Discussions

The word for "birth" is "jaati" (j long-a t i).

So what does move about continuously mean in the context of this sutta.

About your view that long suttas may be the more authentic, you differ in this view than others who think that quite a lot of the digha nikaya is not early. Maybe you or Mark even said one i was showing you was not early.

Actually i am inclined to think that short snippets make more sense to me as authentic or at least just as authentic as any long one.

I keep hearing different justifications for believing this or that about the suttas. One person says when you have one when starting once i heard, then we are to think of htat as being ananda's voice then its more likely to be true. There are other such clues. Maybe all these clues are just wrong.

One view i've got and i don't know if it accords with any of the scholars, is that one of the reasons why the the pali canon is so long is that when it was decided to get them all down in writing, they put down every ones version. Everyone monk who had learned a text had their words written down. So poeple have recorded a slightly different version. Some people might have remembered long versions and others shorter versions. I mean we have to understand that it would have to be many brains doing all this remembering. I think this possibility could explain a lot about the diversity and variations in the pali canon.

Quote from Candol on June 24, 2012, 06:43
So what does move about continuously mean in the context of this sutta.

I couldn't say for sure, but one thing that I know the Buddha says changes a lot is that which we perceive as the self.

About your view that long suttas may be the more authentic, you differ in this view than others who think that quite a lot of the digha nikaya is not early. Maybe you or Mark even said one i was showing you was not early.

But I did not say that "long suttas may be the more authentic"; that oversimplifies what I said thereby missing the point.

I give up. Its impossible for us to understand each other. I am pretty sure i understand you but i think you are pretty sure you understand me. But apparently neither of us understands a single word the other says.

Thanks for responding Dana. The reason i take it up as i do with Linda is because she is strongly asserting this is what the buddha meant, not just what she interprets. Mark is less concerned about what the buddha meant but LInda is sure she's got into the buddha's mind.

Its a good point about whether it works or not as being the most salient point.

I suppose for me, its been critical because I've actually considered the possibility and necessity of living the way the buddha recommended and in contemplating myself living that life, wondering whether it really would bring to the end of dukkha and whether it could make a significant difference. I've also wondered just how far one could get by living not the homeless life (or even just an extremely simple life) but practicsing as a lay buddhist. Of course i can see one can go a fair way to making one's life more satisfactory. I think for me, if i don't believe the buddha meant this or said that, then i don't need to consider myself a secular buddhist. A buddhist to me is someone who follows the teachings of the buddha. Anyone else follows their own idea even if it draws on buddhist teachings.

While its easy to see that some of the buddhas teachings work, its not easy to see that they all work. And i'm concerned to see that with how life without rebirth could make sense of the buddha's life and the life he advocated.

I don't feel the doctrine of DO is necessary to show the wisdom and usefulness of much of the buddha's teachings. I don't think DO as Linda describes it shows anything that is not shown by his other teachings. Its just a neat formulation of his teachings but apparently too ambiguous for a lot of modern people.

You don't need DO to see how we perpetuate our own dissatisfactions and troubles in life by shoring up our egos or by not knowing how to let go, or by chasing after pleasures or running away from pain.

When i read the suttas, my first goal is to find what might be useful to me. Of course a lot of what i've read do not seem useful to me but they are interesting to get a sense of how the buddha might have conducted himself and his business and with regards to what people in those times thought about things.

I wonder if you and or Linda know about the idea of inaction? This is when the spiritual people in india, the sadhus, attempt to live by doing nothing, which means they can't generate any negative karma. It doesn't mean they can't move but it means a disengagement with life. Have you heard of this?

Candol, yes I have heard of inaction, and I disagree with it, especially based on what we know of physiology. Exercise and mental stimulation are incredibly important for the mental health and well being of human beings. Study after study, show that increased physical activity as well as mental activity help create a more stable mental state. People prone to depression need to increase their physical activity as well as take up challenging mental hobbies. To go into inaction is to beg for mental and physical problems.

Additionally, I feel where our practice really counts is in the interaction of our daily lives, in dealing with other people, and seeing options to problems and making wise decisions, in developing ourselves as human beings to the fullest.

One day we will all get the supreme way of inaction: death. Until then we are human, and as humans we need physical and mental stimulation.
Do listen to this excellent, fascinating podcast on exercise and the brain: http://www.brainsciencepodcast.com/bsp/exercise-and-the-brain-bsp-33.html

While you may not need DA to know how suffering arises, it helps in heaps for stopping the process early, before the stimuli lead to the phase of suffering. For instance, if you can catch the first angry thought and cut it off by not taking it seriously, by understanding it's just a story, then the emotion of anger won't arise. If you don't play into thoughts of "I hate this, this sucks" then the emotion of dislike and unease doesn't arise. So DA helps end the process as its very beginnings, which is so much easier than trying to get off a mental marry-ground that has caught you up in boiling emotion.

Personally, I don't see the "homeless" life of a monk or nun as a better road. In fact, I suspect a lot of people go into that because they are challenged by our society and see it as an easier way of life. I don't mean that as a criticism. Life these days is intensely challenging to all, especially with the way our society focuses on money.

But I don't think it matters as far as practice whether you are a monk/nun, a prisoner in a penitentiary, or a working parent, or a retired person. Practice gives us the tools to deal with whatever hand we've been dealt in life, in any moment, at any given time. Of course, life changes can improve the quality of your life, in whatever way you see fit to do that, but it's not going to make practice easier, and it's not going to get you over the finish line if you feel there is one. For each of us, practice unfolds with intention and effort no matter where you are.

What I find interesting about the AN sutta is that it looks just like a udana -- a verse that is preceded by a story of the context within which Gotama supposedly spoke the verse. In the Udana texts, many of the verses are old -- they show up in the Sutta Nipata, for instance -- so it's clear that the Udana form was composed at some point after the verse was composed, perhaps as a way of commenting on a well-known verse. Given that the form is almost identical to a udana, my bet would be that the transmigrating part is later than the verse, which, as you'll note, does not mention rebirth.

As for mufi's last post here, one reason to read the suttas is that Kabat-Zinn's work is based on them. Mindfulness practice is about fully knowing the phenomenal reality of our lives so we can release craving and grasping and respond to life with kindness and compassion. It's goal is to achieve mindfulness sitting, standing, walking and laying down, to be present for every moment of our lives, just as Gotama advised us to be. If that's what you mean by "it's all about practice" you're right, because practice is about everything in our lives. "Health benefits" are only one aspect (although, if you are ill, it may be a pretty important aspect and one that brings you to discover how all embracing a mindfulness practice can be).

Quote from Candol on June 25, 2012, 08:15I don't feel the doctrine of DO is necessary to show the wisdom and usefulness of much of the buddha's teachings. I don't think DO as Linda describes it shows anything that is not shown by his other teachings. Its just a neat formulation of his teachings but apparently too ambiguous for a lot of modern people.

I'd say that's quite accurate, Candol. This is precisely my point: what he's saying in dependent arising is what he's saying throughout the suttas. It was, originally, a neat formulation of his teachings -- it doesn't say anything new, it just puts it all into one place. It's the backbone of the whole teaching, and pretty much everything else refers to it -- for example "the unconditioned".

Candol, yes I have heard of inaction, and I disagree with it, especially based on what we know of physiology. Exercise and mental stimulation are incredibly important for the mental health and well being of human beings. Study after study, show that increased physical activity as well as mental activity help create a more stable mental state. People prone to depression need to increase their physical activity as well as take up challenging mental hobbies. To go into inaction is to beg for mental and physical problems.

I don't think we are talking about the same type of inaction. I am talking about the doctrine or strategy of inaction that indian sadhus follow. It doesn't mean they sit on their arses and watch tv all day. Or even under a tree for that matter. It just means they don't get involved in ordinary life ie family and commerce. Its just the life of a monk but not in a monastery. This was the life that the buddha led except that after his englightenment he doesn't seem to have taught this path with the same ramification on karma. Inaction is essentially about not creating new bad karma and i guess it also means letting old bad karma wear out or something. I know that sounds daft but that's what it is although better expressed normally.

As i don't have the option of starting a new post anymore for some strange reason i will make the comment here that i wanted to make in a new topic.

I'm disappointed and i must say surprised that people here do not seem to approve of my meditation centre project. I must only assume its because you think i will screw it up and rather than say that you just opt for saying nothing instead. I've written about it on both here and facebook and mufi is the only person who's bothered to comment.

It just makes the people here look rather shallow.

How important is it to read suttas?

All i can say is that i found it worthwhile. I like reading them.

And as you've indicated you were probably not as drawn to buddhism as some of us have been. I've never been a humanist. Its not a very big thing over here in Australia. We know of it but its not a sort of religion like it seems to be in America.

Your last sentence is a bit long. I am not sure i've understood it correctly. At 2am i can't really hold it together very well.

Quote from Candol on June 28, 2012, 07:30
As i don't have the option of starting a new post anymore for some strange reason i will make the comment here that i wanted to make in a new topic.[/b]

Candol, if you can respond to posts you can create new ones. We have no way of disallowing one and not the other. I don't know why you are having this problem, but functionally nothing has changed.

I'm disappointed and i must say surprised that people here do not seem to approve of my meditation centre project. I must only assume its because you think i will screw it up and rather than say that you just opt for saying nothing instead. I've written about it on both here and facebook and mufi is the only person who's bothered to comment.

It just makes the people here look rather shallow.

You are making huge assumptions here. First that people are not interested. Just because people don't respond to every thread doesn't mean they are not interested. Secondly, they may be interested at varying levels. Who knows.

Secondly, it's difficult if not impossible to know the minds and interests of others without speaking with one another.

Lastly, calling people shallow just because they haven't responded to your thread is not going to generate interest in your topic. Further more, it's unfair and unkind to resort to name calling.

We can never know when we post a topic if people are going to want to engage in conversation over it. Often times it doesn't, but that is not a negative reflection of people who visit the site.

I'm asking you again to reconsider before speaking for others, as in saying things like "no one can understand what you just said" and outright calling people shallow because a topic important to you is not getting the response you wanted.

We welcome your input and conversation in the discussion forums, but please retrain from name calling and insulting people.

Quote from mufi on June 28, 2012, 09:03

We know of it but its not a sort of religion like it seems to be in America.

I'm not sure that I would agree with that characterization of secular humanism. (I suppose it depends on which nuance of "religion" you have in mind.) For me, it's just a short-hand way of saying that my ethics are focused on human well-being in this world (the only world that I have rational grounds to believe in).

Your last sentence is a bit long.

Sorry. I just meant to say that I don't identify with Buddhism per se, so familiarity with foundational Buddhist texts (like the suttas) is probably less important for me than it is for those who self-label as Buddhists.

lol right. Now i gotcha.

"I don't really know what you are talking about Jan"
You said that to me Candol

To me calling people "shallow" is name calling and is rude and unnecessary. I strongly suggest you desist in that kind of behavior. I can guarantee that if you don't you will have few if any friends here,

Quote from Dana Nourie on June 25, 2012, 12:53
...from what I experience in my own practice and see in others, if you never heard of Buddhism but were taught meditation and mindfulness, you would naturally from that practice come to understand the 4 noble truths, and mindfulness would eventually lead you through the 8 fold path.

Interesting point, Dana, and thinking about it I would take the thought a stage further - EVEN if the Buddha was a mythological figure, even if all that was written about him, and allegedly 'by' him, was just more examples of human beings striving to understand the world, it really wouldn't matter, at all.

All that matters (and this was one of the things that the 'mythical' Buddha apparently said) is the practice, the leading of a 'good' human life.

(For my part, which is worth little, I hope he did live, as it helps me believe in the essential goodness of humanity).

With metta,

Allen.