, rites, and faith have the utmost importance? The question is whether rituals and faith serve a necessary psychological and existential function, even in a religion that denies a self and does not hinge on belief in God or an afterlife.

Here is a passage from The Foundations of Buddhism by Rupert Gethin:

"The precise form the earliest devotions took is unclear, but they centred around the worship of stfipas. Thus the Buddha himself is presented as recommending that faithful monks, nuns, laymen, and laywomen visit the four sites where he was born; gained awakening, first taught Dharma, and died; he adds that any one who dies with a serene heart in the course of making such a pilgrimage will gain a good rebirth.6 Given the Indian cultural context, worship no doubt took a form not entirely dissimilar from more contemporary Buddhist practice: the making of offerings -especially of flowers, incense, and lamps-and the chanting of verses and formulas as the basis for the recollection of the qual-ities of the Buddha, Dharma, and Satigha.7 Early Buddhist art is often described as 'aniconic' since it avoided representing the Buddha in human form, using instead various symbols (an empty seat beneath the tree of awakening or the wheel of Dharma), but from the second century CE the Buddha image increasingly became a focus for such devotions and meditations. Another ancient ritual practice important for the subsequent history of Buddhism and which seems to be witnessed already in the earliest writings is the recitation of certain sfltras as protective charms ( rakii/paritta). 8 The Vinaya describes monks circumambulating a monastery and chanting to protect the Buddha when they believe his life is threatened.9 One of the oldest such protective . chants is the Atiiniitiya Sutta, a charm to protect the monk medit-ating in the forest from unsympathetic demons ( yaka/yakkha)."

Thank you for reading, please don't hesitate to contribute. Best regards.

Ajahn Jayasaro - Sila is different from moral codes

Hello, all. I am a former Muslim who started their spiritual path by following Advaita Vedānta of Hinduism, but after much contemplation, I found myself drawn to Theravada Buddhism and there is something deep within me that feels that I have finally found the path that is right for me.

However, I feel clueless in the face of the vast expanse of knowledge within Theravada. I began by watching some lectures on the fundamentals of Theravada from the IIT on YouTube, and while I sometimes felt I was grasping certain concepts such as Paramattha Dhamma, for example, sometimes I feel so overwhelmed by all of the new vocabulary, manifold categorizations, and the endless abstract discussions.

I think that my basic understanding is somewhat correct. In Buddhism, all natural phenomena including mind and matter are devoid of any true sense of self. Being trapped in Samsara is suffering, but the suffering is a result of Avijjā, which causes Tanhā, and both of these support Kamma in order to make it give a result and for another birth to happen. But by removing ignorance, we can prevent this and break out of the cycle, and experience Nibbana.

This all makes so much sense to me, everything I have read about Theravada makes so much of sense, but I still feel very lost. I yearn for knowledge and I feel stronger in my spiritual path when I can understand how to actually see the ultimate reality of what is around me clearly, but I think that understanding the metaphysics is the only way to really do that.

Where does one even begin?

I have two questions - I don’t know if they are necessarily related yet.

Somebody posed “The Trolley Problem” on r/buddhism and it got me thinking. I’m not posing the problem here because it is a silly question, but I’ll ask an adjacent question. Perhaps it is equally silly.

Can non-intervention be unskillful without ill will? Are there circumstances where a person must help someone, even if one’s inaction would not actually cause harm, but acting would have relieved harm to another? Put another way, the Buddha teaches Right Action, but does that imply right inaction or even wrong inaction?

My second question: are there examples in the Pali Canon of the Buddha practicing dāna EXCLUDING teaching/guiding?

Pay homage to Phra Phuttha Chinnarat!

Knowledge by Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo

This is why the Buddha taught us a higher level of knowledge: Dhamma knowledge. Dhamma knowledge arises in two ways, through thinking and through not thinking. The first level of thinking is called appropriate attention (yoniso manasikara). When we hear the Dhamma, we have to use appropriate attention to consider things before we're asked to believe them.

The Nine Qualities of the Buddha

Even if you cannot reach jhāna while meditating on the sound of buddho, you can develop very high concentration with it. You can normally reach jhāna if the strength of the jhāna factors (mental factors developed specifically through samatha meditation) and the purity of your mind is sufficiently high and the object lends itself to unification, i.e. the difference between self and object disappears. The qualities of the Buddha are so great and numerous that this unification is very difficult. At the same time, the grandeur of the qualities means that the concentration needed to stay focused on them must also be of a very high order. In other words, although achieving jhāna is very difficult, the jhāna factors are indeed developed to of a very, very high degree.

The Nine Attributes of the Buddha

In 1994, wishing to cultivate concentration meditation, Sayalay moved to Pa Auk Forest Monastery in Myanmar. She placed herself under the guidance of the renowned monk Venerable Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw, and remained in the forest for 14 years. In addition to an assiduous program of meditation, she also learned the Abhidhamma, ancient discourses, and the Pāli language from Pa-Auk Sayadaw. Meanwhile, she became his English-to-Chinese interpreter in Myanmar and abroad.

I was reading last night about how the Buddha trained with various people before he became a Buddha. He says these teachers could attain the jhanas but this wasn't the goal. Does this mean jhana is unnecessary? Or is it necessary but there is just more beyond it to reach nibbana? If there is more, what is it?

I'm learning that metta / bhramavihara meditation can lead to Jhana according to some teachers. I was wondering why this isn't a poppular path. Since compassion meditation has more benefits in daily life relationships than breath concentration.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Anapana — International Meditation Centre

When adhicitta (samadhi) becomes strong and the mind stays one-pointed for a long period, then you will realize that in a split second matter arises and dissolves billions and billions of times. If mind (nama) knows matter (rupa), it knows that matter becomes and disintegrates billions and billions of times in the wink of an eye. This knowledge of arising and disintegration is called adhipañña.

[...]

We needn’t ask others. While we know in-breath and out-breath, there is no “I” or atta.

When we know this, our view is pure; it is right view. We know in that moment that there is nothing but nama and rupa, mind and matter. We also know that mind and matter are two different entities. If we in this way know to distinguish between nama and rupa, we have attained to the ability to distinguish between mind and matter (nama-rupa-pariccheda-ñana).

I think I am correct to say that Buddhism does not support the view that kamma is a law of 'moral justice' or 'reward and punishment', as there is no external agency that metes out justice. But, something is meting out rebirths of different qualities within the different realms based on our Kamma. Did the Buddha say, "That's just the way it is?" I suspect some will say it is a universal law like gravity, but gravity does not pull on people differently based on their Kamma.

I have been subscribed ambien for severe insomnia (it is a strong controlled narcotic medicine) So of course Mara has been telling me all afternoon that I will be breaking the intoxication precept. I’ve tried every other solution for again very bad insomnia so debilitating I can’t work and it seems to be all that works.

Nothing special but it gives me peace.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

As you saw above, my cat hurt a mouse that got in my house and now it's definitely hurt. It's winter where I am and it's 29° and chances of flurries.

Idk what to do. It's hurt and it's moving too too much and I'd feel bad throwing out into the cold under these conditions. I cant keep it though otherwise I would.

I hate this!

This is a collection of letters written by an anonymous Sri Lankan bhikkhu, whose current whereabouts are unknown. He entrusted an editor with his letters, diaries, and notes before retreating into a forest (filled with elephants, leopards and bears) to stay in deep samadhi. He requested that his name remain unspoken. The editor believes the bhikkhu to be a highly realized Noble being, although he admits not knowing the exact nature of his attainments.

If anyone is interested, these are the direct links to the English translations of Books 1-7 and 11 of 'Maha Rahathun Wadi Maga Osse' (On the Trail of Arahat / Following the Path of Maha-Arahants).

• Giving Up Letters: Book 1
• Giving Up Letters: Book 2
• Giving Up Letters: Book 3
• Giving Up Letters: Book 4
• Giving Up Letters: Book 5
• Giving Up Letters: Book 6
• Giving Up Letters: Book 7
• Giving Up Letters: Book 11

The remaining 18 books appear to be untranslated so far.

If anyone feels inspired or has the skills and resources to take on the task of translating the remaining books, we encourage you to take on this meaningful endeavor. Your effort could contribute immensely to the wider Buddhist community’s understanding of these teachings.

Thank you, and hope these resource guide and inspire your practice!

- r/theravada moderator team

Note by the Anonymous Bhikkhu: May this humble effort be a help, strength and an easy path only for the clergy and the laymen who have clearly understood the in and out of this ruthless and dreadful journey of ‘Samsara’ and are trying hard with much determination and perseverance to realize the Four Noble Truths within this life span itself. May all of you be wise enough to get the maximum use of what you need or what can ease your effort and also to ignore what you do not need, what you do not accept or any thing false in facts. “May you be merciful to all, May all beings be happy and be a help unto themselves.”

https://www.dahampoth.com/pdfj/view/gu1.html

In this entire system of world elements, if we were to enquire where lies freedom as per its exact meaning, then without any hesitation the answer lies in the Noble Arahat. The Arahat is the perfect image of total freedom. His mind is equated to a pure white cloth. Not even the tiniest needle point of dirt can be found. While the Arahat lives in the present he draws pictures on this white cloth and they erase at the same time. He draws again and erases again.

An Arahat does not accumulate or bundle together those pictures. It’s a non-defiled paint he uses to draw those pictures. There is no thickness, roughness, attachment or collision in them. They are burnt-out paint. Hence his white cloth mind, which constantly rises and ceases and is always pure. The mind that sees no ‘being’ or ‘person’, his mind having perceived impermanence draws pictures which erase off. Therefore his life is always light, simple, clear and open. He is an image of Freedom. Those monks and laymen who are in search of Nibbana are in search of that nature of Freedom.

Freedom lies in life where all attachments are emptied. Having set aside all accumulated worldly belongings, one leaves the household to become a monk. Why have you so arrived having set aside all such things? It is to let go all those things which were set aside.

Reflect diligently. Setting aside and letting go is as wide as the earth and sky. Once becoming a monk, one must train to let go those things which were set aside. What are those that were set aside? Father, mother, relatives, businesses, lands and houses, civil status—in short you have set aside such things that are binding to the six sense bases. To let go of them is to be freed of them. Now the goal is clear. If that is so, one should search for a non-accumulative place conducive for the training of letting go.

What is that non-accumulating place? The place where defilements are not accumulated the place where the mind is at ease. If one cannot find such a hermitage or an empty place, then one should get near a teacher who develops the Path to an isolated hut. Those places where one could be cornered to attachments such as to hermitages, attachment to fellow monks, attachment to Conduct (Vinaya), attachment to gods or Brahmas, attachment to Bodhisattva must be avoided. The nature of such places are only conducive to safeguard the teaching and beneficial for rebirth, and not beneficial for the purpose of the attainment of Nibbana. By adhering to the above nature you will only oppose the Path to Nibbana. It still may be your nature to move along with the waves. You have left the fires of the household, not for the purpose of riding the pleasant waves of the norm, but to swim upstream of that current. If you were to fail, you will come under the influence of local and foreign relationship, fellow and teacher bonds etc. Do not get attached or hold to anything. Learn to systematically drop off all what has been held. Think, that with age having understood life, that you are a complete person who has arrived with a purpose to this teaching (Sasanaya). However, you must guard against an overestimation of yourself.

You must know that there is a higher conduct (Sila) than the Samanera conduct or the Upasampada conduct. That conduct cannot be received by someone else. It’s self-achieved by enhancing one’s own effort towards both Dhamma and Sila. Sila means only a tool for the comfortable achievement of Nibbana, but not a rope which is been tied to your hands and feet, nor is it a prop which kills your freedom. Like the paratrooper who uses his parachute for the purpose of descent, make use of the Sila for the comfortable achievement of Nibbana. As soon as the trooper touches the ground, he releases the chute; just so, Sila means that which is released after having correctly understood the teaching, and not something which is held hard. Holding to Sila gives into its desires. Desires do not lead one to Nibbana but it leads to more ‘being’ (bhava). One must carefully watch that one is not trapped in thoughts such as “I am in the Sila” or “The Sila is in me”.

Sila means mindfulness and presence of mind. Dhamma means the true nature of things. Nature of the Dhamma is anicca, which means impermanence. To observe impermanence with mindfulness and with the presence of mind is to live in Dhamma and Sila. Sila is essential not to make repeated wrongdoings. The Puthujjana mind is of the nature to do wrong. Having clearly understood and seen this, one must weed out wrong conduct. To dedicate oneself to Sila is a weakness. Without dedicating to Sila one must remove one’s weaknesses with mindfulness and the presence of mind. If there are hundred books written on Sila, and having stacked them one on top of the other, then on top of all, place a label with the Buddha word “chetanaham bhikkave kamman vadami” (“Intention, monks is kamma, I declare”).

If one is not confident, lacks talent, is conceited, agitated, suffering from the inability to attain the fruits of the path, then consider to train under a teacher in a disciplined manner.

If not you will be lost. Do not overestimate your ability. Be intelligent in making decisions. Do not be slow or hurried. Be freed from timetables, preplanning or set order.

In just the same natural way the moon, sun, ocean and the earth behave without any effort, develop the path to Nibbana within your own natural way with ease. Be a part of nature. Do not keep a gap between you and nature. Compare your thoughts with the sun which rises, or the moon which descends. Be a warrior who travels upstream in search of freedom. Having paused to reflect on the qualities of the Buddha, continuously contemplate your reason for your monkhood. Every moment you contemplate in such a manner you see the Buddha through your own experience.

Observe your weaknesses with humility. Humility does not mean timidity or shyness. A Bhikkhu should be the one on this earth who chases after the target with all might. There is no clever person in the three worlds who could hurry him. Like the lonely elephant who has taken refuge in the mighty jungle, he himself must search for the freedom he seeks. In this journey, he does not notice the night, the day, the rain, the cold or the hunger. None so has control over him. Like the warrior on this earth he chases after the defilements of Mara. The freedom he seeks must be realized by himself. It cannot be done by a god or a Brahma. They only can give their blessings. In your presence they are a mere second fiddle. Having made this universe tiny and placing it on both your hands, you be the sage, the person who is released from this world. This is only possible if you succeed in taking the serious decision on either death or relinquishment. Then the freedom you search can be meaningful and be attained.

The above is a talk by an anonymous Sri Lankan Reverend Thero.

This Bhikkhu’s talks have previously been shared on this sub after being kindly translated by u/ChanceEncounter21 and u/CaptainZurdo - thank you to you both for bringing this Bhikkhu to the attention of this sub.

This Bhikkhu’s talks are available in the original Singhala as a series of ‘Abandonment’ (or ‘Giving Up’ / ‘Renunciation’) letters from:

https://maharahathunwadimagaosse.org/

The name of this site roughly translates to “Following the Path of Maha-Arahants”.

This Bhikkhu is understood to be an arahant who has chosen to share these teachings but has sought to remain anonymous.

After some searching, we have managed to locate English translations of this Bhikkhu’s talks, and we are very pleased to present the first of these talks. We will share these talks one by one on this sub as time goes on, but should anyone wish to ‘read ahead’, the books of the English translations can be found here:

https://www.dahampoth.com/

Hoping that you enjoy these talks as much as we have.

~ The r/theravada moderator team

Hi, what do you think is a proper approach to replying to wishes of friends, acquaintances on holidays, or on birthdays of people that you are invited, for example.

Like "Happy new year! I wish you health, wealth, love!"

Which is nice, but may look like just words sometime, and then all the "fabricate back" expectation dawns, otherwise it doesn't seem "original enough". Is there something simple I am missing?