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.
some questions (Buddha Amitabha, guru etc.)
Hello,
recently I have become interested in buddhism because I still look for the truth and some basic assumptions of buddhism look more logical and rational for me than those of other religions. However, there are some things which I don't quite understand or I have difficulty to agree with. I thought there may be somebody here who may want to answer thouse doubts. Anyway, I would appreciate any answers.
I have read that Buddha nature is, as far as I understand it, non-conceptual, non-dualistic, not created, perfect and so on. If it is something what everybody can reach, by getting rid of ignorance, anger and many kinds of attachment, that is reasonable to find the easiest or the most sure way to achieve this goal. It is possible to reach some kind of spiritual level when somebody has only several further incarnations before entering paranirvana for sure. Am I right? However, there is also simpler method, i.e. being reborn in pure land of Buddha Amitabha. And this is one of main things which I don't quite understand.
First thing are those vows of Buddha Amitabha. One of them says that it is impossible for women to enter pure land of Amitabha as women, their body has to be transformed into body of man. This is something what looks completely unfair for me. If our existance is somehow illusory, empty, then our bodies are also something temporary. If our deepest nature is somehow perfect and we have been reincarnating for so long time that it has no beginning, we have been men and women many times, gender is not something ultimately connected with us. What is more important for me, if our nature is non-dualistic, then isn't it some kind of dualism to prefer being in the body of male rather than female? And if everybody, both men and women, are able to become Buddhas, why only men are allowed in the pure land of Buddha Amitabha?
Second thing is why is this land of Buddha Amitabha the most perfect? I mean it is said that other pure lands are available only for those who have reached some kind of spiritual growth, and pure land of Buddha Amitabha is available for everyone who simply desired to be reborn there. All the other Buddhas try to guide people to the pure land of Buddha Amitabha.
If I understand it properly, there is some kind of state when somebody is completely enlightened Buddha, the state of not learning anymore, when everything is reached. However, being completely enlightened Buddha doesn't mean that somebody is allmighty. Buddha is completely full of mercy and desire (I know this is not a good word because there are no desires in that state) to help to sentient beings. So if Buddha was full of mercy and allmighty, there wouldn't be any suffering nowadays. Buddhahood is about perfect mercy and the highest possible power, but not being almighty. Do I understand it well?
So if there have been many Buddhas in the past, hundreads of kalpas in the past, why only Buddha Amitabha thought about creating pure land available for everybody? The other Buddhas were also completely wise, full of understanding, knowledge, compassion and capabilities. But only Buddha Amitabha created easily available pure land. The other Buddhas have created not so perfect pure lands, because those are available only for those who have got high level of spiritual growth. Why is it so?
There are also many other things which I don't quite understand, also connected with the need to have a guru and so on. But I guess the thread would be too long if I have posted all of them now. So please answer me, thanks in advance!
Regards!
recently I have become interested in buddhism because I still look for the truth and some basic assumptions of buddhism look more logical and rational for me than those of other religions. However, there are some things which I don't quite understand or I have difficulty to agree with. I thought there may be somebody here who may want to answer thouse doubts. Anyway, I would appreciate any answers.
I have read that Buddha nature is, as far as I understand it, non-conceptual, non-dualistic, not created, perfect and so on. If it is something what everybody can reach, by getting rid of ignorance, anger and many kinds of attachment, that is reasonable to find the easiest or the most sure way to achieve this goal. It is possible to reach some kind of spiritual level when somebody has only several further incarnations before entering paranirvana for sure. Am I right? However, there is also simpler method, i.e. being reborn in pure land of Buddha Amitabha. And this is one of main things which I don't quite understand.
First thing are those vows of Buddha Amitabha. One of them says that it is impossible for women to enter pure land of Amitabha as women, their body has to be transformed into body of man. This is something what looks completely unfair for me. If our existance is somehow illusory, empty, then our bodies are also something temporary. If our deepest nature is somehow perfect and we have been reincarnating for so long time that it has no beginning, we have been men and women many times, gender is not something ultimately connected with us. What is more important for me, if our nature is non-dualistic, then isn't it some kind of dualism to prefer being in the body of male rather than female? And if everybody, both men and women, are able to become Buddhas, why only men are allowed in the pure land of Buddha Amitabha?
Second thing is why is this land of Buddha Amitabha the most perfect? I mean it is said that other pure lands are available only for those who have reached some kind of spiritual growth, and pure land of Buddha Amitabha is available for everyone who simply desired to be reborn there. All the other Buddhas try to guide people to the pure land of Buddha Amitabha.
If I understand it properly, there is some kind of state when somebody is completely enlightened Buddha, the state of not learning anymore, when everything is reached. However, being completely enlightened Buddha doesn't mean that somebody is allmighty. Buddha is completely full of mercy and desire (I know this is not a good word because there are no desires in that state) to help to sentient beings. So if Buddha was full of mercy and allmighty, there wouldn't be any suffering nowadays. Buddhahood is about perfect mercy and the highest possible power, but not being almighty. Do I understand it well?
So if there have been many Buddhas in the past, hundreads of kalpas in the past, why only Buddha Amitabha thought about creating pure land available for everybody? The other Buddhas were also completely wise, full of understanding, knowledge, compassion and capabilities. But only Buddha Amitabha created easily available pure land. The other Buddhas have created not so perfect pure lands, because those are available only for those who have got high level of spiritual growth. Why is it so?
There are also many other things which I don't quite understand, also connected with the need to have a guru and so on. But I guess the thread would be too long if I have posted all of them now. So please answer me, thanks in advance!
Regards!
0
Comments
Have you researched the core teachings of the historical Buddha ? If not I suggest you do that first.
Not all Buddhist traditions have the same beliefs. Theravada Buddhism for
example, doesn't have an expression 'Buddha nature' nor a belief in a 'Buddha Amitabha'and his 'pure land'. These are Mahayana concepts.
Reliance on a 'guru' is extremely important in Tibetan Buddhism (Vajrayana) but not to the same extent in other Buddhist traditions.
kind wishes,
D.
Dazzle has given the example of the Therevadan tradition. If you were to study and meet people in that tradition you would form karmic connections and heart connections within that community or mandala. A mandala has a center and then the surrounding patterns of the mandala. Outside the mandala you exchange energy with other mandalas.
For example I am not in the Therevadan mandala but I exchange energy with Dazzle and her mandala. Perhaps I have a discussion with Dazzle or I read a Theravadan sutra or listen to a Theravadan teacher. I have karmic and heart connections to the mandala of Theravadan nad Mahayana.
The buddha nature is emptiness and realization of that nature causes us to stop grasping the skandas and so forth. There are several views of emptiness but the one view is the emptiness of the skandas. If you want to learn more about views of empitiness, I recommend Progressive stages of meditation on emptiness by Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche. It is written at an introductory level in layman's terms or otherwise defined for the reader.
The third turning of the wheel of dharma is that when we stop grasping positive qualities emerge. Otherwise what is the pint of being a buddha? Other than peace? And non-suffering. Those are good, but the buddha didn't need to teach the dharma to attain that. Why did he teach? Love and compassion.
That is where a pure land comes in. A buddha or boddhisatva creates a pure land. You enter the pureland by forming connections to them. You can enter a connection with shakyamuni amitabha or a gur. For example my connection with the Kagyu lineage connnects me to the blessing of gampopa, Milarepa, my teacher, guru rinpoche (padmasambava), Tilopa (is that right), and indeed shakyamuni.
Many of these beings created pure lands and by creating connctions to the teachings and so forth including your wishes and intentions. Your intentions have power like blessings or curses. If I decide I will do something that has power. We strengthen our power by keeping our word of truth.
It is an opening and an intention. The opening is letting go of delusions and grasping and considering the mandala and so forth. You need not have blind faith. But for example to join the theravada mandala you would have to open ot it.
I also don't like the idea you have to become a man to join a pureland! I don't agree and I wonder what pureland buddhists will say to that.
It was very confusing 'chant amitabha's name and you will be reborn in Western world or pure land some kind of heaven'
Buddha never mentioned Amitabha. This is something invented after the death of Buddha.
I'm really nicely surprised by so many wise answers to the questions which looked very important for me.
Let me say something about my spiritual researches which aim is to find some meaning of life. I used to be catholic for many years, strongly influenced by that religion in my childhood, going to church every day for many years, being altar server, liturgical reader and so on. I have been thinking much about my worldview and trying to understand the teachings of my church, but also praying much. Finally I have decided to stop going to church at all and I don't consider myself a christian for about three or four years.
There were too many important things with which I couldn't agree. For example if the Bible is considered to be word of God, why does it contain so many contradictions? Why is Old Testament so cruel and why "just" God has decided to give much better opportunities for spiritual growth only for one tribe in the Old Testament? The other thing was stating that there is only one life and then eternal hell or heaven (sometimes after going through some kind of purgatory). It looks like unjust reward or cruel punishment. Why do animals suffer if their existence ends with their death, because as catholics say only human beings have got soul? And why is Jesus the only saviour? That's also unjust that, if Jesus is saviour of everybody and some people have got so great opportunity to hear his teachings, and the others not. Those who believe and are baptized will be salvated, the others not. These were some of the points which I cannot agree with. I focus much more on the teachings, those cannot be illogical and unjust if they are true.
So I have started looking for the truth in science, philosophy and general knowledge about different religions. And finally I have found buddhism. It looks much better for me with its idea of karma, which states in very just and logical way why my life looks like this, and not something else. My knowledge is mainly based on three books. The first one was "An Open Heart" by HH The Dalai Lama, then "Wisdom energy. Basic Buddhist Teachings" by Lama Jeshie, Zopa Rinpoche and "Mahamudra" by Lama Gendyn Rinpoche. I appreciate teachings of HH Dalai Lama.
Lama Gendyn Rinpoche, "Mahamudra" - let me quote some parts of this book (I don't have this book in English so below there is my poor translation) and questions connected with that.
Short story of life of Gendyn Rinpoche - introduction to the book
"I am old man", I answered. Karmapa told: "That's right, you are older than me. I will leave before you and when we'll meet again, I'll be kid. Your activity is strictly connected with mine. You will be coming back twice as person close to me, and then you'll reach final enlightnment".
Prayer to lama Gendyn Rinpoche - the additional short chapter at the end of the book
"It is told that realizing mahamudra depends only on blessing of the lama". "Prying to lama, we need to develop state of pure consciousness. We consider lama as the real buddha, essence of awakening, not ordinary person. If disciple pries to his lama with full trust, seeing in his perfectly realized buddha, then in that lama all the features of awakenened buddha concentrates in him, even if he is ordinary person, and the disciple will receive the real blessing of buddha".
There was also chapter called "Dewachen practice". It was saying about need to completely focus on wish to be reborn at the time of death in the pure land of Buddha Amitabha. Author, Lama Gendyn Rinpoche, stated that it is not even needed to follow powha practice, just strong wish and not being attached to things which we leave on this world is enough.
My first question is about Dewachen. If lama Gendyn Rinpoche was so well spiritual developed, why didn't he want rather to be reborn in that Dewachen, which he says it is so great thing. Why does HH Karmapa says they will meet again several times before final enlightnment of lama Gendyn Rinpoche? It means that he will reach his enlightnment as human being on earth, rather than in Dewachen. But if spiritual growth in Mahayana & Vajrayana is about developing compassion and loving kindness, that is good assumption to say that lama Gendyn Rinpoche wants really much to reach enlightnment as soon as possible in order to be able to help to the other sentient beings in the best way. So if he says the best conditions for spiritual growth are in Dewachen, why does HH Karmapa says he will reach his enlightnment on earth? It looks like spiritual growth on earth is much more difficult than in any pure land. I don't quite get it.
The book also states that lama Gendyn Rinpoche has reached state of Dorje Chang. What is it? And also, if HH Karmapa says that lama Gendyn Rinpoche will reach enlightnment after coming back twice, does it mean that lama Gendyn Rinpoche will reach the same state as Buddha Siakyamuni, who was able to perform many kinds of miracles and so on? It doesn't look quite convincing.
The second question is about lama. I think that enlightnment is about seeing things as they are, and not through negative emotions, illusions and so on. So why does follower of Vajrayana have to consider lama as enlightened buddha if he is not one? That looks like lying for me, pretending that the other person is somebody who he is not. It doesn't look for me like looking for the truth but rather like creating other illusion, this time about perfectness of lama.
Thank you for information about K Sri Dhammananda and Ajahn Chah. I don't have money to buy their books but fortunately there are some text freely available in the internet.
You say "Have you researched the core teachings of the historical Buddha?". How can I know which sutras are for sure those which contain teachings of Buddha Sakyamuni? Let me give some comparison. In islam, for example, there are many hadiths, which are stories about what Muhammad told. They contain two parts, one is narrative and the other is chain of narrators and some kind of statement if they are very reliable, partially reliable, not so reliable and so on. Is there any similar thing about sutras in buddhism, in order to know for sure which are reliable as original teachings of Buddha Sakyamuni, and which are not very reliable or partially reliable? I have found there are many different canons of texts, like Tripitaka, Chinese Tripitaka, Tibetan canon (Kangjur), Mahayana canon. Which of them is reliable?
By the way, I also don't quite get why the teachings of Buddha were so different for monks and nuns. I mean, women have several additional obligations, what looks again like some kind of discrimination. And I guess (am I right?) that those monastic rules for women are considered as original teachings of Buddha, not later invention. As far as I remember, one of them says that even if nun is really high in the monastery of women, she should consider herself as being lower than newly-ordained monk. For sure there are more rules of monastic life for women than men.
Regards
" Friends are angry with me because I haven't chosen which Karmapa is 'real' (?!?) You know this case I suppose. They say for example that I shouldn't go to Samye Ling because monks from there are for the 'Chinese' Karmapa.
I'm not asking you for arguments which I can use in arguing with my friends! I just want to know your own opinion and attitiude. (If you wouldn't mind.)"
Lama Shenpen:
Your questions are important.
As far as the 17th Karmapa is concerned I think the dispute over who is the rightful holder of the throne high-lights many issues that it would be as well for all Karma Kagyus to address with honesty.
First of all, it is never incumbent on any Buddhist to make a choice of who is the genuine Karmapa. Yogins who have super-normal knowledge do sometimes claim to know this kind of thing and all we can do is to respect what they say. How are we to judge?
It is very wrong of any Buddhist to put pressure on others saying that they should recognise somebody as being an incarnation of someone else or that some others are wrong to recognise someone we don't recognise to be someone or other. We don't know any of these things and it's not our place to impose our views on others.
Personally, I don't even know what it means to say that such and such a person is or is not the same person as a former incarnation. As far as the Mahayana Buddhist tradition is concerned there is no limit to the ways and means that Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can appear in the world to help beings. Several of them can appear as one being or one of them can appear as countless other beings. So what on earth would it mean to say that it was the same Karmapa?
Also it is important to remember that we still pray to each of the Karmapas in their own right, in their own form, their own name and using practices specific to each one. So there is no sense in which there is only one manifestation of Karmapa - there were already sixteen even before this present dispute arose.
Spiritually there is no problem with people recognising different Lamas to be the Karmapa. In fact the Karmapa is like Guru Rinpoche. He is a Buddha manifesting as a high level Bodhisattva who exists beyond time and space. If your teacher is a Karma Kagyu and is giving a Karmapa empowerment, then at that time you have to think he is himself the Karmapa. That is the kind of faith you have to have as a Karma Kagyu. It is the same as having faith in Guru Rinpoche. In fact the second Karmapa was said to be an emanation of Guru Rinpoche. So it is all very mysterious and, as I said, I don't really know what it all means really. Year by year my understanding deepens. It is all very wonderful.
However, the Karma Kagyus have a special custom, which is to place just one Karmapa on the throne as head of the Karma Kagyu as an institution. It is not entirely clear just how far his authority extends in terms of the various institutions that think of themselves as Karma Kagyu. It is not clear really what his authority consists of.
At the moment the dispute is about institutions and property that belonged to the 16th Karmapa which should go to his successor the 17th Karmapa. It seems that there have been legal documents drawn up saying that the 17th Karmapa was to inherit things without there being any clear indication about how the 17th Karmapa was to be recognised. Ho hum - rather a big oversight!!!!
The thing could have been made to work had there been one person taking over from the 16th Karmapa and then that person choosing the next Karmapa. The obvious person to play that role was the Sharmapa.
For some reason that I have never understood, this did not happen and instead four people were given the role to take care of the institutions and property of the Karmapa until the next one appeared. But it was a recipe for disaster. The only way it could have worked would have been for those four people to stick together and announce who was the 17th Karmapa with a single voice.
Had that happened we would all have accepted that that was the decision of the powers that be and would not have argued. We would just have taken it as a fait accompli.
Since they did not agree and started fighting among themselves, the whole thing has fallen apart. There is no reason for any of us to choose one Karmapa as the Karmapa other than from our own feelings of devotion - which is how it always works in Buddhism. Your own feelings of connection and devotion cause you to choose one teacher rather than another and then you follow that teacher as best you can. So if you think of a teacher of the Karma Kagyu as embodying the spirit of Karmapa, then you can think of him as the Karmapa and follow him.
Whether other people agree with you or whether he sits on the Karmapa's throne or not is not spiritually significant. There is no reason why we cannot take blessing and teaching from any Lama we choose. Furthemore, if we choose to think they are the Karmapa or Guru Rinpoche or Shakyamuni - well that is up to us personally. These are personal matters and it is very wrong for other people to try to undermine the faith of others by saying that they have no right to think this way.
I am very sad indeed when I hear Karma Kagyu followers putting this kind of pressure on each other and even more sad when I hear them using non-Dharma arguments to make their case.
The responsibility for the situation rests entirely with those who have the authority to take charge of the institutions concerned. If you are part of an institution under the authority of a particular Lama, then we should respect that Lama and do as he or she says for the sake of the harmony of the whole mandala.
It is a very negative action to do things that split the Sangha. Personally I feel very let down by those who took over after the 16th Karmapa passed away. More than anything I wonder why the 16th Karmapa did not make his wishes more clearly known before he passed away. What was he assuming? I cannot believe that he was assuming that authority would pass to four people. It seems to me that would have been a very naive thing to do.
But what do I know?
There are various customs within the Karma Kagyu, one of which is to make Guru Rinpoche the key figure representing the lineage. So that is what we do in the Awakened Heart Sangha. There are no arguments going on about which Lama is or is not Guru Rinpoche. That kind of confusion doesn't occur.
You think of your own Guru as Guru Rinpoche, you think of all the Karmapas as Guru Rinpoche. Guru Rinpoche manifests in all manner of shapes and forms - so that gives plenty of scope for people to relate to the lineage in whatever way they find most inspiring.
"About the Ngondro � did you do this practice? Do you consider it helpful?"
Shenpen replies:
Yes, I did it three times.
Yes, it is helpful, but it was not the most helpful thing I could have been doing at the time. There were not many choices in those days because nobody spoke English and I only knew a bit of Tibetan. I was getting most help and inspiration from talking to Bokar RInpoche and the nuns I was living with. Doing the Ngondro was an important part of relating to the whole situation. But I didn't really know enough for the Ngondro itself to help my faith grow as much as other practices would have done had I known of them. What made my faith grow was working on the formless mediation using the pointing out instruction I got from Karma Thinley Rinpoche and Bokar Rinpoche.
Student:
"You once said to me that I did not need to do these practices."
Shenpen:
Yes. You don't need to do them in that particular way. The essential elements are included in a whole range of related practices. I think familiarising yourself with the essential elements in whatever way you can, in whatever way helps them sink in, is the main point here. For some people maybe simple repetition is the best approach. For others this way of practising is not the most inspiring and doesn't produce the desired effect which is deepening faith and devotion.
There are two issues here. One is whether doing the practices is helping your faith and devotion grow and the other is how to work with your teacher. If your teacher takes it as a mark of commitment simply to finish the 100,000s, then just to complete them has a purpose, whatever the effect. But of course, if they have the effect of reducing your faith and devotion, there is no point because that will have an adverse effect on your relationship to the teacher.
These days Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso often tells people to practice 'Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness' as a ngondro. Personally I think reading the Samantabhadracharyapranidhana 100,000 times would do very well for purification and accumulation (which is shorthand for what the ngondro is supposed to be for)!
I sometimes wonder if the Samantabhadracharyapranidhana is a bit difficult for people to understand. However, the so called ngondro assumes one understands that and much, much more besides. It is not that Tibetans necessarily understand all that. They are likely to have a head start in terms of familiarity with the whole thing and the absence of certain ways of thinking that make it difficult for Westerners.
Tibetans make up for what they don't understand by having lots of faith in the whole context of the thing due to cultural conditioning. Westerners don't necessarily have this advantage but have other advantages instead. For example, they are trained to have enquiring minds and have easy access to lots of Sutra material to fill in those cultural gaps.
Hope this answer helps.
Editor's Notes: Ngondro (Tibetan) Preliminary practice: the practice of saying 100,000 times each, prayers for taking Refuge, generating Bodhicitta, Purification, Mandala Offering, Guru Yoga, and prostrations.
The Samantabhadracharyapranidhana (Sanskrit) is the pranidhana (wishing prayer) �to be able to carry out the activity of Samantabhadra, whose name means total goodness and whose activity is the totally good activity of all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in all directions and throughout all time.� (Quote taken from the booklet of the same name published by Longchen Foundation.)
Recently I was asked about what the difference is between Mahayana and Theravada. What I say in the answer below is not a complete answer but it is at least the beginnings of a discussion on the subject.
I think it is important for this kind of issue to be talked about clearly and sensibly.
I think the most important point to consider is that in Theravada mostly people don't take the Bodhisattva vow to bring all beings to Awakening. The reason is that they regard the Bodhisattva path as a very special path that only very special beings such as the Buddha Shakyamuni before he was Enlightened could take.
Other people put themselves into a different category of being who is not able to reach such an exalted state and doesn't even try to - that is why enlightenment for most people means simply to get rid of greed, hate and delusion - it is all they can hope to do - they have no hope of ever having sufficient punya and jnana to become a fully enlightened Buddha with all the Buddha qualities.
That is what makes the Mahayana so special and extraordinary. Somehow, somewhere the tradition grew up of really believing all beings could become perfectly enlightened Buddhas with all the qualities. Such a belief arises from a deep understanding of emptiness. If the nature of reality is empty then it follows different patterns to those that seem common sense to the way ordinary beings think when bound up by deep seated assumptions about time, space, self and other and so on.
The Bodhisattva makes the vow to bring all beings to Enlightenment and will not give up until that is accomplished and the Bodhisattva has the power to do that and accomplish that because the Bodhisattva realises the deep meaning of emptiness. I discuss what this implies in some detail in the book of my doctoral thesis 'Buddha Within' that I am beginning to teach at the Hermitage this year for the first time.
Theravadins often make the point that in their tradition enlightened beings work tirelessly for the benefit of others so that the Mahayana stereotype of the Hinayana or shravaka arhat does not apply to them.
Even in Mahayana it is a mistake to think that any kind of enlightened being can be without compassion nonetheless often the shravaka arhant is spoken of as if this were the case. The point I really want to make though is that for a someone to have compassion and work tirelessly for the benefit of others is quite different from realising one has the power to bring all beings - literally all beings - to complete and perfect Buddhahood and committing oneself to doing so forever.
This is really quite unbelievable to the ordinary person - we cannot even conceive of what all beings might mean and what Buddhahood might mean - so we can just have a vague kind of aspiration and perhaps say 'may we realise what the great Bodhisattvas of the past have done'.
The real Bodhisattva vow is based on deep realisation of emptiness and this is where true faith in the Bodhisattva path arises from. If a certain tradition is not connected to this realisation it may teach compassion and express compassion but it is not the compassion for all beings and the commitment to bring them all to perfect Buddhahood - in other words it is not Bodhichitta in its fullest sense.
There is a lot one can say about this and it relates to what I was teaching in Spain last weekend about rangtong and shentong. I was very interested to see how inspiring and helpful everyone found the weekend course and how needed the perspective of shentong was for people's faith and practice. The general sense was that my weekend course on shentong had allowed students to take a leap forward based on a deeper confidence in what their own teacher was doing with them.
The way that many people in the west think of the Bodhisattva path is quite weak and so they think it's just a psychological trick to make compassion stronger in the heart and mind when they take the Bodhisattva vow. If we do this then there is not really much difference between that and Buddhist traditions like most Theravadins that do not claim to be following the Bodhisattva path. I say 'not much difference' but still one needs to investigate what 'not much' means in this context.
http://www.palyul.org/eng_teachings-guruyoga.htm
http://www.reversespins.com/guruyoga.html
http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=233&chid=342