Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
A visit to the Cambodian Buddhist Temple
Today was an exciting day, i got up early and around ten drove the the local Therevada Cambodian Temple in Loma Linda, California USA. We have almost the largest concentration of refugee immigrants from Cambodia and Vietnam in the USA and at the temple things go on much the same way they do in Asia, white people like me a real rareity and there has been very little "westernization" of the Buddhas message. The monk who speaks good english was away so I talked for 1 1/2 hrs to an old friend who was one of the elders at the temple, attending almost every day and very knowledgeable on the Buddha as he had been a monk for ten years back in Cambodia, before starting a family.
The first thing I did was go over some facts about Buddhism, ideas I had been almost ridiculed for on this forum such as Buddha's being an advocate of vegetarianism, but Ill leave that for the bottom of this post. I questioned him on the most basic teaching of Buddhism, how important were the precepts etc. To the best of my recollection this is what he said in less broken english;mine;
"the most important, central teaching of the Buddha is Love, Love for those around us, and Love for everyone, then compassion for everyone' he went over and over this teaching, it was obvious he considers it much more important than following the rules like the precepts, I asked him about how important it was to follow the precepts, he thought very important,he really scoffed when I brought of the idea People calling themselves buddhist who werent bothering to keep the precepts, he thought that was bad. In his opinion he said"the most important precept is number 5, no drugs and alcohol, drunks are more likely to kill and break the other precepts, understanding the religion requires a clear mind and you cant get a clear mind when you are using drugs and alcohol" remember I was asking him which precepts were the most important to the beginner or buddhist young person.
He agreed wholeheartedly that buddhism promoted a simple life, not addicted to a lot of things , and that it was fairly conservative religion, not a lot of partying etc, although in southeast asian tradition they often have fairly festive "parties" or religious events at the temple, with lots of people, live bands, dancing and free food. I talked to him about being single and he mentioned"its better to be a monk all your life, having a wife and family makes it harder to be a good person because it splits your time. its good that your single, thats like being a monk, its easier to grow in the religion that way"
We talked at length about reincarnation and the soul. These therevada people definetly believe in past lives, future lives and reincarnation and the soul, but he told me the soul dies with the body, its the Spirit that was before and reincarnates and always will be. I asked him about Bodhissatva, people who reincarnate back on earth repeatedly to help mankind, he definetly agreed with this teaching but had not heard the term Bodhisattva or I was pronouncing it wrong or something. I asked him about buddha nature, is everyone born with a small buddha nature that can grow and grow even into being a full buddha, and that anyone can do that, he wholeheartadly agreed, though once again the term buddha nature was of course something different in his language.
On vegetarianism he said basically what I have recounted before"the Buddha himself was a vegetarian, but he didnt say everyone has to be one, but he definetly indicated it was better to be vegetarian, in my country we have meditation schools that are very strict and they are all vegetarian, also in vietnam and China the buddhist temples are almost all vegetarian. its very bad to kill animals, but we are allowed to buy meat killed by some one else and eat it, but this is not ideal,I would never kill any animal even a chicken or a fish, the ideal of the buddha is be vegetarian, animals are just as good as people, anything that breathes deserves to be treated well especially animals, the buddha came not just for people but the animals as well, the buddha came for every living creature(sentient being) to benefit them all" Please believe me this is my best recollection of a conversation this morning with a venerateed temple elder, not my own thought or words, as ive already put my thoughts in writing Ill leave it at that.
Lastly the issue of Lying, is it OK to lie to prevent a greater crime, he just didnt know one way or the other but agreed lying to prevent killing seemed right, but he didnt know what the scripture said, he had been a monk many years ago starting in his teens and he is approaching 70 now.Thats all for now, thank you for your time. sincerely John
The first thing I did was go over some facts about Buddhism, ideas I had been almost ridiculed for on this forum such as Buddha's being an advocate of vegetarianism, but Ill leave that for the bottom of this post. I questioned him on the most basic teaching of Buddhism, how important were the precepts etc. To the best of my recollection this is what he said in less broken english;mine;
"the most important, central teaching of the Buddha is Love, Love for those around us, and Love for everyone, then compassion for everyone' he went over and over this teaching, it was obvious he considers it much more important than following the rules like the precepts, I asked him about how important it was to follow the precepts, he thought very important,he really scoffed when I brought of the idea People calling themselves buddhist who werent bothering to keep the precepts, he thought that was bad. In his opinion he said"the most important precept is number 5, no drugs and alcohol, drunks are more likely to kill and break the other precepts, understanding the religion requires a clear mind and you cant get a clear mind when you are using drugs and alcohol" remember I was asking him which precepts were the most important to the beginner or buddhist young person.
He agreed wholeheartedly that buddhism promoted a simple life, not addicted to a lot of things , and that it was fairly conservative religion, not a lot of partying etc, although in southeast asian tradition they often have fairly festive "parties" or religious events at the temple, with lots of people, live bands, dancing and free food. I talked to him about being single and he mentioned"its better to be a monk all your life, having a wife and family makes it harder to be a good person because it splits your time. its good that your single, thats like being a monk, its easier to grow in the religion that way"
We talked at length about reincarnation and the soul. These therevada people definetly believe in past lives, future lives and reincarnation and the soul, but he told me the soul dies with the body, its the Spirit that was before and reincarnates and always will be. I asked him about Bodhissatva, people who reincarnate back on earth repeatedly to help mankind, he definetly agreed with this teaching but had not heard the term Bodhisattva or I was pronouncing it wrong or something. I asked him about buddha nature, is everyone born with a small buddha nature that can grow and grow even into being a full buddha, and that anyone can do that, he wholeheartadly agreed, though once again the term buddha nature was of course something different in his language.
On vegetarianism he said basically what I have recounted before"the Buddha himself was a vegetarian, but he didnt say everyone has to be one, but he definetly indicated it was better to be vegetarian, in my country we have meditation schools that are very strict and they are all vegetarian, also in vietnam and China the buddhist temples are almost all vegetarian. its very bad to kill animals, but we are allowed to buy meat killed by some one else and eat it, but this is not ideal,I would never kill any animal even a chicken or a fish, the ideal of the buddha is be vegetarian, animals are just as good as people, anything that breathes deserves to be treated well especially animals, the buddha came not just for people but the animals as well, the buddha came for every living creature(sentient being) to benefit them all" Please believe me this is my best recollection of a conversation this morning with a venerateed temple elder, not my own thought or words, as ive already put my thoughts in writing Ill leave it at that.
Lastly the issue of Lying, is it OK to lie to prevent a greater crime, he just didnt know one way or the other but agreed lying to prevent killing seemed right, but he didnt know what the scripture said, he had been a monk many years ago starting in his teens and he is approaching 70 now.Thats all for now, thank you for your time. sincerely John
0
Comments
Instead of positing some type of spirit that's eternal and travels from life to life, rebirth is describe in terms of moments of consciousness (vinnana) — which the commentaries consider synonymous with mind (mano) and intellect (citta) based on SN 12.61 — arising and ceasing in rapid succession, with the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness. It's simply the continuation of a process — nothing 'remains,' nothing 'transmigrates,' etc. — there are merely phenomena that condition other phenomena in the interdependent process we call life.
As for this supposed spirit, what exactly is it? How is it different from what we would conventionally call a soul? And more importantly, where did the Buddha teach about this transmigrating spirit "which goes on and always was"? Certainly not MN 38:
Probably a very patient man also, to sit and answer all your questions. What was the actual service like in a Cambodian temple? Did the congregation sit and listen to the monk chant the sutras?
Jonas, you cant base a whole belief on on verse the way christians use proof texts to disprove homosexuality or some thing like that, you have to take the whole pali scriptures into account, these monks do that, and obviously they get the idea for some form of rebirth or reincarnation, the statement "Therevada strictly denies the existence of the soul...." is not true if the people are learning something entirely different, where did you read that? (usually its Mahayana people making these kind of disparaging comments about Therevada;"they dont even believe in the soul" etc)
What i am suggesting is what the monks at the temple say may be more important than your personal interpretation of some book or text of scripture. sincerely John
Of course, Theravada isn't a monolithic entity, and you're going to find divergent views and interpretations of the Dhamma; but on the whole, it's fairly consistent in its denial of self. Take a look at the Kathavatthu or Points of Controversy, for example. Personally, I think the 'orthodox' view concerning the Buddha's teachings on not-self (anatta) go a bit too far, making ontological statements about something the Buddha himself remained silent on (SN 44.10); but you won't even find the likes of Buddhaghosa, an Indian brahmin convert who translated the Sinhalese commentaries back into Pali, declaring the existence of an eternal soul or spirit.
I have no doubt that you'll find monks here and there who happen to hold a position counter to this, asserting a type of soul, spirit or self (or even of a 'person' in the case of the Puggalavadins) that travels from life to life, and if you happen to agree with them, that's fine by me. What I am arguing against is your assertion that the use the term spirit, especially a transmigrating spirit "which goes on and always was," is "fairly representative of the conservative brand of southern buddhism." Anyone familiar with the Mahavihara commentarial tradition of Theravada will know that this is patently false.
In other words, those who have held such views have historically been the minority in Theravada, not the majority. The majority are firmly in the "no self" category and have been since at least the 5th century. (I can give you an ample amount of references for this if you'd like, scholarly as well as traditional.) Whether or not you agree with their position is besides the point. As for the statement that there are monks who read the Suttas and "get the idea for some form of rebirth or reincarnation," I never denied that. In fact, I even gave you the standard Theravadin explanation of that process:
“Rebirth,” like “reincarnation,” is a term that’s used generally referring to having gone through a series of different lives, and then there are various views about whether once you get reincarnated into human form where you can go, become a frog again or something like that. I was teaching a retreat in Australia at the Theosophical Society, where people’s views were split. Some held that once you made it to the human level you can’t slide back into a lesser animal one, whereas others insisted that you could. But the truth of the matter is, nobody really knows.
The historical Buddha refered to previous lives in the scriptures and things like this, but for me these things are speculative. Maybe you can remember previous lives, but I have no such memory. So all I know is from the here and now. We’re talking about direct knowing rather than Buddhist theory or Buddhist doctrine.
When Ajahn Chah taught about rebirth, he did so in the context of paticcasumappada, or dependent origination. He was talking about the kind of rebirth you can actually witness in daily life; birth is the beginning, death is the ending. How many rebirths have you gone through today, mentally ? What is born dies; what arises, ceases. Rebirth in this sense is actually provable.
In the paticcasamuppada, through desire (tanha) comes attachment (upadana), and then attachment leads to becoming (bhava), becoming leads to rebirth, and rebirth leads to suffering. Jati (birth) is the result of grasping desire. I quite like the idea of reincarnation and rebirth, on a theoretical level. I’ve no bias against it, but it is speculative and it’s conceptual.”
ps in other words they are denying the word soul or spirit in what that word means to them, not necessarily even similar to what that word means to you, or to me.
You say that this spirit, which you were told "encompasses mind," is "something which goes on and always was," but the Buddha clearly states that:
It's bound to get responses, isn't it....?