Anatta - part 3

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

Heinrich Dumoulin, well known for his writing on Zen: "One is asked to help and save others in the awareness that really there is no one who helps and saves, nor is there anyone who is helped and saved, and this detachment from the illusion of substantiality is supposed to make one all the more energetic and free in the work of compassion". Is there not a logical contradiction here?

My opinion:

Well, there 'may' be a logical contradiction there - because if there is "no one" who helps and saves, and "no one" who is helped and saved, what then is the purpose of helping and saving, isn't it? People always ask, "what's in it for me?" Almost everyone I know expect gains, we don't do something for nothing. So, for the vast majority of people, there is a contradiction in Dumoulin's statements, but for true Buddhists who believe in not-self, there is no contradiction at all.

The reason being, although there is no gain for "himself or herself", he or she does the good deeds anyway because the illusion of substantiality does make one all the more energetic and free in the work of compassion.


In my humble opinion, if someone has a tendency to help others, naturally it makes him/her more energetic and free, it is a natural process. If that someone has to be forced and coerced to help, then he/she would not feel energetic nor free about it at all.


But again, the emphasis is always on no-'one', no-'person', on Anatta. The importance of Kamma has been pushed so far back it is already lost. When I was young, I was taught "Kamma and Vipaka" as, "we reap what we sow". If we are compassionate, it is good kamma and we will reap good vipaka. If we do good deeds, we will get a heavenly rebirth, and vice-versa. I didn't even know that anatta and kamma is supposed to contradict?

People with views that anatta and kamma contradicts each other have understood Buddhism incorrectly - they have actually misunderstood it so badly, that it is very difficult or almost impossible, to revert their understanding back to right-view. In that case, it is better to be of another faith rather than misinterpreting Buddhism according to their own wrong-views.

Kamma and Anatta do not contradict each other.

Well, I did say I don't emphasize anatta, but the reason that got me talking about it was because some people in another yahoo list were saying that "anatta means no-control" and "anatta means fatalism". Even if life is fated, what can we do? How would we know what have we been "fated" with? What will tomorrow bring?

What would be our view? If life has already been fated - (a) we might as well 'do nothing' and 'sit on our bum all day' or (b) take a better approach, by living our life to the fullest and do the best we can. Practice no killing, no stealing, no adultery, not telling lies, and don't smoke, drink or take drugs.

I believe in taking the higher road.

But, honestly, I do not believe in fatalism. I have never believed in fatalism. I believe we have a will to choose our own destiny.

What do you think?

Anatta - part 2

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

From merelogical nihilism or compositional nihilism (that objects with proper parts, spatial or temporal, do not exist, only parts do, to volition's, as an understanding of cetana, which don't exist.

-----

Cetana (volitions) don't exist? I didn’t know that. Would it help to lessen our sufferings if it did or didn't?
------

But let me ask you an old question. (One I have some answers to, as I think we are just khandhas, ayatanas, and other such ways of looking at processes myself, though I would say that "person" and such are appropriate as names of those processes, so they aren't impersonal. No-atta doesn't mean no self, under every description). Paul Williams, a long time Buddhist, quit recently, as he said that in Buddhism there was no love or compassion, as there were no real persons. So it could not exist. How can it exist if other consists entirely -- in reality -- only of psychophysical elements?


My opinion:

Williams is right, in a way, the non-Buddhist way of course. Everyone is free to choose what to believe and not believe in. If one has already accepted Buddhism as a way of life, and has accepted the 'fact' that a 'human being' is made up of psychophysical elements, then love and compassion becomes the psychological element that is impersonal. Love and compassion does not belong to 'us', it does not belong to anyone; it is only a fleeting moment that goes by. This is the essence of what Buddhist philosophy is all about.

If anyone cannot accept this fact, then he or she does not believe in the Buddha's teachings and cannot be a Buddhist. So, it is perfectly fine that Williams quits, if he no longer finds happiness or liberations from it.


The khandhas and ayatanas are things that Abhidhammikas talk about. I am not an abhidhammika.

I think, as a "person" (a puggala), we should live a moral life and not be concerned about things like cetasikas. These cetasikas are for scholars, intellectual people and philosophers. It is okay to read about it but does it really help us escape samsara? If it does - in what way does understanding cetasikas help in lessening suffering? How does 'understanding' it intellectually help us?

I do agree that knowing nama and rupa does help in creating a mind set with less attachment to the body and to material goods. But how does reading about cetasikas help in attaining enlightenment? Kindly enlighten me in this aspect, please.


Also, I personally think that abhidhammikas have a lot of *intellectual pride*. Everyone does actually, but they probably have more of it than others, that's imho only.


I believe, cetasikas can be observed with our own minds. If I'm not mistaken, one of the first cetasika that we can identify is "cetana", volition. If we meditate, we will observe that "cetana" is a 'cause', and action is the 'result'. If a person's mindfulness is very good, he or she is able to observe how "cetana" arises and how it passes away and that becomes wisdom.

I don't believe in enlightenment from reading an abhidhamma book. Can a person learn how to swim by reading a book? I think, it is better to jump into the pool and start kicking.

It always boils down to Anatta - part 1

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

My 2 cents worth opinion.

I think Buddhism should not be too mystical or too complex. Buddhism is a way of life. To me, being a Buddhist is about keeping the 5 precepts. As long as we keep the 5 precepts, we are okay. We are considered very good Buddhists if we don't break the the precepts. The sila -> samadhi -> panna path are for serious Buddhists.

I think there is no lack of love or compassion in the Buddha's teachings. It is the Buddhist practitioner's own fault for not emphasizing the Brahmavihara of Metta, Karuna, Mudita and Upekkha. We should not blame the lack of love and compassion on the religion. Buddhism does not sing praises of Joy because we know and accept the underlying fact of life, as suffering. There are so many types of suffering, dukkhadukkha, sankharadukkha, etc. I am not sure what other types of sufferings are there but life is all about sufferings and I am drawn towards Buddhism because I realize that life is actually full of stress and sufferings.

I know of people who think that there is No suffering in their lives and they cannot be Buddhists because they don’t see these sufferings. They say Buddhists are pessimists because Buddhists keep stressing on the sufferings. They don’t get it that Buddhists are striving to get out of sufferings by following the 3rd and 4th Noble truths. They don’t know that Joy is impermanent, it is fun while it is there but when it is gone, they cling to it and suffer. As for Buddhists, we are already prepared for Joy to disappear.

It seems to me that in the Western countries, people are obsessed with anatta. I've never heard anatta discussed in this way and that way before. I don’t understand why anatta fascinates people. I think only intellectual people talk about anatta.

Imo, no-self does Not mean nihilism at all. When we were growing up, going to the temples and listening to Dhamma talks, no one told us that anatta means we're going kaput when we die or that there is no "real person" who is walking and talking. No one told us that there is No-freewill. I found out about the ‘theory of no freewill’ from some members who are propagating that anatta means no-freewill ! They could be right for all I know but I’ve never heard about it before from my Dhamma teachers.

Sometimes I think that in the Western countries, people get Buddhism slightly wrong. On the other hand, in the East, there are too many rites and rituals attached to Buddhism. There is no place on earth where Buddhism is pure anymore. But imo, as an individual, we should practise Buddhism to the best of our ability.

Coming back to talk about anatta since it is such an interesting topic. In my opinion, no-self is supposed to mean 'selflessness' but people tend to take no-self the other way, as 'selfishness'. I think, a Buddhist should help other people and be compassionate about others but this is rarely emphasized in Theravada Buddhism.

In Theravada Buddhism, we are supposed to help ourselves first before helping others. We have to strive to be enlightened first, only then help the others to get enlightened. Whether this is the right way or wrong way has been debated among the Theravadins and Mahayanists for a long, long time.

In the Theravada view, if you cannot swim, you cannot help a drowning person, so you have to learn how to swim first. But for Mahayanist Buddhists, they want to teach other people how to swim eventhough they themselves don’t know how to do it! Ok, I’m a bit bias towards the Mahayanists but I sincerely think that they are more helpful, more out-going and more fun-loving people because they are striving to become Bodhisattas and they want to help other people alleviate their sufferings. So, they will jump in to help regardless of whether they know how to swim or not. And it totally depends on the individual whether s/he wants to be a Theravadin or a Mahayanist.

It is okay that Paul Williams found another new religion that suits him better. I think a person should not find faults with Buddhism if they don't like it. Personally I think that it doesn't matter whether a person is a christian or hindu or mus,lim because all religions teach us to avoid evil and to do good.

But Imo Buddhism is superior because it teaches us to avoid evil, do good and purify our minds. I find the purifying the minds part, very important.

More on uncontrollable conditions

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

As at today, with my current perspective on Buddhism, I'll give my 2 cents worth opinions to the topic mentioned above.

Kamma is one of the conditions that makes the difference in you and me. Kamma means Intentions. Intention is not random. Intention arise because of 'causes and conditions'.

Do we have the ability to distinguish right from wrong, good intention from bad intention? When there is right-view, we are able to know right from wrong. When there is no right-view, then we are not able to know right from wrong. So, the ability to distinguish right from wrong is dependent on right-view.

I think we should not ask questions, whether there is freewill or not, or whether there is control or not. If we use the wrong type of mould to form our questions, then the wrong-type of answers will be formed also. If the question itself is wrong, then the answer that is given will certainly be wrong.

In Buddhism, everything arises because there is a cause for it to arise. These conditions are described in the Dependent-Origination (Paticca-samuppada).

We have the ability to know lust, cruelty, kindness and compassion, etc. Human beings have the ability to distinguish these wholesome and unwholesome thoughts only when there is right-view.

We should not blame everything that happens in our lives on 'conditions that we cannot control'. Fatalism is definitely not Buddhism.

Uncontrollable conditions

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

I am a member of an online Buddhist forum and someone in the forum came up and said that the Buddha taught no-freewill because every will is conditioned, therefore it cannot be free. I agree that our will is not totally free but it is also not totally fated either. According to a few abhidhammikas, there is no 'person' that could control or make good/bad intentions arise because all phenomena arise depending on conditions.

Based on the issue of conditions, no freewill and no-control, I asked a few questions as follows:

In this world of so many people, 'you' and 'I' are subjected to conditions, and in this long, long unfathomable beginning-less universe, when we started life as a sentient being until we are here today, why is it that the conditions which arise in 'you' become different from the ones in 'me'?

Both you and I are conditioned-beings, but how does the 'good' or 'bad' conditioning come to you or to me. Both of us didn't choose this or that conditions, right? So, what are the 'conditions' that makes your conditions different from mine?

If I say the reason is kamma condition, then it is quite unfair.
Because 'I' cannot control my kamma, if 'I' was a good person, it was because of my good conditioning and 'I' was not responsible for being good. The goodness that came to me, came without my free-will, the same goes for the bad kamma.

In this scenario of 'no freewill and no-control', how is Nibbana achievable or possible? In this life alone, I have observed good intentions and bad intentions come and go. With this mixture of good and bad cetanaa and other things, how can anyone achieve Nibbana?

Does Nibbana come randomly based on conditions? Or do we need to suffer an X amount of time in samsara before all of us will be conditioned to attain Nibbana anyway?

We cannot force and control Nibbana to come at will, so we wait for Nibbana to come to us (?) As far as I know, the Buddha didn't tell us to wait for Nibbana. The Buddha said, (paraphrased) if we are diligent, we are able to achieve the path and fruition, here-and-now.

Let's say, I believe in anatta as being no-control. If I cannot decide and you cannot decide, aren't we all slaves who are subjected to conditioning? You are a slave to your conditioning and I am a slave to mine. So what-is-it that decides these different conditionings for you and me?

In the case of uncontrollable conditioning for you and I, what is the 'main factor of conditioning' that makes you or me realize Nibbana?

If we are puppets of our conditions , what makes you understand the dhamma faster then me? According to the abhidhammikas, no-one and no person understands, it is pa~n~n~a that understand. It means that your pa~n~n~a and mine are different, why? Why is it, with the conditions which you and I cannot choose, make all these differences arise in you and me? In atheistic religions, the answer is easy. It is God, who made us who we are. But in Buddhism? Who and what chooses the conditions that befall on you or me?

On generosity, doing dana

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

This is a post I wrote to a forum.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on dana, generosity. I enjoyed reading it. I know exactly what you mean about people shelling out money to temples. Many chinese families (my own included), when they go to temples, will donate a few ringgits and pray for the protection and safety of their family. This is the traditional way of doing dana. I think they get the ideas right; they believe if they do good deeds, they will get good results in return. Being generous and hoping for a reward is very natural for all human beings, I think.

I want to share my stories and my own point of view of dana and generosity. I hope you won’t think that I am boasting. For me, if I do dana, the reward is secondary. As long as it brings joy to my heart, I am satisfied. Dana does not have to be in monetary form, it can be a volunteer service, giving our time, or expertise to help other people.

I grew up in a small rubber plantation town in Kedah, Malaysia. There is a Thai temple in front of my grandfather’s rubber estate. Before Wesak Day celebration, my grandfather would buy cans of paint and he and his workers would go and paint the temple Pagoda. The Pagoda is very high - with the typical Thai-style yellow pointy tip architecture. They would climb up a tall ladder to get up there to paint it. That was the way my grandfather did dana when he was alive. He donated the paints and did the painting himself.

The adults always give to temples and we grow up watching them doing dana. So when we grew up, it becomes second nature to us. A year before my grandfather passed away, we took a road trip from our hometown to another town in Perak state. Along the way, we stopped at every temple, we prayed, and my grandfather put a few ringgits in the donation box. He was a generous man and he did a lot of charities when he was alive. I pray that my grandfather is in a heavenly realm right now.

On Kathina day, my grandmother would buy monk robes and alms bowl set for the monks. I remember the first Kathina I attended was with my grandmother when I was about 10 or 12 years old. It was in MBMC, Penang. I really enjoyed it. I loved listening to the Pali chanting. I also pray that my grandmother is in a heavenly realm right now.

When I was young, my mother always told us to share our toys with our siblings. Kids are selfish and don’t like to share their toys with other kids but some kids don’t mind sharing. I was the selfish one and had to be ‘coerced’ to share my toys. After a while, I think I got used to it. When I went to primary school, sometimes I bought sweets from the school canteen. I would eat one or two and save up the rest for my younger brother and sister. I enjoyed eating the sweets and I wanted my siblings to enjoy it too. This didn’t happen very often though, only once in a while, well maybe twice only. I think this is the starting point of learning to share and be generous.

When I started working, I used my own money to do dana. There is a Buddhist meditation temple about 15 mins walk from my house. I usually buy the bath-robes for doing dana. The real monk robes are expensive, the bath-robe is only Rm10 each and I buy those for the dana.

At one time I was into all fruits diet, I ate oranges and granny smith apples every day. I enjoyed eating the fruits so much, I wanted to share the joy of eating it with others. So I bought oranges and green granny smith apples for the temple during Sunday dana. I think dana is also about sharing the joy you get with others, hoping that they would get the same joy too.

Sometimes my mother and I bought a bag of rice and we both carried it and knelt in front of Bhante or Sayadaw and do dana. Even on my mother’s death bed, my mother requested my sister to do dana for the temple. I owed my whole life to mother, if there is no mother, there would be no me. My mother taught me many things but most of all, she taught me to be a Buddhist. I pray that my mother is in a heavenly realm right now. My family also donated to the printing of free dhamma books for distributions in loving memory of my late mother.

To cut a long story short, before I came to Toronto, I volunteered at the Sunday dhamma school (for children) for about four months. I taught English to the children. Sometimes when there is no translator around, I helped Sayadaw during the daily interview with meditators. No, I don’t speak Burmese, I translate from mandarin or hokkien to english but my chinese language skill is not very good and I told Sayadaw I don’t know how to translate the word 'mindfulness' into chinese! I hope I didn’t mess up the yogis’s interview, I pray that I won’t get bad kamma from the bad translations. :-/

There are many volunteers at the temple every weekend. They cook, serve, wash, clean up and direct traffic, etc. etc. They ask the temple people if there is anything they can help with and they would help. These are the things that are considered dana also, they are service dana. But, the main dana is the food dana that the devotees bring from home to be offered to the monks. The food line is long and huge! The devotees are planting good seeds, hoping that they will sow good results in the future. :-)

That’s basically how Dana is done in Malaysia. I hope everyone can share their dana stories and how dana is done in their respective countries.

I read about the dana a pilgrimage group did for the monks in India and Nepal. I felt really happy reading it and rejoiced in their dana. May I Anumodana too. Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!

Kamma and Anatta - not mutually exclusive

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

A few questions on kamma and anatta.

I was interested that, in the context of a logical argument, and what you write about anatta and kamma, that you would then proceed to ascribe ongoing existence to your teachers, and aim to benefit them. I'm afraid this makes no sense to me at all, logically.

Which is it to be, anatta or kamma? Or do you believe they are not mutually exclusive? If so, can you clarify that logically?

My opinion: 

I know exactly what you mean. If there is non-self, then who creates kamma? If there is non-self, then who goes to Nibbana? Right?

An important question in Buddhism is, “If I won’t be 'me' in my next life and I won’t remember who I will be in my next life, then why should I be doing good deeds now? I won’t be able to enjoy the good results in my next life anyway, so does it matter if I do good or evil in this life? And also, why do I have to suffer the consequences of the actions that the past 'me' had sowed because I don’t remember who it was that did it anyway.”

This type of questions arises because of the wrong idea of Anatta. In other religions, the concept is simple; when they do good deeds, they will go to heaven and they will remember exactly who they are, and they will enjoy heavenly bliss because it is them, the exact same person who goes to heaven.

In one way, I also think that Buddhism is a bit complex. That was why at first the Buddha didn’t want to teach because he knew that it will be difficult to teach. Only a few people who had little dusts in their eyes were able understand his teachings.

But in my opinion, to gain release from sufferings, we don’t need to go into all the complexities of Anatta.

We only have to follow what the Buddha taught, 'we reap what we sow'. If we have good intentions and do good deeds, we will get good results. We cannot fathom how Kamma works. Kamma is not a formula that we can write out.

At first, I thought Kamma was a 'direct cause and effect' thing. When I was 10 years old, I heard a dhamma talk about Kamma and I thought Kamma works in linear ways, so I asked the monk some questions. “For example, if I stole some money from A in my past life, will A be reborn in this life and steal my money? Or will someone else, B, in the future steal my money? And I also asked, “What will happen to B? Was he born on earth, for his mission to come back to steal my money? Also, won’t B have the same consequence of his money getting stolen in his future life? But B was only acting out the stealing, only to punish me, right? Then this vicious cycle would not end, right?”

Those questions were the ones I asked when I was 10 years old. I don’t remember what my teacher replied, this was the same teacher whom after 20 years, I asked the first set of questions above, “Why do I need to do good deeds if I won't be the same 'me' in the future life?”

My teacher said, “You cannot think of it that way, even though it is not the 'same you' in the future, there is still kamma! You have to understand the law of Kamma, if you do good deeds, you get good results, bad deeds, you get bad results”.

The bottom line is, 'we reap what we sow', don’t ask “who” is it that reaps it in the future. How Kamma works, how is kamma inter-related among human beings is too complex, only a Buddha knows the answer.

So, Herman, I know exactly what you are asking. I get a little doubt here and there sometimes, but I know there is Kamma. Kamma is not exactly like Newton’s third law of motion, which says “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, Kamma is not as linear as that, but Kamma is real and every good action will reap good results and vice-versa.

As for the questions “Why is there no-self but there is Kamma”? I hope you can read Bhikkhu Thanissaro’s essay called, “The Questions of Skill”. I think we cannot ask questions that starts with, “If there is no-self, then…..?”

This type of questions will not give you satisfactory answers. You have to ask the question in a different way in order to understand it.

Ahhh, I’ve written an essay, heheh.  Sorry if it has been boring to read. :-)

Hearing the Sutta

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

Some questions that I have replied to in a Buddhist forum are posted here:

Indeed, even the very first ~naana alone is sufficient to turn any person into a Sotapanna. Do you think this first ~naana is the same as intellectual understanding through listening to or book learning about the dhammas?

Suttamaya~naana = knowledge that results from hearing/learning the dhammas first hand.

My opinion: 

Venerable Sâriputta, who had good accumulations and quick intuition became a sotâpanna immediately after hearing the first 2 lines of a stanza spoken by Ven. Assaji. Ven. Sariputta became enlightened by hearing/learning the Sutta. But I’m not sure if this ability still exists today, among the people of this age and time because the Sasana is in decline. Maybe there are still people like that, who knows?

Personally, I think I will understand better through direct-experience. I love hearing and reading the sutta but mere hearing and reading is not enough. After hearing the sutta, we must verify it for ourselves. Furthermore, the Buddha had always told his monks to go do “Jhana” (which meant meditation).

For example, “anicca”, when we hear about anicca, it is a just an ordinary knowledge that everything is impermanent. When poeple actually “know and see” anicca for themselves, it becomes a totally different thing. I have no idea what anicca really is, I can quote a gross example like a burning candle or a person growing old. I think, a person who really knows what anicca is, is an ariya-puggala.

Buddha said, “everything is impermanent/inconstant, therefore it is not-self” - if a person knows the nature of impermanence, then s/he will understand the nature of non-self. This type of knowing is supra-normal knowledge, i.e. gotrabuu~naana, udayabbaya~naana and vipassana~naana.

The question that I’ve always ask, “Is impermanence equaled to uncontrollability?” Even if it is, I don’t want to believe it with blind-faith. I don’t want to believe it from someone who has read a lot of dhamma books because the Kalama sutta says, do not believe because….etc. etc…Even if, impermanence is uncontrollability, merely accepting it with belief will not make me a better person with less greed, hatred or delusion.

I hope to know what gotrabuu~naana, udayabbaya~naana and vipassana~naana really is, and this kind of knowledge, I think, cannot be obtained by hearing/learning the dhamma.

((oh, I wish it could be attained from hearing/learning the dhamma though. I want to be a professional dhamma learner, it is much easier than meditation, meditation is hard work, argh)).