free from suffering, does not imply

Vincenzi

never experiencing sensual pleasures anymore... if one doesn't crave them, but they happen sometimes... what's so "sinful" about them? what? buddhas don't eat ice-cream, because it is "sinful"? middle path, anyone?

Nirvana is about being free from suffering, and that INCLUDES being free from dogma (the fetters: rituals and ceremonies don't free samsaric beings from suffering... AND having confindence in the chosen path does not imply believing in Dharma as if it was a dogma).

I chosed to be an urban buddhist monk (related to a type of Zen Buddhist monks), mainly to translate the Pali Tripitaka to 3 western languages (italian, spanish and english)... and, if I become a 10 bhumi boddhisattva, to teach freely the Dharma.

for those purposes, following dogmas will be simply an ignorant conclusion. SO, I reserve the right of freedom... of marrying (in a civil way, there's no marriage in the Dharma... but some traditions regarding it are nice) and of having a job! in fact, begging for food is... not that honorable (in my book).

CSEe

Hi vincenzi , I am totally new to monks / terms etc why we hv so many monk from so many different so call teaching....culture ...practise...etc...
Since very early age....Sorry in advance I do not agree with the practise of monk simply because in Buddhism I choose to belief "teaching" does axist....

DhammaDhatu

never experiencing sensual pleasures anymore... if one doesn't crave them, but they happen sometimes... what's so "sinful" about them? what? buddhas don't eat ice-cream, because it is "sinful"? middle path, anyone?

What are you talking about regarding "sin"?

Buddha taught if we can free our mind from sensuality, we can experience a greater happiness, that of meditative bliss.

Buddha did not say sensual pleasure was a sin.

He said sensual pleasure is not worth 1/16 of non-sensual pleasure.

Buddha taught there are two kind of pleasure: (1) sensual & (2) non-sensual and #2 is superior.

Buddha taught pleasure #1 is an obstacle to pleasure #2.

WineGod

As I understand it, the Buddha stated that "attachment" to desires and sense pleasures was the issue, not necessarily the sense pleasures themselves. Now, that being said, if you are pursuing sense pleasure, then it indicates some kind of attachment. But avoiding sense pleasures would not be a "middle path" in my mind.

compassionate_warrior

I don't know about other traditions, but the word "sin" does appear in Vajrayana texts. When we make mistakes relating to valuing material or sensual things (such as stealing, because we're caught up in materialism), that's a "sin". I inquired about this once, and was told that the Tibetan word does, in fact, mean "sin", it wasn't just a translator's erroneous choice in wording.

What are you talking about regarding "sin"?

bodhipunk

We should keep in mind that the certain meanings of these words can vary, especially given their context. Are we born with "sin" as a prerequisite, or are we born into a "sinful world", or is it both or neither? Is the "sin" a divine judgment given independent of yourself, or is it simply the result or fruition (i.e. vipaka) of past intention and/or deeds (i.e. kamma)?

Vincenzi

As I understand it, the Buddha stated that "attachment" to desires and sense pleasures was the issue, not necessarily the sense pleasures themselves. Now, that being said, if you are pursuing sense pleasure, then it indicates some kind of attachment. But avoiding sense pleasures would not be a "middle path" in my mind.

exactly!

Vincenzi

I don't know about other traditions, but the word "sin" does appear in Vajrayana texts. When we make mistakes relating to valuing material or sensual things (such as stealing, because we're caught up in materialism), that's a "sin". I inquired about this once, and was told that the Tibetan word does, in fact, mean "sin", it wasn't just a translator's erroneous choice in wording.

What are you talking about regarding "sin"?

maybe... but it was used almost as sarcasm.

there's karma: neutral, good and evil. "sin" is 1/3rd of possible karma.

seeker242

never experiencing sensual pleasures anymore... if one doesn't crave them, but they happen sometimes... what's so "sinful" about them? what? buddhas don't eat ice-cream, because it is "sinful"?

That is true but it's only applicable AFTER you have been freed from suffering. I doubt anyone on this forum is a Buddha. Sure, a Buddha can experience sensual pleasures with no attachment or no tendency for attachment to occur. However, the same can not be said for people who are not Buddhas.

Vincenzi

[free from suffering, does not imply] never experiencing sensual pleasures anymore... if one doesn't crave them, but they happen sometimes... what's so "sinful" about them? what? buddhas don't eat ice-cream, because it is "sinful"?

That is true but it's only applicable AFTER you have been freed from suffering. I doubt anyone on this forum is a Buddha. Sure, a Buddha can experience sensual pleasures with no attachment or no tendency for attachment to occur. However, the same can not be said for people who are not Buddhas.

but didn't that should start at the anagami-level?

karmadorje

never experiencing sensual pleasures anymore... if one doesn't crave them, but they happen sometimes... what's so "sinful" about them? what? buddhas don't eat ice-cream, because it is "sinful"?

That is true but it's only applicable AFTER you have been freed from suffering. I doubt anyone on this forum is a Buddha. Sure, a Buddha can experience sensual pleasures with no attachment or no tendency for attachment to occur. However, the same can not be said for people who are not Buddhas.

So what you are saying is "No ice-cream"? Damn.

karmadorje

I don't know about other traditions, but the word "sin" does appear in Vajrayana texts. When we make mistakes relating to valuing material or sensual things (such as stealing, because we're caught up in materialism), that's a "sin". I inquired about this once, and was told that the Tibetan word does, in fact, mean "sin", it wasn't just a translator's erroneous choice in wording.

Which translator told you this and do you know which word he or she was translating? Typically the relevant words used in Sanskrit are papam for unwholesome actions and punyam for wholesome ones. There is no sense of sin in the way Christians interpret it. In Tibetan there are terms like "dikpa" and "drip" which could be translated as obscuration and pollution (or defilement) respectively. I can't think of any of them that are well translated by the word "sin" which has so much baggage because of the framework of original sin.

Dakini

I agree, KD, "sin" carries a lot of baggage, but so, why does it crop up in TB texts? In the mongol regions, the Russian word for sin is freely used in conversation and prayers and texts in Buddhist contexts. I assume they use the equivalent word in Mongol.

Vincenzi

...if sin is to be included, then anti-sin should be included.

and again, it was sarcasm... and I prefer sanskrit.

compassionate_warrior

Which translator told you this and do you know which word he or she was translating? Typically the relevant words used in Sanskrit are papam for unwholesome actions and punyam for wholesome ones. There is no sense of sin in the way Christians interpret it. In Tibetan there are terms like "dikpa" and "drip" which could be translated as obscuration and pollution (or defilement) respectively. I can't think of any of them that are well translated by the word "sin" which has so much baggage because of the framework of original sin.

Well, "unwholesome action" sounds pretty close to "sin".Maybe it's a case of lazy translating. My recollection is that I ran into the word "sin" in prayers or texts when I was at Sakya Monastery. Aren't you a Sakya practitioner? Maybe you could answer some questions I've had. Haven't you noticed the word "sin" turning up here and there? And the refuge vow required those taking refuge to "fear" rebirth or the cycle of rebirth, meaning, we'd better get it right in this lifetime, so we don't have to come back. My understanding is that fear is an emotion to be conquered, not something to strive for, so I never took refuge with the Sakyas. Can you shed any light on that? Is it another translation issue? (We're taking the thread off-topic--sorry, Vincenzi.)

About your "Middle Way, anyone?" question, Vincenzi, monks who renounce sex and other pleasures and attachments aren't following a Middle Way in that sense. The goal is to avoid distractions in order to facilitate meditation and the realization of Nirvana. A Middle Way approach to to sensual pleasure would risk increasing attachment. There's a reason why monks are called "renunciates".

upekka

but didn't that should start at the anagami-level?

do you sure about the 'sotapanna level' (stream enterer and stream winner)?

if so, what we should do is to get rid of our 'kama-raga' (attachment to sense pleasure) and patigha (the hate that arise when we do not get what we want in regard to our sense faculties, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body))

the hardest thing is to get rid of our attachment to food

if we can really understood food (its form (rupa), sound (sabdha), smell (ghndha), taste (rasa), feel (pottabba) and get rid of the attachment to food then we become anagami

unless, we are at a lesser level of anagami,
it may be sotapanna, sakakagami or pruthajjana

TheJourney

I sanskrit

Vincenzi

(...) Is it another translation issue? (We're taking the thread off-topic--sorry, Vincenzi.)

About your "Middle Way, anyone?" question, Vincenzi, monks who renounce sex and other pleasures and attachments aren't following a Middle Way in that sense. The goal is to avoid distractions in order to facilitate meditation and the realization of Nirvana. A Middle Way approach to to sensual pleasure would risk increasing attachment. There's a reason why monks are called "renunciates".

I don't mind.

I partially disagree. Middle Way includes reserving the right of acting freely in all matters as long as ahimsa ethics are followed... AND, it includes understanding of a boddhisattva or an anagami (or close to it) level of freedom from trishna (craving).

Vincenzi

but didn't that should start at the anagami-level?

do you sure about the 'sotapanna level' (stream enterer and stream winner)?

if so, what we should do is to get rid of our 'kama-raga' (attachment to sense pleasure) and patigha (the hate that arise when we do not get what we want in regard to our sense faculties, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body))

the hardest thing is to get rid of our attachment to food

if we can really understood food (its form (rupa), sound (sabdha), smell (ghndha), taste (rasa), feel (pottabba) and get rid of the attachment to food then we become anagami

unless, we are at a lesser level of anagami,
it may be sotapanna, sakakagami or pruthajjana

what about the Boddhisattva bhumis? how is one certain of being at (example) eight bhumi?

but yes... no raga (craving) for rupa (form, as experienced by the senses) and raga ("sensual objects").

@TheJourney, I also love samskrita (sanskrit)!

Ada_B

Don't forget that aversion is also a hindrance, the opposite side of the coin to attachment. It is all too easy to slide from attachment ("I love ice-cream") to aversion ("Ice-cream is sinful"). In Reality, ice-cream is neither an object of love, nor sinful, although it may be pleasant on a hot day.

It strikes me that aversion is really attachment to avoiding things, and a huge trap unwary newbies can fall into. Sometimes extremes can be so much easier than the Middle Way - extremes are rigid rules we set ourselves, and as such can seem like safe little boxes we can hide in.

Maybe that's why fundamentalism is so popular throughout the world - no need to struggle over thorny moral issues, no need to take each situation on its merits and work out the best course of action. Mindfulness can be so much hard work - much easier to follow a rule-book.

Eat your ice-cream. Enjoy it, be grateful that you can enjoy it, whilst so many cannot. Share it with a friend, or give the ice-cream seller a tip. Ice-cream is a wonderful blessing, like a sunny, Spring day, or making a child giggle. And like those things, it is here and then it is gone; and if we have no attachment, we have no regrets. We just enjoyed the moment it was here and let it go.

The joys in life are like holding a little bird in your hand. You have to hold on to it gently, not too tightly or you'll crush it; and in a little while you have to let it go.

compassionate_warrior

I partially disagree. Middle Way includes reserving the right of acting freely in all matters as long as ahimsa ethics are followed... AND, it includes understanding of a boddhisattva or an anagami (or close to it) level of freedom from trishna (craving).

But who of us is a boddhisattva or anagami? Are you saying you are, so you therefore can indulge?

I agree with Ada_B, ice cream isn't a big deal, unless you crave it. It depends on which sensual pleasures we're talking about. Some are more addicting and potentially samsaric than others.

Vincenzi

I partially disagree. Middle Way includes reserving the right of acting freely in all matters as long as ahimsa ethics are followed... AND, it includes understanding of a boddhisattva or an anagami (or close to it) level of freedom from trishna (craving).

But who of us is a boddhisattva or anagami? Are you saying you are, so you therefore can indulge?

I agree with Ada_B, ice cream isn't a big deal, unless you crave it. It depends on which sensual pleasures we're talking about. Some are more addicting and potentially samsaric than others.

indeed, Ada_B is right

yes... I am both (anyone who took the boddhisattva vow is a boddhisattva? how is one sure of being at a specific bhumi? are bhumis just general markers?).

And no, indulging is unwise; as is taking the extreme view of "prohibiting it for life". just wanted to expose this as extreme view and not Middle Way.

Dakini

No, Vincenzi, I don't think anyone who takes the bodhisattva vow is a bodhisattva. Otherwise most of us would be bodhisattvas.

Vincenzi

No, Vincenzi, I don't think anyone who takes the bodhisattva vow is a bodhisattva. Otherwise most of us would be bodhisattvas.

then, for being a bodhisattva one has to be at least a srotapana? what importance does the four stages (of awakening) have on mahayana?

being

Buddhas eating an ice-cream is nothing out of the ordinary. A Buddha just would not buy or crave for an ice-cream to feel sensual pleasure (desire). Of course if there's nothing else to eat and an ice-cream is offered a Buddha would eat it.

Buddhist monks do not beg for food. They accept, what is offered to them. If nothing is offered, they go without food. There's a big difference and I think you might have misunderstood this part of monks life.
Also Buddhist monks do not pursue honor, but humility.

genkaku

Nirvana is about being free from suffering, and that INCLUDES being free from dogma...
__________________________________________________________________

As for example the dogma that Nirvana is about being free from suffering, right?

Vincenzi

Nirvana is about being free from suffering, and that INCLUDES being free from dogma...
__________________________________________________________________

As for example the dogma that Nirvana is about being free from suffering, right?

that's a concept, not a dogma.

upekka

what about the Boddhisattva bhumis? how is one certain of being at (example) eight bhumi?

Do you mean sotapanna magga, sotapanna pala, sakadagami magga, sakadagami pala, anagami magga, anagami pala, arahnt magga, arahant pala?

if so, when one is at sotapanna (sotapanna magga and sotapanna pala come in two consecutive momens, one after the other) one knows, one is at sotapanna pala/ right view/ stream enterer and stream winner

one may not know the name for it like sotapanna etc. but one knows what it is because one has that experience without depending on others' words or explanations

upekka

then, for being a bodhisattva one has to be at least a srotapana?

as far as what i have read so far, Buddha was mentioned as bodhisatva before the Enlightenment (Buddhahood)
and
on that day only Siddartha (bodhisatva) understood the the Four Noble Truth

so he was not a sotapanna before he attained Enlightenment


it says, he could have had attained sotapanna at the time of Deepankara Buddha

but instead he postpone his own awakening thinking he would help millions and millions of other sentient beings by becoming a Buddha

Dakini

No, Vincenzi, I don't think anyone who takes the bodhisattva vow is a bodhisattva. Otherwise most of us would be bodhisattvas.

then, for being a bodhisattva one has to be at least a srotapana? what importance does the four stages (of awakening) have on mahayana?

Sorry, Vin, I'm not qualified to answer your question.

Vincenzi

I don't think Bodhisattva's postpone their awakenings... it doesn't make sense.

Instead, if is a vow of a walker of the path of Dharma (preferably at least at a srotapanna level)... to have rebirths after Nirvāna for the help of all.

upekka

I don't think Bodhisattva's postpone their awakenings... it doesn't make sense.

Instead, if is a vow of a walker of the path of Dharma (preferably at least at a srotapanna level)... to have rebirths after Nirvāna for the help of all.

one has the right to have doubt until one clearly see it

Dakini

Well, I'm just saying that for me, personally, it seems like it would be presumptuous for me to regard myself as a Bodhisattva, just because I've taken the vow. I don't know if it's for me to judge that, not that it's so simple a question.

fabianfred

Anyone who takes the vow to become a Buddha in the future is from then on, on the Boddhistava path....... unofficially. One cannot make such a vow if one has already attained to Sotapanna or higher. Making the vow prevents one from attaining Sotapanna or higher, because one is going to have to practice the ten perfections for an unimaginably long period of time and eventually attain to Arahant and nirvana and become a self-awakened Buddha all at the same moment in time....sitting under a tree.
The Boddhisatva status only becomes official when one retakes the same vow in the presence of a real Buddha.
Those who originally start by taking the vow.....and those who eventually succeed in becoming Buddhas....are compared to one grain of sand, and all the grains of sand on Earth.....a slim chance indeed....because it is such a monumental task.

Thus a Boddhisatva does postpone their own attainment of Nirvana, that is why they are worthy of such respect. They might easily have become a monk in a Buddhas retinue and attained to Arahant in that very lifetime....but chose to become a Buddha in the far distant future instead.

Recanting the vow is nothing to be ashamed of.....if one wishes to progress to Sotapannahood and on more quickly.

Vincenzi

"Thus a Boddhisatva does postpone their own attainment of Nirvana,"

I disagree... it doesn't make sense. First, Nirvāna... then, teach the Dharma as a Bodhisattva (remembering past lifes to teach in a better way).

compassionate_warrior

This is an interesting question, Vincenzi. You could start a separate thread to discuss this question. If it has its own thread, it will attract more people to comment.

Vincenzi

This is an interesting question, Vincenzi. You could start a separate thread to discuss this question. If it has its own thread, it will attract more people to comment.

I started this thread.

fabianfred

"Thus a Boddhisatva does postpone their own attainment of Nirvana,"

I disagree... it doesn't make sense. First, Nirvāna... then, teach the Dharma as a Bodhisattva (remembering past lifes to teach in a better way).

I presume you are looking at the Boddhisatva from a mahayana perspective...as one who attains to nirvana...but doesn't go in.....just stands and holds the door open whilst all other beings go first.
I am looking from the Theravada perspective where a Boddhisatva is a Buddha in training.

Vincenzi

"Thus a Boddhisatva does postpone their own attainment of Nirvana,"

I disagree... it doesn't make sense. First, Nirvāna... then, teach the Dharma as a Bodhisattva (remembering past lifes to teach in a better way).

I presume you are looking at the Boddhisatva from a mahayana perspective...as one who attains to nirvana...but doesn't go in.....just stands and holds the door open whilst all other beings go first.
I am looking from the Theravada perspective where a Boddhisatva is a Buddha in training.

...for me it is either a Buddha in training, or a samyak Buddha that can chose to be reborn.

Floating_Abu

Nirvana is about being free from suffering, and that INCLUDES being free from dogma...
__________________________________________________________________

As for example the dogma that Nirvana is about being free from suffering, right?

I always liked this quote from Bodhimind

"the mercurial stream of life, our thoughts, passions, dreams, and despairs are always coming forth. Revealing the fabric of truth and the presence of our reality. Nirvana is not about ditching our reality for some non-being status, it is about seeing the “source” of all that is. And in that realization, we see the dance of life as it comes forth, knowing it, and in knowing it realize our own truth, our thusness. And in realizing that truth, we live the lives we are here to experience. For this is the truth as it is revealed in the light of this reality."

http://bodhimindinstitute.blogspot.com/2007/05/dough-mix.html

Dazzle

What exactly is "thusness" Abu old friend ? It seems like a puzzling buzz word without any meaning for me, since thusness actually means 'state of being thus'
lol ! :scratch:

zenff

Tathata! Thusness! Suchness!
But you probably know already, Dazzle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathātā/Dharmatā

I would say tathata is more like a process.
Instead of piling ideas and preferences upon ideas and preferences, we can stop doing that.
And then if we stop bothering about them, the ideas and preferences we already had, dry up on their own.

Does that make any sense to you?