Hi, I just have a few questions about Buddhism

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
User avatar
oxen
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: TX

Re: Hi, I just have a few questions about Buddhism

Post by oxen »

Jason wrote:I think you have the wrong sutta (MN 2.213 = MN 100, a.k.a, the Sangarava Sutta). Here's the relevant passage:
  • Evaṃ vutte, saṅgāravo māṇavo bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – ‘‘aṭṭhitavataṃ [aṭṭhita vata (sī. syā. kaṃ. pī.)] bhoto gotamassa padhānaṃ ahosi, sappurisavataṃ [sappurisa vata (sī. syā. kaṃ. pī.)] bhoto gotamassa padhānaṃ ahosi; yathā taṃ arahato sammāsambuddhassa. Kiṃ nu kho, bho gotama, atthi devā’’ti [adhidevāti (ka.) evaṃ sabbesu ‘atthi devā’tipadesu]? ‘‘Ṭhānaso metaṃ [kho panetaṃ (syā. kaṃ. ka.)], bhāradvāja, viditaṃ yadidaṃ – adhidevā’’ti [atthi devāti (sī. syā. kaṃ. pī.), atidevāti (?) evaṃ sabbesu ‘adhidevā’tipadesu]. ‘‘Kiṃ nu kho, bho gotama, ‘atthi devā’ti puṭṭho samāno ‘ṭhānaso metaṃ, bhāradvāja , viditaṃ yadidaṃ adhidevā’ti vadesi. Nanu, bho gotama, evaṃ sante tucchā musā hotī’’ti? ‘‘‘Atthi devā’ti, bhāradvāja, puṭṭho samāno ‘atthi devā’ti yo vadeyya, ‘ṭhānaso me viditā’ti [ṭhānaso viditā me viditāti (sī. syā. kaṃ. pī.), ṭhānaso me viditā atidevāti (?)] yo vadeyya; atha khvettha viññunā purisena ekaṃsena niṭṭhaṃ gantabbaṃ [gantuṃ (ka.), gantuṃ vā (syā. kaṃ.)] yadidaṃ – ‘atthi devā’’’ti. ‘‘Kissa pana me bhavaṃ gotamo ādikeneva na byākāsī’’ti [gotamo ādikeneva byākāsīti (ka.), gotamo atthi devāti na byākāsīti (?)]? ‘‘Uccena sammataṃ kho etaṃ, bhāradvāja, lokasmiṃ yadidaṃ – ‘atthi devā’’’ti.
Thanks so much!
--
Thôan-kia̍t Upāsaka
傳傑優婆塞
User avatar
O'seeker
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: USA

Re: Hi, I just have a few questions about Buddhism

Post by O'seeker »

Ok, what about the kamma of "killing" in video games?

I'm not sure if this guy is a Buddhist or not. He says it is wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MAd7PXpT-A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 3853
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Hi, I just have a few questions about Buddhism

Post by Modus.Ponens »

O'seeker wrote:Ok, what about the kamma of "killing" in video games?

I'm not sure if this guy is a Buddhist or not. He says it is wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MAd7PXpT-A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He's not buddhist, he's hindu. In order for the precept of not killing to be broken, there must be a being and the perception that there is a being there (among other things). In a video game there's no such possibility. However, video games that invovle killing characters or robing, etc. (such as GTA), generate unwholsome mental states because generaly you feel aversion to the character being killed or craving for the object being stolen. But imho, the two situations are very, very far apart in terms of karmic gravity.
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
User avatar
texastheravadin
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:37 am
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Hi, I just have a few questions about Buddhism

Post by texastheravadin »

Are there any enlightened teachers now? Hmm...

You know I never cared about that question when I first started studying Buddhism about a year ago. Enlightenment was way in the back of my mind. I think that's because the first practice I took up seriously was Zen, where the term"Enlightenment" is considered profanity, like "Buddha" or "rebirth" (at least in the context of the particular Soto school I was studying). I'd read Hardcore Zen by Brad Warner, and he visited Houston Dharma Punx and chatted with us for a while. He's a cool guy who's very, very bright, but he basically follows the Soto line that Enlightenment is bunk. This despite the fact that in his own book he relates his own experience of Enlightenment. That's Soto Zen for ya!

As I started to realize that Theravada Buddhism resonated with me so much more than Mahayana (I prefer Noah Levine to Brad Warner, although neither is very deep), I started to wonder...if Lord Buddha challenged us to put his doctrine and discipline into practice, to see if it's conducive to the ending of dukkha , then shouldn't there be swaths of people out there who have been on the Noble Eightfold path for such a long time (even for many lifetimes) that they would be obviously enlightened? I still ask that question all the time, and I'm sorry that I don't really have an answer.

The truth is, what is it that one is looking for in someone who is supposedly :quote: enlightened :quote: ? From the few sutta's I've actually studied thus far, the example of Lord Buddha himself may be an indicator. He was often called "The Happy One", so obviously we're looking for someone who's happy. Not gushing like an imbecile, but just totally content and unperturbed. It's no coincidence that most Buddha statues I've seen have a slight smile on their face: if you've seen the end of suffering, what's there to be down about? He was calm, evenhanded, and honest. He was reputed to have really walked the walk - his personal conduct was impeccable. He was compassionate and kind to all he came across. This doesn't mean he was so sweet he'd give you diabetes. In fact, he didn't seem to shy away from "tough love", but he always had others interests at heart, and never had malevolent intentions. He had zero ego, yet at the same time he was extremely confident. People assume that the "great ones" of history were humble men...bunk! The Buddha obviously saw himself as philosophically more enlightened than his contemporaries, and yet there was no trace of conceit. He inspired great devotion, and had a knack for sizing people up and responding to them based on their unique temperaments and level of understanding.

That's quite an act to follow. Have I met anyone like that? All I can say is that my teacher at the Zen Center, in all the time I saw her, seemed completely calm and radically accepting of others. She had a great sense of humor, and seemed to be totally content in whatever she was doing. When she spoke to you, it made you feel like you were the only person on the planet who matter, and that she really "got" you. She was wise without being arrogant, firm yet totally compassionate. The brief times I've spoken to the Ajahn at the local wat, I've gotten the impression of a man who's totally peaceful. It's weird...in Theravadin tradition, you bow to bhikkhus as you would a Buddha statue, and yet when I asked Ajahn if I should bow to him, he smiled and said "yes", but there was no sense of ego or conceit. He seems completely concerned about our welfare, and always willing to respond to any question.

Are these people Enlightened? No idea. But they've been walking the Eightfold Path, and it shows. I can only deduce, then, that if their behavior is the result of practicing the Dhamma, that there must be Enlightened beings all over the place.

Or maybe I'm just :cookoo:

Metta

Josh
"Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed." — AN 11.12
User avatar
O'seeker
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: USA

Re: Hi, I just have a few questions about Buddhism

Post by O'seeker »

Awesome answers.

Thank you.
Last edited by O'seeker on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
son of dhamma
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl
Contact:

Re: Hi, I just have a few questions about Buddhism

Post by son of dhamma »

[UNCLEAR]
Sorry guys.
with metta
Last edited by son of dhamma on Sun Dec 26, 2010 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Hi, I just have a few questions about Buddhism

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

If the intention to kill is absent, the first precept is not broken, even though one is aware that some insects will be killed due to one's actions, e.g. mowing a lawn or driving a car on a motorway. One cannot fail to notice the dead bodies in the grass cuttings or on the windscreen, but the intention was to drive the car, not to kill the insects.

From Cow Dhamma (Venerable Ledi Sayādaw)

Those laymen who observe five precepts can only be classified as moral persons. For example, they observe the ‘non-killing’ precept by refraining from killing sentient beings, not having any intention to kill. Although by his acts some insects, pests, and other animals may suffer death, he escapes from the transgression of this precept as his intention is based on ‘non-killing.’ There is in this case, no evil deed even though death occurs to pests and animals. With other intentions he perpetrates a deed that involves death to others, such as clearing fields, burning rubbish and groves. By so doing small pests are killed, but his aim is to clear the jungle or overgrowth, so he escapes evil in this act. He burns the fields, causing death to some sentient beings, but having a different intention, he escapes the evil of killing. Although thousands of insects may die, he has no responsibility for their death as his aim is to clear the fields or rubbish. It is right. He does not violate the first precept. He is still a moral person, because he has no intention to kill. However, if he knows that burning his fields or groves entails death to small animals, if he does this, he lacks love and compassion. So he is not a good person.¹

¹ I think the Sayādaw overstates his case. One cannot say he is not a good person on account of this unless he has no need to clear the fields. If he must feed his family, he needs to clear the fields.

When sweeping forest paths to make it safe to walk, a bhikkhu is aware that some insects will very likely be killed, but he is also aware that if he does not sweep the path some bhikkhus or lay persons may be bitten by snakes, scorpions, or centipedes. Is he not a good person because of this? Not at all. He is negligent if he does not sweep the path. If he lights a fire without good reason, or takes no care to remove logs full of insects, etc., then perhaps we can we say that he is not a good person.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
son of dhamma
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:09 am
Location: Ponce de Leon Springs, Fl
Contact:

Re: Hi, I just have a few questions about Buddhism

Post by son of dhamma »

I should be more clear. I don't think that the first precept is violated in if the intention is to mow, to drive, to clear away overgrowth, or to feed for the family by clearing a plot of land. My thought it that it is very easy to be lacking loving-kindness and compassion if people clear overgrowth excessively, clear more land than they need for adequate food, etc. Or for instance, some people might say that they want to mow their lawn to keep children safe from certain insects that would bite them and sting them. If by "mowing their lawn" what they're really intending to do is eliminate the insects themselves, then this is unarguably killing--because they have the intention in mind to get rid of these pests.
So, I'm saying that there is a clear line between eliminating beings as a side-effect of necessary purpose, and intentionally eliminating beings for a good purpose (protecting children from pests). In other words, a clear line between killing and not-killing.
Beside that, I think it should always been encouraged to cultivate loving-kindness and compassion for "pests" or small mammals by avoiding their subsequent destruction as much as possible. If you really don't have to mow an ant hill, then try to be kind and don't run it off in the process of mowing the lawn. Really try not to inadvertently hurt little creatures when clearing away paths that need to be cleared away. If clearing overgrowth, maybe you could practice some loving-kindness by removing as many little animals as you can. These should be encouraged, such that morality doesn't become ethics.
with metta
Sometimes no Buddhas arise in the world. Sometimes they do. When it happens, it is for the welfare and happiness of men, out of compassion for all creatures. For a long, long time he has been working to become a Buddha. He met other Buddhas along the way. And after his long striving he attains his final life, yet not without showing everyone else how to get there.
Post Reply