In Singapore and Malaysia, Vesak is celebrated with bathing the Buddha, or rather a statue of baby prince Siddharta.
There are many people, especially those from the Theravadan tradition, who are quite puzzle with this practice and wonders where this comes from.
This practice is actually adopted from the Chinese Buddhist festival "Bathing Buddha" day, which celebrates the birth of the Buddha.
Vesak is the official public holiday that is celebrated throughout the Buddhist community. So much so that even many of the Chinese Mahayanist Buddhist are not aware that Vesak is not the tradition Chinese Buddhist holiday that marks the birth of the Buddha.
The tradition Buddhist calendar marks the 8th day of the 4th month of the Chinese calendar (四月初八)as the birthday of the Buddha. This is known as the Bathing Buddha day (浴佛节) which is a public holiday in Hong Kong.
This day is normally in May, and is usually one week before Vesak day. Most Chinese temples still celebrate this quietly, reserving the public celebration with devotees for Vesak day.
There is an interesting legend associated to this. According to an ancient Chinese historical record Book of Zhou -- Records of the Extraordinary （《周书异记》），on the 8th day of the 4th month of the Chinese calendar in the 26th year of the reign of king Zhou Zhuang (周昭王二十六年，1027BC), the king saw auspicious colorful radiant light descending on the palace. When the king asked his court about it, the court historian explained that this means that a holy person had come into the world in the west. He predicted that the teachings of this holy person would eventually come to China after a thousand years.
When Buddhism came to China, many people believed that the record found in the Book of Zhou refers to the birth of the Buddha. Nonetheless, the Chinese always celebrated the birthday of the Buddha on the 8th day of the 4th month of the Chinese calendar.
There are doubts on the authenticity of this "history record". Some believed it was fabricated by the early Chinese Buddhists who tried to use historical basis to promote Buddhism. However, it had been celebrated up to this day.
According to the legends, after the Buddha walked seven steps immediately after his birth and declared himself to be the greatest among the humans and the devas. The Chinese version had the additional detail of dragons appearing and showered the prince with water. Supposedly, that's why people celebrated the birthday of the Buddha by bathing the baby statue of prince Siddharta.
Almost every Vesak day, I hear people asked what is the significance of bathing the Buddha. The consistent answer I hear is "it an act of purification."
I am not sure if people interpreted it literally or symbolically. We must bear in mind that the Buddha himself never believed in ritualistic purification. He objected to it in many occasions. In the Udana, he said, "Not by water is one made pure though many people may here bathe, but one in whom there is truth and Dhamma, he is pure, he is a brahmin." It is clear that the Buddha did not believe that the act of washing (whether yourself or a statue) would purify yourself, but rather, the mind is pure through the thorough understanding and practice of the Dhamma.
We can take this a symbolic gesture of wishing to be pure, but should not believe that it would actually purify us in anyway. In Chinese Buddhism, when bathing the Buddha, there is a verse to be recited that goes like this:
《赞佛偈》
我今灌沐诸如来， I now come to bathe the Tathagata
净智庄严功德海， May the pure wisdom adorn the sea of merits
五浊众生令离垢， May all beings be free from defilements
同证如来净法身. And thus attain the pure form of the Tathagata.
It is clear from the verse that the act is really just a symbol of an aspiration for enlightenment.
Yesterday, I attend a talk by Ajahn Bram at the Buddhist Fellowship. Someone asked the same question again and Ajahn Bram gave a very interesting answer.
According to Ajahn Bram, in ancient India, pouring of water in represents an exchange or a transfer. Hence pouring water on the Buddha represents giving up oneself into the practice of the Dhamma.
I thought that was an interesting explanation.
Showing posts with label buddhism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label buddhism. Show all posts
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Vakkali, Buddha's gay disciple?
I was reading a short story and came across a reference to Vakkali. In the story, the characters founded a Gay Buddhist society named after Vakkali, because "Vakkali was a gay disciple of the Buddha".
Now, that was news to me. I have not came across any "gay disciple of the Buddha" before. Intrigued, I did a bit of research on him.
Vakkali was from a brahmin family of Savatthi. After he saw the Buddha, he became fascinated by the physical appearance of the Buddha. He followed Buddha around in admiration and became a monk in order to be close to the Buddha.
In order to helped Vakkali get over his obsession, the Buddha said to him, "Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body?" Then, he uttered the famous statement, 'one who sees the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma’. This is recorded in the Samyutta Niyaka (Vakkali Sutta, S.III.119).
I found basically 2 differing accounts on Vakkali's life. (See more details at this link)
However, what is apparently interesting about Vakkali was
1) his obsession with the Buddha's appearance
2) his "implicit faith"(saddhādhimuttānam) (I am trying to figure out what is this)
3) his apparently committed suicide, yet the Buddha declared him as enlightened
Pertaining to his obsession with the Buddha's physical appearance, I did not find any descriptions or references that imply it is a sexual attraction. Nor were there any references to his sexuality, or relationships with either man or woman. On the surface, it does appear to be something akin to a crush or some strong physical attraction.
Since it is quite unheard of for straight men to have strong physical attraction to another man (if there were, chances are it's a gay man in denial), I suppose that is was natural for gay people to assume that Vakkali was indeed gay. But really, it seems that there nothing in the scriptures that explicitly suggested Vakkali was gay -- his sexuality was an extrapolation from his physical attraction to the Buddha. So I would rather leave it open to interpretation.
Now, what I found interesting about Vakkali's story was that he apparently committed suicide and yet gained enlightenment. According to my copy of Samyutta Niyaka (translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications), Ven Vakkali "used the knife". This is significant because Buddhism frown upon killing, including one's own life (i.e. suicide). It is considered unskilful. Yet the Buddha declared that Vakkali attained enlightenment upon his death. The sutta itself did not give any details that may yield any explanation. Apparently, the commentaries tried to explain this by claiming that when Vakkali slit his wrist, the pain caused him to meditate and he attained arahantship just as he died.
There is another similar story recorded in Godhika Sutta (Samyutta Niyaka, S,I,121). Godhika too committed suicide and the Buddha declared that Godhika had attained final Nibbana.
Base on these two stories, it does appear that Buddhism may not regard suicide as immoral as it is thought to be.
However, Damien Keown noted the following in A Dictionary of Buddhism (2004) (see the entry under Vakkali):
Another interesting thing about Vakkali is that the Buddha declared him foremost among those of implicit faith (saddhādhimuttānam). I haven't been able to find out what exactly is "implicit faith". There are a few references on the internet that links Vakkali to faith. Vakkali is upheld as an example of having gained arahantship through "love and faith for the Buddha".
That would be an interesting topic to look into.
Now, that was news to me. I have not came across any "gay disciple of the Buddha" before. Intrigued, I did a bit of research on him.
Vakkali was from a brahmin family of Savatthi. After he saw the Buddha, he became fascinated by the physical appearance of the Buddha. He followed Buddha around in admiration and became a monk in order to be close to the Buddha.
In order to helped Vakkali get over his obsession, the Buddha said to him, "Enough, Vakkali! Why do you want to see this foul body?" Then, he uttered the famous statement, 'one who sees the Dhamma sees me; one who sees me sees the Dhamma’. This is recorded in the Samyutta Niyaka (Vakkali Sutta, S.III.119).
I found basically 2 differing accounts on Vakkali's life. (See more details at this link)
However, what is apparently interesting about Vakkali was
1) his obsession with the Buddha's appearance
2) his "implicit faith"(saddhādhimuttānam) (I am trying to figure out what is this)
3) his apparently committed suicide, yet the Buddha declared him as enlightened
Pertaining to his obsession with the Buddha's physical appearance, I did not find any descriptions or references that imply it is a sexual attraction. Nor were there any references to his sexuality, or relationships with either man or woman. On the surface, it does appear to be something akin to a crush or some strong physical attraction.
Since it is quite unheard of for straight men to have strong physical attraction to another man (if there were, chances are it's a gay man in denial), I suppose that is was natural for gay people to assume that Vakkali was indeed gay. But really, it seems that there nothing in the scriptures that explicitly suggested Vakkali was gay -- his sexuality was an extrapolation from his physical attraction to the Buddha. So I would rather leave it open to interpretation.
Now, what I found interesting about Vakkali's story was that he apparently committed suicide and yet gained enlightenment. According to my copy of Samyutta Niyaka (translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Wisdom Publications), Ven Vakkali "used the knife". This is significant because Buddhism frown upon killing, including one's own life (i.e. suicide). It is considered unskilful. Yet the Buddha declared that Vakkali attained enlightenment upon his death. The sutta itself did not give any details that may yield any explanation. Apparently, the commentaries tried to explain this by claiming that when Vakkali slit his wrist, the pain caused him to meditate and he attained arahantship just as he died.
There is another similar story recorded in Godhika Sutta (Samyutta Niyaka, S,I,121). Godhika too committed suicide and the Buddha declared that Godhika had attained final Nibbana.
Base on these two stories, it does appear that Buddhism may not regard suicide as immoral as it is thought to be.
However, Damien Keown noted the following in A Dictionary of Buddhism (2004) (see the entry under Vakkali):
"On the basis of this and a few similar cases of suicide it has been thought by some Western scholars that Buddhism does not regard suicide as immoral for the enlightened, but this conclusion is not supported by the Theravāda commentaries and tradition nor by a close reading of the canonical passages in question."
Another interesting thing about Vakkali is that the Buddha declared him foremost among those of implicit faith (saddhādhimuttānam). I haven't been able to find out what exactly is "implicit faith". There are a few references on the internet that links Vakkali to faith. Vakkali is upheld as an example of having gained arahantship through "love and faith for the Buddha".
That would be an interesting topic to look into.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Collective Kamma
After the Tsunami disaster in 2004, many people were asking why do such tragic disasters happen. There were many Christians who asked how can God let such things happen.
From the Buddhist community, two explanations were offered.
The most common explanation that was offered was that it is Kamma. In this case, since it was Collective Kamma since it involved so many people, i.e. it is a phenomenon that happen due to the aggregate Kamma of many people and affected as many people.
The other explanation that was offered was that it is simply a natural disaster. If you live in this planet, you are subjected to the natural forces that operate here and that include natural disasters. There is nothing Kammic about it. Whether there are humans or not, Tsunami would occur every now and then. It is not a phenomena due to Kammic retribution. If Kamma is involved, it is the conditions that lead to this human birth.
Now, I always had some discomfort with Collective Kamma. I did realize that our actions do have effects that can affect our community, society or humanity as a whole. But is it fair that some people not involved in the actions suffer the consequences?
But what came as a very interesting surprise to me was that when I asked Ven Dhammika about Collective Kamma, he said he had not heard of that before. He had not come across it in the Pali scriptures.
That came as a shock to me because I had always thought that was a teaching by the Buddha. I started paying attention to the scriptures. I had not read the scriptures extensively enough, but does seem that where Kamma is mentioned in the scriptures, there is no mention of it being in collective in nature. I am not sure if they are found in the scriptures of Mahayana traditions or not.
This was a situation when I realize then that I had simply relied on hearsay -- some the Buddha had warned against in the Kalama Sutta.
It became clear to me that Collective Kamma is perhaps just something people came out with to explain mass disasters.
But I am not dismissing that our actions do have collective and aggregate effects. But rather, we should see not see those effects as a punishment or reward mete out by the forces of Kamma.
If we want a peaceful and happy community, we have to take certain actions to make that happen. In the end, the consequences may or may not be what we intended -- it all depends on the conditions. It is not Kamma.
If we continue to be greedy and exploit the planet's resources heedlessly, humanity eventually will suffer the consequences -- such as climate change. But climate change is a natural phenomenon. If we continue to spew green house gases into the atmosphere, the planet will heat up. Before there were humans on this planet, the planet had already gone through cycles of warming and freeze. What we are doing is to foolishly feed into the natural forces. It is not Kamma that determine humans should be punished for being greedy and hence decide to heat up the planet.
As long as we are bound to samsaric existence, we will be subjected to the natural laws that operates in those realms of existence. Whether we are happy or we suffers depends on the quality of our consciousness. When we continue to perform actions that generate positive kamma, we cultivate qualities which allows us to face those natural forces and phenomenon with positive attitudes and equanimity, hence leading to happiness and eventually to liberation.
Thus, when we are faced with disasters, whether natural or man-made, do not blame it on kamma. Instead, recognize the causes and effects, which may be due to a variety of conditions, including human actions as well as natural phenomenon. Then respond and deal with those disasters with the correct attitudes and actions that will lead to happiness and liberation.
From the Buddhist community, two explanations were offered.
The most common explanation that was offered was that it is Kamma. In this case, since it was Collective Kamma since it involved so many people, i.e. it is a phenomenon that happen due to the aggregate Kamma of many people and affected as many people.
The other explanation that was offered was that it is simply a natural disaster. If you live in this planet, you are subjected to the natural forces that operate here and that include natural disasters. There is nothing Kammic about it. Whether there are humans or not, Tsunami would occur every now and then. It is not a phenomena due to Kammic retribution. If Kamma is involved, it is the conditions that lead to this human birth.
Now, I always had some discomfort with Collective Kamma. I did realize that our actions do have effects that can affect our community, society or humanity as a whole. But is it fair that some people not involved in the actions suffer the consequences?
But what came as a very interesting surprise to me was that when I asked Ven Dhammika about Collective Kamma, he said he had not heard of that before. He had not come across it in the Pali scriptures.
That came as a shock to me because I had always thought that was a teaching by the Buddha. I started paying attention to the scriptures. I had not read the scriptures extensively enough, but does seem that where Kamma is mentioned in the scriptures, there is no mention of it being in collective in nature. I am not sure if they are found in the scriptures of Mahayana traditions or not.
This was a situation when I realize then that I had simply relied on hearsay -- some the Buddha had warned against in the Kalama Sutta.
It became clear to me that Collective Kamma is perhaps just something people came out with to explain mass disasters.
But I am not dismissing that our actions do have collective and aggregate effects. But rather, we should see not see those effects as a punishment or reward mete out by the forces of Kamma.
If we want a peaceful and happy community, we have to take certain actions to make that happen. In the end, the consequences may or may not be what we intended -- it all depends on the conditions. It is not Kamma.
If we continue to be greedy and exploit the planet's resources heedlessly, humanity eventually will suffer the consequences -- such as climate change. But climate change is a natural phenomenon. If we continue to spew green house gases into the atmosphere, the planet will heat up. Before there were humans on this planet, the planet had already gone through cycles of warming and freeze. What we are doing is to foolishly feed into the natural forces. It is not Kamma that determine humans should be punished for being greedy and hence decide to heat up the planet.
As long as we are bound to samsaric existence, we will be subjected to the natural laws that operates in those realms of existence. Whether we are happy or we suffers depends on the quality of our consciousness. When we continue to perform actions that generate positive kamma, we cultivate qualities which allows us to face those natural forces and phenomenon with positive attitudes and equanimity, hence leading to happiness and eventually to liberation.
Thus, when we are faced with disasters, whether natural or man-made, do not blame it on kamma. Instead, recognize the causes and effects, which may be due to a variety of conditions, including human actions as well as natural phenomenon. Then respond and deal with those disasters with the correct attitudes and actions that will lead to happiness and liberation.
Kamma and my love life
This is a sidetrack on the topic of Kamma.
There was a guy who was interested in me, but I was not particularly keen in him. However, what happened was he totally blew his chance over a discussion on Kamma.
I could not remember what lead to the discussion about Kamma, though it lead to his declaration that everything is due to Kamma.
But that's not true, I countered, there are other Niyamas besides Kamma.
He had never heard of the Niyamas. So I started explaining the Niyamas -- based on what I understood from some of the Buddhist texts. Yet, he insisted everything is due to Kamma, and a argument ensued.
Finally, he asked me whether I meditated or not.
I said no.
There, he said, you are just an intellectual Buddhist. You have no direct experience and insight from meditation. You are just regurgitating stuff from the text books.
He blew his chances.
OK. OK. I admit. I was being egoistic and defensive. I took the accusation of being an "intellectual Buddhist" as grave insult (I did then, though now I would not. But that's another topic for another day).
So what's the significance of this?
1. It shows that many Buddhists are ignorant about the Niyamas and many believes everything is due to Kamma.
2. Meditation is important to Buddhists
3. If you want to date me, don't make the same mistake! (haha!)
But really, the past few posts are just a sharing of my understanding of Kamma. It is not insight gained from the jhannas. It may not completely correct either. However, I think there has been so much misconceptions about Kamma that it deserves a discussion from a different perspective.
There was a guy who was interested in me, but I was not particularly keen in him. However, what happened was he totally blew his chance over a discussion on Kamma.
I could not remember what lead to the discussion about Kamma, though it lead to his declaration that everything is due to Kamma.
But that's not true, I countered, there are other Niyamas besides Kamma.
He had never heard of the Niyamas. So I started explaining the Niyamas -- based on what I understood from some of the Buddhist texts. Yet, he insisted everything is due to Kamma, and a argument ensued.
Finally, he asked me whether I meditated or not.
I said no.
There, he said, you are just an intellectual Buddhist. You have no direct experience and insight from meditation. You are just regurgitating stuff from the text books.
He blew his chances.
OK. OK. I admit. I was being egoistic and defensive. I took the accusation of being an "intellectual Buddhist" as grave insult (I did then, though now I would not. But that's another topic for another day).
So what's the significance of this?
1. It shows that many Buddhists are ignorant about the Niyamas and many believes everything is due to Kamma.
2. Meditation is important to Buddhists
3. If you want to date me, don't make the same mistake! (haha!)
But really, the past few posts are just a sharing of my understanding of Kamma. It is not insight gained from the jhannas. It may not completely correct either. However, I think there has been so much misconceptions about Kamma that it deserves a discussion from a different perspective.
Kamma and the Niyamas
The Law of Kamma is also known as the Law of Cause and Effect.
The Law of Kamma states that volition (i.e. intentional acts) are causes which has effects on our well-being (i.e. whether we suffer or are happy).
The problem with calling the Law of Kamma the Law of Cause and Effect is that it leads people into thinking everything that has causes and effects are due to Kamma.
I certainly thought that way for a long time.
It was only much later, that I learnt that it was not so. Kamma was the law that operates in the moral realm. Besides Kamma, the Buddha recognized at least 4 other laws, know as the Niyamas.
These are the Five Niyamas which the Buddha mentioned:
Utu Niyama: The laws governing the physical inorganic matter.
Biji Niyama: The laws governing the biological matter
Kamma Niyama: The laws governing the moral consequences of violition
Citta Niyama: The laws governing the working of the mind
Dhamma Niyama: The other natural laws.
Even when I later learnt about the Niyamas, I did not pay much attention to them. The concept that "everything is due to Kamma" is so ingrained that I did not appreciate the importance of the other Niyamas.
Why is it that the other four Niyamas are hardly mentioned and most Buddhists remain ignorant about them?
Apparently it was due to the idea that only Kamma Niyama is important because this is the only one which we have direct control over. The other four Niyamas are beyond our control anyway, and hence there is no need to pay them much attention.
I suspect it is also because Kamma is the primary justification Buddhists used to justify the need to lead a life of morality, and hence its emphasis.
However, I think it has lead to problems. First of all, it lead to the naive belief that everything is due to Kamma, and determined by Kamma. I have heard people attributing all sorts of things to Kamma: striking lottery, winning a lucky draw, getting a promotion, catching an illness, meeting an accident, narrowing escaping an accident, surviving a disaster etc.
Secondly, it leads to a belief in Kammic Determinism, i.e. a believe that whatever that is happening to you right now is determined by past Kamma.
Of the five Niyamas, Kamma Niyama is the only one over which we have direct control. While we do not have control over the other Niyamas, we do experience them through Kamma Niyama. What this means is that the operation of these laws are neutral and impersonal. They are not moralistic in nature and do not contain judgmental values. However, through Kamma Niyama, we experience them as good or bad, and thus we becomes happy or we suffers.
Thus, it is not Kamma that determined the physical and material outcomes of our actions. What Kamma determines is whether you are happy, sad, indifferent or abide in equanimity in response to the physical and material outcomes (the physical outcome is really due to the other Niyamas). The more you practice morality, the more you reduce three roots of evil, the more spiritually advanced you become, then the less you would suffer. Hence Kamma leads to happiness, not because of the Kamma contrived to create the physical conditions that made you happy, but because Kamma led you closer to enlightenment and hence your mind do not suffers even in face of adversity.
When I finally I understood this, I thought the significance was enormous, because it does affect attitudes.
There was a time when I too believe that everything is due to Kamma. When I can't explain it, it will be attributed to something like "kamma work in its mysterious ways". Well, didn't the Buddha say not to speculate on the workings of Kamma?
Thus, I remember, many years ago, I wrote in a forum that, if a person have casual sex and then later caught AIDS, that is Kamma.
But now I that I have clearer understanding, I realized how naive and judgmental that is. If indeed Kamma was the force that inflicted AIDS on a person in order to "punish" him for having casual sex, then it would imply that Kamma was the supernatural deterministic force that passed a judgment and manipulated the virus to inflict him. That would imply that the Kamma supercedes the other natural laws -- which is contradictory and not something I believe the Buddha taught.
The Buddha said everything arise through a confluence of conditions. Hence, contracting AIDS is a result of a confluence of conditions. Those conditions includes factors belong to other natural orders (e.g. Biji Niyama, which would determine how the virus spread and how our bodily defence react against it). However, these conditions also include our intentional actions as well (e.g. whether we decide to have casual and unprotected sex with someone).
Whether a person catch the AIDS might depend on many conditions, e.g. was condom used, was there exchange of bodily fluids, was the person's immune defense low, etc. And perhaps, Kamma, might in some ways be a conditioning factor -- I do not know. But I think it would be wrong to say it was DETERMINED by Kamma.
However, this does not mean having casual sex has no Kammic effect. It is after all intentional act -- and anything that involve volition would have an Kammic effect. The need to have a casual sex encounter could be due to a strong lust. The Kammic effects could be any or all of these: stagnating in the spiritual path, stronger bond to samsara, emotional dissatisfaction and anguish from the encounter, stronger sexual desires, some sensual happiness and satisfaction, etc. That is, I believe, Kamma Niyama operates in a way that affects a personal's mind and psychology, and hence his rebirth (since rebirth is conditioned by clinging and desire).
I think it is important that we, as Buddhists, correctly recognize the role of the Niyamas in our daily life, and understand Kamma's effect.
The wrong understanding has lead to a fatalistic passivity towards suffering (the attitude that it is determined by past Kamma and we just have to live it out), as well as a wrong emphasis on the physical outcomes of our actions rather than their effects on our mind.
The Law of Kamma states that volition (i.e. intentional acts) are causes which has effects on our well-being (i.e. whether we suffer or are happy).
The problem with calling the Law of Kamma the Law of Cause and Effect is that it leads people into thinking everything that has causes and effects are due to Kamma.
I certainly thought that way for a long time.
It was only much later, that I learnt that it was not so. Kamma was the law that operates in the moral realm. Besides Kamma, the Buddha recognized at least 4 other laws, know as the Niyamas.
These are the Five Niyamas which the Buddha mentioned:
Utu Niyama: The laws governing the physical inorganic matter.
Biji Niyama: The laws governing the biological matter
Kamma Niyama: The laws governing the moral consequences of violition
Citta Niyama: The laws governing the working of the mind
Dhamma Niyama: The other natural laws.
Even when I later learnt about the Niyamas, I did not pay much attention to them. The concept that "everything is due to Kamma" is so ingrained that I did not appreciate the importance of the other Niyamas.
Why is it that the other four Niyamas are hardly mentioned and most Buddhists remain ignorant about them?
Apparently it was due to the idea that only Kamma Niyama is important because this is the only one which we have direct control over. The other four Niyamas are beyond our control anyway, and hence there is no need to pay them much attention.
I suspect it is also because Kamma is the primary justification Buddhists used to justify the need to lead a life of morality, and hence its emphasis.
However, I think it has lead to problems. First of all, it lead to the naive belief that everything is due to Kamma, and determined by Kamma. I have heard people attributing all sorts of things to Kamma: striking lottery, winning a lucky draw, getting a promotion, catching an illness, meeting an accident, narrowing escaping an accident, surviving a disaster etc.
Secondly, it leads to a belief in Kammic Determinism, i.e. a believe that whatever that is happening to you right now is determined by past Kamma.
Of the five Niyamas, Kamma Niyama is the only one over which we have direct control. While we do not have control over the other Niyamas, we do experience them through Kamma Niyama. What this means is that the operation of these laws are neutral and impersonal. They are not moralistic in nature and do not contain judgmental values. However, through Kamma Niyama, we experience them as good or bad, and thus we becomes happy or we suffers.
Thus, it is not Kamma that determined the physical and material outcomes of our actions. What Kamma determines is whether you are happy, sad, indifferent or abide in equanimity in response to the physical and material outcomes (the physical outcome is really due to the other Niyamas). The more you practice morality, the more you reduce three roots of evil, the more spiritually advanced you become, then the less you would suffer. Hence Kamma leads to happiness, not because of the Kamma contrived to create the physical conditions that made you happy, but because Kamma led you closer to enlightenment and hence your mind do not suffers even in face of adversity.
When I finally I understood this, I thought the significance was enormous, because it does affect attitudes.
There was a time when I too believe that everything is due to Kamma. When I can't explain it, it will be attributed to something like "kamma work in its mysterious ways". Well, didn't the Buddha say not to speculate on the workings of Kamma?
Thus, I remember, many years ago, I wrote in a forum that, if a person have casual sex and then later caught AIDS, that is Kamma.
But now I that I have clearer understanding, I realized how naive and judgmental that is. If indeed Kamma was the force that inflicted AIDS on a person in order to "punish" him for having casual sex, then it would imply that Kamma was the supernatural deterministic force that passed a judgment and manipulated the virus to inflict him. That would imply that the Kamma supercedes the other natural laws -- which is contradictory and not something I believe the Buddha taught.
The Buddha said everything arise through a confluence of conditions. Hence, contracting AIDS is a result of a confluence of conditions. Those conditions includes factors belong to other natural orders (e.g. Biji Niyama, which would determine how the virus spread and how our bodily defence react against it). However, these conditions also include our intentional actions as well (e.g. whether we decide to have casual and unprotected sex with someone).
Whether a person catch the AIDS might depend on many conditions, e.g. was condom used, was there exchange of bodily fluids, was the person's immune defense low, etc. And perhaps, Kamma, might in some ways be a conditioning factor -- I do not know. But I think it would be wrong to say it was DETERMINED by Kamma.
However, this does not mean having casual sex has no Kammic effect. It is after all intentional act -- and anything that involve volition would have an Kammic effect. The need to have a casual sex encounter could be due to a strong lust. The Kammic effects could be any or all of these: stagnating in the spiritual path, stronger bond to samsara, emotional dissatisfaction and anguish from the encounter, stronger sexual desires, some sensual happiness and satisfaction, etc. That is, I believe, Kamma Niyama operates in a way that affects a personal's mind and psychology, and hence his rebirth (since rebirth is conditioned by clinging and desire).
I think it is important that we, as Buddhists, correctly recognize the role of the Niyamas in our daily life, and understand Kamma's effect.
The wrong understanding has lead to a fatalistic passivity towards suffering (the attitude that it is determined by past Kamma and we just have to live it out), as well as a wrong emphasis on the physical outcomes of our actions rather than their effects on our mind.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Is there corn during Buddha's time?
Sace dhavati te cittam
kamesu ca bhavesu ca
khippam nigganha satiya
kitthadam viya duppasum.
If your mind runs wild among- Theragatha, verse 446.
sensual pleasures and things that arise,
quickly restrain it with mindfulness
as one pulls the cow from the corn.
I came across this verse many times as I was working on the Chinese translation of Gemstone of the Good Dhamma.
I did not see any problem with it until I remembered something I had read about corn. Corn is native to America. It was only introduced to the rest of the world after the Europeans got in touch with America in the 14th/15th century.
So theoretically, corn was not know in India during Buddha's time.
I checked a Pali-English dictionary. It explains kittha as corn.
I am wondering if kittha is really corn as we know it today or something else...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)