[effenseshoora]

Answer to First Point

Dhamma is ‘not’ something special. On the contrary, it is something ‘normal’ and ‘natural’. It is the truth of life. However, people look for happiness and look for something special, so they could not see Dhamma. Dhamma is around us all the times. Nirvana is not a special world or highest heaven. In fact, Nirvana is just in front of us right here and right now, but we just cannot see it because our mind does not know and not accept the truth. What truth? It is the four noble truths. If our mind truly understand and accept the four noble truths, we will see Nirvana immediately right here.

As Dhamma is not something special but it is something normal, we do not need to be a special person to be a Buddhist. On the contrary, we need to be a normal person. Do we need to feel fear to be normal? The highest Dhamma in Buddhism is the ‘four noble truths’. We study and practice Dhamma in order to know and understand the ‘truths’. Do we need to feel fear to know and understand the truths?

I just join BWB for few weeks. The key problem for many beginners (which I saw) is that we did not classify levels of Dhamma. Many beginners study too advance, think too advance, or even think about the end already, even though they have not done or started anything much. This problem is because Dhamma in Buddhism is very wide and they cannot identify which Dhamma is for which level as they cannot see the whole picture. They listen and see only one jigsaw, then another jigsaw, and then another jigsaw.

To avoid this problem, I would recommend that beginners should take and try only Dhamma which they understand and think that it is useful to them. Ajahn Buddhadasa has taught that a person does not need to eat all fish in the sea. Although he/she eats only fish which he/she knows, he/she can be full. So, it is not necessary for him/her to spend lifetime and effort to find/eat other fish which he/she does not know/understand at all. Dhamma is quite the same that we should take and practice those we understand and can do them.

So, please relax and do not think too advance. At this beginner stage, no need to put down self and ego, give up passion, or liberate desires. It is a waste of time for beginners, since they will not be able to do them at this time anyway (for sure). It is like a student in grade one talking about or trying to do homework for student in grade ten.

What should beginners aim for? I suggest that the goal should be only to know (a) ‘what is Dhamma taught by the Buddha’, (b) ‘which Dhamma are useful to him/her and he/she should take and practice’, and (c) ‘how to practice them’. This is quite much already and it would take year(s) already to complete this.

So, it is not risky to be a Buddhist because the beginners do not need to sacrifice ego, self, passion or desires as said. Because even though you want to put them down, you cannot do it anyway. If the beginners do not need to put them down what the beginners should do? I always recommend the beginners to study the threefold learning/training (Sikkha), i.e. (1) training in higher morality (Abhisila-Sikkha), (2) training in higher mentality (Adhicitta-sikkha) and (3) training in higher wisdom (Adhipanna’sikka).

These threefold learning/training have to be taken step by step. Here, we start from training in higher morality (Abhisila-Sikkha) firstly. Basically, we would start this from the Five Precepts (pañca-sila), i.e. to refrain from destroying living creatures, to refrain from taking that which is not given, to refrain from sexual misconduct, to refrain from a lie, and to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

Someone may view that taking these five precepts are difficult and have to sacrifice things. Let’s analyze this whether or not it is true that taking five precepts are difficult and have to sacrifice things.

First - to refrain from destroying living creatures
Comparing between trying to kill someone, and not trying to do so, which one is easier? Is killing someone easier? No. Trying to kill someone is more difficult and at the end we would be in jail or even in death sentence.

Second - to refrain from taking that which is not given
Comparing between trying to steal money from bank, and not trying to do so, which one is easier? Is trying to steal money from bank easier? No. Trying to steal money from bank is more difficult and at the end we would be in jail.

Third - to refrain from sexual misconduct
Comparing between trying to have affairs with our neighbor’s wife, and not trying to do so, which one is easier? Is trying to have affairs with our neighbor’s wife easier? No. Trying to have affairs with our neighbor’s wife is more difficult and at the end we may lose our reputation or may be hated, harmed, or even killed.

Fourth - to refrain from a lie
Comparing between trying to lie our friend, and not trying to do so, which one is easier? Is trying to lie our friend easier? No. Trying to lie our friend is more difficult. We need to use more effort and more thinking to lie someone. Moreover, we need to remember what we lie. At the end, if it is found that we lied to other people, we would be hated or would lose our creditability.

Fifth - to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness
Comparing between trying to drink alcohol, and not trying to do so, which one is easier? Is trying to drink alcohol easier? No. Trying to drink alcohol is more difficult. We need to spend money and time and it is disadvantage to our health. If we get drunk, we may do something bad which we will lose more other things.

Based on above, is it good or bad, and useful or non-useful to take five precepts? Is it more risky or less risky to take five precepts? We will see that it is more useful and less risky to be a Buddhist taking five precepts. So, as mentioned earlier, we should take Dhamma which is useful to us and matched with our level.

Answer to Second Point

The concept of Buddhism is not ‘cognitive dissonance’. The real concept is to know the truths, and to find the best thing which a human can acquire. We do not want to waste our life and time for non-sense or non-useful things. You story of a fox with sour grape cannot compare with Buddhism.

If you have ever read a book of Buddha’s life, you may note that he was the honor Prince Siddhartha who had a so happy life and had everything a man wants. He had three castles, each castle for each season. He had many girls and a very beautiful and very good wife. But he viewed that those are not the most valuable thing, he wanted something better, something the best. So, he left his royal family and kingdom to practice to find the best thing.

If we will compare Buddhism with a fox story, the fox story would be that a fox sees a grilled premium steak and a sour grape together. It takes a grilled premium steak, and absolutely ignores a sour grape. It takes the best and does not care about the less valuable thing.

You said that buddhism is flourished in ‘poor’ countries. Why does a person want to be rich? Is it because he wants to be happy by richness? If yes, noting that ‘richness’ and ‘happiness’ are different words and things. Being rich may or may not be happy. Being happy may or may not be rich. If we are already happy for everything but are not rich, do we still need to be rich? If we are so rich but are not happy, do we still need to be happy? Which one is more valuable to us between ‘richness’ and ‘happiness’? If we can pick one, do we want to be rich in money or happiness?

Answer to Third Point

Your nephews were happy because they did not hold unhappy matters in their mind at that time. You are less happy as your hold more unhappy matters and concerns in your mind.

Newly born babies also have ego/self. For example, they cry as they feel that they are uncomfortable on anything and they do not like that situation. If they do not have ego/self, such situation cannot affect their mind and they do not need to cry. If a doctor hits a newly born baby, he feels hurt at his body and he does not like it, so he cries. That is ego/self.

[JacomoR]

However, there is something i ve read in the book and started worrying me which is the methodolgy Buddhism use to obtain knowledge. The buddha has already given us his conclusion regarding the true nature of things (reality) through the four noble truths and the three universal charachterstic and then he showed us the bath to exmine his claims. The problem with this methodolgy is that it puts the cart before the horse!!! The correct way is to make your research and then reach a answer (this is what the Buddha has done), not having the answer and then trying to prove it through research (what his followers have been trying to do).

So if i started studying and doing my own research on the true nature of things and then reach a conclusion that differs from the one the Buddha has given us then its ME who has to be wrong!!! have you ever considered that the Buddha himself might be wrong and that everything he experienced was mere hallucinations??!! (no offence or disrespect here but a genuine question)

Generally, we may classify the learners in Buddhism into three groups:

1. the group who use faith/belief to lead their path.

2. the group who use reason/wisdom to lead their path.

3. the group who use both faith/belief and reason/wisdom to lead their path.

If you are not believe easily, you do not have to because you are in group two. You can test it first before you believe. However, sometimes we need to use belief. Group two may view that group one is less smart then them. Well, it is not necessary to be that. For example, if a dad warns his son that he cannot eat a poison as he will die, does his son have to test before believing his dad? When we drive our car to a place/way which we do not know, will we believe and follow the signboards?

None of these three group are wrong. It is just depended on intrinsic nature and style of each person (‘Carita’).

[johnbeller]

Hi ngodngam,

I would like to thank you for the time you spent answering my questions. I think that you hit the nail on the head when you pointed out the difficulty we beginners are experiencing. Buddhism is so wide and deep and the there is no clear "road map" how a beginner should start. For example i currently live in Jordan, which is a muslim country and i dont think there are any buddhist temples or buddhist community here to interact with. I tried to do things on my own but as you can see its not easy so this forum is the only place where i can get help.

I ve read your five percepts and i agree with most of them, but maybe your examples are a bit too extreme! for example killing a mosquito that keep on biting you and torturing you when trying to sleep is not the same as killing another human being!! so which is better, staying whole night awake suffering from bites and annoying noise, or killing the bloody mosquito?

When you talk about sexual misconduct, the woman does not have to be my neighbor’s wife!!! she could be a single beautiful woman that i meet in the club and we can spend good time together without anyone gets hurt!! how about masturbation? is it a sexual misconduct? please have a look at the following story and let me know what you think:

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index....2,3456,0,0,1,0

In relation to the second question, i knew that the Buddha was Prince Siddhartha, but the whole point is that Buddhism can be used by some as escapism and denial. Personally, i dont want to become a buddhism for the wrong reasons if you understand what i mean!

Finally, regarding the third question, i thought that a baby is porn as a white page (egoless)!! I ve read articles describe the ego as "the voice in your head" or as "a by product of living with others" or as "an accumulated phenomenon" so the more you interact with others, the more they will add to your ego and it will become more complex. I did not know that feeling physical pain has anything to do with the ego but with the nervous system which is designed by nature to protect us from dangers. Maybe my understanding of the ego is not very accurate!

Regards,

[Ruilnasr]

ngodngam,

I respectfully disagree with you here, the three groups are not the same!! Epstemologically speaking, knowledge is defined as: a JUSTIFIED true belief, so if the belief is not justified by reason/wisdom, even if it happened to be true, it cannot be considered as knowledge.

Let us remember what the Buddha said: "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it"

Peace

[skupaemauto]

Karrine,

Thank you for your reply.

You are welcome Bundokji.

The tricky issue is how to test a subjective phenomena objectively??!!! In addition, when we describe Buddha as "enlightened" or "awakened" the power of suggestion here is so strong that might affect our judgement. For a skeptic like me, to tell if the Buddha was or not enlightened is not the important aspect but to where does the teachings he left leads to. Through the careful understanding, practice and evaluation of the teachings it can be inferred that, indeed, Buddha awoke from the delusions of mind. The experience of a peaceful mind it is not a subjective matter. The change in the quality of the relationships with the environment, whatever it happens to be, is an irrefutable fact. A person that acts in an unwholesome way to daily life events is completely different from that one that acts and behaves in a wholesome way, devoid of covetousness, devoid of ill will, unbewildered, alert and mindful.

This is somehow similar to the placebo effect in medicine which is the phenomenon whereby a patient's symptoms can be alleviated by an otherwise ineffective treatment; most likely because the individual expects or believes that the treatment will work!!! I think the contrary, Bundokji. The teachings of Buddha can make us to awake from the endless ways that keep our mind under the suggestive and placebo effects of the wilderness of views that keeps us unaware from realizing the unsatisfactory nature of things, among them, the suggested idea of a selfhood, an "I", a "me" and a "mine".

[WaysletlyLene]

Hello FBM,

Your posts can be described in one word : Beautiful

The simple fact that i confused rebirth and reincarnaton to me shows that i know nothing about Buddhism lol. I ve always mistakenly thought that buddhists believed in the soul! what led me to this belief is the techniques tibetan monks use to search for Dalai Lamas, so if everything is impermenant and there is no soul so things start to get really confusing lol.

In addition, if there is no soul, then my understanding of meditation must be worng (have not watched Aloka's video and Kaarine's link yet about meditaion) as i always thought that meditation is all about observing the ego (the false centre or the false identity) and realizing that its the source of all suffering. This realization will lead to the emerge of the real centre/identity (the soul/subconscious mind/god/the one/nothingness...etc)!!!

In relation to determinism and free will, it depends, when we use general physichs then the laws of cause and effect apply and we live in deterministic world. However, when we look at quantum mechanics the rules of cause and effect are no longer applicable and replaced by the laws of probablity and uncertainty. Personally, i believe that buddhism is better understood when linked to quantum physichs especially when we take about emptiness, interconnectivity, and the nature of reality.

The concept of impermenance is a bit tricky and debatable. Hiraclitus for instance believed in the changing nature of things when he said "you cannot step in the same river twice" while Parmenides believed that nothing really change. Its quite amazing how we can have two opposing interpretation of reality and each one of them provide good reasons to support his argument!!

"There are no facts, only interpretations" Nietzche
Regards

Thanks again for your kind words, Bundokji. As for the part I highlighted: This seems to be what motivated Pyrrho and the original Skeptics to live in a state of suspended judgement on all metaphysical statements. What is known is direct experience and necessary inference. Everything else is debatable and unsettled. Incidentally, the possible connection between Pyrrho and Buddhism is fascinating to me.

[Trotoleterm]

For example killing a mosquito that keep on biting you and torturing you when trying to sleep is not the same as killing another human being!! so which is better, staying whole night awake suffering from bites and annoying noise, or killing the bloody mosquito?

The five precepts are useful for not only others, but also the ones who hold them. In fact, the five precepts are mainly to protect ourselves from thinking, saying and doing bad. Before we will kill a mosquito, we need to feel angry, annoying or other bad feeling/desires firstly. After that we kill it to satisfy such bad desires. So, another question for this example should be ‘which is better between satisfying our bad desires or not satisfying them?’. If we keep satisfying our bad desire, who we will be in the future?

For beginners whose Dhamma strength is less, they would answer your question by choosing to kill the mosquito which is easy. But for those who have more Dhamma strength, they would choose the other or another way/alternative. This is why we have to do learning/training/practicing (Sikkha). Higher morality (Abhisila-Sikkha) cannot be achieved by only thinking or understanding, but has to be achieved by training and real doing/practicing.

Again, as beginners cannot do/understand as the advanced people do/understand, it is somehow not useful to spend time discussing on Dhamma which is much higher than our own level. For the advanced people, they would view and feel that killing a mosquito is easy, but it could help to avoid only minor annoying for a short term. But such minor annoying means nothing comparing to other great sufferings in this wheel of rebirth. So, they prefer to ignore such minor thing and keep Sila which is greater and much more useful to them in longer term.

If you do not believe this, you have to test by practicing yourself to the advanced level and you will know by yourself whether I am right or wrong.

When you talk about sexual misconduct, the woman does not have to be my neighbor’s wife!!! she could be a single beautiful woman that i meet in the club and we can spend good time together without anyone gets hurt!! how about masturbation? is it a sexual misconduct?

(Need to define “spend good time together” firstly. Is it sexual affair or just talking and dinner?) How can we truly know that she is single as we just meet her that night? What if she lie, and in fact she has a husband?

For masturbation, it depends on what we think in our mind during the activity. If we are thinking about other people’s wife, we are in breach to the percept by thinking. If you think about your wife, it is not in breach to the precept. In any case, such activity supports to increase desire in us.

please have a look at the following story and let me know what you think:
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index....2,3456,0,0,1,0

This is just a story of a monk who did not understand Buddhism. In many countries, there are so many Buddhists by birth who do not study and practice. So, they do not know Buddhism.

In relation to the second question, i knew that the Buddha was Prince Siddhartha, but the whole point is that Buddhism can be used by some as escapism and denial. Personally, i dont want to become a buddhism for the wrong reasons if you understand what i mean!

I understand what you mean. But, this depends how we use Buddhism. We have our own choice. How other people use Buddhism does not affect us. The more important thing is whether or not we use Buddhism correctly, properly and usefully.

Finally, regarding the third question, i thought that a baby is porn as a white page (egoless)!! I ve read articles describe the ego as "the voice in your head" or as "a by product of living with others" or as "an accumulated phenomenon"

Would you ‘believe’ in those articles? Let’s skip this issue as no easy way for us to prove it here, and this is also not relevant to our practicing.

I respectfully disagree with you here, the three groups are not the same!!

I appreciate other different views. However, in my comment no. 22, I did not say that the three groups are the same. I said that ‘none of these three groups is wrong’.

Moreover, I said that they ‘use xxx to lead the path’. I did not say that they ‘use only xxx to walk on the path’. So, the first group also have to use reason/wisdom but they just use belief/faith much more. The second group also have to belief/faith, but they just use reason/wisdom much more.

It would not be practical for the learners if they would use only and purely reason/wisdom without belief at all (even for a little). Otherwise, you may not say that the statements in your comment no. 24 is belonging to the Buddha until you can prove it. How could you test it definitely and clearly? You have to rely on text books. How could you rely or believe in those books? I appreciate the Sutta which you raise in comment no. 24 and, in Ajahn Buddhadasa’s view, it is one of the most important Suttas. However, this does not mean that we are restricted to use belief at all. Otherwise, it would be messy. For example, how could children believe that their parents are dad and mom. Do they need to do DNA test to prove so?

Cheers