[freflellalafe]

At age 3 there is no person developed.



Yes.

Also many others that can reach the Buddha Dhamma and are capable for its understanding, do not take refuge in it.

Why is this? I don't know.

Hi Kaarine;

Sadly you are correct about the last statement.

You can't reach something when you don't know about it or when what you do know isn't correct, or who are unsuitable to practice in that moment. Many beings who don't practice can benefit from the dhamma; they will never ever hear of it, or they'll only hear brief "sound bites" about it and they won't know what it's actually about, or their conceptions of it will be biased, based on previous inculcation in other traditions or due to a distaste for religion, generally, or they will hear it and they will have no reason to be attracted to it in that moment because they won't perceive that they are suffering, or, being within a different tradition they will hear it and think that their own tradition is better.

Because of the above situations, all the people who won't reach the dhamma in this life, because the vast majority of those who do hear the dharma won't practice like their "heads are on fire" because they don't feel a sense of urgency, because of all those people who will suffer as small children due to "bad luck" and who will die young, or be developmentally disabled or suffering horrible physical pain all their lives, or have their legs blown off at age 8....because of all this mass of suffering that the overwhelming majority of humans (let alone other types of sentient beings) must endure now and until their deaths for which ...FOR THEM...there is no hope, I have great difficulty accepting the random universe theory of birth with its "good luck for you, born into a noble family with all of your faculties, leisure, dhamma teachers, etc and... bad luck for you over there in Darfour, all being attributed to the randomness of nature.

The Suttas place responsibility for suffering on ignorance, mental states arising from ignorance, and subsequent intention/action, and they don't distinguish in terms of age or circumstances of birth...not at all. Can you point me to a Sutta that does point out that those who are very young have no responsibility for their suffering? yet I can't see it that way if the universe is random in terms of A having a genius–level IQ, and is born into a family of rich devout Buddhists, and B is hydrocephalic and will hardly even achieve awareness of her/his situation during a painful and short life, and is also born into a family of faith healers. "A" has great shot at liberation; B is doomed to a horrific fate; no chance of it being otherwise. I simply can't see how suffering of B arises from ignorance. It arises from biology, one would think....if this model were correct.

If that's so, then those who are sons and daughters of good families and happen to be endowed with superior fortunes and leisures, and who meet a qualified teacher as well, and who are very motivated and diligent...those beings have a shot. The rest...not so much, most...not at all, sadly. I'm not happy with that scenario, though, it it be true then nothing I can do except work towards salvation and reach out to all those able to benefit.

Just a few more thoughts.

Does the Buddha state that nature is random? Would he make that statement that you made (which sounds perfectly reasonable in this world in 2012, mind you; my background is in the sciences too)? This would seem to validate true existence of nature. Does nature have true independent existence---it's something "out there" that just happens irrespective of mind? Is giving a definite "yes" to that proposition speculating in a way that that Buddha advised against?


take care

tj